User talk:George Orwell III/Archives/2012

Layout two and my rendition of
I have just noticed that my rendition of doesn't do as well when displaying in Layout 2. While I generally hate &c. it does display nicely in Layout 2. You are so much better at understanding html/css in creativity, rather than my work a solution and I was wondering whether I could ask for some advice/updates/fixes/aaagh. A page as an example Problems of Empire/Studies in Australia in 1896. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell (and after poking this a bit), your application of becomes muddled under Dynamic Layouts 2 & 3 because those have a sidenote-left and a sidenote right class defined and that is what is suppose to render side-notes in the mainspace as opposed to what is coded in the  template "tree".


 * It is almost the same issue found with the Statues at Large Project when forcing all the side-notes to the right under Dynamic Layouts. On the one hand Layout 1 does not impose a fixed width nor absolute:relative positioning but you can't "see" the side-notes anyway in anything other than some floating box (i.e. no margins). This is not the case under Dynamic Layouts 2 and 3 only by chance because the idea is to force to the right where a template can "overflow" into the screen-space regardless of the widths and margins imposed by Dynamic Layouts (its whitespace to begin with in other words). The problem is the nearly same when forcing all-to-the-left only a bit worse since side-notes and page links back to the Page: namespace can, and frequently do, overlap each other thanks to the Dynamic layout settings in .js & .css.


 * What you're trying to accomplish, I think, is keeping the pagenum links all the way to the left up against the navigation, toolbox, etc. sidebar like you'd normally see in Layout 1, then have have all the side-notes fall in between those links and the end of the left margin of the text-container box under Layout 2. You are not going to have much luck using a template/templates that a.) drops any wrapping of a span class defined as sidenote-left or sidenote-right class; b.) uses float:left as part of its function when Dynamic Layout will always usurp that by floating it right out of view since it is expecting the use of absolute:positioning & left:em scheme instead. c.) introduces inline-block for unwanted inheritence by trying to pad with Gap when CSS is really what should have been used especially to avoid situations where the side-note is placed before the paragraph text start and finally d.) can never possibly work since there is a Common.css fixed 3em spacing always between the text box container & text-wrap (you'd need ~15em [15-3=12] for Oustside-left to work; 12em being the overall width of a normal left margin even under the old sidenotes begin/end routine developed -- thatis 12em where you could actually force all left side-notes to display properly).


 * The_Solar_System/Chapter_1 still being the "best" example of how all this Dynamic jazz was suppose to work with a no-frills, no-forcing Proofread, the solution hopefully becomes more clear -- be it inside or outside, if we are forcing all side-notes to one side or the other then we are losing the ~12em not in use in the mainspace. That ~12em should solve everybody's "needs" by allowing you to move the pagenum links out another 9em to the left so they don't interfere with all-left side-notes or break the all right side-notes mentality for legislative works. The 2 other things needed is removing mainspace headers and/or footers from the dynamic layout scheme and the ability to assign Layout 2 as the 1st click-in default layout for certain types of works (both proposals pretty much DOA since 1st proposed in WS:S btw) -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sidenotes rant

