User talk:StateOfAvon

A Political Crime is a book review of A Political Crime: The History of the Great Fraud, an 1886 book that alleges that w:Warren Hayes stole the election...isn't that marvellously interesting? We must find this book and put it online :) StateOfAvon (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful keys: æ, œ

Headers

Could you put proper PSM headers on all my articles? (Listed at my userpage) - like Lo, the Soya Bean! A Substitute for Meat, Fish and Fats which I just added - but would appreciate your help "formatting" it properly. Also, I cannot figure out how to make it show only PART of the proofread page (in this case the article does not take up the entire page) StateOfAvon (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi StateOfAvon: I made a few fixes to your page. The key bits I added to the page were <section begin=soya /> and <section end=soya />. This, combined with <pages index="Popular Science Monthly Volume 91.djvu" from=222 to=222 fromsection=soya tosection=soya /> in the main namespace gives what you now see at Lo, the Soya Bean! A Substitute for Meat, Fish and Fats.

Incidentally, there are other changes to be made (handling the image, and the best page title), but I'll defer to others more familiar with the PSM project. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was actually a little confused by it, I will sort out my questions tonight or tomorrow and add them for you. Thanks for letting me know about the article, looks cool - I'll add it to my queue. StateOfAvon (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, that is very useful - thank you. StateOfAvon (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Help:Proofread is the page that contains much of the information
• {{PSM link}} for quoting from author pages, and therefore put it into the right part of hierarchy. Then create a redirect from the base of the namespace to the article. Reason the hierarchy is done this way is that in each edition of the work has repeated sections and it preserves the integrity of edition as a published work.
• Within {{header}} there is the parameter portal

Billinghurst (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly may also be interesting to you. Billinghurst (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If one of you could "babysit" my articles for the next week or two, and just make sure they are up to "code" - I know I'm doing the "bare minimum to make them readable" but I'd appreciate help making sure that I'm also properly reducing workload for the Popular Science Monthly "team" in the long run. (I have a family tree on one PAGE that I recently marked "Troublesome" for example that I cannot fix/write myself) StateOfAvon (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We patrol edits here so it will be seen, though it is probably best that one of the PSM project people assist as they have the intimate knowledge of the work and how it is being displayed.

For trees, some use Template:Familytree, not that I do as I have proper family tree software and wikifying it would irritate me. For the few occasions where I have seen FTs, I have just grabbed and extracted the image and loaded to Commons. Billinghurst (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Proofreading request template

Hi. Just curious as to what did you have in mind with this {{Proofreading request}} template. I created this to be used for general requests as well, and not just for PSM.— Ineuw talk 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping to use it basically say "the proofreader couldn't tell what this word was meant to be, but it's probably needing to be fixed", the opposite of {{sic}} I suppose. StateOfAvon (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Completed the article page in Volume 32/231. Must improve my own system of where I was last. Currently, been working hard to complete Volume 2 which has been languishing for nearly a year, and forgot about where I left off. But then, I realize that the future of mankind, or, fate of the universe is not really dependent on my imaginary deadline.
• About the {{Proofreading request}} don’t worry about it. :-). What you may be looking for is {{User annotation}}. But I am sure that there are other templates, I just don’t remember which. What I used to do is post a help request in the Wikisource.
• Also, my responses will be delayed for awhile because they are laying fibre optics in my area and often get disconnected.— Ineuw talk 23:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Leo Tolstoy’s entry is completed. Although, I wouldn’t count on its accuracy. The book is about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 and not 1805-1807 mentioned in the notice. Also, the write up is a single short paragraph and nothing interesting in it. On the other hand, I found the first promotion of Karl Marx’ "The Manifesto of the Communists" for 15 cents a copy. I just don’t remember which volume.— Ineuw talk 03:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarized by English publishers is completed. — Ineuw talk 05:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting Wikiproject started

Thank you, by the way, for getting this started... I wouldn't have known how/where to begin; just seemed like a good idea. Appreciated! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem mate, glad to see people are helping out - I never started it because I could never find "regular contributors" interested. StateOfAvon (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your "Help me"

Not exactly what formatting that you were looking for on your front page, however, I have been in and done some work on the table. w:Help:Table was my guide in the earlier days. Billinghurst (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

When to transclude to main namespace?

