User talk:Zhaladshar/archive 17

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


Thanks Zhaladshar, I'll try not to break anything :-) Your guidance and comments were a great help to me when I began contributing here, I still consider it as I seek solutions to meet our goals. I hoped you would be enacting the communities decision, for sentimental reasons, because you took the time to answer my queries and encouraged me to contribute here. Best regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Learnt a trick ?action=purge[edit]

I learnt from Thomas that some of the older uploaded djvu files need to be purged to make the text layer able to be automatically applied. So, one needs to have a url like‎?action=purge to get the text layers shaken loose.

With Page:Selections from the Sahih of al-Buhari (1906).djvu/12 I was able to delete our edited copy, and then from the Index page, to open it, and VOILA! the text layer appears. All very sweet. Pity poor Thomas whose back I have been riding and ears chewing as I wring him for information. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't even think of purging the cache on WS's side. I only tried purging my own. Thanks for that information; I should have realized that.  :) —Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
To make this easy for us, I have moved over purgetab.js from WP, and you can turn it on in your Gadgets. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Index that could use your care[edit]

Wikisource:Folklore could use some TLC, since I see you adding works like Connla and the Fairy Maiden. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus. 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look and see if I can work some magic with it :) .—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

award :-)[edit]

Awards for participation
Featured article star - check.svg
Proofread of the Month
November 2009

Special: Validation month


That was easy, nice to read and well presented, thanks for creating it :) Will you nominate it yourself when I'm done? Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I'd like to see the work go featured. We haven't yet done any fairy tales, either, and I think it's high time we put some children's works out there. :) —Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

username change request.[edit]

Hello, First of all I am sorry if this is the wrong place to request a username change. I could not find the page for this in wikisource and google showed up your talk archive. If you can do this, can you pls change User:Nvineeth to User:TheMandarin ? This has been already done on en:wiki. Thank you. --Nvineeth (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Username change[edit]

Hello. Could you rename my username to Visible Light ? Thank you!Visible Light (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Can you please rename me to User:Pmlineditor? Pmlineditor  Talk 10:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

got a bit?[edit]

Hi. I'd like my bit back, please. I asked Birgitte and she appears inactive; talk is at

Sorry for the fuss. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all finished; Birgitte's handled it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Our old proofread swap (User talk:Psychless#Proofread Swap)[edit]

I recently finished The Obligations of the Universities Towards Art. When I was adding in the correct page numbers on the main page, where the pages are transcluded, I discovered that two pages were missing! I guess we both missed that. I used the Google Images version to provide the text for those two pages. You should go to the main page and proofread them to "validate" them. There's also a couple of pages in the real index that you need to validate. Psychless 01:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah! You're right. How weird. Which Google version did you use? I'll have to make a djvu file out of those two pages so that we can stick them into the other djvu file. Thanks for the heads up.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism"[edit]

Can you tell me the background to why this work remains? Both the work and its translation seem to be contentious. billinghurst (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you. With the copyvio discussion being 4 years ago, if there was a reason it now escapes me. There's nothing about it that makes it seem like it could be on this site. I'd propose it again for copyvio.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Zhaladshar and happy new year! WS:ADMIN#LarryGilbert appears ready to be closed. --John Vandenberg (chat) 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope that it is okay …[edit]

… in that I have slipped Index:Celtic Fairy Tales.djvu into WS:PotM. We had finished the selected work January, and I simply couldn't have a void. If you think that it should come out, then get back to me and will pick another post-sleep. billinghurst sDrewth 15:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's all right with me! I've done everything I can to that work, so having other eyes validate it would be great! And I would so like to see it finally get finished.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Filboid Studge, the Story of a Mouse That Helped[edit]

The Breakfast of Champions. The Chronicles of Clovis has finally come out in an Internet Archive scanned edition and revealed two errors in your source. "LIKE to kill their neighbors now and then" should be "like to kill their neighbors now and then", and "Earnest, spectacled young then devoured it" should be "Earnest, spectacled young men devoured it". Just thought you should know. ResScholar (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's me again. I understand from the table of contents page that all caps for italics seem to be standard for this work. So I changed that one back, as I didn't correct it with the intention of trying to dictate stylistic preferences for the work. ResScholar (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That's probably because I lifted it word for word from another website. :) I added that work almost 3 years ago, well before the ProofreadPage was around. Meaning the predominant source I used was Gutenberg. In the original work, it probably was italicized instead of all caps. Either way, you're free to use whichever style you prefer. Eventually it'll migrate to a DJVU and we can then be exact.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin nomination[edit]