 * trimmed from proposed deletions - not relevant to that discussion


 * The "solution" to "trapped" sidnotes is to open to what amounts to a 3rd span tag at the end of the last cell on a page and close that span at the start of the following page before the first cell allowing span class 'pagenum' or 'sidenote-left(right)' somewhere to "land" in mainspace transclusion.
 * The problem is that several template variations (sidenotes outside or all left-to-right, etc.) strip the span class for sidenotes in the mainspace (making dynamic control over the span class completely moot) or strips the wrapping span tag altogether leaving no place for the sidenote to "land" in transclusion (other than before or after the entire table; not the table cell).
 * I remain opposed to deletion unless the God damn implementation of the God damn selectable first-click-in of a God damn dynamic layout for a God damn mainspace work is finally made permanent. If after that the sidenote issue(s) still cannot be properly resolved, then, and only then, will my position on preserving the current mess of individual workarounds such as these templates may provide ever change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused as to what this has to do with the choice of the column formatting template. Both break sidenotes in the same way, as both use tables. This isn't about fixing or breaking the sidenotes: they are unaffected by the template choice. It's about consolidating the column formatting templates into a single set for ease of learning, maintenance, development and because the alternative has nicer options (like line, align and width). In fact, this problem is not limited to column formatting, but any table formatting combined with sidenotes.
 * As for the sidenote, the problem here is not the "stripping" of any classes, it's because Layout 1 floats the sidenotes to the right or left, and this is not enough to break the sidenote out of a table cell (the sidenote HTML code is inlined in the same place it occurs in the wikicode), whereas the position:absolute styling of Layouts 2 and 3 and the layout in the page NS are enough. However, using absolute positioning without clearing the margin à la Layouts 2 and 3 will cause the sidenote to overlap the text body, as it has been removed from the normal page flow. Jumping directly to default layouts is a workaround for this problem, not the other way around, as the problem will still exist under Layout 1. I suppose it could be done in the same general manner as the page numbers, by using Javascript, but I don't have the energy or time any more to fight that kind of change through the system. An alternative is to put the sidenotes in the other column of the table, but that breaks the desirable orthogonality between table layout and sidenote handling (they should not affect each other), and it makes maintenance harder if the sidenotes are "flipped".
 * I understand all this. Layout 1 will never provide any margin for sidenotes because the 3 div wrappers have no styling defined in the Common.js. This is why any number of additional wrapping, either by template(s) or by straight HTML, of the Pages line used for transclusion is taking place (making Layout 2 & 3 completely broken but we never hear about that since Layout 1 is somewhat forced to a some sort of margin in those cases on top of the use of specialized side-note inside/outside templates - templates that drop the main sidenote span class in order not to take the assigned Dynamic Layout settings/values). If every template created post the-2-basic-ones-first-developed kept the sidenote class, then making sidenotes all left or all right via js rather than by template becomes a snap to do (making the only issue left to resolve one of preference whether or not to have the text align right or left (your inside or outside variantions). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend moving this too either a sidenotes page or to one of the column templates' talks (I'd recommend multicol, as it's used by more than 8 pages). Inductiveload— talk/contribs  03:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, I don't care that much about these templates, keep them if that makes you happy. I was originally trying to simplify the half-imported, half-maintained entropy-fest, and now I was clarifying why the deletion is unrelated to the sidenote issue at the request of another user who is valiantly clearing out this page. If it's still contentious, I don't care to argue about it. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  23:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If none of these are being used as workarounds to force margins or whatever then I say whack 'em all too, but I'd prefer we make them obsolete en.WS-wide rather than just a matter of annoying housekeeping. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not workarounds for anything, they are for formatting columns of text, and that's all. If editors are using them to force margins, they are doing it wrong. Since the CSS3 multi-column spec is still widely unsupported and won't do what we want even in the more compliant browsers for a while (the breaking the column where you demand is especially dodgy) or maybe ever (I not even sure they can do what we want, i.e. fix the break point absolutely), we're stuck with tables, and having a single well-specified template is a good thing. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  03:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blame tables. Blame table-rows. Blame CSS. Blame column-cells Blame everything BUT the wikicode and its proofreading inter-action(s) during/after transclusion (made 1000% worse by pushed Dynamic Layouts). IMO, we're not "stuck"; we accept realities without measuring the consequences because it "works" for most of the regular contributors most of the time and in most instances for the majority of works hosted to date; case closed.
 * Look... using straight HTML for tables allows the pagenum class to render absolute across page breaks in the mainspace because the span has somewhere to "land" properly (i.e. between a &lt;td> and &lt;/td> once transcluded). The same principle(s) for pagenum within a table across a page-break applies to a sidenote as well; the caveat being a larger margin being present. You can't accomplish this with the wiki-markup shortcut table code, as well as the entire set of table-ish templates based on that wiki-markup, because there is nowhere for the pagenum to "land" when trancluded (well not without even more convoluted coding taking place to be honest here). With wiki-mark-up, the column-cell is automatically closed (or opened, depending) prior to transclusion rather than during it - forcing the pagenum to the top of the table start rather than at the row where the page. I'm not going to go over well-covered territory once again; there is a quick and dirty example of a straight HTML table at the top of this page. The same table but transcluded from the Page: namespace & using wiki-markup is near the bottom of that same page. Hopefully folks can see "tables" or "templates" are not at fault there because the pagenum can be rendered absolute at the row where the page-break takes place -- just as sidenotes could be with some additional effort/tweaking. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is still irrelevant to this deletion discussion.
 * Secondly, the table you linked is broken for me (Firefox 8) - the cells are pushed one column over on the row where the page break happens.
 * Thirdly, this is not the behaviour I have been talking about - I am talking about the failure of the sidenote to make it all the way over to the right hind side of the page when the sidenote template code is placed within a table cell. The behaviour of pagenums within tables is yet another unconnected matter.
 * Fourthly, my problem is not the "fault" of the wikimarkup, it is caused by HTML layout rules being applied correctly to an incorrect set of HTML elements and CSS parameters for the job (which I can't seem to fix). DL isn't to blame, the sidenotes are (this problem exists with or without DL as long as the sidenote is not absolutely positioned). DL already makes sidenotes much more manageable in the general case, it's just a couple of pages where an unforeseen interaction with a table makes a mistake.
 * Lastly, the pagenum problem you are talking about is probably the "fault" of the JS that does them. I don't understand the JS that lays out the pagenums very well, so I'm not able to help.
 * I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm really not. I'd love to help as this issue is an ongoing problem. Here, I'm just trying to clean up a mess of old templates. I might consider looking at the side note issue and the pagenum issue in future, but I really don't have time for complex JS development followed by lengthy approval processes. However, this is not the forum for these issues.
 * Merry Christmas one and all. Face-smile-christmas.svgtiveload— talk/contribs  10:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig's Farewell to Baseball
Thoughts on it status? — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unlikely to be PD for any number of obvious reasons. Most of all, Major League Baseball enjoys the unique status of NOT falling under interstate commerce restrictions so it is actually a sanctioned monopoly in the Government's eyes (making 'anything baseball' subject to requiring the expressed written consent of the League before it can approach anything coming close to PD). I'll bet Carl will have a more detailed reasoning if posted @ CopyVio, but I see nothing that would make me think this can be hosted on WS regardless - its a speech by a private citizen under contract at the time to a team & made during a paid event sponsored by that same team as chartered by the beforementioned League. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Problematic djvu
If time permits, would you mind looking at this new djvu file? I created it with my usual suite of djvu tools, but none of the pages seems to be rendering, and the index page is a long series of error messages. The djvu file can be downloaded from Commons and displays perfectly on my machine. Is this a Commons problem, do you think? Tarmstro99 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just looking at a similar problem yesterday where the width x height didn't come up at all on Commons ( see File:Federal Cases, Volume 19.djvu ) and the only thing out of the ordinary, so far, was the text layer had a 'page' within a 'page' entry @ DjVu 290. Didn't fix the problem but, again, so far its all I have to go on.
 * I'll take a better look at yours this weekend but if you extract the text layer to a file using DjVused.exe and it fails to re-insert the same unedited file you just extracted, you probably have the same issue(s) as vol 19 of the Federal Cases reporter does.
 * After that, the only reason the width x height can't be calculated automatically by Commons, etc., in my expierence, is if the first page of the DjVu is messed up (i.e. - the typical GoogleBooks disclaimer is sooooo different from the rest of the DjVu's dimensions that the only way it will render properly is deleting the first page or replacing/renaming for a blank). The other option is you prefixed/suffixed the internal indirect DjVu numbering with all zeros instead of starting with 0001 or the like. More as I find em' out - I'll leave you a note pointing here on your talk page. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The original version of the file apparently did have inconsistent page widths/heights interspersed throughout the document; never by more than a few pixels in any direction, but they were there. However, I have now uploaded a revised version of the document in which every page has been verified as having the exact same dimensions (2550×3300 pixels; 8½"×11" @ 300dpi) and the problem remains unchanged.  Tarmstro99 19:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Third time’s the charm, it seems; I created a new version of the file using  instead of   and this one seems to be working. Tarmstro99 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * DjVudigital eh? Never used it. PDF2DJVU is just DjVuLibre with a GUI shell. The dimensions needed to swing wildly & not just a a dozen pixels here or there for it to affect the DjVu rendering on WS. Anyway - Looks great. Nice work!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But &#123;&#123;header}} is only main ns
Am I missing something about [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Header&curid=30995&diff=3580440&oldid=3578685 this edit]? We only use {{header in main ns so the change seems a little superfluous. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well everybody with the undef! bang message who had a sandbox with the header template under their User: as a subpage or similar plus all the Template:Header testcase pages, etc., kept showing up in that category. Now its empty. Is there a better way not to have categorization take place in namespaces other than the main for our nav header than spelling it out? -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair call. Thx. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

