User talk:Mattisse

From Wikisource
(Redirected from User talk:Another editor)
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome

Hello, Mattisse, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome!

I put the pages you completed at Old Deccan Days/Rama and Luxman; or, the Learned Owl. I got the images, which are just okay, from jpegs at the source. When you are satisfied a section is complete and correct, it can be transcluded in the same way by copying the code. We have more unfinished volumes of short works if you are interested, or start one you think we need. Some of these tales are quite good, hope you are enjoying working on them. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how to transclude or what code to copy. All that is over my head. Another editor (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are interested in how to do it, this link shows a long hand way of displaying the version of Punchkin you did. The pages we are working on are listed at Index:Old Deccan Days.djvu, the adjustment there makes the original page number appear. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Maybe I will get my nerve up and be able to try it! Another editor (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice[edit]

Doing a nice job on the WS:PotM. Do you feel that you are entitled to move the page status of the works from Not Proofread (red) to Proofread (amber) or even to Validated (green) as appropriate, as you are doing the work. As a pointer, we encourage local linking of authors and works, even if they create red links, that is all part of the fun and the purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Worth reading about {{hws}} and {{hwe}} at side by side editing. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the links and the tips! As far as moving the status of pages, I was under the impression that at least two different editors had to review the page. I will try to work in local linking. (I am not familiar with how all this works here at Wikisource.) Another editor (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and you count as the first editor, (your editing is as valid anyone's) or the second editor if it has been proofread. With those that you marked once, and that I later proofed, do feel that you can go back and validate after checking my work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Another editor (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

new text[edit]

I added Old Deccan Days to new texts, on the main page, nice working with you on that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I really enjoyed it. The stories were wonderful. (There is a lot I need to learn about how to format and put text together.) Another editor (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I noted what you said about {{smaller}} text, I had already been giving some thought to that concern. The text is very small, and browsers are preset with small fonts, however, you can increase the font size for one page, or site, or every site, with your preferences. Using a different font can also improve legibility on the screen. I sometimes use screens which are pretty poor, and don't I don't have a problem reading it, though I will ask around. cygnis insignis 19:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my opinion into account. I have thought about enlarging my browser font size, but for most pages it is fine, so I would have to change it as I go from page to page, which I guess I would like to avoid doing. What is the advantage of making the font size so small? Another editor (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It was used to denote longer quotes, footnotes, references, and separate it form the main text. Poems took up more room on the page, so they compressed the spacing and font when running them out; however, like most text layout, it usually works for the reader. Sometimes it is compulsory: --> Teeny-Tiny <-- ... cygnis insignis 20:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Cheers again for the checks, the first volume we worked on was added to new texts, cygnis insignis 13:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I added the pages I validated to main: here. I also deleted the empty title page, for the reason given. Google would have indicated we have that work, which will eventually, but we currently only have a sample of a text. If a site does this me two or three times I don't bother checking its google hit. I hope this is okay with you, cygnis insignis 06:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
[amend]...or as a bare minimum, the correction of the title pages and toc. Unlike wikipedia, creating a 'stub' for a page is usually a far it goes - there are a lot of near empty titles here that only provide disappointment. cygnis insignis 06:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing pages[edit]

In Index:Elizabethan People.djvu I found that we were missing some pages; not part of the uploaded scan. At this stage of the work, I have done a cheat and uploaded the missing pages separately as Index:Elizabethan People pp118-119.djvu and it would be great if you could validate them. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I just happened to notice that and was in the process of doing it! Another editor (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
smileybillinghurst sDrewth 16:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Roar of the Sea[edit]

Hi, thanks for putting the book together. (I don’t know how to do that yet.) I love the story because it is about the Cornish coast! Best regards, Another editor (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This one is simple and can be used as example on how to do that sort of things, get a look at the code in the main page and in one of the subpage. Phe (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I will follow your lead. Another editor (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

PotM with a gold elephant stamp[edit]

Elephant stamp
for job well done.
billinghurst (talk)

For a newbie at enWS, you did a mammoth job on the August Proofread of the Month. So a congratulations from me (fwiw) and please have this golden elephant stamp in appreciation. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
[Apologies for the lack of woolly mammoth stamps wink]

My Haiti book[edit]

Thanks for helping out with my Haiti book! Once this gets proofread my goal is to adapt it for inclusion in Wikipedia - there's not much info on Haiti's history there yet, and this is a good public domain source. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to help. I tried to fix the Wikepedia artciles on Haiti, but eventually got frustrated. I agree that Haiti is woefully ignored and under represented on Wikipedia. Another editor (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Good to see you around again, but I had been excited that a third editor had taken an interest in the history of Haiti! :P Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It’s a fascinating history and I am amazed that so little of it seems to be generally known. Great that another editor is interested! Mattisse (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

