User talk:ShakespeareFan00

Page Quality issues

Priority	Concern	Response taken
Low	Running headers for the Public General Statutes, I have a feeling the chapter indication may be on the wrong side on some pages, after checking.
Mid	Page:Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/146 - Table closure seemingly broken by using sections?.

Other issues

Owing to concerns about recent validations, please monitor this user carefully, If you have an issue which needs urgent attention, please contact another user or administrator.

See Also:/Sfan00_IMG

Hello, ShakespeareFan00, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

Sherurcij ^{(talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει)} 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Google Books / Print - Public Domain books...

I just realized I had never responded to your note on my talk page. I agree with what Jude said at the Scriptorium. The underlying text is public domain. Although I would not upload a full pdf from them onto Commons, I see no problem trancribing the PD text to wikisource (mechanically or otherwise). Nor do I see a problem copying a original illustration from the scan to a new PD file. w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is decisive on that issue.--BirgitteSB 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Radio

I have added some candidates for featured texts on WS:FTC, and the collaboration projects for the next few weeks have been scheduled at WT:CotW#Schedule. I suggest putting those two pages on your watchlist, and enabling email notifications in your prefs. The next collab project should provide some very interesting content for a program. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Cutters Practical Guide

ShakespeareFan00, I e-mailed the sites owner of where you found The Cutters Practical Guide. I asked her if she had the complete collection. I am hoping to hear back soon. Please leave a message on my talk page if you want to get a hold of me about anything. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hansard

I answered your question at Wikisource:Scriptorium#UK_.27Hansard.27:

I think some of my friends are already working on digitizing and making publicly-available all of the Hansard. See http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/ – Kaihsu (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. – Kaihsu (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Authors

(Move log); 21:29 . . ShakespeareFan00 (Talk | contribs | block) Author:John B. Dykes moved to Author:John Bacchus Dykes (Expand inital)

I was actually talking on IRC yesterday (were you there?) about our need to do this more often, per library standards, and to reduce errors where we have a redlink to "John F Kennedy" or something. I was thinking of creating a Category:Authors with unidentified initials to put these authorpages into, and then we could collaborate as a group to fix them all up. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Nikola Tesla‎.} 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bradshaw

Hey SF, I managed to get that copy of Bradshaw I have scanned in. It's issue XVI from 1843. See File:Bradshaw's_Monthly_(XVI).djvu. Enjoy. :-) Dominic (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Elements of Euclid

I suggest merging all the information on User:ShakespeareFan00/Elements into The Elements of Euclid. --DavidCary (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged them. Done .

We do have {{sdelete}} for use as required. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Works belong in main namespace

With Portal:English_Statutes/Titles_(Ruffhead)_Hen3._to_Hen6. you have transcribed a work to the portal namespace, and this is not correct. All works should be transcribed to the main namespace as that is where published works live. Portal is a compilation space, see Help:Namespaces. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to move it to an appropriate place :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing tables

Hi, the tables we have been talking about could look like shown below (start of article). A couple of problems remain: 1. text is bold and centered in columns and 2. references must belong to each collapzible table. The problems probably have to do with CSS, but I thing it could be solved by doing some styling. Regards, --Sir48 (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 Acts of the Parliament of England during the reign of Richard II

These are the Acts of the Parliament of England, which remained in existence until the Act of Union 1707, during the reign of Richard II. Preceded by the reign of [[../Edward III /]] and followed by the reign of [[../Henry IV /]].

1377 1 Ric. 2 Chapter Long title(s) Short title Subject Notes 1 A Confirmation of the Liberties of the Church, the Great Charter, the Charter of the Forest, and of all Statutes not repealed. Confirmation of Charters, etc. Act 1377 Confirmation of charters,&c. 2 Peace shall be kept, and Justice indifferently done to all Men. Peace of the Realm, etc. Act 1377 Peace of the Realm &c. 3 All Statutes of Purveyors confirmed. Purveyance Act 1377 Purveyance 4 Against Maintenance of Quarrels. Penalties for Maintenance Act 1377 Maintenance and Champtery 5 Confirmation of the Statutes concerning the Exchequer; Punissiment of a Clerk of the Exchequer making Process for a Debt paid. Officers of the Exchequer Act 1377 Offices of the Exchequer 6 Against Villains that withdraw their Services. Villanies Act 1377 Villanies 7 Against: giving of Liveries for Maintenance. Maintenance Act 1377 Maintainence 8 Touching Protections cum clausula Voliimus. Protections Act 1377 Protections 9 Gifts of Lands or Goods for Maintenance shall be void, and Assises shall lie against the Pernor of the Profits. Maintenance, etc. Act 1377 Maintainance 10 Confirmation of a Pardon granted in the Fiftieth Year of Edward the Third. Confirmation of Pardons Act 1377 Confirmation of Pardons 11 None that hath been Sheriff shall be Sheriff within Three Years after. Sheriffs (Re-appointment) Act 1377 Sheriff. 12 Touching Prisoners of the Fleet suffered to go at large. Prisoners for Debt Act 1377 Crown Debt: Escape 13 Obligations made by Spiritual Men to do contrary to the Laws of the" Church shall be void. Suits in Spiritual Courts Act 1377 Suits in Spiritual Court 14 Concerning Tithes. Tithes Act 1377 Tithes 15 That no spiritual Person be arrested during Divine Service. Arrest of Clergy Act 1377 Arrest of Clergy 2 Ric. 2 St. 1 Chapter Long title(s) Short title Subject Notes 1 WHAT Merchants Strangers may safely bring any Merchandizes into this Realm. Merchants, Confirmation of Statutes, etc. Act 1378 2 Against Forestalling of Wines Merchants, Confirmation of Statutes, etc. Act 1378 3 For Merchants and others towards the West Parts. Merchants, Confirmation of Statutes, etc. Act 1378 4 Against Mariners flying out of the King's Service with-out Licence. Merchants, Confirmation of Statutes, etc. Act 1378 5 Against Raisers of false News or seditsous Rumours. Penalty for Slandering Great Men Act 1378 Slander 6 Against Welshmen taking away Women and Maids out of England, and other Abuses. Merchants, Confirmation of Statutes, etc. Act 1378 7 Urban was duly chosen Pope, and so ought to be accepted and obeyed. Merchants, Confirmation of Statutes, etc. Act 1378 8 Confirmation of the Statutes of Labourers. Merchants, Confirmation of Statutes, etc. Act 1378 2 Ric. 2 St 2. Chapter Long title(s) Short title Subject Notes 1 Confirmation of the Liberties of the Church, the Great Charter, Charter of the Forest, and of all Statutes. Riots, Fraudulent Deeds, etc. Act 1379 2 Repeal of so much of the Act: made the last Parliament, as toucheth unlawful Assemblies in Wales. Riots, Fraudulent Deeds, etc. Act 1379 3 For Process to be made against them, which after Gifts made of their Lands and Goods by Collusion, fly to Sanctuary. Riots, Fraudulent Deeds, etc. Act 1379 Benefice