this edit should have worked
I have edited MediaWiki:common.css[//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&diff=3589408&oldid=3589391] to try to get a class operational for Page:Ravished Armenia.djvu/15 and to use more widely; it failed to function. Tried it via my local common.css file, without issue, when imported to the global css file, NOTHING! Thoughts? Can you see anything that would consider this a clash? — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * at first glance... a 'first-child' column-cell ( &lt;td> ) styled via a defined class can't have a column span of 2 (or more) or all you are doing there is padding the middle (null) column on its right side the way I see it. I'd have to experiment some to be 100% sure - but 'before', 'after', 'last', 'first', etc. are not always universally browser friendly for starters. Wikicode typically prefers a null space in empty cells to insure place-holding as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not fussed about the cell in the first row, it is more the formatting for the remainder part of the first cell of first column of the table.  Plus it worked fine when I had the class just in my personal css file, it is just when transferred that it is failing, so all I can think is that there is something later in common.css that is overriding the setting.  The nice thing about this formatting is if it fails in other browsers, then it is a very cosmetic failure, just an amount of column separation.  Often I functionally omit it due to the complicating of the coding inside table of contents tables.  This is my attempt to keep it simple. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right - the setting either gets overriden by another CSS setting (not sure where but boy you can't say I didn't look hard for it!) AND/OR certain browsers are taking a "false positive" of sorts (I figure the proofread status bar & the normal header are table based and, as a result, muddy the first child call). The only way I was able to get the desired padding was if the cell's text was wrapped in a span and then set that as a descendant of the td cell. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Filter "contains_any"
I believe that rather than nesting heaps of OR statements that we can use the parameter contains_any and then you can have a long string of them, if I read the instructions right. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are most likely correct about that. I only went that route cause it was easier copied from one of Cirt's existing filters than anything else at the time. Originally the or statement for namespaces wasn't detecting anything because it was wrapped in quotes, erroneously making it a straight & literal string, so I became fixated on testing previous results against paramaters based on or statements. Don't take it as a preference or anything - it just worked was all.
 * on, the " " makes it literal? Must be what I had been doing wrong, for some I have been having hell all issues, and have just run away and hidden.
 * 'instructions', eh? I guess that's a better place for me to start! :( Pointer? George Orwell III (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * mw:Extensioin:AbuseFilter/FulesFormat for what they are and here I was thinking that you had already found them. I have been meaning to see if someone had something better elsewhere, but I haven't got that far yet. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

sulinfo
I had been meaning to come back the sp footer thingy and convert to George Orwell III and have George Orwell III. Interwiki'd link now. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * full list at Interwiki map — billinghurst  sDrewth 
 * Not sure what you're saying exactly so I don't know if I made things better or worse there. My change was only to enable the blocked/locked checkboxes by default on a click-in via the footer; it seemed kind of silly not to . Just change it back if it is problematic somehow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

sandbox
I need help please, as I am becoming very frustrated with this. Can you please get the transclusion code on my sandbox to work? It's not final, but I just want it desperately to work. - Tannertsf (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - you had a colon where there should have been an equal sign and double hash marks for one of the quotes. George Orwell III (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. - Tannertsf (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem page in the djvu for the Mexico book
Hi, Page:Mexico as it was and as it is.djvu/413 is patently a problem. I've checked in a different scan on IA and it can be deleted. /412 is print page 331 and /414 is print page 332. I don't know how to delete a page from the middle of a djvu, but from memory you've done this sort of thing before. Could you please have a go at it—or refer on to someone else? Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well proofreading seems to be well underway without an accurate pagelist being in place first so I'm a bit leary of making one edit now only to find more are going to be needed later. Without much effort, I get the feeling due diligence was an afterthought at best when I look for Appendix 5 by page number only to find it listed as Appendix 4 for example. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I didn't look that deeply (wanted to go to bed). Was just responding to a comment on RC by WMM. I dearly wish that editors would not upload Google scans, particularly when there are other scans on IA. I've started adjusting the pagelist, but it's a right mess with more than one set of roman numerals that overlap with each other. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was looking through the pages and point out that if one clicks the word "Image" at the top of any page no "thumbnail" is generated. I do not know if this gives any hints as to how to do a repair or not but the exact wording is as follows:

Error generating thumbnail

Error creating thumbnail: terminate called after throwing an instance of 'DJVU::GException' pnmtojpeg: EOF / read error reading magic number

WMM2 (&mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 21:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Pagelist is completed. It's a dreadful scan and there is a better one on IA, but it's been started, so... There is no Appendix 5 in the third edition of the work. What was Appendix 5 in the first edition has become Appendix 4 and the former Appendix 4 has gone—despite still being in the TOC. The only bad page is /413. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll review the pagelist and delete /413 tomorrow - A Giants win means I can focus better in the coming week(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ had some trouble with the server so it took 2 tries to come through as we wanted. No big deal. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Always d/l MS- vs G- when possible. I know through .PDF file use. If for any reason this book will cause anyone problems then delete the thing and let's start over. The images are still there on Commons. We don't want the problems that may be nested in the scans. Editing is editing and we all want to do our best with what we can do. —Maury (&mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 00:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is something else to consider, at least this is so with my. PDF files, G- has started removing images on at least one, perhaps more, of its files. I know because I own a copy of the original book and also from working on a different book via .PDF long ago whereby the images are not available on G-. Perhaps imgs are in the printed versions they sell. Removing images saves ink when printed for sale. Or perhaps the images are shown in the printed work but no "illustrations" are listed -- there is at least one exception on IA where the illustrations are listed but are not included in the d/l. I have had those images and the text for decades sent to me by an elder family member because a family member is in the story. G- is a mess in multiple ways. Please always d/l MS- or another free (and fully intact) work. &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 00:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * GooBoo does an OK job for the price. The source scans are pretty much the same and all originate from the same handful of libraries. Their problem is a heavy reliance on an automated process whereas IA and the like have much more individual interaction in the conversion process, making for higher quality end-products compared to GooBoo. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never purchased a GooBoo as an end product but their scanning work for d/l needs working on. I love photography and many kinds of art but that does not include scanned works that show a person's fingers with red nail polish which is too much individual interaction although some would call that, or anything else, "art" which I deem similar to the automated non-created shovel Jim Dine got placed in a modern museum. &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 04:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not being more clear - I did not mean purchasing books from GooBoo at all. All I meant was you can't argue with a free online library of stuff not normally found in one's local library. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Books

 * Oh, that's okay, George. I did think you meant "purchasing" though.

