User talk:Ineuw/Archives/2013-01-01

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Ineuw, what are all of these modern anchors for that you keep adding? I know the purpose of an anchor but they don't look like what you are adding. Please use a correct anchor.wink [[1]] William Maury Morris II (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


Ineuw, thank you so very much for all of your validating and correcting mistakes in my work. Kindest regards, Maury <William Maury Morris II (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome, just hold off thanking me because I make mistakes and miss text because of the "goulash" scan. Proofreading this work meted me a well deserved measure of humility, not to mention a lesson in patience. I will keep on proofreading a few pages at a time because it is exhausting (get a mild headache). However, there is a pattern to the scanning errors and perhaps I can do something about it.— Ineuw talk 20:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Search Engine for PSM[edit]

Ineuw, Chris55 is adding a search engine to many works. He added one to my project, Southern Historical Society Papers. I looked at it and here it is,

. That covers 52 volumes of the SHSP when complete. I explored with what is complete and the search engine works very well. The feedback is within those specific volumes and searches nowhere else which is nice when one doesn't want other works included in the "found" result. I do not know if you are aware of this or not. I state this so that you can add it to the PSM volumes if you so desire. It will cover all PSM pages in a search. It's your project so it is also your decision as to whether you wish to employ it or not. You are welcome, Maury < William Maury Morris II (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Will place the engine in several relevant pages. — Ineuw talk 13:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Ineuw, IF you do place the search engine somewhere for searching all PSM volumes, would you be so kind as to let people (me) know where you have made the placement? It's a bit absurd searching for search engines. I think a search engine for your PSM project would be a most wonderful thing to have. It would limit search results only to PSM volumes. PSM is such an excellent project overall for everyone due to the many varied articles that I think everyone would find it not only a useful tool for research, homework for youth, but the volumes' articles are wonderful to just relax and read. I am thinking over massive projects now and I believe your PSM project is not only among the best but perhaps is the best of projects. It is in not limited with subjects including the "Southern Historical Society Papers" project which is limited to the American Civil War. Respectfully, Maury ( William Maury Morris II (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Excellent! Thank you! I found the articles on the Challenger Expedition that I want. You can remove all your search engines now. wink. —wmm William Maury Morris II (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I prefer to leave the search engine there permanently.— Ineuw talk 07:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I know that Ineuw. I was jesting with you when I wrote that as if I had asked you to place the engines, got my result, and then said you can "erase the chalkboad." That is why I placed a smaile image with a wink in that statement. When I come to know a person fairly well, and consider that person to be a friendly person, it is a habit that I have to jest (joke) with that person once in a while. It's like your "TUSC account" and my statement of my Ford Taurus 2010 (a car). Things of great value are obviously not to be removed. -Sam Houston (William Maury Morris II (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
So far I placed them on three pages:
Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly
Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Index Links
Portal:Popular Science MonthlyIneuw talk 06:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew in Maimonides' Eight Chapters[edit]

Ineuw, I can take care of the Hebrew - I am able to understand it and enter it correctly. I have already begun on a couple pages. --Eliyak T·C 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have no problem with Hebrew - it's typing right to left on a Latin keyboard that got me confused and frustrated because never done it before. Would like to finish the page I started but will do no more unless I can find a solution. Any suggestions? — Ineuw talk 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
If you only were working on the one page, then I finished that one (I had it open in a browser tab from before you started on it). I use {{he}} to format the Hebrew and make other rtl-related tweaks, and I use the Special Characters toolbar dropdown to enter the actual Hebrew. Learning to switch from reading ltr to rtl in the middle of a sentence is an acquired skill. --Eliyak T·C 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
What I did, was type out the Hebrew text in the empty Summary box (below) and paste it, which is fine. The problem was that I am not [yet] familiar with the left or right cursor movement . . . I tried adding the comma and then space, and ended up typing at the wrong end. I was tired and left it off for another day. Guess must practice a little to get into the habit. Also, from your description, you use the new editor and I use the old. — Ineuw talk 18:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The comma first shows up on the right, then when you continue entering Hebrew characters after the space it moves to the proper place. Actually, one of the reasons to use {{he}} is so that the last piece of punctuation before more English shows up where it should. --Eliyak T·C 19:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Got it, didn't know about that template. Just tackled it on the fly. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 19:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 63cf9f4216b57cd4666e7e4c6189fe6a[edit]


Issued on — Ineuw talk 15:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! — User talk:Ineuw 00:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not, but I have a Ford, Taurus 2010. So, Ineuw, since we are friends can I borrow your TUSC for a few months for wiki social media facebook experiments? wink(Congrats! ) William Maury Morris II (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that you can have your very own - and as many as you want. You're most welcome to my TUSC account, and the other two I have/had. This one was pasted from the commons (my third) although, it doesn't work for me, but may work for admins. — Ineuw talk 15:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 3f86354d7faf1c83e5466ef4321bcf06[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


I notice you have been running into a lot of situations where the extra tools would be helpful. Are you interested in having them? During a period of difficulty in the past, I was left with the impression that you handled yourself better then some others. You have been around a long time, I have just assumed you either had the tools, or did not want them. On review I do not find any mention on your talk page and you have ignored a couple hints I have dropped (i.e., and here. If your interested I think you would be a great candidate. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

MFM running headers[edit]

Hi. Can you please adjust (or watch) your template of running headers? Your running header was incorrectly posted as


It should be


Thanks. — William Maury Morris II (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, have you found any others?— Ineuw talk 06:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, by the billions! If any are you know I will change them. You don't make a lot of mistakes.smiley William Maury Morris II (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Tranclusion question[edit]

Hey, could I ask you with some help on transclusion? I recently posted this book The_Descent_of_Bolshevism/The_Karmathians, but the page numbers to the side on the final version do not seem to match the proofed pages (when there is a hover, the gray color begins at the start of the paragraph). Do you have an idea why this could be? Tfine80 (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's perfect. (my browser is FF 14.01 on Windows XP). The gray begins, and always should, where the actual underlying page begins.— Ineuw talk 03:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I have the same browser and version, FireFox 14.0.1 on Win.XP and the The_Descent_of_Bolshevism/The_Karmathians work looks very, very good. William Maury Morris II (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

News article[edit]