1379 3 Ric. 2 Chapter Long title(s) Short title Subject Notes 1 Confirmation of all Liberties and Statutes. Confirmation of Liberties, etc. Act 1379 Confirmation of Liverties,&c. 2 The Penalty of the Aulnager for sealing faulty Cloth. Assize of Cloths Act 1379 Assise of Cloths 3 Against farming of Benefices of Aliens. Farming of Benefices for Aliens Act 1379 Benifice

Ok, this revision of the sandbox is very close to the ideal styling. The problem that remains is borders. Borders are set in each cell and in the table body. Apparently they can't be set with rows/cols. Fixing the borders for headers is comparitively easy since they're few and we'll probably template-ize the code for them anyway. The problem lies with the individual cells. Setting the border for each cell isn't practically feasible. Either we need a workaround that I haven't found yet, or we need to make ourselves content with extra borders for the bodies (not the headings) of the nested tables.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Ok, User:ShakespeareFan00/collapsing tables has been templatified with Template:Table start. Creating good-looking nested tables should be easy with this template. Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

1380

4 Ric. II
Chapter	Long title(s)	Short title	Subject	Notes
1	FOR the gauging of Wines, Oils, and Honey.	Gauging of Vessels of Wine, etc. Act 1380
2	The King's Pardon.	Pardon Act 1380

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Template Review

As the Wikisource:Scriptorium#Template_Review discussion addresses licensing, it should probably happen at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. But lets leave it where it is for a day or two since it is already on Scriptorium, and see if there a quick solution. Jeepday (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved, Jeepday (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Template assistance

{{Statute table/chapter long}} of course cannot handle gap because it has no gap parameter. There is no passed override. Almost all of the difficulties you are facing is because you are calling a template from a template which in turn calls another template. {{Statute table/chapter long}} has no purpose as far as I can tell. You can directly use {{Statute table/chapter}} with one additional parameter which is "|Type=Long". You need to explain me why you want to do it like this.

If you want to benefit from my experience with 100% efficiency you should really tell me the issues you are having. When you tell me "Gap doesn't work" it is meaningless to me. I am unable to see the code of pages like Page:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu/31 as my view is obstructed by "something" that hides the header and footer. I am in essence trying to create a template blind.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Further to this I converted the uses. I've also possibly solved an issue I had with the Gap behaviour, see the sandbox for

Stataue Table Entry. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing pages?

Hey,

I just read in Requested Texts that there are 2 pages missing from the tables in Volume 1. Do you mean that the original work was flawed as published or that the scans were somehow left out of the .DjVu file used as the Index: at some point before it arrived here?

If the latter is the case, please let me know what .Djvu position number(s) the missing pages are suppose to be so I can insert blank place-holder pages into the .DjVu before hundreds of new pages are created based upon an incorrect page progression. Trust me, errors like that are easier to fix at this stage of ProofReading; plus, if the missing content ever shows up in the future, it is a snap to swap out the place holders for them instead moving dozens if not hundreds of pages just to make room for two previously missing pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The pages were missing from the scans,

This is the last page before the missing pages -http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/39

This is the page after the gap - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/40

I transcribed the missing page from an alternate set of scans on Google Books. [1], so it may be possible to carefully repair the source DJVU and insert the missing pages directly :).

Sure it is possible but I don't have any free time coming anytime soon to do all that. Inserting place-holders for now is all I can really do if anything at all.

That GooBoo version is missing pages as well --- but you're right about a 2-page gap at pages 36 & 37 at GooBoo when compared to our .Djvu.

