User talk:BethNaught

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, BethNaught, 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.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

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! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A second welcome :)[edit]

Thank you for coming to help on Wikisource! Outlier59 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hope you find something fun to work on here! Outlier59 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I found Index:The Rainbow, Lawrence, 1921 reprint.djvu. I hope I can keep at it from start to (eventually) finish, it's a book I've meant to re-read for a long time. BethNaught (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Glad you found something you like—I hope you enjoy the re-read. When you get time, take a look at Index talk:The Rainbow, Lawrence, 1921 reprint.djvu and The Rainbow. You might want to consider changing the intended Mainspace name on the Index file and disambiguation page from "The Rainbow (novel)" to "The Rainbow (Lawrence)", since other works called "The Rainbow" are organized that way. It's up to you, just a suggestion. :) Have fun! Outlier59 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Future plans[edit]

After "The Rainbow" what were you planning on working on? I'm asking so that there isn't a "collision of purposes". I've also got no objections to you doing 'validation' checks on works I've assisted proofreading on, I've done a few recently. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In truth, I have no plans for after The Rainbow. At this rate I expect to finish sometime in September, by which time the UK will have a new PM, Brexit will actually get underway, and other weighty matters are coming up in my life - so I don't want to think that far in advance! Maybe I'll dabble in the POTM; probably it will take me a while to find a new project. But I assure you, just get on with what you want to do, and I'll try not to get in your way; if you have a work for your future plan and I happen to start on it, just let me know if you want me to stop. I do not presume to call dibs on a work on which I am not actively working. Thank you for the consideration. BethNaught (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
It's politically incorrect to send you kiss, so I won't do that. But here's a smile :). Outlier59 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, just as the UK has found itself a PM far earlier than expected, The Rainbow is coming in quite ahead of schedule, and I have some ideas for what comes next. True to my word, though, I'm not calling dibs on works I'm not working on actively. I have already struck one off my list because someone else started it first. I also plan to continue thoroughly documenting my work on my user page, so you can see what active projects I do have. BethNaught (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up spaces and paragraph breaks when proofing[edit]

Create page User:BethNaught/common.js to look like User:Outlier59/common.js, for now, with a single line mw.loader.load('//');. When you're in Page Edit mode, that should give you a list of Page Tools over on the left of your screen in the gray "Wikisource" section. One Tool is "Clean up OCR". OCR clean up gets rid of extra spaces, makes one word from words hyphenated across lines, sometimes removes spaces between an m-dash and adjacent text, and probably does other things I'm not sure about. Sometimes it keeps a paragraph break where there shouldn't be one. Use Page Preview to check before saving.

I don't know why all Wikisource editors don't get this Page Tool list right away. Maybe they do now, but I didn't have it when I started editing here. Anyhow, if you don't have "Clean up OCR", that's how to get it. Have fun! :) Outlier59 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very useful for cleaning up the paragraph breaks. I don't get why it isn't in the gadgets menu! BethNaught (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


