User talk:Apwoolrich

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |

Easton's Bible Dictionary[edit]

Hi Apwoolrich. Thanks for your comments re: Easton's Bible Dictionary. I had originally decided against starting a WikiProject, since I'm not sure it will attract enough volunteers, your comments have helped change my mind. Please see Wikisource:WikiProject Bible dictionaries if you'd like to join. I appreciate your input; thanks again. --Tetraminoe 07:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template pages[edit]

Thanks for the complement. Fixing up Wikisource:Sister projects was just one page that needed to be worked on. I also think it'd be a good idea to totally revamp Wikisource:Template messages, as well. It's missing quite a few templates that are in common use, and it should be filled out.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Draft Wikisource Help: 'How to edit offline with Wikisource templates' page[edit]

This is written as a guide for putting a new text on WS. Many people work on dial-up, so it makes sense to do as much preliminary work as possible offline. It assumes the editing is done on a text editor which can do split-screen. A text editor as opposed to a word processor produces text free of proprietoty codings used in writing documents in, for example Microsoft Word. Split-screen is the ability to have two copies of the same documents on screen, each independently scrollable. Some Project Gutenberg texts have notes embedded in the texts where the references appear. Using split-screen enables the notes to be cut and pasted to a section at the end of the doccument, where they can be accesses by WS reference and note templates.

  • 1) Select the templates needed (Author),(Bibliographical Reference), (Text quality),(Chapter links),(Reference and note), etc etc. Paste the codes onto a page and then cut and paste that onto a page in your text editor. Once you have a selection you can work with, this page can remain on your text editor for future work.
  • 2) Acquire your text (from Gutenberg), (DIY OCR) (Type it Yourself) and save into your text editor.
  • 3) Paste the page of WS editing template codes at the top of the text to be edited.
  • 4) Go to split-screen and paste the various template codings into the text.
  • 5) Carefully check the text against the original, and make corrections.
  • 6) Add the usual Wikification codes as required.
  • 7) Copy the editor text to clipboard, go online and upload to WS. If this text is long, chapters should be uploaded as separate documents
  • 8) Check the uploaded text and correct any glitches


My first question from reading this is whether this page is also intended to be read offline. If it is not, I suggest we do some interlinking to various parts of Wikisource which better help explain the list (whether we have those pages or not; we can always create them later, which we probably should). Also, I think it might be beneficial to expand what we say (i.e., be more descriptive on each point). I'm sure I'll come up with more suggestions later, but this was what I came up with right now.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Replied on —Zhaladshar (Talk)'s talk page, to which he has replied:
No, I don't think that you're assuming too much to think that editors will have text editors. I'm on broadband and I use one (it makes finding and replacing text a lot easier). But I also think not many users use it, either. However, it doesn't mean that we should write something on it, since people might begin to turn to them (especially when the Wikimedia servers become very slow and bogged down). You might find it necessary to explain what split-screen is for the newer users.
And you're right, there are numerous texts that have been added which are large and need to be split into chapters. But, we do have templates to navigate chapters. {{chap}} will do it (we have a few which need to be deleted because they do the same thing), but this will navigate the previous and next chapters.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about where the templates were separate documents. If all the chapters are in one, we can just use the TOC that MediaWiki generates automatically. A good number of Charles Dickens' novel (if not all by now) have the {{chap}} template (or some variant) using it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The help looks like it could be useful, personally I'm one of those who doesn't have a text editor (splitscreen or otherwise), though I use an e-mail program for off-line editing/preparation, so I can't give a great deal of input. However I would agree that there should be links to the relevant templates which you cite. Do we actually say anywhere in our help literature & how to add sources stuff that chapters of books should be added individually rather than the whole book in one lot - I can't check it now but I don't think we do.
I find templates to be quite awkward sometimes, particularly when they have lots of inserts to add to them, I'm assuming that the split screen helps to keep straight the template text & ensure that all the inserts are in the right place, it might be worthwhile saying this to provide a wee incentive/reason to use the text editor.
As your assuming that the contributor will be working offline with a text editor should we call this the "editing with templates" help page or should we call it something like editing off-line? I think if we're going to call it editing with templates there should be a wee bit about how to use templates if you're working on-line too.
In point 1 you say "Paste the codes onto a page and then cut and paste that onto a page in your text editor. " Why do you have to paste the template text onto a seperate page (I'm assuming you mean wikisource page) first rather than just pasting them direct to the text editor? AllanHainey 14:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't really find this makking a whole lot of sense but I don't know what you mean by a text editor, unless you mean a word proccesor program. I agree some these things should be linked. Especially a link to where to find the template code to copy, as I have had problems finding that sometimes myself. In fact I think it be useful if we tried to get all the copyable code on the talk pages of the actual template as I did with Template:Author--BirgitteSB 14:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Speeches Portal[edit]