I'd also suggest a check on the other volumes. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be wise, yes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with a reference to a statute

Hi, I'm having problems finding the legislation for the first footnote on Page:History of england froude.djvu/33. I don't seem to be able to find any legislation for 2 Hen. VII. let alone these capitula in our Portal or the WP list. I've tried a Google search but it only returns this work. Is it safe to assume that this is a mistake by the author? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I Can't find a reference to 2 Hen VII. either. I also can't find a reference to a 2 Hen VIII. I've checked both the Ruffhead Edition and the Chronological Tables Wikisource holds. I would suggest you contact someone that has access to 'Statutes of the Realm' which would prove this definitively

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Acts that confer short titles

Thank you for your message on my talk page. In answer to your question, I am aware of the following enactments which confer short titles on other Acts:

• The Short Titles Act 1892
• The Short Titles Act 1896
• Schedule 2 to the Statute Law Revision Act 1948
• The Short Titles Act (Northern Ireland) 1951
• Schedule 2 to the Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1964
• Schedule 3 to the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1977
• Schedule 3 to the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1978

Most of the enactments above were repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1995. James500 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In the Republic of Ireland, the following Acts also confer short titles on other Acts:

• The Short Titles Act 1962
• The Statute Law Revision Act 2007

James500 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Next point would be how to get copies of these onto Wikisource :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph break?

Just in case you see something I don't, I didn't want to change your edit, but I don't believe you need a {{nop}} at the end of this page, as the paragraph continues on to the next page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

BL Statutes, etc

I'm not quite sure about "claim", but in response to your questions:

• Yes, the BL has (as expected) a fairly comprehensive collection of published legal material, which appears to include a run of the Chronological Table of the Statutes up to 2011 (the 2012 edition is down as not yet having arrived). They're not that difficult to get hold of if you want your own copy, however; I have a copy of the 1992 two-volume comsolidated edition which cost me £6 a few years ago, and a quick search on ebay throws up another for under £15.

• Unfortunately, I'm not able to get scans from the collection made on request - it'd have to go through the normal chargable document-supply system. (I don't have any privileged access to the scanning workflow). I do have access to a large collection of previously-digitised material, however. It doesn't, sadly, contain any of the major runs of statutes, but it does sweep up a few published editions of individual (mostly local) acts. I'll see if I can run those up.

Hope this helps, Andrew Gray (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A followup - all the individually printed editions seem to be local acts (mostly from Hull, for some reason). There is a copy of Prothero's Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents illustrative of the reigns of Elizabeth and James I, but this is mostly abbreviated texts. (A few key Acts are given in full). I can run this one up if you'd like. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well - Wikisource has a Ruffhead (which goes up to the first decade of Geo3.

It was the specfic 1877 version, because that's the version Wikisource currently has scans for. Someone had begun a project to put the 2010 version onto wikisource but it was seemingly abandoned. Assuming they would be covered under OGL, I'd have no objection to someone providing scans to work from - The current effort is- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AChronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes.djvu (1878 - 4th Edition) - If someone has scans covering General Statutes up-to 2010 (which would have the 'official' Short Titles) It would be useuful in populating the relevant portals here at Wikisource.

In terms of exisiting digitised items, priority would be anything that has significant historical value, Acts to amend local byelaws probably aren't of interest (other than to local historians), whereas acts that authorised particular schemes like Canals, Railways or major Public Works would be... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Pages with damage or missing information in 1878 scans -

• 75 in page count of original Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hello! Some unexpected good news - I ran into a researcher today who tells me he has a pile of scanned copies of the Statutes at Large (Pickering edition) up to the late 18th century - I'll try and get specific details - plus a good number of them already transcribed. We currently have the Ruffhead edition of SaL; is there a page anywhere listing the various statutes projects on Wikisource? Andrew Gray (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated response ,

1. Scans of the Pickering Collection would be extremely useful (but it depends on the scan quality),Also based on the slow progress on the Ruffhead Scans, it would need a DNB level of project involvement to get it all transcribed. Not impossible,

but such a project would need publicity.

1. There isn't yet a central index of Statute transcription projects at Wikisource.
2. I've made an example page using data I've combined from the 1877 Chronological Table, Short title (1896), and careful examination of legislation.gov.uk here -Portal:Acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom/Anne/7Ann, It would be nice

to get hold of the Repeal dates till 2013 to make the table as complete as possible, (Or is this something best done on Wikidata?)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Easton Bible Dictionary

A-Az has now been done, there were a few articles in the wrong order and one non-existent article (which was redlinked). Everything has been corrected and EBD Articles Intercut with Headings A-Az have been removed entirely at Wikisource:WikiProject Bible dictionaries. At Talk:Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) entries for A are now 100% done.--kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please explain these contributions

Would you please explain all the quick and successive validations listed at Special:Contributions/Sfan00_IMG. That looks like a bot application to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your pattern of editing resembled another user's disruptive pattern of editing, and you were blocked to ensure you hadn't had your account taken over. A checkuser was performed, and it was determined that each of the edits came from different accounts. Your edits, while less disruptive, were still carelessly performed and are open to question. You are at this point requested to refrain from proofreading or validating while you address the issues in question with Billinghurst or a different administrator of his choosing. ResScholar (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

These validations have been given a second pass, and in places a number of minor typographical errors have been identified.

I would however like to urgently request why I got no notification of your earlier message when logged in as Sfan00_IMG.

Had I seen your earlier message BEFORE you decided to impose the block, the issue could have been resolved without the need for a checkuser or block. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I found six out of sixteen pages. That's a pretty large number.

Why is your request to know urgent? The only thing that was urgent was stopping a user who possibly had a runaway bot. Notification came through the block itself, and if you were logged on, you couldn't have been doing any editing or you would have seen the block.