Mail Online Yes, he is kin. Captain William Lewis Herndon. I placed information on Wikipedia about him and that ship(SS Central America) and I placed all of his book on Wikisource, "Exploration of the Amazon valley" volume 1 of 2 volumes. "Herndon" was a first cousin to Commander Matthew Fontaine Maury and a brother-in-law. M F Maury married Ann Hull Herndon, the captain's sister. They worked together at the National Observatory which came to be named the Naval Observatory. Captain Herndon's daughter, Ellen, Married Chester A. Arthur and he became USA President. They had children. Ellen married on her dead father's birthday if I recall that specific right. On Internet search for the book, Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea. I was contacted by the Ohio Group that found the sunken ship to find out whether or not I would lay any claim to any of that gold. I told them, "Of course not", I had nothing to do with it. That group had to go through a lot of legal battles for that gold and what you see in that news article isn't much compared to other images I have seen. It is a sad story to me. Herndon was very religious. Herndon, Virginia was so named in his honor by survivors of the wreck of the SS Central America (used to be named the "George Law") Thank you for the heads up on the news article. It carries a sadness. But it is good to hear from you again! Kindest regards, William Maury Morris II (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I just quickly posted the note after reading the article, without checking past references. I go through at least 10-15 publications every day, and send off a quick notice to whomever I think the find is interesting. I read the article after I saw the gold (purity) fineness stamped on the gold bar. In our time, the standard gold fineness is 99.999% - with Russian gold having the top fineness indicated by 4 - 9's after the decimal as 99.9999%. Just my daily Miscellany. :-) — Ineuw talk 05:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I only now came here after reading that article. Notice that the image of the ship is incorrect. The flag should be upside down indicating a ship in distress and so it was in the reports but not in that image. It also stated that some of the passengers managed to make their way to another ship (I think that is what I read) but I do not quite agree how that was worded. The passengers were taken by the SS Central America's longboats to safety. Those longboats went back and forth in heavy seas. Captain w:William Lewis Herndon had all women and children saved first and then some of the men before the ship was seriously sinking and about to go under. There is a lot more history to what happened than can be written in a new article.
I fully understand briefing articles since I do the same. I look at headlines and technology unless something seriously "catches my eye" then I read in close detail. I am not positive where I read it but Matthew Fontaine Maury, USN, gave a report on that incident -- I think it is in the book, "A Life of Maury". Oh, would you please look over and validate the rest of those proofread pages -- "pretty please" ? As always, William Maury Morris II (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is a very fine article from the "Ship of Gold" website.

It is entitled, "The Journey" and goes from the gold fields and miners to San Francisco, travels down the Pacific coastline, travels across the Isthmus of Panama by train, connects on the Atlantic to the SS Central America, heads to Cuba, leaves Cuba and is struck by a fierce hurricane off the Carolinas. A fierce hurricane there is *not unusual* at all. Cape Hatteras is known for more than 200 ships sunk there and is called, "Graveyard of the Atlantic". The USS Monitor, the ironclad that fought the CSS Virginia, was also sunk there, raised not long ago and is being preserved. Those two ironclads changed world history. The CSS Virginia was blow up by Confederates so that the Invaders could not trap her. She was blown up by Catesby ap Roger Jones who had commanded her in that famous "battle of the ironclads" and neither won that battle but the old wooden ships with 40 cannon were immediately out-dated. -- William Maury Morris II (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

One can't proofread and validate the same pages. It must be someone else, perhaps a note in the scriptorium will get someone interested as it's a short and easy read. Also, I am falling way behind (according to my roughly defined work schedule) of PSM proofreading and image uploads, as I am encountering other unexpected obstacles - like the custom javascript buttons - which I intend to resolve once and for all.— Ineuw talk 06:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea you proofread the rest of those pages and I humbly do thank you. I know the same person cannot proofread and validate the same pages. <smile> Off to the salt mines with 'ya! -- Maury ( William Maury Morris II (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

File double-up?[edit]

Hi, I see you uploaded Index:Darien Exploring Expedition.djvu and Index:Darien Exploring Expedition.pdf. Do we need both? And if not, can I delete the djvu? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do. — Ineuw talk 05:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Vol. 2 and Vol. 3[edit]

Hi. I have done Vol.2 and Vol.3 (about 6 and 20-plus changes). Pls make a sample check (I also did.) Worth to mention that smaller and x-smaller cannot be replaced by fs-template, as the former are in-line templates while the letter are not. A new line will be generated. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I understand. I was thinking about that issue earlier, and will explore the effect be if I were to change the template from <div> to <span>. Many thanks.— Ineuw talk 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Index:Drawing for Beginners.djvu[edit]

Hi, This work just needs two images and then it can be marked as Done. Would you possibly have time to do them? They were there once, but for some reason didn't have licence details on Commons and so were deleted. If you haven't got time let me know and I'll have a go later in the week. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Will get to it now. — Ineuw talk 09:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Pages need to be validated.— Ineuw talk 10:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done two pages validated. —William Maury Morris IITalk 10:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Taking you up....[edit]

on your offer.

When you have the time, can you please upload File:Xriver.pdf to IA for OCR & DjVu conversion? It will replace an existing flawed Index: needing the much needed source file replacement. (ps - Give it a more apppropriate title if you can; don't want to piss off the folks at IA for no good reason other than my laziness). Thanks again (& for handling the cocoa one too). -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Done the upload to IA and will monitor completion. Here is the link: Navigable Rivers of Great Britain (1831) and you're most welcome. I will notify User:Chris55 when it's linked to the commons. — Ineuw talk 20:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm.... still waiting on conversion on this one - must be because of the holiday weekend.
In the meantime, can you copy File:Statesman's Year-Book 1899 American Edition.djvu from here on en.WS over the same file name already existing one over on Commons when you get the time? -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I regularly check my 3 uploads on IA (includes yours), and they are all in a long weekend holding pattern. As for the above, consider it done. It's being uploaded as I write this.— Ineuw talk 10:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Got another one to upload to IA when you get the time...

...just leave me the resulting URL on my talk page and I'll monitor the conversions & take it from there. Yhanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Will be uploaded within the next hour or so.— Ineuw talk 14:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Well its been over 2 weeks since your upload and still no derivation. Can you please poke them along to address this by leaving a note in their forum pointing to the file & explaining the problem? Thanks for any attention in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Just posted a message in the appropriate forum.— Ineuw talk 01:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This really starting to piss me off - still no action. I've read through most of the forum by now and it seems the "automated" process doesn't run if certain fields in certain sections under certain libraries for a work are incomplete. Can you add 'Sidney Lee, Leslie Stephen' to the author field? If you can, please do & leave another post in forum titled simply '2nd request' and leave the details as before but in the message body instead. If this doesn't work I will move on to getting Volume 26 done instead - unless you have any other ideas. Thanks again for all your attention in this mess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I made the changes and added more info, also downloaded the file to see if it isn't corrupt, but I also think that the google notice should be removed. Let me know if I should do it. What do you think? — Ineuw talk 02:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
As in other instances of trying to swap out an old, flawed source file for a better one, the internal indirect DjVu page numbering matters. The Google disclaimer usually takes the troublemaking DjVu position for proper rendering 0000 sometimes created by the IA processing. All zeros confuses our routines and sometimes hangs the file/images from displaying properly... or even the text layer from coming fully through to edit mode. Its easier for me to makes sure the new and old DjVu files mirror up nicely if I delete the first page (the disclaimer, position 0000) before I open the file up to tweak it but after IA creates it from the uploaded PDF. I doubt that is the issue because we've done it this way before (re: PSM vol. 75). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and thanks again for the reminder. In any case, if they haven't acted within 24 hours, I will upload another copy with a slight difference in the name and make sure all info is there.— Ineuw talk 03:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That would be very kind of you, thanks. In case it matters, here is some additional info that might help that next upload.
-- George Orwell III (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the pages. As for the date, it recommends either to use just the year (YYYY) which I did, or the full date YYYY-MM-DD. If it's not processed by Wednesday pm (out time zone), then I'll just upload it again.— Ineuw talk 08:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Our Sister Republic: Mexico[edit]


Removing the garbage from the pages of this book may have caused some problem. It is not creating any other formats other than the .PDF here [2] How soon do you plan to bring it to Wikisource to work on? —William Maury Morris IITalk 14:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

coincidence & apology[edit]

