User talk:ShakespeareFan00

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: III

Act 1 of 1834 (India)[edit]

I'm a little confused. You've nominated Act 1 of 1834 (India) and Act 2 of 1834 (India) for speedy deletion with nomination reason

"Incomplete, this appears to be commentary".

"This appears to be" suggests to me that you stumbled on the page, had a look at it, and are speculating that it is probably commentary and therefore out of scope. That's fair enough, except...

It was you who created the page, and less than three weeks ago! Don't you remember where and why you created it?

Hesperian 00:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I did, but based on the other collections of Acts being the full text of the relevant Acts as opposed to the short notes these are, I didn't feel they were appropriately titled anymore, and hence the speedy deletion nomination, as I was the original creator of the pages in question. If you think a move would be more appropriate, I'm open to suggestions.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Full text of Act 2 of 1834: http://dli.serc.iisc.ernet.in//data8/upload/0218/545/PTIFF/00000034.tif Hrishikes (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks , Can You get that uploaded overnight? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
And my thinking here is , Earlier edition of the same work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 2001.djvu[edit]

Fixed. Hrishikes (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management[edit]

Hi, Working on Page:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management.djvu/109 and have proofread it, but would like the page spanning tables checked. Are they going to work on transclusion? The "continued" lines and "Carried forward" shouldn’t transclude; how does {{aligned table}} work spanning tables? It isn’t in the documentation. I can validate if you tell me it’s all good. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself, ask for help on these. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Page:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management.djvu/2217

Woops!
/* Problematic */ "Almond cream" is missing
Can you tell me the advantages of TOCstyle for indices? This is an example of a disadvantage… Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Almond cream should be there. TOCstyle as it gives the leaders. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Knight (1975) Past, Future and the Problem of Communication in the Work of V V Klhebnikov.djvu[edit]

Great work, I have proof read the pages you did previously. I use the OCR gadget (set in preferences) which OCR s the text in one click. That works quite well. Fabian Tompsett (MDR) (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought ...[edit]

Hi, I thought you had agreed to abandon the username SFan00, and yet I see you are using both names in the same discussion on Commons. You must surely know that this frowned on in all parts of Wikimedia and could lead to you being banned over there.

Additionally, please let the sleeping tiger lie peacefully. There is no need to chase "might be" copyvios on Commons. If you suspect something that we have here, then let's discuss it here. If the result is that it needs moving or deleting, then we can do what we need to do. And then, and only then, notify Commons. In most cases there is no rush. Her Majesty is really not worrying about which server a copy of the text of the KJV is hosted on. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I had already asked Commons to lock the alternate, account. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Hymns of the Rigveda Vol 1.djvu[edit]

Fixed. Hrishikes (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Constituent Assembly of India 1949.djvu[edit]

Please recheck. Hrishikes (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the problem now? Hrishikes (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Some pages at the rear that are dated for 1948.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:Bengaliana.djvu[edit]

Fixed. Hrishikes (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Index - File to fix[edit]

Hi, I'm beginning to work through the backlog in this category. I'm finding that for several of the Index: pages that you've marked as needing to be fixed I've got no clue as to what the problem is. Could you please put a note either on the talk page or in the volumes field? Then I, or anyone else working on these Index: pages know what to do. Some examples:

Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

TOC[edit]

Can u pse have a look at row 17 of this page? Hrishikes (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved with another template. Hrishikes (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Assistance in proofing Iran Air Flight 655[edit]

I've been attempting to perfect the pages for Iran Air Flight 655 investigation., but have struggling intermittently for the past few weeks. Most of the pages were hastily proofred and validated by seperate users without establishing formatting guidlines, and I've been attempting to merge several of them together, as well as correcting transcription errors. It's reached the point where I'm doubting my own consistency in editing. Can you help me pass over the work and make sure it's ready for validation? --Legofan94 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to find someone else I'm afraid, as I initially cleaned this up from OCR, scan. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Understood, Thanks for the edits regardless. --Legofan94 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate pages and image quality[edit]

