User talk:George Orwell III/Archives/2010

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Sources for court documents[edit]

Hi. We have a user who is working on Roe v. Wade, can you give some guidance on how to access an official site for the source. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You want something more than the one used in the existing article?
I tend to gravitate towards using the existing United States Reports whenever I can. The citation in this case is 410 US 113 (1973) which translates to Volume 410, Docket No. 113 from 1973. The interlink to Vol. 410's page has an external link to OpenJurist where more documentation, if any, related to the court decsion is fairly well-organized and cross referenced for the reader already.
Federal Court Decisions
Supreme Court decisions are published in three print publications: the United States Reports, cited as "U.S."; the Supreme Court Reporter, cited as "S. Ct."; and the United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition, cited as "L. Ed." and "L. Ed. 2d." These are available in Rows 28 and 29 of the Law Library Reading Room.
Electronically, the Supreme Court places recent decisions, as well as bound volumes of the United States Reports back to volume 502 (October 1991 term), on its Web site at:
Supreme Court decisions are also available at the following sites:
Findlaw (full coverage from 1893 to present):
LexisOne (full coverage from beginning of Court to present): (registration required)
HeinOnline, a subscription database available on computers within the Library of Congress (full coverage from beginning of Court to present):
Opinions issued by the federal circuit courts of appeal (the intermediate level of appeal in the federal system) are published in the Federal Reporter, the first, second and third series of which are cited as "F.", "F.2d," and "F.3d," respectively. The FederalReporter is available in Rows 29 and 30 of the Law Library Reading Room. Opinions issued by federal circuit courts in recent years may also be available on the Web, at the following sites:
Cornell Legal Information Institute:
LexisOne: (registration required)
Also, the Law Library of Congress's Guide to Law Online,, provides links to Web sites at which federal circuit court decisions are published.
Occasionally, opinions issued by federal district courts (the trial court level in the federal system) are published in a reporter known as the Federal Supplement. The Federal Supplement is cited as "F. Supp." or "F. Supp. 2d," and may be found in Rows 30 and 31 of the Law Library Reading Room.
Federal district court opinions are only rarely freely available on the Web. The Web site of the Cornell Legal Information Institute, at:, may be consulted to locate those opinions that are available. George Orwell III (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. The user was accessing another source for Roe v. Wade/Dissent White, this one, and I wanted to know what to recommend if it comes up again. regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you just wrote a page for the Help: namespace! What is a good title? Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree - there is a rather embarassing 'hole' where Help: for major reference material stubs (such as court cases, the Congressional Record, Statutes, etc.) could be better organized, but in the above the author is actually the Library of Congress...
Federal Court Decisions
I'd stick with the section titles they used - minus the references and links to their internal stuff of course. George Orwell III (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Legislation text[edit]

How do you normally copy and format text of bills, acts and resolutions? -Rrius (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you familar with the different stages of a bill (like engrossed, public print, & Enrolled)? It doesn't seem like it because lately folks seem to be transcribing everything BUT the final draft that gets signed by the president ENROLLED (i.e. as agreed upon by both the senate and the house → signified by ENR as in H.R.3590.ENR) George Orwell III (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
HEY!!!! its ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act´´ not Patient Protection and Health Care Affordability Act
I am quite familiar with the stages of bills, thank you, and I must say I take offense at your comment that it doesn't seem like I do because others have gotten things wrong lately. I can't quite understand why you would respond to a simple question that way. In any event, what I was asking for is the actual physical procedure you use to generate bills. I did the HIRE Act by copying from the HTML version at Thomas, but I'm not sure that is the most efficient way of doing it. And yes, I'm terribly sorry for mixing up the Senate bill title. The reconciliation bill was (up until its last day in the House) the Health Care and Education Affordability Act, so it was an easy mistake to make. -Rrius (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Many Many Many appologies for any percieved rudeness & curtness that obviously came across there for you - it was not intentional whatsoever. I was more flustered that day because it happen to be the day the other folk(s) started pages/articles on the same bill nearly all at the same time. I was mearly hoping to round up the efforts into focusing on one project. Again - I am sorry for my tone above & thanks for pitching in.
Now back to the issue at hand - unfortunately, the THOMAS versions of a bill rarely post in full when the bill is as large as the PPACA was. Additionally neither the page-by-page view nor the printer friendly view nor any PDF incarnation of either comes close to reflecting the final enrollment as sent to GPO and as published in the coming Statutes at Large volume. The best version to use at THOMAS would be the XML version - but that is nearly as slow to be posted as the update is over on the GPO servers. The XML version of the content needs to be copied and pasted into an appropriate editor to break all the links without losing the general format (well at that's how I start it that is). Also, as you probably know, there is little point in posting anything other than the PP (Public Print) or ENR (enrolled) versions.
Rather than repeating myself here - please take a peek at the comments I left a co-contributor recently. Let me know if something is not clear or needs a further pointer. George Orwell III (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer at Template:Act of Congress[edit]

Thanks for adding Template:Act of Congress to the text I recently uploaded. I just wanted to point out one small thing: at least at Wikipedia, there's been a principle that the site's general disclaimer is enough and that no further disclaimers are needed beyond this. So I've modified the text to a wording I prefer - of course, you can do with it as you will. Mike Serfas (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I'm not a great fan of that template anyway and it's original "overseer" is now long gone too. It makes sense to trim it down as much as possible.
I do have concerns over the title and the susequent redirects that you have in place now. The content is from the Fed. Circular containing the Banking Act of 1933, among other things, so it might have been better to use the official document designation for the pagename and simply redirect "Banking Act of 1933" to the preamble, purpose, enacting clause, short title, or what ever you feel works best instead. The true publication of the Act in Statutes at Large volume 48 is linked on the discussion page.
I don't know why anybody would think it's hard to find, but that's the blogosphere at work I guess. George Orwell III (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right about the page name - feel free to move the page and adjust the redirects if I don't - but I'm not precisely sure what the most proper title is for the Federal Reserve circular. I justified the current name to myself because so far as I could tell from the original source, the circular itself was titled "Banking Act of 1933" ;) I think that Martens' point about the document being hard to find is directed less to the expert and more toward the people discussing this law on newspaper comment pages — it's drawing a surprising amount of interest for a repealed law from 1933. Mike Serfas (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


I don't understand your recent edits on this page. Every single one of your changes takes it away from the text that is actually written on the image. Nothing on that page is in small caps. "A Proclamation" is not in all caps. "Therefore" is not capitalized. Most frustrating, you changed it back to the incorrect spelling of necessarry when it's very clear from the image that it ends in ary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My primary concern is the end product, or transclusion in this case, (the one that non-WS familar or regular folks would find readable/useable). I was just thinking ahead to the point where all these loose, published in the 19th century, never formally published, or what-ever-you-like Proclamations were collected, compiled and re-numbered (& is currently used). Sorry I guess. George Orwell III (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Satellite Television Extension Act of 2010[edit]

something flawed with the header, and needs someone literate with the topic matter. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I hope George Orwell III (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Out of my comfort zone[edit]

See the recent edits. I believe that it doesn't align with your nomenclature. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just saw there was a backlog and decided to help. If I'm not doing things right, or you want me to go away, just tell me. Guy0307 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Gday Guy, not my intention. From the little bit of my knowledge base, it tingled an antenna, so alerted one of our resident experts on this stuff. If I had had a basis of fact to have a concern, the issue would be raised directly and politely. George may have gone to look or not, it wasn't my concern. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfair block[edit]

Dear George Orwell III – I have become fairly active on the Wikisource:Possible copyright violations ‎ discussion page in recent times. You are probably familiar with some of the issues I have raised there (including what is meant by an “Edict of Government”). On 2 May 2010 I made a number of edits. Most of these edits related to me “tagging, hiding and listing for discussion” works that were labeled as “Edicts of Government” (e.g. South African political speeches, a national anthem and other works). The same day Administrator Billinghurst blocked me. I cannot say precisely why – as he did not give precise reasons – but the general heading he gave was that “Okay, that is too rampant” (i.e. I was being too active in ““tagging, hiding and listing for discussion”).

