User talk:Maile66

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is my talk page. O 0

Category:Index Proofread
Category:Monthly Challenge

Wikisource:Community portal



Hello, Maile66, 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:

George Eliot, por François D'Albert Durade.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} 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 username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) 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 (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved work[edit]

I have move the work that you recently added to your subpages User:Maile66/1850 Census List of Settlers at Zodiac Texas. The work looks like a construct, rather than a published work. Please have a look at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes and if you still think that the work should be included, then please get back to me with how you believe it meets that guideline. Thanks. Billinghurst (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC) .Reply[reply]


I need some help, and I've been prodded around in circles. Please give me some clear guidelines. Regarding 1850 Census of Zodiac Texas that you moved to my user page. This list was part of a regular page on Wikipedia called Zodiac, Texas. Some user disagreed, and I moved the list to a List Class on Wikipedia. The same user proposed it for deletion. A sysop told me to create it here on Wikisource. And, I might add, I have never created anything on Wikisource before. This is taking up a lot of my time, and it really should have been a lot less work. Please give me some direction. Maile66 (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that you shouldn't userfy things just because they could stand to have more work done on them, the list looks allowable by our inclusion standards, is decently formatted, and lists its sources. It would be better to use community discussion before taking an action that an (over-sensitive) newcomer could see as "biting the newbie", and clearly explaining what is wrong - and in cases where there's nothing egregious, let it go - or just offer ideas for how he could "improve" it. By the way, @Maile66, you'll likely want to list it on Portal:Texas and possibly Portal:Mormonism once it is back in mainspace. TheSkullOfRFBurton (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for this, and for your tweaking over on the page itself. I'll think this over. Are there community discussion boards on Wikisource? Listing the Zodiac page with Wikiproject LDS is pretty much what started a headache for me a little over a month ago. One solitary user (so far) who keeps coming back (and not just at me and my page)...and I'm just so tired it. I've been tempted to request a delete of the entire Zodiac page I first created...but that same user would probably insist it be put back. -Maile66 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a questionable inclusion. The source of the page appears to be self published and under development, is there other discussion of its authority and copyright elsewhere? You might start a discussion at Wikisource:Proposed deletions. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, and thank you for this. Am I correct in thinking that if for right now I just leave it where it is as part of my user page, it's going to be all right to just sit there for the time being? Maile66 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it will be fine in your userpage pretty much indefinitely, though I hope you're not content to be pushed around, and will actually fight to have it back in mainspace so it can be widely seen/found by those interested in the history of the town. TheSkullOfRFBurton (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The work was not moved due to a complete or incomplete nature, it was moved as I did not see how it fitted within our guidance, and I pointed to Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. It is neither a complete publication nor a complete historical document, and I would have my doubts that it would ever be so. My response about what a person at Wikipedia has said about it being relevant here, at first glance would seem was incorrect information on their behalf, and we can look to better educating them, at the same that doesn't change the issue of the relevance of the construct itself. To TheSkullOfRFBurton, I did not bite any newbie, and that implication is both incorrect and unnecessary. Billinghurst (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could not find the mentioned discussion at the article, your talk page, or at the page of the IP address that edited w:Zodiac, Texas. If you can point that to me, then I can better assess the guidance that you were given. Billinghurst (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me clarify this. I had already separated the census out into a List, and the discussion happened about the List page. That page has been deleted, so that's why you can't find it. If you go to my Wikipedia Talk Page, you will find the notice posted that the page was up for deletion. It is on this notice where it is first mentioned that maybe this should have been on Wikisource. Not knowing anything at all about Wikisource, I went to the sysop who posted the notice. You will find that discussion Here. From there, I came to Wikisource and tried to do what I thought was supposed to be done. Having had a chance over the last few hours to look at Wikisource, I'm beginning to have a better understanding about what Wikisource exists for. However, that having been said, maybe the "proposed for deletion" template should not have suggested it in the first place. One size does not fit all. I would, however, like to just leave it as a part of my User space at Wikisource, if you don't mind. Maile66 (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that puts a better context around the matter. If there works about the place (newspaper articles, historic documents, ...), or where such information is part of a work and these works are in the public domain with regard to copyright, then these are fodder for Wikisource. Good places to find available scanned works are and, and if you find any and need a hand, then please feel welcome to ask me or at Wikisource:Scriptorium. Billinghurst (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goliad Declaration of Independence[edit]

I had a quick look over this. You may wish to look for typographical errors that I've missed, and study how the headers and other formatting was done on the pages at Index:Goliad Declaration of Independence.djvu. I updated the page numbers based on those found in the original document, as well as implementing the page headers. :)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much (Shakeapearfan? No signature). I had no idea what I was doing. Appreciate the help. Maile66 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appreciate you having a look at this one Index:Calcutta, Past and Present.djvu if you have the time and I don't get there first. It should be reasonably straightforward to pick up the 'house' style from reading the source of some of the existing pages. Some common gotchas are omitted headers, 1 confused with i confused with l confused with t, transposed letters, c for a for e, - vs and so on. I'm not sure if there is a formal list of things to look for though.. BTW if you find something that seems to be a typo, but is printed that way use {{SIC}} to mark it. If you need help with some of the more complex formatting LMK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll try to help out on this one. Thanks for everything on the Goliad Declaration. Maile66 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:String Figures and How to Make Them.djvu[edit]

If interested, Not that the pages here can be marked proofread until someone uploads the images, but assistance in getting the OCR cleaned up is greatly appreciated.