Gday. Generally the recent practice at Wikisource has been to have a level of proofreading done before we transclude pages to the main namespace. One can find that early transclusion works has sat in the not proofread state for extended periods where someone has presented the work and lost either interest or time. Such pages with their weird unicode characters and the remnant page headers in between sections are all pretty ugly. For visitors who don't know Wikisource, they would generally be unaware of how and why we are doing things, and have to struggle their way through such text and concerns have been expressed about the "professional" nature. Accordingly we encourage contributors to get pages proofread once before transcluding, though understand that there are occasions where this may not occur, or where a work is active it may occur in the near future; so it is not a worry, more about a practice that we look to undertake. Thanks for listening. Billinghurst (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My purpose is to provide easier access to the knowledge of ages past, therefore it would seem important that somebody who searched "negroes owning slaves" on Google immediately find

"Negroes Who Owned Slaves" in Popular Science Monthly, 81 (November 1912) so they could study what it says, and it would provide a reference for their scholarly thesis, article or novel that they are writing. Whether every comma is fixed is irrelevant, compared to the knowledge it imparts - therefore I respectfully disagree. It is better to have 500 easily-indexed and referenced historical works with typos, than 50 works without. StateOfAvon (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This conversation puts me in awkward position, as myself began editing on Wikisource not so long ago, and ran into issues similar to what Billinghurst mentioned above. The awkwardness comes from the fact that on one hand, I welcome additional proofreaders to the PSM project, and the on the other, I agree with voice of experience, and administrators possess this, and thus I agree with Billinhurst that some quality should be maintained for articles on main namespace pages. — The PSM project has advanced sufficiently that there exists a reasonable organization for the text display, supported by templates, categories and for the various formatting styles that have been implemented. If time permitted, I could write a very extensive manual, but unfortunately, this is lacking. So, I gladly offer you any additional advice as to how to get things done, and the tools to do them with. Learning is painful, at least it was for me, especially when I began and knew everything. — Also, the difference one must keep in mind is that this is not Wikipedia! We are guided by the rule of being as faithful to original documents, rather than creating new works.

P.S: My recommendation is that you spend some time in studying the work completed in the past 16 months and I gladly respond to any and all your questions. Second would be that you install your own preferred toolbar procedures in your .js module. My toolbar User:Ineuw/JS edit buttons as well as others’, are available to be copied and modified. Also, if you’re using Windows, The AutoHotkey keyboard macro software is even more versatile and highly recommended. I hope this helps.— Ineuw talk 05:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For a portal of your interests

Hi. I’ve previously seen a portal for The Study of Sociology, which was done because of similar concerns about appearance, organization and the provision of a direct access from the web to one’s specific selections. If it’s not against Wikisource policy, (which I don’t know), and assuming that you direct readers to your user page, perhaps you can create a main namespace page and move your article titles from your personal page. This will get better web exposure for your interests.

I will slowly get to proofread your requests, it’s just that I am currently involved with an offline commitment, which I must complete before March 30.— Ineuw talk 12:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding items to Template:New texts

Hi there! When you add an item to Template:New texts, as you did here, please could you make sure that you move the last entry in the list down to the "Older entries" section rather than just deleting it altogether. Also, we'd appreciate it if you included the name of the work you're adding in your edit summary. Thanks! - Htonl (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see that "Older" list, will do it in the future (if I ever update it again), thanks for the note :) StateOfAvon (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem! :-) - Htonl (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Conventional Lies of our Civilization

Hi. Feel free to do with it whatever needs to be done. Although, I believe that Max Nordau already has an author’s page. This book was one of those unfortunate choices (in my preferences) which I felt obligated to complete because I uploaded it — not wanting to leave something incomplete.