I have disagreed with Billinghurst on a number of copyright points of late – basically, I would like the same standard to be applied to all works. The same high standard that is – even if that means that a lot of works need to be listed for discussion etc - but his approach is different. I think Billinghurst views me as ‘trouble’. In contrast, I think I have made a worthwhile contribution, prompting interesting discussions, greater clarity and the removal of some works. Indeed, the works I “tagged, hid and listed for discussion” on 2 May 2010 have led to interesting copyright discussions on the copyright violations discussion page. I would like Billinghurst to apologise for blocking me and somehow “expunge” my record.

I would appreciate any contribution you would like to make on my talk page where my block is being discussed. I am sending this message to all persons who have participated on the same copyright violation discussions as me. I do not know how else to generate further participation in the discussion concerning my block save direct messages – as I cannot list this matter (a personal one) on the copyright violations page. The discussion is at User talk:Formosa. Given my treatment, I admit to feeling a bit disheartened about my continuing involvement in the copyright violations project. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Text of EOs[edit]

What online source do you usually use for the text of Executive Orders? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Max. It depends on what era of orders you're looking to do. From Truman to Clinton, the .sgml files at are pretty much the only reliable source for EOs. The University of Michigan has some FDR and Hoover's EOs. Everybody earlier than Hoover is hit and miss across various Google book scans. See the bottom of the page at the shortcut for links and info.... George Orwell III (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and the information. :) Kind regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Large bills[edit]

How do you copy them while maintaining the format? It takes me a while just to do a short bill. Guy0307 (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarify opinion on {{TextQuality}}?[edit]

Would you remind returning to the discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Phase_out_TextQuality_templates_and_system and clarifying your position on the removal of the text quality radio buttons? There is wide support for keeping {{TextQuality}} in its current state for use in works not using the page namespace, but a number of users would like to remove the radio buttons to simplify the interface and not confuse new users. Your opinion on that would be helpful. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing the radio button and/or stand alone templates for non-transcludable works is undesriable. Remove it from the index and/or page namespsces only. George Orwell III (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


I would like to put your name forward for Administrator status. The burdens are not onerous. Your specialized knowledge is very valuable to the project, and you have made some fantastic contributions. Any objection? Tarmstro99 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure - it would be my honor ro pitch in. I have the time and willing to learn whatever else might be required of me.TYVVM. George Orwell III (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Great to hear. Tarmstro99 (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You are now an administrator! Please don't hesitate to post at the noticeboard if you have any questions.--BirgitteSB 02:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi. If you have language skills, it would be helpful to add them to the table at Current administrators. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:USCongRec and creating Index pages[edit]

Thank you again, for creating this most helpful and useful template! I was wondering, is there a way to use it, in some fashion, to gather data from "whatlinkshere", or something like that, and use a bot, to make it easier to create index pages, by year? -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There's not much to it - for every new year, add 1 to the volume no.

So for the last 40 years in ten year increments, the volume numbers are....

  • Volume 116 (1970)
  • Volume 126 (1980)
  • Volume 136 (1990)
  • Volume 146 (2000)
  • Volume 156 (2010)

Within each volume there is already a subject index (except for the rest of this year of course) already compiled.

EX. For Rep. Spiers in Volume 154 (2008) she appears in the Congressional Record on these matters with the corresponding page(s) noted for each.

NOTE: the above is for the daily edition(s) - NOT the bound edition which consists of all the daily editions collected, re-paginated, and re-indexed at some point later on. George Orwell III (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, excellent. But, is there some way for a bot to automagically generate index pages like that, here, locally? -- Cirt (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit beyond my pay grade but without a.) having used the {{USCongRec}} on every page in order to manipulate it to achieve that auto-index or auto-cat easily or b.) having applied a sub-category for each volume (and by nature - the corresponding year also being encapsulated in that sub-cat) under the "Congressional Record" category, your looking at alot of tweaking per page BOT or not I'm guessing. I wish I had better answer - sorry George Orwell III (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, we could start by making sure the first part is met. Do you know someone on this project that could handle the rest with bots? -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Another way to think about this is to take the year the article was published in the Congressional Record and subtract 1854 to get the corresponding volume number. So if some article was printed in the CR in 1998...
1998 − 1854 = 144 (or Volume No. 144)
and just list it under Volume 144 (1998) on the Congressional Record page. George Orwell III (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

unused templates[edit]

The following templates are completely unused. Can I delete them?

Hesperian 00:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you hold off on deletion for a day or two? I should do the due diligence first and investigate the entire set of law-ish templates with the latest & their use over on WP before giving these (and maybe some others) the boot. My gut has always told me that some these can be merged into others and get the same results but my skill set isn't always up to the task.
Let me spend some time poking them (hopefully before this coming Monday the 28th) to properly assist you here - O.K.? George Orwell III (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, no worries. They're all yours. Hesperian 01:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot request: Swapping header templates[edit]

I had BenchBot swap {{header2}} for {{potus-eo}} on a few pages (ran on EO 13186-13226, but only a few needed edits. See Executive Order 13206 through Executive Order 13213). Is that what you were looking for? Cheers, stephen (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just fine!! If you could have the bot do 5 a day, I'm pretty sure I can keep up and add all the formatting and interlinking until the rest of the non-swapped EOs from 2001 to 2007 are done.
Again - many, many thanks!!! George Orwell III (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, fixed the extra lines it was adding (see Executive Order 13229). I noticed that notes= often includes a date (eg, "Delivered on 12 October 2001"). I can move that info to the day/month/year fields in the template, if you want (see Executive Order 13230). The only issue is that it uses the name of the month rather than the number, which appears to make the "signed" date the first of the month, for some reason. Anyway, I can do 5/day, or I can run through them all at once and post a log. Whichever you prefer. Cheers, stephen (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I know from expierence not to look a gift horse in the mouth around here -- DO THEM ALL (as long as it's not too intensive all at once - them poetry folks can get pretty upset).
Don't worry about the date if it's too much of a burden to add - it's been found to be wrong at times either at the NARA side or the original author's side so I'd want double check them anyway. I can't stress how much this is appreciated - I've already upped your user rights to auto patrolled, since you obviously know what you're doing and respect the consensus established around here, to get that out of the way if it was slowing you down any. Prost, George Orwell III (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

BenchBot searched through the 2001-2008 EOs and swapped the templates for you. If you find any more instances of {{header2}} in an EO, just let me know or add the page to Category:Potus-eo template needed. stephen (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulk import of US Code[edit]

Hey, if you have any thoughts on a bulk import of the US Code, I would be glad to hear them! stephen (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of you helping out with Public Laws?[edit]

I've been doing the Public Laws lately - I've only got 15 to go, of which 9 are post-office naming bills. Any chance of you doing some of them? It's completely understood if you're too busy. Guy0307 (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Blockquote formatting, within Congressional Record text[edit]

Hi there, George Orwell III, I hope you are doing well. :) Had a quick question for you, about documents:

  1. Private Relief Legislation for Boris Korczak
  2. To recognize and compensate Boris Korczak for intelligence gathering services rendered during the cold war

How to format blockquote spacing, within the Congressional Record style layout? In other words, the whole thing is already kinda indented, so how to make it show a difference, where the writer of that document themselves had a blockquoted/indented paragraph? -- Cirt (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - been away for a couple of days...
I took a shot at what I think you meant in the first one using div margins to "shrink" the quoted text. The second one looks like a straight bill introduced in the house and I usually mimic THOMAS, not the CR, for those layouts. George Orwell III (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thank you very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sidenotes and margins[edit]

I have been fiddling around trying to get a better way to manage marginal notes.

  • stop the left and right saw edge, and push them to one side
  • put them to the left to allow the right margin to expand and contract as per people's wishes with their web browser
  • have a simpler means to determine widths, especially with the different methodologies for these notes

The sidenotes components have worked okay in the Page: namespace, however, I have found them problematic when transcluded, so I worked on (yet another) set, though still borrowing the aspects used previously. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Won't pushing the sidenotes left at some point overlap the embed page links pointing back to the Page: namespace?
Not if used properly, with the use of the margin-left. The width of margin-left in combination with indented-page. The indented-page keeps it off the page markers when one sets margin-left to the same depth that is used in the template. So for this it has been {{outside L|text text text|15}}.