Thank you so much for working to validate this book! It's a wonderful book, and we don't have near enough people doing validations of works, so thank you! --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! It's a great read (I never read it when I was a child), though there are still plenty of errors to correct... I'm thinking it would make a good featured text candidate? BethNaught (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It could, yes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I think this would make an excellent Featured Text. Here are some suggestions to strengthen your case
  • widen chapter width column (XXVIII. bumping into chapter name)
  • write blurb about book and add to the "note" on Pollyanna header. Mention sequel "Pollyanna Grows Up". (If possible, get the sequel proofed and transcribed, but that's NOT required.)
  • check how the book looks in various ebook formats, if you can
  • look at c:Category:Pollyanna and c:Category:Pollyanna (1920 film) for an eye-catching image for the blurb on the Main Page
  • make sure the author page is in good shape
I back the idea of having this book as a Featured Text because it's an optimistic story of historical importance. But it'll have to pass the Wikisource:Featured texts. My skills are limited, but I'll help if I can. Outlier59 (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Outlier59: Thanks for the hints. It seems there are some unwritten rules for FT status? Anyway, I posted a draft blurb and image choice at Talk:Pollyanna – didn't want to spam the FTC until there's actually some comment there. It looks good in EPUB and PDF (reading in Calibre), although sadly MOBI mangles the title page. I can't find a way to fix the column problem without either changing the templated used to {{Dotted TOC page listing}} or changing the default layout of Pollyanna to Layout 1, not Layout 2. Both those would lose the centering, though... BethNaught (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a good idea, putting the blurb in the talk page. I sometimes try to put a bit about a book in the header notes. I don't think there are any rules one way or another about that, but a blurb is needed to post it as a FT, that's why I thought it would help to have a blurb started. If it looks good in your ebook, that's a plus. Looking good in MOBI is a challenge; I'm not sure Wikisource has moved into the MOBI era. See if it helps to not specify a layout.
FT is very nice to have on the Main Page each month, but it seems to be low priority for regular editors. I got enthusiastic for a while, but I don't understand many of the technical discussions here, and most of the more experienced editors (administrators) seem to have moved on to other things. If Wikisource could be simplified for less-technical folks, I think simple proofing or validating a few pages each day might attract bibliophiles. Right now the technical complexity is a hurdle here. Maybe you can help with some of that?
Re the TOC, there's little documentation for that. I've used dotted TOC because it seemed to work... in my operating system and browser and Wikisource skin... and who knows what else. The technology is complex. Outlier59 (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
At any rate, I removed the default layout 2 template since it was causing multiple overlappings, which is a shame. Still doesn't work properly in MOBI.
As for making stuff easier for newbies, I think the complexity is unavoidable in the long run, but we can make newbies' first steps easier. When I first came here properly I tried to contribute to that month's POTM. I remember avoiding anything with any complicated-looking formatting but still I made mistakes, and had to repeatedly go back through my work to fix it. Unfortunately the last couple of POTMs have had offputtingly complex formatting, even to me as I am now. The best way to onboard newbies I can think of is 1) making a page containing the very basics of simple formatting, ie things like {{center}}, {{rh}}, {{hws}}, {{nop}}, that newbies need 2) choosing simple POTMs, with e.g. chapter style markup agreed in advance, and encouraging newbies to start out there.
The advantage of POTM is that a newbie contributing to it can expect good oversight of their edits. The disadvantage is that they will probably try to learn by example, so if there are too many newbies, or indeed established editors, making mistakes, that will propagate. MartinPoulter sometimes runs Wikisource training events and transcribe-a-thons in real life; he should have a good idea of the very basics newbies need to know. BethNaught (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


I'll ask MartinPoulter for training for newbies.

My opinion is that all Index file discussion pages should have a "Formatting Guidelines" section at the top with as many sample pages proofed as needed to show project layout standards -- especially POTM projects. I also agree we need some simple POTMs to encourage newbies, but oversight and feedback is time-consuming -- and also needs to be prompt and consistent. We probably need to start with something small -- one simple training page with basics (#1 above) and one proofreading project meant especially for newbies (to run until proofed, not just for a month) (similar to #2 above). I don't know if we have enough active editors who would help oversee this, but I think it's worth trying! :) I also think we'd have to propose it to the admins before taking it to the Community, because if they don't like it, it's not likely to work. Outlier59 (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

MartinPoulter doesn't have anything electronic for newbies. I'll look for some simple texts to suggest for POTM, as a start. I'll also start a simple cheat-sheet for newbies. I think I have some notes from when I started here -- I remember rh, hws, and nop seriously confused me at first. Outlier59 (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The Red Badge of Courage is suggested for POTM in September. I added Index file at Index:The Red Badge of Courage (1896).djvu. It looks like a pretty simple POTM project for newbies. I'm tired now, it's late at night, but I'll try to fix the index file tomorrow. Outlier59 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Just picking up on your conversation with @Outlier59:. @Zoeannl: has been working away at developing some materials for new users. It would be good to collaborate with her to further develop the Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource that we started a few years back. Something else that might help is to go through my Talk page (and archives) and look for the conversations that I had with Susanarb. I did quite a bit of coaching when she started. Right now I don't have a lot of time, but I would be very happy to act as a mentor/sounding board to you if you want to take up this challenge. I do have a Word document I created back in 2013 on how to create an Index, proofread and complete a work, especially done for the works in the Portal:Stratemeyer Syndicate. Some of the screen shots are now out of date, but if you would like it (and are prepared to share your email address) then email me and I will send it to you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Index:Zodiac stories by Blanche Mary Channing.pdf[edit]

Not a suggestion as such, but this was cleaned up from direct OCR, and I'd appreciate a second proof-reader, checking for scan glitches:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk. BethNaught (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

An Apology.[edit]

Sorry, I over-reacted.