I see a lot of recrimination here (and elsewhere), rather than explanation, and the blatant disregard of a request from a well-established admin (you are continuing to proofread). Therefore I am restoring the block. ResScholar (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(Responding from ShakespeareFan00)

By your direct request (namely the second block reason) I won't be editing until it's expired, considering that you've raised competency concerns. It seems that for whatever reason, the pages you've identified were prematurely validated.

Whilst I feel that undertaking the subsequent review, I acted in good faith, I can understand why you felt you had to re-block.

It would be appreciated if you could note any specific issues below, so that other contributors can help review the pages concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in. I was just reviewing this, because I hate to see regular members blocked. From what I can tell, the issue is not one of competence at all. The issue is that you validated 163 pages in 61 minutes, at an average of 22 seconds per page. It takes time to drive the interface — edit, validated, save, next, edit, validated, save, next, ... — so it is hard to see how you spent any time at all on actual validation tasks. Maybe five seconds per page max. Do you assert that you can competently validate a page in that time? Hesperian 01:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The evidence would suggest otherwise ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm, I don't want ownership here, and I am happy for any administrator to address and resolve this issue. I just noticed rapid editing and validation which I could not comprehend on a realism scale, and that was prior to the identification of errors in validation. Validation, even on the second run takes time, with an awareness to what issues first round proofreading can miss. I think that there needs to be an acknowledgement that the validation was rushed, and that a more intensive validation review for future edits would be valuable. If anyone is getting through three a minute, the experience around the table would say that the required thoroughness is thought to being missed.

If we have overblocked, it is from the impression that our initial messages were ignored, and possibly even circumvented by use of the alternate account. So we can AGF, and I would think that we would hear what SF00 thinks are the solutions. P.S. No need to send emails, these matters are better worked out at a community level. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to agree based on the evidence that things were prematurely validated. However, the subsequent edits were an attempt to address the concern raised, by having another look at the pages concerned. I apologise for trying to respond to the concern by reviewing the validations concerned in good faith.

It is my understanding that it's only the validations that are in contention? My solution in relation to that would be that someone else reviews the pages in contention (something that's already occured), this was partly why (in good faith) some of them had downgraded following the expiry of the first block. It would be appreciated if you could note specific pages below, so that when the second block expires, the works concerned can be given a second pass, by myself or other contributors.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't make a list of works to check when the second block expires, but I may make a list of the ways you appear to be showing carelessness, if not contempt, in responding to this investigation into your editing behavior. Does that appearance accurately describe how you regard this inquiry? ResScholar (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and now you'are making unfounded allegations which I am going to ask you to apologise for. Throughout this I've considered I've acted in good faith, so a claim that I am showing contempt is completely unreasonable.

Other than the points of contention noted above, What do you consider are the areas where a lack of care is being shown? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Having had a chance to review this, the concerns about a lack of care are not as unfounded as would first seem, Sorry.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the block, but would appreciate guidance on how to proceed when it expires.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

@Resident Scholar - Having had a chance to talk with the other admin named above, It seems that I owe you an apology, Earlier you'd asked me to stop validating/proofreading. I took this to mean that you wanted me to stop performing new validations (with an implication that you wanted the previous ones reviewed) , It's been subsequently explained that what you wanted was a complete cessation pending a disscussion. Therefore owing to this mis-understanding, I acted boldly, which was what resulted in the re-blocking. I will take it as a matter of policy, that a cessation request means a complete cessation.

It's also been explained that the concern wasn't the errors themselves, but that they were being made at higher rate than would be considered 'normal' where a sufficiently rigorus check was being made. That is now clearly understood. So my next question is what are the remaining issues that need to be addressed before access can be restored? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to mediate

Hi guys, I'm here because ShakespeareFan00 asked me to look in on the situation from a perspective of interpersonal mediation. You'll notice I have no experience here on WikiSource, so I have no expertise in the project's policy and I'm not taking any position on whether blocks or behavior were right or wrong - I'm only interested in helping each of you to understand what the other is trying to say, so that a resolution can be reached. So, knowing nothing about this issue, here is what I am reading each of you as trying to say (using my words, not yours). If I've paraphrased anyone wrong, please let me know below.

So, in short, it sounds to me like there was some initial confusion about what the block was for and how ShakespeareFan00 had gone wrong, and a couple people started getting upset, but now everyone's starting to be on the same page. ResScholar, if possible, would you provide some information to ShakespeareFan00 about what else you'd like to see from him that would convince you that he's ready to be unblocked? He would like to return to editing. Everyone, if you can give ShakespeareFan00 any information about how to adjust his editing in the future, he would like to hear your advice about how to do things right and avoid trouble from now on. Fluffernutter (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll make a start. For me there are two issues:

1) the response in between the two blocks of going back and demoting pages at the same time as fixing the missed issues was unhelpful. It means that either I've got to go back and validate a page that I originally proofread or leave it to a third pair of eyes to examine, who may or may not turn up.

2) not following the validation process when working through a book. Point 3 of Help:Beginner's guide to validation#How to validate tells us to "check the proofread text in the text field against the text in the page scan". What it doesn't say explicitly is that this needs to be done line by line, character by character. In some ways this read-through needs to be more detailed than the initial proofreading run. Are all the diacritics present? Are the correct dashes and hyphens in the right places? Have the typical OCR errors (e.g. be/he or tlie/the) been fixed? Has a line been doubled or omitted? Have the templates or italics been closed correctly? Are the italics/small caps or other text formatting present? When I'm validating I'm thinking about all these details and more. The other thing to be thinking about is "how will this look in the mainspace"? So for me validation is not just about content, but also about presentation. Are the heading sizes consistent? Is punctuation spacing consistent throughout the whole work? Are the references in the right place? Would this image look better splitting a paragraph as it does in the text, or following the paragraph end, or maybe even floated to the left or right?

