User talk:Ineuw

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives[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)

Thanks![edit]

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)

Gadgets[edit]

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="//bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikisource.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=site&only=scripts&skin=modern&*"></script>
<script src="//bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikisource.org/load.php?debug=false&…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]

@Helder.wiki: 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]

Ineuw,

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Laura1822&curid=1697165&diff=5022326&oldid=5022284

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. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zoeannl Specifically, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_24.djvu/387 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.

Your intentions regarding {{FIS}}?[edit]

Hello.

I note in passing your edit here and am moved to ask just what you are attempting to achieve, as I do not believe (this) template really works like that. (In particular | width = 430px|215px ; if you meant | width = 430px then fine; but as you've expressed it the 215px is processed by FIS as an unreferenced and thus discarded positional parameter, and I am pretty sure that is not what you meant at all.)

Now despite the above rant I did not come here to carp; on the contrary, if you were having difficulties "bending" the template to some new or obscure purpose with which I might be able to assist, then here is an offer to help.

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I corrected the page/template. There is no problem. Unfortunately, I am currently struggling with Xubuntu and need to get back to Windows from where this all began with Autohotkey. — Ineuw talk 02:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL: I generate this, as everything else with Autohotkey. I wrote the explanations, the possible parameters & why into the template - for the benefit of those who wish to use Autohotkey - with the idea that it's easier to erase than to add. (I am the only customer who uses it so far.) and I overlooked the double parameters. — Ineuw talk 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
{{FIS
 | cstyle       = margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:8px <!-- no dhr needed -->
 | file         = 
 | width        = 430px|215px <!-- 430px is page width -->
 | float        = center|left|right <!-- One of the three -->
 | caption      = 
 | talign       = center|justify <!-- One of the two -->
 | tstyle       = font-variant:small-caps
 | margin-right = 8px <!-- if floating to the left -->
 | margin-left  = 8px <!-- if floating to the right -->
 | tmleft       = 11px <!-- For Caption Indent when justified -->
 | indent       = -11px <!-- For Caption outdent when justified -->
}}
Thanks. I get/got it (eventually!) At least this is a more acceptable public answer than the simple one, viz.: You are mad. I am mad for noticing you are mad. Offer to assist in your state of ongoing madness not yet invalidated. I am mad to admit any of the above. AuFCL (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to your comments[edit]

@ShakespeareFan00: I noticed that you are driven by some higher power to instruct others to make everything neat and tidy on all English language wikis (are you proficient in other languages?). I noticed that you did it on Wikipedia, by tagging a lot of images to be moved to the commons, a gallery which myself put to good use by moving some 19th century B&W images. Nevertheless, for the past weeks I was wondering, how come you don't do it yourself? After all, no one seems to be objecting to your efforts. Have you considered that we are occupied with own projects, and your unending stream of missives are somewhat annoying? Based on your past contributions, I am convinced that you are very capable to do the tasks by yourself. Finally I must ask, do you do windows? — Ineuw talk 15:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In respect of re-titles, I posted here, because it was my understanding that Mpaa had access to a re-title script (which needed some permissions he has and I don't) which relocated pages as well as the index. My reasons for the requests on Scriptorium first was to give time for objections. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Also I as a normal contributor don't have deletion or AWB rights.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In respect of the "windows", please clarify on my talk page :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Further to the above. It was MY understanding this was collabrative project. if you would prefer that cleanup efforts 'just happened' then that's entirely reasonable. Most of the time I mention or query things because I am concerned about acting unilaterally. If asking for comment or objections is annoying, then perhaps I should just be getting on with it? (with the risk that other people might get equally annoyed about the lack of consultation).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not collaboration assigning tasks to other people. You did that to me when you dumped a list of documents on my commons talk page. It's not your role to assign jobs to others and then come up with reasons and excuses as to why you can't do it. If you have something that you want done, create a wish list on your home page. I did it, and so do many others do it. If you don't have rights, ask for them. But do the work and don't tell others to do it. I did that only once at the beginning, when I knew nothing about editing, and the result was that I was ignored. And, nobody will get annoyed with your contributions. You do good work.
As for "doing windows", is a jestful inquiry to whether you also clean windows, and that's all. — Ineuw talk 18:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It is well-known by people (including me) here on wikisource that Ineuw created this project and that he "heads" or "oversees" the project - long before he even became an administrator. He does the image and text work in an excellent manner but also in a specific way that others don't usually use. I sometimes (rarely) edit about two pages and Ineuw usually has to fix whatever I did that is not his style with images and text. I too am in this position with 52 volumes of the SHSP (Southern Historical Society Papers} that I wanted and got placed on wikisource. It was stated that I would be the "head" of that project overseeing it which is similar to Ineuw's project.

Because they are huge projects and because people do things differently too many people with the good intention of helping do more harm than good. It creates the extra problems of correcting any and all of those "good intentions" and making more work for Ineuw to re-do work that specific style that Ineuw uses. Sometimes it is just easier and better when only a couple of people work on large projects since we all have our own, and often different, way of doing something. There is plenty of work to do for wikisource. We need not just step in without asking to work on someone's project. Kind regards to all, —Maury (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have that issue with the Ruffhead Statutes which need a consistent style  :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
If there are specific people claiming a specific work, then the Index page should ideally indicate this, or there should be a page that records claims like that, it would partly cut down on these sort of issues, albiet it wouldn't replace commonsense. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


I think there needs to be a discussion elsewhere about how to re-title stuff en-masse, so we don't have this discussion again. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
On seconds thought strike that, I have an idea. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I've put in an AWB feature request here Wikipedia:Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#AWB_Request_from_Wikisource.-_Regex_block_move. and the following. If implemented, this would solve both halves of how to re-align pages on works that were re-titled, If AWB can take care of the mundane stuff , I don't need to annoy you with the details, the cleanup "just happens!", which is presumably the outcome everyone wants? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Just do what you feel needs to get a job done. Trust yourself. — Ineuw talk 03:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PSM: Re: User:Ineuw/Sandbox8#Poems[edit]

<poem> really is a rather awful tag, especially in the sense that it makes the gross (and entirely unreasonable) assumption that it will be terminated with </poem> on the current page. Are you sure you want to encourage its use as indicated here?

