User talk:Mahir256

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome

Hello, Mahir256, 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! — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

{{smaller}}[edit]

Just a heads up, you had the right idea with that section of small text going across The Atlantic Monthly vol. 20 pages 7 and 8, but unfortunately this is one of those places where the way Mediawiki works is unintuitive. To get it work right, you have to close the smaller template at the end of the page and start the next page with a new smaller template (ignore what I did to it, it was a paranoid precaution against an even weirder problem with HTML and the proofread page system which isn't necessary for smaller).

Also wanted to say I'm hugely impressed with the things you're doing for periodicals. Prosody (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I wonder if even signaling that there's more things we could add to the collection will entice users to expand Wikisource more: there are already All the Year Round, Scientific American, and the American Journal of Sociology with extant scans on the servers, but the OCR/proofreading for those isn't even close to what has been achieved with Popular Science Monthly and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Mahir256 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a difficult point. We can make as much of an infrastructure as we care to, but at the end of the day there are only going to be so many people proofreading. Prosody (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Proofread"[edit]

Hi there,

I notice that when you create pages in the Page namespace, you tag them as "proofread". Why is that? Some kind of pride ? I wish you would stop, and let the proofreading be done on at least a second pass, either by you, or preferably by someone else. --Jerome Charles Potts (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are not aware of how page statuses work, 'proofread' means having been proofread by at least one contributor, while 'validated' refers to more than one person having proofread and rechecked it. While I haven't been active on this site since around February, I've proofread almost all of the pages I've created to the best of my ability; it saves a lot of edits in the process to just fix as much of the formatting that the OCR software can't set on the fly, and it is up to another contributor to make sure that I haven't messed up anything and to clear it as finished with or validated. I don't mark pages 'proofread' out of pride, I do so entirely in good faith. Mahir256 (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

external scans[edit]

Please do not load pages with links to external scans for the sake of adding links. Links to such scans are always meant to be temporary, until a copy of the work is hosted at Wikisource. You have been adding external links for works that we already host here, which is not only unnecessary, but distracting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, you are not checking the quality of any of the scans you have linked, and sometimes are linking to multiple scans of the same work, or to poor scans with missing content. This is also not helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I am deeply sorry for having caused such trouble which in some way or other is affecting the quality of the site.
With respect to the first part of your message, I am not in any way suggesting that the links remain there permanently, but that those who wish to take up transcribing the works can find the source directly without having to search for it themselves, at which point the links can be safely removed (which is the purpose of {{ext scan link}}, no?). I don't doubt that I accidentally added an external scan link or two to something hosted here, but is it worth removing all of the links I added for that author/work?
With respect to the second part of your message, I will take more time, then, to check the quality of the IA scans, both in terms of completeness and readability, and I will stop adding redundant links for those works which are not divided into volumes. Mahir256 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a regular pattern I have noticed over recent days, and no an issue of just one or two pages. This is why I bring the matter to your attention. Wiktionary is not meant to be a link farm, and external links to scans are intended to provide the means for improving Wikisource by allowing an editor to find a starting point for adding a source. When the link is to an inferior quality scan, or even to the wrong scan (as some of your were) then what most often happens is that the next editor assumes you did the work of checking the scan quality and value, and proceeds to upload that scan without checking to see that it is correct. I have seen this happen over and over. So there is a responsibility in providing such links to ensure that they link to what they claim, and that the quality is good.
In the case of Greek drama, the situation is that many, many scans out there are very bad, incomplete, damaged, or the wrong edition. This is one reason I have deliberately not linked to many external scans of such works. I am working myself to collect volumes for scanning, and am seeking a local library or university that will assist in the creation of quality scans for these works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Oh, okay, I understand now. I shouldn't be interfering in your area of expertise, and do not intend to any further with respect to adding more scan links, but surely at least some of the links were valid and merited being kept? If you find issues with other sets of scans to which I link elsewhere, please feel free to undo them as needed. (Both my recent changes and this list could highlight such issues.) Mahir256 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
No, that's my point. I've seen this same pattern of dumping links of dubious or bad quality on multiple pages, not just the area where I have the most expertise. Your response indicates that you either did not read, did not understand, or disagreed with my previous comment, but I cannot tell which. If you are going to add external links for the purpose of encouraging editors to add those works (as you state), then it becomes your responsibility to check that those copies are good so that the time and effort of others is not wasted. It is not the responsibility of other volunteers to spend the time checking them for you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Okay, then, perhaps I did misunderstand what you were trying to say. I will promptly cease adding links and will undo my changes in the interest of preventing other editors from being deceived with respect to the links' quality. Perhaps I will go back and re-add them having properly vetted their quality. Mahir256 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Organon[edit]

