User talk:George Burgess

--Longfellow (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A DNBer :-)
I see that you have been doing work on the DNB, and it is nice to have you aboard. You may be interested in that we have a project in place WikiProject DNB to transcribe the DNB, and some of our tricks, shortcuts, and general information are there. Again welcome to WS. — billinghurst  sDrewth  17:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh by the way. If you have proofread a page, then please do feel welcome to change its status from Not proofread [red] to Proofread [amber].  This will allow the next person who proofs it to then move it to Validated [green]. Thanks.  — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello - a tip about Author pages. Baker, Richard (1568-1645) (DNB00) should in principle have shown up as linked from Author:Sidney Lee. It does now - I have fixed it - the point being that the link on Author:Sidney Lee was as and needed disambiguation. Except for omissions in error, the Author pages now list all the DNB articles, but without psychic powers it isn't always possible to guess the need for disambiguation ahead of time. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You do nice work :-) and I should have those few problematic pages from vol. 6 checked against alternate sources in the next hour or so. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To let you know that I have finally completed transferring the manually transcribed pages onto their respective pages. All the remaining redlinks are completely new bios. :-).  I have left a note to that effect on the project talk page.  — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice to have your officially join us on PotM
Always nice to have a new face join us. We look forward to any proposal that you may have for works for us to consider. We try to have a diverse selection of works, in the wholistic sense of place, people, topic, period, quirky, historic, though we generally look to not have the most complex work to typeset. Personally, I like to make a bit of a statement and utilise PotM as a means as an introduction to Wikisource, and that gives some value to the site, that way we get good participation. Again, welcome. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, here here…JamAKiska (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

new text
I just validated some pages you did, then added it to new texts. Regards, cygnis insignis 12:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You may want to play with block center for poetry, the trick where the poem continues on the next page is explained at block center/s; this is a bit fiddly, but it renders well with centered text and so on.

CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks, wrong button and no check of what I did (I usually read through from when transcluded). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I transcluded the pages you did for Children's Amusements, they couldn't have been easy to do. I think I fixed the bugs I introduced. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

DNB volume 19
Just a note to let you know that I'll be making a push to consolidate this volume, in the next week or so. I'm starting in at the middle, around the Fitzwilliams. Thanks for the proofreading so far. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Empty spaces before some punctuation
Just a note that it is probably best to also remove any [empty] spaces that appear before punctuation marks such as semicolons, colons and question marks, etc. for best rendering. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Scottish/Irish naming under discussion
See Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB. It's a traditional business but I may have missed some nuances. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template
Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:


 * • Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag   with   and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Useful user defined Charinsert
Hi. Based upon your proofreading of this page, I took the liberty of installing THIS user definable, commonly used accented characters. If you have any questions, please just ask.— Ineuw talk 21:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Bohemian Review
Hi, I have noticed you started proofreading some articles from the Bohemian Review. When I started working on this journal, I thought that nobody else would join and so started doing some formatting and other issues in some specific ways. It would be great if all the articles kept the same style: curly quotations marks and apostrophes, no spaces with dashes, size of titles, letter-spacing in some titles, links to authors mentioned in the text, templates for non-English text, and so on… Do you think you could take care of these too? When I unify it during the validation, it takes me almost the same time as the proofreading itself, so it is much better to do it directly during the proofreading process. I really think the whole journal should be transcribed in the unified way. Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for proofreading a couple more pages. I would like just to ask again if it were possible to keep the formatting of the work unified.
 * Dashes: WS:Style guide says: Whichever dash is used, it should not be flanked by spaces.
 * Quotation marks and apostrophes: The rule says that both curly and straight quotes are possible but it has to be done consistently. I have already started with the curly ones, could you please continue with this style too?
 * Just to explain the other things I have mentioned above: none of them is against WS conventions. For example the lang template: its documentation says quite clearly: "Texts on Wikisource should be tagged to specify the language in a machine readable format. All pages on English Wikisource are are automatically tagged as "English". Any piece of text that is not in English should be tagged as such with this template or one of its derivatives." Using this template enables for example machine readers to read the non-English text correctly.
 * I would really like to have the magazine unified as for these and other formatting issues and if you could also take care of it, it would really help. Of course I cannot force you to do it in any way and so if do not not do it, I will just take care of it myself instead of proofreading other pages, but the result would be that the number of proofread pages added thanks to your participation would not be raised very much. When I correct these issues it takes me almost the same time as if I proofread the page myself. Thanks very much for understanding. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, I made a mistake: I thought that this contribution is new, now I see that it is also an older one. So sorry for the confusion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)