User talk:George Orwell III

George Orwell III (talk page)

(Archives index, Last archive) Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.

namespace additions filter

Made some changes, some which I would like for you to reflect upon.

We had been having lots of hits from me adding VIAF urls. So I have added that as an exclusions, though at the same time I have edited it so that it if there is any of the accepted urls added that it is passed (contains_any condition). You may consider that a step too far, and we can regress if you think so.

Plus, I have excluded the sysop group from hits, as I presume that we consider any urls by that group okay. We can of course update that to be the autopatrol group if that is a preferred review point. Of course depends on what we want to see occur. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I never understood what this filter was suppose to accomplish in the first place. Why are we "tracking" this? Its just eating up resources as far as I can tell - or does it have something to do with Check_user responsibilities? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

For us it is predominantly an indicator for spam/abuse. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence of that - its not set to "react" in any way, shape or form. Personally, I had no problem with this (other than the waste of resources) as long it cast a wide net but some others might get the impression this is nothing more than a way to get one's jollies off via big brother type of tracking. Your narrowing of the paramaters doesn't put me at any more ease either. I say set a full filter with tagging/denying actions or forget it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Upload of commons:File:EB1911 - Volume 29.djvu

Hi. Please make sure that the upload is OK because at the end of the upload, I received a Wikimedia error. If it's not OK, pls let me know and will re-upload it again. — Ineuw talk 15:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine - checked the end pages in the Page: namespace and the text-layer came up. Usually you don't get listed in the File Summary section when the download fails and you're listed. The file size is correct there as well. The only other time I get that error message wikifoundation page when it is really not an upload failure is when I'm listed 2x in the File Sumaary section afterwards (upload was OK then too).

Thanks again - one less stale Index that nobody has an excuse to avoid anymore :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Picture Posters upload

In essence, the only thing I contributed to Picture Posters was increasing your workload, for which I apologize. I was confused, even though your instructions were quite specific. So, from now on I will be more daring and if I am incorrect, just let me know. I am sure that eventually I will sync with you and the requirements. — Ineuw talk 21:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bahh... don't think twice about it. Its all part of the learning process. Didn't make a difference in the end - the newly derived PDF gets locked (something called PDF/A) by the IA folks anyway. Th DjVu will do (though you have to remember to trim that damn Google disclaimer page afterwards one way or another). At least it wasn't another 'Journal on the Gaseous Emmissions of Western Australian Land Varmit' or something. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A milestone of sorts

It's not the prettiest piece of work to be showing off, but Fasting for the cure of disease would be the first compelling case of a work substantially improved by inclusion of full page scans where they are adequate as illustrations. I pushed a bunch of images across from {{use page image}} to {{raw image}} and viola! they are now appearing in the mainspace work. Hesperian 09:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Laws of Hammurabi, King of Babylonia has likewise benefitted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Adobe Acrobat ver.11.0.00

George, have you upgraded to Adobe Acrobat Pro (version 11.0.00)? It has some interesting features including removing Gobble, university marks, and the words on the left side, _plus_ that "invisible barcode" that only becomes visible when being edited out. —Maury (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not know that. Thanks. Things are extremely tight around here; it will have to wait until the funds for an upgrade materialize somehow. I'll just have muddle through for now I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why pages like this occur?

Do you have any insight into why pages like this occur? It's as though the image has been stripped out by processing. I've been seeing it for years — I think only on Google Books scans — but have only recently become curious. Anyhow, now that {{missing image}} has been pretty clearly given the semantics "There's a picture on the scan that we don't have an image for", I guess I'm going to have to make a separate template to capture the case where the scan itself is bad; maybe {{Bad page scan}}. Any thoughts on that? Hesperian 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One possibility I've sometimes encountered is when the text of a book is known to be in public domain, but there is doubt about whether the images in the book have also become public domain. Illustrators and photographers don't die simultaneously with writers of books, and from what I understand legal restrictions sometimes differ between the two kinds of items as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Simply put - You are what you upload.

This is a common symptom for Google PDFs created before rel. 2.09 (February 2009? maybe older?) where the source files are assigned a duplicate or phantom page number(s) and the page is primarily made up of an image. Further processing by IA on such "old" PDFs during the creation of the JP2 zip didn't/don't know how to treat such pages/assignments so the image is lost more often than not. The image exists (as they almost always do) in the original Google Book file SEE HERE. The problem is that not only does p.272 appear once already earlier in the file (actually more than one volume combined into a single pdf?) but the page with the image is a "phantom" or unassigned page squeezed between text page 272 and 273 (D770 and D772 in our DjVu). The PDF should have been split into 2 volumes and edited as needed before upload to IA in this case.

What EncycloPetey describes does not pertain Google Books. There is no person or program making such subjective choices for Google - if their "programing" thinks there is even a slight chance of copy violation taking place in one of their digitalization projects, the book would never be offered as full-view as is the Google Book PDF's status in this case. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

But I have seen this (deliberate non-inclusion of doubtfully PD images) happen on IA, and IIRC it was for a Google scan. The decision may have come post-Google, but I can't speak to that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What is your point? A third-party to the entity that actually digitized the work in the first place decided to alter something based on their locale and/or local practices - we do this too, btw.

So exactly how does what you've introduced into this discussion pertain to the facts at hand for the particular example given (i.e. Nor the image or the book is restricted to those in the U.S. [if not everywhere] & the processing of that PDF was flawed - ultimately leading to the "missing" image in our DjVu)? -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I was answering the original question of why images sometimes appear to have been stripped out of scans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your answer does not apply in this case - the book is full-view & the image is present at the original source so the processing of it to DjVu format was flawed. Copyright infingement was never an issue. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The question was about "pages like this", not "this particular page". There are different reasons why a page like this one can occur. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So you ignored the specific example given in the top-right corner of this section by Hesp. and somehow rationalized that to mean like this was really in general instead? -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not ignore anything. I interpreted a word in a different way than you did, and did not limit myself to explaining one specific instance, but a category of instances. Both interpretations are valid. Believing that only one's own interpretation of a word could possibly be valid is a narrowness of thinking I wouldn't have expected to find outside of characters in Through the Looking Glass. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that back-handed swipe and leave it there before this devolves into straight-forward insults or worse if you promise to give me the courtesy of letting me reply in a timely manner to questions/comments put to me on my own talk page before you give into the urge to chime in yourself from now on. Deal? -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, please show common courtesy in your future replies and in your edit comments. There is no need to demean, insult, and denigrate at every turn. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad Page Scan template

{{Bad page scan}}? Hesperian 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure seems like it would be appropriate for marking pages not limited by some 3rd party fears of copyright infringement that wouldn't necessarily affect us but some people think what 3rd parties do always translates to one thing or another in relation to en.WS when it doesn't but feel the need to express that impossibility anyway.

The only pitfall that comes to mind is what if the scan page, although flawed or missing entirely, is actually made up of all text and no image whatsoever. Are we advocating the use of such a template for both instances of blurry text as well as cut-off or missing full-page images or just for bad page scans of full-page images only.

Optimally, a new template should be able to do both depending on specific customization in its code and eventual usage. On the other hand, we could amend the existing template pulling embedded images from the source file to handle flawed or missing embedded full-page images in addition to its current check for your stand-alone PNG but with a different hidden categorization. I'm in favor of a new template that, unless unset, automatically blocks a call to the raw image template. A different setting indicates a bad or missing scan of just text. Make any sense? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

use of <p>

Quick question:

Which is [more?] correct, A. or B. (and why):

A.

Text text text...

<p>Text text text...</p>

<p>Text text text...</p>

B.

Text text text...<p>

Text text text...<p>

Text text text.

Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A. Its what would be saved to the HTML anyway by the wikicode after you saved the page. The only reason to use tags here is to force the wikicode to behave as if it was straight HTML with or without the need to save the page to render it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok; added thought: when used in a footnote which spans two or more pages (e.g.), would you place the </p> in the footer, and a <p> in the header of the following page? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup - thats how I would do it. The thing about the paragraph tag to remember is normally you don't need the closing tag but here on WS its a requirement to force the wikicode to behave. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Further... What if you have block center e/s in the footer/header. Where, then, do you place the end/start paragraph notation with respect to the block center templates in the footer/header? Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm brain dead at the moment. I have listed the two pages as problematic (pg. 1 is the one I linked to) so I can come back to them. Feel free to correctly place the paragraph tags where they should be (excusing the maze of formatting). I learn better visually anyway. Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There is just too much going on reference wise across those three pages to have it work poperly with tags - or at least I can't find a way to make it work in both namespaces. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Renders okay in the Main as is; I'll just leave it as formatted and mark it as proofread. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, refs 59-62 render fine without placing </p> & <p> in the footer/header. 'Should' they? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The tags are there - they are just added after you click to save the page and then hidden by the wikicode. If you view the source code from your browser you should see them in the HTML (or you can use Special:ExpandTemplates and plug in the pages in the Input text field [below] to "see" some of them)

{{:Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 4.djvu/309}}{{:Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 4.djvu/310}}
<references />

Curiosity; does that mean that B won't work (i.e., render correctly in certain layouts/media), or that A is just better practice? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it will work - but not in every case. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Which begs the question: which cases? You're usually more thorough than this, GO3! ;) Oh--I have another question too that I had asked previously, but I have to find where it is first. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't say off the top of my head - try it and if works... use that method instead. I know I've done it myself but where or when escapes me. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for wikicod(e|ing) advice.