In addition, though the "symptom of publication" mimics a saw edge effect and most style guides do not specifically call for a strict right-side notes only for born digital documents (or HTML if you prefer), it's generally understood that side-notes should be to the right when proper sub-section indetation is followed (which, for the most part, is a lost cause on WS anyway). The "true" format when transcluded to a single page (basically) should be...

Section preamble, purpose, paragraph, etc.
(a) first sub-division (or more properly, sub-section)
first sub-section's paragraph(s)
(1) second sub-section
second sub-section's paragraph(s)
(A) third sub-section
third sub-section's paragraph(s)
(i) fourth sub-section
fourth sub-section's paragraph(s)
. . . and so on

As one can see, applying side-notes to the left will become problematic in the sense that they will be harder and harder for the reader to visually align with the point it is intended to expand upon in the main content with numerous section branches. When the side notes are to the right, the point being expanded upon will always be easier to associate since the note and point are nearly always adjacent to each other, with or without line wrapping.

The above is nearly never a problem because for the most part, WS editors get away with literally translating the "printed pages" to something akin to...

Section preamble, purpose, paragraph, etc.
(a) first sub-division (or more properly, sub-section)
first sub-section's paragraph(s)
(1) second sub-section
second sub-section's paragraph(s)
(A) third sub-section
third sub-section's paragraph(s)
(i) fourth sub-section
fourth sub-section's paragraph(s)
. . . and so on

... literally to the "virtual page" -- so your all left side-notes would visually work though it does so by exploiting the "symptom of publcation" generally practiced on WS (mirroring the lack of the codification indentation scheme found on scanned pages because it's convienent(?) or maybe believed preserving the printing press' limitations is somehow more beneficial to the reader somehow in HTML too? -- I don't really know why we do it :-( George Orwell III (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I start with the statement that the indentation in the Copyright Act is exactly as it is in the work, and I would endeavour to maintain that sort of layout in such works. The saw edge that I was referring to was the flip-flop of left hand side and right hand side sidenotes, with then the requirement to centre the body of text on the page. There was some early output from Index:Notes by the Way.djvu that I can now look to address, remembering that marginal notes are used in works other than legislation, and unfortunately some of my more interesting pieces have these beasts.
Yes of course it looks just fine (didn't think otherwise:) but its not really suppose to be simple indented text. My above examples are just as "wrong" but displays well-enough for me to get past the fact that it's "wrong" underneath.
Legislation is nothing more than list items >LI<, and/or definition lists >DL< with the list-style-position set to inside rather than the default outside. I'd think the codification of new legislation to an ongoing series or collection is made much easier that way. Even though we can set the list types under (sub)sections to lower-alpha, decimal, upper-alpha, lower-roman and so on, without the ability to drop the automatic trailing dot for enclosing parenthesis instead, everyone is doomed to struggle with pushing and pulling indents and margins just to display properly at the end of the day. Seems like something simple to change but, as usual, doing so has proven well beyond my skill set.
To the issue of right marginal notes. I do understand your point of view, whereas, at the same time, there are a number of users who state concerns generally over the fixed widths that plague right margins and making them horizontally scroll, let alone with marginal text (this conversation is in other places). I am not saying that this is ideal, though to me it is the lesser of the evils. And I do know that I live in the camp of the text is king, accessibility is vital, and facsimile reproduction comes next in priority. I am far more interested in replicating what the author generated, than what was set out by the typographer. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear -- I was thinking of legislation and similar governemt-type docs only. I caught some of the tinkering you had done with the UK Copyright Act and saw the same issues I had thought about previously developing there and became more curious was all. There is very little variation in the style-guides and layouts for these type of works over the decades compared to some of the other stuff going on around here & didn't mean to infer one way of going about all this was better than another in the end. George Orwell III (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Supreme Court case naming convention[edit]

You made me think about some of the issues with our Supreme Court case naming conventions. Our current approach has issues with naming (which is why you have been deleting the leftovers from pages I had to move), and when you mentioned United States v. Smith I realized that there will also be issues with disambiguation. Anyway, here is a proposal to change the naming convention. I would appreciate your thoughts on the topic. stephen (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Looking at {{PL-indent}}, I was wondering what you think of {{hanging indent inherit}} aka {{hii}}. I reckon that it simpler and more flexible, though happy for your opinions. I did it so that we only need to add formatting as we add templates as we drop down through the hierarchy. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK though not sure what the benefits are of perpetuating another "visual trick" to mimic defined terms and list items as PL-indent does for legislative-ish sub-divisions. The reality is there is no (negative) indentation involved, just the normal offset you get with any list item under HTML. Example...


  1. amount (in em) to indent first line from relative position (first parameter)
  2. amount (in em) to differ the remaining paragraph text (second parameter)

The "1." and "2." should be "{1)" and "(2)" if the above were sub-divisions found within most legislative or legal documents. I've been tinkering with unlocking defined lists since list items can't be manipulated to incorporate parenthesis instead. The basic premise could result in looking like this when applied....

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

As used in this order:
Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget with respect to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
Nothing in this order shall be construed to require disclosure of information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or by Executive Order.
This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
Manufacturing-related means relating to:
Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget with respect to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
Nothing in this order shall be construed to require disclosure of information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or by Executive Order.
This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
After consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget with respect to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
Nothing in this order shall be construed to require disclosure of information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or by Executive Order.
This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

the problem arises when the sub-division is a roman-numeral value such as (xxviii), where the width overlaps its corresponding text in the above. After that was addressed, I was hoping to just add an automatic anchor for >DT< to enable interlinking from other bills or laws directly to the specific sub-division. My abilities are rather lacking so I shelved the idea for now.
PL-indent sucks (problems with display under certain browsers in certain applications) and I loathe to use it for sub-divisions anymore. It was a rip-off from some other WP template modified to follow the newer indent format here on WS actually. George Orwell III (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: U.S.C.A.[edit]

I was just trying to be thorough, since Benchbot creates links out of the U.S.C.A. format, and I doubt that anyone is going to take the time to add both versions of the Code any time soon. But I'll refrain from creating more U.S.C.A. redirects until there is consensus. LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:WorldCat id[edit]

Please see Template_talk:Author#Worldcat_identities. Flatterworld (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: UNSCRs[edit]

Done, thanks Chipmunkes (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your help with NEPA! If you're looking for more Code sections to clean up, I've listed most of the ones I'm working on by their popular names here. LegalSkeptic (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Horses and roads[edit]

As you guess, I've a three-fold interest into Horses and roads

  1. I'm highly interested into the topic;
  2. I like programming, both html/css and templates,. and a little bit of python too;
  3. here I am to rob any good idea & tool & trick I can "by example", to import them into it.source.  :-) . I'd like so much a unique source, just as Commons, where the best of formatting tricks is shared.... reality is, that any source has its peculiar tricks and conventions, and that it's an agony, for any not-so-large source project like it.source, to work both on texts and on "software and tricks update". :-(

So, I'm looking, and I'll look, with most interest to any of your edits, since I see that they come from a larger experience and from a different set of tools. I'll follow any unknown template you'll use, and I'll study carefully its code!

