User talk:Ineuw

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Proposing a change to Template:PSMLayoutTop[edit]

Hi. I am looking at this template again after number of years and how it hard codes formatting.Are you aware that the hard-coding that is imposed makes the articles ugly and problematic on mobiles? I believe that we should be looking to change the formatting of Template:PSMLayoutTop to have its content replaced with {{default layout|Layout 2}}, and Template:PSMLayoutBottom to just be a null template. Such a change will mostly retain the current look and allow us to get around the current issues of the fixed width. Such a simple change will mean that we won't need to look to other mass edits.

You can see an example of the two at Layout 2 and PSMLayoutTop

Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum. There is a little difference between your template, and Layout 2, so we can look at that if there differences are unsuitable. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I am am perfectly OK with the {{default layout|Layout 2}}. All I wanted is narrower text. Would it be possible to change {{PSMLayoutTop}} to a redirect to {{default layout|Layout 2}}, so as to minimize the work involved? I am not sure, but guess that {{PSMLayoutBottom}} needs to be nullified/neutralized? — Ineuw talk 22:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: {{PSMLayoutBottom}} is nullified and copied {{default layout}} to {{PSMLayoutTop}}. Can you check please if it's done properly? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 06:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration. Quick check of a couple of pages has it looking fine to me. At this point of time, I suggest to neither remove, nor stop using your formatting (well not at this stage), and a redirect wouldn't work. Leaving it in allows a change to another distinctive layout if needed (just in case approach!) If we need to remove, getting a bot through to swap over the first template, and remove the second, is an easy task. Up to you when you think that things are broadly okay, and whether for any new pages whether you utilise {{default layout|Layout 2}} at the lead of works. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I tested it as well in Chromium and by logging out. The PSM main namespace pages have been assembled years ago, so I no longer generate new pages, but agree about not removing them. Also the template pair may have been used in non PSM works, which I must check. — Ineuw talk 07:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I see that you have reverted. Would you share where is the problem? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Not to worry, I see where you have discussed it. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I reverted it and set the width to Layout 2 width. — Ineuw talk 06:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your Images[edit]

Ineuw, re: 62.djvu/206, your images look like photos taken a short while ago while in fact they are extracted from an old discolored book. Amazing too is that you work them, with text, for so very long and virtually non-stop. You would outdo Benjamin Franklin. I would tip my hat to you if I wore one. Beautiful long-distance work! —Maury (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I am getting closer to volume 87 which is the end of the project, and hope to complete it in this life time. Been at it since November 2009. :-)
Aside from that you have paused to help others including Raul on Mexico works, myself, and others on their projects. I’ve wondered if you ever sleep. People like you, if there are any, should get a very special and unusual "award" to at least announce your endeavors and accomplishments. The compliments come easy but your work doesn’t. —Maury (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

/* What now - another Windows Dilemma */[edit]

Ineuw, I would not bother you with this but I feel I need to. I decided not to write this in private in case others can benefit themselves or me or me.

Windows is no longer going to support Firefox that I and you used to use unless we have to correct operating system and XP is going the way of the DODO. I guess I am going to have to but a new computer or I to will become extinct here. What system do you use? What advice can you offer that might help me? If I buy a new system I want a good one and I could care less about Games. Is "Microsoft Signature" without the ad junk a preferable purchase? Please tell me, and others looking in, what you can suggest.

On your user page you have

6.2 Browsers
Mozilla Firefox 32bit and 64bit (latest beta versions).
My collection of Firefox addons for proofreading.
Google Chrome / Chromium 32bit and 64bit versions.