Hello.

I thought you might be the best person to ask, but please bounce this elsewhere (or even nowhere!) as appropriate.

Two questions, both issues occurring herein.:

1. I seem to have found a use for {{nop}} embedded within a page. I notice the auto-conversion gadget for handling edit transitions between "##" and "<section>" formats sometimes seems to "eat" a newline that I don't feel ought to have been treated so. The situation appears to be:

## SectionTag ##
...text flow...
####
...desired blank lines...
...text flow...

Simply saving the above construct instantly loses all of the "desired blank lines", but this:

## SectionTag ##
...text flow...
####
{{nop}}
...desired blank lines...
...text flow...

―appears to be robust. As far as I am aware the matter is entirely unique to the Page: namespace. Is this a known behaviour and/or am I simply reinventing this newfangled wheel-thing?

Nop is currently just an empty div tag - which disappears upon transclusion but forces a line return in the initial rendering. I don't see what the issue is since you aren't transcluding it nor the rule between marked sections anyway.

2. An unrelated issue which just happens to occur on the same page (warning: the coding below may/will induce queasiness!) I wanted to achieve an effect analogous to that of {{block center}} down a number of rows of a single column of a table, and hit on the compromise of centring; and then left-offsetting the contents of each cell by a proportional amount, using (in essence) the cell specification:

| {{ts|ac}} | {{left margin|-5%|...cell contents...}}

In case it is not obvious, this is motivated by a desire to make the column layout simililar for various screen (and thus table) widths. Obviously this is all completely over the top for the sample page Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 01.djvu/84, evidenced not least by the tiny 5% offset factor. Simply centring the column would have been "good enough" in this particular case, but I can see there might be possible uses (and I wanted to learn anyway!)

My real question therefore: "Is this sort of thing likely to break something?" If so, or even if your answer is "Stop it before somebody goes blind!", I shall still have learnt at least something.

When it comes to tables, I don't think anybody can say for sure. I use IE 6 and/or 8 and it looks fine to me in Layout 1 but overlaps in Layout 2. The numbers are still aligned however in both but I can't say if all that formatting was worth it at the end of the day. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. MODCHK (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. Dropping the {{nop}} does in fact affect local Page: editing and thus subsequent Page: display in a fashion I consider grossly incorrect; but otherwise I take your point about it being a victimless crime in this instance, but if you are sure the transclusion makes reference to the section names. I know of course this is the normal assumption, but just because my town is navigable using only left turns is no excuse for a car manufacturer to build a car whose wheels fall off at the first right hand corner... Too obscure?

Don't be discouraged by my seeming apathy - I've been bashing my head against dumb stuff like this too and have rather become numb to it by now is all. But you have to step back and take account in this case. Nop was never meant to be used in any other scenario other than at the very start of a Page: (rare) or at the very end (common). You shouldn't get mad at something that wasn't suppose to be in the first place. Its work-a-round for a poor design to begin with (i.e. using noincludes for a header & footer leaves no room for a closing paragraph tag under transclusions to the main namespace. Works great when a paragraph spans the end of a Page: and the start of the following Page: -- not so much if a paragraph ends the Page: as well as a new paragraph starting the Page that follows it. This is the only reason to use nop. You can simply use the paragraph tags to avoid its use altogether but for some reason that was not route taken long before I got here.) -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And yes, I also agree the table coding is completely over the top, and the proof-reader has already remonstrated with me for wasting time on it. Not my day for making people happy.

At least I thought I was learning something. Thanks again for your analysis. I do appreciate it. MODCHK (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anytime; just drop me a note. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your "apathy" (certainly not my choice of word!) was not the issue in any way or at any level. I simply should have had the sense not to respond to a measured assessment at a time when I was angry at another party. Mea Culpa.

Sadly I am learning wiki-coding is a magnificent attempt to approximate the ever-changing imperfect. If that sounds cynical, I do not consider the appellation in any means a slight.

To (probably misquote) the great Terry Pratchett: "Respect is hard currency." MODCHK (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Machiavelli

Hello and quick question: I'd like to upload this text from Archive.org, but I noticed that it has two identical sets of pp. 10-11. Is that something that should/could be fixed before uploading or after? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Normally my free time dictates before or after so in this case you can upload it and tag it with the problem(s) that need to be fixed. I'll get to it most likely before the weekend is here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know when I've uploaded it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Uploaded. Affected pages are djvu pp. 14-17, wherein lies a duplicate set of (actual) pp. 10-11. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

History of the Ten Lost Tribes

Thanks for the deletions, I realised too late that copy pasting wasn't the best plan, but hadn't realised that moving would make more work by leaving the redirect behind – sorry about that! What do you think the best plan for the other pages is (some of the early ones [15–30] contain useful formatting, but the rest I'd just OCR scanned, trying to help with the "Needs an OCR text layer" tag...)? --xensyria^T 09:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh... its not worth trying to save a bunch of inferior pages created under poor embedded text layers (I'm not big on saving such edit histories either), so you can move whatever you think makes sense to or we can have a BOT bulk move everything if somebody might get slighted by the conversion or something. I don't think anybody has really worked those pages for some time now to be frank. I'd much rather save what makes sense to and delete the . PNG based version altogether.

As far as the "needs OCR" cat goes - The Pentagon Papers already have text-rich DjVus on archive.org so don't bother trying to fix what we have tagged now (see HERE for details) and the majority of the Australian based works are scans of Newspapers, etc. at low DPIs so they won't handle most "free" OCR routines either. Any other questions just drop me a line. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll move the ones that will save time as I go, then request a bot deletion for what's left, both here and on Commons. Cheers. --xensyria^T 10:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the upgrade. --xensyria^T 15:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If anything, it should have happened sooner. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sir. Now I can't see what problem still is there, I've informed you by e-mail about the facte that I am the translator and that what I've put on Wikisource is either my traductions of folkloric texts too old or Romanian writers dead of at least one century. I don't know what is the problem, why I should explain to you all each time and almost every day that I have the copryright because I am the translator and I don't claim any money for these translations; if I have had such an advertisment was only for the books of Romanian writers and published in Romania. Please, allow my posts. M.-M. Khesapeake.

Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines

Thanks for your help with the work I uploaded, both here and in the Commons. I've done a lot of work on Wikipedia but never uploaded anything like a .pdf to Commons or done proofreading here. So thanks again for sorting it out. Kierkkadon (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually have some concerns about your re-up of the .pdf file. The current version (the one you uploaded) has a lot of broken pages, such as Page:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.pdf/31. If your purpose in uploading it was to make the text machine-interpretable, then I'm afraid this hasn't worked — I still end up typing from scratch every page. Another editor (whose recent contributions have been called into question, and so his main account has been blocked) noted concerns also in this edit summary. Would it be best to upload a no-text-layer (but with the Google disclaimer still moved) version of the file, or just leave it as it is and hope any proofreaders have a non-broken version of the file? —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 22:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be best to avoid .PDF file variants that are created from a nameless bot at GoogleBooks and stripped of any useful text-layer/image-compression to begin with - but that was your choice nevertheless and I tried to honor it by fixing up a losing battle. Live & Learn.