Please, can we use Index talk:Horses and roads.djvu as the main talk page for any issue about? I can learn simply by example, but it will be great to have some explicit comment and help too... and I don't like to flood Scriptorium nor your personal talk page. --Alex brollo (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Redoing Pictureseque New Zealand pages[edit]

Hi, I am confused why you are redoing pages that have already been done. Apparently the scan for Picturesque New Zealand was changed after many of us had already done a lot of work. John Vandenberg had told me that those done in the old scan would be moved to the new scan. However that is not happening and you are doing pages that someone else has already done using the original scan. Could you explain to me what is happening? A lot of past work is going to waste. Best wishes, Another editor (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize the non-text and image place holder pages were also going to be moved (but I'm not really sure what exactly such a transfer entails to be honest - seems to me its like any other normal move at its core).
Oh well, If it wasn'y for poor vetting there would be none at all I suppose. No worries - I won't touch it again. George Orwell III (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry! I didn’t mean to be critical. I am just confused over how things work here. I am new. So, don’t mind me. Perhaps you are right and those pages will not be moved. (I had just noticed that an editor went through the whole scan in the being and marked all the non text pages.) Another editor (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
No harm no foul :) The general principle I was thinking of is; being that the original pagespace numbers don't quite match each other - it would make life easier if the non-text and/or image place holders were in place to make the conversions/moves easier to align and such from the old to the new. Notice the new has not been given the offset(s) to match the page number found in the scan. This way if you click on 345 you get the 345th page in the djvu rather than page 345 in the book. When moving pages one after the other, this can get a bit confusing. Using "landmarks" such as non-text or image place-holders can make the mental addition or subtraction involved somewhat more reliable. George Orwell III (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pitching in with the fix. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Happy to help - although it begs the question whether or not enough vetting is being performed before selecting from the various works nominated to be featured monthly/weekly.
Also, this version doesn't have the maps of the era showing New Zealand among its neighbours - pretty sure it was 481 & 482 in the old - and the illustration table does say they were the insides of the covers. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if they were of a quality worth hosting or even if we bother with such details. George Orwell III (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

When you change cases names of the Supreme Court[edit]

I have been noticing in the Chase court page that you have changed a few of the names and deleted the old page. I do not have a problem with this, but in the future could you change the front page of whatever Chief Justice it is in. That would be great. Wabbit98 talk, 11:57pm (PST), 4 October 2010

I've been disambiguating case names as I come across the need for them and have been cleaning up after folks who make moves and junk (fixing all the broken redirects, wrong template parameters) left behind, so I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically -- point me to an example. Thanks George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh I think I see what you're talking about - I forgot to go back and fix 2 or 3 from Volume 69. Sorry - I usually do both the Chief Justice list the same time I do the U.S. Reports volume listing but I got side-tracked with Stephen about Milwaukie versus Milwaukee and forgot to go back & fix those I guess. George Orwell III (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
... amd if that was the ones you were notifying me of - it raises a bigger point that you should realize as you try to do the Chief Justice lists; a major portion of the case names are going to be changed either back to their originally given "named reporter" (Dallas, Howard, Wallace, Black, etc.) ones or updated to match the Lawyers Edition one. I think this problem will stop around volume 90 when the U.S. Reporter becomes a recognized series but everything before 1914 is suspect.
An example of what BenchBot imported (and I assume the content its snatching on was taken from the "named" reporter originally) is Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company ( 2 Wall. 609 becomes 69 U.S. 609 at some point ). When you look up the Lawyer's Edition citation ( 17 L.Ed. 886 ), the scan of that page from that Lawyer's Edition series ( here ) shows the case name as The Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad Company v. James T. Soutter. So you see -- not only is the 1st party name incomplete, the second party name doesn't jibe quite right either from one reporter to the other (the Lawyer Edition (vol 17.) being published some 50 years after 2 Wallace was).
Nearly every case I've gone and checked like that (the few I happen to go about fixing for broken reirects or simple disambiguation that is) so far all have mis-matched or some other case name issues. Keep this in mind before going nuts about fixing the case names because you might be doing a lot of them over anyway. I'd consider linking on the Chief Justice table using the case name's citation rather than having 50+ links (the left column) all pointing to the same U.S. Reporter volume as a better approach for volume 90 on down....
69 U.S. 283 (1864) Bronson v. La Crosse & Milwaukee Railroad Co.
69 U.S. 440 (1865) Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad Co. and Fleming v. Soutter
69 U.S. 510 (1865) Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad Co. and Fleming v. Soutter
69 U.S. 609 (1865) Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad Company v. James T. Soutter

.... this way the case name being wrong (last one) doesn't stop the reader from opening the cases's article on WS. George Orwell III (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Index:Washington - State of the Union.djvu[edit]

This has been proofread, though it seems that there is another version at the general link. This something that you want to sort out? — billinghurst sDrewth 16:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Classic example of using 2nd, 3rd or 4th party sources ro create content instead of using the closest possible source available (i.e. the U.S. gov't, Library of Congress trumps the Massachusetts Spy in my book any day). I did not upload either one so what I do with the current (as well as Featured) George Washington's First State of the Union Address?? Disambiguate that nonsense?? -- No thank you. Can't do it on principle alone. George Orwell III (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean Air Act[edit]

hello george. i was wondering if you would be willing to have me come in as a contributor to the Clean Air Act on your list of to-dos. - Tannertsf (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Pleased to meet you, Tannertsf.
To be honest with you, I did the Public Law thing for almost a year straight and am taking a "break" (in general) from it. LegalSkeptic has an interest in Environmental Law, including the Clean Air Act, and has been the one contributing to that area fairy regularly of late - maybe you should touch base with him to see if there is something you can collaborate on.
Again; Welcome to WikiSource. George Orwell III (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. thanks. - Tannertsf (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

With regard to patrolling[edit]

From my review look at (hope that you can see) you seem to have got the childish swear vandalism. Are you seeing other child pottymouth stuff that we should be adding words to the filter? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure I follow the above as intended -- if I'm causing trigger-word bangs in my edits it is occuring purely by accident on my part (I swear)
... but I'm fairly certain you're looking for additions to the list. I don't have anything compiled nor does any particular phrase come readily to mind. For the most part, much of what I have been reverting/undoing lately are not typical flaming "profane edits" found over on WP but stupid syntax switches, smiley faces, gibberish swaps equating to zero-change-in-bytes and similar hard to comprehend edits of random gibberish. I will, however, add this "task" to my local list of stuff-to-look-out-for from now on though.
A quick related question: Which month is going to be "Maintenance Month"? We are kind of running out of months.... or was that not set in stone as an annual 2nd/3rd tier CotM-thingy after last year's run? George Orwell III (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I have written in Validation month for November, as it was last year. It is at Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month, presuming that is what you meant. There are links on that page to my prepared starting list of works. Hmm, come to think of it, I am probably need to make sure that the template code can manage it
Pretty sure that is the same thing I was thinking of -- though the actual tasks I was thinking of went beyond "backlog validation(s)" and touched on some other stuff ignored, forgotten or intentionally avoided that have accumulated over the months. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things actually but thanks for addressing it. George Orwell III (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I was talking of your successful reverting of the vandalism, which that filter finds. It gets words like poop, penis etc. If you are seeing repeated stuff that we can block or filter to find, then please do jot it down. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, this thing with the pointless edits peaked my interest so I went off on a mission to see if I could figure out who, what, where and why these folks do what they do. Tossing aside what I'd consider "normal" stupid editing and taking a closer look at the remaining pool of users, edits, sisters, etc. going wayyyyyy back in time -- two distinct "veins" (or maybe 'commonalities' is better here) kept coming up (statistically unlikely given the sampling in short).

One "vein" I think you've expressed concern over before seems to generally revolve around a core of works (or sites) related to Sanskrit, Hindi, Buhda, India & other spiritually similar bird droppings from all the various eras basically rooted in the same geographical region. Although these additions/edits are annoying and all too frequent (especially of late), I don't think there is anything sinister or organized behind them. I think a good part comes from a lack of even basic copyright enforcement at home and cultural differences.

The next sub-set or "vein of unexplained" revolves around a single WS hosted work started back in 2004, gone through some refinements in the years afterwards and hasn't been touched much at all in my view. The work is The Science of Getting Rich. Due to planet alignment, something like Google Analytics has added this "work" & WS to whatever voodoo or formula is involved in all that stuff and is drawing these knuckleheads here instead of some site of the same name as the work (well at least that what a bunch of searches and cross referencing keeps associating with that cross-section of strange-edits-to-matching-usernames here).