I remember when I was young and especially during cold Virgina's winters how much I wanted to read old and rare books. My kinsmen, Ned (Ed) Berkley and "Chic" (Charles) Moran worked in the rare books area and U.Va.'s printing area. So, when a bit older I would go to U.Va's rare books area where I had to place my coat and all contents I had in a locker. Next I was given one sheet of paper at a time and a small pencil and went into a room that was enclosed by glass and was watched by two women sitting at an outside room working and watching me. One woman inside wearing white gloves would turn each page after I hand-copied the text. There was as much security as found in Washington DC museums. Only the guns were not seen. But now G- and others provide us all with old books and rare books and we all take advantage of this for whatever your and other editors reasons might be. I do not know why but I have all of my life sought out old and rare books usually having to purchase them when I had enough money. I knew a Cabell descendant (I married into that family) who never finished high school but who had become very wealthy and had a large library of 1st edition and signed old and rare books. Wiki areas are wonderful! The wiki concept is a dream come true for us all. I get a tad hyper within just remembering all of this. Kindest regards, &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 23:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help
George Orwell III,

I thank you for adding the word "image" to so many of the image files that I have been working with. It's very useful! Do I have the authority to do the same? It would be helpful to me. Can you point out the area on WS that explains how to do it? I also thank you for pointing out the word for missing image and saving until image is placed in the proper place. I have learned a lot from you and I thank you for all of it. Kindest regards, Maury (&mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 09:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem; I'm glad I can help though I don't have much free time lately ...


 * Now, I'm not sure what you are asking about? Is it the word 'Image' appearing in Pagelist on the Index page for non-numbered pages with sketches or illustrations on them? Or do you mean the 'Image:' prefix as found in [[Image:Smile.svg]] Image:Smile.svg? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * George, everything is working fine since you marked all image pages. I was just curious as to how you marked images as "image" on each image instead of the page number. My main point was just to say, "Thank you" for the work you did. Kind regards, &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 00:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well it was BeesWax who actually modified the [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Index:Mexico_as_it_was_and_as_it_is.djvu&action=edit Pagelist's page numbering/designations] after I had pointed out that "proper" scan page verification "should" always demand that this be done prior to any actual proofreading. Without it being in place, we frequently find ourselves in situations where duplicated/omitted/corrupted individual pages are not discovered until well into the proofreading regime. This means that dozens, if not hundreds, of newly created pages have to be moved in one manner or another to properly align with a newly corrected or fully substituted DjVu file. We were lucky in this case that the problem page was around DjVu/413 where nobody had gotten to adding any "real" proofread pages yet and not DjVu/13 where everything after that would needed to have been moved in order to reflect the new page progression properly. I hope all that made sense & urge you to break from being just another "proofreading lemming" around here -- always strive for a fully completed & diligence inventoried scan-page to number-matched pagelist be in place prior to any proofreading taking place.


 * To better "see" what Bee's did to fill out the Pagelist the way it should have been from day one (including the targeting of images with 'image' for a pagenum), please look over [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Index%3AMexico_as_it_was_and_as_it_is.djvu&action=historysubmit&diff=3609310&oldid=3604267 this diff comparison] between revisions. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that a candle made of BeesWax had the easy part of brightening up one's day and your advice on my page of two words "" was even easier, but billinghurst's was the easiest of all using only one concise word which produced "". But the image work and the editing and proof-reading is the most tedious work which is why some people avoid doing those and leave that to be done by others who didn't come to wikisource to learn "lemming code-learning" but rather to actually work with saving books that really do not need a lot of code. In fact, those books can be done, and once was done, on I-Net in "plain vanilla text"—ascii circa 1993. I know because I was doing that and probably still do have it archived on I-Net in S.C. ("Nothing could be finer...") whereas Code-learning is for increased complications, and is not needed with the real work. &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 22:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK - I guess I misunderstood what it was you wanted communicate. Sorry.
 * Nevertheless (and in my opinion) - proofreading an Index with inherent core errors makes WikiSource no better than any of its "competitors" out there; worse - the equivalent of an unwanted cantankerous stepchild among his or her "easier" peers. I could not and would not trust any library book with missing/unreadable pages or one with hand inserted notes directing me to some other floor & some other shelf to obtain such pages in real life so I see no value in duplicating such behavior here in the virtual world just because its merely a click or two more than what is normally needed. I agree its a real pain in the azz to do this simple due dilegence first but that does not disqualify it from being an essential step that always speaks to increased respectability and insured longevity for WikiSource. Experience dictates that no matter how pure one's passion may be to get neck-deep in the "real work", a day will eventually come where opting out of the fundamentals will come back to haunt the end product.
 * Yep, still there since 1993, http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/civil_war_usa/D_H_Maury/DHM_01.TXT   &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 22:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In short - If I wanted an almost complete & not-so-perfect electronic copy to read, I'd stay at Archive.org or GoogleBooks in the first place! Plus, my reputation is only as golden as my last mistake will allow for! -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * George, That is what you say you would do but it isn't what I would do. Besides, any plain vanilla text would have to become a .PDF file but at least it could be searchable and without the process of optical character recognition (OCR) to make it searchable. When it comes to code verses editing then a person who does the editing ends up with a book. Using only code a person has nothing and certainly not a transcribed book. Code is for making a book look pretty and is secondary to ascii. In reference to your "reputation being as only golden as the last mistake well, such is the case with or without code. The .PDF files on Googlebooks and Archives.org are nowhere perfect and will not always print out clean text due to the old process of printing the books. Thus the reason for clean editing. A typesetter may also make mistakes for a scanned .PDF or DJVU book book whereas you may have submitted the work properly. Letters, as you probably know, were pressed down many times to where an h can look like a b or a c can look like an o. Typesetters do not always throw a type back into the melting pot and make a new letter so as not to make mistakes. I worked, as did another around here, as a type setter for a summer so I know that process from old books. Sure, you can read an imperfect .PDF file but the blind cannot . What if there was such as a screen reader, and there is, so the blind can have the screen reader read to them but not with the process you have written about unless there is a clean work and it has been OCR'd. We all here work for a better world. The ascii is one part, the primary portion, and the code yet another part of a process. In short, we who do these combinations of things make a better work when combining these processes for everyone, blind and deaf and not blind nor deaf. Code makes the book look pretty—but not for the blind it doesn't. Sound files is another process. Librovox is one of those processes. Again, we all work on what we prefer to do and the world is bettered because we all here are dedicated with what we each prefer to do in making this world better for yet unborn generations. Other than that, I too use code and images in editing to make the work look better and the "real work" starts with editing text. I respect what you prefer to do. It makes things look nice. I respect the work I and others do as they are not necessities but do make things look better for us who can see. All of it combined is a grand process and not just for WikiSource because WikiSource exists by and for the people all over the world, including the blind and deaf, and in many languages. We BUILD TOGETHER.  Cheers! &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 01:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, you think a certain way and I another - end of story. I believe a sound foundation (in coding for lack of a better term) allows for the most universal ease in building and transfering content in all the possible flavors technology may allow for or as different situations call for - again, end of story.
 * I've said my piece, made note of your's, neither pov appears to be a useful route in exploring any of this any further so please let us leave things where they stand & simply move on. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