Ineuw, be as angry at me as you want but know that I did nothing to you nor your work on purpose. It was I who asked you to fix those complicated pages and I certainly had no desire to mess them up. In email when I asked you stated about the pages you stated something to the effect of, "It will take awhile", which was fine by me as I had no reason to be in any hurry. Too, it was in that reply of yours where I proved that I have patience. I didn't bother you anymore about it and there was no need for that. There is always plenty to do here on WikiSource. We don't run out of projects to work on Wikisource. I apologize to you for whatever I did wrong and again know that it was not on purpose. You asserted on my talk page that it has happened thrice. If true then you should have let me know, openly or in email, after the first time, certainly after a second time, and far before it happened a third time. In that context you too made mistakes and don't we all? Of course. I myself do not hold grudges and whatever any another person does or doesn't do shows their character. Thus, in part, my message here while I suspect you will become silent in further communications with me and that is okay too but it also will show your character. We have written about our several commonalities but we know there are differences. Still, our character, good or bad, shows in our final deeds. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris IITalk 08:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize. While I am aware that I could/should mark the page I work on as being in use, the reason I don't do it because it "falsely" increases my edit count, since we get paid according to this count. I was accused in past, of "pumping up" this count and falsify my edit activity.— Ineuw talk 22:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
While there may be no need to apologize I will do so anyway if I think I may have made a mistake that cost someone a lot of work destroyed. I understand the loss of a lot of work done and it is highly upsetting. Mainly I wanted to tell you that it was not intentional. I wasn't even aware of it until you came to my talk page upset. I have had it happen to me to as you probably remember but mine was not as much work as you had done--and intentional or not I apparently caused the destruction of your excellent work. If only for the loss of that work alone I would feel bad about it and I still feel bad about it but there was nothing I could do except apologize and try to explain what I have done. I do not quite follow your statements about "edit counts" unless it refers to an award. I myself do not care about edit counts or I would be working a lot harder which for me would be absurd. My take on Wikisource is to enjoy our work we do. Still, any edit conflict is a pain in the arse much less a highly detailed one like yours. I did not know you were working on that page. You have seen me complain of similar in the open -- many have and not long ago. I work on pages as being in use too but edit conflicts &c. come. I had forgotten about the "inuse" tag that Billinghurst showed me back around 1996 (I would have to look back for it) but his covered the entire book I was working on. I believe that any person who wants to do as much of any book possible that he or she should be allowed to work on it and do as much as they can and then announce that they are finished with said book. Let us take "The Food of the Gods" as an example. It was posted in Scriptorium. I posted a link that showed it was on Project Gutenberg. I believe it was you who brought the book to WS. However, about three of us, you, myself, and Kathleen, were immediately working away on that wonderful book. I mentioned this to you at some point in email and you were to seek the original poster. I don't think that original poster, whomever it was, ever tried to work on that book -- or perhaps we overwhelmed him which is not righteous. We were too excited for such a wonderful and illustrated history. You will recall that I emailed you and asked if you intended to do the images and you stated something to the effect that you were. The reason I asked you that in email is because I too was going to edit those images. Then we would have had a lot of images clashing. By my asking, I prevented that and let you do the images. Can you imagine us both doing all of those images and not knowing the other was also doing them. Can we foresee, "revert", "revert", "revert"? Thus I was cautious and thinking ahead so not as to clash in our work. We have a lot of commonalities and we often tend to work fast and through nights. I suppose it was just a matter of time before we clashed but never intentionally. One other point about an apology. I have seen others clash elsewhere on Internet and nobody had the guts to apologize. I have often wondered what their psychological problem was that neither could apologize even when it was proven that they were in the wrong. I have never in my life been like that. It's pathetic. It is like acid on metal because the one who knows s/he is in the wrong has to deal with that whereas the one who can apologize, guilty or not, has a clean conscience within a sincere apology. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris IITalk 00:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:Page:The food of the Gods - A Popular Account of Cocoa.djvu/12[edit]

The above page now has page links and Inuse has been removed. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just finished some minutes ago.— Ineuw talk 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of Rule 100 % & Dhr[edit]

Ineuw, what is the purpose of using rule|100% when rule does the same thing? What is the purpose of using Dhr when br will do the same thing? Do they do the same thing?? I asked Beeswaxcandle and he did not know and does not use them. Are they only for the Popular Science Monthly volumes (PSM) or can they be used elsewhere with no problems? —William Maury Morris IITalk 06:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Where did you see rule|100%? I am sure it's a mistake, but please send me the link if you can as I am curious.

That one I can tell you without looking anywhere. You used under a running headers on one of the books we worked on together. I was removing them because I did not know what they were. I just use rule. —William Maury Morris IITalk 10:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the rule of 100% I now remember. It was unnecessary. - In that book, I was using a lot of small tables with 100% widths for the "addressed to" and letter "signatures," which needed flexibility to look full width in both the Page: and the main namespaces. I just kept on using it for the ruler without giving it 2nd thought.
  • As for {{Dhr}}, it was designed for PSM specifically, but I came to rely on it for uses other than it's original purpose to keep consistency and not having to miss carriage returns <br />.

But is Dhr the same as (br> (not br /) ?

No, it's not a "br /". It's just a top and bottom padded single non breaking space (nbsp). The full name of the template is {{DoubleHeightRow}}.

I have seen you use it multiple times in one area which appeared to be for creating spaces. —William Maury Morris IITalk 10:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC) i.e.


I *think* to create spaces whereas I would use br You also use it at the top of a page to (I think) create a space between a header and the beginning of a text page.—William Maury Morris IITalk 10:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The <div></div> HTML enclosure generates a <br /> automatically, and each Dhr "fakes" the height of two <br />'s, so I used three Dhr to fake 6 carriage returns and increase the blank spaces above the chapter headings as in the original.

I just want to know if they are of a better value than the older rule and br and I refer only to outside of the PSM Popular Science Magazine volumes.

Notice that all templates which are only useful in PSM, their full names begin with PSM and their shortcuts begin with "P". Dhr is useful anywhere, so I ommitted the "P". Either way is equally effective. For example, you like using <i></i> which is the real HTML code for italics, and I like the set of single quotes. All variations are equally good.
  • I designed it because there are 100s of paragraphs separated by double space and we kept missing them. So I keep to a strict rule not to use two empty rows or two br's in PSM, rather use Dhr wherever there are two empty rows. This is used in the

Miscellany sections between paragraphs.

Understood but I refer only to beyond the PSMs. —William Maury Morris IITalk 10:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Then, I realized that instead of using <br /><br />, one Dhr would do and used in other projects. In Cocoa, I also used it to keep the text from running into the images in the main namespace.

Ah! Okay, good reasoning. I saw them in Cocoa, "Food of the Gods"—but also elsewhere.—William Maury Morris IITalk 10:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • FYI, <br /><br /> side by side does not generate the same vertical space as when they are stacked on top of each other:

Okay... —William Maury Morris IITalk 10:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

<br />
<br />

  • Dhr is not exactly two <br />'s but it's very close. The spacing is based on the "em" which is a proportionate measurement affected by the font size surrounding it. If one were to use it in an area enclosed by a font size of 200% then the Dhr height would also increase (somewhat) proportionately.