Thank you for letting me know you had concerns:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm Bradlaugh[edit]

My favourite grumpy and brave atheist. Prod me when you are through and I will come along and finish validating (just in case I forget in my wanderings). — billinghurst sDrewth 22:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It will be good to have more of his atheistic texts up as well as political ones. BethNaught (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


Thank you :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Interested in Florence Nightingale?[edit]

I was thinking about getting more of Nightingale's works here? Is something like that of interest to you? Ultimately I would like to get all of her works her, though one by one is a reasonable plan. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would find that interesting, yes. I can't promise to be very active for the next few weeks/months and the tables/diagrams in "Notes on Hospitals" would be beyond my present skills, but I would be interested in helping out where I can. BethNaught (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

/"Thank you*/[edit]


Thank you very much for the clean up edits you’ve done in Cassell's Illustrated History of England, Volume 3. —Maury (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

BethNaught, I thank you once again for your corrections. As for the formatting I do that by hand since my editor will not do it like it once did. Upgrades changed that. I hope I have gotten better. You corrected one but all of them count. Again, thank you. Gratefully, —Maury (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Umm, there's no need to thank me so much. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I'm sure you're putting in your best effort, and after all I've only checked a small number of pages. I'm sorry for criticising you too strongly, obviously when more errors go in, more errors come out. BethNaught (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There are two dates of mine showing above. I obviously thanked you on two dates. I did not put in my best effort on volume 3. as I explained in Scriptorium and neither did the self-proclaimed "Brit" I was trying to catch up with. While I prefer people being polite and using good manners I am not thin-skinned regarding criticism. I do know what you mean though and it is kind of you. Cheers, I’m headed home to Key West Florida. —Maury (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


You are picking up a lot of typos, far better than I ever could.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, although it appears that Wikisource doesn't have barnstars for some reason... BethNaught (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Upside down Horseshoe ShakespeareFan00 so the luck runs out(true). I dislike barnstars. I lived in Richmond, Virginia and many buildings used them before and after the civil war. Now I am in Texas, the "Lone Star" state and those barnstars are banners of Texas Pride for gaining independence from Spain and becoming a Republic. They are grossly everywhere (including on their flag) and all year long. Texas is the only state flag allowed by the federal government to fly at the same height. —Maury (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Pilgrim's Progress, the Holy War, Grace Abounding Chunk1.djvu[edit]

Can I invite you to look over this? I was mainly proofreading away at this so I had a reference version to figure out certain parts of the facsimile mentioned elsewhere? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I put it on my list of interesting items. However if you still want to nomiate the "Every Child Can Read" version for FT, I would make that a higher priority.
One thing about the version you linked here is that there is some inconsistency, using both straight and curly apostrophes/single quotes. You ought to decide which and standardise what you've done so far. (A job for AWB?) BethNaught (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. And yes that would be something a bot/AWB should check for, when proofreading I try to put everything in straight quotes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I was not going to nominate the Easy-read version yet because someone else had expressed a concern it wasn't fully transcluded. You are welcome to put it up for FT yourself if that issue was resolved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management.djvu[edit]

Another one for your interesting items list?

At the moment I'm working through the index VERY SLOWLY, but most of the text of the rest of the work is complete.

I'd also ask if you have any experience with legal writing such as old Statutes, because of a planned project I had in mind... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Strike the above comment, I forgot note it still needs the images. Apologies. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any particular experience with legal writings, and certainly not formatting them for Wikisource! BethNaught (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:The pilgrim's progress by John Bunyan every child can read (1909).djvu[edit]

Thank you !! You are exceptional :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Pilgrim's Progress, the Holy War, Grace Abounding Chunk1.djvu[edit]

As I've spent some time away from this, I am giving it a second read, and I'm suprised at the number of very minor typos I'm finding. Hope you don't mind me fixing these ahead of your validation efforts.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Validating Prometheus[edit]

Would you perhaps be willing to validate E. B. Browning's 1850/1851 translation of Prometheus Bound? It's about 50 pages, and would make a great Featured text for later this year. We've never featured Elizabeth Browning, or a Greek play (or any Greek work of literature), and this is not only a well known tragedy but also done by a well known translator. I've been wanting to feature one of our Greek plays for some time, but none have yet been validated. This selection would fit the bill as well as draw attention to one of a neglected British poetess at Wikisource: before I began work on the volume that contains this play, we didn't have a single one of her published collections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I would be willing to validate it, but before that I have some technical concerns. For example, page 12's last line is not indented on the Page: page, but it is correct in transclusion. I know poetry is hard to format! Should I worry about this? I guess I could make a start on the pages without such problems. BethNaught (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Indentation fixed. The problem stems from the fact that the Page namespace "loses" the indentation if a <div> that has been opened hasn't also been closed. I probably put the closing in there, but at the time didn't realize that a footer containing only a </div> is disregarded by the wiki software when you save. I know about this problem now, and that it has to be solved using {{div end}}, which is what I added. If there is a problem with the indentation like this, it probably results from the same issue, as I don't think I was aware of it at the time. The transcluded pages look fine even if the Page namespace doesn't, so it's another quirk of the Page namespace that this happens at all. --17:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: all done. BethNaught (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your awesomeness! --EncycloPetey (talk)