I've got a first draft version of the Speeches portal at User:AllanHainey/SpeechesPortal, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look & let me know any comments you have. Thanks AllanHainey 14:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Archiving deletion page[edit]

Oh, no problem! It's not a big deal at all. I'm adding quite a few more templates to the page, too. This site is so cluttered...—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Color Scheme[edit]

I started a disscusion about a livery on Wikisource talk:Template messages. I didn't want it lost on Deletions.--BirgitteSB 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Smiles[edit]

It took me a while to figure it out, but I think the problem was that the "p" in WikiProject wasn't capitalized. The link on both my talk page and on the WikiProject page have [[Wikisource:Wikiproject The Samuel Smiles Project]], when it should be [[Wikisource:WikiProject The Samuel Smiles Project]]. I think this will clear it up.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Index tags[edit]

You asked about load and index pages. Well, the index tags are infinite/arbitrary, in that they aren't really methematical. You can create a {{Tag|name=Foo|ThisIsANumber}} and it would produce "ThisIsANumber". The problem is with organized tables of links to them. the Tag_link template is a single link to its counterpart Tag template on the page. Beyond that, we're limited to mediawiki's ability to support repetition.... oh... I just realized you probably meant the foreach ones. Heh...

The foreach tags can support up to 140+-ish items to be iterated over. This is because you simply keep adding them as parameters, and there's some upper limit to the number of parameters a mediawiki template can support. If there was "native" support for looping, then we could set start/end conditions and have very large indexes. Right now I'm just making tables using foreach several times. Each invocation of foreach uses fewer than 140, so I'm ok there. The problem I'm having beyond the technical is how to make large indexes prettier. I think the Kitáb-i-Aqdas article is fine, but the indexes really take up a lot of top screen real-estate. -- Christian Edward Gruber 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlogged in users[edit]

I really have mixed feelings about this. I realize this has helped WP greatly, but they have grown past the point where the ratio of sincere New Pages to Vandalism/Spam is really one-sided. As young as this project is I think it might do more harm than good right. I was talking to Zhaladshar to see if we cam implement patrolled edits here first. As few edits per day as we have, I really feel we should be able to patrol them all. On the other hand it is frustrating to have people you cannot contact repeatedly add things which have to be deleted. If we can get patrolled edits I would like to wait and see how that works out. Maybe we can keep a tally of good anom creations versus bad and see where we stand. If we cannot do that and evryone else agrees I would support it.--BirgitteSB 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

While I do not mind the idea of restricting the addition of new pages (heck, I wouldn't mind restricting editing itself) to signed in users, I agree with Birgitte in that we see if we can get patrolled edits established here. I've left a message on m:Help talk:Patrolled edit asking about it. I might have to go to their village pump, though. I'm very interested in getting rid of the petty vandalism (like the monstrous war going on with that "esothymiolenylisoleucine..." page), but I'd rather not have to restrict anything since this project is so small.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Brookie here[edit]

Hi - and thanks for the welcome Brookie 08:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message[edit]

Thanks for the welcome, but you already gave me one! I archived it this morning when I set the new talk page format. But I'm glad to know I have people paying attention to the fact I'm here! ;-) Essjay TalkContact 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Elements of Style[edit]

I have replied to your comment at User talk:Kernigh#Elements of Style. --Kernigh 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

SI 1972/2039[edit]

Hi. I've replied on talk page. Thanks for spotting that one, I've fixed it - obviously had been not concentrating hard enough, so there probably are other errors like that :/. Morwen 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address[edit]

Ok I was making this article look nicer, and when I got to this stage [1] I realized I am goung to have to make major changes to the editorial comments we worked on. Tell me if you still like the new version.--BirgitteSB 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Category and documentation[edit]

