User talk:Tarmstro99

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Sidenotes revisted[edit]

Hi again, hope this finds you & your's well...

I saw you attempted some changes to experiment with recently. With the same goal in mind, I took the liberty of adding a test layout and a small script that forces layout 2 instead of layout 1 for pages using the USStatCols templates to your User:Tarmstro99/common.js file. I hope you find them instructive if not useful - feel free to delete it if not.

The whole "point", in my opinion, is not to "fix" layout 1 or to force a so-so layout 2 for visting users but to have a custom layout envoked only for USSaL pages when applicable - thereby reducing the amount of templates & tweaking currently needed just to get the same meh.. rendering that was the default almost 3 years ago in the process. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the help. I am trying to come up with a way to standardize the presentation of the materials to users who have not taken the trouble to edit their own javascript files, on the theory that users who arrive here from en.wp should find the Statutes at Large content to be legible. I’ll undoubtedly be conducting some further experimentation along these lines and will be very grateful for the benefit of your stronger grasp of scripting. Tarmstro99 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem. The ultimate point is the same - develop a layout that "works" for whatever browsers are in use by "us" to the point where we can present it to the community as a permanent default (i.e. nobody is in love with the current Layout 3 and I believe this one will easily replace it once "finished"). The scripting itself is primarily another avenue to force what amounts to common HTML and/or CSS parameters and values. I hope you can gleam as much from the file I created.

Once a default is secured its just as to force this new layout as a default for USSaL pages (just as Layout 2 is now being forced in the interim). Most everyone uses java even without specializing or customizing anything and that will be the case here in the end. Please note - I have a better understanding of how this scripting seems to work since I've been a real pain in the ass about getting to this point in its development but by no means is my understanding perfect nor complete (in other words - we could use any help we can from other folks!) -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

US Legislative Data Workshop[edit]

hi, i noticed your work at Template:Public acts of Congress. would you be interested in teaming with the Cato institute started at w:Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Legislative Data Workshop and their open government xml data going forward?
hi i noticed your work at United States Statutes at Large duplicates a little the lists at Portal:Acts of the United States Congresses, maybe these should be combined. Slowking4 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

USSaL v124 is up[edit]

Hi, hope this message finds you & your's well

Just an FYI... vol. 124 was released at somepoint at the end of last month and I took the liberty of fixing the 9,000 page mess (yup 9K - because some Pub. Laws were technically from the 1st session, GPO just restarted the pages for each assigned Pub. Law numbered gap).

I got it down to the proper 4830 pages but am having some issue uploading to Commons so I pulled the text layer in order to get something in place (kind of relevant - contains Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc.).


Anyway, by the time you read this a new version should be up & with almost all of the text-layer in it "done" - of course there are Annex(es) to proclamations that never got OCR'd and some tables need rotating to make sense of the embedded text but I think its still one of the cleanest works I've ever managed to hobble together.)

@Tarmstro99: Drop me a line before you run that Bot thingy. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC) George Orwell III (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have looked over the 4,830-page DJVU file—looks exceptionally good! My DJVU conversions sometimes seem to add extra whitespace around the text (to fill up a letter-size page), which both enlarges the file and makes the text harder to see during editing, so I’m glad that your version of the file doesn’t suffer from that problem. Do you have any remaining concerns before I turn the bot loose on the text? Tarmstro99 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That's it - all I wanted was a second look by someone who knows the subject matter & now that you've done that; let 'er rip.

fyi - I cropped the margins while it was still a PDF using Acrobat Pro and that's how I managed to get just the content and little else in the way of "wasted space". -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Tarmstro99 13:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The GPO, Congressional Data Coalition, and Statutes at Large[edit]

The Congressional Data Coalition, a major lobbying group pushing for government transparency, recently posted on their website about their effort to OCR and digitize the Statutes at Large. Since we, you, have been doing this for a number of years, I think it would be beneficial if you could confer with them about the current state of affairs on Wikipedia Commons and Wikisource. I would hate for them to pretty much duplicate everything that's already been done.

The main website (I guess) is

Whats the status of the missing volumes, 45-64? Int21h (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I'm thoroughly confused. User:Joecarmel (Special:Contributions/Joecarmel) is one of the contributors to that project, and he obviously knows about Wikisource... I'm not sure if they know you're the source for much of it, though. Int21h (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Naturally, I’m quite pleased to see the work that the people have been doing! Let a thousand flowers bloom, etc. I'll look forward to seeing the output they are generating for the portions of the volumes that we are still missing here; I gather that their work to date has mostly involved matching up the tables of contents, etc. from their sources to our page scans, which is terrific work.
I’m flattered to be credited as the source of the project based on my Early United States Statutes site, but as I acknowledge on that site, I have done very little original work in connection with this project. Most of the volumes I have been working with were scanned by the Library of Congress’ American Memory Project or by the GPO. My contributions have really been simply in collating their many thousands of individual page scans into volumes that can be accessed as a whole. I also set up the corresponding index pages for many (although hardly all) of the volumes that we are hosting here. For newer volumes, I’ve been beginning with the same collection that the people are using (namely, the Constitution Society’s). However, I have also been doing some work that the Constitution Society has not, namely, adding the indexes and tabular material that appear at the front of each printed volume (but which are often missing from their scans), and scanning the volumes that contain private laws, treaties, executive proclamations and the like (which I think are not of interest to the Constitution Society, which has focused on the portions of each volume that reproduce public laws).
Regrettably, my institution recently discarded a significant portion of its microform holdings in the interest of shelving space, including many of the volumes of the Statutes at Large that I had not yet scanned. I am hopeful of obtaining scans of the missing volumes via interlibrary loan, but it does add a little delay to the project.
At the moment, the most recent volume from the “missing” sets that is available online here is Volume 47, Part 1, which was constructed using the incomplete scans that the Constitution Society refers to as “Volume 47,” to which I appended my own scans of the pages omitted from their file. I am currently working on Volume 47, Part 2, the content of which unfortunately seems not to be available from the Constitution Society or any other source of which I am aware. My scans of this volume using the microfiches available to me is proceeding, although slower than I would wish. Tarmstro99 01:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

TarmstroBot Issues[edit]

I was looking at the page Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 18 Part 2c.djvu/176. I noticed that the small capital letters seemed to screw with the bot. Just thought I’d mention it. There are some other strange characters, but such is to be expected.Ushakaron (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

USSaL v125 is up[edit]

... but not ready for BOT page creation just yet.

While the volume suffers from the usual "missing OCR" for a couple of proclamation annex tables, low-quality images & the like, the GPO's PDF embedded text-layer was surprisingly clean this time. I managed to strip the hidden GPO timestamp/metadata string from the page "footers" and cropped the white-space margins evenly for both left- and-right facing page scans with little trouble -- but introduced lord-knows-how-many errant "extra spaces" to the text-layer in the process. I fixed the majority of those manually before I uploaded the current source file though.

My gut tells me I can figure out how to make the text-layer even 'more perfect' given some time & tinkering so I ask you to hold off on running your BOT until I touchback with you.

See the new Index here...


... and if you're interested or find it instructive, the processed PDF is here...


Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template[edit]

Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:

Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)