User talk:Mpaa

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

(Archives index, Last archive) Welcome

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

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

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

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

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

Again, welcome! — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Author defaultsort[edit]

Hello Mpaa.

I noticed you added the parameter 'defaultsort' to several Author: entries I have made recently (e.g. Author:Michiel Adriaensz de Ruyter). Thank you for doing so; as I must admit up to now I had never even given any thought to how categorisation displays are ordered w.r.t. authors before (I presume this is why you made the change? In which case should only names like 'de Ruyter', 'van Klaes', and the like should be affected? Or is it better to add the parameter in all cases?)

I suppose I should start looking back through my history and seeing how many incorrect entries I've made now!

Cheers, MODCHK (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. {{author}} has a default defaultsort (sorry for the wording …), which is "{{{lastname}}}, {{{firstname}}}". When this does not produce the right sorting, you can override with defaultsort parameter. I then apply the override to names with prefixes. For this Author, if you look at WP, they use {{DEFAULTSORT:Ruyter, Michiel De}}. I apply the same rule, so that the author goes in the right position in the Category corresponding to the last_initial parameter, Category:Authors-Ru. Without override, it would go according to 'de Ruyter'. I also use it for names like "O'Neill", where I remove the apostrophe. In general I refer to WP defaultsort. There are exceptions, e.g. Van Gogh, or other cases where one needs to be careful and apply common judgement. I also prefer to convert accented character (ê, ë, etc.) to plain letters for uniform sorting.--Mpaa (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the hints. The only one you mentioned which surprises me a little is the prefix "O'", which I am used to sorting before "Oa". I shall have to be careful with this one!
Once more, thank you very much for the clarification. MODCHK (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Moths of the British Isles[edit]

Thanks but I already found them. I am working from the Project Gutenberg proofread which is based on the first scan you gave - this seems to be a second edition ca. 1920. The second scan appears to be the original 1907 edition and I have referred to it in a couple of cases where the first scan lost a plate caption. Happy New Year!--Laverock ( Talk ) 20:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

deleted soft redirects with links-to[edit]

I have just been doing some works around previous {{new texts}} and have found that some soft redirects have been deleted without having the links to them updated. Probably worth a check of previous deletions to see whether there is still existing old links, and probably more importantly to ensure that the future links to be deleted are checked. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably I did not fully grab how Talbot is working. I'll try to look at info saved in User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance, if I can spot something else.--Mpaa (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
He was around over this period, it might be worth giving him a prod. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that replacements in template pages are skipped as the regex expression looks for square brackets (see link_re in User:TalBot/rm-soft-redir.py). In {{new texts}}, link are not surrounded by square brackets. I did not carry out any real test though.--Mpaa (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the script only corrects square brackets. Back when I did soft redirect maintenance, I ran the script in fake mode (User:TalBot/test-rm-soft-redir.py, sorry, wasn't stored on this wiki before) to catch strange things. I can't remember an instance of soft redirects in the template namespace right now, but if they popped up, I probably handled them by hand. My guess is that, since templates break as soon as they become soft redirects, most of them are fixed by editors within the two-month period. HTH--GrafZahl (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Curious regarding User:Mpaa#List_of_Illustrations[edit]

Hello. Is the above perhaps the start of a collection maybe to be titled something like "Heavens, what was this (imbecile) user thinking?" Regards, MODCHK (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, It was interesting and I just "bookmarked" the page for future reference.--Mpaa (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I am just quietly amused that an experiment which at the time I thought might get me at the very least mildly censured for being silly (I am even surprised anybody even noticed!) might be considered "interesting." You are too kind. MODCHK (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed[edit]

I just closed Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Some_Napoleon.27s_Addresses Not sure where you are on the related project. Is it safe to delete the listed links without impacting your project? Jeepday (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I had no project. I just happened to came across a dead Index and and then I completed the proofreading. After that, I discovered the pandora box of all these link ... :-) No real interest in Napoleon actually ...--Mpaa (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for completing the deletes. Jeepday (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Who Murdered Napoleon?[edit]

Who Murdered Napoleon? Probably Nobody! By Victor Blair

http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/c_arsenic.html


In briefing over the material I saw some small uncorrected editing and I suspect there are others. I myself was in haste at the time and did not see how to do any editing in that area. My short and hasty notations include:

{ If it proves not to be Scheele's green, the evidence presented in this paper still overshadows any poisoner from this hypothetical crime scene.}

takethat fact into account

hair tonic s

prevent parasitic damage.