No, I highly doubt that we do have a Category:Erotica, but we might want to add it, especially if there are a number of works that would fall under it. Trying to find a decent source for Fanny Hill to compare the electronic version to is going to be a pain... >_<

I wonder if we might just want to talk about all the digital libraries in one page. I see no reason to keep all of them separate since they deal with the same topic (and having such a twisted documentation scheme like WP would be utterly horrid, too).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Welcome[edit]

Thanks for the welcome, Apwoolrich. I think I could possibly benefit from some more mentoring here if you have time. See Wikisource:Scriptorium#Publishing_a_diary. Thanks in advance. Donama 01:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Stats on Main Page[edit]

The "O views" is some kind of mistake or bug that could probably be corrected by fixing the MediaWiki message. Look at w:Special:Statistics and you will see that it doesn't appear.

As for an automatic list of new pages - that is a great idea. Special:Newpages used to be listed on the Wikipedia Main Page, and still has a link from Wikipedia recent changes. We could do the same! Dovi 18:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


You bring up a good point, and the recent (and actually semi frequent) vandalism/bad edits on that template make me think that we should protect it. After all, other projects protect important, widely used templates so they can't be vandalized and affect hundreds, if not thousands of pages. I say we propose protecting this template.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant to protect all system templates, because I don't want WS seem to be "protect happy," especially since we want to get the ProtectSection enabled here for our archiving purposes. That said, it wouldn't hurt to bring the topic up on Scriptorium for general community feedback, as you do bring up a good point regarding the Everyman library on my talk page. There are merits to having uneditable templates, but there are a number of pitfalls, as well. Anyway, the Scriptorium would be a good place to broach the subject.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I don't know if there is any significance there. I suppose someone could be working off his contributions. How do you now if an IP address is shared by everyone in one ISP or if it really belongs to just one person? I am always leary of banning IP numbers because I can't tell.--BirgitteSB 13:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They do it to increase their google ranking I think. Google give searches results by the page with the most links from other pages. So it is a way to advertise even though they want no one to notice it. But I never block those ISPs if it seems like they stopped it could be a computer in a public library or something.-- 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)That was me--BirgitteSB 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the kind words. I made a note at WS:IGD that perhaps we should work on formulating a blocking policy. We haven't had too many problems. However we are starting have a good number of admins, and we should all be on the same page about it. I hate to block people. :( --BirgitteSB 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Disciplinary templates[edit]

As of right now, no, I don't think we have any. But that doesn't mean that we can't get them. Aside from a user being blocked, which ones can you think of that we might need (I can only think of "this user has been blocked" templates)?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be careful here and standardise them from the start. Wikipedia has more warning templates alone than Wikisource has templates and that's ever growing. See the Wikipedia WikiProject on user warnings for some guidelines and templates we've been drafting. Most of Wikipedia's warning templates are redundant and could be replaced by slightly changing a small number of templates, but aren't because their users are familiar with current usage. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 22:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to have a whole slew of these things. Just a few (maybe run by parameters to cut the number down even more). Probably just enough to cover blocked users--that's about all we get here--and a few others to cover the next most probable disciplinary measures.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

Thanks for the welcome. I just recently noticed it behind that redirect on my talk page. I probably won't be doing much at Wikibooks besides fixing some typos ocassionally. Thanks, anyway. --TantalumTelluride 04:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed that you copied my version of the Live Preview to your monobook. There's just one thing you'll want to do. Where it says 'wpusername' = 'Zhaladshar', change it to your username. That way, when you Live Preview it, the ~~~~ will show your username and not mine.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Time zone[edit]

I'm in a small town a few hours outside of St. Louis, so I'm on Central Standard Time. My university has T1 lines for us to connect to, so my internet connection is exceedingly fast.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Gettysburg Oration[edit]

Thanks for keeping an eye out. Actually it was a good correction, he signed up for an account and left a note at Talk:Gettysburg Oration. The website that was the source for this speech had the wrong date. I should noticed it was wrong after all the work I had done at Gettysburg Address but I missed it. I knew that was coming up on the Main Page so hopefully we will get more good traffic from it like this. Although I hope there aren't any more mistakes. The Oration could have some as it a paticularly tedious document. Isn't amazing how people taste changes over time? You could not pay to stand on my feet for two hours listening to that.--BirgitteSB 19:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Script updated (Live Preview)[edit]

