User talk:GregRobson

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hi, GregRobson, you are now a sysop.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks :) GregRobson 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, There is a different prefatory note in the compact edition of EB1911, written by Viscount Bryce in 1915. I will make a scan from my copy and add it. I propose that we also add the classified list of contents from Vol 29.This is not the main index but the one just before the list of contributors. This is a key to knowledge and lists the relevant articles in each class including biographies. If this is Wikified it can serve as a finding aid to the WS version, and I think should supercede the presant infant classifiation. I am a bit concerned at the number of raw texts being dumped into the main WP.I was looking at one yesterday which was in a very bad state indeed, with the raw OCr's text, mangled with the texts of key letters to diagrams. Maybe there should be some means of a Bot going through them saying they are unedited and referring to the WS version. My dream is that we eventually have the 3 volumes making the 12th ed (also out of copyright) as these cover WW1. Apwoolrich 19:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the other preferatory note. I've been looking over the scans and the classified contents would be very useful for giving an overview. I too share your concern over the lack in added and finished pages, hopefully once I have a little more structure in place we'll be able to tackle that issue (perhaps with categories for the different states?). GregRobson 19:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Librarian Project[edit]

I am glad to see that you have joined the The Librarian Project.

-- J.Steinbock(Talk)

Thank You For Voting[edit]

Thank you for voting in the elections. I will follow your advice, however, I do have one question. Without offense to BirgitteSB, I have noticed she has an unusually low edit count below mine. You stated that I needed a 1000+ edit,whereas, she was nominated with about 1/10 of that standard. It is just a small inquiry, but I was just curious.

Thank you once again, J.Steinbock

I don't believe I voted for their adminship, but I'm guessing they were either nominated in the early days of Wikisource, or had substantial counts from other wikis (which I would consider). I'm going by Wikipedia's guidelines in terms of voting, Wikisource has yet to set hard and fast limits to go by, but I tend to favour larger counts. I look forward to seeing more of your work and voting in favour a few months down the line :) GregRobson 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned Response[edit]

There is the same misunderstanding you you as there was with Apwoolrich. I did not mean to post that message on this project page (See Apwoolrich's Discussion Page). Instead, I meant to post that message on the Wikisource:Vayavinu Bamikra Project. Sorry of the misapprehension.


No worries. When I have several tabs open, it's easy to forget which is which! GregRobson 22:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interested Newbie's Questions[edit]

Hi! I'm interested in Wikisource, but I can't really figure out what you do and how you do it. I've looked around on the website and gathered that you are a library, but I can't figure out how you do this. I tried the intro, but it had quite a few links to pages that haven't been made yet (which is completely understandable because Wikisource is so young). I haven't set up an account on Wikisource yet because I don't know yet if this is the sort of thing that would suit me, but I do have an account on Wikipedia. If you could leave me a precis at my Wikipedia account of what you do here, how you do it, and what a new user could do, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks.

I have a few more questions now after reading your response.
  • Which is more important: uploading or formatting the text?
  • How do you upload the text onto Wikisource?
Also, thank you for your response. It helped a lot.
Upload or format? In terms of uploading, the majority of works so far are important and well known: such as books by Jules Verne, Edgar Allan Poe, or transcripts by the Dalai Lama etc. Trying to fill any gaps is quite important. Formatting is less important unless the text is old, or contains many references to people, locations etc, when wikifying makes it much more useful to anyone trying to understand it.
Uploading It's the same principle as WP, create a link to an empty page, or manually type the URL to be prompted to create the non-existant page. We try and keep pages a reasonable length by splitting into chapters or sections depending on the text. If you get text from Project Gutenberg, then you may have to remove the forced line breaks, and tidy up foreign characters and generally tidy it up a bit to make it look nice in WP.
Also, thanks for mentionning the poor state of the introductory material... it's not that helpful. I'll try and clear it up over the next week. GregRobson 21:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry. I don't think I used the right terms. What I meant by upload is do you type the text in or just copy and paste. I looked around more at the list of projects that you gave in your first reply and found The Diary of Samuel Pepys. It seems like a good project that I could contribute to. To contribute, do I just copy and paste off of the Project Gutenberg site and then format the text? Anything else? I think I will get an account now. Thank you very much for getting me started.
I am really not trying to drive you crazy with questions, but I came up with one more. If I want to enter something that isn't on Project Gutenberg, what do I do? Do you know of any freeware optical character recogntion software or something like that? Thank you for your help. I swear I won't cling on asking you questions until you die:) --Think Fast 22:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text at PG is of fixed width and plain text (they have some texts as HTML, but not many), and doesn't always display correctly due to the processing by the Wiki markup engine (you'll see what I mean if you try creating a page without doing anything to the original text). I have now created a page detailing the procedure of how to change the PG version into something more Wiki-friendly :)
So long as it is not violating any copyright, you can type it up (if it's short). If it's long, then I suggest you look at getting PG's Distributed Proofreaders to do the leg work. I recently asked about scanning documents (in particular bound ones), and got this answer [1]. They have a lot of FAQs to dig around as well [2].
I don't mind the questions, especially as you are bringing more help to the project! I was asking loads of questions when I started too! GregRobson 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done some work in 1662 for Pepys. Is what I've done so far okay? Also, I don't have an account on, so could you just send the answer to me in an e-mail or leave it at my userpage? Thanks a lot. --Think Fast 01:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, great work! There was a few minor formatting things like changing -- to —, but on the whole it's absolutely great. I've revised the instructions to say that items that appear--[like this]--should not be turned into footnotes.
RE PGDP: I have several large volumes regarding WWI that are old (1910s) and large (A4, 1000 pages each) and I wanted to scan them quickly and efficiently without snapping the spines, so they can be added to PG. The result was that the community suggested the OpticBook 3600[3], it costs about GB£135, but for scanning large amounts of text will be worth the money!
If you have any more questions, direct them to the project talk page, otherwise this discussion will disappear off the right hand side of the page :) GregRobson 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. --Think Fast 21:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template cleanup[edit]

Hi Greg. There is a listing of templates on the Deletion page, to which several of us have added comments. IMHO a number ought to be listed on your master list. On my talk page I have assembled a number (3) of templates for chapter navigation, and I will search further to see if I can find more. We ought to be able to agree on only one, I think, and that can be listed on your master list. Kind regards. Apwoolrich 18:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft Help: page about editing with templates[edit]

Hi Greg. I have posted a draft on my Talk page. I shall be grateful for any comments, please. Happy New Year. Apwoolrich 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. There has been a request to create a .hu subdomain for wikisource. here I don't know if you are the right person to ask to do it, but I would like to ask you to help if you can. --Dubaduba 10:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EB1911 classification[edit]

Hi, A discussion has started on Scriptorium [4]about adopting the same classsification for the WS version as was used on the original printed version. This has distinct advantages. Your comments are welcomed. Kind regards. Apwoolrich 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. GregRobson 20:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

It is good to see you are active here again! We recently enabled patrolled edits. I just wanted to let you know that you can set your preferences to mark all your own edits as patrolled.--BirgitteSB 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, an office move and dealing with the effects has meant that it has taken me a while to find some time to devote hereagain . I like the patrolled edits idea, and have updated my preferences. GregRobson 19:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]