—Maury (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Scrambles amongst the Alps[edit]

Nice that you validate some of the pages. As I'm new to wikisource, I've got a small question for you. I'd like to understand why on page 266, you had a {{nop}} at the end of the page. Zil (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Because page 267 starts with a new paragraph. If you do not insert {{nop}} in page 266, when you transclude pages, it will not break the paragraph. You will notice it when you will transclude chapter X.--Mpaa (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I was thinking that the {{nop}} on top of page 267 was enough. Zil (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Oops, to be honest I did not edit and checked p267, I just assumed it was missing as I am used to see in at bottom of previous page. Anyhow, I guess either way should do.--Mpaa (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, one seems enough 2 isn't a problem so I'll try to put two for clarity. Thanks for your input. Zil (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
One is OK, put where you feel more comfortable.--Mpaa (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

nullifying code in vector.js[edit]

Your js file is showing up in cats as it triggers errors. If you start and end your file with

//<nowiki>
...
(all the js bits)
...
//</nowiki>

it will mean that it will stop triggering, and it will still work fine. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Double redirects and your bot[edit]

Hi,

Not 100% sure that you've taken up the maintenance task of double-redirect by bot or not but I figure best to comment on why its a bad idea.

Unlike other sister wikis where fixing most double-redirs are a "no-brainer", our redirects can be far more complicated. Changes in WS practice & policy over time has caused some unique situations where deleting one or the other redirect is the appropriate fix as opposed to recovering the out-of-date pointer(s) to the current target file/article. Using a bot to simply correct the latter cannot account for those situations and that's why I've kept going to great lengths to prevent/stop global bots from elsewhere coming in and correcting our list. I've been handling it manually ever since.

So if you are planning to automate this task, I hope you reconsider in light of the above. You are more than welcome to investigate and correct the redirs as you find or see fit - just please do it on a case-by-case basis. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Technically I use a script but it is only for convenience in the edit process. Practically I do it manually, I do not "fire and forget", and I monitor the results before taking any action. Sometimes I updated the redirect, sometimes I deleted it, based on my best-judgement of the moment, which from your note I understand it might not always have been the correct one. Any suggestion on when is best to keep and best to delete?--Mpaa (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
That's just it - from my exposure to the list over time, there is no rule of thumb and what appears to be the obvious choice is not always the case. Nowadays I go back through the edit history and see 'what links here' to try and piece together what would be the best course of action. Sub-page renaming done to follow some guideline at the time (i.e. over-simplified: Some Book/Chapter I - The Soldiers in the Forest to Some Book/Chapter 1 plus a REDIR The Soldiers in the Forest...) seems to be the most common clue to why a further change made to fall in line with the current guidelines results in a double redir. While deleting the first variant in the example seems like almost a sure thing, you have stop & wonder at the same time 'Where's Chapter 2, 3, 4,...? How come they aren't listed? I better check it out!' to insure whatever it is you are doing is uniform throughout the rest of the transcription. I know stuff like that seems like it would be rare but there are some weeks when its nothing but extraneous crap like that! -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the explanation. I'll keep it in mind in the future. --Mpaa (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Stanza et al[edit]

Hello Mpaa.

