User talk:Hesperian

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives:  • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • Last archived on 13 November 2015


Thanks for the speedy deletions of Songs of Peace titles; there will be more in the coming days,—apologies if you're the recipient. Some time ago I thought it would be smart to link the titles to a text in anticipation of an added Index, but I have since found a collected volume, and am regretting that call now. Have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, happy to be assistance. Have a good day! Hesperian 02:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hesperianbot images removal[edit]

Hi Hespaerian. Is it possible for you to delete the images your bot has created from Index:The Garden of Eden (Doughty).djvu because I have used the exact same filename to upload to commons and now I can't get my uploaded images to display, but the local wikisource images are displayed instead. Thanks for your help. Jpez (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jpez: Label the local images with {{NowCommons}} and the process will be to speedy delete the images. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks! Jpez (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you please not use the same filename. It's documented in various places that you need to use a different filename for the final images. Otherwise you confuse my bot. Hesperian 23:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jpez: as a follow up about naming. Commons likes a good descriptive name, and that is actually beneficial for anyone who may wish to use the image outside of the work. If you need some assistance to do some bulk renames, that I can easily do for you as I have rights here and there. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Also I see that there are images tagged for speedy deletion that are still being transcluded into page namespace via {{missing image}} AND that some of them have multiple images on one page. When these are deleted and the commons image behind shows through, the page is going to be a confusing mess. Hesperian 00:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hesperian: Sorry I didn't know that we shouldn't use the same filename until now. About the mess and the multiple images, it doesn't really matter as I'll have them fixed soon and the work is still incomplete.
@Billinghurst: Can you please give me an example for how they should be named. Jpez (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Index:Transactions of the Natural History Society of Northumberland, Durham, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1867).djvu[edit]

There was a request at WS:Scriptorium/Help to assist in the completion of the work. I have edited some pages, whereupon I discovered that it is not transcluded. This work is more in line with works that you have done, so wondered whether you wish to poke it around, and fix the transclusion. If not, then I will look to give it some effort this week, or next. — billinghurst sDrewth

Meh. Very busy lately. I don't have much time for Wikisource, and prefer to use that time plodding along on Henry James. EncycloPetey would be another person you might talk to about this. Hesperian 00:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Wanted to check before presuming. Hope that the busy part of life is a good thing. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 00:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Bad-busy has passed. I'm in good-busy now. :-) Hesperian 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


Perfect. Moondyne (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. Hesperian 01:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

image confused[edit]

I took Wives of the prime ministers, 1844-1906.djvu and cleaned it up and it looks good on my PC, yet when uploaded to commons it looks this insipid washed out Lady Peel.png version. It is not browser, and the original version looks fine. Do you know what's going on with the image renderer? Yours confusedly. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that when creating .png images vs. .jpg Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
<sigh> phabricator:T106516, whine applied — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Or we just ditch the crap versions from the work and use Julia, Lady Peel - Lawrence 1827.jpg. Something can be said in not being true to a scan of a published work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have figured it out in my absence. Good stuff. Regarding introducing colour, I've never been comfortable with it; it's a slippery slope. Thus by definition, anything I might say against it can be dismissed as "slippery slop fallacy". I note you were much more forceful in your view three years ago. Perhaps in another ten years you'll have changed your mind! Hesperian 03:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The miscellaneous botanical works of Robert Brown[edit]

Hi, I’ve encountered this and thought it looks like the sort of thing I enjoy proofreading and have put it on my list, but it is missing Vol 3 so will probably be at the bottom of the pile. If you want it moved up, could you add Vol 3? Cheers, Zoe — Zoeannl (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zoe. The first two volumes are online. The third volume, which is plates and illustrations only, isn't. I do have access to a physical copy, but all I could do with it is run it through an office scanner, which would take a long time, and I suspect the illustrations deserve better than that. I'll have a think about what can be done. Hesperian 00:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


I cannot work out what I have done to have the fromsection gobbled at Logic Taught by Love/Chapter 8. Done this many times, and <shrug>. Help? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

fixed? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
<facepalm> thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Dalton Hooker[edit]

Hi! You created Author:Joseph Dalton Hooker way back in 2010‎ from a public domain bibliography but didn’t cleaned it up later as you stated then in the edit summary. Are you in a position to do it now? If I were you I would simply nuke it and copy paste content from Portal:India#Flora. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I cleaned it up as per above. Do let me know what you think of it. Solomon7968 (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Meh. I don't think you have improved the page. I think you've thrown out a lot of important bibliographic information. Hesperian 00:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Solomon7968: The additions are useful, the removals are not. I believe that the ability to have the fullest possible listing of works is advantageous. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok I restored the removal as per you both. Solomon7968 (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Solomon, I do appreciate your desire to improve the page by archiving the 'dross' and bringing the major works into focus. And yes, the page is messy and has a lot of low-value entries with poor readability. But I do think that completeness is important. So I've created a "Selected works" section at the top and put into it the material that you had retained. Then a "Full list of works" section under it. This is perhaps more useful to the reader than either of our versions. What do you think? Hesperian 03:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)