Page:Annie Besant, The Law of Population.djvu/10[edit]

This is the only page that is pending validation for this work now. I've done the rest. Ciridae (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ciridae: I finished the validation. Thank you for your speedy but not hasty work! BethNaught (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@BethNaught: You're most welcome. Cheers! Ciridae (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management.djvu[edit]

Thanks, let me know if there are other works you'd like me to re-read :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

&c. rendering...[edit]

Thought I'd mention this is in passing, as I counted at least 100 instances where where I felt I had to check the exact rendering of &c., against the scans recently.

It can't be fixed by AWB or a BOT because in places &c, or &c. is valid. It needs every instance checked by hand (sigh). Thankfully it's a straightforward regexp to use insource: in a search on. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Wikisource doesn't have barnstars, so what would be appropriate instead? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Does it have talk page awards of any sort? In any case I don't want them. BethNaught (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Cassel 3[edit]

I've given the first 80 pages (excepting the TOC and index), a re-read. I'm less confident than when I started, I'm STILL not sure I'm finding everything, "." vs "," in some of the pages being a matter of inference owing to the scan being indistinct.

Shall I keep reading until I can't find anything? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Strike the above, Instead I'll ask that if you find anything still amiss, LMK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've got a list of potential OCR word swaps here -

*/ BethNaught and Shakespeare and anyone else re: Cassell's 9 illustrated volumes of England's History*/[edit]

If anyone wants to work on Cassell’s 9 volumes of Illustrated History of England, feel free to do so. Personally I would like to see the volumes done. I like doing images so that is what I will work on but others can also. Volumes 1-9 are open to anyone to work on. Happy Spring, —Maury (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi BN. Not sure where you are standing, so here asking. You are an admin at enWP, and one in excellent standing. You are clearly fit in my opinion to wield a mop here. Is that something that interests you? I know that sometimes editing somewhere else without having to mop can be a joy on its own, so this is a no pressure question. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: thanks for your thoughts. (Thanks incidentally for your work on The Subjection of Women today.) I'm flattered by your remarks, although somewhat surprised.
Certainly I would not object to being handed a mop. But the administrative side of Wikisource is not something I've really got involved in so far: I have barely participated at proposed deletions and copyright discussions, and rarely at Scriptorium. I could learn the admin policies, but as to what to actually do with the tools? I wouldn't know where to start. Perhaps you could clarify what the expectations of the community about experience are, as I'm not clear on them even from reading the RfA archives—there seems to be quite some variation. But that kind of ignorance on my part makes me doubt my suitability.
Also, I confess I had previously entertained the idea of an RfA at some point, but I considered myself disqualified for a time by my behaviour towards certain users, who do not need to be named here. While I enjoy contributing to Wikisource it cannot be denied that sometimes situations here bring out my character flaws. I had formed a notion that I was getting a bit of a "dickish" reputation.
Am I interested? Well, maybe. I would accept a sincerely given nomination. But I was not seeking one at this time. BethNaught (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikisource:Adminship. We have always had the approach that they are just tools, not power. I would have said that we have been more selected to trust in wise decision-making of people, knowing when they need to use tools fit for the situation, and when they should just not, when to discuss, seeking advice, and trying to stay away from radical enforcement of their opinion. Page moves without redirects, overwrites, crap-management, are as important as deletions, and CV, and more common; and maintenance in our index: and page: nss often require such manipulations. I will take this as a raincheck, and maybe we can revisit when you feel that your feet are more firmly on bedrock.
Dickish? Meh! Speaking plain truth is what many need. Acting firmly and within the consensus is fine. Being outspoken, and occasionally pointy is a character trait, while acting on informed views and fairly, and outside (solely) of one's opinion is consensus. FWIW I like your thoughtful points of view, your thoroughness in detail, the ability to start difficult conversations, and to politely challenge address what could be a drift into failure; and to top it off, all done calmly. These are traits that we need and should foster to have a quality and resilient site. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I will bear this in mind. BethNaught (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Barrett Browning (Ingram, 5th ed.)[edit]