I don't know if you are still following this, but it looks like my grand plan for trying to simplify poetry layouts is all coming down in a messy heap. Sorry to have let you down; but it does not look like my idea has any traction left. MODCHK (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I followed up every now and then but could keep up with all the changes, so it is not really clear to me what you consider blocking in your implementation (other than the discussion with Hesperian). I think that a certain point the situation was quite OK. My suggestion is that if trying to have "one fits all" is too complex, take one step back and break the problem into smaller chunks. And we will have to glue the pieces manually. Cannot be worse than the current status today: no line wrapping managed at all and a lot of <br/> here and there.--Mpaa (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Well all of a sudden I have had a lot of (remarkably kind) input from especially George Orwell III and Hesperian. The major stumbling block is that my Lua code is far too simplistic, assuming as it does that the input is line structured. However, none of the commonly used templates {{left}}, {{right}}, {{center}}, or {{justify}} produce HTML like this. And as George pointed out, neither does commonly adopted practice nor the mediawiki parser.
To remotely make this work in anything like the current form would involve (almost) coding a full parser; which might break instantly any time mediawiki is updated.
And this is not to mention the rather strange interactions between {{hii}} margins/indents and {{drop capital}}. Funny you mentioned breaking the problem into smaller chunks, as that indeed was my initial plan. However it seems to have rather run aground. I am still thinking as to what if anything can be rescued; but all advice I have received so far as I said has been kind but amounts to "This is a lost cause." MODCHK (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding My suggestion is ..., I know had a part of pushing the scope wider :-) but if the mission is impossible, well a nice retrest maybe is the best option ...Anyhow, if I understood GOIII in his last post to LJB, not everything might be lost ...--Mpaa (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Teasdale migration[edit]

Want any help with proofreading? I can start tomorrow unless you're done by then. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. I am uploading content of Rivers to the Sea (Collection) with 99% of formatting done offline. Then it will be very fast to complete then (I hope). I did already Flame and Shadow with the same aproach and have in mind the migration of Helen of Troy and Other Poems and Love Songs, including moving to subpages. Let's start with Rivers to the Sea (Collection) :-)
I guess you will realise soon that I use double blank row + nop for page breaks. What sometimes is not clear to me is if paragraphs break or not across pages. Your experience will help for sure there. Thanks--Mpaa (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
All the above sounds good to me; I was planning on following your formatting style. I'll start tomorrow then. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Quick note: Do you know that {{Gap|2em}} is the same as {{Gap}} in length? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
First, thanks for the work. Second, Yes. The reason is that there are multiple indentations and I want to avoid that (remote) changes in default value might affect the layout. So there are 2 options: 1. {{gap}} for single and {{gap}}{{gap}} for multiple (a change in default will still be consistent), 2. set explicitly the value. I opted for 2 (less template transclusion), and to be consistent throughout the work, I apply it explicitly also to poems where it is not really needed. So, whatever they will do, the indentation will be always proportional in all poems.--Mpaa (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I think I understand. My "work" has been easy... Seems more like validation than proofreading. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wondering if you were doing any background (offline) prepping, or if Helen of Troy is good to go to proofread. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am almost ready to upload pages soon. It all depends where to draw the line between offline and online work :-) Will keep you posted. Anyhow you will notice it.--Mpaa (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
What process/steps do you perform offline? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Nothing fancy. I just process the complete text file at the same time so I can fix common issues in one step. Also being able to run regex on the whole file is quite convenient. Say, you change your mind on some template or parameter, you can change the complete work in one click. In general, browsing the djvu file and the text file offline is much faster, also when you wish to compare what you did in previous pages.--Mpaa (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I am copying the text now.--Mpaa (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
How would you render the 2nd line here? So we do it uniform through out the work?--Mpaa (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I would still use {{gap}} (2em) even though it will indent it even further. Rendering is important, but sometimes, so are things in the background (correct formatting). My opinion only. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
OK.--Mpaa (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mind the character change and character spacing here? Also, how do you want to deal with ellipses formatting-wise? There is an example on the same page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. If I'll step across, I'll align to that. Also ellipses I usually render like that.--Mpaa (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Page issue (if yours renders the same as mine) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't see anything strange.--Mpaa (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Problem disappeared. The pages did not match [left side had your text/right side image showed "Sonnets and Lyrics" (in a larger font than what is shown a couple pages later—seemingly from a different publication?)] , but after I passed by a few times, it worked itself out. Probably a remnant of page moves? or just my imagination! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to do one or two pages of "On the Tower", I can copy your formatting & finish. I wasn't sure how you thought best to indent & keep lines inline... {{left margin}}?, {{shift left}}?, etc. I don't have any suggestions; I'd probably ask for suggestions myself (as I am doing). Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also very unsure. I started with {{hi}} but soon realized it is not easy to align the starting K. and L.. Then I thought with tables, but not nice as well. I ma also low in ideas.--Mpaa (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
My first instinct is to ask Beeswaxcandle for an opinion? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
OK. Go ahead, let's see what he thinks.--Mpaa (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Asked. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Awaiting your approval; you can see it transcribed in my sandbox. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No approval needed, this is not my work :-) Looks good!--Mpaa (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Love Songs[edit]