Fair enough although since someone else had marked them as proofread in spite of not putting in the footnotes I assumed that it didn't matter. Error begets error I suppose. Sioraf (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Download access[edit]

Hi! Do you have access to the books at https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100323430 and https://books.google.com/books?id=ONGjmAEACAAJ ? The first one should have U.S. access, not sure about the second. Hrishikes (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: I am able to download the first; should it be uploaded to Commons or locally? My university's library has a physical copy of the second, but you can ask a Briton to download it from the South Asia Archive. Mahir256 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Indira should be added locally, because of illustration by Nandalal Bose. Hrishikes (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: By the way, the reason I mentioned a Briton having access to the second book is because someone with credentials for one of many British universities is able to log in to that site via Shibboleth. Alternatively someone affiliated with a UGC college with access to the National Digital Library of India should be able to access it. (Sorry for the confusion, @ShakespeareFan00:.) Mahir256 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll ask in our Facebook group of Wikisourcers about NDL access. Hrishikes (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Yes check.svg Done uploading the first book as File:Indira and Other Stories.pdf. Mahir256 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Index at Index:Indira and Other Stories.pdf. Hrishikes (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to bother again, but can you add the work at https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001725618 ? This can be added at Commons under PD-old-70-1923. HathiTrust has confused the author (w:Prabhat Kumar Mukhopadhyay) with the Tagore biographer of the same name (1892-1985), and so put the work under US-only access. Hrishikes (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Yes check.svg Done as File:Stories of Bengalee life - Prabhat Kumar Mukerji.pdf. Mahir256 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciated. By the way, I could not get anyone with access to South Asia Archive. Hrishikes (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Another one: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012505973 or https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006628893 (same book). Calcutta edition of 1910 available at http://dspace.wbpublibnet.gov.in:8080/jspui/handle/10689/25103 and https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.91205 but it is highly defective. Hrishikes (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Yes check.svg Done as File:The Fatal Garland - Swarnakumari Devi, tr. A. Christina Albers (2e).pdf. Mahir256 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I needed some time to study the matter. You see, A. Christina Albers (1866-1948) was not the translator of the London edition. She was the translator of the Calcutta edition, but the London edition was translated by the original author, as mentioned in the preface. The language of the two versions also differs. So I have changed the file name. Thanks again. Hrishikes (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Albers, however, was a prolific poet, see here. Hrishikes (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Another small point: Can you substitute the bad-quality image at Page:Kapalkundala (1919).djvu/1 from https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100639026, if a good quality replacement is available there? Hrishikes (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Yes check.svg Done You may want to straighten the image. Mahir256 (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Straightening that image is beyond my expertise. Let me ask for some help. Hrishikes (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Straightening done. Hrishikes (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Index:Krishnakanta's Will (Chatterjee, Roy).djvu has two pages missing, represented by blanks. Probably correctable from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2867430 Hrishikes (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: 1) I can't access it either. 2) Why not just upload the entire volume of the Modern Review locally, since it was published before 1923? Mahir256 (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I had patched up the novel from different issues, available at Digital Library of India. That site is down these days. Hrishikes (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Some folks at DLI have uploaded the entire collection to IA in the meantime while they take down copyright violations; for example, here's volume 21 and volume 22 of the Modern Review (not making any assumptions about completeness of quality of the volumes). Mahir256 (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That Vol 21 is the defective volume. Hrishikes (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