Try uploading the .DjVu file found at the same archive folder on IA (link is found in File: --> Summary section) instead. I think the current "broken" pages and "poor" text-layer issues would be far less if at all. I'd do all that and create a new Index: for you but I just don't have the free time at the moment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I shall do just that, thanks for the advice. I did not know of the existence of Internet Archive prior to uploading the Google Books .pdf file. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 00:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Your Welcome :) ...and don't get me wrong - PDFs have their place here on en.WS but they are frequently dumps straight from GooBoo's "digitization" project (problems). If you upload such a .PDF file to Internet Archive for processing and conversion to a .DjVu first, you'll typically have better results when you finally upload either type of file to Commons for ProofReading here on WikiSource. DjVus are just easier to manipulate and have a better time undergoing the "free" OCR routines than PDFs do as well. Still, some folks are more comfortable with the familar PDF file format even though the point here on en.WS is to transcribe these works to HTML anyway. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh. You seem to have done it already. Well, thanks! —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 13:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So should I just start copy/pasting from the pages on the .pdf index, or is there some easy method for transporting all the existing content? I've gone ahead and set up both the cover and one page in the .djvu index that wasn't covered in the .pdf one — the text layer works perfectly now. Thanks again for your help; next time I contribute a file I shall remember this and do it right the first time. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 13:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a bot request at WS:BOTR to move the pages you've worked on already. This will happen when the bot operators can get to it. Is there something else that you'd like to work on in the meantime? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Mpaa (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up my slack guys. I started to set the changes & request up yesterday and had to walk away from it before I could post some updates/explainations on what was going on there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thank you fellows. I would have been up the creek without a paddle trying to do all this myself. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 13:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As side note - the work has a lot full-page, & somewhat intricate, tables towards the end. Unfortunately, the "free" OCR routines out there have a hard time replicating not only the table layouts themselves but the change in font(s) for the cell values as well. You might be better off using cleaned up images of the tables (i.e. trim any page headers/footers from the images) rather than trying to repliacte each one of them under Wikicode's HTML instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Internet Archive Watermarks

I have a (hopefully) quick question. There is a book I want to upload from Internet Archive. The pdf version lacks watermarks, while the djvu version, annoyingly has them. Should I just upload the djvu to commons, upload the pdf to commons, download the pdf and convert that to a djvu and then upload that to commons... I noticed that the djvu file is four years older than the pdf. Is it possible to tell Archive to regenerate the djvu file? MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd stay away from corrupting Commons with your "pet projects" - it will eventually come back to bite you one day. I'd just re-upload the PDF to a temp folder and have it re-derive all the other stuff as usual. User:Ineuw is the one to talk to on actually requesting stuff from IA admins - I avoid them like the plague. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought that the standard practice was that if a high-quality, complete, in-order, with text-layer version of a book to be proofread on WS was available on Internet Archive to download the djvu version and upload that to Commons and link to it from WS? This book (available here) meets all of the criteria except for the digitization watermarks at the bottom (at least it looks to me that it does, I checked that it was complete and in order), and those are missing in the pdf. Sure, if you fiddle around with the file you might mess it up and I completely understand that if you have a poor-quality / out-of-order / pages-missing / without text-layer etc. problems in the original file this will cause huge problems down the road... MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I started the re-derive on Internet Archive. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's ready to go. I'm just waiting on some clarification on where I should upload it (based on the comment above about Commons, if I'm doing something wrong I'd like to know about it early to save trouble all around.) MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry - after [re-re]-reading your comments its obvious I misunderstood what you were trying to accomplish and how. My apologies.

The issue there really revolves on running to ground the question of "why are the DjVu and PDF so different from each other?" If you visit that archive's full file directory (HTTPS link at the bottom of the left hand file list), you'll see that the .DjVu file hosted there could not have been created from the same .PDF that you've found without watermarks - the former was created in 2007 while the latter was created in 2011. This means the so-called "A1, ready to go, Lord I love Books, super duper & really amazing" .DjVu file that I'd love to work on here on WS is

............. SIX YEARS OLD!!!.......

... an eternity in terms of the derive software used by IA as well as the OCR routine applied at the time the .DjVu was created compared to today. If I were you (and had the free time) I'd download the 2011 PDF and re-upload it for completely new processing - which would give you the best possible text-layered DjVu without the watermarks we all hate.

Again, sorry for being a jackass before and the rather late reply - real life got in the way - but that is not an excuse. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I've already downloaded the pdf, uploaded it to Internet Archive to process as a test file, and downloaded the newly derived, watermarkless djvu file. I'm just not sure what you meant by "pet projects" and am unclear about what to do with the file (should I upload it to Commons or not?) The book will be my "pet project" in the sense that I will probably be the main person proofreading it in the future, but I gather that you mean by "pet project" an attempt to manually remove the watermarks, attempt to manually create a djvu file from the pdf etc. Also it might be good to add something about the age to the help pages about sources, just to make people aware of it when looking at files at IA. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright then - seems like we were on the same page the whole time but still managed to talk past each other. Anyway - yes - upload the fresh, watermark-less DjVu to Commons then create and setup the Index: here.

I had lost your point originally on all that uploading and downloading mentioned for Commons when the issue was with the file(s) on IA and their processing all along. I was "worried" you were just going to upload stuff to Commons that would never materialize here or removed there in short. Let's drop it.

And as far as tips like that go - they are still being discovered with every new instance applied at IA.... but I'm still far from being any sort of authority on much of this. Still, I plan on putting something together for the Help: pages eventually. I'm glad that at least somebody picked up on this file age nuance without them however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The Index page is all set up here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! Looks good all the way around - structure, rendering as well as text-layer wise. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No OCR for "Ye old English"

Hello, George! I was wondering, since I know this software claims to support Fraktur OCR, if you would know anyone who uses ABBYY? I am interested in possibly purchasing it. I asked you per two recent edits to Index pages. Thank you! Božidar 15:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What little I know about ABBYY comes from reading thru 3rd party forums/blogs/etc. and not "directly" from anyone I actually know in real life. Basically, everybody running 8.0 or higher seems to love it (English) but when you get into mixed or speciallized languages - it seems like a lot of people have complaints about using it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you! Božidar 07:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Double redirects

Hi. Seeking advice. I am doing some maintenance in this area Category:Texts requiring subpages.
Typically, pages with titles staring with "An", "A", "The" already have a redirect in place. So when I move them to subpages, leaving a redirect, a double redirect is generated. E.g. Bank Fraud -> A Bank Fraud -> Plain Tales from the Hills/A Bank Fraud. How would you solve this?
My opinion is that leaving A Bank Fraud is OK (it could also be useful for future disambiguation, if works with the same name will pop up).
Solving the double redirect by making Bank Fraud -> Plain Tales from the Hills/A Bank Fraud is an option. But do these kind of redirects add value? I can only see maintenance issues as we lose the connection to A Bank Fraud. E.g., if in the future we will turn A Bank Fraud to a disambiguation page, it will be very likely to lose the connection with Bank Fraud as they do not link each other.
I am more keen to delete them.
I hope I was clear enough, it's late here ...--Mpaa (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't really say what value is added by keeping/fixing the 3rd variant other than it keeps the practice uniform across several years now. I thought about doing away with one or the other when faced with what you described but decided that blindly following those who have gone before me ultimately was worth more than going against that norm over only a handful of works. Again, its a judgement call imho based on investigating the history, the what-links-here & the related tangents of all the variants involved and weighing those findings against common sense (or the lowest common denominator depending on your point of view I guess). Sorry if I'm not being helpful here - I too struggle with the logic of list more often than not. Only the fact that very few have come to undo or question my actions that leads me to believe I'm "right" on the way I go about doing redir maintenance - there is little else that supports it admitedly. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Annotations and derivative works

I have closed the Derivative works proposal on Scriptorium and started a Request for comment on annotations and derivative works page to work out the details. I am asking everyone who commented on the first part to comment on this second part as well. As on Scriptorium, I apologise for taking this long winded approach but this has remained unresolved for a long time now and got very heated last time. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about Template:USSSCcase

• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell/Certiorari granted
• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell/Amicus curiae motions granted
• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell/Oral argument

Is there a way to have these sub-pages display on the main index syllabus page at Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, in the template {{USSCcase}} ? -- Cirt (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

| linked cases= seems to work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hrm, and what about the other 2 links, above? -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know the Sequester also meant that I had to start doing your work for you, sorry. :)

Besides, isn't adding Oral Arguments always a question of copyright around here? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that, I could've added it that way, just wasn't sure if there was a better way to go about it, I was just deferring to your expertise. I asked at Scriptorium/Help about the Oral argument issue. Essentially it's statements in open court in a U.S. federal court, should be public domain, right? -- Cirt (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Meh - it was nothing more than gentle joking. Think nothing of it. I'm not exactly sure (or at least think I was in the minority view the last time anything like that came up) where "we" stand when it comes to oral-anything made in open court. I'd think the transcription from oral to paper by the court stenographer is not an issue in this case because it is easy to assume that person is a Federal employee operating within their official duties in the Supreme Court so we are left with just the question of the speaker's rights, if any. I'm of the mind there is no assumption of limited or reserved copyright protection for the participants/speakers once they are formally made part of the judicial proceedings - well at least at the Federal level like in this case.

Why don't you just add it and see if anybody has a reason to object? I see you started to make note of a possible issue in a Help section already - clearly amend that to reflect your addition and we'll just have to wait and see what (if anything) happens after that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I did, added it and then posted about it at Scriptorium/Help with a link to it. Okay, we'll see. -- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

{{page needs OCR}}

When I come across a page for which OCR has failed, such as Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/462, would you regard it as constructive for me to tag it with {{page needs OCR}} (assuming creation of that template) and move on?

Up until now I have hit the OCR button and assessed the result; then either posted the OCR as "Not proofread", or manually typed in the page myself. I'm not prepared to do either of these for the monster above. So the options are tag or walk away.