That kind of stuff is kind of out of my comfort zone so don't laugh yourself silly at my theory or rationalizations here - I fully admit I don't what I'm doing. Can you just humour me a bit and tell me if there is any way to easily exclude the work from appearing on that list or whatever it is of unrelated search result hits? George Orwell III (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

no idea, would think probably not, being "open" as part of the political stance. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Too bad - that work took up 61,000 results last year too (7th overall). The more I look at that work the more weird things get (author died in 1911 but was on the Indiana ballot running as a Socialist in 1916). George Orwell III (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Dead by 1920 as not in that US census or later. No readily available death records for Illinois online. I didn't search further among the records to which I had access. If it is getting vandalised we could put a low level of protection to stop IP editing, or we can even look to get it against the djvu file of the work and do a match and split; generally we get lesser vandalism in the Page: namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha - I still haven't learned NOT to trust a single blasted thing on WP without double checking it first. I found the Indiana Secretary of State reports and it turned out to be a typo or bad OCR showing 1916 when it really was 1910 when he was on the ballot & lost. No DOB or DoD but one son Russell, daught Florence & Agnes + wife Angy (or Angie).
The thing with the article "touches" really isn't a vandalism thing. I swear its like somebody needs that work (as well as a few other odd-balls) to have bi-annual movement of some sort, even if its just moving quotes or adding periods, in order for whatever crazy thing that is sending people here just to have them move on with only the pageview recorded (or the occasional idiot who stays thinking today is the day to start transcribing War & Peace by him/herself). The impression I'm getting, though it is far from proven, that this weirdness is part of some web-counter tinkering, a Google analytics artifical padding or a way to back track sites using cookies to find where they are clicking-in from or something along those lines. This title keeps coming up over and over and over again outside of the Wiki family too.
I'd be more than willing to go with the transclusion from the page namespace route but I believe its the age and convenient title that are making this work relevant and prone to abuse - not the goof-ball content on how to get rich quickly with no money down and no payments until 2012 using the science of self-help + Jesus shtick. I can see the Emancipation Proclamation being popular (and assigned in civics classes every year) enough to warrant the amount of "intrusions" to it --- but the Zodiac Killer Letters?? The Unabomber's Manifesto??? Well I only see approx 200 real users here --- ~sixty or less that become familar enough to recognize upon sight so it is at the very least staistically queer IMHO. George Orwell III (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Momentarily confounded[edit]

Couldn't work out what had happened with the work going sooooo green, I thought that I had missed transcluding some pages, and I was just getting it to a point to allow later validation. You will know better where its intralinks are through legal and US stuff, can I leave those bits to you? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

meh - It's a rather odd piece bouncing in and out of U.S. & State law and international law. I guess I can try to interlink w/WP & w/legal defs on Wikt but I'm not sure why its relevant or what the uploader was lookinf to tie into specifically. At first I had thought the index was part of Tarmstro99's uploads but by the time I realized it wasn't, it was just too rude to stop to be honest.
I'm kind of glad that I did because there are 4 or 5 pages where there is a no-include/include-only zipper thing going on or something. If I try to validate one of those pages, it boots part of the content at one of those points on forward if saved - please validate anything still at 'proofread' if you can.
That was my <includeonly>ing, to get it to align with the scan.<shrug> With regard to rude, I only got to it due to it being a little work, and I was going to get it read and transcluded, and let some other bunny do it during validate month. Foiled. ;-) I will shove the remaining pages at BD....
No worries-its just that some browsers pull it off in the wiki-environment but nearly all break the rendering if the normal HTML was copied & pasted then displayed outside of wikiwhatever (I just happen to be one of them). Anyway, I've been spinning my wheels trying to nail down the template(s) and method(s) to do any adjoining-page(s) footnote-overlaps for ~40 minutes now & all I found so far that's remotely useful is ((t1|Footnote overflow)). I don't think that's the one I've notice before in passing - do you have a better clue for me maybe?
Other than this half a dozen footnote thing to fix, It's done. I've already applied a straight forward list-item scheme to display those numbered points near the end of the article -- I hope it's rendering somewhat normally.
The other thing that bugs the c-rap out of me (not just with this work but all legal-ish works in general) is the way list items are made into simple paragraphs (last few pages). The piece is short enough that I think I'm going to fiddle with it a bit to try and come up with steps towards some standardization --- unless you have a suggestion or opinion otherwise that is? George Orwell III (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I started doing that with some of the DNB, the only issue is if the page numbering continues it is a little difficult to wikicode. Whether I bother often comes down to how much I love the work, and legal works of the US are not high on my rating code. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Not following the issue there (or maybe I should say I've gone 2 or 3 deep for dozens of pages and it transcluded fine for me). My problem has mostly to do with item designations that approach overall widths of 2.5 ems or more - like roman numerals eventually do ( xxxviii ). I can't seem to find away to get the containing "box" to auto-(re)size while still having the designation float right keeping a uniform gap to the item content and keeping each item's content-start aligned throughout no matter how high the item numbers go. Paragraph indentation can be applied with no deviations to number positions as well.
Defined lists manipulation is definitely the answer but I just haven't hit on the right combination of styles, values, etc. that will display correctly in here when its whittled down into a usable template or two. George Orwell III (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

B. V.[edit]

Forgot to mention, and I remembered you don't watchlist. Thanks for finding that better scan, I uploaded over the top of the google rubbish. I remember having a lot of trouble finding scans for his work and every second one had a major problem. This one seems perfect, cheers! cygnis insignis 15:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd series of events; was patrolling recent edits --> the anon. addition to an un-extraordinary page out on island in the index; then nothing? --> Oh well --> Hmm... Lord, that can't be the cover --> blech this entire scan is a pretty lame --> from GoogleBooks eh? maybe there are duplicates --> ta-da! found one at that didn't suck.
At any rate, I'm happy it wasn't a waste of time & that you can put it to good use. Prost. George Orwell III (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


You seem to be a fairly active "admin". Should Template:Nop be used at the end of every page? Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

replied to on User_talk:Protector_of_Wiki#Question -- 04:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Index:Right to Privacy.djvu[edit]

Now that these pages have all been proofed, should they be moved to individual pages in mainspace, or should the entire article be moved to a single mainspace page? It's not very long. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the other Harvard law reviews I've seen are broken out by contributing author so if this one author - it should be one article. If its not that long then I wouldn't worry about chapter or section breaks too. George Orwell III (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be useful to also to create either a Portal page for the Review or a main namespace hierarchy for the journal where the articles would be redirects under the journal name, eg. [[Harvard Law Review/1890/Right to Privacy]] to give some structure to the journal's output. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - that would be a nice addition. Still, I must withdraw from further suggestions here and vote to consult with Tarmasto99 (sp) first, who, I believe, has done the most Havard Law Review work on WS so fat. George Orwell III (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize that there were others. This one is of particular importance. It was picked by a committee of experts as one of the most important law review articles ever published. For that reason, I'd just like to see it moved to mainspace quickly and neatly. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
As you wish. I beg to differ on the approach for uploading bits and pieces rather than uploading the full edition/volume and extract bits and pieces from there instead. Important today -- nonsense tomorrow. George Orwell III (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I assure you, this one has been "important" for over a hundred years. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no response for that. George Orwell III (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, not trying to make trouble here. BD2412 T 02:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

indef IP block[edit]

Hi, is there a good reason for User: to be indefinitely blocked? John Vandenberg (chat) 02:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect - I guess not. That IP was blanking the Main_Page-talk just like was the day before and I probably linked the two prematurely/unfairly. Knock yourself out. George Orwell III (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It is quite probable that they are the same, but indef doesn't help unless you indef the entire IP range. Cheers for unblocking; the IP range is on the global radar anyway. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

EO cites[edit]

Couple of questions on EO citing :-) First, in the early days of the Federal Register (from 1936 until June 1, 1938) there was apparently a separate "bound volume" version printed, which had different paginations. There is an explanation here; the CFR tables have columns for both page numbers as seen here. The microfiche version I found as a source for Executive Order 7316 and a couple near it were apparently from this bound volume, as the page numbers matched those but not the original printings. In the pages I did, I used the original page numbers for the FR cites, and not the bound volume pages on my copies. Do you think we should add an additional (probably named like "bvpage") parameter to {{USFR}}, and a corresponding parameter to potus-eo, to cite these pages as well, in case someone has access to the bound versions only and wants to look them up?

