User talk:Jasonanaggie

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Jasonanaggie, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


Validations on Index:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu[edit]

You submitted validations of pages from Index:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu at a pretty rapid clip. Documentation for new users can be lacking here, but to clarify you should only mark a page as proofread or validated after you've compared the text with the facsimile. Aside from that, the edits of yours that I've reviewed seem good--you've caught quite a few issues and improved formatting in many places. Thank you for the time and effort you've contributed. Prosody (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I indeed was comparing these, although it might look strange timing wise as I had been accessing them and comparing before validating them all once I had finished the volumes. I felt this a particularly good time to reread the Federalist papers, and then saw they needed validation. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Thiel-New-Zealand.pdf purpose?[edit]

Wondering why this has been uploaded to enWS. Are you planning on transcribing this? Would you please explain how it fits within WS:WWI. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Being that Thiel is having great weight on the Trump administration, it seems to be good to get an idea of a person who has the ear of the president. Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
That is not answering the question. Wikisource is not here for storage of files, they cannot be utilised as they can be at Commons. I pointed you to our scope and hope that you can answer it in that respect. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
At this point of time I do not see that it is within scope, so I have deleted it. If you disagree, then please put your argument to WS:PD asking for an undeletion, and citing the pertinent parts of WS:WWI as your argument. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.djvu[edit]

Please re-check this file, the OCR seems to be out by a page from around pp.31. (page 39) in the djvu). This may happen when a page scan is inserted by certain tools that don't adjust the associated text layer accordingly.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see this issue, when I am going page by page. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Page:Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.djvu/39 should contain tablur data in the scan, what I am seeing is the text content of what in the scans is on Page:Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.djvu/40.

Which browser are you using? If I can nail this down to a browser/AV caching issue it would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't having an issue with it using the latest developer edition of Safari (but it occurred to me this was the problem), so I tried to look at it in Firefox or Chrome, and I am seeing what you are saying now. Is the only way to fix this issue, to re upload the file? Thanks. Jasonanaggie (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that would solve it... I've asked for a second opinon in Scriptorum Help. You are welcome to comment there. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

italicized punctuation[edit]

Do you see the difference between [cod fish] and [cod fish]? In the former, the brackets are italicized as well as the text. The placement of the doubled quotes for italicization can affect the punctuation as well as the words. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I just hate that typesetting when it's putting italicized lettering in standard brackets; if you put the the italicized braces with the internal text, then it is easily scalable for typesetting, however if you want to keep the typeface proportional and use italics in a regular brace, you end up with the spacing being off and sometimes overlapping between the punctuation and the letters. Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, italicizing Greek or other non-Latin languages is generally a bad idea. Greek script appears italicized in some 19th-century texts because of the flowery font they used, but italicizing Greek for digital text just makes it harder to read. And italicizing certain non-Latin languages in certain fonts can cause other undesirable effects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Woah... Slow down!![edit]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your recent efforts are coming in at a speed that others have indicated may be too fast to ensure reliable checking.

If you are certain, you really are catching every single error, than I would suggest you use the time to double or even triple check pages, before you mark them as validated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have seen that I am making the same changes to pages already validated by others. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Noted. You might also want to check for &c., being properly noted in source texts as well (caught me out a few times.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Glad to see that you are becoming a consistent and valuable member of the community. We are glad to have your help validating texts! --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

De Sitter Gravitation[edit]

Hi, I have made some comments on the typography of this work at Index talk:DeSitterGravitation.djvu and would welcome any comments you may have from your experience of validating several pages of it.--Keith Edkins (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Fear by W. Somerset Maugham.djvu[edit]

Erm. 1965 is not PD-70.

This may have to be hosted locally as the author was British.

I'd suggest doing your own checks on the author's lifetimes, and not just rely on's information.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Italics, not smaller[edit]

Text printed in italics will always appear slightly shorter because it is printed on a slant. The {{smaller}} template should only be applied if the font is actually in a smaller font size (83% of the standard height in the text). --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

for some reason in that text the italics in the parentheses looked to be a smaller typeface. But I trust you on it. I won't change the font size on that volume in my verification of it. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Two index namespace templates[edit]

The way to mark the index pages is

  • {{index transcluded}} which checks whether the pages are transcluded to the main ns (use the icon on top right to run the check) -> {{index transcluded|transcluded=yes}}
  • {{index validated date}} which categorises to the month validated, and contains the transclusion check -> {{index validated date|March 2017|transcluded=yes}}

yes, it is unpretty, and it is manual. That said it does work, as we do capture works that have been proofread and not transcluded, or works where pages have been missed; and we can work out when works were completed. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not sure how to do it and didn't want to screw it up. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


When I run checker on Index:JehuTJ_1902redux(1).pdf here I see that there is one page not transcluded, and in looking it should be. This is the purpose of the tool and the manual run. If you are not sure what is happening then maybe ask or don't add the template. Please don't assume. Now you can either fix the transclusion to the main namespace, or {{ping}} me and I will make that change. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum. If the page has text though _should not_ be transcluded (for whatever reason) then we would tag it with category:not transcluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I would love to know how to do a transclusion. I do not know what task is being spoke of when saying this and the help pages aren't much help. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Help:Transclusionbillinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billingshurst: Thanks, I might make a few changes to the instructions there; I figured out what it was missing and it is not clear in that help article. If more people are having issues, I understand why that would be the case. Thanks. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night[edit]

Thank you for your contribution to Index:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 9.djvu. But please do not join paragraphs in a single line (and in some cases you forgot to add a space!), and note that verse lines are often very long and only broken because they don't fit the printed page, do not format them as indented. I've now added some "local guidelines" in the discussion page. Jellby (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Translation:Sagnac Effect and Emission Theory[edit]

I'm not sure what you intended, but your edit put two articles into the same page, where the original intent was clearly to place just the one there. We typically transclude each article separately, rather than in groups. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC) @EncycloPetey I was trying to transclude it, as it seemingly seems to be in the main namespace but does not show it when doing a check for the namespace. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be fine to transclude the other article, but it should be on it's own page in the Translation namespace. The current page title, links, data item, etc. are all for the second article. To transclude the first article, you'd need to create a new page, data item, links, etc. in a new location. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The other article has already been transcluded, see Translation:Once Again: Sagnac Effect and Aether. Thanks for your efforts, --D.H (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

{{rh}} and {{c}}[edit]

Please do not go out of your way to change {{RunningHeader}} and {{center}} to the shortcut versions. The shorter variations are not obvious or self-explanatory to new users, so I 'template' generally to the expanded forms which hopefully have some meaning. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC) @billinghurst - Oh, ok, I will leave them alone in the future. Thanks for letting me know why you had the expanded forms instead. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Too fast![edit]

You've been editing far too fast to properly check pages so as to validate them. See for example [1] and [2]. Those are eight pages in three minutes, and seven pages in seven minutes respectively, the latter being complicated by long s characters. Accordingly I have picked up quite a few errors you failed to spot. Please slow down, and I suggest you recheck more slowly the many works you have marked as validated in these past few days. BethNaught (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@BethNaught - Those advertisement pages I didn't think were important to the text being transferred, they weren't even going to be transcluded. Also would you mind giving an example of the long s errors I missed, thanks. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: advertising: that doesn't matter. Marking a page as validated means you have properly checked it, advertising or not. If you look in Help:Index pages, you see it is not necessary for advertising pages to be validated for an index to be marked as validated. Re: long s: I didn't spot any, but what I mean is it that it's an extra complication you wouldn't usually find, so probably extra checking time is necessary. Besides, at a rate of one page a minute, were you really doing a thorough word-by-word proofing like you're meant to? BethNaught (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@BethNaught - Yes, in fact that is about the rate I can proof these pages at, of course there are exceptions if the printing isn't clear, but for the most part with small form books it's about a minute to spot any issues. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologise for any minor counting errors there may be in the following: In the Seasonable Warning and Exhortation I counted 0 instances in which you fixed an error, except for interchanging {{ls}} and the literal long s character. I discovered a total of 16 errors on those 8 content pages. So going at one page per minute in that work incurred 2 errors per page. So I think it is clear you went far too fast. BethNaught (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
A couple of general comments. The advertisement pages. Although many of us don't consider them to be part of the work, and therefore they are not usually transcluded, they do need to have the same attention paid to them when validating as any other page in a book. Wikilinks are often missing (to works and authors) and I've frequently seen errors in layout.

In terms of speed of validation, we have had problems in the past with over-fast validating (including one editor who validated at the rate of 3 seconds per page). What this means is that when we see someone going quickly we tend to get a bit twitchy and observe their work quite closely. For me there are several factors that come into play when validating, (my normal reading speed is ca. 400–450 wpm). The amount of text on an average page, the quality of the scan, and the experience of the proofreader. If the answers to those three is small, excellent, and good, then I will zip through at about a page a minute (mainly fiction). If any those factors change, then I slow down and can end up at 5 minutes or more for a page, particularly if there are tables or lots of names (titles and people) that need to be linked. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Some more specific feedback re Army Sanitary Administration. You've slowed down—thank you. This seems to have reduced spelling errors. This edit contains the relevant types of mistakes I found in your validations. Be sure to check punctuation carefully, both that punctuation that should be there is, and that punctuation that shouldn't be there isn't. For example, transcribing "per cent." as "per cent," is an error a lot of people seem to make for some reason, it's not just you. Also in this case the proofreader left text from the sidenotes strewn in the main text, so if there are sidenotes it's a good idea to be extra careful. BethNaught (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikisource[edit]

Hi, Thanks for validating my proofreading on Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. If you look at your Watchlist, you will see the few things you missed.