Hi, I see you're working on this too just now. If I'm in your way I'll stop. There were several broken blocks I've been trying to repair, and I was trying out different templates to make the smaller font paragraphs look different, but still easy to read. I thought {{fs90}} was pretty good, although not nearly as nice looking as the printed page, but then nothing ever is! Please take a look here, beginning with "So you think ..." I'll change it to any style you like better, or let you do it. Anyway, this book is too nice to leave in a bad condition, and please allow me say how much I appreciate the accuracy of your proofing! Mudbringer (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Erm, you're not getting in my way at all, and I'm glad somebody is working on fixing and unifying the formatting. Thank you for taking on that task! I don't claim any authority or experience in that regard. I was just working to fix some of the too many textual errors that got past the validation process—as you say, it would be such a shame for this book to be left in a bad condition.
That said, Mpaa seems to be having some ideas of his own about how it should be formatted—you should probably co-ordinate with him. BethNaught (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A different way of dealing with dashes at page breaks[edit]

Hi, just reviewing RC for the Nell Gwyn book. For dashes at page breaks I use the {{lps}} and {{lpe}} pair. A recent(ish) example is Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 4.djvu/761 & /762. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Douglass' My Bondage &c.[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you have scanned through the above work to make several needed corrections. I have thus far combed through Chaps 1 thru 5+ word by word, line by line, and have found relatively scant errors/typos. That's not to say further sections of the work would result in a similar outcome, but I was just wondering if, after your applied corrections, you feel the work is now up to par with being nominated for FT (whether standing alone or combined with the other work as was also suggested)? I am willing to continue reading through chapters if you feel this would better satisfy your concerns. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

See my comments at WS:FTC. Thank you for your work on checking the book. BethNaught (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I will still read through the book for my own personal benefit (checking for any errors), but at least now the pressure is off for a deadline in doing so ;) Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Appointed admin[edit]

Hi BethNaught,

I have closed your admin nomination as successful, and appointed you admin. Can you please update Wikisource:Administrators#Current administrators with any additional language skills or access?

Thanks for volunteering.

Hesperian 01:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Congrats, and thanks for the putting your hand up. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. Hesperian, you've already got all the relevant information for me on that page. BethNaught (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming a janitor! Green Giant (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Unused templates, and pedantic whitespace handling concerns...[edit]

As you have admin powers now would you mind reviewing the lists at the following URL's and speedy deleting any unused templates? , ?

Given that I am rapidly reaching a stress point, concerned with the minutiae of whitspace handling interactions between templates, transclusion and the parser, generating malformed output. I'm also sorely tempted to add the following the templates I contributed in good faith with code along the lines of {{tag:ref|<span style="color: red; font-size: 0.6em;">The content generated here may be properly displayed because of long standing issues regarding the precise handling of whitespace and implied line-feeds. If you are able to provide a version of the relevant template {{tl|{{subst:PAGENAME}} which is not subject to these issues, please edit that template's sandbox to provide a version which behaves in a consistent and reliable manner. If you do not wish to continue to see messages like this please identify the bug in Mediawiki or an extension and report it on Phabricator accordingly}}}}[[Category: Content which may not display correctly due to whitespace handling issues]]

Adding that tag to every live template I've contributed to would take a while, so idealy should be done by someone with AWB access or an appropriate tool to do it rapidly.

A considerable amount of the content I contributed in good faith to Wikisource is showing up as malformed (see Special:LintErrors) apparently because of precisely where whitespace is appearing in a template, parameter to the relevant template, or interaction between them when they are used or pages transcluded. Expecting a contributor to know the precise (somewhat pedantic) semantics of how mediawiki is treating certain white space sequences in order to write certain templates is to me unreasonable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this is causing problems and making you stressed, but I am not going to go through 200ish templates—many of which are in use—and do any bulk deletions or edits, because you are reaching a "stress point" and feel an urge to get something done. May I suggest that you really do take a wikibreak so that you can destress? BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
They are lint errors... indicators, nothing more, nothing less. The maxim of "How do you eat an elephant?" comes to mind. 22:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Side issue can you put some kind of page protection on the most recent revision of {{cl-act-paragraph}} and {{cl-act-title}}, After some very slow and careful line by line analysis, it should (famous last words) now be "stable" again (at least until there is a viable alternative). However, given that it took 5 attempts, to get it stable again, I am really really not wanting to touch it again until there's a viable replacement that's simpler to handle. I've noted some other Wikisource use pending changes for important templates many works rely on and it surprises me that it had not been considered here. It would certainly stop things breaking massively due to "silly" or sloppy coding changes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Forum shopping - this request has been made at WS:AN as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
And already declined there so, struck here, thanksShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Women's Suffrage Centennial Article Collection[edit]