S. B-G[edit]

I've noticed you busily getting Baring-Gould's stuff here, you might be interested in his contributions to Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties. I think the second edition incorporates what was an appendix in the first, the bits I did had some lovely little snippets from his pen. cygnis insignis 15:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you an article writer?[edit]

Wondered whether you were interested in writing the (non-existent) article for w:Sir Edward Chichester, 9th Baronet from Devonshire Characters and Strange Events/Rear-Admiral Sir Edward Chichester, Bart.. I don't see article writing as one of my preferred skills, though I can do it if you aren't interested. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you do IRC?[edit]

It may even be worth popping into IRC if you use that media space. You can even utilise http://webchat.freenode.net and come into channel #wikisource. Any number of us can them step through it in an interactive manner. I know that I would find it easier to explain the minutiae and answer questions and sort out terminology that way. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried freenode and managed to get to the disclaimer page, but then had not a clue what to do next and there were no directions. I have had several long discussions with John Vandenberg via Google chat. However, now that I have been outed by User talk:Cygnis insignis‎, I no longer can proofread on Wikisource as I will be harassed and I cannot take it any more. It is hopeless. Another editor (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I really did the best I could on Wikisource and it was not good enough, as has been pointed out to me. There are those who are forever out to do me in. Cygnis insignis is just the beginning. I am very upset, as maybe you can tell by my typos. Another editor (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Question about how to generate a Table of Contents on Index[edit]

I copied and then tinkered with the contents of Page:Picturesque New Zealand, 1913.djvu/17 using Template:TOC templates/doc info. Best, feydey (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

categorization[edit]

You creted a category, Category:No djvu available, that is considered maintenance rather than subject, era or topic oriented classification. Please introduce your proposed plan for such a category over in Scriptorium before creating a category that simply languishes with no plan on what to do about the pages that are sent there. George Orwell III (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why you did not at least discuss this unilateral action before making it. Wikisource is extremely unfriendly to newbies when nothing is explained but merely arbitrarily carried out. I don’t think I will participate in any more POMs after this one, although I contributed by far the most to this one. Wikisource is way too confusing. Another editor (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't unilateral - I did not go back and undo each page you added the category to in case you did not notice. The idea might indeed have merit but needs concensus before becoming part of the guidlines or even a standard. The category can be easily re-created without the need for administrative intervention by any level user as well. Deleting it was easiest way to not to completly disrupt the apple cart so to speak - sorry if you took it otherwise & I tend to agree WS can be a bit too confusing when first participating (not much I can do about that except try to clarify things whenever possible). George Orwell III (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
duh - CAT name could help
Nice, friendly edit summary. Surely a way to get newbies interested in Wikisource. Thanks for the encouragement. Another editor (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
the edit summary was a note to myself (not you) - scolding me for not including the CAT name originally. George Orwell III (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry! Thanks for explaining. Wikisource is extremely difficult for the newbie. I did appreciate that you and another editor Billinghurst transferred most pages, but there were editors whose edits were not transferred. I think it would have been helpful to have notified the contributors to the previous version, rather than having the change sprung on them overnight without notice or explanation of how it would be handled. If I had not asked Billinghurst (or someone, can’t remember who) I’m not sure the pages edited from the older scan would have been transferred, as the thinking seemed to be that since it was a new POM, nothing had been done so the sudden change would do no harm. Another editor (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
but there were editors whose edits were not transferred.
Every single edit of substance was transfered. I'm not in the habit of transfering a.) pages without text or b.) improperly un-centered & non-captioned image placeholders.
It was easier to (re)create them properly on my own. Q: What's the point of moving something that is just going to be superseded by a better edit 2 seconds later?? A: None. George Orwell III (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for offending you. It was unintentional. I was looking at it from another editor’s point of view. Again, I apologize. Another editor (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Blantyre[edit]

You asked for a source for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Blantyre; but it's a disambiguation page that serves only to link to the two texts 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Blantyre (Nyasaland) and 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Blantyre (Scotland). As such it doesn't have a source. - Htonl (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that it is a disambiguation page? Shouldn’t it be marked as such so as not to confuse people like me? Mattisse (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've replied on its talk page. - Htonl (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

fix[edit]

Indeed, this is an improvement. How is it that you understood that?! cygnis insignis 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I remembered where I had seen it and copied it. Thanks for noticing! (That’s how I learn everything, as help directions and "templates" make no sense to me. I’m not technically savvy.) Mattisse (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mine mine all mine wink[edit]