USCongRec
Can you help with why USCongRec is not working properly at these pages? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interstate Municipal Solid Waste Control Act
 * Tribute to Pennsylvania Delegation Departing Members
 * Tribute to Departing Members of the Pennsylvania Delegation


 * Well for starters, GPOaccess only had from 1995 on forward _ nevermind the fact that it stopped being updated in Nov. 2011 (FDsys is the central government printing office site now). I wasn't aware (well I forgot to check to be honest) of any earlier access at FDsys - I'll try to work it in over this week sometime. Just keep doing what you did with those 3 and list the mainspace pages here; I'll go back and fix them if I find a way to access FDsys.gov for the CongRecord. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. Thank you very much, -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Here's the kicker; the FDsys setup is Part and Date dependent in addition to Volume and Page. I'm going to need to re-think the entire template instead of just modifying it. More info as things develop. Later. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, keep us posted. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Cirt,

I'm sorry for the late follow-up on this but I was hoping for some constructive feedback from the FDsys "help-desk" (if you can call it that) that never materialized.

The problem, as I first feared, was the introduction of a Part parameter along with the new need for a Date specific parameter in the formulation of the most desired content-detail URL ( see "sandbox" link in Template:USCongRec/testcases ). There is no "neat" way to convert the old template to account for these new factors either & if there is a better way to construct their URL - the folks at FDsys haven't shared it with me yet (if ever).

What I did manage to do, as you've most likely already figured out, is auto create an FDsys URL that opens not-so-optimal PDF version of the page(s) wanted in the section entered. This URL only required a rather minor template mod where the E, H, S, D section designator is split off and is it's own independent parameter from the page number input. Note that regardles of which version of the template you use, the 1994 record or earlier cannot be auto linked in spite of the fact you can at least navigate the 1994 volume manually in FDsys.

The issue now becomes how to update all the existing uses of the template to split off the new letter-section designator. I did about a quarter of the instances on WS manually and can probably do the rest if I get the time but what to do about Wikipedia's usage is where I could use your input. Let me know. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Post a request at w:WP:BOTREQ for someone to do it? -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Problematic file ?
George, what I recently posted and you replied to regarding the problematic file (page) I understand and I remember that it was not a page of text. The problem was that it was an obscure image of some kind and it had a page number. However, the page I try to work on now is good. It is part of the book. But I get that warning when I try to edit the text, "Warning: You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page." So should I leave that page, which is good text and part of the history in the book, alone or go ahead and work on editing it regardless of that warning? Kind regards, &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 04:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's weird. I just made a few quick edits and it took fine. Go ahead and work the rest of the content. Its ok to ignore that warning but just in case - before you save it, I'd copy and paste the content to a temp file/ or the Sandbox to insure you don't lose the content somehow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It was weird because you and I were editing it at the same time and perhaps saved at about the same time. I chose to ignore the warning since the text was there. Mine didn't save as yours overwrote what I did so I find yours and am redoing the page. Thank you, &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 05:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK then. It was more about bad timing than anything problematic at all. Catch ya later. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Translation license issue
issue

I am presuming that part of the work that we have done on the footer aspects of works has caused translation licence to be problematic as per An Avowal of Love. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. What exactly is problematic about it? It "looks" the same as it always did here. What about the straight example i linked on your talk page with both a license tag and authority control? -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I get the labels Original and Translation above, and then the two tags both full width below. I used to see it display like a 2x2 table with the label and the tag on consecutive lines. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well all full header- & footer-like fields, independent of Dynamic Layouts and its formatting, were the desired effects a few proposals ago - the goal being to only have the transcluded content via the &lt;pages> command line be subject to to Dynamic Layouts. I was just going by that sentiment thanks to the opportunity now afforded by the addition of a proper textarea content wrapper/container (first in wmf1.18 then by further patch as explained on your talk page).
 * We won't be able to easilyy toggle between language translations of transcluded content as long as the header and footer are part of the textarea body content (and thus Dynamic Layouts as well here locally). The header template (& footer-like templates) need to be independent of the normal language and directional scheme so that underlying metadata can be utilized across various sister languages and "translate" automatically but independent of the content it self. That is why things like the license banner need to be pushed out of dynamic layouts below the transcluded content but ontop of the category bar and the navigation header (with its hidden metadats) pushed out of dynamic layouts above the transcluded content but below the PR status bar/sub-page link. Better? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Another djvu with extra pages
Hi, when you've time can you please have a look at Index:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu? A new user picked up a couple of duplicate pages (fortunately early in the piece). I've just gone through the pagelist and fixed it for print-pages. The only duplicates are /16 & /17. I've marked those as "Dupl". I don't know how to deal with this situation, otherwise I wouldn't ask. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

✅ -- 2 duplicate djvu pages trimmed; insert 2 blank filler pages to front; re-align pagelist to new condition & moved the few pages already created to match new page progression.


 * THANK YOU for verifying the file and double checking it against a full pagelist !!! Makes life easier for everybody ('specially me). Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

April Fool
Please go back and restore April Fools' Day. It was not a test edit, as you well know. the fact that you went and reverted all the other edits pointing to the page should have been the first clue. Thanks. Surf Dog (talk)


 * It's not wikipedia. We transcribe published (static) works here and point, Not Host, to other Wikis as appropriate. We frown on advertising links to external sites as well. Sorry. Int'l Woman's Day is just as wrong and have added it to the list for review and deletion as well. Please see the Help: pages for more info on how to properly contribute to Wikisource. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what one has to do with the other except that I used International Women's Day as a template. I was going to use Christmas or Easter, but one was as good as another. Just so you know, I started a conversation at Scriptorium. Thanks. Surf Dog (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To whittle it down to brass-tax, if a work wasn't exactly titled "April Fools' Day" when it was formally published - it doesn't belong here. Easter is a poem or poems tiled "Easter" for example. I suspect that whole holiday category is a mistake the way it is set now (i.e. like wikipedia would). Again we don't "do" that sort of thing here. We sure don't create missing (previously published) articles and redirect them to a disambig page like wikipedia would either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Web fonts IE bug
Hi,

You reported an issue with IE and webfonts at Scriptorium.

I cannot reproduce it in IE8 on Windows XP with Vector. I am able to use Layout 1/2/3 and to edit pages in ProofreadPage mode.