We do try to emulate the printed page though to what extent can be quite arbitrary. I think you have noted the inadequacy of the Help pages. I am working on a Proofreading guide based on what they do at Distributed Proofreaders who process texts for Project Gutenberg. It is still very much a work in progress. I would be interested in your feed back. I need someone to motivate me to get it to the presentable stage; I am gathering pertinent examples as I go along and have just finished Cowie's Printer's Pocket-Book and Manual and Index:U.S._Government_Printing_Office_Style_Manual_2008.djvu is waiting for transclusion. I intend to use these as the source of most examples, in the hope proofreaders can pick up some of the typographical concerns in the process (osmotically?).

I am a proofreader-I find the technical side of things challenging but something I intend to pick up along the way. There’s always plenty to do but I would like more proofreaders at WS as I think the wikified product is so much better than the files that DP produce; there is a lot of potential, but things go at a snail’s pace with a lack of proofreaders. I think a more comprehensive Help would be very useful.

Anyway, Welcome! Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Validated indices[edit]

Why did you mark as validated this index with remaining problematic pages? Don't. BethNaught (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you see a way to make those graphics fit? I was trying to figure out anyway of breaking it up, but it just seems infeasible, the text is complete and correct and it seems like a limitation of the platform. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
If you have problems of that sort you should ask at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help instead of validating an incomplete work. BethNaught (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this one is solvable with the kind of technology being used in this system, I will take the validation mark off. Cheers! -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You did it again. Page 9 of this index hasn't been validated yet. BethNaught (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

From my account it showed as all pages validated; I even did a transclusion check to be sure as I had been waiting on someone to validate the map I made for the report. Are we looking at two different indices? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
You validated the index at 17:47. The map page was not validated until 18:37 by Legofan94. BethNaught (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, at the time I validated it, it appeared to me to be complete. I have no reason to validate something that isn't. I don't know if it is an issue with my browser or if something else is going on. But thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource:Style guide[edit]

Per the style guide, you should use straight quotes and apostrophes, not curly ones. Certainly you must not change from straight to curly, as you did here, when another user has consistently used straight in a work. BethNaught (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@BethNaught Okay, I will use straight ones. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The Maine Woods[edit]

Please do not work on this text. It is being held for community collaboration in July. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I didn't know. Sorry about that. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're eager to continue helping with Thoreau, Index:Excursions (1863) Thoreau.djvu still has a lot of work to be done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Not to be too picky, but if you are desiring to use the poem tag instead of breaks for poetry in Excursions, please note that the following pages (at least) will need to be changed as well to keep formatting consistent throughout the text: 48-50, 58-9, 73-6, 87, 111-12, 125-6, 172-4, 282. I have them at my fingertips only because they are in my Thoreau project notes of pages I formatted poetry for for this work. Thanks for contributing! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Is there a particular advantage to using the breaks over the seemingly simpler poem formatting? I will do whichever is the best for the site. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The poem tag shouldn't pose any problems within this text, so please feel free to convert if you wish. Use of breaks is primarily a matter of preference with me. Consistency of formatting is the primary thing. Thanks again :) P.S. To "ping" a User, you would type {{ping|User name}} Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The Poem tag does some weird things, especially over page breaks. I used to prefer the poem tag, but have had to deal with its frustratingly weird oddities often enough that I no longer use it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A trap on pages of the Special 301 Report[edit]

Hello, Jasonanaggie! I noticed that you did validation of pages of issues of the Special 301 Report which I proofread. Thanks for doing this, but please take in account that some pages of this report contains such a pitfall: while you see the page appearance as Wikisource shows it, at some cases italics at the text are not displayed (I don't know why), as for example at this page: Page:Special 301 Report 2013.pdf/29. So if you come to validation of such pages, please don't go rush to remove those italics. If you would like to see actual appearance of the pages, so you should download the report's file to your computer, and view the corresponding pages via pdf viewer. In general when proofread of some work is performed, downloading the file is not needed so you should not think that you must do the same for any other file as well; but for last releases (issues) of this report this particular problem does exist, so it must be taken in mind by anyone who would do validation (of this report only, not all other works altogether). And additionally I should notice that also not every issue of the report is flawed with this error: only issues for which the pdf does not containg image layer, could show such behavior. Such releases are releases starting from 2009 year and so on; earlier reports (2008 and earlier) do contain image layer and does not have this problem, so these issues (2008 or earlier) may be validated as usual (without downloading). It would be good if you keep all this in your mind while working on validating this report. Best regards, Nigmont (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Peter Bell[edit]

Hi, a couple of notes. A) There are several ways of doing stanza breaks. One is to put in two <br />s (as in the current PotM). Another is the way I've done Peter Bell with just a couple of enters (as we would at the end of a paragraph in prose). These two methods give a noticably different height to the stanza break. To my reader's eye the second gives a more pleasing gap when reading a longer poem in transclusion. B) The image. This is about the format. The jpg is sharper and the details of the engraving are better delineated. Yes, I could have greyscaled it when I took out as much of the faux-coloured background as was possible without losing detail, but I've found that when I do that the image becomes much flatter. png images are good for displaying photographs onto a raster display, but they don't work any near as well for line drawings—particularly the engravings that we get in most of the works we deal with here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Right alignment of text[edit]

I had to ask for a second opinion on this edit, because I lacked sufficient wording to make my point. EncycloPetey explained to me that "the original text is simply standard justified, and there was a break in the introductory note because of the centered quote. The right square bracket is simply indicating the end of the note, not indicating a right-hand alignment of the text." Therefore, in keeping with standardization of formatting for the work, I will revert the alignment change you made. But, of course, you are free to debate my decision. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I won't argue it, I just thought that it made the header to the song look more, balanced, but it works either way. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I am personally inclined to focus on aesthetic aspects, but have learned to appreciate and respect the more pragmatic aspects of editing here as well, which is why I sought a second opinion :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Formatting poetry &c.[edit]

Just a note that there are several ways to format poetry. As long as a User's formatting is correct and consistent throughout their work, it is unnecessary to change it. I believe BWC has already addressed similarly above and elsewhere. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

/* Pages not formatted -- see via edit mode */[edit]

Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers.djvu/337 —Maury (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me to be okay, what are you seeing? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
When pages and you declaring them as "proofread" it is not proofread when looking at the page at when you think it is done. It will look perfect. However, if you look in edit mode you will sometimes see paragraphs broken in half. You need to format the page from inside edit mode before declaring it as "proofread" I have been seeing this common problem for around 6 years here on Wikisource. Just to make sure that the older rule has not changed I have asked user:Beeswaxcandle to see what he says. Otherwise all of your work would have to be "proofread", aka "proofed" in edit mode by others. I take breaks from my projects and try to help other people not to do what I used to do long ago. Perhaps the rules have been relaxed. We'll both know soon when Beeswaxcandle answers. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
page 398 looks perfect aka "proofread" but when I went to mark it validated I always look in edit mode first and this is what I saw See how the text is broken up (unformatted)? —Maury (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Well if that is what you mean, they are technically the same, as the only difference is whether you are viewing the size of a screen it was edited on (i.e. automatic carriage returns), they both produce the same viewable text. I don't mind doing it the other way, but I thought that it was just a waste of additional time as I have seen most others do it like I had in the previous one. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Jasonanaggie, here is the feedback I sought (copied)

When one looks at these 2 pages marked as "proofread" but then looks again when in edit mode and sees text not formatted, are the 2 pages ready to be marked as proofread? I have always believed the text even in edit should be not have broken paragraphs, stray words, etc. I believe every page of this sort should be proofread and then mark the (outside) of edit mode look proper. Some people don’t bother to perfect in edit mode and for some reason it looks fine after proofread -- but is it really proofread. I say "no" and therefore cannot/should not be validated. I am not working on Scottish Songs. I did a few pages and got back to my 9 volumes of Cassell’s Illustrated History of England which is fascinating but also tiring. So, what is the answer? Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

His reply:

There are a couple of proofreading mistakes in the first one (preemption should be preëmption). With respect to the linebreaks, these can cause problems when transcluding, which is why I remove them. They look OK in the Page: namespace, but don't behave in the Mainspace. This is also why I transclude chapters as I proofread them. Then I can check immediately that everything is as it should be. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
There, you’ve got it! This is what I also believe. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I am far to sleepy at this point and must get some sleep. I hope that this helps Jasonanaggie. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:New texts[edit]

When adding a new work, please limit the total number of listed works to seven as specified in the instructions. BethNaught (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

When you add a work, please also add a descriptive summary as requested on the template page. Thanks. It is the one page that we monitor heavily and strictly, so your assistance would be appreciated. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If you don't mind...[edit]

Your validation is appreciated, but would you mind saving me at least the rest of the pages of Wilde's "The Devoted Friend" to validate? I am also reading as I validate. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I noted that you were validating Wilde's work from a story's end [leaving the middle] and proceeding to the beginning. I found it humorous that as I resumed validating the middle of one story, I came across the following passage:

"Every good story-teller nowadays starts with the end, and then goes on to the beginning, and concludes with the middle. That is the new method..."