JUST KIDDING!!! And A short history of social life in England has come about from the Devonshire work where this is a reference. It seems that we both have an history in the social history. Nice. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Very nice! I find these "social histories" fascinating and a revealing and enriching addition to the "straight" history of many articles. Conveys the "spirit" of England in a way "history" misses! The Devonshire work sucked me in. Mattisse (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
As a family historian, the underlying reason of why something happened is valuable, rather than the who. Power has its part in history, however, all the other components of life all lead to a better understanding and reality of the why. [he sprouts] — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Carl Bovallius Book[edit]

Thank you for your input and help, FYI the book is progressing, you may want to take a look at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Antiquities, managed to upload pictures at commons, it is in the process of being proof read. Also, I am trying to get the book a second book going (http://books.google.com/books?id=MPG0GwAACAAJ&source=gbs_book_similarbooks). Do you know who can help in placing these books in spanish WS, I have the translated text.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How about contacting the Spanish Wikipedia? Maybe someone there could help. Unfortunately I don’t speak Spanish. I wish I could be of more help. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

log outs[edit]

That's no good. Do you tick the checkbox at your login that says something like 'remember me up to 30 days'? cygnis insignis 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It will go for a while, sometimes several days, without an issue and then it will start happening again. I was told it was a "cookie" problem, but I don’t have this problem on any other sites. Just one of those things, I guess. It annoys the heck out of me, but I am getting used to dealing with it. Mattisse (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
How annoying. This resembles a bug that was supposedly resolved. Try fiddling with your sul, maybe setting the primary site to commons. I deleted the duplicates, this seems to work. cygnis insignis 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you want the pages moved. cygnis insignis
Moved how? I know there is a version of the page already, but it does not contain a scan. Can they be moved together, so what is there already can be verified? Mattisse (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Change my sul? You mean single user login? How do I do that? (It was not originally set here.) Mattisse (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I would have to move them individually, and find them one way or another.
You can go to Special:MergeAccount and see if that makes a difference. I'm not suggesting you change it, just try refreshing the software in case it is a problem elsewhere. cygnis insignis 20:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And Phe did the Index[edit]

Phe kindly ran one of his linking scripts to the pages at Devonshire Characters and Strange Events/Index so we now have a linked index :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Index:A short history of social life in England.djvu validation[edit]

There are a small collection of pages that need validation. I would have done the first read on the remainder. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Done! Mattisse (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, some of the Table of Contents pages need doing, they trick us when they lose their colour. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Another one bites the dust smileybillinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure whether you are interested or not, however, I found and have uploaded Index:A History of Horncastle from the Earliest Period to the Present Time.djvu. An area where one part of mywayback family originated. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Horses and roads[edit]

Thanks for validating pages of Horses and roads! I'm going to adding lots of {{Anchor2}}, today I sorted them in groups in User:Alex_brollo/Sandbox do go on "faster", but it's a hard work... I'll do that in a long time. I only hope that links without their anchor will not confuse a very attentive reader. Nevertheless, links link the page at less. --Alex brollo (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Next work will drag into the reasons and history of shoeing! [1] will be uploaded into Index:Horse shoes and horse shoeing (1869).djvu. --Alex brollo (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

image cat[edit]

I think it better to give the title of the work, eg. Audubon and his journals, if the commonscat is solely for that purpose; it helps to find it amongst the related pages and categories with "Audubon" in the name. cygnis insignis 19:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I want to do that but I don’t know how to change the Category name on the Commons once it was in use. From previous experience, it seems the only way is to ask for the category to be deleted and then attempt to reconstruct the new category. Mattisse (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Make the new category and repopulate it. What you do about the old one can be dealt with a couple ways, the best is to ask a sensible admin to delete it when it is depopulated and uncategorised. cygnis insignis 20:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Pardon the interruption: I'm not sure if I count as a "sensible admin" :) but I'd be happy to take care of that deletion—just let me know when ready. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be great. Thanks! (I don’t know any admins on the Commons, fussy or otherwise.) Mattisse (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I changed the overflowing note Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/517, pardon the fussy solution. There is a better solution on the way, but until that happens I can add this trick if you like. cygnis insignis 20:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer that you don’t. I don’t see how it is a solution as it doesn’t seem to solve anything. It leaves the reader confused about where the rest of the footnote is, and means the reader has to change pages to finish the footnote and then, if necessary, switch back to the original page to finish reading it. In some cases the footnote goes over the span of three pages, so the reader would have to go to three pages to read it. In any case, I think an explanatory note is needed to the reader, with notification that the footnote continues over two or three pages. Otherwise, it looks like a mistake has been made. Mattisse (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The user wont be reading it in the Page:namespace, it works when the page are transcluded: It appears as one whole footnote like the rest and allows proofreading without the flicking back and forth you describe. Anyone verifying the page would be confused by missing and extra text next to the scans. I'll repeat a conceptual point, the Page and Index are not the point and not what is going to be used by the reader - it is the engine that makes the car go, the driver rarely looks under bonnet. cygnis insignis 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I do it for my own sanity then. I guess I am being selfish. I can’t read most of the finished articles because the pages are too wide and the print the wrong size, so I mostly read the individual pages, even when reading for pleasure. As for Audubon, I have spent too much time now being lost and confused. It is impossible to work on indexes when you spend most of your time trying to figure out what is what. I’ll say I am officially done with Audubon so do as you like. Thanks for your interest, and I will officially back out and stop being selfish. Mattisse (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that it is confusing, but in some works it is very common. A few users spent some time wrestling with how to make this work, so I'm pretty enthusiastic about applying it because it is thought to reduce confusion. I don't think you were acting selfishly, we lose perspective because we are working in that namespace. Understanding how images are included here is v. confusing, until you have done it a couple of times; you seem to be doing great work with that now. You are doing an enormous amount of proofreading, that is the best contribution to make in my book and I don't want to distract you from it. Keep going and someone will help with the bits you haven't picked up.