On another note, I began proofreading and cleaning up your PSM selections as promised.— Ineuw talk 21:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi. Chapters should have separate pages like Conventional Lies of our Civilization/Mene, Tekel, Upharsin .... Conventional Lies of our Civilization/The Lie of Religion .... etc. Otherwise, the page is too long. If you need help, just post me a message. — Ineuw talk 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If you’re interested for future reference, the above book has been split to sub pages. — Ineuw talk 06:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Completed your last request

This was the last item on your list of incomplete articles, which I proofread tonight. Popular Science Monthly/Volume 7/July 1875/Notes.— Ineuw talk 06:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

PSM Main namespace articles

Hi. I became aware that you are creating main namespace articles from the selected paragraphs and based on past experience this is not acceptable on Wikisource. However, you have options — one of which is moving the pages to your namespace and linking them directly to your user page. This has the drawback that the titles are not seen by search engines, and may create some future unforeseen conflict within Wikisource.

The best option is copying the paragraphs and posting them in a blog outside of the Wikipedia domain. This is what I plan to do (I already have a blog and a collection of articles), for reasons identical to yours, and only lack of time prevented me from posting them so far.

I can proofread your selected pages of interest without having to do a complete article. As things stand now, pages you marked "Proofread" are incomplete by the accepted standards as I learnt here. If you haven't the resources to do a proper cleanup and correction, just clean the page as best as you can but don't mark it as "Proofread".

FYI, I am committed to completing the creation of the Table of Contents and Indexes of each volume, because without them the content is useless. But this must be done in a sequential fashion because of duplicate article titles by two different authors, and multi-part articles, the publication of which span over volumes.

I am also aware of the evolution of the publication's composition, having spent months studying it before committing myself. One of the many issues to be dealt with is what you are trying to do — accessing individual topics contained in paragraphs, but this also takes comprehensive planning. The way you are going about it conflicts with the overall plan which must serve everyone's requirements, some of which I am also aware of. I hope this helps, and you are free to contact me and ask any questions. — Ineuw talk 02:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

An example of a user page article

The Meaning of Easter Eggs

Re: 'Beaver Eater' and other articles in general.

Hi. I validated this article’s pages, except the one page which I proofread and can't validate. In the process I removed your section markers and then realized that your sections have nothing to do with my work, so please re-define and insert the section markers according to your preference.

In the future, insert your section markers (which I will not remove), create the main namespace page as you wish, but please don't proofread. With the original lines are retained, it makes it easier for me to proofread.— Ineuw talk 16:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Do the pages not need section markers if the whole page is transcluded? StateOfAvon (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all, then just the page number is required. — Ineuw talk 04:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that is useful. I do not understand why you say "please don't proofread", is it not better to proofread the articles for typos and split words? StateOfAvon (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My sincere apology for not replying earlier. This week I have house guests and thus my contributions are limited until next week. - I did manage to take today some time out to validate your article, and in my opinion, for what it’s worth, :-) you’re doing great.

By not proofreading, I thought that you prefer reading, (rather than proofreading,) and then adding the article to your collection.

Before text wrapping, the OCR’ed text line is identical in length to the original, and thus the row and column of a needed change is easily located. Wrapped text lines make finding and editing much more difficult.

When I proofread an article, (I am using Windows XP and Firefox 4.01 with their spell check turned on, and the legacy Wikisource editor with user defined .js Vector toolbar) as follows:

1. Insert the header by a macro of the custom toolbar.
2. Check the page for footer and if exists replace the <reference /> with the {{smallrefs}} which is available at the bottom of the editing screen. I only move the footer to its place in the text as the last step of the proofreading procedure.

In the main text I compare the original .djvu to the OCR'ed text and look for:

1. hyphenated words at the end of the line and join them unless the segments are meaningful by themselves.
2. Spelling errors.
3. Ligatures of æ, œ, and any foreign characters, etc.
4. italics and bold.
5. mdash —.
6. opening and closing double quotes and if needed closing the space gap before and after at both ends.
7. opening and closing single quotes using the same rules as above.
8. remove dirt specks sometimes translated as single quotes.
9. Any other anomaly due to poor OCR results or damaged paper.

Because of Windows, I can use AutoHotKey for sophisticated macros of all kinds, and use Textpad 5.1 to do a final text format and spell check (I collect 19th century words) before completion.