Saw a tweet that linked to Women's Suffrage Centennial Article Collection. I haven't had much of a look, though thought that I had better let you know, two lookers are better than one. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this, I appreciate that you thought of me. Unfortunately as far as I can tell none of those articles are hostable here. Some interesting reading material though. BethNaught (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Annie Besant - Bhagavad Gita[edit]

Thank you so much for continuing to add works by this wonderful woman. I would like to nudge you to transcribe her translation of the Bhagavad Gita, specifically the 4th edition parallel text to which I've linked an external scan from her author page. The fact that Annie Besant's translation was selected for this publication, by an Indian publisher, says a great deal about the value of her translation.

Unlike other parallel texts, the original and English are not side by side, but rather a verse of the Bhagavad Gita is given, followed by Besant's translation. The verses are numbered for reference, and clarifying footnotes have been added. All this together makes it a great resource, in addition to the fact that this work is one of the gems of world literature. The only catch is that we would need to find someone familiar enough with Devanagari script (and ideally some familiarity with Sanskrit). I may be able to locate someone to help with that from my contacts on other projects.

Again, I would strongly urge you to consider working on this text. It would add another great work of world literature; advance the profile and utility of Wikisource; allow for citable quotations at Wikiquote and Wikipedia; and would certainly be worth featuring once it has been validated. Cheers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me Annie Besant is amazing, although I wasn't aware of her work in this area. I agree with you, it would be a fantastic book for Wikisource to have. However I am worried because the publisher, G. A. Natesan's copyrights do not expire in the UK until Jan 2019. The ads from the end could be cut, but not the publisher's foreword. IANAL so I'd rather avoid it for the time being. Sorry. BethNaught (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: 2019 is here, and as you have seen, I have uploaded the scan. I can't promise to make rapid progress and I can't read Devanagari, but I am interesting in contributing to this work. The first thing to do, I think, is to establish a layout guide, and then I can get started transcribing the English translation. Would you be able to assist with the layout? BethNaught (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can help some this week, and would be glad to see this work done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

See what you think of Page:Bhagavad Gita - Annie Besant 4th edition.djvu/11. Nearly all of the book consists of repeated units, mostly formatted in the same way throughout: sometimes with a centered prefixing text, but often without. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

See Bhagavad-Gita (Besant 4th) For a text of what this would look like transcluded, with layout applied. The Sanskrit is not proofread; I've copied from sa:भगवद्गीता correcting only the line numbers. I do not know the script to be able to correct the text itself to match the Besant edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: That looks fantastic, thank you. Good idea to copy in the Sanskrit. I just have one techincal question about the wiki markup, namely, where specifically should {{-}} go? On the second page you've put it immediately following each Sanskrit block, but on the first you put it after the English block. BethNaught (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It should go after the English block. The English text has the line number floating to the right, so the {{-}} follows the English text to clear for the next text block. It serves in situations where that floating line number gets bumped to the next line because the English text runs all the way to the margin. I've now corrected the second page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I should also point out two things: (a) The title I chose for transclusion isn't fixed; it can be moved to a new title. I simply chose something for the demonstration of what the transcluded text would look like. (b) The work should have its front matter on the main page and subpages for each of the 18 Discourses (equivalent to chapters). For the initial demonstration, I transcluded the first portion of Discourse 1 on the primary page, but have now moved it to a separate page for the First Discourse.

Further, I recommend treating the Discourse pages in the same way that we treat numbered Chapters (i.e. "Discourse 1", "Discourse 2"), rather than treating them as named works (i.e. "First Discourse", "Second Discourse", "Eighteenth Discourse"). --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, one more thing: I believe we ought to have two blank lines (or a {{dhr}}) following each block of English text. That way it is more obvious which Sanskrit and English blocks of text pair together. In the original, there is far less text per page, but once we transclude an entire Discourse altogether, it will be far more difficult to visually parse the blocks of text. I have left two blank lines following the English text, but an explicit {{dhr}} might be useful in case future proofreaders believe the extra line is unintentional. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd go for {{dhr}}—at any rate, putting in double blank lines over page breaks would look confusing, and I don't know how the software might treat them. BethNaught (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed you're marking the pages as "Problematic", but we can mark them as "unproofread" if the Sanskrit text is added (though not proofread). I had initially marked the pages as "Problematic" because the Sanskrit was missing, and simply neglected to change the page status after adding it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

English poetic formatting in Discourse 11[edit]

@EncycloPetey: I'm nearly there now—just 30 pages to go! But I've run into an issue:

Discourse 11 has a section, beginning here, where the translation is rendered in poetry, not prose. How should I format this?