I hope this info is of help.— Ineuw talk

Yes, it is a good explanation and I sincerely do thank you. I got tired of wondering because I have not seen it except when you have used them. I had asked these questions in Scriptorium, or on Chris55's talk page some time ago. —William Maury Morris IITalk 10:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. I conclude you are either a lot younger and/or smarter than me, or that the book you have mentioned is an excellent book. (What book is it?) When I went through high school there was nothing about computers, or "light emitting diodes", or "liquid crystal display" or even hand-held calculators. We had to learn to use a slide rule for physics class. I learned of the "new" 4th state of matter in chemistry class. We believed we were at least advanced beyond the Abacus. I have seen the world change and I believe that just one generation can make or sink this nation.William Maury Morris IITalk 13:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)



The book I referred to was your project Index:A Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury.pdf. The running header was generated by a keyboard macro where I only needed to add the page number. Once generated by a macro, I forgot about it and couldn't remember where the 100% came from because I never typed it again. - I have a general programming background, unrelated to HTML type programming, but most everything about HTML and its use in Wikisource I learned here in the past three years. Although I am a long time member of Wikipedia, (User:Ineuw), everything I did prior to joining WS, was "monkey see, monkey do". - As for my age, I believe we are about the same age.Ineuw talk 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Macros are nice but they are also like an assembly line. Sometimes I prefer things that are totally hand-made and and I once used macros long ago just as I once created all webpages by hand. There were no programs to do it in those days. What I do is all by hand and I prefer it. I too have contributed a lot on Wikipedia and some articles I almost wrote by myself without them being changed drastically by others seeking to enhance the articles. One of the reasons why I placed the 1854 Darien Expedition on Wikisource is to connect back to two or three Wikipedia articles which I have done within the last few days but not in great detail yet. I am presently fascinated with working on books on old Mexico, Aztec, Maya, &c. I never had "programming" courses and learn by trial and error as well as from others. I have worked on a Unix system before the days of web pages and browsers by hand for the University of Virginia. My old e-mail address showed .itc. in it meaning Internet Technology Committee. An example is shown on Internet where I placed the first true Civil War book (Recollections of a Virginian in the Mexican, Indian, and Civil Wars, by Major General Dabney Herndon Maury) over 19 years ago. Many web sites I created have come and gone over the decades (poof!) but here our Wikisource works are preserved. It is a wonderful place. If you are age 65, as I am, I hope that you never lose the child inside you (Transactional Analysis) and always keep a good sense of humor. Never become so dull in manner that you are just another "old fogie" like the "wall flowers" at parties who are boring in personality, don't dance, stand or sit and drink "socially" while becoming ill due to social drinking. Those people are already half-dead—assuming they ever really had any life in them.William Maury Morris IITalk 17:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Under-(inter-?)cut Images.[edit]

Apologize for the intrusion in this post but felt that I may contribute since there are numerous undercut images in PSM. Normally, they are treated as a regular square image, floating right or left as in the original, where the "under", or "over" cut is ignored. The only way I know how, is to segment an image. There is a single instance of a three segment image which someone assembled in PSM HERE and is a good example on how to go about it. From what I remember, the difficulty was in slicing the image precisely from multiple copies, and then aligning the segments to look as one.

—Ineuw to Mpaa/MODCHK

I only saw your "intrusion" by accident, but am certainly glad I did! Thank you for a perfect sample solution to the issue I was asking about. I had thought along those lines (slicing/dicing the image) but lacked the courage to put it into practice. (I definitely do not consider graphics my strong point; in case this is not already obvious.)
The effort put into that page is definitely worthy of pride. My congratulations to both User:T. Mazzei & yourself! MODCHK (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. — Ineuw talk 01:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, another problem[edit]

Thanks for your solution to that problem and for the formatting help here. I was wondering if you knew the solution to this problem, too? Thanks again! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yw. For multi line signatures, I always use tables because they are the most flexible. . . . and for table definition, I use the abbreviated for from the {{ts}} template. I also created a long version on that talk page. — Ineuw talk 19:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Esp. for the long version - it's been a while since I created a table from scratch (probably why that solution didn't occur to me), but at least I can understand them! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Our Sister Republic - Mexico - &c.[edit]

Ineuw, feel free to do whatever you may want with the book or let it sit if you prefer. You have already done all of the images and placed them on Commons. We both know that all of your work; images, code, whatever, really is far better than mine. We know that anything I might do can be re-coded properly. Images may be "reverted" leaving one person with wasted time and life for having worked with the same images. We have been through all of this. Therefore, I wash my hands of it. I am thinking that after many years of work on WP and WS, that this is no longer what I want to do with my life. I hereby step aside, and like you, I "leave the work to the pros". God Speed, —William Maury Morris IITalk 17:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. I don't want you to labor under false assumptions regarding your switching back images. Your work is just as valid as everyone else's. I stopped working on your project for several reasons.
  • One reason was your placement of the {{Inuse}} template which means that someone is actually working on the page at the moment.
  • With all images uploaded to the commons, please feel free to practice their insertion in the text. There are sufficient examples of center, left, and right floating image frames which you can copy from previous pages and simply replace the image name.
  • Immediate information I can provide: left or right placed images are inserted in a table where the description is a separate row. The table and the image width need to be the same. The text layer page width is approximately 380 to 400 pixels, and I "eyeball" the original image width compared to the text surrounding text and specify the table/image width accordingly.
Centered images use a simple image wrapper as [[File:|frameless|center|380px|]] and the description below the image is always a separate line made up of a combination 2 to 3 templates:
{{center, followed by {{fs75| OR {{fs85| for ALL CAPS and {{sc| for Small-Caps. These you have to judge for yourself by the image descriptions.
If you are interested in expanding your understanding, the table displayed on the {{ts}} template page explains what the shortcuts mean. If you have questions and I know the answer, I will gladly answer them.
  • Finally, I would like to advance with my work on PSM where I have a LOT to do.
I write this with the sure knowledge that you and I are both in an advantageous position versus most other members of the WP/WS community, meaning that we have, or can devote, more time to our efforts. — Ineuw talk 21:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
It's okay to be slow with some things --like explosives. Meanwhile, I have been doing those pages you now mention and my friend in Mexico has also. I have been using .jpg images with descriptions on WC whereas you use .png images. You also have a different system in titling an image. I have already been doing all that you now suggest including regarding the placing of images whether absolutely correct or not. Too, you are aware that I know of the many volumes of Popular Science you have to work on since we once worked together on them when you had proofread all of them but had no "running headers" in them. In short, there is enough for everyone to work on their project which I have been doing right up to and including today and am here again now to do more. My friend in Mexico had edited many of the pages on OSR and had validated mine. He and I were working together just as we has in Mexico as it is and was which became this month's Featured Text. I was also pleased to see that his friend and mine has that position with the Featured Text for October. "Theornamentalist" has excellent skills and is pleasing to work with. He can handle Spanish very well the Featured Text, Mexico as it was and is, was placed in Spanish and resides on both as well as es.WS I don't know of any other editors on WS that completed a book with as many pages as a bilingual work. I did the images on that work for both and In haste, —William Maury Morris IITalk 01:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Your statement, "Finally, I would like to advance with my work on PSM where I have a LOT to do." caused me to think of how far you could have moved ahead with your project. Therefore, I ask, would you like for me once again to help you in your project? —William Maury Morris IITalk 05:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer but don't need any help as I follow a predefined plan that I used for the first fifty volumes. I think you should just enjoy your projects, of which I think very highly. (I also have close friend in Mexico) If you notice I also made two contributions about Mexico, and still have another on my bucket list. If you want it, you are welcome to proofread it. Index:Appleton's Guide to Mexico.djvu. — Ineuw talk 06:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I do enjoy my projects and I have another book on Mexico on the back-burner. One day perhaps someone will list all of our books about Mexico in the "Mexican Portal". I looked at your selection of today/yesterday, and I see that you too will enjoy that project. It has a lot of wonderful complicated tables that you like and can handle plus it has many beautiful illustrations that we both like. I believe that people should have these personal projects and once they have finished then others can do whatever they wish with them. I read the text as I edit and I prefer doing it casually as opposed to being in any hurry or clashing with someone else that has stepped in. You may want to connect with your friend in Mexico and do what I and my friends did, go for a bilingual project where your images can be used in both books. I think it is unique and more so if there are enough pages. Some books have very few pages. I have plenty to do but but thanks for your offer. —William Maury Morris IITalk 07:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Accusation of image name changes against a scheme or policy[edit]

