User talk:Ineuw

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive prior to December 7, 2010[edit]

Archive prior to June 30, 2011[edit]

Archive prior to January 01, 2012[edit]

Archive prior to July 01, 2012[edit]

Archive prior to January 01, 2013[edit]

Archive prior to July 01, 2013[edit]

Archive prior to January 01, 2014[edit]

Archive prior to July 01, 2014[edit]


{{nop}} vs <section end=…/> placement[edit]

As this is the second time I have seen this kind of edit I thought I'd better make sure we are thinking alike before proceeding. To my way of seeing the matter, nop should always fall within the section block, as eventual transclusion usage needs to include the paragraph end marker. Alternately are you assuming transclusion will always make use of the <pages> tag, as it introduces an extra paragraph ending itself?

I have just realised I may be defending an anachronism which may not in fact matter (vipers to both the left and right?) Anyway, was swapping nop and section/end deliberate and if so why? (My curiosity alone. No, I don't think I've been sniffing thinners again!) AuFCL (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL:. Sorry again, I was too tired to respond last night. If one analyses the two, (nop & section tags) it really doesn't matter in what order it is placed. {{nop}} is an empty <div></div> and from experience, anything inserted after nop ends up on the following page, which is not important for a section tag. It's only my tight a**ed neatness that demanded this order. Ineuw (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. (Well there is in fact: but normal people who only use the outside-nop-and-<pages> case will never see it. If they were transcluding using the rather more rarely-[Hah! ~10,000!]-used and unfixable-by-edict {{page}} they would find all the paragraph ends swallowed. This is what I get for being a sad little student of useless esoterica.) AuFCL (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


I want to thank you for all your hard work validating Notes on Osteology of Baptanodon. With a Description of a New Species! This feels selfish of me to ask, but one page is still left invalidated, and I was wondering if you could do me a solid and check that one too. I owe you one. I'll try and proofread/validate some of your own contributions but it'll be a few days before I can get to it. Thanks again! Abyssal (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Abyssal: I appreciate your kind offer but there is really no need to validate anything I do. That's not why I did it. It was a small project of a few pages. I didn't do the page with the table because I wanted your permission to redo it. So please let me know if it's OK. --Ineuw (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure. You can redo the table if you'd like. What's wrong with it? Abyssal (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Abyssal: I thought that I can make it look closer to the original but on 2nd look it wouldn't be. So I will check and validate it.Ineuw (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! You're really helpful! Abyssal (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


These 2 gadgets can be deselected in your prefs. I added the lines they would have added/set straight to your common.js.

<script src="/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-ocr.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&1172795"></script>
<script src="/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-old_LST.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&2147806"></script>

These 3 are outdated when compared to the current wiki-code (thank you Inductiveload). I'd turn them off.

<script src="/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&3642077"></script>
<script src="/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-NopInserter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&3832640"></script>
<script src="/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-Fill_Index.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&4988218"></script>

These 2 will always load. They are not gadgets but part of the core Wikimedia software on the servers...

<script src="//*"></script>
<script src="//…ly=scripts&skin=modern&user=Ineuw&version=20140815T232551Z&*"></script>

Clear yo cache

clear yo cache
clear yo cache -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for your time and taking the trouble. — Ineuw talk 07:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A you're welcome![edit]

For thanking me. :P Abyssal (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Wisconsin Rapids directory (1921).djvu[edit]

Did a file patch ( now at commons)..

Question is there a bot task to up move the pages from 31 onwards to reflect the new layout? unsigned comment by ShakespeareFan00 (talk) .

@ShakespeareFan00: I believe that there is. Go to the bot requests and post a precise request for the move.— Ineuw talk 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Done, BTW Can we create a page somwehere for 'technical-fixes' so the Scriptorium isn't clutered?.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Like minds think alike. I was thinking the same thing and the namespace would be Wikisource: like, Wikisource:Files need repair or something like that, but the actual name I leave up to you. Take the initiative and create it, with one caveat: search Wikisource first, there may already be such a page. — Ineuw talk 18:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Well there is a Category but this would be a more formal noticeboard/to-do list...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would object to a page as well. The difference is that a page must also be managed. — Ineuw talk 21:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikisource:Scriptorium/Rebinding‎ Currently I merely copied the header from Help and tweaked the wording.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

About your side note and my common.js: Please note my comments[edit]

self.layout_overrides_have_precedence = true; What the lofass is this?