As you saw I started Love Songs. I am not sure if/when I will the off-line file. If you still feel like working on this, pls go-ahead. I will anyhow follow the same formatting conventions as for the other works, for title, block center, etc. etc.

On more thing. Many poems come for the other two works, so there will be some version pages to be created, but as in some cases there are also "similar" pages, I suggest that we put the two versions there, identifying the redirect as "ZZZ (Teasdale, Loves songs)", "ZZZ (Teasdale, Rivers of the Sea)", "ZZZ (Teasdale, Helen ....)". This is what I have done so far in most cases, the rationale being to avoid the reader to go to "disambiguation page"->"version page" -> (finally) the wanted page.--Mpaa (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow your lead. Also, I noticed that the italics break 2/3 of the way down the poem "A November Night". I think the line breaks on djvu page 108 may be the culprit(?) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
LJB, thanks for your help. Now the migration is complete. What is left is how to handle with various versions of the different poems. I think the best way where one redirect to such poems exist (which is very common as when I moved them, they were generated) is to turn it into a version page. Where a disambiguation page exists, we can use that and place the direct link to the work if no redirects are already in place. Suggestions?--Mpaa (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like how I would handle things too. Also to reiterate that the transclusion of "A November Night" is still problematic (as described a few lines up) with the italics breaking 2/3 of the way down. And you're welcome with regard to helping out; your ground work made things easy. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep. It was a nop's fault. It was clearing away the <i> tag. Had to re-tag the next page in the body and not in the header.--Mpaa (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If you are interested in versioning, I have listed here all poems and links in the 4 works.--Mpaa (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure. I can work from the bottom of the list, and you from the top & meet in the middle. Can you create a versions page, redirects, etc. for "April Song", which would also fall under disambiguation, and I can see how you want to format/handle everything? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Probably won't be steadily editing over the next few days. I have completed versioning from #245 to the end, hoping I have done basically as you would. Let me know if I am forgetting anything. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, lucky you were not steadily editing ... !--Mpaa (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Ha! Unpredictable times these next few months will be. Thanks for the diversion, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

CE1913[edit]

Please see Wikisource:Bot requests#Volume information for CE1913. It is a similar bot request to that which I made for EB1911, and I hope you would like to repeat the first class work you did on that task. -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Please take into consideration the effects on the limited time, availability and/or bandwidth of others when you go about making oodles & oodles of what are obviously scripted changes to a series of pages. Either secure and USE a formal bot flag for this kind of stuff or simply enable/disable the flood flag already in place for such usage as needed.

I hardly bother keeping up with your latest adventures anymore because its too much work to pop-in during the course of a work day and begin try to figure out your haphazard edit-coding practices from one session to the next.