The Federal Register is, was and always will be the first place an EO is published so that's the understood effective date(s). The only time that I've seen the CFR used over the Fed. Reg citation is when more than one EO happended to fall into the same Title 3 Compilation/Supplement (we're talking FDR for the most part here). The only reason the FR Page was used for citation in Potus-EO rather than the internal FR Doc numbers was because the Pages were already compiled (though mistakes can still be exposed as you know), by NARA and the USFR template already existed too. Doesn't the 1965(?) supplement of tables rectify the errant or missing FR Page and Date values for these early years?
I had always envisioned using the 3 CFR Comp. pages for the Textinfo box on the discussion pages once (a) a fair number (over half of the current 13K in other words) of 3 CFR Comp pages were compiled into a list, much like the one you pointed to, that matches the EO desigation # for verification or (b) somebody finds a way to upload one of these gawd damn bound compilations that spans a couple of years (up to 1975/1976 if I remember right), which was "the plan" in place when I got here. (thhhhhhhrrrrrrpppp)
Yep, the FR date is quite relevant. Not suggesting removing it :-) Just seems as though the CFR is often a more common way to look up orders. The 1936-1965 listings I linked to has both the FR page, and the Title 3 CFR Comp. page (and the "bound volume page", for the years that applies). And true, the ideal would be to get .djvus of the Title 3 compilations up, have Page: namespace stuff for them, etc. That would in effect be a cite too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Second, it seems as though most cites for EOs actually use the CFR compilations rather than the FR pages.

Really? Ever look at the section notes of the US Code to see who they cite for relevant EOs and Proclamations? Granted the Revised Statutes may have been cited differently.
Fair point. Although NARA's own EO pages typically have the CFR pages as references in addition to the FR pages, pretty consistently. Every now and then I see a WL (WestLaw) reference, but those probably aren't necessary -- most post-1936 EOs should only need the FR cite and possibly the CFR cite. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It does look like there are a few EOs printed in the CFR compilations but not the Federal Register (though some EOs never made it to either one).

Curious.... got an example?
The first page of the listing tables I linked to above has two. They were definitely missing from the Federal Register volumes (I printed out and put up the first few EOs printed in the FR, and those were not there). In paging through more of those tables, I noticed some others like that (CFR page listed but no FR page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we should add a cfr-page parameter to potus-eo and add the additional cite if present?

Supplements/Complilations and "BV" pages are footer == Note == citation material IMHO. There's still the Notes= field to add to rather than changing the the template for just 3 or 4 years worth of spotty data.
Well, it would only show up for orders in those years -- no need to change the format on existing ones. I wouldn't call the data spotty -- the CFR tables has all of the page numbers for all of the years in question.
You're confusing me - there are "Bound Volumes" that are really should be called Title 3 CFR, Comp. (like in the list you gave) and there are "Bound Volumes of the other sort very similar to the WCPD (Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents) formally started in the mid-1970s & exists thru today. There are Supreme Court cases citing these volumes (see the notes that follow the specific unnumbered EO's content HERE for an example of what I've been seeing after pitching in over on the USSC cases project on and off for a couple of weeks now -- in this case some T. Roosevelt - Taft volume of EOs & Procs.). I have no trouble with the Title 3 CFR Comps at all (though will get grief for the lack of scans again either way either way) but not 100% clear if this and similar are works of the U.S. Gov't in some minimal way (like the Annual Service Commission Reports) or are law journals or something. I got lucky with finding that foot note cited in the Opinion of the Court on Google books but would much rather host them ourselves if possible using Public Domain works.
No... the early Federal Registers were reprinted in later "bound volumes", which had different paginations (and, apparently, is what the microfiche copies are of). They were separate from the Title 3 CFR stuff. The current pages (like here only give the original page numbers though, not the bound volume pages, so maybe they aren't a big deal. The cite you give above though is simply to one of the editions of Kappler's Indian Affairs... there is no separate "Orders of Roosevelt and Taft" book. The court decision above is merely referring to specific orders from Roosevelt (EOs 711 and 743, on pages 681-682 of Volume III of Kappler's book, see here) and Taft (EO 1476, on pages 684-5 of the same book, see here). That is an example of using one of those random compilations as a citation, as it was the best one ;-) Those public papers books by James Richardson did continue for a while, and while they skipped most of Roosevelt's later EOs some later volumes do have a number of Taft's (see here, snippet view unfortunately). I had thought I had found a version of that last one in a library but it wasn't quite the same version, and I only got a couple more EOs from it. But, there is nothing systematic that I know of. The Department of State was supposed to collect them but I don't think they ever made compilations. The Hoover one is the first systematic one I know of, other than some subject-specific compilations, and the only one prior to the Title 3 CFRs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Doh! I never checked the pages mentioned in the same Indian Laws Report even though I realize now id. was there all along - my bad. A compilation of the messages and papers of the presidents, Volume XX was exactly the work mentioned in passing in some of those USSC cases btw - I just couldn't find it!!! George Orwell III (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can determine the compilation based on EO year.