But those will not work with the new Windows system demands. I think my system problems is an old Dell computer with Win XP. Maury (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@William Maury Morris II: I wrote a long reply and lost it. So, we'll talk tomorrow and straighten the issue out. In the meanwhile, assemble the information for your computer make and model number, and operating system. This helps me to figure out what the machine is capable of. Goodnight. — Ineuw talk 04:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Nah, thanks anyway. I’ll just get a new computer. Thank you though. Good-day, Maury (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@William Maury Morris II: I do charge for canceled panic attacks. On the other hand, I sent you an email about how to set Firefox as your default browser in Windows 10. — Ineuw talk 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn’t and don’t have panic attacks or my heart would have stopped, so I am not in monetary debt yet. Thanks for the email on Windows 10 and Firefox. I replied in more detail. My wife’s computer is what I am using and she doesn’t have Windows 10, doesn’t use Firefox, she is blind and uses a screen reader called JAWS from Freedom Scientific. So, that’s her situation that I have to take care of. I use Firefox the latest version. We don’t have Windows 10, we use Windows XP which is the problem. There is no longer going to be support for Windows Internet Explorer on this Win XP nor Firefox. She has been wanting me to get my own computer so I will. I just dislike paying more money and taking more time with newer computer setups when I could be working on other things including Cassell’s Illustrated History of England in 9 volumes. Too, I have two more sets of volumes that look wonderful that I want to get started - and a lawn to mow. You probably live in an apartment or have a tiny lawn because you are always here day and night - perhaps you have investments in Wiki Stock? Thanks and kindest regards, Maury (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
As I explained to you, Microsoft support for Windows XP ended two years ago, and as long as it works it works. It is a perfect operating system for editing on Wikisource. As for Firefox, keep to the version that works in XP. It is a better choice than installing a newer version every 6 weeks. I stopped using their latest versions because it cannot handle the Wired Marker extension which is very important to me. So, I reverted to version 50.0.1. Here is the link to download Firefox any (old) version from beginning of time]. As for Internet Explorer, I never used it because it is a weak excuse for a browser, it is insecure and unreliable. Is it required for your wife's software? If it's not, just forget about it. — No lawn, just some plants. — Ineuw talk 22:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
True, as long as it works, it works but some upgrades work better just as some work worse. :0) I have been looking around just to be prepared for when whatever doesn’t work. I myself don’t use MSIE, my wife does. She knows the commands by keyboard touch. She could see years ago, went blind, and still earned a masters degree! I am the one who uses Firefox and it partially works as does her MSIE. Both dislike News videos. I was warned about Win 10 and IE and when the latest Firefox was upgraded to 52.0 32 bit and it’s working. Thank you for your kindness and suggestions in email and here. Plant your plants outside and you’ll have a small lawn. Maury (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Down the road we will end up using Windows 10, but only when it matures. For now, just stick to XP as long as it works (at least 10% of the world still does). Just use a good antivirus program and virus scanner (Avast and Malwarebytes both are free). Firefox will always work on it, and there is no good reason to update it every six weeks. This short release cycle has only one purpose, which is the constant and free testing by their users, of Firefox's new ideas and their corrections. — Ineuw talk 18:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S: I found it difficult to grow a lawn or plants in 10°F weather. Any ideas? — Ineuw talk 18:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Typo words.[edit]

Despite past issues, I was wondering if this was of any use, User:ShakespeareFan00/Typo words

It's a list I was compiling of typo words I'd found whilst going through something. Is it useful in improving the typoscan script? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What past issues??? Of course it is useful. Make a copy of the script which is available in two formats HERE and install it for yourself and add the codes. Some may already exist. A code line in my common.js activates it. The list of typos in my copy is a modified version of typos assembled from various documents by AuFCL. — Ineuw talk 21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Ineuw, I think the accent over the letter e ( Riviére ) is supposed to go in the other direction but I did not change it. —Maury (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Aligning under the one title[edit]


can be aligned to be under the one title rather than as separate works. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I will do it later today or tomorrow. — Ineuw talk 09:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:IA catalog of incomplete tasks.jpg[edit]

still needed? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleted it. — Ineuw talk 00:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 61.djvu/158[edit]

It is appearing in a category for missing images and it is validated. May I leave this with you to resolve? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: These images are properly categorized on the commons. Here, I can't find these in any category which contains the word "missing", like files, images, etc., so, don't really know what I am looking for. — Ineuw talk 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The Page here was categorised as missing images — which you resolved — not the images categorised as missing. Thanks for fixing. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Italics ?[edit] at the bottom I don’t think What. . . is supposed to be in italics like this. It continues to next page without italics but with quote " marks.—Maury (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reminder. What was supposed to be a double quote, the scanning process interpreted it as two single quotes and I missed it. Thus it started the italics. . . . .
Are you validating these pages? If you are, why don't you go ahead and correct these minor typos? There is no need to let me know that I made an oversight. :-D — Ineuw talk 00:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have been validating your pages. I corrected some that I was positive about but my eyes get tired quick and sometimes I cannot be sure so I at least let you know. I don’t want to mark something wrong unless I am sure I am seeing it correctly. I guess it is time for me to get eyeglasses. I come to your (and others) projects as a break of Cassell’s volumes. My apologies. If it happens again I will email you and you can yell at me if it is not okay. That doesn’t hurt. But at least now we know it has been corrected and that is most important. Cheers, —Maury (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I am perfectly OK with you posting here. Not that I don't like your emails. — Ineuw talk 03:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Page:Irish essays; literary and historical.pdf/7 publisher's mark[edit]

Another one for your collection if you wish to grab it. Are you adding these marks to Wikidata? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Never added anything to Wikidata. I must learn how to do that. Also, haven't completed collecting the publishers' marks. There are still some that are with the books & images. — Ineuw talk 05:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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