There is a lot more, but as a starting point I will post my updated .js Vector toolbar which includes some useful editing macros and the odd and even page header lines, Otherwise they are a pain in the butt to type. I hope this helps.— Ineuw talk 20:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will try to understand and do some more myself, on this "hyphenated words at the end of the line and join them unless the segments are meaningful by themselves." how on the end of a page when the word is in two portions? StateOfAvon (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And on "Before text wrapping, the OCR’ed text line is identical in length to the original, and thus the row and column of a needed change is easily located. Wrapped text lines make finding and editing much more difficult.", you mean it says

a doctor says that an apple
a day keeps him away

normally I would hit "backspace" to put it all together on one line...you are saying it is better to NOT do that, yes? I just want to understand so I am making less work, not more work, for people. StateOfAvon (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:PSM proofreading show and tell

You have new messages

Hello, StateOfAvon. You have new messages at Ineuw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Start of my proofreading explanations

Hi. I placed some initial and incomplete information in this page that may be of interest to you as to what I meant by the text line being identical to the original, editing and implementing the changes are very easy. I always leave the hyphenation, the word wrap and spell check to the last. - Your comments are greatly appreciated.— Ineuw talk 04:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Another article on marriage

Hi. I found another article to be added to articles of your interests CHINESE MARRIAGE CUSTOMS. As I am working on this volume’s title pages, it will appear in the main namespace in about 3-4 days, so you don’t have to bother. Enjoy.

P.S: Are you still interested in my continuing the proofreading info? Or, do you need any clarification? — Ineuw talk 20:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I replied to this - apparently not. I do still have some questions, I'll try and list them tonight or tomorrow for you to make sure I am doing things at least halfway correctly - and thank you for the article suggestion, it does indeed catch my attention and I'll happily proofread it. Feel free to make similar suggestions (battles, ancient marriage customs, weird religious studies, etc) in the future as well! StateOfAvon (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Since your above reply, I found another article that may be of interest to you. THE SUANETIANS AND THEIR HOME, and will let you know whenever I come across articles of your interests. I do this occasionally for several Wikipedians. Now you can understand why I feel that the Table of Contents is so important to me.— Ineuw talk 22:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

---

(2011-06-13) Titles with the word marriage. Vols 1-33

Volume	MonthYear	Name
10	January 1877	Theories of Primitive Marriage
17	June 1880	Views of Primitive Marriage
23	June 1883	Our Marriage and Divorce Laws
23	September 1883	Our Marriage and Divorce Laws II
Titles with the word "custom"
21	September 1882	The Chinese: their Manners and Customs
26	November 1884	Old Customs of Lawlessness
26	December 1884	Cannibalism as a Custom
33	July 1888	Customs and Arts of the Kwakiool
33	September 1888	Some Chinese Mortuary Customs

— Ineuw talk 19:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion article of possible interest to you.

IS CHRISTIAN SCIENCE A "CRAZE"?— Ineuw talk 03:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your collection

Hi. To begin with, I really came to like the idea of your collection, in addition to some articles which are gems. I am refining your work (on an almost daily basis) to bring it in line with Wikisource requirements. This also guides me to the proper presentation of a users' Portal to the community. (I don't like to present half baked ideas anymore). Also, it helps me define the presentation of my "collection" of whimsical paragraphs, which until now I didn't focus on.

The only request I have is that when you proofread, please proofread the whole page, not just your section of interest. Also, don't erase the article title, just move it to the header (THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY can be ignored). Otherwise, we have too retype it. I've done the same on hundreds of pages in the beginning because lack of experience. I focused on the main namespace appearance and now, I am eating "crow" for desert at breakfast lunch and dinner. :-)

The faithful reproduction of the underlying text in the Page: namespace takes primary precedence (with reasonable and established exceptions), while the main namespace is secondary.