Hesperian 01:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

For single pages? Not really. Hit the OCR button (if it works for you), save if anything useful comes up and move on. A text-layer is useful but never a guarantee. In this case, it is only the length that prevents the on-the-fly transcription of the page and not the lack of a text dump. And any template like the one you mentioned could quickly become abused as a crutch rather than becoming the useful maintenance tracking tool it should have been (imho).

These "text dump" problems are more and more rooted in the age of the source file compared to the current processing/settings available for the same. The entire EB1911 series for example has had a complete make-over/re-do done on IA since the first frantic, OMG!!! shiny objects have caught my eye... must... upload... without thought... or cause...at once!!!, 2010 upload of the 2008 DjVu creations took place. The new series is linked on every EB1911 Index: page; all thats needed is for somebody to replace our 5 year-old source files with the newer 1 year-old ones. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hesperian 04:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We can probably do this with Magnus's tool. We need the input files as a list, the output files as a list, a completed {{book}} template with the parameters marked per volume. Something like lines per volume of ... (source url) (filename.djvu)|(Unique descriptive information for volume) — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would build that for you if I had the free time and left over energy. Between intercepting & replacing new uploads that have issues and working to fix long existing uploads with newly discovered issues (like that just tagged 'YaDa... New South Wales... YaDa Yada.djvu' one), in addition to all the rest of WikiWorlding, I have little mental prowness left to start worrying about something like that - especially where folks are generally ignoring the PR process for some time now anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hidden begin/end

What is the purpose of the template? I am obviously think and just don't see it. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I must be twice as think as you because all I'm taking away from that is 'template is greater than question mark' :( -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You imported {{hidden end}}, so I am wondering the purpose of the template set. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Its for containing Collapsible content - you know, where show/hide are toggled to open and close the container but it uses block arrow-heads on the left instead of the words typically found on the right as the means to toggle stuff to show or to hide. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your participation in the discussion at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Copyright_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_oral_argument, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I always thought there was no question regarding this point no matter if you were the one to raise it or someone else happen to. If I ever find myself in similar "trouble" on WP one day, I'll come find you for guidance in return. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Index:The Wild Garden William Robinson.djvu

Hello,

Thank you for your corrections. Would you have a look on the index, please ? Thanks a lot. --Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again. --Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing Index page

The last page (p. 478) is missing from this index. A copy can be found here. Is it possible to add it? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Disregard for now. I think I will eventually upload the entire Volume in which this article is contained. We have a clearinghouse for them as it is. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Praise the Lord! That is about the most intelligent & constructive resolution to a structural issue with a source file I've ever seen around here. Thank you for refreshing my faith in my fellow man. This rocks! -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fallen from grace

Hi GO3. For some reason, I no longer get email notifications on activities on my watchlist and don't know what needs to be done to be notified on a continual basis. Today, when visited the Scriptorium for the first time in six weeks, I noticed a post of yours regarding down & upload limits. I was hoping to remain your apprentice, even though I took an unauthorized (by WS) vacation to Mexico and the US West coast. But no matter, I would have been happy to help because wherever I go, unlimited internet connections follow. :-). Best regards, — Ineuw talk 07:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wha?? The only issue I've had is the one where a script was needed to transfer a dozen or so files from IA to Commons and Hesperian took care of that. At the same time, I've made better arrangements over the last month or two so I can finally access IA the way I needed to all this time. Recent events are not a reflection of some loss of favor here - its more that the circumstances leading to a fix were different compared to prior months (i.e. less need for Bot's & bulk moves because people actually stop adding pages just a few pages in when they first realize something is missing or duplicated in the source file). You're still my IA WingMan as far as I'm concerned :) George Orwell III (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Pheeeeeeew, what a relief. :-) — Ineuw talk 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

PSM Section or volume replacement?

Hi again. In the original copy of PSM Vol 77, instead of the month of November 1910 issue, it was mistakenly assembled with the Month of May 1910 of Volume 76. I marked the pages as problematic and left a note on each of the article title pages (marked as DUP on the index page map) with a link to the original articles of volume 76.

Waited until I completed the Index pages, and sure enough the whole month was missing. I returned to IA and found another correct copy at donated by U of Toronto where the correct page can be seen

I would like to correct it by myself while hoping to preserve the proofread pages. So, I am approaching you, the master, for your thoughtful advice before doing anything thoughtless. — Ineuw talk 08:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem - we'll walk through this together nice and slow but you'll handle the actual requests and/or moves yourself. A section replacement in the case of ~100 something pages would be too labor and time intensive. A volume replacement is the better avenue to navigate in this case.

First thing you want to verify when replacing a source file with another one is to see if the majority of the pages line up or not from the begining in the Index: by /DjVu positions. In this case, they do not. In the current Index: (based on the existing source file) We have 2 more blank pages before the appearance of the first page with original text content (the short title, The Popular Science Monthly) than we do in the replacement file. So in the current source file, the short title page is DjVu position /7 and in the replacement file, the short title page is DjVu position /5. This means one of two things...

1. Download the replacement file to your hard drive, extract (not delete) two blank scan pages to seperate stand-alone .DjVu files and then insert these two stand-alones to a DjVu position after the cover but before the short title page - forcing the new short title page (and everything after it) up by two positions to match the exisitng short title djvu position of /7 upon source file replacement on Commons; OR
   
   
2. Have me delete DjVu positions /2 & /3 in the current Page: namespace under the existing Index: and then request a bulk-move on the Bot Request page to move the existing range we want to keep (/4 to /422) down by -2 (new range /2 to /420) after the existing source file is replaced with the new one on Commons.
   
   

Irregardless of whether you opt for option 1 or option 2 above, the real first order of business is to request a bulk delete of all the pages in the current problematic range (/423 to /526) before anything else. Not only will this allow the correct text-layer to pop up for those pages but it will cut down on the amount of moves, if any, needed to align the rest of the existing pages we want to keep (/527 to end whatever that winds up to be). Follow me so far? Questions? -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the instructions. Downloaded the correct .djvu, (as well as the .pdf for quick reference and just in case). Will ask of the bulk deletion - sometimes tomorrow p.m. EST, after I study the old and new as instructed above. But not tonight. — Ineuw talk 03:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. And in case it is needed, I made a fresh derivative from a 2009 GooBoo digitalization from the University of Michigan scans on IA of Volume 77. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

http://archive.org/details/PopularScienceMonthlyVolume77

Smiling because I've also been studying the three IA volumes 77, and set aside your above mentioned Google copy for the time being and focused on the differences of our bad copy and the one from the U of Toronto.

1. Unfortunately, the U of Toronto copy also has some minor, partially missing text because of skewed scanning.
2. After adding first inserts at the beginning as instructed and matching the two documents article by article and page by page, the articles and page numbers still don't match up around affected area. There are two additional pages - at the end of the area of our focus - which explains why the original was screwed up. In essence it was very poor oversight by the original editor[s] and shoddy, inferior work ever since Cattell took over the enterprise. (I wanted to write him an email But I doubt if he cares by now.)

Will continue to practice with pdfsam to improve experience and will revise the planned bulk delete range. The is no rush and I am also preoccupied by matters unrelated to Wikisource.— Ineuw talk 04:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

---

[Continued. . . . ]

1. Because of all the problem pages, I gave up on the first two IA copies and downloaded the Giggle PDF copy from http://archive.org/details/PopularScienceMonthlyVolume77.
2. Removed the Giggle page + all the pages until the first title page which is slated to be djvu 7.
3. Created a 6 page PDF with the original green cover + 5 blank pages and merged it with the above copy to match the pages, with the first article beginning on djvu 11.
4. Removed the last Giggle pages after djvu 630 (the last page of the volume index).
5. Merged the above 630 pages with 1 blank page + the original green cover for the total of 632 pages. The last 4 pages are not relevant and we now have a perfect pdf copy as well as where all pages match.
6. I will now extract the Month of November 1910 and will upload it to IA for djvu conversion.
7. Will also upload the modified Giggle vol 7, just in case.
8. This buys me some time to decide on the best option to proceed with. — Ineuw talk 06:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

part2

In essence, I did what you did - created two derivatives and they are:

1. The November 1910 issue.
2. The complete volume, matching the pages of our commons copy with the Djvu copy waiting on my desktop.

I assume that the next step is to ask for the bulk delete of the pages, but will wait to hear from you. — Ineuw talk 17:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC) P.S.: A personal note from the apprentice to the master. I am glad that you are able to take the weekend off while your minion is laboring away in cold northern obscurity.

WoW! You did pretty good. A few points however...