This is a fairly broad category name. What is it intended to house? Everything pertaining in any way to the Renaissance? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, "Mannerism" is most likely going to be understood as "exaggerated or affected style in art, speech, or other behavior", as that is the most common use of the word. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That's the exact meaning!!! Please stop being a contrarian for the sake of being contrary, and do not touch category. I have no time to argue and point out hundreds of categories with which we can nit-pick forever. I am not into this!!! — Ineuw talk 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Please do not get angry at me for trying to improve Wikisource, nor claim "ownership" of categories. To clarify, would a psychology book or etiquette treatise about "mannerisms" go in Category:Mannerism? Also, Category:Renaissance should probably be placed under Category:History of Europe, unless you mean "Renaissance Art". --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you, but not your approach. Suggest something instead. I am changing the Categories to Renaissance art and Mannerist art So, please let me know if this is OK. Also verify if the word "art" is capitalized or not. At Wikipedia it isn't. — Ineuw talk 21:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the practice of capitalizing only the first letter of a category name, unless English grammar requires otherwise. I have begun populating Category:Renaissance since it is an important category that should have existed long ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Why? Purposeful?[edit]

Why are we having The Life of Benvenuto Cellini then The Life of Benvenuto Cellini Vol 1. That doesn't seem right. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

They would appear to be published in two volumes solely due to the size of the work. I would think that they should be done as a flat level of subpages that flow, or as volumes with subsequent sub.subpages. I don't see how your schema works in the webspace, nor best portrays the work to the audience. The root pages are unattractive and aren't the best gateway to the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I suspect that your comments are triggered by my criticism of Encyclopetey. I consider your objections as non sequitur because you contradict yourself. Nevertheless, I will provide a detailed reply.
* Please read your post of March 2017 which deals with two volume issues.
* Books are published in two volumes "due to the size of the work". :-)
* It is installed in two volumes because the uploads are two volumes.
* Books I and II and the section numbers repeat themselves even when it's a single volume edition. You can check this out in the volumes available for download at the Internet Archive.
* The only single volume work that I was considering was from 1890, 1899, and 1903 editions from Charles Scribner's Sons. These editions contain a few low quality sketches of Cellini's work condensed to a few pages and are of very poor quality.
* My edition (Brentano's 1906) has 49 images which include paintings of important actors in Cellini's life which have historical value.
* Finally, the works are in progress, including the Table of contents. Please be patient. — Ineuw talk 18:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Umm, no, I haven't seen your comments to/discussions with EP, the work came to my notice through maintenance. My comments are based on what I see; what the community has said and the practice the community has been undertaken in recent times; then within that this divergence with your approach. I don't have the time, at this moment, to explain why I disagree with your singular approach, rather that what I would consider as a mindful reproduction for the web, and from that subsequent production of e-books. I would point you to something like My Life in Two Hemispheres as one alternative approach, and there are numerous examples of how multi-volume works have been done that are more aligned with a more accessible web presentation. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Based on what you showed me, I can merge the two books into one, just let me complete them separately as is because I must anticipate the anchoring and the two Table of contents are being prepared offline. — Ineuw talk 03:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Author:Robert Lee J. Vance from where do we get Robert[edit]

Hi. Looking at the works authored, the four works that I looked at said "Lee J. Vance", from where do we get the Robert? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: There are several references of his works on the web with the same title that was printed in PSM. — Ineuw talk 00:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
All the PSM works that we have are all Lee J. Vance. Zero mention of "Robert". As I mentioned on the author's talk page, every cited work or record that I can find contemporary to the author's timeline is "Lee J. Vance". The only references that I can find that mention Robert are all post 1960s and none cite a source for that addition. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I am OK with any changes, but missing first names are not unusual in PSM. — Ineuw talk 23:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not understanding[edit]

I am not understanding why you stick with formatting and means that the community has pretty much long-abandoned. For example, we have dynamic layouts which allow for a user to choose their form of presentation, and then with a page like Notes of the Mexican war 1846-47-48/Contents you force a format which doesn't adapt with layouts. On the same page you have included page numbers that were not in the original contents of the work, then in the index these pages have actual numbers, yet they are overridden so when transcluded the come through like [cn1] and [ch1] rather than nice simple page numbers.

To note that with tables, you will find that {{nopt}} (span formatting) will break less than {{nop}} (div formatting), and also throw up less of the lint errors that we have been addressing over time.

As an admin, it would be hoped that you could be a leading exponent of the style guide, or otherwise looking to have discussions about the style guide if you feel that it is wrong. I am not looking to be a PITA, but am looking to see if we can find that happy medium. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)