Apropos Index:A Collection of Two Hundred and Fifty Coloured Etchings Descriptive of the Manners, Customs and Dresses of the Hindoos.djvu and Index:Oriental Scenery — One Hundred and Fifty Views of the Architecture, Antiquities, and Landscape Scenery of Hindoostan.djvu. Duplicate pages can be marked as without text and the show can go on. No need to waste precious bandwidth on this. Have you checked the file size of Solvyns' work? As for image quality, now check after proofreading of some images of the Oriental Scenery. Feedback is requested. Hrishikes (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Have completed the page listing for both of them, just marked the duplicates in the run appropriately. No concerns now prevent proofreading, if you are drawing the images from a better quality source you might want to list it in the Index pages. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The work does have 150 views, you know, including the 6 sepia aquatint title pages. In an art album, title pages also count. These are separately displayed as works of art in museum galleries, e.g. Part 1 title, Part 2 title. Hrishikes (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sketches of representative women of New England[edit]

thanks for the comment. now the problem. we have a scan with 2 pages missing, Index:Representative Women of New England.djvu, and a scan with 6 image pages missing, Index:Sketches of representative women of New England.djvu. i take it you would suggest inserting the pages in the first scan. Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been re-paging the second file as best I can. As long as there's one complete version do what you will. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thanks, i see you are done, and i will finish. i take it, i will have to find and insert the 6 images. it is all very frustrating, when 2 institutions cannot do a scan right. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


I'm confident that in the repaging, some missing images might have vanished. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
i have combed through images. they appear to be all there. i will double check against the list of illustrations. but if some are missed or in wrong place it is ok, we can transclude with the article. will use crop tool on commons to make presentable. Slowking4SvG's revenge 21:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Your proofreading[edit]

I am again having to fix up errors in your applied formatting where you have made errors in the template names that you have applied, and not identified when you have saved the page. There are numerous numbers of these. If you are not picking up overt errors like applied formatting, how well does your proofreading progress. It would seem that you are not checking the page after you have saved it, as template errors stand out like dogs' balls, and I ask that you review your practice. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Which works? I stopped marking stuff as overtly proofread many months ago.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I will however review efforts made in the past few months to satisfy your desire to have "perfect" transcriptions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page, whilst helpful did not directly identify which works were of concern, which I had to determine by looking at what you'd recently "fixed".

I'm considering if I continue contributing if there is a first-time 'perfectionist' agenda, as concerns had been raised previously about sloppy proofreading.

Wikisource does not need contributors that can't meet the standard. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

On a more conciliatory note is there a list of red-linked templates as a report? This might help contributors identify dormant template typos not yet identified? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The works is not important though you are welcome to review my edits, and you are missing the point. You are obviously not reviewing a page after you have saved it if you are missing broken templates. These are basic errors and indicate that you are not undertaking basic review after save. Proofread at a lower rate by taking more time to look for errors, not while editing, but also after saving and look again. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for convincing me that a 'perfection' standard is now being applied. I do undertake a preview, review after save etc., so I am just as puzzled as to how a small number of 'basic errors' have slipped through. I was asking about specific works so that I could focus any reviewing on works where the class of "basic mistake" may be more common.

That said, the tone of your concern suggests that I should other than reviewing past contributions cease active contributions on the grounds of competence, as I'm perhaps not up to the 'basic' standard you would prefer (you and other contributors having left comments like this in the past).

On a technical aside, I note that some changes to the editing UI are planned (like syntax highlighting). Perhaps longer term it would be possible to further amend the editing UI to make it "impossible" to save/publish a page which has "undefined templates" in it? ( Whilst this wouldn't catch all instances of typoed templates, it would catch many of the examples you've been able to identify).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2017

Thanks you for identifying material which needs review. However in going back through material contributed since March, I've (not yet) found other examples, aside from the one's you've already identified and fixed. Granted those shouldn't have occurred in the first place. 4 pages (based on the entries in your contributions log) is not "numerous" examples as your comment would suggest. It's still too many though.