Can you still reproduce it? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again - sorry for the long wait for a reply....
 * Well yes - sort of. On my multi-boot setup I can reproduce a loss of PR related functionality on both IE6 & IE 8 but on a stand alone laptop (IE8, XP SP3) I cannot so there must be something local affecting IE8 on that multi-boot station. No matter whose IE6 setup I checked under - the issue remains (even when not logged in formally).
 * If you can eliminate IE8 (and any others I suppose) then it must be IE 6 only which really means its a browser problem and not anything Wiki related to worry enough about that requires any more fixing I'm guessing.
 * P.S. - thank you for following up either way - typically, not may folks who make wiki-wide changes care enough to address concrens that don't directly effect themselves. You're aces in my book as a result. If there is anything along this vein that you may need further testing of, just feel free to ask. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :)
 * Less than 2% of Wikimedia sites readers use IE 6, and it has tons of issues, so WebFonts are simply not activated in this browser. If you do see them on IE6, that is itself an issue. Can you, for example, see the "Select font" menu at the top of Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/30? If you do, that is a bug.

I did originally see a 'true type'-ish icon along the top with the other personal links but not this re-check. I've recovered the 3 layout options, still no toggle links on or off though as before. Source tab is still MIA. The only "new" thing I observed this time was the disappearance of the purge-clock gadget. See more comments below. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An IE8 problem, if it exists, should be fixed, because it affects a lot of people - about 14% of Wikimedia sites visitors use this browser and some of them use it for editing. Can you say exactly what do you do to reproduce it and what version do you have - Help->About, Windows version and service pack?

Sadly the straight IE8 laptop is at work so maybe next week at the earliest for those results.

The machine I re-checked with today is the multi-boot mess. It eventually became clear that somewhere, somehow the browsers or OS are sharing one or more of the same Cookie, Cache or History directories when I don't believe they should be so this was a wash. Same results as previously stated if it matters. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that i was able to reproduce some strange ProofreadPage behavior on IE8. When i started to analyze it using IE8 developer tools, ?debug=true etc., then it was gone. Now everything seems to work, no matter in which mode. I don't know - maybe some cache got updated or something. If you give me precise reproduction instructions, i'll try it again.

This is key - in both cases (IE6 standalone & IE6/IE8 multiboot both on latest XP MSDN, TechNet &/or MS Update patches, etc.), it was 20 minutes or more of continous random page cycling, through both namespaces, before signs of functionality loss started occuring. At this point it was hard to corrupt previously viewed transcluded mainspace or PR Page: namespace pages but newly viewed pages were corrupt at first click in. I believe cache (or cookie retention) has a role in whatever this is because I experienced for the first time a lag in refreshing pages to the latest conditions even when logged out (then back in, then back out and so on). Please note that whatever testing that you may be doing - it might take awhile for evidence to appear.

The simple error reporting in IE typically shows 1 unterminated string constant, followed by 3 or 4 'mw-util' unrecognized/undefined statements. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that has changed, as far as I know, between last week and this week was an update to PageNumbers.js by Phe that incorporated default layout overrides as a standard --> which meant that I could drop the local load of importScript('User:Inductiveload/layout_override.js'); from my .js with no noticeable loss in functionality (so far)
 * The French Wikisource community wants to have WebFonts, too, and i want to be sure that there are no significant WebFonts/Wikisource issues. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Another consequence of the class frame thingy fix
If you have a look at //en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Studies_of_a_Biographer/National_Biography&oldid=3661823 you will see that we have another issue that comes about with the use of &lt;pages ... header=1>. For this example, I have reverted to the traditional long hand. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you're talking about the lack of the prefix "by" on the author line & Chapter/section capitalization/boldness, then I see no difference in the content between either approach. Those issues are with the MediWiki so-called template(s) not anything "I did" as far as I can tell.
 * Can you be more specific to what the issue you are seeing is? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Your new templates
Hi, I like these. Particularly. We'll be able to properly manage Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Helpme, as using undefined leaves these pages still linked to the helpme template. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking down that same line of logic but not sure if these will do the trick in the case of the because that's one of those sub-templates called by  & the like. Anyway, feel free to tinker and let know if you find anything interesting to share. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues following last upgrade resolved?
We are about to get WMF 1.20 in the next couple of weeks. Anyway, I am presuming that you have seen that Zaran (frWS) has requested to take over the lead in the development in ProofreadPage. Anyway he asked in IRC whether all the issues with the last upgrade that related to PrP had been resolved. Not one that I could answer as I have had a little more time-sharing being undertaken. Plus I said to Zaran that you had been doing bits around classes and that you were clueful in Bugzilla and he was looking forward to working with us at enWS. :-) — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really. The MediaWiki PrP extension still seems to be suffering from that brillant idea to add background status colors everyehere a Page: link appears (that needs to be reverted imho and if certain language wiki sites still think its a good idea let them take the hit rather than everybody as some new universal default - gadgetize not monopolize damn it!!!). The thing with refreshing certain Special:Index lists with &/or without "punctuation in the title" still hasn't changed nor has the curious lack of a thumbnail refresh @ 1000px. And there is the question of why is acting the way it is given the change in leading/trailing line-feeds/carriage-returns (i.e. extra blank lines, etc.).
 * The thing with my Bugzilla and the PageNumbers.js saga is DoA too (pretty sure its a matter of load order because that new mw-content-text container really would simplify the dynamic layout portion(s) while cutting down on the currently needed java resources too -- I'm only going by what I read though & not by what I am able to actually do).
 * At any rate - I welcome Zaran's input in either area in any way, shape or form that he can muster at this point. - George Orwell III (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikimedia events in June and July: bot users, script writers, template and Gadget makers wanted
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Logging for posterity?
Why are we monitoring for header2 when we are not resolving those identified by Special:AbuseFilter/19? If the filter is defensible, could you please address the queries about the magnitude on number of hits on our filters, or take up the issue yourself with the bot operators. I have already addressed the matter with one bot operator, and they correctly said that it is problematic to undertake the requisite with pywikipediabot when what they are doing is interwiki. The reason for the active monitoring of old edits for header2 is not evident when we know that we can identify the files from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:header2; the point of monitoring for bot edits of existing works (Special:AbuseFilter/history/19/diff/prev/116) is even less evident to me when nothing is being done with them, yet you seem to be determined to have the filter so set. If you want a bot to go through and just do them, then we can get it done, it is just a matter of asking. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this another instance where you post a question/request feedback on my talk page, I take the time to reply and then never get a follow-up/acknowledgment by you to that response on the subject that you started in the first place? -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you need a k on a post, k. Re the intent of your comment, with the two above that I can find where you have ended the conversation, one I pointed to Zaran, which was part of a promise to him that I said that I would ask, though he and I said that we needed to discuss and I haven't caught up with him since. The other is about translation licence, where I am still trying to work through the jargon, and where I thought that I asked a simple question, that obviously wasn't and I haven't had the opportunity to determine where to go next, and had hoped that someone css/html-ready would come up with a solution and just make the problem resolved. Generally if I can fix a problem easily I will, sometimes when there is someone more clueful/astute/able then I will ask/drop a note/pose a question. Happy to drop all such questions/posers/matters onto Scriptorium than here if that is preferred. If I have all that wrong then I am just more clueless/distracted/stupid/... than normal. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Saw yer post - too stressed out in meatspace to do you (or anyone) justice at the moment it seems.
 * Better I go for a walk instead of fixating.
 * I guess check back tommorrow but I went ahead and asked for a BOT run to fix this header2 existance already & reverted the abuse filter if it matters -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That now striked comment above was uncalled for and inexcusable. Many times when meatspace becomes too much to deal with, I come here to distract myself from it - and that usually works - but this time it only seemed to solidify my real-life frustrations of the moment instead of alleviating them. Again. my sincerest apologies.