Regarding text size, do this and I think you will be glad you know how, it is very useful: FireFox/view/zoom and check "zoom text only" - if it is too small use the keystroke to make it bigger ("command +" or whatever). If you find the same thing happening on other sites, you can change FireFox/preferences/content/font size and color, if you go to 'advanced' you can tell it to always use your preferences (make text bigger, never smaller than some size). cygnis insignis 09:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Matt, what do you mean when you say you can't read finished articles? Are there display issues for you when you look at the main namespace all the time? That's a major concern, because we don't want that to happen to our readers (or valuable editors!). Do you know what your screen resolution is? Could you give me an example of a page in the main namespace that looks particularly bad to you?
Cygnis's recommendation is a generic one for making website text easier to read. Do you have this issue of not being able to read text easily on other websites, or just this one? —Spangineer (háblame) 19:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The only website I have a problem with is this one, Wikisource. Wikipedia does not have this problem, nor Wikiversity, nor websites in general. The formatting of Wikisource is not reader friendly. The suggestion offered that I constantly flip between different Firefox zooms and window sizes to read different pages and then read the footnotes is a chore. Reading a page should be effortless, in my opinion, and not require constant resetting of browser setting to get through a page. Just my opinion, but it is why I don’t read the finish products of Wikisource, although optimistically, I continue to try. Mattisse (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason I ask is because to me, the text on WP and WS look exactly the same—same size, same font, the same width on the page (except for the page numbers on the left). On some WS pages there are some differences (like when we use {{small-caps}} or {{drop initial}} or {{larger}}), but for the most part I find WS just as easy to read as WP (except for the general lack of pictures! =). I am able to easily read text and footnotes alike without any changes to my browser zoom level. If your reading experience is different from that, I'm concerned, because it shouldn't be happening. —Spangineer (háblame) 19:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, all I can say is that Wikisource is different from all other web pages for me. In general, I have no difficulties whatsoever. On Wikisource, the text is very wide and often dense. I already have the zoom enlarged but the footnotes are too small to read without constant additional zooming. I do not have this problem with any other website, including Wikipedia. Therefore, I must admit that I don’t read Wikisource, except in the Index version. Wikisource is not a pleasure to read but rather an endurance course. I do not enjoy constantly readjusting window size. Mattisse (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Addendum. Wikipedia does not require constant readjusting the zoom and the window size to read. One size fits all. Not so on Wikisource. Mattisse (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I took a screenshot of my screen using Firefox, a small browser window (probably no more than 1024 pixels wide), and monobook. Is your screen substantially different in appearance? If so, are you using any settings other than the ones I used in my screenshot—different browser, skin, etc.? Are you able to take a screenshot of your screen and upload it here? —Spangineer (háblame) 20:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
My screen side is 1920 by 1060 wide so my view is much wider. For example "The Seven Years' War renewed the interrupted march by involving America in the concerns of Europe, and causing the colonies to react on the parent state. That was a consequence which followed the Conquest of Canada and the" is all on one line. I already have Firefox zoomed to a larger size. But I would have to constantly resize the window to read it. (On Wikipedia this is not a problem; one size fits all.) And on other pages, a resize is extremely annoying, for example, on the pages versus the "works" (or whatever you call them), so I would have to readjust again. It is not possible to flip from "work" to "page" without constant readjustment. Also, that example does not contain footnotes, which are particularly difficult to read and require another increase zoom to decipher. Never do I have to readjust zoom or window size, except constantly on Wikisource. This is why, if I am going to read an article, I will read it in the "Index" format. Mattisse (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's one with footnotes at the bottom. I don't see any difference (the page in question is Brazilian and United States Slavery Compared). For me, the text size is exactly the same in the main namespace, references, and page namespace. And that text size is the same as what I see on WP.
