User talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive 12

=Q3 2013=

Oral Literature
Hi AdamBMorgan, thanks for the message. I removed the tag and posted the link to the license (its in pag. 5/192, I don't find a better way to link it). Is it OK now? --Aubrey (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On en.ws the licence template goes just above the categories in the mainspace (but only on the basepage, unless a subpage is different). I've added one; that's all OK now.  Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) --Aubrey (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"original" parameter in translation header
Adam, you might want to remove the "original" parameter from translation header, so that the link is made in the standard way. In Translation:The Screaming a bot reinserted the standard link, and this could also create problems in the future if Wikidata is used.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw the bot on my watchlist. However, this parameter is the only way to reliably track the presence (or lack thereof) of interwiki-originals across the translation namespace.  An orignal version elsewhere on a Wikisource subdomain was a requirement brought up in the RfC that lead to the namespace.  It doesn't seem to hurt to have two identical interwiki links on one page, so the header and a normal interwiki could work (although we could possibly document this a little more on the template page). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Biographies of people who don't exist
Something like Category:Biographies of probably non-existent people would be handy, as far as I'm concerned. I keep on turning up DNB biographies where the modern edition suggests strongly that they are made up folk, or artefacts of interpretation of old manuscripts, etc. With a category they could be excluded from matching to WP, and treated on their own merits.

What do you think? Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I quite like the section title, Category:Biographies of people who don't exist, but "probably non-existent people" is more formal. Category:Apocryphal biographies could work too. The name aside, I see no major problems.  I think there would need to be an intro on the category page itself to explain what the category is about (as it might confuse people) and where the information is from (to satisfy the general Neutral POV requirement).  Otherwise, it makes sense to me.  It is probably a very common occurrence in older biographies and seems a legitimate category of the biography field.  (Sorry for not answering a little more quickly; my internet access kept dropping out on me over the last few days.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - one went past this evening, so I created Category:Apocryphal biographies. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ready to move?
Adam, is everything ready to move works to the translation namespace? If so, this could be the MotM task for August.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just thiking about asking other users that question. As far as I know, everything is OK.  The only problem I know about is the Proofread Page backlinks (the Source tab at the top and page numbers along the side) not showing up.  That shouldn't be a critical error, however.  It doesn't seem to be a very difficult problem to overcome and it can be fixed after the move. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See also the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Adam, sorry if I'm bothering you again, but I noticed that the header preloading script gadget preloads the "year" and "language" parameters in subpages, too. Do you know whom I have to contact in order to get this fixed?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's no bother. The gadget code is at MediaWiki:Gadget-TemplatePreloader.js and any admin can edit it.  I have only a basic understanding of javascript, however.  Given time I can probably work out how to copy and adapt the isSubpage code from the header template section.  A more proficient admin should be able to solve it a lot sooner. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Redacting source files for CopyVio
Hi,

I noticed your BOT request for Weird Tales vol. 42 in response to the copyright issues since discovered. Would you mind if I took a stab at creating a new .DjVu from the original IA hosted PDF but using Acrobat's built in redaction feature to literally keep the pages themselves to act as placeholders with the text "blacked-over" and the embedded text removed instead? I'd even "add-back" the pages for the other two stories already "removed" from the published page progression using this method of redaction if I only knew where to locate them.

If this is agreeable to you, would you please put a hold on the BOT request and give me a day or two to see if I can to get that redacting function in Acrobat Pro to handle this for us (the caveat being I've never tried to apply it to a PDF that is ultimately going to become a DjVu before). Thanks for any consideration of this in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure. It sounds interesting.  Do whatever you want.  (NB: I have all the original page scans but they are individual JPEGs.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I might have bit off more than I can chew - I didn't realize the source PDF's pages were so small in dimension (2in by 3in roughly). That, plus the fact certain words were oddly spelled on purpose, meant the traditional "black box" cloaking of individual words resulted in a really ugly looking redaction; one that almost made the entire page just one big black box. The other method (see temp test file File:Bloch redacted.djvu basically this method brings the backgound color(s) up over the foreground text) seems like the way to go. What do you think? is that form of redaction an acceptable substitute for the existing Bloch story? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The text can't be read, so there is no copyright violation taking place. I'd say that works as redaction.  Does DjVu support this too?  If so, will you be adding that back into the main DjVu file? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess you did not notice - the linked temp file is already a DjVu made from a "redacted" PDF as explained above; so yes, I can substitute those pages for the CopyVio ones in the existing DjVu just fine (I just wanted to be sure doing so was OK'd by you first is all). I'll get around to it sometime today (I hope) and leave you a note here when its been replaced on Commons as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you cunningly concealed the file type by clearly putting it in the wikilink... Yes, sorry, I just had PDF on the brain and missed the obvious.  Please feel free to update the file at your convenience. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: redacted pages swapped-in and new source file uploaded to Commons. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've marked those pages "without text" as they don't really need to be proofread.  Do you think that's OK? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group
Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