Ineuw, in looking over the statements from Rillke and your own statements on the naming of images and why lower case, 14,000 images, and your precise explanations, it seems to me that you are so professional using .JP2s that people cannot, or do not try, to understand what you do with images. You are really are so professional with image work that your work on images make your finished image look better than those shown in books and elsewhere. You have enhanced images to a degree of high professionalism. I admire your professionalism, I really do. I cannot recall ever seeing anyone work with images in the manner that you do nor come anywhere close in quality as you do. Even I know why you use that lower case but I guess you had told me in email. Too, it seems absurd that anyone would say anything in that situation above at so late of a date. Yes, right, let them try to take their time to "rename 14,000 images" at this point but for what—it lessens the abilities of others to view those images properly on different systems such as Linux. Godspeeed, —William Maury Morris IITalk 15:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your post. This is not my first run in with members who have nothing better to do, and apply changes on the fly on Commons. It's by pure chance that I saw the changes. My image upload count is much greater, but we discarded the first 1,000 or so. :-) — Ineuw talk 16:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I think those specific persons do not understand what you are doing and hardly anymore than I do. But they can see the results of higher quality just as I can. On a vague recall, did not you tell me your image count was around 55,000? I know it was more than 14,000. Still, you had the information there for someone to read and ask you questions before they started to destroy quality work. You on the other hand need to know that others are not as professional as you are in your works, and when working with such people, such as me, get overwhelmed with high quality .png images, wiki codes and some codes that you create -- all at once. People are used to the older methods. You present more perfect solutions and it takes time to understand and to learn them. A man of a higher education and experience, in order to teach, also has to know how to "talk down" on his methods so that those who are learning can understand. There are people in all walks of life that have unique knowledge, i.e.chemists, that have to "talk on an average man's level" in order to teach people. Talking down takes skills too. You cannot just talk because the average person will not understand so much so fast. In "talking down", I do not mean belittle people which is not your intent as I know you. Still, in the Commons situation you had written out so much in explanation and you even created examples. No administrator should destroy any of your work because he does not understand something. The administrator should have contacted you at the start and then work out any misunderstanding -- or pass it to a more professional administrator. I have learned a lot from you but I have a very long way to go and I will continue. Godspeed, —William Maury Morris IITalk 17:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

PSM & November's PotM[edit]

Hi, based on past experience with Validation Month I think we'll only manage to get one of the PSM volumes done. I try to have a balance of works across fiction and the various non-fiction spaces so that there's something to interest everyone. Is there one in particular that you'd like put into the cycle?

Also, work on the currently running Botany work has stalled, so we can swap one of the PSM volumes into there. It would show up on WS:PotM for people who want to contribute, but aren't interested in the current selection. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for considering PSM, Any volume between 11 and 50 are available for proofreading. However, the most significant volume in terms of change in the publication would be Volume 16.— Ineuw talk 18:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I was more thinking of volumes 3 to 10 that you listed for Validation. If we can get some new people involved in Validation month, we may well get some traction into the PSM project to assist with proofreading the later volumes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That's a good strategy. I believe that there is some topic of interest for everyone in the volumes. — Ineuw talk 19:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)



From Wikisource talk:WikiProject Social media

I haven't seen Eliyak around recently, so in their absence I have set up English Wikisource on Tumblr. At this stage, it will just be mirroring material on the main page (announcements of the featured texts, proofread of the month, maybe new texts etc). This is a trial; when it looks like it is working we can build on that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I just came from there and it looks nice. The image, "Betelguese, a trip through hell", really should be handed to Ineuw who is most excellent in image work. —William Maury Morris IITalk 21:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

-- —William Maury Morris IITalk 21:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am getting undeserved credit. As far as I remember, I never did any work/image with such name. — Ineuw talk 21:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No, Ineuw, you are not getting undeserved credit. Correct you did not do that one image. I stated that the (bad) image "should be handed" to you (for correction) on a Featured Text on the Wikisource talk:WikiProject Social media area. It is a terrible image for a "Featured Text". It is only one image. I further stated that you do "excellent image work", and I believe all here know that as a fact. If nobody else knows it, I certainly do. How about fixing it so that it looks good for all of us who like our work and take pride with Wikisource and especially with that Featured Text shown to the world via a new area not on wikisource? —William Maury Morris IITalk 22:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your faith in my abilities and gladly help out with images for such purpose — with the community's approval. But, I don't think that this is the page to ask for it. Also, I am not a member of Tumblr or any other social media, (for reasons of privacy and disinterest), so someone would have manage or instruct me with the upload.
Of course this isn't the place to "ask" for it. I just showed you where I "already suggested" it. See above, "Quote:From Wikisource talk:WikiProject Social media".

As for Index:Face to Face With the Mexicans.djvu, didn't commit myself because it has ~220 images and I am overloaded with PSM text and its images as it is.— Ineuw talk 00:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I and Raul do not want or need you to do anything on Face to Face With the Mexicans and neither of us suggested anything about that. You have here on WS your own yet untouched book on Mexico and many PSM Volumes to complete. Godspeed, —William Maury Morris IITalk 02:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Factoid following PSM article[edit]

Not sure how/if you #section# out (or format) unrelated info following an article in the PSM, so I thought I'd throw this page at you. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and already formatted it. There are two lines 65% long and surrounded by {{DoubleHeightRow}} before and after which add two line-heights for spacing without having to use <br />.— Ineuw talk 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/July 1872/Musical Mice[edit]

Could you please recategorize this article into Category:Rodents instead of the generic Category:Animals? The article is protected, so I cannot make this change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry about it and will revert this and some others which were changed inadvertently. Please wait patiently, until I get access to Volume 1 somehow as I am not an administrator and locked out as well. Also, in the future please consider adding your selections TO THIS LIST, since it's often used is a reference.