Careful - some of the Title 3 CFR Comps run from June to June and overlap other revisons (your bound or similar Supplements) from Janusry to June (or July to December) date-wise. The only one MIA over on the Trust is that 1936 to 1938 one as far as I can tell. Don't know what to do about 1933 to 1936 as I haven't gotten a real response from anybody on what the definitive work for those years are.
Good point. We could do it by month or EO number too if it came to that. As for pre-1936... I don't think there is any definitive source, as you know well. Hoover's papers happened to later catalog his, but FDR probably issued way too many for that (his "papers" books just have a listing). They were printed individually, and sent to the department(s) they were relevant to, and so sometimes included in departmental compilations or reports. The "Official Bulletin" issued during WWI by the Creel Committee seemed to be an early version, but that was short-lived. So, citations before that will be fairly random I think depending on the audience for each order. Some special-case compilations were made (like the Indian Laws ones, or the Panama Canal ones). Don't think there is anything systematic we can do. The EO listing book of course has a number of different sources for those years, and lists every place an order can be found, if any -- sometimes there are 3-4 cites (but most often none). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about that - there seems to what should be called a Title 3 Compilation for those years but the clues to what its called or when it was complied have admittedly been slim at best. George Orwell III (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The Title 3 CFR volumes started at the same time as the Federal Register (the National Archives itself was just being created then). The first FR EO is the first one in the 1936-1938 CFR volume; it starts in March 1936. Nothing earlier than that.
I understand that. What I'm talking about is the relation of the pre-Register era EOs and their effect on Federal Regulations and whatever form of resulting codification, if any, took took place at the time to whatever the modern Title 3 CFR equivalent was back then (or the U.S.C. slash Revised Statutes' section Notes if applicable for that matter). Yes, the various agencies kept the EOs related to their responsibilities lying around; Yes, thousands of "orders" weren't numbered (but I'd think these aren't EOs in the true sense -- just Admistrative Orders in the form of "letters" and/or similar memorandums/directives); Yes, the State Dept. had the kept best and most dis-organized collections of this mish-mosh over the years (though my growing belief is that most of these State Dept. ones dealt more and more with the Proclamation(ish) type of issuances affecting Foreign Relations & Trade Agreements and not so much dealing with the inter-Federal regulations and agency management typically addressed in EOs) but in all of the above one would think (or hope) something other than annual reports of the blah-blah Commission is now the top resource still in use today. I know this is not always going to be the case and have come to more appreciate the citations you've given pretty much from the start on the discussion pages; though I would feel better about them if we knew for sure what the most acknowledged primary resource really was during this era regarding the EOs (i.e. codification). I guess its more for historical analysis and verification purposes than anything else since most have long been superseded, etc. by now anyway. Still, I'd hate to eventually upload a worthless collection in lieu of the lack of even our Wiki-listing giving these non- or pre-Register sources to fall back on. George Orwell III (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with what you've mentioned above & below and most are points that I've also thought about adding somehow down the road. It's just that I tend to like a complete and accurate list or tables set up and in place to both work from and justify the creation of new articles works while still keeping an eye to eventually adding the corresponding scans & any missing info to help complete the EO WikiProject along the standards general guidelines outlined and agreed upon by the WS population. It seems you can get past this mental roadblock of mine easier than I can (plus being an Admin now forces me to consider more junk like this when setting out in new "directions" unfortunately). All said and done - I sincerely appreciate all the help and contributions you've made over the weeks if I haven't mentioned it enough lately. George Orwell III (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There was no equivalent compilation :-) The dissemination of EOs prior to 1936 was a complete mess -- basically, the public was informed if newspapers decided to publish orders, and that was it. The GPO did print individual EOs since 1895 I think, but they were never compiled. [That, I think, became the basis for the "Monthly Catalog of Government Documents", which at least gives a listing of ones printed that way, though not the text.] One good history of EOs is here. The issue came to a head in a few court cases like United States v. Smith, where somebody was prosecuted under an EO section which had been inadvertently revoked, and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, where the Supreme Court grilled the assistant Attorney General over executive order procedures and promulgations. It was the extreme messiness of that situation which led to the National Archives Act in the first place. The State Department asked other departments to submit EOs, but that didn't always happen (though it probably got better after Executive Order 5220). But they were never really truly published. The Kappler books have a good number (presumably from Interior Dept records), and there is a Panama Canal compilation too. The "Compilation of the messages and papers of the presidents" is a half-decent source I think, and it appears that was published well into the 1920s, but it is *far* from comprehensive -- they only ever have a small fraction of EOs printed there, and (especially in earlier volumes) there were definite mistakes made, particularly with dates. I would think though it is the best source for a good many orders. Another good history is here (the one from 1974, which probably prompted NARA to create their EO codifications).
As for the definition of "executive order"... that is messy too. Basically, it is a presidential directive self-labeled as an "executive order". There are lots of other types of directives (and sometimes the term "executive order" is used as a catch-all for all types of those directives, not just the ones labelled "Executive Order"). At some point, I believe a formal decision was made to label them either "Executive Orders", "Military Orders", and "Administrative Orders", and they are even more fragmented today (see this interesting paper for descriptions, and some EO history). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
. . . sounds like you could help better the EO article over on WP :) . . .
I'm not sure there is much difference in legal effect of items labeled "Executive Order" vs something else. I've also seen lots of things which are explicitly labelled "executive orders" from the roosevelt/taft era which are not numbered; unsure if they count as actual EOs today or not. For example, there are tons of Theodore Roosevelt rulings on military courts martial (either upholding or reversing them), which are labeled as "executive orders" in those books and have the same form, but were never numbered and may not be considered EOs today. And there are items which were once done as executive orders, but now delegated, like Public Land Orders and I think all the individual civil-service exceptions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The devil is in the details. The simpliest explanation given to me of how and why certain issuances of various types made by the Presidents over the decades came to be numbered EOs & listed officially for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or present time(s) in some formal or recognized publication, is based in the nuances of the authority pursuant to or vested by etc. that were cited by the President and was in effect at the time of the issuance.
An exemption from compulsory retirement for age was an Executive power early on; granted by the early Civil Service Act(s) which was explicitly defined and were broadly applied without regard to any real uniformity or 'fairness' across the Federal agencies, all at the discretion of the President for the most part. This was an Executive order and an Executive Order in every sense.
This was less and less the case as the Civil Service Act(s) matured and eventually became codified into Federal Regulations; the explicit definitions becoming more narrowed in scope; the exemptions becoming delagated to the agencies themselves and the practicce made uniform by an established internal process; all with the Executive [branch] still retaining the same granted power but no longer needing his hand to issue then published the order. If he did want to specifically exempt an individual (and of course politics didn't prevent him from doing thru a court challenge) - say some national emergency required an individual's exemption - he would just do it via his administration's chain-of-command (the Admintrative Order category and/or with a [Presidential] Notice given for the benefit of Congress as stipulated by the law). The cited authority, if any was given, would point to whatever statute it is that regulates national emergencies and not whatever was once used from the Civil Service regs.
Some of the lists, tables, supplements or compilations provide some sort of index of statutes cited by the President as the authority for the issuance. Many of the early issuances that didn't make the numbered EO cut simply do not have or was required to have specific authorities mentioned simply because the authority was super self-evident (i.e. well-understood that the Constition or significant legislation had granted the power), but were no longer in effect for various reasons or frequently superseded by later EOs signed on dates closeer to when they thought to start making issuance retention & designation an official responsibility.
The point here being while it may seem the legal effect(s) will vary little from an EO to an AO to a Notice to a Memo on the surface -- the legal bricks used to build the upon the justification that happen to be rooted in some granted authority or power, constructed different legal foundations during any given period in our history and, therefore, follow differing legal "routes" to get past a justification when it comes to carrying out his order or even when it comes to challenging the President's orders (or Order) in court. The issuances that didn't make the numbered cut, no matter what type of order they might be designated as using the current Federal Register definitions or standards, but maybe should have been included, never had the chance to be vetted out properly by a court or legal challenge, made expired or terminated by the simple passage of time, or made moot by subsequent or superseding issuances dictated circumsatances and not by direct inclusion or exclusion. (Offhand, I can only think of one issuance that was originally an unumbered EO based on the time of the first or second numbering & it's signing date only to recieve a numbered designation at some point afterwards during the period between some change(s) in the law(s) making it relevant again and whenever the current numbering was adhered to. Of course life would have been much easier had they simply re-numbered everything every time they addressed this rather squezing in EOs into the previous list using letter suffixes instead). This is still why a lack of a complete numbered EO list bothers me so much - how can we ever hope to add any relevant un-numbered EOs until all the numbered content is finished being added - not to mention why I'm still discovering EO relationships more by chance than by any process. George Orwell III (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lastly... do you think we should change potus-eo such that the cite parameter text is an addition, rather than replacement, for the fr-page etc. arguments? That way it can be used for additional cites, rather than having to repeat the FR cite in cases with additional citations (for example, I do see WestLaw page citations sometimes). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it was only meant to overide the FR cite when it was missing under Potus-EO. All EOs no longer use header or header2 as I'm sure you've seen the bot do it's thing and I've been working from 2001 up to 2007 filling in missing info and re-formatting (slow-going but I'm up to 2003). Then Cite became handy for pre-Register citation stuff and it never really got addressed properly at that point, but again -- The Federal Register is, was and will be the primary publication for the last 80 years' of EOs. For EOs before that, I can't really take a position without a definitive source to draw upon but I'll try harder in the coming days to at least free up Cite from hiding the missing FR data now that header and header2 have been swapped out for Potus-EO finally.
Do you really think there's room for more info in the cite bar without it getting too cluttered??? What about moving the link back to the President's EO lists up to where the "author" field is overridden by President of the United State and just leave the signing date in the Citation bar? George Orwell III (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I may get around to it too. I think there is plenty of room for 2-3 cites; most others don't take up nearly as much room as they won't have a printing date we care about. We could shorten the USFR text too if it really came to that. Some of the pre-1936 orders do legitimately have 2 cites; I suppose 3 is possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure it's possible; the {{cite-bar}} I originally wanted to insert into header2 before I said eff it and went the whole new header Potus-EO route hoped to have a readable left, center and right positions for just this reason. In the end, the reason I didn't think to apply it was because the whole "Author" field override grief I sensed I would get if I didn't make the auto link back to at least the President's author sub-page somehow. Then it became apparent signature date dictated effective date most of the time and publication date drove the changes in the CFR via Notices & Rules and Regulations on later dates also cited within the FR so I left it at that. George Orwell III (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