The issue itself seems to be resolving itself nicely and hopefully within a day or two the entire should be closed once and for all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: New fsx parameter
Hi. I noticed that you bracketed the line height of the template. Can you please explain how to use the new parameter? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 14:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I read your proposal and I wanted to toy around with various values without the need for any sandboxes was all.


 * I find the entire template unfreindly to begin with and the line height paramater should have been variable 2 (i.e. no need for any lh= and the text should have been variable 3) all along. I decided to stay out of the proposal because "fixing" the template to my expectations would require something like 11,000 corrections to insert a variable 2 and move over the existing variable 2 (the text) over to variable 3. I can undo the change but it really doesn't make any difference since 1.5em is still the default. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I realized the impossibility of this solution when I made the original post, and that's why I was wondering whether a series of 'if' statements would resolve the issue. if between 92% and 87% then lh = 120% etc. . . . . My old VB is showing :-) — Ineuw talk 20:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be an option and I've done if/then statements like you described before in tempates but I don't know of any way to get percentages to be recognoized properly. Usually we leave of the unit of measurement (em, px, pt, etc.) and deal with just the whole or decimal numbers. Since most of the current usage involves a value with a percentage within the variable ( vs. {{{85)))% ), I don't know anyway to get the template coding to recognize that properly. I took a quick look around and I didn't find any percentage to whole number conversion template to pop in there when %'s are used either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I get your point. Thanks for looking into it. — Ineuw talk 21:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. May be a stupid idea. What about processing the % as text and remove it, and then do the necessary computations? I was thinking something like this:
 * just a random example on how to make a computation: 120% = 1.2: {{#expr: {{Str left| 120%| {{#expr: {{str len|120%}}-1 }} }} /100 }} -> {{#expr: {{Str left| 120%| {{#expr: {{str len|120%}}-1 }} }} /100 }}
 * It is definitely heavy but someone more knowlegeable than me might replace the templates and optimise the code.--Mpaa (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting... but you're right it's a bit too much to say the least. Plus whay happens when the input is not a percentage - 1.2em for example ? That would require at least 2 if not 3 extra if/then sections to cover the instances that do not have a percentage as an input.
 * My instinct tells me rather than making the template heavy in light of starting over from scratch is impossible, I propose a bot run across the existing ~11k to insert a null 2nd parameter for all existing uses of the template first...

......then (re)make the template with 3 parameters instead of 2, the second being the new default in the proposal of 115% or 120% for a line height. Anyway that's my instinct but its untested since I suck at scripting BOT stuff. The amount of time the current templates would be in flux would only be a day; two the most. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think such bot should be not difficult (except how to handle the transition phase, something like the chicken and the egg …) . But how would you solve Ineuw's point above? My understanding of it is that he is looking for something that can also scale lh as a function of font-size. Or have I missed something.--Mpaa (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I keep having a hard time with when it comes to the premise of this template in general.
 * First, as with all templates built within span tags for an opening and closing container, unless it is applied inline (hint hint) within the body of a block of text (i.e always a CR/LF before and/or after the begining/end of some content; the &lt;p> and &lt;div> elements for example), a paragraph tag becomes the dictating parent element by wikicode default and thus, under normal HTML processing, some/all of that paragraph tag's existing attributes and their values can be inherited by the child element (i.e. our template's span container). This is usually not display affecting for most of us and OK to do more often than not because we, in general, are addicted to repetative template application for the slightest of changes of the most common of attributes given to the absolute basic formatting teg elements. So we wind up wraping content in container upon container upon container until things display well enough for our satisfaction instead of letting the standards do the lifting they were crafted to do by default on their own.
 * Second, using percentages in this particular way with the above scenario re: font-size-to-line-height ratios in a template contstrained to proper usage only when it is applied as the ocassional inline span child element was not optimal nor efficient at the outset. We should have defined 2 or 3 classes in the main CSS with the various font-size to line-height ratios that "work" (both attributes in percentages since we know certain ranges for one value shows no applicable difference when viewed in relation to certain other ranges when present as the second value). That way, both block and inline text elements could call upon a corresponding template where the situation at hand defines which class name is selected for the text in question without all this drama and overkill. This would leave this type of template for absolute or relative input values only (i.e. xx-small, larger, etc.). But all that is fanciful thinking on my part I suppose.


 * Back to the matter at hand. It's not the new line-height option that is problematic; only the number (without em or ex) is used as the multiplier to the computed font-size. There is no differnce between a line-height set 120% or 1.2em....

{{fsx|85%|lh=120%|{{Lorem ipsum}}}}

{{fsx|85%|lh=1.2em|{{Lorem ipsum}}}}


 * ... the problem is the existing value for font sizes. Your conversion to a decimal thing would solve that dilema with some refinement quite nicely IF we were sure all current instances of the template's usage used a percentage for that value rather than an absolute (xx-large), relative (larger) or fixed (0.9em) value. Again, to incorporate the needed switch and/or #if statement's to account for all 4 possible types of input measurement values does not sit well with me.
 * I'd rather we quietly switch the current line height of 1.50em to 1.15em to see if that would be acceptable all around assuming folks used 90% more so than 85% or anything else.