I could go on much longer, but hope that this gives "food for thought". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to issue 1 - Other than demoting the pages, I wasn't aware of a method for saying this page needs to be re-examined because of an attempted fix. I'm more than prepared to accept that it's puzzling to see a page that was considered validated pushed back, but I wasn't sure how else to alert other contributors a validated page needed a second pass. In respect of the contentious 'fast' Validations by myself, I'd like a clarification as to the acceptability of re-assessing a validation that had been previously undertaken.

In respect of issue 2 - This is now understood and prior to the contentious validations, was the approach I'd been trying to use. It was also the process I was trying to apply in relation to the contentious validations, but from the subsequent review it seems I wasn't being as careful as is required (i.e speed scanning for differences rather than slow-scan). It is interesting that you mention styling and so forth, that's why you get left (in good faith) a note about template closure. I also queried some formatting concerns with the other admin, to be sure that these were indeed styling choices, but given the earlier contentious validations I am willing to consider these might have been a perceived as a confrontational approach.

In respect of some other issues raised

Sfan00_IMG is an alternate, but it has a centralised talk page. Because the actual talk page is not aligned with the account name, Sfan00_IMG doesn't appear to get new message notifications. For whatever reasons it also seems that an e-mail address contact had not been set-up in the preferences (something now fixed) which meant that neither Sfan00_IMG or ShakespeareFan00 was getting e-mail notifications about talk page changes. This meant that Billingshurst inital comment went un-noticed. The centralisation of the talk page was something an admin on IRC had suggested, but I am more than willing to see a de-merge if that helps solve the notification issues. This lack of notification also appears to be why I didn't see ResidentScholar's comments in respect of the first block until after it was imposed. As stated previously, had I actually seen the concern I would have been able to respond in a better manner.

In checking back the time-stamps, it seems the most contentious validations were done later into the evening local time,

and thus, I am willing to consider that I might have been tired and thus missing things that were not obvious. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

1) While it would be nice to assume that all validated pages are completely accurate, we know that sometimes there are going to still be errors and when we find them we fix them, but we don't ask for another person to double-check at that point. If we did, we'd never get anything done. I don't see the need for you to down-grade your work.

2) My mistake of not closing templates on the two pages you found was why I specifically mentioned this in my list. For some reason I'm good at starting templates, but often forget to close them. Normally I notice when I've saved the page and I have to go back with an edit reason of "fix template", but somehow I missed these. This is why we have the validation process.

With respect to the notification issue, I would encourage you to leave your talk pages centralised, but I suggest you put it on your alternate's watchlist. You still have to check your watchlist from time to time (maybe open it in a separate tab and refresh every 30 minutes or hour), but there's a better chance of picking up any notifications while you're online. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be more productive to fix the concern and leave a talk page note? That is something I can agree with. So my question now is what do I need to do to demonstrate I'm able to contribute in a non-disruptive manner? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC) I'd also like to thank you for taking the time to re-validate pages even though it's a time-consuming process. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that validation was occurring at all. This appears to be status-changing en masse to avoid validation, rather than an attempt at validation that was a little too rushed. Twenty seconds per page minus the time it takes to drive the interface leaves no time to actually validate. I think you are being disingenuous when you say "I might have been tired and thus missing things that were not obvious". I don't believe you were even looking. Hesperian 01:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As a rule I don't do status changes 'en-masse', I WAS actually trying to validate the pages concerned, and would consider comments saying otherwise to be an inaccurate reflection. Please assume good faith. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you, sorry. Hesperian 12:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying I am lying? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a nasty way of putting it, but we can go that way if you want. Yes, I am saying you are lying. To be specific, I believe the statement "I WAS actually trying to validate the pages concerned" is a lie. Hesperian 12:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank, you. There seems to be a perception of bad faith on my part which is inaccurate, and none exists. Hence I asked if you thought it was a lie, so that I could be clearer what you felt was inaccurate. I've attempted to respond to the concerns raised eslewhere in this thread, and I have a clearer understanding of what lead to the block. However I am dissapointed in the characterisation above. I have never set out to be deliberately disruptive, and as stated above I was honestly trying to validate the pages concerned. If you think rapid validation isn't validation then that's a reasonable comment, but I don't consider a honest comment made in response to a concern you had expressed to be a lie.

Additionally if what you were trying to say, was that no validation (even in good faith) could actually occur at those speeds, then I'm currently in complete agreement with you. I'm not contesting the block ( as I understand the reasons behind it), others have also given guidance.

What do you consider to be an appropriate and acceptable response?