. . . . Thanks Mpaa. :-) — Ineuw talk 20:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped in. Done, hope it is OK.--Mpaa (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Nothing was changed inadvertently. I've just started helping to categorize the "Animals" articles, and could not edit this one by myself because it is protected. Thank you for your quick response. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Welcome. . . . Phew, (wiping my brow), yesterday Mpaaa was implementing a better default sort at my request, listing the article titles in proper alphabetic sequence in the category pages, but I do get carried away at times and thought I may have messed up something. — Ineuw talk 21:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Image advice please[edit]

Hi, I would appreciate some advice on how to handle the three images on Page:American Boy's Life of William McKinley.djvu/345. Should I do them as a single image and just clean up the white space around the lot? Or is it worth trying to do it as three? I haven't pulled the images for the work out of the IA file yet, but intend to do that tomorrow. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I would do it as a single image. I have hundreds of them and initially tried separating such images starting in commons:Category:Popular Science Monthly illustrations/Volume 88, but in the end it cannot be done properly. Look at these two images: commons:File:PSM V88 D039 Rails used for conduits for communications with train.png. In the following image, the best I could do is painstakingly grey to match all the backgrounds because white "bled" into the images. commons:File:PSM V88 D064 Various therapies to treat wounded soldiers 1916.png If you need help, please let me know. — Ineuw talk 14:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this the text I sent in?[edit]

Good day, Ineuw, my friend! I was looking over the PSM project. I see we finally got a copy of volume 75 added hooray! :) Do you by chance know if that is the copy I sent in the Internet Archive? I guess it doesn't matter. Just wondering if you knew. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So nice to see you! Welcome back. In essence, I don't think so. If memory serves me correctly, after some complaints IA posted this copy as a .pdf, I extracted the images from .pdf and then re-uploaded to be converted to djvu.— Ineuw talk 08:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not Matt's version. It was a group effort to locate, prep and convert a GooBoo PDF to DjVu WS usable back in July of 2012. See PSM Volume 75 (parts 1, 2 & 3) above. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. That's correct. Thanks for refreshing the memory.— Ineuw talk 23:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

PSM and Zoology[edit]

Please do not flood Category:Zoology with articles about individual species. The articles and works about zoology will be swamped out. If what I have done to clean up Category:Zoology and Category:Botany is wrong, please explain the reason to me. You have undone many hours of work I put into cleaning up those categories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

They are there temporarily as I correct, discover, and change previously assigned categories. Otherwise, I can't identify Zoology related topics. Please bear with me until I complete the identifications perhaps by later tonight. When completed, User:Mpaa will provide me with a spreadsheet of all main namespace articles containing the categories of each article. Using that, I can sort and clean up my work (remove the Zoology super category and other duplications), and intend to make proposals regarding the restructuring of the subcategories. I found a number of unnecessary loop-backs and incorrect category sub-groupings. For the past two weeks, I've been studying this category, studying subject related articles on Wikipedia and Wikispecies (with their categorizations), and done a lot of reading on other web sites as well getting professional advice from academics specializing in this area. I also intend to follow the above process with Botany. — Ineuw talk 05:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
But you are also removing valid categories such as "Paleontology" from paleontological articles. Will these be put back afterwards? I am myself a college-trained biologist, specializing in botany, evolution, taxonomy, and paleontology, but with ample expertise in zoology as well. I have also worked as a cataloging librarian. I don't understand some of the changes you've made. Again, if there is an error on my part, could you explain the error to me?
Please note that many of the categories on Wikispecies are purely classificatory. That is, they follow the strict hierarchy of biological classification, and so will never cross-categorize. A library classification cannot be strictly hierarchical, as many topics cross-relate. The power of a fully digital classification of a fully digital library is that we are not bound to a linear arrangement on the shelf as a hard-copy library is bound. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
First to address your concerns about Paleontology, I intend to put them back as well - I have the original category assignments file before my changes. My idea was to study the original assignments, propose further breakdowns. I will reassign them as you have.
My original interest was proposing the standardization of the mix of taxonomic and plain English names for the categories. In general, I accept one or the other, but not both. Some time ago, some editors created a series of categories using plain English. Lately, I began to study the issue to correct and improve my original errors and omissions, and that's why I looked at Wikispecies which was of no value for several reasons like the one you mentioned, and because it pointed back to Wikipedia for detailed information.
I came to the conclusion that Wikisource should not be a duplicate of Wikipedia, but use plain English names instead of taxonomic classifications wherever this is possible. You may notice my idiosyncratic categories (not created), like "Birds" alongside "Ornithology". This was made only made to remind me, not having any other method of notation.
As for cross referencing, it was my intention to eliminate loopbacks. I don't have your professional background but as a small example of what I quickly realized that Biota and Zoology subcategories intersected and looped back. Also, for example, Mycology and Fungi were not properly assigned as they were meant to be.— Ineuw talk 06:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Eliminating loop-backs would be incorrect. That's what I mean about cross-indexing; it's important and useful to have that, or users who go through Cat:Mycology won't find Cat:Fungi and vice versa.
One comment on this. Doesn’t Wikipedia enforce a tree structure for Categories? Aren’t loops to be generally avoided?--Mpaa (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no. There is one school of thought under which the hierarchy strictly bifurcates, and where articles on different language Wikipedias exist in a strictly one-to-one correspondence. The adherents of this school are typically trained in computers and data structure, and who run bots to fit the data to their model. However, there is a nother school of thought that permits anastomosing of branches in the hierarchy (and such cross-branchings are easily found), and that are aware that a one-to-one correspondence of articles will never be possible when some topics are clustered into a single article on one Wikipedia but split into several articles on another.
Now, as for loops, that's a trickier issue because some people abhor them and others don't mind. The only guidance page I could find on the English Wikipedia is w:Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Building a Stronger Encyclopedia/Categorizing Articles, which does not address the issue. However, it is quite easy to find many situations that do not follow the principles of this help page. For example Cat:Tree is in both Cat:Plants and Cat:Plants by habit, even though the latter is a subcategory of the former, and the Help page explicitly calls this an error. You will also find oddities and inconsistencies, such as the fact that Cat:Wood is not subcategorized under Cat:Trees. The category structure on the English Wikipedia is created haphazardly, bit by bit, as editors feel the urge to categorize or recategorize.
FWIW, I made an analysis of the Category structure. Not 100% sure of the results as I was not even able to find somewhere the total no. of Categories for a first check. I had no way to cross-check, but I found only few loops. I resolved a couple of them and one is [u'Category:Categories', u'Category:Wikisource', u'Category:Wikisource maintenance', u'Category:Categories'].--Mpaa (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The closest thing to a definitive statement I've ever found is on Meta: "The category structure can take the form of a tree with separate branches, but more often will have a graph structure." This means that cross-linking is expected between branches, but does not address the question of loops. A complete search of Wikipedia project and help pages turns up only 21 instances of the phrase "Category loop", and many of these don't actually address the issue, while the others (as recently as 2011) usually involve someone saying they don't know whether or not such loops are a problem in general, but the specific cases being addressed are often using a loop illogically to begin with. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
And the problem is not just the removal of correct categories like "Paleontology", but also your addition of incorrect categories. I saw an article about ants, bees, and wasps that you moved from "Insects" to "Ants", which is wrong. I saw an article about marsupials moved to "Kangaroos", even though the article covers multiple other marsupials such as koalas and numbats. I saw an article about prehistoric sea reptiles which you put into "Evolution", even though the article is not about evolution. So, the database you are intending to create will be wrong from the start. How can you correct the category structure when you begin from incorrect data?
Do you not see that your intention is fundamentally flawed? You are proposing to completely restructure Wikisource categories to match only the articles published in Popular Science Monthly, ignoring all other works in those categories or the potential works to come. That can't be good. I was already working towards a further breakdown, as needed, so all your work will apparently do is throw a wrench in that and cause frustration.
When it comes to the botanical articles, the result will be an even bigger mess. This is, in part, because the classification used in PSM will be hideously dated. Unlike animal classification, which has been relatively stable since the 19th century, plant classification has undergone enormous change. The classification of plants at all levels has changed so much that common names are almost meaningless. Geraniums are in the genus Pelargonium now, not in the genus Geranium. Chrysanthemum as a genus no longer includes chrysanthemums, etc. And the families and orders used currently don't even match what was in use 20 years ago. You won't be able to use any classification internal to the botanical articles, but will have to know the current system.
If you make all these changes to the categories, it will simply mean that it will all have to be redone. If you are going this alone, then changes will also be done alone. Databasing it should not require such changes, if you know the category structure already--you just pull all the articles in the subcategories of the parent. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the extensive comments, and I realize that we are behind computer screens and not conversing face to face which is a great limitation. To begin with, and as far as I know, there was no one here with your expertise, or the time to apply themselves to the task. If I am guilty for making changes without any prior notification, then so are you. There is no way to assume each other's knowledge and intent and thus, you are assuming, wrongly, what I was about to propose, based on the temporary changes I implemented. I intend to reply to each and every point you brought up, but at this moment, I must go off Wikisource and return to continue later. All I ask of you is don't assume my intentions. — Ineuw talk 20:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Sandbox10 proposal:
I say again what I said before: The proposed new categories are wrong. I could see that even at a quick look over just some portions of the proposal. Some oyster articles are labelled "Oysters", while others are not. Articles on Cnidarians are left in Zoology, instead of being moved to a more appropriate subcategory. An article about beavers is in both Beavers and the parent category of Rodents, which is bad categorizing. "Mental capacity of the Elephant" is in Elephants, but not in Animal cognition. "How fungi live in winter" is in Marine life, even though the fungi being discussed are all terrestrial or freshwater fungi. As I say, that's just at a quick look. If I looked at more categories, I would probably find more problems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Please don't be so hard on yourself and ease up a little. The fate of the free world doesn't depend on a few errors made on Wikisource. Please feel free to make any modifications necessary. That's why I built the database in the first place so that the errors can be seen at a glance. I used the only tool I know/have to display the issues of categorization. I don't think I ever stated that my categorizations were perfect and I was working blind. I took this on myself to get a clear understanding of what's going on and before I knew of your involvement.
The table is not meant to display hierarchy, just the currently assigned categories. But, we both know that a basic hierarchial structure must exist.
My initial proposal was going to be that we should not emulate/duplicate Wikipedia and use a mix of English, Greek and Latin classification, but stick to all English names. For example, I don't find the mixed use of the classifications such as Zoology and Animals. But now that you got involved in the reorganization of the categories, I am more than happy to stay out of it. — Ineuw talk 19:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S: One other item I forgot to mention. Some of the categories listed do not exist. I used this methodology as a notation to myself, since the historical practice on WS was not to create categories for less than three articles. In the future, I will mark articles as uncategorized so that they can be readily found. — Ineuw talk 19:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I realize that the list was not meant to display hierarchy, just the currently assigned categories, but therein lies part of the problem. An article should not be placed in both a category and the parent of that category. However, that's only one of several kinds of problems I see in your database. If I listed all the individual problems, I would be surprised if I came up with fewer than 100 miscategorizations, and there might be far more than that. So, we're not talking about just "a few errors", but hundreds. Given the enormous number of errors, I don't see how the data as presented can be used as the basis for any sort of proposal—you can't make good omelettes from bad eggs.
I do not understand what you mean about Zoology/Animals. Are you saying that the two should be merged? I disagree strongly because there is a great deal of difference between the two topics.
The reason that Wikipedia uses the zoological classification it does, is that it intends to be exhaustive in its coverage of all animal taxa at all levels, with at least one article on each taxon, and possibly more. Wikisource is not likely to have that kind of coverage for a very long time, if ever, since the majority of published taxa were published in articles that won't be in the public domain for a long time yet. That said, some use of scientific naming of categories will be unavoidable, as there is no common name for some groups. Plant families, for example, do not have fixed common names; the Ranunculaceae might be called the "buttercup family" by one author, the "crows-foot family" by another, and the "windflower family" by a third.
So, will there be any net benefit from all this disruption of categories, erroneous databasing, and general frustration? I certainly don't intend to use my time correcting the countless errors in your database. That would be a waste of both my time and effort. My expertise can be better put to work elsewhere. I had started to work on fixing the categorizations themselves, but you've thrown a huge wrench in that. I'm now far less inclined to assist when all my work is just going to be undone without any prior discussion nor apology for the frustration created. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