My university's library has a copy of this volume. I can try to obtain it and scan the missing pages (and possibly get around to The Lake of Palms), though I don't know how long this will take. Mahir256 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: EDIT: The edition of The Lake of Palms is the 1930 version. Feel free to request more volumes to scan (if they're not on HathiTrust or IA and I have time to scan them). Mahir256 (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I need the 1902 original version. 1932 ed. is highly abridged and edited by P. V. Kulkarni, so likely to be non-PD. Is the 1930 ed original or abridgement? Hrishikes (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Hrishikes: This is the Kulkarni abridged version. Mahir256 (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Another one:
  1. Index:Bengal Dacoits and Tigers.djvu. First two pages are missing, and the images have library stamps. Correctable from https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012154957. File here needs to be repaired by inserting the first two pages only. For the image pages, if you can put the HathiTrust images in a folder, I can do the proofreading with those images.
  2. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100576754
Thanks, Hrishikes (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
#2 Yes check.svg Done as File:Indian Fables and Folk-lore - Shobhanasundari Mukhopadhyay.pdf. Mahir256 (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Hrishikes (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: The front matter of the existing djvu for Bengal Dacoits and Tigers differs in page order from the HathiTrust scan. The existing scan however is of inferior quality compared to the HathiTrust scan and also lacks an image present in the HathiTrust scan. I am thus considering splicing two missing pages present in the former into the latter and just updating the existing djvu (this would require retooling the pagelist). Mahir256 (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You please upload the HathiTrust file as pdf. If needed, I'll delete the djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
#1 Yes check.svg Done , with spliced missing pages, as File:Bengal Dacoits and Tigers.pdf. Mahir256 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Also I am able to pick up vol. 21 of The Modern Review; do you only want those two missing pages or do you want any more of that volume? Mahir256 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Only those pages, for now. Hrishikes (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you having some problem with the two pages? You can upload the two page images somewhere, or upload the whole magazine here as pdf, and I can then incorporate those two pages in the concerned djvu. I have already completed Indira and Other Stories and nearly completed Bengal Dacoits and Tigers. Hrishikes (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Actually, all the pre-1923 vols should be added here. The DLI vols at IA are bad quality, what with blurred images and missing pages. These vols would yield a rich harvest of translated as well as original literature. Hrishikes (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The real problem is finding time to visit the library to scan the volume. I have already requested the volume and it is being held there for some time, so if I am able to visit the library this week I will surely get to scanning it. As for other volumes, only 17 of the first 32 volumes are accessible to me physically, but I fear that with ~600 pages per volume rescanning it all may be pointless. (Filling gaps as you have initially asked me to do, however, makes much more sense to accomplish.)
@Hrishikes: On the other hand, ripping books from HathiTrust is a much easier task, and I believe some Modern Review volumes not scanned by DLI are available there, so if you are interested in those I'd be happy to upload them. Mahir256 (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
It is difficult to declare one's interest without knowing the TOC. But anyway, it would be good to have them here. Hrishikes (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Would you prefer, then, that I start uploading those en masse? (I noticed that the scans on HathiTrust of volumes 1, 4, 5, 6, 16, 22, part of 25, 26, and 29 are from my university, though I don't know if they're much better than their DLI versions.) Mahir256 (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. At least the images will be better. But the missing pages are in Vol 21. Hrishikes (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Only one spliced page was necessary, not two; the upload is Yes check.svg Done as File:Krishnakanta's Will (Chatterjee, Roy).pdf. Mahir256 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Knocking again. Please see Page:Krishnakanta's Will (Chatterjee, Roy).djvu/12, whether you can solve. Plus, I am interested in Vol 16 (1914), which contains a translation of Tagore's Chokher Bali. Hrishikes (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: As I have to re-request the volume to fix the aforementioned page, I will necessarily be delayed in getting a fixed copy of it to you. As for the volume you mention, at least one set of chapters will not be available to me since no. 5 in that volume is missing from the HathiTrust scan, which is from my university (so I presume that it will be missing from the physical copy as well). Mahir256 (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, then perhaps it is better to wait, because there may be more such problem pages. Hrishikes (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)