I have a sizable collection of aids which speed up editing and you're welcome to them. Once you are familiarized with them, you just change them to meet your needs. Just let me know whenever. — Ineuw talk 06:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand "The only request I have is that when you proofread, please proofread the whole page, not just your section of interest. Also, don't erase the article title, just move it to the header (THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY can be ignored)." - you're saying I should not erase the "POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY - 719" at the top of the page, or I should? (right now I do). On some computers I have a "header" section on my edit page, but recently it seems I don't have it...not sure what happened to it. Similarly I can't find the "Move this page" button anymore either :/ I appreciate all your help though, and like I said, trying to learn/remember things to make it better as I go. By the way, what's the difference between doing the (sectionbegin=eastereggs) versus the ## eastereggs ## ? I used to do the former, then I saw people doing the latter but I screwed it up, so now I'm back to the former. StateOfAvon (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If you work on different OS & computers, this might explain the differences. It would also help me if you indicate the OS' you use. Currently, I have a triple boot setup: Windows XP, Windows 7 and Ubuntu but I work in XP almost exclusively.

• I insert THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. by a macro, and not copy & paste. I was referring to the individual article titles.
• For the header: Go to Preferences\Gadgets, and find Editing tools for Page: namespace and select "Show header and footer fields [+] when editing in the Page namespace". If there is a problem, you can also open/close the header footer by the [+] graphic button on the WS toolbar.
• Also recommended that you study the available options in Preferences, including the skin in "Appearance". (I use Vector). Skins may determine some aspects of the accessibility, like editors, toolbars and edit options.
• Access to "Move" might depend by where you log on, your workplace, or perhaps a public location? It might be a security issue but I am not 100% sure.
• The issue of enclosing tags in double quotes is still unclear to me as well! From a VB programming background, I tend to enclose characters in quotes and leave numbers as is BUT, in HTML/Wiki, enclosing in quotes will prevent any problems regardless.
• In general, I am guided by not increasing other editors' work and "rob" them of precious time.
• My quote for you is "Ask and you shall receive" :-) — Ineuw talk 07:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

---

---

I completed the cleanup of your selections by proofreading and standardizing the layout of the article extracts. This page to be proposed to the community also needed to be standardized (wikified).

On your list, the last item to be proofread is I left you is "Home Education" by Isaac Taylor. Please proofread it, section it and create a main ns somewhat along the lines I developed for the PSM extracts. There should be no direct reference to material in the Page: ns. — Ineuw talk 02:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tools to help in editing.

Hi, I realize that you are performing many repetitive actions manually, and if you are interested, WS offers various customizable tools (custom toolbar buttons) which speeds up the process. It would help if I know your OS and the browser being used. — Ineuw talk 18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Friendly advice

I spent several days cleaning up your selections so that they can used as a guide to meet WS editing requirements. Your recent work shows that you need more practice. Please fix your work to meet these expectations.

As an example:

• This is a partially corrected page. Please edit/cleanup the complete page.
• This is an unacceptable PSM image. It's incorrectly named, it's not greyscale and it's missing the volume category. This page provides instructions on creating and naming an image for PSM.
• Incorrect page title for PSM article extracts, and misspelled categories. Most Commons categories don't apply to Wikisource. Please check THIS LIST, or the link to all categories at the top of the same page for a similar category before creating one for a single article. If you create categories, or use a category not yet on the list, please add them. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 04:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are still interested . . .

Hi. If you are still interested in presenting your works in the main namespace, then please look at THIS layout and let me know. If you are amenable to it, then I will gladly present this effort to the community. FYI and from personal experience, the layout change was made to correspond with the standardized layout for main namespace pages that is most acceptable to the majority. — Ineuw talk 01:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Again I am confused, there are no "your works" or question if they should be in the main namespace - everything I add is the same as A New Day has Dawned for Ireland, and you are basically saying "If you want your historical, referenced periodical articles to appear other than in your namespace, then maybe if you do the following. But what I add is the exact same as A Talk By Nikola Tesla - they are articles from a Public Domain periodical. I do not understand your problems, why you keep moving them to my namespace, or having this strange crusade. StateOfAvon (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that we're running on two different tracks. Neither of us seems to know what the other is talking about. First, all your articles which I moved some six months ago, were moved back to the main namespace after proofreading. Second, I am not on any crusade. I thought that your collection deserves merit and universal access. The proper display would be a Portal page for your titles. If you are referring to THIS, it's a working copy of your user page original showing how the titles of your collection would look like if the community agrees to moving that page in the main namespace as a Portal. I thought that's what you wanted. But, I'll quit while I am ahead and no longer bother you. — Ineuw talk 17:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)