  • I could just keep it left-aligned, and use <br>. But this feels odd when we're centering the Sanskrit poetry.
  • I could put it in a {{center block}}, but then the floating verse number is constrained in that block (if put inside {{center block}}) or on the next line (if outside it).

And that's me out of ideas.

Could you help me out please? BethNaught (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would simply keep it left-aligned. The applied formatting should largely correct the alignment issue in transclusion. If the lines are very short, and you feel this isn't enough, you can use something like <div style="margin-left:3em"> to buffer the verses away from the left margin. Although there is a template for {{overfloat right}}, it would require foreknowledge of the amount of margin adjustment for each item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
So while I was asleep, Hrishikes implemented his own style, which I'm just going to follow as it looks decent both on the page and transcluded. Thanks anyway :) BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi. Just in case you haven't seen it, when I have a brace in a table and it sucks the whole cell, I find {{brace2}} way simpler to use. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

H4N O heated  CO  H2N
Thanks for the tip, I'll bear it in mind for the future. BethNaught (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi. I've noticed you adding some interesting works, such as the latest new text. And apologies, I lightly proofed again, while I was reading, but didn't mark it validated as I doubt my ability to catch any error you missed. I did however add it to wikidata, to see what happens, and that turned up a link to a Japanese translation from 1985. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it interesting! Thank you for adding it to Wikidata, I still find it confusing how works and editions are listed there. BethNaught (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
'Scuse me butting in. Pretty well every literary work we reproduce is an edition. I have done a hack of the framework tool that allows one to have a left sidebar link to add an edition (and some other things). It doesn't allow all the edition aspects, however, it picks up the bulk. You will see it mentioned in my local common.js file. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: perhaps I'm being stupid, but I don't see it? BethNaught (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I have converted to an experimental gadget that populates the tools sidebar (if I have done things properly). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I like your username[edit]

Are you a mathematician, ? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of personal policy, no comment. But I'm glad you like it. BethNaught (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
C'mon! you could have gone for zero comment; nil to say; or I'm just iconic, but no. <eyeroll> — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
A cardinal error!—I categorically apologise. BethNaught (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Still Validating ?[edit]


was something I recently did and I'd appreciate someone other than me takes a second look.

I'm also looking over some other works I proofread in my early period here at Wikisource. I'd appreciate someone having a look at my recent contributions these edits to make sure I'm not still missing tiny mistakes like missing punctutation and letter transpositions due to OCR. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not validating at the moment—my energy and enthusiasm is being taken up IRL. But this evening I had a skim over Part One of that book. Here are the edits. BethNaught (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Of Six Mediæval Women[edit]

Not sure whether you have interest in transcribing Of Six Mediaeval Women (transcription project). I plan to complete the first chapter on Roswitha, but will go no further, except to set up the images. Then I will step away. So, if this book interests you, feel free have at it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Block needed for IP ?[edit]

I've reverted, but would appreciate an adminstrator applying a suitable block, as the sole content is the same or a reinstatment of what an LTA sock did a few weeks ago. Revdel on the revisions to apply DENY also appreciated. Please delete this message once the issue has been resolved, per DENY as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

In future, please report ongoing incidents not to a single administrator but to WS:AN or another relevant noticeboard. This was long stale by the time I saw it. BethNaught (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Wikisource Barnstar Hires.png The Wikisource Barnstar
I, Kaldari, hereby award BethNaught the Wikisource Barnstar in recognition of their outstanding proofreading! Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Gee, thanks! If only I had the energy nowadays to do more of it :) BethNaught (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The Religious Problem in India[edit]

This work is listed without a scan or link on Annie Besant's author page, but I found a scan (external scan) on IA. I'm not sure whether you were already aware of it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I see you've now added it to the author page—thank you! I wasn't already aware of it, since I prefer working on her earlier feminist and atheistic texts. BethNaught (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


Relatively easy to validate if interested.. If you find proofreading errors, stop , and let me know the page number. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Should have this proofread by the end of the week. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