I can read screenshot just fine so long as I click the image itself to view it full size (not squished to 800 wide) —Spangineer (háblame) 20:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I can read some of the full size screenshot only with effort and can’t make all of it out. If I click on the actual article I get lines that are too long to read with comfort without resizing the window. I can’t seem to resize the window on this page. The Firefox resize seems to have disappeared on this page, although it is normally present. Mattisse (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, that example doesn’t count because Cygnis insignis hasn’t put his "extra small" footnote formatting on the pages. Mattisse (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Look at w:2004_World_Series#Game_3. Is that easier to read than WS or not? Also look at the references at the bottom of that page and compare them to Cygnis's small footnotes template. Are they more readable? For me there isn't much difference.
Another way to reduce the length of lines (other than resizing your window) is to click the "Layout" button on the left side of the screen. It should give you easier to read lines. I don't know if there's a way to make a different Layout the default though. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I don’t have a "layout button" on the left side of my screen. The Wikipedia article is very easy to read, in contrast to a Wikisource article. Mattisse (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is it easier? The lines are the same length across, aren't they? And the "normal" font size is the same, right?
If you go to a page that uses the <pages> code (like State_Documents_on_Federal_Relations), you don't see an layout button?
I think I know why references and "smaller than normal" text are harder to read here, but I need to test that more. —Spangineer (háblame) 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no trouble with the Index "pages". The problem is in trying to read the "works", or whatever you call them, the composite which presumably is for the "reader". That is why I read the "Index" versions and not the "works". I don’t understand the rational for making the Footnotes so small as to be illegible. Mattisse (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: I see the layout buttom, but I don’t see what use it is. What is it supposed to do? Mattisse (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Are the small footnotes the primary issue? If a page doesn't have them, is it just as easy to read in WS as WP? Say State Documents on Federal Relations/5 vs. w:James H. Street or Duncan Wisbey (two examples of pages with no pictures)? Is there a difference between these?
The Layout button should reduce the width of the page, making the lines easier to read. I found out that if you click it, it will remember the setting you choose—so if you like narrower blocks of text, it will give them to you every time. —Spangineer (háblame) 22:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The size of the footnotes are a big issues. But also a big issue is the width of the content on the "works" pages. The Index "pages" are palatable but I am unwilling to fiddle with my browser for every glance at the "works" to make it readable. I would rather go the archive.org and read it there. Mattisse (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If you click "Layout 1" once, you will get a screen with a lot more white space, and every time you go to a "work" that uses <pages>, you will get the same thing. Compare File:Firefox WS appearance.jpg to File:Firefox_showing_layout_with_whitespace.jpg. Just click the Layout button and you should get shorter lines.
As for references, I'm going to put together a proposal/make some changes that should make them easier to read in Firefox and IE. The problem is that Firefox and IE interpret {{smaller}} as 75-80% of full size, while Chrome interprets it as 85-90% of full size. So while a Chrome user can read something just fine, a Firefox user might struggle. —Spangineer (háblame) 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something, but there is no difference between the two versions you offer. They are exactly the same. Mattisse (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't see the difference in the amount of white space in those two images? The line length is about 40% less in the second image. Or are you saying that you don't get that effect when you click the layout button? —Spangineer (háblame) 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The last word of the first line of the second file is "did". The first file's first line ends with "the"—a total of 11 words more in File:Firefox WS appearance.jpg than in File:Firefox showing layout with whitespace.jpg. —Spangineer (háblame) 23:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit confict)  ::::::I don’t care about the "layout" button. It does nothing for me. I have no proplem with the "index" pages. I don’t like the "works" (or whatver you call it) when the whole thing is put together for the hypothetical "reader"). I can’t read that version, and I would like to know the statistics of the people who actually access the pages and "read" them. My hypothesis is vertually none. It is easier to real the archive.org pages. Plus many if not nost "works" are not backup up by a scan, but rely on one user’s redition of the "work". Mattisse (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure this out, because I don't think most users have the same issues you are having. I have submitted a proposal that should help with the size of references. If you want to continue to help me figure out the issue, it would be nice, but I understand if this is getting burdensome. —Spangineer (háblame) 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