A list of red-linked templates would as previously indicated be useful, as it would help identify remaining typo template calls. That is unless you seriously want me to go through every single page I've ever contributed, which would be extremely inefficient.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Farb, but we need a collaborative way to raise issues of quality and coach newbies to standards. the "your recent edits" and "work here" is a little off-putting. we need to suggest saving un-proofread as a option when standard is unclear. unclear what error rate is worthy of comment or actionable, given The Farmbrough effect. we need a standard of practice that starts: "hi, thanks for the proofreading, however some things are a concern for me. let’s talk." we need some tools like maintenance category, or page query with certain characters. we could even use a bot that correct certain known OCR errors. Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that some errors slip through, even for the best editors. However, when I do this regular cleanup of broken templates, your edits come through time and time again, and little in the way for other editors. I haven't commented in the previous months about the same issues and just fixed them. Broken templates is such a basic and overt error and should be captured by the contributor at the time of making it. That you have happen it over and over again has to be an indicator of some things, primarily that you don't do a sufficient visual check of a saved page, the big red wikilink for a template, and not the formatted text, should be a shouting indicator of a problem, an example Page:Plomer Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers 1907.djvu/224. Also, there is already a list of templates presented on every page when you edit, with non-existing templates being shown in red. That is not sufficient? If you are not using currently available tools, what is the point of creating something else for you. A big red wikilink where a template should be, should be sufficient highlighting of an error. What more could you possibly need? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The list of templates is collapsed in the UI. However, it's no longer my concern. I am leaving this project unless there is an attitude shift. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore you seem to desire I recheck all my contributions ever, which is HIGHLY ineffective in finding 'problems'. If someone can provide a list of redlinked templates, I can get started on fixing them a lot more quickly than having an argument here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
You still are not listening. There is zero request by me, nor expectation, that you recheck any of your old edits. I have asked that when you save a page that you review the page before moving on. For the purpose of the discussion, there is no need to provide any list of redlinked templates, that is not what I am asking, as the fixes have been made, and are regularly made. The purpose is for you to review again when you have hit save, you are missing things, and with templates it is overt things. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah... Then I believe I owe you an apology. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Page list[edit]

There's no hurry (at all), but I'd appreciate it if you could fix my failed attempt at creating a pagelist for Index:Poems of Ossian.djvu. Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Template for Title pages[edit]

Hi, I saw your edit on Page:語言自邇集_-_Yǔ_yán_zì_ěr_jí._A_progressive_course_designed_to_assist_the_student_of_colloquial_Chinese_Vol_2.djvu/7. To be honest, I just copied it from the Volume 1 which is not my work as well. I'm mainly interested in the content, less on the format. I'm relatively new to Wikisource formatting and to overall generic typography. Is there any specific templates recommanded for title page? Assassas77 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

See {{larger}}, {{smaller}} etc... That's how you are supposed to change the size of text. The reason is to do with it being CSS based, and thus consistent across different browsers and platforms. BIG and SMALL as HTML tags aren't, and in any event those tags are due to be deprecated in strict HTML anyway, in favour of the much more flexible style-sheet approaches. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thumbup, oh, of course! I remember using those BIG, SMALL, STRONG tags when I got my first computer 15 years ago! Assassas77 (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Download access[edit]

Hi! Do you have access to the book at http://www.southasiaarchive.com/Content/sarf.142112/207531 (also at https://books.google.com/books?id=ONGjmAEACAAJ)? I was told that a Briton should have access. Hrishikes (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I don't. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you know anyone else on Wikisource connected to a British university who may be able to access the book at the South Asia Archive? Mahir256 (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: Can you help with the book above? Hrishikes (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
When I sign in to the site using my University of Oxford ID, I get the error "unauthenticated": tried a few times. Looks like Oxford isn't a subscribing institution. The Bodleian doesn't have a scanned copy. Sorry I can't be more help, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)