In the most recent page I validated (Page:Evangeline 1847.djvu/21), I put space before and (where applicable) after the dashes ('—') since I notice that's how it is typeset. Looking further I notice the typesetting follows the style used in French Wikisource where spaces appear before '?', and '!', and also before and after ';' and ':', but not before '.' or ','. I am thinking it might be interesting to do the Wikisource edition of Evangeline in that style, but have only applied the idea to the dashes so far. What do you think? Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bob Burkhardt: I disagree. The style guide is quite clear to remove spaces around punctuation and I don't see any compelling reason to deviate from that. BethNaught (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Glad I asked. I've actually never looked at the style guide and just picked things up as I went along. I will remove the spaces from around the dashes. Thanks for the citation. Library Guy (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

On Page:Evangeline 1847.djvu/133 I changed "Windriver Mountains" to "Wind-river Mountains". In Googling around I can only find "Wind River Mountains" (except someone uses "windriver" in a website URL), and the hyphenated version seems closest to me. Otherwise I haven't found any typos so far. Very nice job. Library Guy (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted, I completely agree with that. Thank you likewise for your eagle-eyed validation :) BethNaught (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

modem to modern[edit]

Sometimes my watchlist cheers me up. This edit of yours was one of these occassions. Thanks for the chuckle.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

You're very welcome! But credit to @BD2412: for the idea :) BethNaught (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
People have different thresholds for cheer and whatever.... I have only this thing to share. It is how wikidata is making me clean up my categories. I don't know if you "do diffs" but the yellow is everything I removed and the display is everything that wd put in. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
And the book showed me how many of USA common weeds are invasive and some of our nicest as well.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Re vandal[edit]

I have stopped the inlet at Commons too. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki of Functions followup[edit]

Hi there, I'm a researcher for the Wikilambda project. Last month we held a naming contest and I'm following up with those who voted to see if you might be willing to provide some feedback to help guide the project.

This would be a 45 minute conversation about your past experience with other Wikimedia projects and thoughts about the future of this new initiative. I'm hoping to gather a wide range of perspectives so I'd be interested in your opinion regardless of whether you plan to have further involvement.

As a way of saying thanks, the research team is offering a $35 gift card (in your local currency) for participation. We could chat by phone or through a website for audio conferencing.

If you're interested just pick a time slot from this calendar link:

Hope to hear from you soon!

// jeff (design researcher) (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Nutcracker and Mouse-King[edit]

Would you be interested in validating Nutcracker and Mouse-King? It is a translation of Hofmmann's short story on which the ballet The Nutcracker was based. Despite not appearing on the main page since 2019 (when it was proofread), its statistics spiked this December as shown below.

Given its cultural legacy, and the spike in hits, I'd like to feature this short story in December 2021. But to do that it needs to be validated. If you do not have the time or interest, please let me know, but we have a long time, and there isn't a lot of formatting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Do you have death years for the translator, "Mrs St. Simon", and the illustrator, "Jocelyn SC"? As my country has 70pma. copyright I'm reluctant to work on a text without that information.
Basic Googling didn't help me here. I can pin a "Mrs St. Simon" publishing a translation from German in 1849; assuming for the sake of argument that she was then the common law minimum marriage age in the United States, i.e. 12, that means she would be 113 in 1950. w:en:Oldest people#Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955 suggests that she didn't make it to 1951.
Meanwhile w:en:List of the verified oldest people lists no Jocelyn older than 114. If Jocelyn died in 1951 aged 114, they would be 16 in 1853--unlikely but not impossible?
I'll confess, you know how to pique my interest with an FT, but I'm afraid this one is a little too close to comfort for me. BethNaught (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, but no, I haven't found proper identities for the translator or illustrator. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


I only followed the days long chat at scriptatorium on my watchlist. Remarkable in that I think if I had my computer I could have had it transcrbed here in less time than the chat took.

There is a book there which I cannot make the same claim about. Manual of the Trees of North America (Exclusive of Mexico) Project Gutenberg. The pdf for this is at the commons now. I proofed it for gutenberg until I found a mistake, which wasn't long because I think it was a scripting error.

It should be here....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear from your message a) which discussion you're referring to b) what the issue you're raising is c) whether you're asking me to do something about it d) if so, what and why. BethNaught (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm. Let this be my lesson for not getting the news from glances at an edit history being made. Wikisource:Scriptorium#Anne_of_Green_Gables is what I was referring to. You were summoned there as a knowledgeable and good proof reader and there is no mention of gutenberg at all. Please accept my apology.
The misconstruation (that isn't a word is it -- but it does look like a good nickname) did lead me to think about importing that particular book however. I should in my spare moments look into that and stop bothering innocents. I hope you are unscathed by this sudden appearance of Miss Construation....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)