{{header}}[edit]

A quick note about the formatting of the template. The author parameter is already wikilink'd so you just need to complete the field. And can I say that the image on the front page of A Book of the Cevennes is stunning. If the whole work looks that good, we should be looking to nominate it at Wikisource:Featured text candidates when it is complete. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the template. I suspected that was the case but was unsure. I am completely confused about how to format templates and just go by trial and error. The front page of A Book of the Cevennes is really the frontpiece but I didn’t know how else to place it. The book has eight color images while the rest are black and white but of good quality. Mattisse (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A Thousand-Mile Walk To The Gulf[edit]

I did some tidying of the ToC and then moved the pages to chapters rather than the long titles. Phe kindly has done his magic with the Index. I did a little cheating with the A Thousand-Mile Walk To The Gulf/Index and inserted letters to differentiate, if you don't like them, then all we need to do is convert {{anchor+}} to {{anchor}} and they will disappear yet retain the functionality from the {{compactTOC}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you and Phe! I don’t really understand about anchors but what you did looks fine. I am somewhat confused about chapter pages. On A Book of the Riviera I ended up by having two sets of chapters and I am not clear how they interact. I have made a muddle. I am slowly gaining a little knowledge. Mattisse (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes you certainly do, that work's pages. I can see how it has happened too, the Chapter N subpages have come from what you have constructed the work, and the others have come from your CONTENTS page construction. We will need to fix the Table of Contents and do a tidy up, though that will have to wait until post-sleep. I will look to give some instruction in building ToC, however, until we have you up and swimming, it is probably worth getting myself or someone like Cygnis to give it a once over before you start transcluding pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I need all the information I can get. I don’t have the basic knowledge necessary for understanding the technical issues hers. I am learning through making mistakes. Mattisse (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, sometimes it is that way. Tidied up that second work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I really appreciate all the work you are doing! And I am learning by watching you. Mattisse (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically Right[edit]

I’ve been looking over your work and it is basically right. The only problem you are having is that you are making a chapter the subpage of the previous chapter. You stop this by adding the [[../ to the beginning of the chapter link for example [[../Chapter Number|Chapter Name]]. Feel free to ask for more help if you need it.--Xxagile (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look at what you did and see if I can follow it. Mattisse (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You’re welcome :)
You should be ready to go now. I fixed the links so they should be okay for you to use. If you feel like you aren't doing the chapters right. Start Clicking on the links from the main page, it might help to keep you on track.--Xxagile (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

bio[edit]

I created the index for the new file, hope you don't mind. Are you intending to create it under John James Audubon (biography), or replace (or move) the extant transcript at John James Audubon? cygnis insignis 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I was trying to figure out how to handle it. The current version doesn't have a scan and does have some errors. How does an editor "migrate" the index to the existing version? Or is it correct to do it over. I did Treasure Island over but I am not sure that was wise. Mattisse (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Missing any images too, so why not? :-) If you detected some errors, there may be more. The problem with match and split is the 'obvious errors' of OCR are replaced with errors introduced, or already overlooked, by human proofreaders at the gutenberg version. The text layer with the file you uploaded is pretty good, but it didn't read quotes correctly. cygnis insignis 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I will try to figure out the quotes. This was the only djvu version I could find at archive.org. There were some text only versions. Thanks so much for your help. Mattisse (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Black Arrow entry[edit]

Hello, you recently put a notice on The Black Arrow entry in Wikisource that it had no source. How would you propose to remedy that considering that the source was presumably Project Gutenberg and it is in the public domain? I would like to remedy the situation as this entry is of interest to me. Happy Holidays.Drboisclair (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for validation[edit]

Dear Matisse, thanks for validation of pages of Index:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu. Can I ask you for another kind of help too? Can you add into Index: page the needed link to source (I presume an Information template) and to fix the link from Index: to Ns0 as requested by current en.source "state of art"? I guess, I'd find anything into help pages.... but as you know perhaps, programmers (even the Do It Yourself ones as I am) are unbeliavable lazy and they love to learn by example. :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I will do my best to help out. However, there is not much that I have figured out how to do. There is something wrong with the TOC pages, in that they do not lead to the correct pages. The only way I know how to fix it is to copy the format from a functioning TOC. Mattisse (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right. Page 17 is lacking!!! :-( --Alex brollo (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm SO frustrated.... I uploaded the wrong djvu. There's a much better version! But at a closer look, there too some pages are lacking! Can I merge pages from two different sources/fro two different djvu files, in your opinion? I do it currently into it.source, but there I'm a sysop, here I am an occasional contributor...  :-( --Alex brollo (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is not a good idea to merge different sources if you can avoid it. But I am not the person to ask. Ask someone like User:Billinghurst or User talk:Cygnis insignis ; they are experts in all this. Mattisse (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I opened a thread into Scriptorium and I asked Billinghurst. --Alex brollo (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I replied you into my talk page. --Alex brollo (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Xenophon[edit]

As I see you're interested in horsemanship, I'll ask your opinion about Xenophon. I found into Internet Archive The whole works of Xenophon, that contains all "red links" into Author:Xenophon page, so allowing to upload a proofread version of them. More interesting too, The works of Xenophon (1890) that collects the works of Xenophon about horses and hunting. Now, I'll be busy for months about Horse shoes and horse shoeing.... I guess that en.source politics discourages to upload books that have a high probability to rest as "red books" for a long time. Am I right? And, in your opinion, which of the two collections could be more useful here? --Alex brollo (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole works of Xenophon looks like a very big and complicated job, whereas The works of Xenophon (1890) seems more possible. But I find much of Horse shoes and horse shoeing is above my abilities because of the Greek writing and the complexity of the footnoting. I will try to help you as much as I can! Mattisse (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The History Of England From the Accession of James II[edit]