Since you're using the Live Preview script, You might be interested to know that a major update has been released, named InstaView. The code and instructions are now available at Wikisource:Tools and scripts. The code there also includes a tracking link which will allow me (and anyone else who participates) to update your code without any effort on your part, assuming we have your permission. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Keeping track of things[edit]

Yes, I completely agree with you. Many of our discussions do get archived and hence become dormant when they instead should be completed. Feel free to add links to the appropriate places so that we don't lose anything of value.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Porn vandalism[edit]

You can take a look at the history log of the page Category:Fiction. I just removed the changes that were put in so you can still see the vandalism on the history. In this case, the links were added near the top of a page that's directly accessable from the main page. This actually seems to be more of direct Spam attempt than a Google manipulation. - illy 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Blimey, that was quick. I haven't even finished setting up my preferences! I'm also still in the process of resonding on your Wikipedia talk page. Noisy | Talk 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin[edit]

Thanks for the note about the obituary. You are quite right. Someone else had added this text to the Rosalind Franklin article on Wikipedia and I merely moved it to Wikisource as per Wikipedia policy regarding original sources. I have left a more detailed account on the talk page of the obituary. Sorry if there has been any inconvenience caused. If I can find the correct source for this text can it be kept on wikisource under the fair use policy? Thanks for your time. Wobble 06:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The working classes and the corn laws[edit]

Hi Apwoolrich, I noticed you unprotected this text due to "Editor's request". I'm not sure if the editor is you or if someone else requested this, but would you mind noting on Wikisource:Protection_requests#Unprotection requests if you request any other unprotections (or advising anyone who asks you directly to unprotect something to do likewise) & if appropriate re-proposing them for protection once the work is done, just to keep things straight & ensure everything we think is protected actually is. On the above text once you've finished whatever it was unprotected for can you re-propose it for protection. Thanks AllanHainey 11:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This does seem to be the problem with the protections, it doesn't give any indication on the page or edit history whether a page has been protected or not, apart from whether the protect tab is set to protect or not, and of course its only available to admins anyway. Looking at the protection log, which is itself hard to find, it doesn't show it as ever having been protected, just unprotected. Which is odd. I'll re-protect it. Thanks. AllanHainey 11:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

AP~ Liwaz 14:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC) HELP


Hi. There has been a request to create a .hu subdomain for wikisource. here I don't know if you are the right person to ask to do it, but I would like to ask you to help if you can. --Dubaduba 10:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

EB1911 Classified List of Articles[edit]

I've done some investigating on this. What the people of EB1911 did is great. It's a system much easier for the general populace to use (the current heirarchy involves a more in-depth knowledge which new contributors might not know—at least with the Classified List it's easy to see where each article should go). Also, the proposed "new heirarchy" never really got off the ground; it was abandoned by its creator.

I'm reluctant to do a major face lift, though, without this at least going to the Scriptorium. I firmly believe we'll get the support to delete the current categories and replace them with the system the compilers/contributors of EB1911 made, but I'd first like to discuss it with the community as the changes are so large.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank for the welcome & splitting Infinitesimal Calculus[edit]

Hi, thanks for the welcome, its nice to know people have noticed.

The infinitesimal calculus article is quite long and has LOADS of formulae, many of which are PNGs. Becuase of this, and pages longer than about 15 "chapters" takes forever to load. I have split the article into several parts, each with a link to the main page and the previous and next pages. It is modeled on the EB1911 header template. There is also a section directory on the main page. Perhaps this article could do with a navigator like Abbey? What do you think?.

I will also put this message on the Infinitesimal Calculus page.

Jjbeard 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

EB1911 volume checking[edit]

Sure. I can start going over those volumes probably tomorrow. Man, I hope the first volume isn't missing will be a nightmare to correct those links.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Your recent page creation didn't use the æ ligerature in Encyclopædia. Was done puposefully?--BirgitteSB 21:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem was with the lack of the ligature in the page title. I've moved the pages to use the ligature. Also, the relative links were used wrongly and I corrected them, as well. Now, everything that should be a blue link is a blue link.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

TeX update?[edit]

First of all, thanks for the compliment. Also you suggested that I do Caculus next - I did this before the ballistics article - its under Infinitesimal Calculus. I might have a crack at part of hydraulics, but this is truly a huge job, so it may take a while to make a dent...