The usual plural form in modern English is fish. The alternative form fishes is not as widely used, and sounds antiquated to modern ears. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to make any changes. I am not an expert and I often eat crow with no complaints. All I wanted was NOT to duplicate the academic work level and Zoology classification structure available in Wikipedia, confuse other editors with Greek and Latin classifications, but rather place links in the category page to the appropriate Wikipedia article.
Simplifying category names and using plain English wherever possible was pointed out to me years ago when I began categorizing. By now, I wholeheartedly agree with this view, especially when after a period of absence from categorization, I saw the plain English category names people created. When I spoke of a database, I meant the one I created offline for temporary use to see where on earth the categories link to because, essentially, I am blind. Unfortunately, after a batch of changes, I would need a new list which I can't [yet] create on my own and must ask User:Mpaa or JIRA.
My point being, we are a small wiki with a limited active membership of about 300 editors, and our focus should be on proofreading and aside from the pleasure of reading, providing some historical reference works to Wikipedia. I am currently thinking of linking all topics with which I am unfamiliar with into a Category:PSM uncategorized articles and let others who know better to look in there.— Ineuw talk 22:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Ask and you shall be given … in your mailbox.--Mpaa (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:"Please feel free to make any changes." OK, but but you keep changing the changes. Do you intend to continue to edit at cross-purposes indefintely? I had "Category:Fish" completely cleaned up, then you went and changed the entriety of it. It continues to be very, very frustrating to try to make changes that you say you are fine with, only to have it all changed again a few days later. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you made any changes to the articles, but from now on I will stay out of your way. This is what I meant by working blind. — Ineuw talk 23:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

On your latest category edit, you listed "Cat:Mollusks and oysters", which is a badly structured name. It'd be a bit like "Birds and chickens" or "Reptiles and lizards", because oysters are a small group within the mollusks. The Oysters would still be in Cat:Bivalves, but since nearly all the PSM articles on bivalves were either about the Teredo or the Oyster, they're now in subcategories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, just please continue and I am out of cataloging Zoology and Botany. I also tagged three additional articles in Category:PSM uncategorized articles for your interest.— Ineuw talk 07:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

PSM Vol 3 is complete[edit]

Hi, User:Mariewalton has done some stirling work on validating Vol 3 as part of Validation Month and it was finished a few hours ago. I've swapped Vol 4 into the list and we'll hope for some traction on that in this last week of the month. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.— Ineuw talk 03:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Author:James Hall[edit]

Hi Ineuw.

I realise this is a totally unfair question and apologise up front for asking; but am hoping it might trigger a memory!

James Hall appears in the above reference as "James Hall Hall," in all versions since you created the page in June 2010. Do you recall from where you sourced the second "Hall" in his name. (Or as I suspect, is this just template parameterisation gone mental?)

If you don't know please tell me so and I'll try and do some "proper" research.