1. You sort of did more than what was needed. You may not have realized that bulk moves in the Page: namespace also covers any change needed in the existing page ranges assigned in the pages tag in the main namespace. Its far easier (as well as more reliable .DjVu structure wise) to let the Bot do the needed moving up or down as many times as it might take to align all the pages in the new source file than it is trying to edit the new source file to match the old one. Don't think this was an issue in this (these) cases though.
2. The image at the bottom of scan page no 11 didn't come through the processing from PDF to DjVu for you either (image was slightly askew? in the PDF). I've already fixed that and will temp upload that page if you say you need it. I checked page 11 of my djvu copy and it came out OK. that's scan page numbered 11 by the printing press; not djvu position 11? -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
3. You may have botched the cardinal rule of leaving the remnants of the Google disclaimer page in the PDF to absorb its numbering as position /1 but designation _0000.djvu in the resulting DjVu file. We delete that from the finished DjVu file & not the starting PDF so the cover page eventually becomes /1 & number _0001.djvu. I'm not sure this is the case with all that you've done above however. I really can't answer this question knowledgeably. Using the DjVuLibre viewer, all I see is that the cover is 1 and not 0001. In djvuLibre, across the top there should be pop down menus, select 'VIEW' then 'INFORMATION'. once that opens select the 'DOCUMENT' tab. That will show you both the indirect file numbering (_0001)and the bundled djvu file position for it (1) -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC) It shows only unpadded page numbers. I uploaded a screen snapshot of the INFO page of DjVu Libre HERE.

   In that pic, the highligted entry is Bundled DjVu (the source file) position 11, Indirect djvu file name ... ... ... _0010.djvu and scanned page no. 5 (not shown). Go up 6 pages and you should see scan page no. 11 - I'm pretty sure the image caption is there but no image, right? -- George Orwell III (talk)

And yes already!!! request a bulk delete of all the existing problematic pages. The sooner its requested, the faster it will get done. Everybody's free time is limited, remember?

Proceed however you wish after that - trust that I can jump in at any point & anytime with the DjVu file I've modified or with one of yours if somehow things go wildly off track. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I replied above in color red. Now, I am waiting for the bulk delete and thanks for your supervision. — Ineuw talk 06:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Done --Mpaa (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• BULK DELETES DONE - upload whatever you have over the old file on Commons -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Part 3 - The Ending

Thanks for your great help and guidance. I completed the "harvesting" of article titles of PSM Vol 77. I would like to ask some questions for the future and they are definitely not urgent.

1. Do you split and/or merge in .PDF or .Djvu format? If it's .Djvu - what software do you use?
2. For removing watermarks, etc. do you work on .PDF, .Djvu or some image format, . . . and what software do you use? — Ineuw talk 08:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nowadays, I try to do as much tweaking as possible in the core PDF file rather than afterward in the resulting DjVu file from IA's conversion. This primarily because I was given a full copy of Adobe Acrobat Pro, Ver. 10 a couple of months ago - otherwise I'd still be playing with DjVu Libre first and foremost too.

Using Acrobat Pro allows for the removal of the watermark images in 'Content" view mode but it is still manually intensive (highlight a page, click to open its contents, click down to the watermark image, click delete, click close, repeat...). Version 11 is believed to make the removal of watermarks easier but I haven't had the spare cash to buy the full version since my corporate Ver. 10 won't qualify for a full version upgrade.

Acrobat also lets me verify the page progression - allowing insertion of missing page or blank place-holders, deletion of duplicate pages and/or the swapping of low quality, etc. pages. The same can be accomplished with DjVu Libre and DjVu files but not under its GUI interface. Most everything useful in DjVuLibre has to be done from a Dos-type command line. You can find the basic usage for all the other .exe files in DjVuLibre in its [Man]uals folder. DjVm.exe is used to insert or delete pages and DjVused.exe is used to extract or insert text layers -- the other .exe files are geared more to the really technical manipulation of DjVu's. You should make yourself familiar with at least those two DjVuLibre command line exe files.

Hopefully by now, you might better understand a DjVu file is more akin to a .Zip file that compresses the individual files within it but maintains a static reading order of those content files. Every Bundled DjVu file is made up of one or more Indirect DjVu files. So you really don't split a DjVu file in one shot - for a Bundled DjVu containing 100 indirect DjVu files, you'd save pages 1 to 50 as one bundled djVu file and 51 to 100 as another bundled DjVu file for example. I encourage you to take a recent, short IA generated DjVu file and play around with it using DjVm and DjVused - the latter being great for extracting text layers to a .txt file that you can repair to some improved degree before re-inserting it to a DjVu. This cuts down on the amount of editing needed in the Page: namespace once that DjVu is uploaded and folks start creating Pages: for the first time.

Here are the most common command lines for the two (without the folder & file path prefixes)...

• djvm -d base.djvu 20 (deletes indirect DjVu file at position 20 of the bundled base.djvu file)
• djvm -i base.djvu indirectdjvufile_0020.djvu 20 (inserts indirect DjVu file indirectdjvufile_0020.djvu at position 20 of the bundled base.djvu file)
• djvused base.djvu -e 'output-txt' > base.txt -u (extracts text layer in DjVu recognized format to an UTF-8 based text file)
• djvused base.djvu -f base.txt -u -s (overwrites/inserts UTF-8 based text file into DjVu embedded text layer)

As always - Feel free to nudge me if you have any other questions. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Again my many thanks. I will follow up on a IA Djvu download and have no problem with command line work. As for Acrobat, I am considering the free PDF Architect from PDFForge, but at the moment I am very close to completing the title harvest of PSM and don't want to be distracted.— Ineuw talk 07:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Khesapeake for OTRS

In this edit you asked why clicking save did not automatically make the work CC-BY-SA. The answer is because it least one of the works had been previously published with the copyright notice that was not CC compliant, it was initially unclear (with some question remaining) that the submitter on Wikisource was the original author of the translation. The first published work has since been removed from internet. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Index:Physical Description of New South Wales and Van Diemens Land.djvu

Hi,

I just finished paging out Index:Physical Description of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land.djvu when I discovered Index:Physical Description of New South Wales and Van Diemens Land.djvu (no apostrophe). The latter points at the same source file via a redirect; can I delete it? Hesperian 06:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Might as well whack it. I was trying to see if a File: redirect works to resolve some of the annotation questions being asked elsewhere. Sadly, everything works in the re-direct generated Page: namespace (including your RawImage) except the generation of the ~440px thumbnail of each scanned page themselves and the forward / back nav buttons -- everything else works by pointing to the redirect & not using the apostrophe (weird). -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Hesperian 13:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Index Test

George, it looks like the two non-sandbox files at Category:Index_-_Unknown_progress are old test works of yours. Should they be deleted? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really. They are what I use to test various theories. One of them looks promising (XML to DjVu where paragraph and section breaks are part of the normal dump @ page creation) but I need to read up on XML to finish and propose it (no free time :().

Delete them if you must, though they are relatively short Indexes not bothering anyone. I'll just wind up re-creating them as needed either way mind you. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just ran across them when looking for something else, thought they might be lost or forgotten sheep. No worries. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

case

Would the "s. c." in the following be lower case or smaller upper case?

Lane v. Cotton, 1 Salk. 17, 18; s. c. 1 Ld. Raym. 646, Com. 100 (P. 12 W. III.).

I'm [second-]guessing it is the latter. The original rendering can be found in the first footnote here. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Boy I don't know. It's an English Colony era case (pre U.S or Canada independence) so I really have no idea what the proper citation should be or even what it stands for. A Google search doesn't use the same wording & "s. c." never appears. I'd just go by what the scan thumbnail shows and move on. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. There is also an "N. S.", which is more easily distinguishable than s & c vice S & C. The "c" does look a bit different upon closer examination than an actual lower-case c in the original, but I'm not 100% sure. I'll just leave it as-is for now, and if I come across anything, I'll adjust if necessary. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is "mark all edits minor by default" a bad thing™?

Hello.

I just noticed your response to Mpaa at User_talk:Londonjackbooks#A_Small_Disaster to the effect "between you and the other guy being set to all posts marked minor by default or something..."

Well, assuming I am "the other guy" referred to, I do in fact have all posts marked minor by default. Never have even thought why; it just seems to be a habit without reason I have gained when initially setting up preferences on a new wiki. If it disrupts your personal work-flow in any way please let me know and I'll take the option off. I simply never realised it made that much of a difference. (It somehow seemed "pushy" to have every item "non-minor" for most things; and then nothing ever seems "major" enough to change it... I guess everybody thinks differently. I suppose the Unabomber would have made his entire Manifesto "non-minor"―but I'm not that egotistical.) MODCHK (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

<shrug> I always considered less than 500 bytes in an edit (spelling, grammar, typos and some copy edits) as a minor edit.

Anything over 500 bytes (shown in bold on at least my watchlist(s)) seems like like more than a minor change to me. Minor edits are not shown by default here so its just a matter preference I guess. It is a common occurance that I miss some of your (and the other other guy's) replies because of the setting, however.

Plus You should really be more positive about yourself.... stop listening to some of your fellow countrymen & their goofy butt-licking templates, etc. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh I can be ignorable all right. And it is not as if you've missed much anyway; mostly batting dubious ideas off one another.