Of course, how you go about contributing is up to you but I make this stern plea today regardless with the hope you'll pay a bit more attention to how you approach these tasks in the future. Thank you for your attention in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a bot, the issue is that we would need to give the bot administrative rights if we are talking about advanced rights. GZ used to have it for his bot, so it may just be worth taking that avenue. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. No, we don't need advanced rights. I was just working on this topic Wikisource:Bot_requests#Volume_information_for_CE1913 and following discussion at Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_Catholic_Encyclopedia_Upgrade. And preferred to keep changes visible, to get feedback (especially for Charles Matthews, given the topic) if I was out of track. I can activate the bot flag or use my bot. I hope the problem is just the "recent changes" flood and not lack of trust in what/how I am doing it. My english knowledge is limited, "haphazard" doesn't really sound like a compliment, does it? :-)--Mpaa (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog and PSM filter[edit]

Looks to me as though I need to update the users who are not flagged by the PSM watch. Please advise. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I must admit that my focus on that filter has gone low. I think you can lower down the threshold to a minimum or maybe even remove the filter unless someone else needs it. Sorry for not following up with that.--Mpaa (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Tidying up PSM[edit]

Hi. Just began to proofread PSM vol 12 which you tidied up back in February and can’t believe the incredible work you performed. My sincerest gratitude. Also, finally managed to download the pyWikiBot from MediaWiki but won’t tackle it for a few days because I have family visiting. Thanks again for all your help. — Ineuw talk 23:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC) You're welcome.--Mpaa (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikisourcer's Barnstar
Thank you for your contribs to Wikisource, especially ones to Stories by Foreign Authors (French I). Timothy Gu (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. You are too kind :-) --Mpaa (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Half-way point[edit]

Coming up on the end of the first half of 2013 and I was wondering if we ever got around to solidly hashing out what to do about the BOT-ing of Category:Soft redirects?

Either way, if you can at least hit the first 3 months, it would ensure a somewhat shorter to-do list by the end of the year. Can you work your magic on them? -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest it is not one of my favorite tasks. I always forget logic and steps to document the result and need to re-learn the process over and over again ... If I could skip that, it would be a bit more appealing ... I will give it a look in the near future, maybe skipping the documentation.--Mpaa (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
If the previous approach & related script ( most of which I've always found a bit silly considering I have yet to find Any page with a high enough simple-view hit count [see page view statistics on any page's history tab] to warrant all this pussy footing around for the sake of vistors who never seem to materialize either way ) are just as silly/annoying to you as has been for me, then leave it be. I'd much rather exploit the opening to re-visit the overall practice in general at somepoint in the coming week or two than have you whittle it down into a "not-so-critical" state today. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Index:The Habitat of the Eurypterida.djvu[edit]

You marked the four problematic pages in this text as "without text". That's true, but it appears that (possibly) they're blank and marked problematic because the original images from those pages were omitted from the scan. Did you check against an original copy to be sure this was not the case? --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. No, I did not do (and think about :-( ) that. Changed back to Problematic with comment: "to be checked if image is missing in scan."--Mpaa (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group[edit]

Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

Global message delivery, 23:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

The title says it all. — Ineuw talk 20:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

PSM incompletes list[edit]

Hi. Can a list be had of the incomplete PSM volumes with the least number of unproofread pages?. . . meaning those that could be proofread quickest based on the page count.— Ineuw talk 22:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Does this help? [1]--Mpaa (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, many thanks :-) — Ineuw talk

Music in Index:1880. A Tramp Abroad.djvu[edit]

Hi, I've just done the score on pp /156 & /157 and have set the pages to Proofread. Do you read music? If so, the two pages could be checked and validated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am not very familiar with music and its terminology. Also I am not familiar with score notation as well. So I guess I am not the best candidate. I noticed something wrong in p156 (haven't check p157). I'll try to explain even if I lack the terminology ... I apologize for my description in advance ...
  • 7th note from beginning is upside down
  • ligature symbols in first row are upside down towards the end, plus last before last symbol is misaligned
2nd section
  • spurious "5" at top left of 2nd section
  • notes 2 to 5 upside down
  • notes over the word "kommt" should be merged?
  • ligature symbols in first row are upside down towards the end, plus last before last symbol is misaligned
  • not needed ligatures symbols or reversed on bottom line
Bye--Mpaa (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

mw.toolbar[edit]