To mark missing images use {{missing image}}<-- Fig. xxx--> or ask me about them. The full page images have already been dealt with. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

Index:Colas breugnon.djvu[edit]

If you wanted something to get into. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: I'm just now getting around to where I think I can actually make it to the end of Colas breugnon for proofing. After that, should I want to do more, I need a little guidance on navigating through Wikisource. Is there a category, or anything else, that is a central place to pick another work to be proofed/validated? Maile66 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There isn't just one place to find works like that, although there is a Category:Index Not-Proofread that will allow you to find works with an Index page that have yet to be proofread, but it is a large category arranged only by the name of the file on Commons, which isn't always helpful.

Two ways that I find works I want to work on are (1) browsing the lists of "interesting items" that many users here accumulate on their user pages. For example, I have such a list on my user page, and although I would like to work on all of them, there simply isn't enough time for me to do so. Sometimes then, another person will spot a work I've listed and be inspired. And I am neither the first nor only editor here to keep such a list.

Another way I look for works is to pick an author or work because of interest to me, and then import a scan from Internet Archive to Commons, and begin from scratch. I particularly like to find novels, plays, poetry, or general nonfiction works that fill a "hole" in Wikisource coverage. If you choose to pursue this route, there are editors here who are happy to assist you with the file importing and setting up a starter Index page.

But above all, pick something that inspires or interests you, and which is within your current capabilities. Then expand from there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why, thank you. This is very helpful information. Maile66 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please note that {{nop}} has to go on a separate line at the end of the page to do its magic. It can't just be at the end of the last line. Prosody (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Maile66 (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ellipsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Template:Linkable phrase start

Template:Linkable phrase end

Template:Dotted TOC page listing

Braces examples[edit]


p 362
Page:Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas (1884).djvu/567
Page:Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas (1884).djvu/680


I can assure you everything except Bedford-Jones--Boy Scouts of the Air at Cape Peril has been a coincidence. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

test for me[edit]

Index:Adrift on an Ice-Pan (1909).djvu[edit]

Hi Maile66,

I noticed you are validating this work and wanted to say thanks for your effort. But I also wonder, why are you changing the quotation marks here? --Xover (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't aware I changed quotation marks. Please give me an example. All I think I changed was to add the hyphenation template, such as Page:Adrift on an Ice-Pan (1909).djvu/30. Can you be specific, so I can correct any error I've made? Maile66 (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you perhaps have a user script that does it automatically? --Xover (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't use scripts, and am surprised to see this. I did not initiate those changes, and it wouldn't even have occurred to me to make stylistic changes to quotation marks. However, one thing I do routinely before I click on "Publish changes" is from the (on my browser) left-hand side under "Tools" is the option "Clean up OCR", which I click on. That's just standard on my browser. Do you think that is what's causing it? Maybe I should stop clicking on it? On the other hand, maybe "Clean up OCR" should be removed from the tools, if that's what it does.Maile66 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Clean up OCR" function is added by MediaWiki:TemplateScript/proofreading.js, which on line 278–279 straightens quotes. You added it to your common.js on 1 August 2016. So that's a mystery solved. :)
Cleanup OCR is, besides being a very old script, intended to be used on raw OCR text and not on already Proofread text. I don't think it is very useful when Validating pages to begin with, and after we changed policy to allow curly quotation marks it is actually broken. But since some contributors use it when proofreading and strongly prefer straight quotation marks I don't think we can really change it, or at least not easily. --Xover (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That being the case, I think I'll just stop using it. Thanks for catching this. Maile66 (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Also, I removed the script from my common.js. Maile66 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Wild-Goose Chase[edit]

Glad to see you've taken interest in this interesting novel. How on earth are you validating the pages in less than one page per minute? I'd like to know so maybe I could follow suit with your speedy method. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You made it easy for me. For one thing, I only do a few pages, and then put it to rest and come back later. In the case of this particular book, it's not that hard to eyeball each page - original and Wikisource version - side by side. Anything that would be significantly different would jump out. And it's not the first go-round on this, since it had to be checked over in the Proofread necessary to get it ready for validation. So far, these are short, visually clear, and not that hard to pick up anything that doesn't match. There are a lot of texts I pass by working on, because the original is too hard to read, or some other aspect that would drag on. On some older validations I did in past years - in fact, most of them - I took a very long time, and dragged it on for weeks before finishing. It just depends on how you select the book you want to validate. Maile66 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, yeah ... and it helps on these relatively short chapters, to read the chapters first, page by page, then go back and validate each page you've read. Maile66 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another technique I've developed, completely to break up monotony, is to sometimes go through and only validate the first pages of chapters. throughout. And then go back and work on getting through a chapter at a time. Otherwise, some of these can start to visually become what seems like a never-ending road. It's nice to visually break it up. Maile66 (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]