One last point I just thought I mention... Stephen (User: Slaporte) was kind enough to get his bot involved with the header swaps for those last 300 hundred or so EOs in addition to doing his Supreme Court Case imports from content. I was hoping to raise the possibility with him of using the bot to import that swath missing from Truman to Carter from the sgmls on at some point and/or use it to pull the Title, Dates, Citations, etc. into one master list that those losers on WP can use to replace their woefully lacking EO article/category eventually (hopefully bringing more particpants back over here as a result of an expanded and workable reference). For one or both of these reasons, and I'm probably getting wayyyyy ahead of myself here I know, -- I'm urging you to both reconsider using a footer Notes section at the bottom to list affected EOs rather than "squeezing" two or more affected EOs into Potus-EO header Notes section AND if you do use a footer, please consider adding the EO WikiProject shortcut box as well whenever possible. Thank You for your consideration. George Orwell III (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm. In general... I would prefer to make some sort of template with arguments, as that is much easier for bots to parse out, and also to control large-scale changes in formatting without the need for bots at all. I also don't like taking up the "Notes" field with that big description and link to the Notes section, but as I have not figured a better way (some of those sections are huge), I have kept with what you are doing sometimes. I think that link would be better if autogenerated by potus-eo somewhere. As for the shortcut box, I would rather that also be part of a template somewhere (even potus-eo maybe; floated in the top right under the header, or integrated into the header itself) rather than pasted manually into everything, if we have it at all. Understood that regularity does make future bot work easier, of course, so I'll think about it more, but in general repetitive formatting or text is best handled through templates rather than copy-paste. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd not only prefer but rather would insist on making citations such as those that can be repetative enough as Title 3 CFR, Comp. (~1936 to present day) would be directly as template values with the usual vol., page & date arguments. I'd think manual inputs are the way to go for citations involving other reference sources even though they may still might occur with enough frequency to reach two hundred or more instances. Still, we are in agreement about utilizing the template to make collection wide changes easily without the need for bots or RegEx changes.
I hated going the pointer-to-notes route too. The combination of the benefits of listing relevant EOs (or lack thereof) and similar information was too much to just keep applying it randomly -- I'd prefer standardization. The last possible resolution that I could come up with was along the lines of what you mentioned -- a "button" like, float-right (picture the shortcut square & {{edition}} template streamlined & combined here) interpage link to the notes at the bottom that displayed the current standard message only when you clicked on it or hovered your mouse pointer over the link.
If it wasn't for the desire to also tinker with the cite bar's layout - I had envisioned that this could be small enough to float center in the cite bar...
Just can't find the way to insert text AND still have it dispayed in a slightly larger font size for it's hover message at the moment
...then we'd have the standard Notes= field completely free use by 2nd, 3rd even 4th citations: Provided , That the notes field rarely (if ever!!!) was used for linking related EOs since they then would be residing far below as the footer for every EO - whether they exist or not (even it's just one other EO or Proc!!!!). I just don't want the cite-bar to become wider than it the one row under the greenish main header field it currently is. Thoughts? George Orwell III (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal classification question[edit]

I have a question about the Political Science portals. Do you prefer the agencies of the US government to be classified under Political Science (Class J) or specific areas (ie. NASA classified under Class T for Technology, Subclass LB for Astronautics)? I originally thought Class J would be the most appropriate but looking over them again, specific subject areas might be the more natural classification. Either could be considered the intuitive place to look for readers navigating the portal space. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I had envisioned most of the "Independent" agencies (typically found under the Executive branch) winding up in 2 classes? or having redirects? as needed. NASA is particularly problematic because the public's perception, as you allude to, is strictly about space and the technology devised to get there, but they frequently play a role as consultant to the military and whatever nonsense they are up to today as well as helping to set U.S. policy on everything from coal mining to to climate change too.
For this reason I'd like to keep "NASA" itself under the Executive branch but the labs or facilities, such as the Jet Propulsion Lab or Kenndey Sspace Center & etc. can go under your class structure as those works arise/are identified or are added to WS.
(ps - my advice is to take the admin thing - nothing more satisfying than deleting stuff after all that time not being able to;) George Orwell III (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, they stay in Class J. If you think more subclasses are required, there are 26 letters to choose from. (If you do add them, adding them to Template:LCC Class J as well as Portal:Index will let the header templates pick up the links.)
(Thanks for the support; I've accepted the nomination although I'm still surprised by it.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II's Remarks to the people of the United States[edit]

Hello. If you think that Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Queen_Elizabeth_II.27s_Remarks_to_the_people_of_the_United_States can be closed as to keep the text or its portion, please go ahead, as I dare not to close the discussion that I started here, due to the conflict of interest. Pending the discussion closure, I have to restore the copyvio tag removed by the contributor as our standard practice. I also need the discussion closure for Chinese Wikisource as well. If the text should be deleted, then its Chinese translation will also be deleted. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank Jusjih for taking the intiative to explore the copyright issues of the very speech and thank you for starting the index page for the Presentation Remarks. I am sorry for my belated updates. Please have a look and if it is anything left to be desired, just let me know. Hanteng (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dotted summary row[edit]

Can you take a look to Index:The Modern Art of Taming Wild Horses.djvu, where is transcluded a page containing some "dotted rows"? there's something wrong, I presume from the use of tr tags without a table container. --Alex brollo (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it first helped to change the items on the 2nd page to use the template too, but yes the basic problem was the lack of >table< tags. I believe the real issue is the Page entry should appear in its own column within the template & floated right while the same column should be nullified (||) throughout the rest of the list items. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :-)
Yes, obviously I'd to finished the work, but I took a look to result and I was very confused about. I never imagined that tr tag can be used without a table tag... as usual, I came back home with lots of interesting suggestions and new ideas. Can I give you a suggestion? Pay attention to, a new, but far from small new entry into source family: Candalua is doing great things there, melting all the better from many projects! --Alex brollo (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

please undelete Robert Elise translation[edit]

we now have permission to use the translations from Robert Elise, can we please undelete the work? User_talk:Prosfilaes#Permissions thanks mike Mdupont (talk)

Just some tries[edit]

I'm going around to see someting good about proofread works (and I know that you know...). I testes Match and Split on Critique of Pure Reason/Introduction, then I found a problem about {{Number}} visualization into Page namespace, and I edited it (too boldly?} to solve the problem while preserving its job into ns0. Please can you review my work, and rollbak if needed? Thanks! --Alex brollo (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to ask since I am not familar with the application of the {{number}} template (looks rather old and might be obsolete by now anyway).
Still, if the changes solved something for you then I say continue with whatever it is you are testing until somebody has a problem with your changes. It seems like that is the instant where a rollback/revert is warranted to me - but, again; I am not familar with the use (or even the need) for such a template so you may wish to ask someone who has apllied it extensively in their editing before moving on to your next batch testing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll take a look to template history to find out its parents. --Alex brollo (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I'm in touch with User:Prosody, who knows the Number template. --Alex brollo (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I tried to look at its application and still find it hard to understand why it is used. It seems that it is concerned with aligning page numbers beyond what can normally be "fixed" through the page-list section in the Index: namespace. Something tells me this template has been superseded by improvements made to the Page: namespace since the template's creation and use. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I too think that it is an almost unuseful template in the new proofread context; perhaps a confusing one if proofread edition is different from original source of the text. I only fixed a conflict between the template display and the Match and Split of the text into Page namespace; while proofreading that relevant text, other, more experienced and interested users, will remove it (or simply will make it invisible with a display:none attribute ;-)) into the whole content if needed. --Alex brollo (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

<-- If you have some free time, maybe you can take a look at something I've been pleaded with to take on. It's the Table of Contents for that health care reform bill that was recently passed.

It is rather long and I was trying to find a way to easily reproduce it here on WS to accurately reflect the original as well as make it collapsible so it won't take up so much viewspace on the WP article at the same time. Thoughts??? George Orwell III (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly skilled into graphics; the best contribution I can imagine by me, is to have a try to implement here it:Template:Cassetto, who makes much more simple to manage the code of such kind of expanding lists, hiding to the user all the stuff of nested div tag used by js script. --Alex brollo (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

report of the interior 1877[edit]

Hi George,

I was wondering what we should do so that we're not editing the same page? - Tannertsf (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll add from the end and work my way forward.
FYI - this, along with every other early annual report, is archived at Haithi Trust
the report in question here on WS is...
-- George Orwell III (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could put them on here? - Tannertsf (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so. We were able to out-smart the .cgi on the Trust and download an entire volume as one .PDF not too long ago but they seem to have to put an end to that -- it's back to downloading one-page/one-PDF at a time. The plain-text conversion still works though. All of these should be on GoogleBooks as well but they aren't cataloged very well, never mind titled correctly, so searching for them is kind of pointless last time I tried looking for Trust hosted works. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)