At the very least the contentious pages need to be re-validated by someone other than myself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're finally taking someone's counsel, acknowledging that no real validation can take place at those speeds is a good step. I suggest you let others decide what to do about those pages and just offer to do anything that is requested. Unlike something intentional, you aren't going to be any more helpful at finding the errors than anyone else. At the moment you can't do anything anyway but when your block is lifted or expires, I hope you will take on a different project for a while (as in not a major validation effort). Format some poetry or work on some of the stale things sitting on my user page ;-) (Or drive on with the work on la.ws as a real break for a while). If you need help finding something to do, look me up. Hopefully, this is sufficient to close the matter.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've found the file I'm using at la.ws has missing pages :( Someone needs to re-build the underlying djvu and migrate the pages. 21:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Original response (reinstated after concerns were expressed about it's removal)

Sfan00_IMG is an alternate of ShakespeareFan00, and based on what an admin had previously advised, I'd centralised the talk page. (This also probably explains my query as to why I hadn't seen any notification of the earlier concern.) It would be appreciated if you could note any specific issues below, so that other contributors can help review the pages concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

During the first block, I'd undertaken a specific review of the recent (premature validations) because concerns HAD been raised (I only saw the note here after I was unable to edit), and I was responding to them in relation to the specific works you and others had claimed had been incorrectly validated. Following the expiry of the first block, I then went back to the pages I'd made notes about and using (ShakespeareFan00), and did a second and sometimes third scan through, which is why some pages were downgraded. These fixes and downgrades were undertaken in good faith, and I'd found some that hadn't been already resolved. Having addressed the specific concerns (that had been stated) in good faith, I felt this issue had been resolved with respect to the item you specifically mentioned, I then also in Good faith also re-examined the other 2 works that had been in recent POTM's and to which I'd contributed. In one of these, Vanity Fair, I found some issues which were related to the use of {{bar}} vs a dash character, these were fixed and a downgrade applied to the pages (in good faith).

At this point I considered that the issue that caused the first block was effectively resolved, and that I could resume 'normal' editing.

The formatting concerns noted on your page, were made in good faith, so that I could gauge what standard of proofreading was being applied. Perhaps I should have been less functional in my approach?

I then resumed what I considered normal editing from Sfan00_IMG checking over some items that had recent edits. I then checked back over the threads about (premature validation) and found another named contributor had been fast validating, and was carefully reviewing these, up until the point when you seem to have misread my intention on the formatting concerns (which was in good faith), and re-blocked. I consider that in relation to the original concerns I HAD responded, by asking what had been missed, had sought to understand what standard was being applied,had attempted to fix them, and in good faith had started to check for issues similar to those I'd missed.

You initially thought it was a runaway bot or compromised account, neither of which apply. You now seem to be saying it's an issue of competence. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.

You recently changed the Progress characteristic of Index:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.pdf to "Source file must be fixed before proofreading" — I have an undamaged version of the file, am I okay to continue proofreading based on that while the .pdf gets fixed?

Furthermore, how can I fix the file? I uploaded it in the direct-from-google state, with their disclaimer on the front page. User:George Orwell III uploaded a new version, with the Google disclaimer at the end, and with something called a "text-layer". I could see that he was a regular contributor to WikiSource and so asssumed that he knew what he was doing, but now the .pdf as it stands in the commons has many damaged pages. How would I go about fixing this, short of just undoing what GOIII did? —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 17:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Owing to concerns about my competence (sse above), I am unable to respond to your enquiry. I suggest you ask a contributor that has the relevant experience for assistance.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Temporary list of pages needing review (other than previously mentioned elsewhere)

Page:Malabari, Behramji M. - Gujarat and the Gujaratis (1882).djvu/25 Page:Railways_Act_1921_(ukpga_19210055_en).pdf/94 Page:Minutes_of_War_Cabinet_Meeting_2,_11_December_1916.djvu/1 Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large_-_vol_9.djvu/89 Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/31 Page:Veeck_v_Southern_Building_Code_Congress_Intl.pdf/2

Most recent Block

I'd like an explanation.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy of notes sent to ResidentScholar , Beeswax Candle and sDrewth (Billingshurst)

(These are noted here in the interests of disclosure).

Compromise posted to Beeswaxcandle (for reference)

Having had a chance to think about this, I am going to offer a compromise,

• That the original issue about the speed of validation leading to incorrect validations, is not now disputed. (I still maintain that there was no malicious disruptive intent attempted, on my part. I.E This was an issue of speed and rigour not a conspiracy.)

• That I was requested to cease proofreading isn't contested (the concern is on the relevant talkpage), even though I have concerns about when messages were actually read by myself as opposed to having been sent.

• That those bold edits(undertaken in good faith) in attempted cleanup, should have taken place AFTER a discussion and not before.

• That attempts to clarify the issue may have not have been as neutral as desirable under the circumstances.

• That it was over-bold to start reviewing the other users contributions for

errors, when my own ability and editing conduct in that area had been called into question,and given the request for a disscusion.

My proposed remedy is as follows :

1. The original 1 week block gets extended to 1 month ( owing to concerns about the handling of the response.) A week is also not long enough to find and resolve all the contested validations in my view, although some of it's already been undertaken.

1. A Second checkuser is undertaken to make sure that me and "the other user" definitely aren't the same entity, or working in conjunction.

1. Implementation of a 'topic-ban' on either of my accounts changing a page to validated status for a period to determined in discussion.

1. Concerns found with pages already validated or proofread to be noted on a designated talk page, where they could be confirmed and fixed by other contributors.

1. I'd like to extend a request for assistance in respect of ensuring that

future OCR cleanup isn't missing errors.

You have full permission to raise this compromise on wiki( sending it by mail in case there are any additional points you'd like to clarify or resolve.

-- This e-mail was sent by ShakespeareFan00 to Beeswaxcandle by the "E-mail user" function at Wikisource.

Copy of concerns sent to BeeswaxCandle (in regard to onging issue), copy for reference to Resident Scholar.

Not that I am qualified to comment on this but in the last comments on their talk page, I am getting the a distinct impression that ResidentScholar doesn't want to loose face, when their actions are critically examined. That they show enthusiasm for protecting Wikisource is admirable, (and most of they other blocks they've implemented seem to be completely justified against spam accounts).