You seem to have adopted a "new method" of validation. Thanks for leaving the middle. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


I have a checklist that lists all of the proofread/validated pages of the PotM that I have formatted for consistency based on guidance from the Talk page for the project. Please do not change formatting for breaks when they are rendered as <br />. I will eventually be visiting all of the proofread/validated pages to make sure that formatting is consistent throughout the work, so I am not asking anyone else to do anything other than leave the breaks alone when they follow Talk page guidelines. As of right now, all pages that have been proofread and validated in the work are consistent with guidelines (notwithstanding human error). Also forgive if I revert some of the centering of intros... It is often evident that some text should be centered, and evident that some text should not. When it is not necessarily evident, I favor centering. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. As per above; I hate to be a busy-body, but will proceed: Will you interpret it as edit warring if I revert you? Brackets indicate that the intros are standard aligned (left) and not centered. I'm all for beautification, but I defer to standardization and consistency. Do you want to get consensus from others on this matter at the work's Talk page? I'm all for that so this is settled... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, go ahead, I was just trying to fix what I thought was an outstanding issue. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to squabble over trifles. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


{{Page:The service.djvu/13}} You'd get it sooner or later ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Please do NOT make major moves like this. The old location was deliberately chosen because we will need to disambiguate editions. Your move now requires another editor to move all the pages back because the location need to be available for disambiguation of the several editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

sorry... -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Extra space[edit]

Extra space is forbidden within brackets: see Wikisource:Style guide, Formatting, section 6. Hrishikes (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Titling for PotM[edit]

Good Morning! Please note titling guidance from the PotM Talk Page. Disambiguated titles should be rendered as The Book of Scottish Song/Hooly and Fairly 1 ... The Book of Scottish Song/Hooly and Fairly 2 etc. and at the Table of contents, rendered as [[The Book of Scottish Song/Hooly and Fairly 1|Hooly and Fairly]] and [[The Book of Scottish Song/Hooly and Fairly 2|Hooly and Fairly]] Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't creating the song pages, I was merely fixing some broken links due to title discrepancies. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Apologies. I assumed, based on Contents page activity. Will address with Mr. Edkins. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Scottish Song index page[edit]

Hi Jason. You formatted an index page for The Book of Scottish Song using br tags. The rest of the index is being formatted using Dotted TOC page listing, so I'm not sure the br tags are helpful - someone's going to have to remove them when adding that template - unless there's something I'm missing? Best, Sam Walton (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

To give your an idea of what I am doing there is to help me do the other type with more ease; I can have the break separated view on one screen while modifying the page on another at the same time and just copy over and correct the spelling, etc. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Thanks for explaining! Sam Walton (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Image creation option[edit]

I'm not sure what you have available for image editing, but an option is to go straight to the IA source and copy/paste the "original" image to your photo editing program. The image quality is much better as a starting point, and after copy/pasting, you can remove color, lighten, or whatever you deem necessary. I don't like copying images from the DjVu file due to the poor quality. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That is far better, I didn't realize that the originals weren't encapsulated in the djvu file. Thanks for the help! -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem. A further suggestion is to zoom in on the image and you can copy a more detailed image. This is helpful for smaller images. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
To note that it is always useful to ensure that you zoom in as far as possible on the IA, then you can just right click and save the original image. To note that if you mark something with {{raw image}} in time one of our administrators runs a bot through to extract the images from the JP2 files which will give the highest quality available copy. That does take some time. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problems[edit]

Please be aware of the discussions at Wikisource:Copyright discussions here and here.

It appears you don't know or understand the rules and practices around here or Commons about file licensing or attribution. Please read the documentation listed here and here, as well as relevant pages linked from there, before continuing uploads. BethNaught (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The pictures I am uploading are in the public domain. They are free of copyright. I am doing additional work on them to improve them so they are my work in a derivative form, I am releasing them them under the Creative Commons license. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
If so, when you upload them you need to expain why they are free of copyright, by mentioning the original author (if known) and providing an appropriate copyright tag. Also, while you can copyright your edits, this will only be the case in some jurisdictions, depending on how much creativity you put into it. BethNaught (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I am posting a link on every picture description to the original work. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You changed the license tag, but it's still wrong. The problem is we don't know who made the pictures, so you can't just say "PD because life+70". PD/1923 is correct, although that doesn't apply to the UK.
Anyway, I dont have time to deal with this now and I don't want to get sucked in. I know you want to be helpful, but please help elsewhere, i.e. other people's transcriptions. I can't make you, but please keep away from my work. It's not the first time you've introduced errors or problems into my work and I shouldn't have to check the people who are supposedly checking me. Thanks. BethNaught (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

With idiot vandals ...[edit]

... please feel welcome to place a note at WS:AN; or come into IRC and ping an !admin, or me directly, there are IRC links at WS:S and Special:RecentChanges. Thanks for your tidy up works. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Page:Anti-mass panphlet.djvu/2[edit]

hi, thanks for the validations. i am conflicted by this page. i think it is more a paragraph with no hyphens. but your line breaks work also. cheers. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's okay if you reverse my edit, I just thought that the typography implied it more as verse than plain text. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Formatting changes[edit]

I don't suggest making formatting changes to pages without taking the remainder of the work into consideration—or without consulting the current editor of the work. Even seeming innocuous changes, in my opinion, should not be made unless you plan on going through all the proofread pages and applying the same changes. Consistency is sought here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I was just thinking that making changes like this would improve loading times, but if consistency is more important I will stick with that idea. Thanks for pointing this out. I reverted the changes I made on that volume. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)



When a fellow's been plodding along proofing a text for weeks or even months, and they've done about 300 pages of it, and all of a sudden someone else comes along, starts proofreading right in front of where they were up to, and even transcludes out the rest of the book, this does not come across as helpful. It comes across as irritating and a wee bit invasive.

Hesperian 01:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource is a community affair and unless someone puts a note on a page that something special applies to it, anyone is free to contribute. I won't apologize for proofing something that had not been proofread. This is a community for all to participate in, not a place to keep your personal contributions to yourself, you can set up a personal wiki page on your personal server if you want that kind of deference. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, stand on your rights—you have the right to, therefore you will. There are many in this community who value both rights and consideration for others. Hesperian 02:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
My main point is that there is no way that I would know that you were wanting to work on this item yourself. If you want to do things that way, put a note on the main page, and people like me who do respect others wishes will leave it alone for you to complete. I shouldn't however be expected to do investigating on whether an item is free to work on. You will get a lot more respect if you ask kindly instead of rudely expecting someone who has made a contribution to the community to somehow feel they did something wrong when they did not. You need to respect others as well by understanding what the mission of the website is. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
There is an {{in progress}} tag on The Sacred Fount (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1901), the text of which says "This work is in process of being created or modified. Should you wish to contribute to this page, please consult first." Is this not "the main page"? Where else does it need to be so that you would have seen it? Hesperian 02:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I went to your book on the scan itself, I wasn't looking at the transclusion. If I had seen that I would not have worked on it. But you could put something in the comments on the scan page asking that the work is a project you are intending to finish yourself. I can revert my contributions if you want me to. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with Hesperian. It isn’t a "wee bit invasive" though, it is a hostile take over of another person’s project and therefore it is wrong morally. I never think an apology is absolutely needed but it doesn’t hurt(or does it?) and may help. —William Maury Morris IITalk 02:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
A "hostile take over"?! This is a Wiki, collaboration and working together on the same topic is the exact foundation of what we do. A note to Jasonanaggie saying "Hey, I was reading this while I proofread", or "I'd like to do this whole thing myself, if you don't mind" is quite reasonable, but to describe it as invasive and irritating totally goes against the whole point of a wiki. Sam Walton (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

One goes to a public beach, chooses a spot and takes in the rays of the sun. The beach is not crowded, yet another comes along beside and sets up an umbrella, blocking the sun's rays from the sunbather. The beach is public, and no man can lay claim to the sun's rays.Consider the number of not-proofread works we have here at Wikisource -- to include several of which were recently set up by Jasonanaggie -- and how comparatively few editors we have chipping away at those works... Our beach is not crowded. Our editors are few. It takes mere seconds of "investigation" to see that a work is being handled by a single contributor with an interest in the work itself. It is a matter of courtesy. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Beautifully put. A community is not only about right, about what privileges one is entitled to. A community is also about co-habitation, living together with others. So all members are also responsible to see that their endeavours are not causing problems to others. POTM projects are free for all, even there one maintains a suitable gap from the pages worked upon by another editor. For other works, why should another editor encroach when one is already engaged, in the name of rights? So many works here, and so few of us. Other than saying I did it because I have the right, there is no real need to take over in the middle of a work when someone else has already started work, except when the work is long-abandoned. If another editor is really interested in that particular work, how does it hurt in politely asking the original editor whether participation is ok? A community is also about this type of etiquette, not only about rights. Hrishikes (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Jason, in case it feels like the community is "piling on", can I assure you this is not a community attack on you. I think the discussion has touched a nerve. It is a tension that has existed in our community for a long time, and many of us have strong feelings about it. Your page has become the venue for people to participate in a needed discussion. Hesperian 00:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for the validation! Hesperian 03:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well for validating Thoreau's Poems of Nature. However, I reverted your {{dhr}} substitution for a few reasons: 1) double line spaces are sufficient—unless I am missing some technical reason why a template should be added instead of keeping things simple. 2) uniformity: you did not apply same changes to pp. 1-50 when you validated them at an earlier date. 3) stubbornness. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Image size in Boy Travellers[edit]

Hi, when putting images into works it's best to limit the size to 600px for the largest images. This is to account for end-users who are on mobile. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't think about that small of a screen. Will do, thanks! -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Index:Twenty-four plates illustrative of Hindoo and European Manners in Bengal.djvu[edit]

Thanks for the validating. Hrishikes (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Vita Nuova[edit]

Thanks for validating this text. We're solely short of works by Dante.