Gday mate. The support for the admin nom for Xxagile looks solid, and after 12-13 days of the process, it would be great if you could review it at a near point of time. Many thanks. billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That was prompt. Many thanks! billinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Quite welcome!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Graphical letters and their use[edit]

The work "The Princess and Curdie" utilises the graphic letters as drop capitals, eg. Page:The Princess and Curdie.djvu/13. Now I am tidying up pages that need transclusion and while I will proofread, spending the time on extracting these babies, is not my To Do list. My plan is to mark then as Proofread, whether they need a graphic capital or not, and stick a {{standardise}} on them. Does that stick in your craw as something acceptable, or do you have a better solution. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think that would be fine. Having extracted the graphic letters for Celtic Fairy Tales I can vouch for how much of a pain it is. I say put the {{standardize}} template on those pages, and let someone do them when they have the time (who knows, I might do them if I need a break from proofreading pages).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

About your bot.[edit]

Would you mind I ask you some questions about bot creating ? KuteoBot (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I'm not a bot expert but I can try answering any questions you've got, and if I can't answer it I'll send you to someone who can.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It might be nice first to know whose bot this is. There is no User:Kuteo. I don't know how I feel about having an anonymous, unsupervised bot running around the place. Hesperian 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikisource:Bots We generally would not expect a user to be operating under a Bot name like this, and would prefer to see a user asking questions about their bot. Also we would consider a bot account to have clear labelling linking to their owner, as I have at my user page and bot pagebillinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I am the people who planning creating a bot (KuteoBot) which maintain interwiki and welcome new user, I am not going to use pywikipedia, I want to use DotNetBotWiki or jwbf. I have installed C++ and Java compiler, how can I place the source code I need for these above purpose ?. Phan Trong Nghia (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with jwbf, I have tried DotNetBotWiki in the past. Unfortunately, I'm not too sure what you're asking me. Where would you like to place the source code?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

earlier versions[edit]

I'm finding it difficult to decide what to do with the pages like Tamerlane and other poems. The contents I find linked from these are obviously well intentioned and usable, but the provenance is variable. I did a version of this work, though I don't know how to disambiguate the assortment of extant poems. I certainly don't think this should automatically displace the versions that others have provided. I'm not entirely happy with the solution I applied to Poetical Sketches, a similar example, but determining which version they are is laborious. Do you have any thoughts on this? Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I say plow right over them with what we have from page scans. I think if we have versions of poems of dubious provenance we should replace them with ones of verified and known provenance. If we ever get multiple versions of a poem from known and good sources, I think either side by side (not probably the best recommended approach) or disambiguation by publication/creation year would be best.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Zhaladshar, my thought was where we have them as multiples that we maintain them as subpages of the work, and the main namespace becomes the disambiguation page. If they are the only version, then they can be subpages with redirects at the top level, or top level. Pretty much a case of "whichever". — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but you can't disambiguate works of unknown provenance. So I agree with plowing right over what we have at the moment. But once with have multiple works backed by page scans, then per billinghurst. Hesperian 03:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
That bit was implicit in my thinking, though may not have been overtly so. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm probably being too cautious. I wanted your view and to air my own, excuse my blather on your talk, only respond where it interests you. I did a bit on Tamerlane already, but I'm waiting for responses from those interested in the page. An emergent property of this approach is that it patches other links, like the 'ToC' at Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems. The best effect is that users are given a selection, and contributors have a means of correcting and creating works without contradicting another's authoritative version. I tend to suspect other approaches are carried over from the big sister, which has a single page w:Tamerlane and Other Poems, this approach provides access to the multiple sources found in those articles.

Page scans are an improvement, if the user wants to do that, but it is the actual source that is critical: a reliable website, hard copy, or whatever. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Little request[edit]

Notice modeled after [1]

As Template:New texts is monitored in IRC, and many users have it in their Watchlists, I was wondering whether you would consider adding the name of the text being added to the edit summary, rather than solely +1,-1. Even if it is just have +Name of work, -1 that would be most helpful. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks again for the welcome. As for my choice of additions, I figured me doing ERB was esoteric! Heheh... I'm pretty random though. This month it may be ERB, next month it could be Martin Luther, and after that, who knows. I run in cycles, though (ERB and his era of writers are a favorite of mine) so I always come back around again with additions or improvements. Anyways, Thanks Again for the welcome! Take care... N432138 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)