Widux is noted as having claimed ( although rather too agressively) that ResidentScholar was "trigger happy". Whilst I can't support what seems to be a personal attack, the confrontational approach and characterisation towards users show in recent talk page comments, does make me concerned. Whilst I don't expect an admin to be conciliatory towards "vandals". I would expect them to at least respond, when asked to explain what was considered "disruptive". I recall asking at least 3 times what the specific issues were, even e-mailing Resident Scholar directly asking them to state clamly what it was. I

(From the comment you and others have made it seems the issue was about the speed and rigour being applied to validations.). To me a characterisation of Vandalism implies a malicious intention as opposed to merely negligent implementation of an action taken in good faith. So far I've note seen any evidence of a 'malicious' intent, only a series of unfortunate coincidences.

I would also draw attention to the last comments I sent you, I somehow doubt that a vandal with malicious intention would be willing to compromise. The original block was a week , (I suggested expanding it a month, because of the issue about response to the first block.)

I note that ResidentScholar is now posting a timeline of what they understood to have taken place. So far I am not seeing any evidence of collusion.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your various emails, including those above. I advise you to hold off on contacting admins off-wiki (including IRC) for a few days. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Email to Billingshurst on second compromise position

I do not have any objections to blocking Sfan00_IMG (it's an alternate, but it seems to have created too many problems, like not seeing talk page notices,or giving the impression of block avoidance.), I would however with assistance and supervision like to recovery the sub-pages which amongst other things contain test code for some templates I (or rather I editing as Sfan00_IMG) was heavily involved in developing.

Removing auto-patrol seems to be an excellent suggestion, and during this, I'd already e-mailed jayvdb requesting this. I'm also if it's possible (and after the above mentioned sub-pages are retrieved, surrendering page-mover/file mover etc..)

I'd personally be opposed to an immediate lifting of the main account block, you note that the response wasn't exactly neutral, and it seems reasonable this is taken into consideration. I'd also be opposed to an immediate lifting on the basis that they may still be unresolved validation/proofreading concerns (see my previous e-mail, for an example.), I'm distinctly unsure if we've reached the bottom on this.

I am however completely in agreement with you that the quality fell below acceptable standards. Subsequent checks suggest (by myself and others) seem to spot the proof-reading errors with the accuracy level required.

You state you'd like information on how to improve the edit quality, I think based on my own views if this proceeds as follows (if the block is lifted.):

• I limit myself to say 12 distinct pages an hour when contributing, although I feel it may take considerably longer than 5 mins to fully transcribe and then check certain pages.

• I do not flag pages as validated.
• I do not flag pages as proofread.
• I do not attempt 'fixes' on previously proofread or validated pages (Although I would like permission to note concerns on an appropriate page.)
• I don't edit (or create new) templates for now (Although I would request permission to voice concerns in an appropriate
• I don't attempt to set up the Main-space transclusions for now ( I can recall a recent effort where a large number of template transclusions 'broke' the software due to hitting template limits.)
• I do not under any circumstances take a Wikisource issue off-wiki. (This has caused enough friction already.)
• That rather than try and work across the whole of Wikisource, I work in conjunction with an experienced contributor, on getting a SINGLE work up to an acceptable standard. (The Public General Statutes scans should be suitable as a starting point for this as the formatting is largely template determined.)
• That there is a regular review of the edits being undertaken.

I handled this badly. -- This e-mail was sent by ShakespeareFan00 to Billinghurst by the "E-mail user" function at Wikisource.

You can stop emailing me. BWC is handling the matter, and my mailbog is just ugly. Here is probably still a useful place for the majority of conversations IMO. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

OK.. I will place future comments here, which is more in line with issues concerning transparency in any event. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Account merge

I've noted the following: - Wikisource:AN#Wish_to_cancel_or_close_my_wikisource_account In this it seems there was an extension to merge accounts (although it's not currently installed.)

I am also noting that there was a concern expressed (above and in the WS:AN thread) about the use of an alternate account.

I'd therefore like to make a formal request for an account merge of Sfan00_IMG back into this account (ShakespeareFan00). I've got no objections to a checkuser being performed to confirm that the two accounts are associated. Because of the block I can't request this from the alternate account currently, even though confirmation from it would under other circumstances be desirable.)

Following the merge, The Sfan00_IMG account which would be created automatically by an SUL login (I'm not sure how to disable this auto creation) could be blocked indefinitely as per the WS:AN thread.

I'd appreciate the view of administrator or crat on this as it would require technical assistance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorting out the two accounts

Hi, Billinghurst has moved your subpages across from SFan00 IMG to be subpages of this account. We can't currently do the account history merge you mention in the thread above and it has some bugs still that wouldn't be helpful. As a result when you start validating again (after expiry of the agreed period) you will need to be very careful not to validate pages that you worked on under the alternate account. We can discuss strategies for this at the time. Is there anything else that needs to be migrated? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(In response)

There is the issue of the main user page, which needs to be carefully merged into the main User page.

For this purpose will you need both accounts to be unblocked while you do it, or will you be able to do this from just the main account? I guess what I'm really getting at is do we need to temporarily unblock Sfan00 IMG so that you can retrieve things or can we take it straight to indef and just leave you with your main account? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't need 'edit' access to the other account to recover the source code View Source tab ?