A note: William Michael Rossetti did not write or translate the Vita Nuova. His older brother Dante Gabriel Rossetti was the translator. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem, yeah I was wondering why nobody had put much Dante up; there are always usually a bunch of fans of him. I noticed that William Rossetti did write the introductory comments however. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikisource has very odd holes in its coverage. Sometimes I am genuinely surprised and horrified by what we are still missing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Edward VII biography[edit]

I've renamed the master file at Commons for Vol. 4, and moved all the content pages you'd done. The links from the Author page and other volumes have been corrected to match, so that all uploaded volumes follow the same naming format. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Better to hold off doing any work on Volume 2. There is a Hathi Trust notice page that will need to be stripped out, and that will shift the page numbering for the entire volume. It's a headache to have to move a bunch of created pages, so it's better to wait until the source file is fixed to proceed with proofreading on that volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that file in now fixed. I've moved the existing pages to their proper locations, so it should be ready to go now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hathitrust was the only place I was able to find it in the Public Domain, I'm surprised IA hasn't picked up that copy from UMN yet. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
A lot of IA content is transferred over through people like us. There are bots that can transfer content into IA and they're available to regular users. However, the particular volume (vol. II) wasn't uploaded to IA because Hathi's copy came from Google Books, and the bots don't allow Google content at Hathi to be transferred. Supposedly, you can go to Google Books and transfer it directly, but I looked, and in this case the copy at Google is no longer available. So, the easy route was a dead end for most of us. It required someone with a different approach to make the transfer happen. Thanks for making the upload! --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Books 1923 and later[edit]

Some of the items you've been listing were published after 1922. Just keep in mind that books published in the United States in 1923 or later may still be under copyright, and will needs to have their status carefully checked (even if there is a scan posted somewhere claiming public domain). If it's still under copyright in the US, we can't upload a copy to Commons or host the work here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

But we do want them listed, correct? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but if a work is still under copyright, then we should provide that information as well. You can see examples of how to do that at Author:Virginia Woolf. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I'm researching and working at putting the Masque of Edwards up. Just letting you know so you don't waste your time duplicating my efforts. I just need to know more info about Author:Edith Harwood, who was the illustrator. I can find works of hers from as late as 2016, but no information about the year of her birth or death. I'm going to ask @Billinghurst: to see if he can find the info, as he's good at that sort of thing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently looking at the memorial service items for the king. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

DoD USS Liberty Inquiry Press Release 28 Jun 1967.djvu[edit]

Thanks for your help. I'm fairly inexperienced with Wikisource. Would you please tell me how you transcribed/OCRed the pages of the file? Mox La Push (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure; if you look at the top bar where you see the blank space to type in, click in the blank box and then hit the icon that says OCR above. It may take a 10 seconds or so if the pages are complex, if they are simple it should be instant. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Headers and Footers[edit]

I don't understand your recent edits like this one. The point of putting the duplicate title into the header is that it makes no sense to repeat the title on the first page of the first chapter. In a print book, where the front matter is spread over multiple pages, it serves to alert the reader to the start of the actual book. But in an electronic copy such as ours, where all the front matter is visible on a single page, and the first chapter is a separate page, duplicating the title over and over makes no sense. It does not need to be transcluded into the final copy of the book. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Example: If we transclude everything slavishly, we can end up with books that start like this:




And that just confuses the reader. Sometimes it's more important to consider what will confront the reader of an electronic copy than simply throwing everything in. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


Apropos your Tarzan validation. nop should be on its own line. Please do not attach it to the preceding line. Hrishikes (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wonderful Visit[edit]

Since you seem to have finished yet another work, I'll note that Index:The Wonderful Visit.djvu has sat untouched since it was started in February. It's one of H. G. Wells' first novels, and we don't have a copy yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I will take it out. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Any other works that need doing? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Probably lots of them. That just happened to be one I was aware of. If you're eager to do more of that, I'll keep it in mind and pass more such works along to you as I come across them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a major one: Index:Wells - The First Men in the Moon, 1901.djvu. I'll take care of doing the illustrations, ToC, and other such front matter, but otherwise this is ready for match and split. This is a first edition, and was published with illustrations, so it will make a splendid addition to WS. It looks as though LibriVox may have a set of audio recordings too, so I'll investigate and port those over to Commons as well.

H. G. Wells' works entered public domain in the UK only this year, so we're missing a lot, but we also have the problem that there often aren't good scans of first editions, because the books weren't in PD-UK until a few months ago. So most on-line scans are later US editions that differ significantly from the original. Of course, the books that Wells published in the US after 1922 are still under US copyright, so we still can't host any of those, even though they're in PD in the UK. :P --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I must say that the differences I am seeing in the volume I am doing right now, are very strangely minute and just scattered from capitalizations to this weird reversing of the type of mark used as the primary quotation mark. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It's always best to verify the two editions are the same before doing a Match and Split, because they can differ. But in the case of the work you're currently doing, the one we have before is a later reprint without a supporting scan, whereas the replacement scan is a first edition. So the differences may be odd, but we'll end up with a superior copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: Chapter numbers. If you compare against the capital letters of the main text, these are only slightly {{larger}}, not xx-larger. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

All the images for First Men in the Moon are now positioned, and any pages that needed sections for inserting images have been so divided. All that should remain is the basic proofreading / validating. The Mainspace pages should all be correct now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Please stop the work you are doing. You are replacing one edition with a completely different later edition. We don't do that. The Collected Writings series should be in it's own new set of pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I have the correct printed version, they are both 1893 stated, and they line up perfectly. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The source you're working from is a 1900 edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The 1900 date is incorrect, I just hadn't fixed it yet see here : -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
No, the 1900 date is correct. What you're looking at is the copyright date, not the date of publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Look at page iii, which points out the publication date of 1900 (MDCCCC). --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Right, the 1900 date in Roman numerals is for the set of volumes as it states on the title page but the book is the same as the imprint of the 1893 version as stated by the copyright mark, or there would be a new stated copyright if the imprint had changed; so they would be identical right? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This could perhaps be the one referenced but I think it is the same made for another set. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
There were multiple editions and printings of the "Riverside" series of Thoreau's writings. The first print run was in 1893. In 1906 an expanded set was issued, and we've focussed more on getting that run completed, as well as the individual volume first editions. The printings between 1893 and 1906 are iffy, and we have a mixed bag of those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a different printing from a different year. It is part of a different series, and bears information that was not in the 1893 printing. So we wouldn't replace the older copy with this later one from a different printing, especially since we have several copies of this work already. The degree of similarity isn't the issue.
This situation is different from some other split-and-match situations you've done recently. In those prior situations, we had unsourced copies (we do not know where the text originated) that were being replaced with a sourced copy in the form of a scan. Here, we do know the source of the current "1893" copy, even if it's not backed by a scan. And we wouldn't replace a known 1893 copy with a 1900 copy, especially if the current filename includes the 1893 date in it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for rolling it back then. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If we can find a scan of a genuine 1893 copy, then we probably would replace the current 1893 copy. But otherwise, the 1900 copy would be a "new" edition here in a new location.

For Thoreau, we have several editions of several of his works now, thanks in large part to the collaboration drive over the past few months. And in particular, we have the first edition of Walden already, so I wouldn't worry much about completing other copies besides the 1893 copy (if we find a legitimate scan) and the 1906 copy, which has been started. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I did the Walden first edition, which is why I was interested in the multiple editions. Curiously, there is a 1892 2 Volume Edition ( and then there is the set version a year later in 1893 ( They seem to keep the 1893 imprint until they came out with an edition I have in print that had the pictures of the actual Walden site in the book. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The 1906 edition included color photos from the site. The 1906 collection was nearly twice the size of the 1893 collection, because of the addition of Thoreau's journals, but it also added photographs, maps, and other items to assist the reader. These are just some of the reasons the 1906 collection is favored over the 1893 collection. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

On removing italics from Special 301 Report pages[edit]

Hello, Jasonanaggie! Please take a look the topic above (here on your talkpage): A trap on pages of the Special 301 Report, which was written by me (on 21:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)). It seems to me that you hasn't paid attention to it, because in your recent edits on proofread pages of the Special 301 Report 2014.pdf you did exactly the same thing which I cautioned you not to do: you removed italics (for example in this edit) while they do exist in the original document — they are just not displayed while viewing on the proofread page (but they are seen if you download the document and open in a pdf viewer). And I want to ask you: do you agree that those italics have to be returned? --Nigmont (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the pages I changed, I wasn't trying to cause an issue, and I am sure you have forgotten small issues like this before. Cheers. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your responsiveness. I've also noticed that another user also had done on proofread pages of 301 Report indexes the same thing as you did (removing italics, and something other as well). Probably I need to try to write basic guidelines on the talkpages of the indexes of the Report (similar as it has been written on talkpages of some other indexes, for example Index:The Book of Scottish Song.djvu) — for all users who may touch the pages while proofreading / validation. Regards, Nigmont (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nigmont: just interjecting to say that I also would have removed the italics, if they are not visible in the proofread page interface. A note on the Index talk page would be the most appropriate way to notify other editors of the formatting issue in the source document. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: yes, you are right, and I had to put the notification just at the first time when I encountered that issue. I am sorry that I hadn't figured it out in proper time (I just hadn't got familiar with such using of the talkpages of index pages, so I hesitated to put the notice there). --Nigmont (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Carte geographiqve de la novvelle Franse[edit]