Hi. Is your toolbar edit buttons still working?— Ineuw talk 02:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. They go on and off as they like.----
Thanks - guess we have to say goodbye to it.— Ineuw talk
Mine are still doing the same. Does this mean we'll have to say goodbye to Monobook as well? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, BWC (if I may be permitted the abbreviation) The development team wants it completely killed. Please see my filed bugs and the responses. — Ineuw talk 12:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PSM Volume 17[edit]

Many thanks for your help in cleaning up this and the previous volumes.— Ineuw talk

file / book names question[edit]

Hello Mpaa, I have a question: I uploaded Index:The Chinese Empire. A General & Missionary Survey.djvu and after a while discovered that "&" in the file name creates problems with navigation between pages of this work. I am wondering whether you know of any solutions. If what I say is not clear, I am sorry and will provide details later. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I tried to navigate a bit but could not find issues, as usually these chars are escaped in urls, but I do not doubt that they might pop up. I usually try to avoid such kind of chars, anyhow I am not an expert in the field. I am sure that if you post the question at Scriptorium, you will get plenty of qualified answers. Sorry if I am of little help here.--Mpaa (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Indian Biographical Dictionary[edit]

Thank you for the updates and corrections. For the Appendix pages where you changed the Index entries I have re-transcluded all the pages and updated the previous and next links apart from the last Appendix VII where there are two sub entries. Previously these were on separate pages but I think - after experimenting a bit - that this is no longer possible? Do I need to transclude both sub appendices into the same page? If so, how do I mark the sub-sections - does that happen automatically from the section names?--GreyHead (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as Appendix VII is concerned, I would put them in the same page. You can point to them as sections, using {{anchor}}. Let me know if something is not clear.--Mpaa (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

PSM Categories list[edit]

Greetings. We who are about to categorize, salute you!

I completed creating all the main namespace PSM title pages and wondered if it would be possible for you to email me a list of all article titles and their categories, from Volume 1 to end of 87? Thanking you in advance, — Ineuw talk 17:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

In your mailbox. Let me know if you need more or if it not OK. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Mpaa, in your "tests" you have closed up words that should be spaced in the Mexico-Peru Book such as. . .[edit]

Mpaa, you are closing up a space between words such as LakeTiticaca, ofQueen, whichthe , intercoursebetween, civilisationof, noconnection.

Happy New Year when it arrives @ your place of abode. —Maury (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks! I changed format to make it readable in main ns. I went through all the Glossary and I hope I caught everything ... I am sure that something slipped, uch as hypens for example. A second pair of eyes would help. Happy new year.--Mpaa (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I corrected the parts you didn't find and Happy new year. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Bot FYI[edit]

See Wikisource:Scriptorium#Reconfirm_User:MpaaBot. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep! —Maury (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A question about HotCats[edit]

Hi. I think that you use HotCats occasionally and was wondering if it's still functioning in your environment? Happy New Year, — Ineuw talk 22:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have it on in Gadgets but it does not show the '+'/'-' links. It already happened in the past and self-resolved. Let's wait and see ...--Mpaa (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's the same as it is for me. This means that it's a site-wide issue.— Ineuw talk 23:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

HotCats revisited[edit]

Hi, In case HotCats is not working for you, I found this instruction very helpful. Disabled all except HotCats and now it works fine. This has the added advantage that one quickly finds out which enabled Gadget wasn't necessary. Face-smile.svgIneuw talk 05:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Frankly I am a bit tired to chase bugs in the system ... I'll keep this pending for now, hoping that something else will brak whatis currently breaking HotCat ... :-) --Mpaa (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Translation redirects[edit]