As for being positive, I am certainly POSITIVE that if I ever make a 500K edit you have my fullest permission to consider it a delete-able error of some magnitude. (I might hold you to letting me know if I really ever manage to do it please? I am assuming uploads to Commons are not in scope.)

Not sure I even want to ask about "fellow countrymen...butt-licking"; sounds unpleasant, embarrassing and possibly indictable behaviour.

Regards, MODCHK (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops its too early / too late here. I meant 500 bytes & not 500 Kilobytes before. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Damn. What's half-a-meg between friends? Anyway, I speak binary, so I might as well go for broke―can I have 512? MODCHK (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Index:Helen of Troy and Other Poems.djvu

Hi GOIII. I downloaded this file from IA (1911 edition) but I realized a few pages are missing. All the poems are there but part of the TOC and part of Front matters are missing (dedication pages). I found this on Google but I cannot download it. Could you pls fetch it? If sane, pls upload it directly on Commons replacing the current one. If flawed, pls upload it locally on WS and I will take care of composing a good copy. I will also take care of the current Page: pages (very few and mostly blanks). Thanks in advance.--Mpaa (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The replacement you linked above at Italian GoogleBooks is not full-view for me either. Are we absolutely locked into finding another 1911 edition? I'll start looking but just FYI... there is a 1922 edition on IA

• http://archive.org/details/helentroyandoth01teasgoog

What's the missing pages/issue? I'm getting results with all sorts of page counts

• 1922 ed - http://books.google.com/books?id=O8oEAQAAIAAJ - 105 pages
• 1922 ed - http://books.google.com/books?id=Eq0TAAAAYAAJ - 91 pages
• 1911 ed - http://books.google.com/books?id=ufQOAAAAIAAJ - 115 pages

I'll keep searching until you tell me otherwise -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What is definitely missing is the page after this: Page:Helen_of_Troy_and_Other_Poems.djvu/18. In the italian snippet view, you can see also a dedication page, which is missing. I opted for the 1911 edition since it is the first edition. Poems in 1911 and 1922 edition do not match exactly (some are added and/or removed). Maybe if we cannot find the missing page, we could survive all the same, as the TOC can be easily reconstructed from the rest of the text. Or would you opt for th 1922 edition? What do you think?--Mpaa (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think everybody puts all too much faith in IA & GooBoo and thats turning everybody's brain to incentiveless mush.

For starters, the home folder for the current DjVu source file on IA shows the original PDF worked on last in 2007 and the DjVu derivative of it made later in 2008. Did you check the 2007 PDF there for the same missing/error pages?

• See here - http://ia600306.us.archive.org/0/items/helentroyandoth00teasgoog/

  too many PDFS open at once - it is missing the same stuff as the DjVu - sorry my mistake -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

At the same time - it looks like the 1911 I listed above is the same as the one you first linked but was from Italy. I'm downloading all the 1911 PDFs I can find to see if we can't patch a complete edition together. Back in a bit-- George Orwell III (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Processing PDF made up from various 1911 editions.....

• http://www.us.archive.org/catalog.php?history=1&identifier=HelenOfTroyAndOtherPoems

Once the DjVu is created, I'll strip the Google disclaimer page and upload it over the bad DjVu on Commons. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Done -- You'll need to move some existing pages to make everything line up (I did the front matter already). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for the bug fixes. Typical "programmers hubris": I make the first few edits carefully and conservatively, and thereafter assume that nothing can possibly go wrong. I should not have been so careless with such an important template... but I sure you'll forgive me this time in light of the goal being pursued. :-) Hesperian 02:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sgt. Shultz applies.

P.S. do you think we can change the wording some more? Category:Index_-_Text_Layer_Requested kind of makes it seem like Wikisource has its own OCR engine that can do this on demand or something. Text Layer Deficient or Text Layer Omitted works much better imho. If its too much a pain coding wise(?) - just forget it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure can... but I need to visit meatspace for a while. I'll come back to this later. Hesperian 02:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way I believe Category:Index - Unknown progress is full only because it will take a while for Mediawiki to asynchronously digest your fix to my error. There's nothing to be done there.... Hesperian 02:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That's just it - I saw 4k listed, searched for recent MediaWiki changes etc., saw your's/tweaked your's, and then went back to watch it go down steadily from 4k to ~130 --- then it just stopped going down. I'll take your word and just wait it out since there is not much else I can think of anyway. Thanks again - looks like a step in the right direction.

Oh FYI - this last MediaWiki upgrade has something about adding the ability to rotate images within the usual File: parameter line. I lost the direct link but part of it required a bugzilla fix listed near the top of the wmf21 page (also linked in Scriptorium). You can probably back track it from there like I did. -- 02:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Proofread of the Month problem with file

Hi, we're having problems with the files for April's PotM. EncycloPetey has uploaded a pdf (File:The Romance of Nature; or, The Flower-Seasons Illustrated.pdf) only to discover it has no text layer. IA has two editions, both with problems. 1st edition has two duplicate images. First pair here and here; second pair here and here. 2nd edition is fine for pages, but has one bad scan here. Are you able to assist or advise us what's the best thing to do? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this some sort of April Fool's thing? I'm not finding it even remotely "funny" so far - a PotM that noooooooooobody verified for integrity beforehand - yeah right! :) George Orwell III (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I uploaded the current PDF for processing HERE. Since nobody mentioned anything obviously wrong in the structure of the PDF nor bothered to break out the pagelist to verify completeness - I just ASSUMED this PDF is OK. If its not, "we" can play patch-me / swap-me afterward.

When the processing is done, click the 'details' link at the top to see the finshed IA page. From there, we should have both a PDF & DjVu file with a text layer. If I'm around, I'll clip what's left of the Google disclaimer page before I replace the current PDF (which will most likely not have as good a text-layer as the DjVu will so you PotM folk might opt for a complete DjVu replacement while we wait for IA to finish up). -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

OK I replaced the old PDF with the new text-layer one. I still think the DjVu swap for the PDF would be less work text-wise. Back later today (I hope). -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

George, I and others have seen your struggles of this type of problem and other similar problems too many times. My heart goes out to you in those struggles but that doesn't help you. So, when encountering these blasted things why not just remove them totally (however that is done since they cannot be deleted) and look over the next proofread of the month text. Then if all is well, work with that 2nd choice? As is, you have to work harder than you should. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Maury. It makes things like this somewhat less frustrating.

....and I don't mind the work - I'm not big on proofreading things like poetry or adolescent books so its my way of quietly contributing to the overall scope of Wikisource rather than by book-by-book. Still, I find this particular case troubling since there is a project and discussion already in place that should have prevented something like from happening (on the 1st day of the month no less!).

As far as deleting the entire thing and moving to another choice goes - I say that is wishful thinking. This crowd lacks the scrotum-space to realize sometimes the kindest thing you can do for someone is be cruel. If I could set an example by whacking a prominent goof-up like this to send a message for everyone else - believe me I would have by now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Thanks George. Part of the problem this time was my enforced wikibreak, so I lost a couple of weeks and it was only Sunday that I realised we were at the end of the month and no decisions had been made. I do want to swap to the DjVu if possible and am quite prepared to wait. PDFs don't work as PotM very well. Also, I hadn't realised when the work was decided on that the proffered link was to a GoogleBooks version rather than IA. I came very close to swapping to the proposed May work, but it hasn't been checked yet either. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the May work has been skimmed over without any apparent errors found. As nominator on the May item, I did check it out a bit first, owing to the kinds of problems that George has found frustrating, and which I have occasionally encountered myself (albeit on a smaller scale), and I found no problems. If we decide to go that way, and my help is needed with a upload, let me know. Or else, if one of the IA versions of the April proposal is found to be usable and needs to be uploaded, I can do that as well. However, I would prefer that a quality check is done before proceeeding, to stave off further frustration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The DjVu was done before the new PDF was ( http://archive.org/details/TheRomanceOfNature ) so all that is needed is for someone to upload it and set up the new index page. PDFs are fine - they just require some extra attention by IA either way (the lack of a text-layer lies with Google and nobody else). All I need is some lead time & the particulars and we can get almost any PDF a text-layer and/or convert it to DjVu at the same time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sh*t. I forgot all about the remnants of the Google disclaimer page - better let me download the DjVu to trim that out before the new Index: is created. If somebody has already taken this step - don't worry about it - I'll just overwrite that DjVu - but please wait to create any new pages until the first page (DjVu position /1) no longer says "Google". -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
Alright folks - the PDF based Index: has now been converted to a DjVu based one...

• Index:The Romance of Nature; or, The Flower-Seasons Illustrated.djvu

... and (even with all the rushing to get it done,) there does not seem to be any structural issues or pagelist problems with the new file/index just as before.