Based on the title, I would guess this isn't in English, so we wouldn't host it here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Check it out; it might be worth mentioning and having a link to it in Commons, I didn't know that Thoreau did some formal cartography. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The French Wikisource might link to it at Commons, but since it isn't in English, we wouldn't note it here. Maps are generally not included in Wikisource, so we'd rely on the Commons Category link at the top. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent uploads..[edit]

Appreciate the enthusiasm, but a small number of your recent uploads have scan issues. Can you please consider slowing down and checking the scans more carefully, BEFORE you upload them on Commons? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well, they may have a few minor scan issues, but just the fact that I found them is quite amazing, it's better to have a scan that you can read even if it has some imperfections. I have been looking for copies of those Atlantic Volumes for months and what I uploaded is the best out there. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Author:Stephen H. Perkins[edit]

Hey, I just noticed that you created a duplicate of Author:Stephen H. Perkins at Author:Stephen Higginson Perkins. In future, you can move the old page to the better name, or if the better name already exists, you can turn the old page into a redirect. If I had not noticed the newer page that you created, you would have been the only one who would know to resolve the duplicate scenario, so don't be afraid to make these changes :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for some[edit]

Thank you for some of the error fixes you made to my proofreading of Pushkin's poems... However, please do not adjust formatting of text without consulting first. If you feel that one formatting practice is "better" or a possible improvement, please alert me to it, and I will decide for myself whether to adopt its use for that particular work. Otherwise, please do not make the change if it is not necessary and if a work is still in progress. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Same comment here, please don't go changing the format unless you have a good reason to, and let the person know why you're doing it. On Boots and Saddles the chapter heads were no larger font than the text font, so I put them in bold to have them stand out. I put a bit of thought into that, and rather liked the look. It's really no fun having all that changed without so much as a by-your-leave. Mudbringer (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see anything in the discussion page, so I didn't know you were so attached to the bold-face setting, so I went with what seemed to me to be a better fit with the typography of the original. But, I won't change it if you wish to change it back. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather not spend the time changing it back, but thanks for the permission. And thank you also for the improvements I was too lazy to make, such as rule and smallrefs in the footers on page view. But anyway please give a bit more consideration in the future to what the proofreader was trying to do before making formatting changes. Thanks again! Mudbringer (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Indian Medicinal Plants[edit]

The work is already here: Index:Indian Medicinal Plants (Text Part 1).djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That's strange, I wonder why IAUpload permitted the upload, as both are from the same archive source. It should have rejected the upload. Thanks. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are interested in plants:
Hrishikes (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Blanklines before {{nop}}[edit]

Hi, blanklines before the {{nop}} template are sometimes required to ensure that the paragraph spacing works in the transcluded text. The reason I reverted you rather than just put them back in myself is the patently over-fast validation you have done on the work. The multiple errors that Mudbringer is finding should have been found by the validator. The fact that you didn't indicates that you have only skim-read the pages rather than actually done a full second-eyes validation. The things you did find, such as missing page numbers and {{smallrefs}} in the footers are minor compared to the OCR errors that I missed and are now being found. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Civil Liberty in Lower Canada[edit]

Please do not add Double heighted rows between paragraphs like you did (inconsistently, I might add) in this work. It doesn't make sense to have double spacing between two paragraphs which are a part of a continuous text. Please note that typesetting is secondary to the text and having double spacing in some places and not others does not add to readability. Also, don't you think that you’re validating a bit too fast? Ciridae (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(Apologies for jumping in) It's common for texts to have no space between paragraphs, and then to add a space between paragraphs to indicate some sort of separation. I see that in this particular text there are sometimes no spaces between paragraphs (e.g. page 12) and sometimes spaces between paragraphs (e.g. page 6). It would be wise to take a step back and look at the whole work - why are there spaces between paragraphs? In this case, it looks like the spaces are largely inconsistent and accidental, so {{dhr}} is inappropriate. However, you may notice that there is a typographic distinction on pages 11-14: the type is smaller, the lines are closer together, and there are no spaces between paragraphs; {{dhr}} may initially seem like a reasonable way to duplicate this, but in fact {{fine block}} would be more appropriate. My points are: 1. It seems to me reasonable that a less experienced user would think inconsistent use of {{dhr}} is appropriate here; 2. It is a good idea to look at the work as a whole before deciding upon or changing typographic conventions; 3. It is also a good idea to make use of the Talk page to establish consensus and provide guidance to editors who may work on the text after you are done. Anyway, thanks for listening. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess I'll butt in, too. I did a quick spellcheck and found three pages with outstanding ocr errors ("w T hich held forth", "Mi. de Boucherville" and "necessity ot doing" along with a couple errors in the quoted Latin text), perhaps there are more. Two of the errors are due to damaged type, but if you look closely you can see that "Mi." should be "Mr." and "ot" should be "of". Considering that in the validation itself only one ocr error was corrected, it's hard to say that the validation served its purpose in this case. — A couple of additional points, I saw {{SIC}} used on "shewn" which I don't think is appropriate as that's such a common alternate spelling for "shown". Also, the quoted Latin text uses an old convention of beginning each new line with a quotation mark. I think it's standard practice to remove all but the initial open quote and the final close quote, as it looks very odd to see the extra quotation marks appear in mid-line. Anyway, my 2¢. Mudbringer (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mudbringer: Thanks for your input. I've fixed the issues you’ve mentioned. Ciridae (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Atlantic Monthly structure[edit]


I notice you are working hard at adding works from The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 14, but placing the individual articles in the Main namespace as top-level works. The existing volumes that have been started (Vols 1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20) are laid out in the standard "Periodical/Volume X/Issue Y/Article Name" way, according to Wikisource:Periodical guidelines. That is to say, something like this:

Redirects from the top-level work can then be used down to the sub-sub-sub-pages. This has the advantages of:

I thought I'd just mention this before you create dozens of pages at the top level! Just moving the existing top-level pages down to the standard naming convention will create redirects automatically, which can be changed, when needed, to disambiguation/version pages when needed by simply editing them and using the relevant header template. All existing links will continue to work as expected.

Sorry to add on another procedural grump! Cheers, Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, it makes it look nicer too. I just didn't think about it. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Glad that's helpful. There's a deceptively large amount of things to learn at Wikisource, and it's easy to not see guidelines, or even for there not to be any written down for a particular corner case. Moreover, copying existing works is not always guaranteed to be the "best" way, as they can be quite old, unconventional, incomplete, or just messed up. Who'da thunk copying text around could be so complicated?! Please feel free to give me a shout any time if you want to ask anything at all. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. It is possible to move pages instead of recreating them and delete the old ones. See "More" tab on top right of the page.--Mpaa (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I would, but I've already recreated the ones I had already done. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Bindery markings[edit]

In this edit I removed the information you added to the footer. We don't normally bother with those because they are notations for the people binding the volume together. Each fascicle (once folded) will have a code at the bottom indicating which volume it is part of and where it is to be sewn into that volume. On this page, the notation is "a.c." (for Ancient Classics), then the volume number and a letter to indicate the sequence in binding. Again, we don't normally transcribe these because they were not written by the author, nor by an editor. They are added by the printer solely for the purpose of binding the volume. Modern books tend to cut them off when the pages are trimmed, if they were used at all.

That said, I do usually include the first instance of the binding notation in the Ancient Classics series (but not all the subsequent ones in the same volume) because it is the only place that identifies the volume number for the book. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the info. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:New texts[edit]

When adding a new work to this template, please ensure that you utilise a helpful summary, usually the name of the work. It is the one page that we pretty well insist on good summary as it is a very changing page that is linked to the main page, and we wish to ensure that it is well tended. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about... -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
You know the "Summary:" line in the edit window? If you add the title of the work there as well as in the main window, then the page history will show which work was added in the edit, instead of just listing your name as the person who made the edit. Look at the page history for New Texts to see what is meant. . . --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I thought you meant to put something as notes on the page, no problem, I'll put some detail on the revision history, sorry for not having done that. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you intend[edit]

to make the same changes [3] to previous pages (60-99) as well? Otherwise, please revert your font size changes. I would like things to be kept consistent throughout the text. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. IMO, small is too small. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I thought I had changed them all, I have now, I forgot that I didn't validate those pages. The reason I did it was because of the font size you chose for the poems, the dates seemed very distracting to my eye when reading the poem itself. However, you did the hard work of transcribing It, so I will remove my changes later today and put it back at normal size if you wish. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
No need to put it back, as long as it is all uniform. I pondered whether to make the dates 85%, but chose to leave as is. No worries. My eyes are just old. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Quick note on year categories[edit]

Hi, the year category is automatically assigned when the year field in the header template is filled in. When the category is called explicitly, the work gets tagged in Recent Changes as "YYYY works". This is happening with the Atlantic Monthly articles you're amending. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Is that a problem? I am italicizing the magazine titles. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm partly letting you know, so you don't add any more of them; partly to explain why your edits are showing that way; and partly so that you can quietly remove them as you edit the pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
So I am correct to have the year in the header right? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
For subpages of a book it's not required, but for periodicals I think it's a good idea. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
So where about is the category page that is populated by the year= in the header, I can't seem to find the works I added. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. It looks, from the note at the top of Category:Works by year, only the main page gets automatically categorised. I truly believed that any subpage with the year in the header would also be automatically categorised. Sorry about that. However, I do suggest that only the parent subpage for the volume (or issue if a volume goes over Dec/Jan) needs to have the category explicitly put on it, rather than every article. When I think about it further, the year categories would be huge if every subpage of a work were in them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


Why are you removing the heading templates? If you want to change the size of the heading, then just add the parameter for it.