As for the suggesting for the update for TeX - it sounds like a great idea - PNG TeX is brilliant for display equations, but it looks so out of place for inline equations, not least because the font is all wrong. However, the HTML it gives often looks worse (and is too small). Is there a way to scale the PNGs down by ~25-50% or so or get it to use the same font size/same font?? as the rest of the article to make it fit into the text better? The publishers of the EB seem to have matched equations to the text it OK...and they didn't have have computers! I'm afraid I am no programmer, and I know next to nothing about how MediaWiki works, so short of reuploading every inline equation a bit smaller, (which will look horrible because of the scaling, as well as take forever and clog everything up with hundreds of formulae), I don't really know what to do.

Where is it that they use these smaller versions? I will have a look around, and see what I can find.

Thanks again for your interest,

Jjbeard 22:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In order to change the display of TeX on Wikisource, it must be changed in the software (hence, we need a developer's help). There is already a bug filed on Bugzilla that would like to change the TeX. You might want to give it a look and add some comments.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I have filed with Bug 4915 on Bugzilla, and I think that if everyone interested files and votes, it will increase the chances of it happening soon. The Wikia (formerly WikiCities) PNGs look like just the thing for the inline equations of the EB1911.
Jjbeard 13:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

United Nations works after 1 March 1989 no longer acceptable at Wikisource for being GFDL-incompactible[edit]

SORRY, but due to Wikimedia Foundation's requirement that results in the copyright policy prohibiting non-commercial licenses, UN works published after 1 March 1989 are copyrighted for 95 years since publication by default and Template:UNCopyright with non-commercial license is GFDL-incompactible here, so unless available at the US Government Websites (suffixed .gov) without additional copyright restrictions, they have to be deleted.

THANK you for your past contribution anyway.--Jusjih 13:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

EB1911 alphabetical index[edit]

I've input some of the index pages at 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 1:8 and 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 1:7 . It would be great if somebody could doublecheck my formatting, content & style before I get much further into this! I do not have a paper copy of it!!! Banjee ca Banjee ca 11:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

EB1911 page quality checking[edit]

I was looking at Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aa with the intent to change the quality to 100%. In 2005 you put a comment 'masses of work to be done'. I think it's been done, but before I remove the comment & up the quality - is there anything you think is still missing? (seemed polite to ask) Banjee ca 13:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

News story nominated for deletion[edit]

Hello Apwoolrich. Please note that I've nominated Wikisource:News/2006-03-11/Threat to Public Domain texts for deletion. Since you seem to have left the project, I nominated it immediately rather than discuss; you don't have a confirmed email address set to contact you off-wiki. If you do see this message, feel free to comment. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

EB1911 being discussed on Wikipedia[edit]

You may not know that Wikisource and Wikipedia's use of EB1911 are a topic on the Wikipedia talk page on plagiarism. The section "and another" is well worth a read. The kicking-off point of the discussion is whether articles that began as copies of (plagiarised from) EB1911 should preserve the perfect original text, and if so how; linking to Wikisource is one possible compromise.

Since you are (or were in the past) deeply concerned with textual accuracy on Wikisource, you might be interested that John Vandenberg has added articles that are probably still inaccurate; it is invalid to assume that the first saved version of a Wikipedia article based on 1911 does in fact match the text of 1911.

Since the topic came up I did a few random probes on Wikisource. It does seem to have troubles. There are stylistic inconsistencies that may not matter so much (bold block caps for article titles versus plain text throughout, italics or not). I think there are limitations derived from Gutenberg (if Gutenberg is ASCII, what does that do for accented characters, let alone Greek?). I'm sure other articles that were dropped in by enthusiastic amateurs (1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aleandro, Girolamo, which I lighted on at random, is copied from the jrank version, and thus has 38 transcription errors, if you include the 21 cases of space-before-period).

I'm a very part-time WP editor, not about to move to add WS to my cv. Take this in the spirit of a fellow-sufferer who likes accuracy. DavidBrooks 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed[edit]

23:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)