Global message delivery, 23:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

email
Adam, did you get my e-mail to you on volume 10 of the Southern Historical Society Papers? I stated that it is on Google and it has all Tables of Contents from volume 1-10 listed in one area towards the end of that volume. —Maury (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did. I tried accessing it but the work is "search only" for me so there is nothing to download.  I will have to try with a proxy service of some kind, to hide my IP address, but I'm not sure if that will work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can download that volume (perhaps from IA). I will let you know in a few minutes. —Maury (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I had already downloaded SHSP volume 10. I wasn't sure if I had or not. The General Index for the First Ten Volumes starts on page 577. But the Index consists of 20 pages. Naturally it shows "Digitized by Google" but I know how to remove those if need be. What do you suggest? —Maury (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can upload the whole thing to Commons we can proceed with it here. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe I can. Will comply asap. —Maury (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ File:Southern Historical Society Papers 10.pdf —Maury (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is another with light yellow pages for easier proof-reading that I just now found on Internet Archives. This is the better of the two volumes. Colored pages are easier on eye and no google markings anywhere. —Maury (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Second version on IA is best
Adam, I uploaded that file as suggested but later I found the best version on IA. Can the one already uploaded be deleted and then the one still on IA be uploaded? I have thought about this a lot when not asleep. My eyes cannot take a lot of white page editing which the already uploaded with "Digitized by Google" has stamped on every page. The 2nd version has no messy marking nor "digitized by google" on it. The pages on the 2nd version are a soft yellow and much easier to work with by my eyes. At age 66 I have computer white page sensitivity when working long periods of time and pain actually comes. Then I have to stay away from the computer for awhile. This has happened 6 times and I went to the doctor twice. My eyes are still 20-20 but they get eye-strain, like snow-blindness mountain climbers experience. —Maury (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Adam, silent one, Thank you for uploading the latest SHSP volumes. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to mention it; I just had something else come up before I was finished getting everything set up. I found a new batch on the Internet Archive, all uploaded by the Allen County Public Library, when I went to download volume ten.  This fills out the gaps up to 1923.  It might be harder getting the rest as the public domain status is more complicated to work out from 1923 onwards.  Nevertheless, there's more than enough material available to proofread now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was watching the area anyhow, I don't know why I wrote that silly statement. I am amazed, pleased and very grateful that you found so many excellent volumes as well as got them on Wikisource so fast. I certainly am not concerned about not having all 52 volumes due to copyright. Someone in the far-away future can take care of those volumes. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

LOC listing is now validated
Hi, Just thought I'd let you know that Susan has completed the validation of Index:Library of Congress Classification Outline.djvu. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been seeing all the validations on my watchlist over the lst few days. It's nice that it's finally done; I think I have some cleaning up of the transclusions to do now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Library of Congress Work
It was my pleasure -- and I figured that few people would be interested in validating list after list after list! Susan Susanarb (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

excellence
Adam, thank you so very much for working out that complicated mess on M F Maury. I had no idea what to do with it. It is perfect now. While your page states that you have "AS" I have not seen any of it. In people skills you are always helping others. Also, on your chart there on "problem solving" I think you should upgrade it at least another star (or two) with what I have seen you do over years. You underrate yourself there and have certainly improved greatly since you originally set it up. The works you just did are very, very important to me and I was helpless as what to do. Sadly, I just do not have your IQ. I thank you many times over. Seriously, you have made my life happier. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)