Mpaa, thanks for helping move pages to the Translation namespace. I noticed that you deleted a number of pages (like Catullus 35) that I had filled with {{translation redirect}}. There has been some discussion about this, both on the Scriptorium and on the RfC about derivative works. What do you think? Personally, I tend to agree with AdamBMorgan: "Many links to our translated content are on blogs, forums, reddit etc, which are hard-to-impossible to change now. There should be something at our end of these links, especially when the content is still on Wikisource. Deleting the pages entirely invalidates at lot of work, outreach and enthusiasm for our project." Here's what one gets when following such a link [2].--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will refrain from deleting them in the future. At least, the information is not completely lost looking at the deletion log ...--Mpaa (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

VIAF data[edit]

I see you're having trouble with the "old" VIAF gadget (MediaWiki:Gadget-addViafData.js) too. I gave up trying to figure out how "patch n' update" our's a few days ago and opted to try and convert the newer version on Commons (MediaWiki:VIAFDataImporter.js) to work for us instead. I Posted its "availability" as a gadget in hopes some coder would jump in and re-write it. NOT!

Long story short - thru trial & error I had some success but it's still not perfect. Feel free to take hatchet to it if you're up to it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Now it is OK. Frankly I do not know what I am using now. Until this morning I had two options in gadgets, the "old" and "new". Now I have only a generic choice, so I do not know where it points. Thanks again--Mpaa (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
No sweat. I took the "new" one down since it needs many more fix-ups just to work as well as the crippled old one does. I managed to get it to behave under ResourceLoader in addition to your issue though & that's enough for me. I guess I'll leave it to Inductiveload to update it. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Trying to understand the purpose ...[edit]

On an author page where I had removed the authority control data, leaving the nude template, you re-added the AC detail. The AC detail is now pulled from Wikidata, so adding it seem superfluous, unless you are trying to override the Wikidata information. And if the WD information is incorrect, then we should be looking to fix it there, rather than locally overwriting it. Am I missing something? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was scanning Cat:"Author pages not connected to Wikidata", so I do not know why it was picked up.
…Because it doesn't have the parameter stored, and it won't. Basically, the form of the template is redundant as it tests for the existence of a parameter, and that test is now redundant as the data resides elsewhere.
No, I think that cat is controlled via Author template, not Authority control.--Mpaa (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I am missing which way we want to follow to connect pages to Wikidata and to port VIAF information to Wikidata and we are acting without a pattern or strategy. We still have some thousand unconnected pages. I also see no hurry in removing local information until the whole base is pretty much OK, it is just adding an extra variant. Once we decide to remove local info for connected pages, it is a quick work for a bot. Yesterday I have posed some questions on Scriptorium if you want to join.--Mpaa (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
And we will always have unconnected pages, as there will simply be some people who don't have VIAF data. With WD, it is now should be sufficient to add the template if it is on missing pages, and if there is no data, then flick over to WD and add the data. If there is no VIAF data, then we don't add the template. I am only converting templates where I have ensured that it is at WD and is complete. I have said that repeatedly, and included that detail in the earlier discussion about VIAF data, and local storage being redundant.
In a nutshell all we need locally is {{authority control}} anything else is "make work" here. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting this from? Its completely contrary to the points covered by Phase 2. We should not remove a blasted thing here until there are P:214 (VIAF indentifier) statements indicating an instance of P:143 (imported from) pointing to us -- English Wikisource (Q15156406) appearing on Wikidata. If there is no current AC template or currently a blank AC template - the practice that I've seen on WP is to at least verify and add 1 identifier; VIAF manually and leave it like that until a corresponding statement indicating importation from WP has taken place. A P:214 statement on WD with zero sources is NOT the desired end point in all this!! To be absolved of VIAF tracking we need to be listed under the VIAF identifier entry as a source. The more domains listed under the same identifier on WD the higher the rank. Go look at Wikipedia if you doubt this is way its being done. The only time you should find a blank AC template there is if WD is also indicating importation and attribution to WP as a source under that P:214 statement. If not, the importation cycle is incomplete!!