Why did you mark pages with text as having no text?

Why are you changing bar templates to longdash? A longdash has very specific purpose and does not represent a break in speech. See the template documentation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You are actually misusing bar in this case, the pause that is indicated by the longer than em dash is the same height as the em dash, while a bar is much more narrow. This is a perfect use of the longdash which can be used for extraordinary long pauses or for anonymizing names or really anything that the typesetter has used it for. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
"Misusing"?? <Snort of derision> I think you'd better read the documentation on both the templates. {{bar}} was designed to cover the very situation I'm using it for. {{longdash}} was designed solely to cover the situation where a name is redacted.
I've also just noticed that you're adding a pipe to the end of the rh template on left hand pages. Don't waste your time as it's not required. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are fighting the consensus of opinion here, all of the other books by this author are formatted in the way I was correcting this one with a large chapter and a small chapter title. I'm not sure if your aggressive seeming online confrontation is just coming off that way and you intend it more in jest, but don't get so possessive about items on here; we all are just trying to contribute, not merely to agitate you. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Umm, I don't think you realise that I've been the principal contributor of Stratemeyer Syndicate books here (84 of them so far per this page). I am the "consensus of opinion" on how they are laid out, no-one else has been involved. In the earlier days, yes, I was using the old type of chapter headings. Over the past 3 (maybe 4) years, I've moved to using the heading template because of its advantages—not least that it automatically makes an anchor available for linking. It's not until now that I've even thought I should go back and change the older ones. You'll also see that I've long given up on the dotted TOC templates and moved to just doing the table directly and ignoring the dot leaders, but again I've not gone back to the first few books I did to amend them. There are some works that I don't care about what happens to them—once I've marked as ready to validate I put them out of my mind. There are others that over the years I've put a lot of thought and effort into and they are much harder to let go of.

The reason I look at validations of my work, particularly recent proofreads is to see if I can learn anything to improve my proofreading. I see that I missed several italics and I need to look at that more carefully. I'm relieved to see that I didn't miss apostrophes in representations of colloquial speech this time. That's often something I miss. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

misplaced italics[edit]

I really don't understand why you keep insisting on italicizing quotation marks that are not italicized in the original: [4] --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Because if you do it any other way it causes the lettering and the quotation marks overlap in some web browsers, they need to be at the same angle for it to display correctly online in all browsers. In this case they need to be made to work for the new format of being rendered in realtime on a computer. When these books were originally set and printed they used actual metal type which made the characters unable to overlap, with technology this is not the case. So we need to italicize the quotation marks for all works online, they are not misplaced.
-- Jasonanaggie (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
If it's not looking right for you in the font that you're using, then the proper way to handle that is to choose another font. Altering the italicization is not faithful to the original text, and forces every user everywhere to see italicization that was not present in the original. And yes, the italicization is indeed misplaced when it makes such an unfaithful alteration to the display of the text. Punctuation marks should be italicized only if they were italicized in the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
If you feel you are being superior because you feel great questioning other people's contributions, why exactly are you just fine with using straight quotes when the work is so obviously done in curved quotation marks? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I note no airs of superiority. Let's dispense with judgments of intent (which can also be easily misplaced in such forums) and remain pragmatic. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
On curly v. straight, there was some discussion here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Straight quotes are a community decided norm (see Wikisource:Style guide#Formatting). Among other reasons, I use them because that's what the community decided to do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Scarlet Letter[edit]

Thanks for starting this. I've been meaning to start uploading Hawthorne scans, but you beat me to it by one day. I do wish that you'd set the Author page to link to the transcription though. I downloaded from IA and tried uploading to Commons, and only realized you'd already uploaded the file when I got a "duplicate file" warning. Not so bad now though, as my internet connection is faster than I used to have.

I did want to alert you to the fact that the file has been renamed (transcription linked from Hawthorne's author page) because the 1st and 2nd editions were both published in 1850, just one month apart. So the year alone isn't enough to disambiguate them. The scan you uploaded is the 2nd ed. (and the one I was going to upload), but it's the superior edition because of Hawthorne's added preface. The text is identical, as Hawthorne chose not to alter for the second edition.

I've also set the page numbers on the Index page, and formatted the Title page. It should be ready for you to work your Match-and-Split magic. Thanks again for doing all this work on Hawthorne; he's been sadly neglected on Wikisource before now.

Also, I did find the first publication source of Douglass' "The Heroic Slave" and linked to the scan from his author page, if you care to work on that. It's a collected volume called Autographs for Freedom with letters, essays, and articles by many well known American abolitionists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I just found that we are lacking Hawthorne's Septimus Felton, which seems to have been published posthumously in 1872 in The Atlantic Monthly. This ought to be right up your alley, should you wish to pursue it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Great; Thanks! -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Unchecked Index pages[edit]

Hi, thanks for updating the index page for Studies of the legend of the Holy Grail. I'm always neglecting to do the final step. ... I saw on the Scriptorium that ShakespeareFan00 is asking for help in checking the index files that don't have pagelist set so that they can be proofread: Category:Index - File to check, and that nine or so of the files have been started by yourself. ... Of course it's none of my business, but if you're at all uncertain about how to set the pagelist, I'd be happy to help. Why don't you give it a try, and if you're not sure about anything you could contact me and I'd do my best to assist you with any problems. Probably some of the things I do with pagelist are frowned on by various users, but somehow I've managed to avoid being scolded for it!

<longwinded explanation which I hope you'll ignore if you already know all this> Do you have a djvu file reader set up on your computer? I use WinDjView, which is very easy to use. If you download the djvu file associated with the index file, and browse it with the djvu viewer, the page numbers it displays are the ones you need to define how the pages are called. So for example with Index:The boy Travellers in Central Europe.djvu the first roman-numeralled page (iv) is page 8 in the djvu file. Working back, page i would be page 5, so you need the statement 5=1 in the pagelist definition. Then the last roman page is xvi, 20 in the djvu file, so you follow 5=1 with the 5to20=roman ... Then the pages start from one again so you do 21=1 ... Then preview the index, and if possible open up some of pages in a new browser tab to see if the printed page numbers match the links. If they don't there are either missing pages in the djvu, which is a big problem, or images on unnumbered pages, which is where it gets just a wee bit complicated. ... </longwinded explanation>

Actually doing pagelist is a lot of fun, and I'd be glad to do it myself, but I'd feel bad to deprive you of the pleasure ... Anyway, all the best. Mudbringer (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops, looks like they all got done. Well, some other time ... Mudbringer (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Atlantic Monthly link[edit]

FYI. To standardise and assist in the creation of author namespace links to The Atlantic Monthly I have created this template through our standard article link template. I will be running a bot through the Author: ns to convert links to use this template. You can find other similar templates in Category:Internal link templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Fusion GPS transcript[edit]

I cannot thank you enough for your wiki-patriotism. If you intend to complete proofreading of the Glenn Simpson transcript, I just want to let you know that to save you the trouble I have inserted section markers in the appropriate places corresponding to the table of contents, so as long as in proofreading you don't touch those markers, Senate Judiciary Committee Interview of Glenn Simpson and its subpages should render properly once every page is created and proofread. Mahir256 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for setting up the formatting for the transcript. It has made it very simple to transcribe what is to me a very enlightening document. Jasonanaggie (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

subpages of works[edit]

Hi. When bringing works in, it is important to consider them as one work, and to make subpages, rather than having root level documents that looked at in isolation do not make particular sense. To the recent Donald Trump fires James Comey addition, if you added links off-site, then you should be looking to update them to the new titles, as I did not leave redirects. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making sense of my mess; I was trying to do what you did, but I just severely screwed it up. Thanks. Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

We are not Wikipedia, our wikilink practice is different[edit]

Hi. The section on wikilinks on the following page Wikisource:Style_guide#Wikilinks has some good guidance for you. We are link minimalists, and don't seek to unnecessarily annotate works. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Formatting solution[edit]

See here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I was doing it the other way, bridging over the pages with a simple double brace. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. That doesn't really work, as you have seen. Most major formatting templates have a /s (start) and /e (end) version designed to bridge pages that are to be transcluded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Please don't use {{...}} where it should be an … &hellip; — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to let you know, it is quite discouraging to other contributors to even continue to participate in this project that is quite time intensive when you are constantly being followed and nagged by other users who think their opinions are the right ones. Jasonanaggie (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Mary Lamb[edit]

Thanks so much for taking on this biography. I've proofread page xi and xii, although page xii is not marked as such because I'm uncertain how to shift down the braces and line-spanning text to a suitable location. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Descriptive summary for Template:New texts‎[edit]

Hi. Template:New texts‎ is a page that we monitor more tightly than others by various means, especially as it actively shows on the main page. We ask that when adding works to the page that one also adds a descriptive summary of what has been done, even actively wikilinking the added work in the summary is useful. There is a little more detail about that on the template page itself. Thanks for your help. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: Keeping it readable while editors are working[edit]

I think the reader has to take precedence to the editor, but I don't think neither needs to suffer while we are creating this new transcription. I can appreciate your troubles proofing things with the long s. Personally, I have been pasting a page of text into Microsoft Word and using that software's spell checker to check my work. It is easy to replace a long s with a regular one in that context, providing you have a recent release that handles Unicode. If that is not possible for you, you can use a sandbox page. I have created A Vindication of the Rights of Woman/sandbox/Chapter XII, which seems to provide everything you need, and spares the reader from the gobbledygook. What do you think? Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have also created A Vindication of the Rights of Woman/sandbox/Chapter XIII for your convenience. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Influence of University Degrees on the Education of Women[edit]

2 questions:

  1. Why did you on multiple occasions replace {{RunningHeader}} by its redirect {{rh}} for no explained reason and at a loss to code readability?
  2. Why did you add an erroneous nop (granted you immediately removed it again)?