And retrieved although within a comment on this page until the unblock is completed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Other remaining issues

• Possible revalidation of pages flagged as validated from either account. - On a cursory scan I'm still finding typos, and my contribution history from Sfan00 is somewhat prolific.
• Clarification as to if I should apply the agreed contribution cap to all namespaces. I'd prefer it if I was not talk page limited, but that needs a discussions. The intention was that when I found concerns I'd leave a talk page note.
• Clarification about re-reads of past contributions ( Comments being noted on a suitable talk page, see above.)

There may be others. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll sort this lot out with you once we've got the accounts sorted out. If this happens while I'm offline (next few hours) then maybe restrict yourself to continuting to sort out the Short Titles Act. It would be good see this progress. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

One remaining issue I've just thought of concerns , pages that link to the moved subpages.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Block Lifted?

Just checked my contributions page, the block is seemingly lifted.

I am not going to immediately start contributing again because there are still some concerns remaining. So I am in effect awaiting a "go" from the admins. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the block has been lifted. Let's now work out where to start again. We want you to avoid validating pages for a while. Let's get you back into the swing of proofreading first. I want you to pick a couple of your projects that really interest you and focus on those. I suggest a maximum of three to begin with, but select them so that they are on different topic areas. That way you can give yourself variety without exhausting yourself.

I also suggest you watch progress through Index:Mediaevalleicest00billrich.djvu. An editor with an interest in this work is going to validate it with me in the background. Have a look at the sorts of things we pick up and see if there's a pattern to them. This will help you work out what your common errors are. (Those unclosed templates you picked up is one of my common errors.)

I've temporarily taken the auto-patrolled flag off your account so that it's easier to find your edits on RC. Once we've got the flow going again, we'll put the flag back with no hesitations.

Let me know if there's anything else you want me to cover for the immediate first period. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

See Section Page Quality Issues at the top of this page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to start marking pages as Proofread

Hi, I've had a look through your contributions from the last couple of days. I am more than happy for you to use the "Proofread" status for pages that you have completed ready for someone else to Validate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on a 3 step verification. I.E Whilst I may typeset and format to an acceptable level, I am not going to mark stuff I've been the primary cleanup operative on as 'Proofread'. If you feel some of my recent efforts by all means upgrade them.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Inadvertent IP block

Sorry about that. It certainly wasn't intentional. Your ISP must use a set of rotating IP addresses and this is the first time since the block that they've assigned you that IP again. I've amended the original block, so that it shouldn't happen again. However, if it does let me know and I'll get advice on how to prevent it. Best, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well , given that you get 'sockpuppet' theatres, I was puzzled, but not overly concerned, given the software was working as intended. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

Hi ShakespeareFan, thanks for helping out with A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources! Your edits helped me understand several things. The main one being how to set the status: I read all the pages I could find about Match and split but could not figure out whether or how it applied to this project. From your edit, I surmise that M&S only applies to documents that have already been transcribed prior to the upload of an OCR-layered PDF or DJVU? If so, I'd like to update the relevant help pages to reflect that, to make this clearer to future WSers.

Also, I'm curious: why did you label this cover "problematic"? Does it have to do with the need to provide the logos? I'd appreciate any insights into your thinking on this! Thanks, -Pete (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On your second point, it is indeed to do with the need to provide the logos, and on the rear cover the Uniceoe recycling symbol.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to come up with an elegant solution (but may be impeded by copyright). Any suggestions welcome. -Pete (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Another category for music?

Hi, do we really need a fourth category for pages that need music to be added? We've already got Category:Pages requiring musical examples, Category:Pages containing sheet music, and Category:Texts with missing musical scores. If you're thinking about tracking pages that use the Score extension we can find these through Special:PagesWithProp. Pages with scores on them will have the "score" page property set. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I Personally think those category might need to be combined :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with that. What I'm mainly working on is the first category (which I created not knowing about the second). Once it's been emptied I'll get rid of it. The second category, because it's populated by a template, is the one that should stay. The page Help:Sheet music page needs re-writing and as a part of that we can tell editors to use the appropriate template(s). Ideally the template would be in the "missing" series, so {{missing music}} or {{missing score}} would be redirects to whatever the current name is. Probably also need to look at where "Pages containing" and "Texts with missing" are sitting in the category tree. Hesperian didn't find the first of these where he expected to and so created the second. So many things to do and not enough time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I obviously wasn't explicit enough.

• Category:Pages requiring musical examples will be deleted when all the Dictionary pages in it are done. The only way this category should be populated is via an explicit link in the footer of the relevant pages. I got it down from 230 to 180 when suddenly the hymn book pages arrived and have sent it back over 290. Please change templates so that this category is not used by them.
• Category:Pages containing sheet music will be repurposed to solely be a tracking category, rather than a maintenance category.
• Category:Texts with missing musical scores covers what we need it to do. I.e. both fragments of music and complete scores. It is this category that should be populated by {{missing score}}.
• Category:Pages containing sheet music not in score format (the newly created category) is redundant. We don't care what method is used to add sheet music as long as it works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In respect of point 3 - last night I redirected my template.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

New document

I am sorry I am trying to paste a document about the Statutes of Laborers 1351, to be clear I don't know what the havoc I am doing and please help me find a way to create a document, please & thank you. --GoShow (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

EBD

I have deleted Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897)/B-D as requested. Note that Wikisource:WikiProject Bible dictionaries will need to be fixed at some point. Hesperian 00:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Pentagon Papers

Thanks for helping out on the Pentagon Papers! It's appreciated :) – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)