Concerning your comment on chapter XI. I provided the margin notes and the page numbers of the edition Donohue, Henneberry & Co., Chicago 1890. Arnapha (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mattisse (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Romance of History, Mexico[edit]

Many thanks for helping to complete this (silly, and mistakenly uploaded) children’s story. If you are have the time and the inclination, there are a few pages I proofread and require validation. Thanks again. — Ineuw talk 22:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading it! I will take care of the few remaining. Mattisse (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Gracias. :-) — Ineuw talk 18:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Table needed for Page:The Art of Nijinsky.djvu/143[edit]

Could you do the table formatting for the above page, then I can validate it. All other pages have been validated. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please disregard the above message—Its been done by another user. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all you have done! Mattisse (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Index:John James Audubon (Burroughs).djvu[edit]

The relative links for chapter V and Bibliography are not linking, even though the formatting is the same as the rest of the work. It's also the same on the work itself. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate to admit it but I don't understand the linking very well! I will try to fix it. Mattisse (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Migrating texts[edit]

Hi, I see you've just marked The Varieties of Religious Experience as needing to be migrated. If you could change the Progress of the Index to "Ready for Match & Split", then it will go into the maintenance category Category:Index - Ready for Match and Split. That way I'll find it and do the Match & Split when I get a chance. If a work isn't in that category it's difficult to find.

If there's something that you need done urgently (within a few days) or that has a high priority, just drop me a note and I'll see what I can do. I managed to get two works done yesterday, The Bobbsey Twins at Home and Essays: First Series, but I had a bit more spare time than usual. They also both had proofread Tables of Contents. The process is quicker when I've got a good TOC to hand as I can do more than one section at a time. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I did that. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Chrome and toggle button for the header[edit]

I'm not sure if you still have the problem of the toggle button being missing in Chrome, but if so, see here. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't seem to work for me in either Chrome or Firefox. The toggle button is gone! Mattisse (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, it does work after all. The buttons are way to the right, on top of the djvu page, so I didn't see it for a while. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Something really complex into Horse shoes and horse shoeing[edit]

Dear Mattisse, I'd like to introduce you to something tricky (luckily most of complexity is wrapped into the template code): the template HSAHS. It builds a link pointing to an anchor into the text; something to be used into the index of terms at the end of the book, so converting any number of page into a link to a word/to a paragraph into the pertinent text of that page. The code is mostly simple: ie the index menu:

Teucteri, good horsemen, 189.

there's the need to convert that 189 into a link to a page of djvu file, pointing to an anchor, in this case "Teucteri" is a good anchor, and the code is simply: Teucteri, good horsemen, {{HSAHS|189|Teucteri}}. The engine of the template will calculate the right number of djvu page if it is into nsPage: namespace, while it will calculate the name of the chapter when the template is trascluded into ns0. Then, obviously, there's the need to put an anchor "teucteri" into the right page, so that the link will find its target. It's a good idea to put the anchor with {{Anchor2}}. So, I write the code of Teucteri, so you'll see. --Alex brollo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I will try to figure it out. I think User:Billinghurst knows of a bot that will do this automatically. I think it was used for the Index of Devonshire Characters and Strange Events, starting with Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/921. But I am trying to learn all I can! Mattisse (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I tried the "human way". If you like, you'll find anchor codes into Index talk:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu, grouped for no. of djvu page. The idea is to seed them at the beginning of the appropriate paragraph; I'll put them in place when proofreading next pages, it's a pity that I began some works into it.source too. Thanks a lot for your help. --Alex brollo (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As you already saw...[edit]

… I finished my work into it.source and I'm back to finish Horses shoes… . I was going to let you know with a message, but I see that you already know. Thanks again! --Alex brollo (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mattisse, I validated them. But. . . How long is, this damned book? In the meantime, as you saw, I began to appreciate {{hws}} - {{hwe}} and I discovered {{nop}} - I imported the latter into it.source as soon as I discovered it. :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Glad you decided to use those. I stopped using them on your pages as I thought you must have a unique system of you own! (I know nothing about technical stuff and just copy what I see others do.) Mattisse (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
{{nop}} is handy, but leaving a space after it causes a large horizontal box to appear in the transcluded result of the next page, as happened on two pages of "The Difficulties of Railroad Regulation", in Popular Science Monthly Volume 29, May 1886 (3 and 6), now fixed. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Proofreading FINISHED![edit]