Regards, MODCHK (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

So sorry about that, "Hall" was included in the author's first name as "James Hall", as well as "Hall" existed in the last name field. I quickly corrected that, but if you still see it somewhere, please let me know. — Ineuw talk 00:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing to be sorry about. I stumbled across a reference to him in an article and realised the author had already been written up - yippee! Then noticed the extra name and thought there was a chance you knew something more (i.e. a missing middle name) than apparently other sources.
Don't go here for sake of your own sanity, but I have been mad enough to set myself the task of tracking down as much as I can, well, anything at all about the authors mentioned here. It may take forever. Why do I do this to myself? MODCHK (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


Ineuw, please read WikisourceTalk:Proofread of the Month. Kind regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 00:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

" It's the sort of thing I would normally ask George & Ineuw to help with,...."

I already read it and commented some time ago. Did I miss something? I will look at it again immediately. — Ineuw talk 01:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
No, you missed nothing. I think we were posting at the same time. I did not see your name or statement when I started posting the above but there it was immediately after I posted the above. You are always a very good and intelligent person and now as recent as a short while ago in helping Beeswaxcandle with "Vanity Fair." That is a beautiful book and has exceptional images. It, and you, are wonderful for en.Wikisource. I sincerely do thank God that there are many here that are so good and helpful to others and for all volunteers of Wikisource itself. Their concern now is getting Vanity Fair proofed and validated in time. I intend to help proofreading but nobody here is better than you with images (etc.) that I know of which is why I contacted you. Your work and name will live on long after we are dust. "Jolly good show, ole chap!" Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 12:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ineuw[edit]

I follow your link: interesting! Thank you, but presently I'm so busy into it.source that I use any time, energy and creativity there. Just a suggestion from my last tests: if you are using Chrome, take a look to Chrome Shortcut Manager extension. It's really an excellent tool! Much, much simpler that AutoKey, since it simply links hotkeys with any javasctipt functions tunning into the current page, or to new javasctipt code. I.e: in my settings, Alt+5 runs specific edits for recurrent edits into a specific work; Alt+3 "clicks" Level 3 radiobutton then clicks "Save" button. In many pages of my present work, most of review of the page reduces to Alt+5 then Alt+3. :-)

Please tell me if such extensione has been discussed here into en.source; if not, try it then spread the news, if you like! --Alex brollo (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

illustrated version of Vanity Fair + no disambiguation page[edit]

Ineuw, do you think it is safe to place images and text on this book at this point?

Will the text layer when pulled in overwrite whatever we do? Your image work, as usual, is exceptional, I love those images and the quality of them. I specifically refer to where I hand-typed the text and added your image you validated. Will the text-layer, so often talked about, destroy this work? What do you think about it. I certainly don't know but I wanted to get the illustrated version going. Also, there is no disambiguation page to separate this illustration version from the non-illustrated work on Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Better to be safe and not continue because of the missing text layer. As for the Gutenberg? text only version, I don't know if there will be two copies once the text layer is working. It's better if you ask in the Scriptorium. Also, what's the rush? — Ineuw talk 19:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, I had not thought of myself as being in a rush. I suppose my curiosity drives me in what I do. It is more like feeling happy than feeling as if I am in any rush. I do wish to see if my experiments will work and not be over-written. That's just a matter of curiosity whether they are or aren't as it wouldn't matter other than to satisfy my curiosity one way or another. I like having answers and learning including in that. But, I can wait, and I doubt I would work on it much afterwards because I expect I will be doing something elsewhere. Thanks, —Maury (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi, Ineuw. I initiated some discussion on the fs90 PotM issue at the Scriptorium. Ideally, the fewer templates necessary the better, but I'm open to whatever is agreed upon. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you beat me to the punch by one minute :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi and yes, and I was in the midst of posting the following. :-) To clarify, {{fs90}} was designed to operate on one paragraph at a time in the context of PSM. {{fs90/s}} {{fs90/e}} was added by User:AdamBMorgan. However, I am sure that the problem is caused by the wiki software changes and not the template and its intended application. Unfortunately, I don't yet know enough to find a simpler solution other than using {{fs90}} and applying it at one paragraph at a time, even though I am aware that there must be better solutions. I also know that placing {{Dhr}} between paragraphs only complicates the issue but it works.— Ineuw talk 22:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking you up on your offer II[edit]


Time permitting - could you please upload File:The Book of the Dead - Budge -1895.pdf to IA for processing. I don't know what happened to the folks who started the discussion on replacing the existing with a scanned copy but I went to the trouble of setting it up so why not. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Done as requested The Book of the Dead - Budge -1895.pdf. I will monitor the derivation and if it is not progressing within a couple of hours, then the process is that I email IA to alert them to the problem. This gets results within < 24 hours, as posting in their forums is totally useless. — Ineuw talk 23:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

One more from my backlog with the DNB Project - File:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.pdf - and that will be enough to make a dent for now. Again, many thanks (& I hope to get IA off the restricted radar here in the coming month). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Also done. Dictionary of National Biography (Volume 26) Please don't be concerned about asking me, I gladly do it (for anyone), it's not an issue, in fact it helps to familiarize myself and be known by IA. BTW, what do you mean by 'restricted'? IA restricted you, or the ISP's limit? — Ineuw talk 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Neither; its work related - long story; 'nuff said. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Still more from the backlog... File:Dictionary_of_National_Biography_volume_27.pdf. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thy will shall be done as we speak.— Ineuw talk 01:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And another - File:Complete_Confectioner_1800.pdf. Includes missing scan pages 250, 251, 254 & 255 from original Internet Archive break-out. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an "easy" one that keeps timing out for me & my slow-azz connection. We need to replace the existing File:EB1911 - Volume 29.djvu on Commons with the latest IA version of that DjVu file from here. ~72Meg is just too large for me to even download to my drive (fine) then rename to [re]upload over the existing one on Commons (fails). -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider it done. I am uploading the replacement as I write this. . . . and don't be concerned about drive space or up/download speeds. I am happy to oblige for reasons mentioned previously, as well as because it gives me the needed break to look after other tasks I neglected. :-).— Ineuw talk 14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture posters[edit]

You sounded bit down over on WS:S over this file that I couldn't let it go - I'm uploading the PDF ( File:Picture Posters.pdf ) as I type for you to do with as you wish. Its a good choice, especially for your talents. There are more pics than text the way I see it.

Unfortunately, it seems 2 images & their blank-opposites are missing in the 330 to 340 range (print page nos. not page position nos.). I inserted place-holders for what amounts to 2, not 4, missing pages in reality so no "problem" as far as the Proofreading point goes. All the 'Digitized by Google' watermarks have been axed and the disclaimer page's text layer has been removed. IA will automatically create an new PDF with it's own text layer as well as the other stuff when its derived that way (sneaky bastards). Still, the images are real stand-alone images for a change (i.e. you double click on one and only the image is selected; not the entire page) so its definately worth having just to be able to experiment on. It could use a serious re-sizing/cropping though - there is always an overflow on one margin versiou the other in short. Anyway - I've got a lot bigger fish to fry so I leave it up to you.

The only other point worth mentioning is that this is the 1896 Second Edition in case it matters. Please let BH know whats up and report back to the discussion if need be. Have happy & safe New Year too. :) George Orwell III (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help and good wishes. I will look at it and will let BH know. I also wish you a very happy New Year. — Ineuw talk 14:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow!, this one really has my interest peaked. First time IA has detected embedded image files separate from "page" images for me - too bad I haven't found a way to stop HackPDF from turning things to grayscale in the process. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)