[If you are looking for an alternative; as horrible as it is I suggest enclosing the block in {{centre block}} (or equivalent) and using an explicit <br/> betwixt lines…] 06:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL: Sorry for the late reply. I am resolved to using the <poem><poem/> tags for several good reasons. One of them is adding <br/> to each line defeats the purpose of saving on work. Another reason is that every template must be closed, so there is no difference. Changing it is not an option. Sorry.— Ineuw talk 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Both fair points; and of course it is your "right" to lay out the rules for PSM. I only raised the matter due to my personal revulsion of the poor "fit" this particular tag has with the LST concept—it is almost by design unsuited to the wikisources. There have been proposals for several years to eliminate it which one day might actually be acted upon.

Never mind, I'll try to fit in with your established practice; but please give me a prod if "muscle memory" occasionally rebels (as it does) and I forget. AuFCL (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not about "my" right to lay down the rules. It was all worked out in detail with Mpaa over two years ago. You can fault me for not writing it down properly.89 Many editors contributed, but until recently no one stuck around to proofread long enough to warrant my stopping work and writing a manual for myself. Also, the poem layout is used as it is on hundreds of poems already. Also I tested {{centre block}} and found {{block center/s}}{{block center/e}} to be superior since I can span pages of poetry and with an eye to other contributors I don't want to use two different templates for the same thing. — Ineuw talk 00:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
As usual nothing is written in stones. If you want to re-evaluate, I can easily provide a list of pages with <poem> tags:
Vol 1: Popular Science Monthly Volume 1.djvu/187, 230, 425, 453, 467, 471, 672, 699, 716--Mpaa (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You are right. It is nothing to do with your right to write the rules. It is "our" right to assign arbitrary condign blame upon you for not clearly delineating them and every possible perverse inconsistency which may arise, not excluding future changes in areas you cannot reasonably be expected to have anticipated… (I think you get the thankless aspect of authority when seen through the unreasoning filter of auditorial responsibility.)

About now in this tease I'd better take some heat for not elaborating earlier and typing "{{centre block}} (or equivalent)" when my mind was going "if I start listing out the /s, /e, /c alternatives somebody's little brain will pop."

Listen Bud. We are more or less on the same page. O.K.? AuFCL (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

By the bye, did you really mean to reveal yourself as a DDG paranoic (as indeed—but of course would never—am I—er…)? AuFCL (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Go on, add Greasemonkey. You know you want to. AuFCL (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you check out my collection? I use DDG because I find Google intrusive and irksome. I already have Chrome and they still offering it. — Ineuw talk 03:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Shrug: [edit]

Umm, you know everything I want to say about this already, so why should I bother to? NFINFINFINFI… AuFCL (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please say it. In my view, I would delete it. Certainly not necessary to add to garbage stored on the Commons. I would also get rid of the numerous images of the AK-47 stored on Wikisource. — Ineuw talk 13:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I just did. In all likelihood I shall never be forgiven… doubly so if proven right. AuFCL (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki mark-up meets your macro[edit]

See even the most simple of wiki mark-ups (2nd paragraph; 3 hashes = bold text) behave strangely when you wouldn't expect it to.

That is exactly why you can't trust anything but straight html (tags) to work in all the possible scenarios editors might face. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have the HTML codes in my Autohotkey macros, so that's what I'll use. Now good night. :-)

May I borrow your browsers (and eyes) for a moment?[edit]

Hello Ineuw.

I appear to have uncovered a minor glitch in caption handling within {{FI}} (you may be glad to know to the best of my knowledge {{FIS}} is unaffected.) I have mentioned the matter (and an initial proposed solution) to friend GOIII which of course he instantly bettered. With your wider array of captive browsers than I can get easy access to would you please be so kind as to view the last three examples on each of these following two pages and let me know if anything "breaks" unexpectedly (yes, the very first one fails in Firefox, being an example of the fault I was looking into; but are the others all O.K. in the other browsers, please?)

Apologies for so shabbily subverting your time; however your feedback will be most appreciated!

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL: Glad to oblige. Done and posted results alongside the test cases. All is OK. What is interesting is that Opera engine is also Gecko, like Firefox. — Ineuw talk 16:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, very much appreciated. GOIII's instincts are right again.

Also shows that not all Geckos are necessarily alike (or perhaps F/F 34.0 has a bug?)

As the other browsers already work I don't really see the benefit of modifying the template defaults as the problem is obscure and will (I hope) eventually go away if/when firefox is upgraded/fixed.

In case you are interested the issue revolves around the single reference to "inline-block" which appears in {{FI}} (but is absent from {{FIS}}.) According to our friend this probably ought to have been "inline" instead but I have now added a new parameter (not yet written up!) "sdisplay" which can override it at need. AuFCL (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)