Ok Mattisse, it's gone! Thanks for your help (and thanks to Kathleen too obviusly). It.source is waiting me back. Take care of our work, and see you again! --Alex brollo (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Life after wikinews[edit]

Please email me at geofferybard AT YAHOO.COM to develope the ability to collaborate and support each other in WMF by at least being able to communicate without having hostile eyes parse our every word. Note also my supportive comments of late and also I did appreciate your support when I was besieged earlier this year. Geofferybard (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Slow page loading[edit]

Hi. Any luck with improved speed? Just curious.— Ineuw talk 01:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ineuw&diff=cur

I haven't removed the cookies but today seems faster for some reason. (Maybe because it's earlier in the day.) I tried another browser that doesn't have cookies and it still had trouble loading djvu pages just now. So, I don't know. Mattisse (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same situation here as well. I can’t tell for sure what causes an improvement. It seems odd to me that the server suddenly improves for awhile and then it slows down to a crawl to the point that I just give up. Although I do believe that the profusion of hundreds of tracking cookies do slow the browser down. Cookies seem to be getting more sophisticated because after removing all unknown cookies (100s of them) and returned to Wikisource, within a minute AOL placed a cookie - I just don’t understand how they tracked me to Wikisource.— Ineuw talk 15:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I got rid of all my cookies a while ago to prevent Google news from thinking it knew what news I wanted to see. It didn't seem to help at all. I'm not interested in seeing my local news on Google, nor the personal section made for what they "think" I want to see! Mattisse (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Feeling a bit stupid and apologize for misleading you. It turns out that the slow speed & broken loads were caused by very restrictive settings of Avast, my antivirus. Removing cookies only helped for a day or so.— Ineuw talk 20:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I read somewhere (on Metawiki perhaps or maybe in the SignPost) that there actually was a problem, starting on May 18 when someone uploaded an extension that overwhelmed the servers, and that there are problems anyway with servers carrying the load. But all seems better recently! (So it wasn't all you antivirus!) Mattisse (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple paragraphs in footnotes[edit]

Hullo Mattisse! Might I beg to draw your attention to the matter of mulitle paragraphs in footnotes? Your method has been (for instance) to use the <br> element to demark these. I would like to suggest that we all standardise on using <p> elements, in order to give a more accurate portrayal of the original text. What do you think? I have added an example to Help:Editing_Wikisource#Footnotes, to try and explain the issue; please do edit it as you see fit. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's ok with me. Thanks! I will do that. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

WS:FTC#The Art of Nijinsky[edit]

If I recall correctly, and my glance through the history indicated this, this FTC is largely the results of your efforts, but you don't appear to have been advised of its candidature. I haven't read through it, but [personally] agree with the sentiments expressed on the illustrations. If you want my help toward seeing it promoted, let me know. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned a few problems at the section, one difficulty—though it probably shouldn't be a deal breaker—would be establishing notability at en.wp; I'll give that a go sometime soon. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Notability for what? Nijinsky was a famous man, text on Wikipedia says "cited as the greatest male dancer of the 20th century." Does this work have to be notable also? There are numerous links in the text to the ballets of his that have their own article on Wikipedia. However, this book may not be notable. Mattisse (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The subject is very notable and your excerpt from article is correct. I haven't got around to reading the book and my opinion on whether this is one of the best books on him would be merely that. This will probably be featured on the main page, eventually, but while I'm here there is something I have been meaning to ask of you:

You have produced a very large amount of proofread transcripts, which of these do think is the best read, that you enjoyed and think others would too. It is possible to get it validated, if that hasn't been done already, and you can add it as another candidate. It doesn't need to be illustrated, and can be long or short. Give it some thought and let someone know. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My omission to not let you know of my nominating the work, if that is an issue then apologies. And do feel that you can contribute both works and opinions at Wikisource:Featured text candidates. The more input and opinions, the better. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You have new messages
Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Billinghurst's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

THANK YOU[edit]

You have an amazing taste for variety in your work and I personally find that wonderful as I too like what you tend to choose to work on. I also have used some of your code when I did not know what to do. I recently skimmed this, The cruise of the Corwin and it's excellent! I wish I could do the quality of work that you do and I plan to get back to "The cruise of the Corwin" to read in detail asap. I tend to love nautical works the most but certainly am not limited just to them. A good imagination like yours produces works like a good imagination of mine just loves to read. Too, as stated, I look at your source code to learn and I hope that doesn't bother you too much. You are a teacher without knowing it. Very Respectfully, —Brother OfficerTalk 08:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. I also have copied what others have done, and that is how I learned. There is much I don't know! Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

software problem[edit]

There is currently a problem with the software at this site. Through no fault of your own, every time you edit a page (such as your good work in validating), an unwanted line will be inserted. Please see Scriptorium for more info. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I will check at the Scriptorium. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)