I did manage to swap an image ghost I noticed at position /175 (Plate blank page) while fixing up some basics in what is most surely an improved text-layer over the PDF's now. Only at the end of all the required moving, editing and etc. did I notice one image didn't come through in color (not my fault) and one image still has "Digitized by Google" at the bottom (my bad - I was in a rush). If somebody comes across either image page/plate, please come back here and list the djvu positions in question. I'll add it to the list of things to do; since neither affects structure or transcription, investigating a fix will have to wait (I see there are some more files with issues I need to check!!!).

Prost, George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this. Unfortunately, I've just found a duplicate image at DjVu positions 177 and 183. The original Google Books file has a different image for 183. I've already done some screaming where no-one can hear, but I'm close to throwing the towel in on this work. Are you able to help us out once again? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It might have been me in the rush to correct one of the oddities mentioned above (Still had 'Digitized by Google') but at this point I can't say for sure. Is this the right image for position 183? File:Ronat_p0183.pdf Seems like its missing the "flower-bulb" parts, no? If its not the one you need - then just point me to the correct PDF containing the image and I'll go from there instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the right image, but the flowers should be cornflower blue. [1] has the right one after print page 102. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it must be something on my end because I see the cornflower blue when viewed online but as soon as I download it as a PDF and open that PDF to the right page - the blue is gone. No blue in the online IA books you linked to at the start of this section either. No blue in the downloaded PDFs of the same IA archives you linked as well. Get me an image file or PDF file where the blue doesn't disappear and I can try converting that to DjVu and replace the duplicate in our source file. Otherwise, all I can do is keep reproducing what I temp uploaded already and not much else. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And as I live in NZ I'm not allowed to download any of the multiple copies on Google. I've explored some of the auction and sale sites. There's a reasonable reproduction here, is it possible to do something with this?

• File:Ronat_p0183.pdf what about now?

It's late here so if that last upload is OK (or not?) just reply here either way and I'll pick up replacing it in the DjVu tomorrow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'm surprised you were still up. It's getting late for me as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, removing the faux paper background at your linked was harder than I thought it would be. By the time I finished, I was sort of punchy. I figured best to pick this up today instead and now its done. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we need another page swap for the POTM. See note here. Thanks & sorry, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This was being addressed just above and the correct image is now in place in the DjVu source file. Let me know if/when I can delete the temp file File:Ronat_p0183.pdf.

I have 'placed' the image. Hopefully correctly. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope this is the end of this saga. At least we have a few more 'lessons learned' under our collective belt as a result. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

---

* Better give me next month's choice now too -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Old scans are still showing on the replaced pages of Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 81.djvu/18

Hi. With hat in hand, I humbly ask what was done wrong? All pages match perfectly, but the old scans of the two pages Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 81.djvu/18 and Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 81.djvu/19 haven't been replaced by my upload. If you look at the commons source file(s), ignore the two uploads since they are the same. Wikimedia came up with a server error, and I repeated the upload without looking. Naturally this is not an important issue, it's only for FMI. — Ineuw talk 03:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Must be your cache - I'm seeing clear scan images of print pages numbers 13 & 14. Have you installed the Purge tab gadget (not the same as Purge with UTC Clock)? It doesn't force a cache clearing at all three "levels" (local, current & server) all the time but it is better than not using it in my travels. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Proofread in fa.wikisource

Dear Sir. I am trying to translate all of the necessary files for fa.Wikisource which is the Persian version of Wikisource. Now I am working on proofread Mediawiki message files but I've found out that there is a difference between our version and that of English wikisource. For example you have deleted MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index attributes and substituted it with MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index data config. If you are using a higher version, please tell me how could we upgrade to that? And also please tell me how can I find out which version I am using? thank you in advance --Yoosef Pooranvary (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You should be copying the regime setup at multi-lingual wikisource...

• http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page

... and not English only Wikisource

• http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page

That is why you see a difference, you must copy the base setup to customize it like "we" eventually have. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Can Template:Potus-eo be converted?

Are we able to convert Template:Potus-eo to utilise {{header}} directly? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

NO. The citation bar is paramount. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, would you please look to add a direct portal link to Portal:Executive orders of the President of the United States, and consider whether there should be the availability to add other portal links based on subject matter. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What a stupidly redundant Portal... a list pointing to the Author: sub-page already linked to in the citation bar. No thank you - I'm not going to make readers jump through hoops just for the sake of some Portal traffic. The main portal is linked as an Author override anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Patent

I hadn't updated the status, because I wanted a second opinion as to the correctness of the page mapping.

Caution in checking is a GOOD thing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

New person interested in Federal legislation

Hi, can I draw your attention to User:HistoricMN44? I was wondering if he needed some guidance around "proposed" and "enacted", but I'm not sure what the policies on that are for the Project. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Index:Stone of the Sun.djvu

Thank you for validating the 3 images. The last image shows the letter P though and inside the Index there are 3 P letters listed. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. "Moving" status is always worth it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It should just be a label

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Coll-print_export&curid=1412702&diff=4394307&oldid=4178833 My understand is that is just a label, and it shouldn't affect any other components. Where are you reading or seeing different? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. I think I "read" too much into...

• https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Coll-print_template_pattern&action=view
• https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Coll-print_template_prefix&action=view

... still, download as PDF isn't working on this month's featured text for me & I'm just trying to figure out why. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

<grumble> bloody Collections ... ugly crap. Has someone created a version and saved it? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It works fine OK over on WikiBooks - but they have their act together and have everything setup totally different than what we're doing. I thought Hesp's fix on your quotes-in-title thing was illuminating here too - it seems there is just way too much going on in MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js on top of everything else to get the PDF rendering process to "hold onto" the transcluded content by the time it finishes up so it comes up "blank" when 1st viewed. I've gone back to pulling pages into Acrobat itself until something changes -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

HELLO! HOW ARE YOU? I AM FiNE (now) :|

Well, it turns out my heart was in the right place but my head wasn't -

Can someone fetch a sysop to free me from my bread and water ahead of time ?

I didn't think the obvious would be attained so "quickly" but at least I've cooled down in the interim.

So here it goes

... --- ...

... --- ...

... --- ...

... --- ...

... --- ...

... --- ...

... --- ...

... --- ...

George Orwell III (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL done Hesperian 14:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I laughed about it today - not so much yesterday. Total BS & glad its cleared up. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that admins could unblock themselves. Was that not possible? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I tried a couple of the obvious things & off the top of my head but they did not work --- so keep that in mind. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I self-blocked and unblocked several times at the other place.[2] Not a problem!! Moondyne (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

question about missing page situation

Would you regard this situation as satisfactory, or would you want to do something about it?:— Index:The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift, Volume 17.djvu Hesperian 05:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

With no evidence to contradict that, I would assume that is the way it was published - warts & all. I'll look for a 3rd party copy to verify or disprove that later. I'm in the middle of provessing that GLAM request in WS:S at the moment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ta. It is the only glitch in the entire 19 volumes, so I'm inclined to call it warts 'n' all too. Hesperian 06:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From Google Books to Archive?

George, Is it possible to place Preludes (1875) onto Archive.org? or can it be uploaded to Commons some other way? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure can, if you give me the time to setup Google's text-layer lacking, watermarked .PDF so Archive.org can produce a half-decent .DjVu from it that is.

I'll pop over to your talk page when I get the free time to really look at this later today. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And no hurry on this. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it closer myself (2-page-up view), all the pages seem to be in order, but for some "quirks" like the first three numerical pages being page 2 (but not)... as well as pages following images (including frontispiece) setting some things off kilter (or not). You might have better insight into those issues than me, however. If it looks like I shouldn't transcribe this version, I can move on to another Meynell work. Let me know. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Edit" conflict

I think there was an edit conflict of sorts. More on my Talk page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just re-read (paying attention this time): "Don't worry about the Google 1st page still being there - I whack those before I upload to Commons as a practice - & that will align left-facing pages to the left (hopefully)."... Goes to show, "Still, a man [reads] what he wants to [read] and disregards the rest." Sorry I wasn't paying enough attention, and thank you for the fixes you are in the process of making. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource meetup or training

Hey George,
Over the weekend I talked to some people who want to organize an edit-a-thon in Manhattan (most likely) during the summer. There was a lot of interest in Wikisource, and they suggested maybe doing a half-Wikipedia-half-Wikisource thing where we could train Wikipedia editors who are interested in Wikisource. The whole event will be sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, and they asked if there were other editors in the area who could also help train and maybe talk about Wikisource. Is this something you would be interested in? - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey George,
sorry to pester since you haven't responded. Reiterating, I believe you would be a great for training interested editors, but more importantly and given our proximity, I would like to meet you as well. Either way, you can always email me theornamentalist@gmail - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Not interested & Nothing personal - too much on my plate as it is. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Speed Validations are Universal!

Hello.