All that we move, manipulate or edit is lost until the 2 above properties are associated with en.WS in a proper statement box on WD. Your advice is for some stage or phase after that basic "statement" appears (along with any other polled and matched domains-to-identifier-# that may exist) on WD indicating we've been "properly" polled for what we have manually compiled; not Phase 2. The which-domain-is-missing-what and the mismatches detected between them can only be properly addressed that way.

We put ourselves in a hole when the first bot runs were isolated to just adding the enwikisource site links to established items or to create a new item if one did not exist. There was no follow-up runs dealing with our AC data (probably because we still had the "old" non-module template in place at the time And damn if I can figure out who can initiate that run now). IMO, The priority right now should be to manually associate at least the VIAF id with an Author: Then connect all the Author: pages that aren't already connected with a WD item (or create a new one if need be). Then ask for importation of locally stored AC info in the Author: namespace on WD. Finally - reconcile discrepancies between WS & WD discovered post importation. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? That is nonsensical. Why would we want to track that VIAF data came from enWS. It is identifier links, it isn't a fact like date of birth, etc. VIAF data is VIAF data and comes from VIAF, anything else is pretty irrelevant. Re WP and authority control. that is simply because that is what they did prior to WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes really. If its nonsensical -- take it up with WD. See d:Q309907 for a properly imported VIAF identifier that lists WS along other domains that reported the same. So I'll ask again - Please verify and add (at least) the VIAF identifier that matches your Author: page when applying the Authority Control template to insure the proper importation and tracking of AC info by WD.

~88% of the time, your findings will "match" what is already attributed, if at all, to other domains that were polled previously on WD so you may feel like that is a waste of time (I agree - without a manual "anchor" no bot will detect any given parameter from us). But that is what we [unknowingly] agreed to/allowed to go unchecked early on nevertheless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you would care to read d:Help:Sources you will see the guidance is specific. There is no need to even reference VIAF to VIAF, each authority link is an evident self-reference, so why in the hell would want to take some secondary or tertiary data from some other source? There is already sufficient queries about the "import from" aspect and the use of WPs as citable material, so please no further citing of other behaviour to outweigh the logic. There is zero need to maintain specific authority control data here once it has been freshly sourced from VIAF and available at WD. We are not a credible source, and there is no requirement for any tracking data when it is able to be self-referenced to the authority. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I stopped reading after "Items not needing sources MAY have sources and shouldn't be removed. Even if it's common knowledge, itself is a source, or claims have no sources because it has never been disputed, it's good to add a source to it." So just like the other day, I guess we just won't see this the same. I prefer to believe in our own contributors before any others and err on the side of caution from there - one way being the leaving alone of what has already been compiled in place for importation (which is odd because I always considered your obituary research & the like part of the reason to trust our info before others). New editions with simple AuthCont templates is another matter I guess. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
We are not talking about removing the sources, we are now talking about the (pointless) exercise of waiting for a bot to run through and put in more pointless and worthless statements. The link to the authority is the authority, that is the damned source, not some enWS or enWP article, which are at best examples of its use …. You wanted authoritative so I have spoken to Lydia, and the comments are along lines of additional statements of "imported from enwikisource" would not be useful or needed, and overall less "imported_from" statements would be desirable. Re my contributions, I am adding the WD data from source, so now you trust me, but don't trust me.

So there is no need to wait, to collect our captured data when the data exists in WD. There should be no issues with me trimming back to a bare template where I have ensured (and usually improved) the authority control data for the article, via WD. Now you will let me do it for articles that I have added recently? These articles differ from the other articles that I added previously how? Same research, same research ethic. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your help at Author:Frank James Sensenbrenner, Jr., much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your common.js[edit]

Hello Mpaa

I happened to spot your recent edit. Please review this and act (or not) accordingly, but are you sure this line:

        regexToolWithShortcut('lower [u]','upper()', 'l');

—should not in fact read:

        regexToolWithShortcut('lower [u]','lower()', 'l');

—?

Just looked a little strange to me. AuFCL (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yepp, thanks--Mpaa (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)