I won't question your speed (at least 700 wpm validated) because we have had that discussion before. But when you actually add in errors (albeit here temporarily), it leaves me questioning the carefulness and value of your validation. BethNaught (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

PotM & poetry formatting[edit]

I tweaked formatting for this page some and left summary comments. Feedback welcome at project Talk page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Fuller[edit]

Index:Margaret Fuller by Ingram, John H. Ed. (1883).djvu wasn't written by Ingram, but by Julia Ward Howe. It might be worth renaming the file and moving the created pages before this proceeds too far and makes such a move more difficult. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

img float[edit]

The {{img float}} is for images which have the text on the same page wrapped around them, not for images which interrupt the flow of the text or which sit on a page of their own. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

How do I get the other method to do the caption within the image holder? Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
There's no real reason to force a specific caption width. We usually let it wrap according to the page width set by the end-user. Remember that different users can select different font-size displays, and setting specific widths for captions can cause problems for user who (for example) has poor eyesight a sets the display font size much larger for reading. However, the caption width can be forced by specifying a Layout in the final transcluded copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Age of Innocence[edit]

Thanks so much for taking on this work.

There's an issue with the ToC as you've set it up. If the links are just basic wikilinks, then the book will not be converted properly for at least some kinds of downloads. That's why we created the {{Auxiliary Table of Contents}}. When the chapters are listed on the principal page using that template, the book downloads electronically. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about this; I think if there is a Pulitzer winning novel in the public domain, it should be available here! Jasonanaggie (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. Wharton's novels don't get the attention they deserve; they're missing from many many library databases. I've had my eye on this particular one, not only because of the Pulitzer, but also because its 100th anniversary will come in 2020. It would be worth featuring then. Perahps once you've gone through once BethNaught might give it a validation pass. Otherwise I'll put it in my mental queue for later. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Edith Wharton[edit]

If you want to work on more Edith Wharton, feel free to take over Sanctuary. I set up the Index, but had not intended to work on it any time soon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've set up Index:Madame de Treymes.djvu, if you'd like to proceed to Wharton's next novella. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

long s[edit]

Dear Friend, Thanks for your edits on several pages of Index:Petty 1660 Reflections.djvu. I see that you used the s template on many places. Do you think it is necessary to make this change? I have been working on some 17th-century texts, like Proceedings between Sankey and Petty and Advice to Hartlib, and I decided not use the ls-template. I had a few reasons for that: 1. while editing, it's a lot easier to use the modern s. 2. nowadays readers who are interested in the content of the texts will find it easier to read the modern s. 3. searchability. Apart from that: the transcluded text does not show the long s.

I had a look at the Wikisource:Style_guide/Orthography, in which no general rules are given.

I want to propose not to change the pages with the modern s into a long s. I'll make remarks on it on the talk pages. I do of course appreciate your validation-efforts! Many greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No roman numeral chapters[edit]

... per Wikisource:Style guidebillinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing code[edit]

My experience is that although whitespace may not be necessary for the code to be rendered, the inclusion of such whitespace makes future editing (should it be required) much, much easier. So although such edits may not alter the display of the page, future editors would not be so happy. In other words, the white space is for the ease of editing and the editors, not for the wiki-code. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Licensing and Encyclopaedias[edit]

For dictionaries and encyclopedias, we generally do not tag every entry with a license, just as we don't tag every chapter of a book. The only exception is, we might tag an entry if we knew it was written by a contributor for whom the license would be different from the license applied to the rest of the work (say, a contributor who had lived much longer.) --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We're doing the same thing![edit]

Uh oh, we're duplicating work. See my recent edits. Mmph. But it's fascinating. -- econterms (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to fold together either way, under either title. It has been good to work with you in the past. -- econterms (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll pause for a while so we can coordinate and not duplicate further. -- econterms (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I should have guessed I wouldn't be the only one, okay, lets get it down to one, I will step back and wait for you to decide which to keep. Jasonanaggie (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I was watching Recent changes! Here are some differences. (a) I put File:Special counsel indictment of Netyksho et al.pdf through an OCR process so it has the text in the .pdf, but File:Netyksho et al indictment.pdf doesn't have that. (b) I made up the name Special counsel indictment of Netyksho et al whereas the name you used is the actual original file name I think, Index:Netyksho et al indictment.pdf. You've used the title U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al, which to my mind is better than either of these. (c) I worked hard on page 1 to get the formatting just right from my point of view. (d) you got through page 9 but I got through only page 5.
Does that set of comparisons seem correct? And complete? I'm not looking to change anything till we agree. I'm conscious that you are more experienced and skilled on wikisource than I am.
If those comparative statements are correct, my preference is to use my version of the commons .pdf file and request that the other one be deleted there. I am happy to switch to the name "U.S. v. . . .", so we should delete my titles or make it a redirect -- I'd prefer you did that. I don't understand the mainspace pages, I was just hacking around ; let's use yours and I will watch to see how you get it to link to the proofread pages. Would it be amenable for your index page to point to my .pdf?
Once that's done . . . Let's use my wikitext page 1 if you think its formatting is good. I can merge pages 1-5 to your namespace by comparing wikitext. Somehow we should delete the pages I created, later. In the next day or two we can finish proofreading and validation. The thing is interesting and I look forward to reading the rest. -- econterms (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Riley AJ: fyi. Mahir256 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

relative links and formatting[edit]

With relation to [special:diff/7691658|my edit]]. The headers were designed so that we tried not to have to modify the formatting, and so that we could do relative links, and to try to not overly thicken the header depth. Without worrying about the previous page creations which we can bot update, it would be great if you could adjust to style for future page creations. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

New texts issue[edit]

It wasn't possible to solve the problem in the way you tried, because there was no author, and you can't simply eliminate a parameter with that template. It took me a while to come up with what should have been an obvious solution. The problem you noticed on the Main Page should be gone now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

So there has to be something in the author position with that template, we should change that to have no author as the default with that template. Jasonanaggie (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but it's very rare that we don't have an author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


Validation means confirming the work of the proofreader and doing corrections where needed. It does not entail changing formatting where it is not needed just to satisfy one's personal preferences. The original proofreader has the primary right to set the tenor of the formatting, the validator should respect it. For example, you are changing smaller to sm in the template. How is it advantageous? How does the display differ? Is it really validation? As for your removing the dhr from this page, is it in accordance with some clear-cut rule, or personal preference? Hrishikes (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

And please do not remove the blank line above nop within poem tag. It is required for stanza break across page break. Hrishikes (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

l. c. p. vs. 1. c. p.[edit]

Thank you for your validations of Leonardo da Vinci: a Psychosexual Study of an Infantile Reminiscence. I've noticed that you modified some acronyms that I'm pretty sure were correct, please have a look to Index talk:Freud - Leonardo da Vinci, a psychosexual study of an infantile reminiscence.djvu#l. c. p. vs. 1. c. p.. Thank you —Esponenziale (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Errors that aren't errors[edit]

You've been using{{SIC}} for more than a few items that are not errors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

When- and when-not?[edit]

In Page:Natural History, Fishes.djvu/34, where before the image there was a "con-" and after the image there was a "tents", you have kept this division and codified it with {{hws|con|contents}} and {{hwe|tents|contents}}. In two other places I just figured to join the hyphenated word, one time before and once after the image. (yes, inconsistent that)