Normally you express your case(s) very well, which is why I'm drawing your attention here to the fact I don't quite understand your point. Obviously I am heavily biased by my recent unpleasant experience, and question the very premise that any genuinely "improving" edit should be condemned, irrespective of how rapidly it has been performed.

Validations involving change are always a matter for unease, as they reveal a shortcoming in the prior proofreading process. I like to think in my own case however the annoyance is inwardly turned, and serves as a reminder that I "could do better" in future. Even a deeply pathological individual such as myself does not go hunting for the validator of my proofreading efforts, malice aforethought, simply for showing up my inadequacies, much as perhaps I would not like to have been seen as failing in the first place?

Hyperbole/sarcasm? You betcha. Now was this the point you were trying to make? If such a thing as a "perfect script" existed (and I do not for a second believe it does), surely the time invested in properly testing such an animal (and it would be an absolute, utter beast) amortised over all subsequent uses would offset any apparent "speed validation" resulting from its subsequent use.

Which brings me full circle; I simply do not believe the current test for speed validation (i.e examination of wiki logs) can reveal this activity, because mediawiki simply does not track the right attributes. Unless you have access to full I/O logging (i.e at proxy/http/load balancer etc. level) then nothing except possibly page submission rate is determinable.

Your call: surely you know what logs are available far better than I do. Can you actually determine the elapsed time it took me to (for example) perform this edit? (I ask purely as a technical issue.) MODCHK (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well originally I was going to squeeze that in under Speed Validations are Evil but I thought that you might take it personnally (which you did anyway it seems) instead of me just pushing back on the premise (i.e. they might not be evil but still might have faults). If you check the edit summary, you'll see that I tried not to make it about you but the premise.

You see, every other "place" where I've ever participated like WS, stuff like scripts or "temp team-ups" were always made publically available or announced in advanced to avoid the possibility of somebody getting bent out of shape by either.

All I was trying to steer the discussion to, if it got picked up, was to suggest a return to the practice of folks adding their scripts to a shared scripts page and updating their User pages more frequently to better reflect what they currently working on & with who. They say sunlight is the best disinfectant, but I believe open access is when it comes to being online. Distrust and skepticism are more likely to develop online than in real life (especially by older folks) since there are few normal human nuances one can actually see and interpret like in real life. To compensate, we should try to minimize the amount of things that could be misinterpreted as a threat, either to individuals or to the project (because, as I believe may have been the case, a threat to the project was used as an excuse for the feeling of being "left out" or left behind").

Your points are well taken here but I don't believe the root of the problem, or for the incidents before your's, have anything to do with logs n' stuff because there is no real way to determine if you are really proofreading or mindlessly validating from any other vantage point except your's. Of course a lot of mistakes could be an indication, but even as a symptom, alot of mistakes really aren't proof of much. That is why I believe there may be a growing resentment or misinterpretation of some practices currently in use and that these practices need to be better explained or documented to avoid stupid incidents like this. Better? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Very much better. I didn't really take this message away the first time; but you make some good points here.

I really did not take offence at your original remark (I do read change tags as well); and I am sorry that heavy-handed Oz "humour" seems to be so incomprehensible top-right of the Pacific. I shall attempt to tone it down. MODCHK (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Header/footer change in index file

Hey George,
I was wondering why you made this change; I could guess that maybe it is quicker than loading through the template or something, but I won't... - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, all I intended to add was the auto page numbering with {{{pagenum}}}, but I probably got distracted and reverted to my old HTML self somehow. Don't read into it - old habits are hard to break I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate pages in DjVu file

Hello,

I restarted work on Index:Historical Works of Venerable Bede vol. 2.djvu and scrolled through the DjVu file. Pages 381 and 382 of the DjVu files are duplicates and should be removed. If you take care of that, it would be great. Otherwise, everything else in the file looks ok. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do. I'll get to it later today hopefully. If not, tomorrow. I'll drop you a talkback to here when its done. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks again.MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - though the thumbnail cache seems slow to refresh itself. Edit mode should give you the current pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

index talk template

Tripped across Index:GrouseinHealthVol1.djvu which shows that there is something wrong with the link to talk template, though unknown whether it is new or old artefact. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Look closer. Its the transcluded 700px wide TOC that isn't coming thru properly; not the Index template. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. It's a known (to me, anyhow) problem that the javascript does not lay out the text in the "Table of Contents" pane on a new line, so it will always misrender if it starts with wikitext markup that relies on being at the start of a line; e.g. *, #, {|. Hesperian 03:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing from you guys on Wikisource:Scriptorium#More_on_unlocking_images yet - not working or something else? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry; just one of those threads I keep seeing and not getting around to engaging with. For what it's worth, my initial thoughts on the matter were a vague memory of an ancient discussion about the merits of the server pushing full-resolution images to the client browser, which is then left with the responsibility of rendering them down to thumb size for display; versus the merits of the server going to all the trouble of generating and caching thumbs, so that it may push these smaller images to the client browser, thus saving bandwidth. The outcome of that was, demonstrably, a decision in favour of the latter. Are you subverting that decision? If so, have you solid grounds for doing so? Hesperian 04:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently all that generating and caching of thumbnails being done is frequently not HTML5 compliant - if it ever was HTML4x compliant for that matter. Such thumbnails fail with Attribute srcset not allowed on element img at this point. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting and somewhat disappointing, but only middling pertinent. Hesperian 05:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Umm...in case you didn't know: the SRCSET attribute dictates "which image" to use in different situations (e.g. high-resolution displays, small monitors, hand-held devices, etc.) so while you might not think it important - the fact remains it is kind of important that it function as specified for a wide swath of other folks out there.

The resource argument is kind of an outdated one anyway when you consider 3 thumbnails are now being generated for every one you actually see (the other 2 being the [invalid] srcset ones). Just check the html for any thumbnail if you don't believe me. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, this serves me right for making judgments about what is and isn't pertinent when admittedly I haven't looked into it. Hesperian 06:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thx for the fix. Not in the place to have much in the way of a considered opinion at the moment, both brain synapses are busy. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing page numbers

Any idea why Poems by Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell/Frances is missing page numbers and the little colour progress-bar? Hesperian 06:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

fromsection= "s2" tosection= "s1" too cute for their own good?

Shouldn't it be something like fromsection="Frances" tosection="Frances". -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I would have done. But this "s1" approach is used throughout the work, and other subpages do not seem to be having the same problem. Hesperian 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure which edit actually fixed it but in simple terms -- there was no place for a new block (the colorbar table) to be generated without prematurely closing another (transcluded) block first. An extra LR (or Nop-like effect) allows the generation without screwing up the layout. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Not very robust. Thankyou! Hesperian 07:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

English pound £

George, thank you so much for the validation moments ago. Also, thank you for changing my javascript so that the English pound £ button shows when it previously showed the # button.—Maury (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem/any time. The other issue was that the server thumbnail cache was/is slow to refresh your pages in Index:In_Memoriam._Matthew_Fontaine_Maury.djvu even after I re-processed it at IA to remove the watermarks like in the original upload (not much we can do about that except wait & wait)

PS - FYI... Acrobat had another update this past week if you haven't recieved it yet. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

George, thank you once again. I wrote a longer thank you about how much you have taught me over the years but I ended up with an "Edit Conflict" and all was lost. I have Acrobat Reader and Acrobat Pro both updated as anyone can get and I am familiar with removing the watermarks as well as uploading to Internet Archives and then d/loading and up/loading to Commons then placing a book on WikiSource. These are just a few of the many things you have taught me over time. You are a good person always doing good for others but what you teach is most important because then any person can know how to "catch his own fish for dinner." Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted redirect

Don't forget to check Special:WhatLinksHere before deleting unnecessary redirects — when you deleted Talk:Bible (Authorized Version), it broke a bunch of links that had to be manually fixed. No worries, but just a heads up. CMBJ (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ooops I broke a bunch of links applied in a template - which won't always show up in WLH - and has been deprecated from use to boot. Sorry I will be more diligent in the future. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved forever - switched links to 'magic-word' syntax so no matter what gets renamed/moved from now on, it will always point to the Root's talk page without the need for editing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

They actually were in WLH — that's where I found them. I'm glad to know about {{ROOTPAGENAME}}, though, since so many of these pages seem to be affected. Take care. CMBJ (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So you went ahead and moved the talk page along with its main-page knowing all these other sub-pages would eventually be affected????

Anyway - please feel free to drop me a note if you are going to be moving any more large swaths of grandfathered files. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict]—Maury (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI: mw:Extension:CodeEditor

Thought that the following might be of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

“	One thing I did want to additionally make note of for everyone on this list is that the CodeEditor extension will be updated to also allow editing of JavaScript and CSS files. See this bug more the details: bugzilla:39653 However, that change (CodeEditor) isn't going live next week. Instead, it'll go out with the start of the MediaWiki 1.22wmf5 rollout, beginning on May 27th.	”
—Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list, Greg Grossmeier