Its that gadget that allows contributors to set a specific dynamic layout (override) for readers. I just assumed you had this enabled but upon a second look seems like assumed too much. you can rem this line if you don't want the equivalent of enabling this gadget,

self.proofreadpage_disable_ocr = false; I want this disabled. would this enable it???

If you don't want the OCR button to appear in the Page namespace toolbar, set to "true" instead.

self.proofreadpage_raw_lst = true; What the lofass is this? — Ineuw talk 01:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the convoluted way section labeling is set up for us. raw (or old) LST uses <section begin.... & <section end... tags instead of ### character markers. Leave set to "true" if you want to use tags.

These settings in your .js file are not affected by what you have selected in your User prefs/gadgets tab BUT they can screw with resources if one (true) contradicts the other (false) or vise versa. Since these 3 "gadgets" are nothing more than a parameter and a true/false value, it was a waste to make them gadgets in the first place. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Now it clear to me. Again my gratitude for what it's worth.— Ineuw talk 02:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
See-ve-shen. Fwiw... when you've disabled the LST & OCR gadgets in your prefs, lines 324 & 325 in User:Ineuw/Sandbox2 should [eventually] disappear - indicating 2 less things loading "outside 'n willy-nilly" of the built in ResourceLoader. This leaves just the Index-fill gadget (line 326) - which InductiveLoad isn't around for anymore & can use a "refresh" - that lies outside of the "normal" module load scheme for you. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed code because of security issues[edit] Done as recommended. — Ineuw talk 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reflective and helpful comments[edit]

Gday. I read one of your talk page comments to a user, and felt that while you were well-meaning, your words didn't come across that way. wm2014:Programme was interesting for some commentary about how the WPs are viewed, especially with regard to new editors finding things to do and to achieve. I encourage you to listen to the talk by Raph Koster, and reflect on how enWS can use the learnings of the WPs and be a place where newcomers feel that their efforts are worthwhile. I plan on putting some words together about WM2014 once I get out of backlog life. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Google Front pages[edit]

Index:Botanistsguidet00wauggoog.djvu for example has a Google front page. Would it be reasonable to replace this with a blank but otherwise keep the same layout? Plan on doing the 'patch' myself, but wanted a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: No problem, will try later today.— Ineuw talk 18:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Yes check.svg DoneIneuw talk 22:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Help Laura ?[edit]


You are a smart fellow, can't you possibly help this near-blind girl with the proper color code? Mine as you may recall is medium grey with a black text. —Maury (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ackermann's Repository[edit]

This conversation was moved to Wikisource talk:WikiProject Ackermann’s Repository of ArtsIneuw talk 20:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Advice please[edit]

Hi, I've been proofreading Popular Science and think I've picked up on most things, but if you could have a look and give me some feedback that would be great. Specifically, has a loose line in with some footnotes and I don't know what to do with it. It looks like a typo to me? Cheers, Zoe --Zoeannl (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for contributing to the PSM project. You are doing great. My only comments are that we insert the {{rh}} (Running header} templates to insert the page titles as in {{rh|123|''THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.''|}} and we use the {{smallrefs}} for the references which reduces the footnote font size. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.— Ineuw talk 14:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

You fixed my word fraction problem! Thank you so much! I truly had searched through the Help files, but couldn't find anything that might work. I’ve made a note of this for myself, in case I ever see this again. Susan Susanarb (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. It was sheer fluke. I was checking on the condition of the documents queued for validation and was curious why it wasn't proofread. I often use the {{over}} and wrap it in 70% font template so that the contents fit the line height. Never used it for words though. How did you keep track of this??? — Ineuw talk 23:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Please pardon me if I am barging in unwanted, but if you are both talking about this page, may I suggest replacing {{over}} with {{dual}} to eliminate the solidus which does not appear in the original? I'll run away now. AuFCL (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
An excellent idea. Thank you.