I just figured that fidelity within the page was more flexible as to presentation, for the convenience of the reader. Thoughts? Shenme (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I hadn't even thought about it, my going assumption has been to replicate the pages as closely as possible, and if someone came up with a rule for the site, the hyphenated words on the same page could be automatically rejoined if they were clearly put into the template. But if we want to do it another way, it works for me. Jasonanaggie (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, it mattered to at least one person. Only it didn’t give the expected pleasing display result. (sigh) I will mention it to them. I do wish there was a per-project style in the discussion page. Shenme (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
"Mattered" may simply have been a matter of having stumbled across the above conversation and offering a possible solution as a result. @Shenme: You are more than welcome to set style guidelines at the discussion page—even at this late stage of editing—to insure consistency now and in the future. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
At the late stage here - and actually *because* I wanted to review pages to ’discover’ the truths of what people did - cuz I’m learning - maybe I could summarize my discoveries in form of a styling guide, but which then would elicit y’alls comments as to which truths/discoveries were ’real’ and correct?
And I do think it is per-project styles, but starter kit examples might be appreciated? Shenme (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Shenme: The beauty of a Talk page. The beauty of guidelines. Were it a project I took on, I may make a statement at the Talk page stating I was proposing formatting guidelines for the project to insure consistency throughout the project and that feedback is welcome. In my opinion, any formatting style/choice that is not technically problematic is "correct" as long as it is reasonably faithful to the original. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Shenme: As far as "starter kit examples", you are the better person (perhaps along with the original proofreader, who I presume is Jasonanaggie?) to propose guidelines. Not only do you have more intimate knowledge of the particular work and its idiosyncrasies than any passer-by—having already reviewed/edited a wealth of pages—but perhaps more importantly, you are invested/have a desire to see that the work maintains integrity. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S.S. @Shenme: Don't feel you need to cover every aspect of formatting in the text when laying down proposed guidelines, unless you wish to. Feel free to focus mainly on areas that have been points of discussion as of late, and perhaps areas that could be points of discussion in the future. Examples: [5] [6]

Table of contents of Natural History. Fishes.[edit]

The table of contents in the aforementioned text is not transcluding properly. As you created the formatting, I would like you to aid in the correction of the problems. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

It renders right for me, what part is not showing up right for you? Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Kipling formatting[edit]

please note. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Democracy in America[edit]

I've marked the Data item on Wikdata as "unproofread" because the second volume is currently absent from the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Text-only pages[edit]

There is no reason whatsoever to replace a text-only page with an image of said text unless the text cannot be reproduced because of highly unusual layout or special characters. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What page are you referencing? Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Page:America Fallen!.djvu/1
Well that is a cover, I see that as quite different. Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not the cover; it's the text on the board that was inside the dust jacket. And it's only text: black text on blue, which is low-contrast. Not a design, not a special layout, just text. And the editor who transcribed the work transcribed the text. You then replaced his work with a gigantic image of the text.
There is never any reason to use an image of a text-only item like this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
What is your opinion on Love_and_Mr._Lewisham? Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
That one could go either way. There is design in that cover, but with some work it might be replicated. However, it would not be easy to do so.
I would use a smaller image, though. 500px is a bit large for on-line reading. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate your help. Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Huge Thank You[edit]

…for adding the images to Christie's text :) I tried it, but need to learn more about adding images. --AnnaS. (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I was happy to do it! Jasonanaggie (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Going through my watchlist I recognized several changes in the Christie-pages, like this one. As I removed those spaces during my proofreading, I do not understand these edits. Is there a reason for that? Thanks for info! --AnnaS. (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I was torn on this issue, I had removed the extra spaces on the pages I had done, but as I kept proofing, it seemed consistently double-spaced throughout so I thought it would be easier to just leave the extra spaces instead of going through and remove every one. I didn't know you were removing them as well, as I was just going back to the pages I had done before. But if you wish to remove them I will follow your lead. Jasonanaggie (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
To be honest: I really want to get used to your (meaning enWS) editing style here, as there are quite a few differences to the German one and I'll make (and made) mistakes, of course. I've only started with Agatha Christie's text as I am reading a study on early German translations of her work (which also touched politics etc) - for that I wanted to read the original texts and thought I could proofread while reading. But I don't understand quite a lot of your changes of my edits - another example is this one. You've never done that before when you entered the "bar"-template. Why is it necessary to do that now? I don't see the sense in it. I've never thought I could run into edit conflicts here, but it happened a couple of times now - I'll stop proofreading the text now (at least for the time being). --AnnaS. (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I put that in there when it has a bar near the end of a line where it will get close to flowing onto a new line, as the bar by itself on the next line would not look great. Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Guglielmo Tell[edit]

Rossini wrote the music, but not the libretto. I've corrected the Authorship on the Index page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The Waste Land[edit]

Is the new Index really any different from Index:The Wasteland.djvu other than the title page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It is the first edition versus the fourth edition/printing 8 years later. It might be the same, but no harm in having the first.Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


See edit summary. It really looks like the original is wrong on the attribution of which speaker. Is there an errata? Shenme (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe they have released anything officially, but I put that error in there because it seems like that was the intent of the reporter who was making the transcription. Jasonanaggie (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure wish there was a published errata. See page 91 where we find
Do you think that President Trump's actions pose a treat to our national security?
We're just copying what's on the page. But what's on the page is wrong, a typo. Argh! Shenme (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

436 pixels[edit]

Image width/300 * 72

I will not argue if you want to change this.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, 72, I wasn't taking issue with it, just curious how you arrived at it. Makes sense now! Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The grammar of Dionysios Thrax[edit]

Why did you italicize the Greek text? The Greek in this work is not in italics; that's simply the standard Greek typeface of the period. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay, if you want to roll back my edits, that would probably be the best idea. Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Why not take care of the problem yourself? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Would you mind giving me rollback privileges? Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It would mean making you an admin, and that action requires a Bureaucrat following a vote. I'm not a bureaucrat for Wikisource, so I can't do that, even with a vote. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought you were an admin, I see now that you are not. Just FYI, admins can give rollback ability without elevating someone's privileges. Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I am an admin, but admins cannot grant rollback privileges. It takes a bureaucrat to make that kind of change. I have double-checked by going to the user-rights management page for you. You are mistaken about admin rights; I cannot grant such rights, even temporarily. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Then it must be a difference within Wikisource, as this is what I was referring to Rollback, no worries though. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Help please[edit]

If you have time, please do check if you can find a solution to [this problem].Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I read your issue and I would be more than happy to help if I could. But I really don't understand what you are trying to do. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Plays of Roswitha (1923) St. John.djvu[edit]

This file must be uploaded locally. Although it is PD in the US, it is still copyright in the UK, where it was published. Since it is under copyright in its "home" country, it can't be hosted on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Really? That is unfortunate. How does one transfer it? Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Just upload a copy here, then ask the copy on Commons to be deleted. If you're the uploader, then preserving the history won't be worthwhile.

Also, tag it as do not move to Commons with a date based on the date of death of the translator. You can look at File:Choëphoroe (Murray 1923).djvu which is a file I recently uploaded here for the same reason, to see how I tagged it. We don't worry about redlinked categories and other issues that will be resolved once the file can by moved to Commons.

Also, The Plays of Roswitha is nominated for PotM. It's usually considered bad form to start a nominated work ahead of the month for which it was nominated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, I didn't realize it was nominated as PotM, I just thought it looked like a good newly public domain work to work on. I will reupload it here. Thanks for your help --Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If you think you'd be able to finish it in short order (either solo or with help), I would post some declaration of your desire, asking if people mind. We do have other nominations for that month. And it's not like lots of people are commenting on nominations. As it is a 1923 publication, and would fill a significant hole in our coverage, I most interested in seeing that work done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A Son at the Front[edit]

Glad to see this going up. I've been checking for access the past two days.

However, if you haven't already noticed, the OCR is shifted by one page from the scan image. Look at a later page like p. 417, if you don't understand my meaning. The file will have to be fixed first. :( --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Just found that issue, I was excited to see it up today as well! --Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The History of Ink[edit]

I'm wondering if you've seen the discussion at Picky picky I am?

I was cueing on the relative heights of the capitalized/non-capitalized text, feeling that

The old inks were paints; the writing inks now ...

better captured the original appearance than

The old inks were PAINTS; the writing inks now ...

To me it really looks like the original had those bolded capitals the very same height as normal lowercase letters. Using {{smaller}} gives somewhat taller caps.

Trying to think in other terms, I might agree that if all formatting were thrown away, then having {{smaller|PAINTS}} would survive comparison better than {{sc|paints}}. Was that your thinking? Shenme (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that is what I was thinking too, but when I saw that someone had done so much with Small-caps, I went looking through the text and I found this page: etymological researches as those in which we have been here indulging.

The one great distinction between the ancient and the modern inks is this: The old inks were paints; the writing inks now in use by all nations (excepting those of Southern Asia) are dyes. That is the whole difference.

It would be well to give a definition or limitation of the words "Ancient" and "Modern." No one has done it hitherto. We will not attempt to fix the point precisely, but may reasonably say that the period intervening between September, A.D. 410, (when Rome was taken by alaric and his Visigoths) and December 25, A.D. 800, (when Karl the Great, otherwise called Charlemagne, was crowned in Rome by Pope Leo with the title of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) contains the interval between antiquity and modern times.

The introduction of Paper as the common material upon which significant characters were to be marked, must have had a great agency in producing a change in the composition of the liquid employed in making the marks.

Parchment was the substance in use, among all the European nations, as the substratum of manuscript, from the time when the Egyptian papyrus went out of fashion. and the word Parchment was actually printed as small-caps so I decided to go and revert the pages I had changed to smaller. That was my reasoning as to why to keep it as small caps. I don't feel particularly strongly about either way however. --Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Index:Nostromo (1904).djvu[edit]

Would you mind doing a match-and-split for Nostromo by Joseph Conrad? I'd use the text layer in the DjVu file, but it's missing all the em-dashes, and Conrad is quite of em-dashes, so there would be a lot of them to insert. The front matter and "Part One", etc. pages are already transcluded, so only the text of the chapters themselves needs to be done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, will do. --Jasonanaggie (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)