{{fsx|90%|lh=1.15em|{{Lorem ipsum}}}}


 * (note: it might worth finding away to to poll the current font-size values in play for the template and list them from highest to lowest number of repetitions to make a more informed decision either way - I have no idea how to do that however). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I made some stats before seeing Ineuw's note below. I drop them here, with a disclaimer on reliability (looks quite reasonable though …). If they clutter your page, feel free to put them in the garbage bin.--Mpaa (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I am continuing this conversation on Mpaa's talk page under the title: Reasons for leaving the fsx template as is — Ineuw talk 20:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating SCOTUS cases
Hi, is there a standard way to name SCOTUS cases for disambiguation? This has come specifically for The Corsair, which I want to move to make way for a disambiguation page to allow for The Corsair (Byron). LJB is proofreading the Byron poem and would like help from the PoTM crew, but we need to sort the ambiguity before letting it loose on PoTM. Having said all that, I've just realised that the case is probably misnamed anyway. Aren't they all supposed to be Foo v. Bar? Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Old cases involving ships (i.e. trains, planes not invented yet) typically had single names like that & that's the way it was printed up in the first court reporters. I'd change it to The tugboat Corsair for dab purposes for now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest disambiguating by adding the year, making this The Corsair (1892). There are a substantial number of Supreme Court cases that share a name (think of all the United States v. Smith cases that have been decided), and these are usually distinguished by date. As for the lack of a "v." in the title, having only the name "The [Name of Ship]" is actually still the normal practice with admiralty cases. Cheers. BD2412  T 16:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine as well, however the date doesn't really help us in the Wiki-sphere related world since there are a handful of cases with the same name reported in the same volume. That's why the project opted for citing the volume & page for dab purposes (The Corsair (145 U.S. 335) would be my preference based on the last project discussion. I just didn't want to hang up possible progress on one front for the sake of the slow moving USSC project). -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are going to cite by case reporter, then I would suggest we use Bluebook citation, as lawyers will be most familiar with this. The Bluebook citation for this case, then, would by The Corsair, 145 U.S. 335 (1892), and partial forms could redirect to it. BD2412  T 17:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish you were around months ago and participated in the discussion when it came to this. Unfortunately, that was not the final concensus if you can call it that; the year was left off the hundreds of DAB'd case names (the less is more argument if I recall correctly). Plus 145 U.S. 335 should take you to the case pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. Well, it is what it is. Cheers!  BD2412  T 18:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I chose to use The Corsair (145 U.S. 335) as this seems to be the most pragmatic solution. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical (for me) question
Saw your latest edit ("add optional caption paramater for poem titles, etc."), and thought to ask what is meant by it in terms I'd understand (limited to the poetry aspect, anyway... unless the rest is intuitive. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just updated the template documentation (that'll teach me to update the template before the documentation next time! :)
 * Look it over; its pretty straight forward. Sometimes using the title parameter will look more centered compared to the block of text that follows than if you ed the title by itself on its own line; sometimes it won't - but at least now you have the option to play with. Let me know if you have anymore questions. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I'll look it over tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Are we ready to close?
I have suggested that if you are no longer opposing that this discussion can be closed and a bugzilla filed - as well as any local css changes made to ensure that the colors are not displayed outside the index space here. Do you agree?
 * Nope. I obstain from further disscusion & have said my last piece on the matter there. The forked development of embedded page numbers will come back to bite us in the ass as soon as interlanguage/translation development moves to the next level. I suspect side-by-side and Double-wiki will be garbaged up quiet nicely by then. Good... I'm pro English-only anyway :-) Cheers? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI... propsals are usually kept open at the minimum 30 days to match the patching cycles & for credibility but since the move to a 15 to 18 day development cycle is taking place, that time frame might need to change as well. Also, the proposal was never formalized to begin with (i.e. written up by somebody in the established Proposal section of Scriptorium for all regulars to easily find & inspect) so technically the clock never started on that propsal either. Cut and Pasting the testing-the-waters discussion to the Propsal section and counting it retroactively then has been acceptable in the past as well. I will be voting if and when there is a formal proposal on this in case it matters to you specifically. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I would like to further discuss your thoughts on old/mul wikisource both with respect to the interwiki link name and the last comments you made in the above discussion, though I don't think doing so in that discussion will get us anywhere except far afield. ;-). I am planning to set up some discussions along the lines of the future of wikisource.org soon at wikisource.org - I'd welcome your thoughts there or we could start a separate discussion here along the lines of the future of the relationship between wikisource.org and the English Wikisource.  What say you?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see I missed the last post on language-id/domain-prefix - I will reply on this matter there since its one that is unrelated to the nonsense about oldwikisource being a hub of Wikisource development.
 * Start the future relationship / development points here in the Whitepaper section (when my blood-pressure goes up, I tend to type & type and not fair to others) and when it reaches a point where we have a draft whitepaper, we can move/re-write it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Whitepaper
To open, Old Wikisource should only exist to host the stuff that is copyright allowable but unhostable in their parent language domains and host those languages who aren't developed enough to have thier own formal domains yet. Period. Anything universally salvagable that is currently hosted on old wikisource should be formally made part of the "stuff" already up on the servers whenever possible and any remaining bits & pieces folks are absolutely hooked on having should be made into gadgets / scripts for optional and/or local use only. Taking these few initial steps won't resolve the current divide between the sister domains and en.WS but it sure will lessen the gap from that point on. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me though that that will increase the divide amongst the non-en wikisources and reduce the amount of really useful things. Sure someone may invent a new template or a script but things like modernisation.js really need a central place to be developed and multilingual works (like modern translations of ancient works, for example, with a facing-page translation layout) will either have to be set up on a single wikisource or face continuing template and css standardization issues even worse than now.  At least now we can count on the interwiki js working the same on each wiki.  I do see value, or at least logic, in bifurcating the actual works from the centralized coordination though and I am curious to know more about why making each subdomain completely independent is better (if anything I'd be one to dream of a world without subdomains).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because most of it is/was already slated to happen (see ProofReading Help - To Do list). Nothing will change other where these files are hosted (i.e. the servers) where every other foundation site hosts stuff so it works the same across all the sister language domains. The remaining .js files you mentioned should be copied not imported to each sub-domain. The further development of said files then becomes exponentially more exposed to possible imptovements because more local folks are able to access and change the file. Right now, the few who have bothered to change/improve things are given access privelages instead to "market" there own ideas across one or more wikis they never normally else would contribute to material works wise. I'm not some meanie who wants to block useful folks from making improvements beneficial to many or all domains; just that the current approach is severly ass-backwards and ineffecient to say the least in my view (look what happened in the interim after Thomas V disappeared for example [who I wonder is not now Tpt personally now but that's another matter]). Take any such .js file, spread it out on the multiple wikis instead of importing a central copy, actually monitor any benefits made to them locally then ask those local changers to advertise the change using the woefully under utilized banner notification system system wide. Here we had improvements coming in Wmf1.20 and the day of the change 10 lines in broken English detailing the changes were put up on old-wikisource and no where else. That is a working system for you? If I didn't copy them here, the usually trickle-down method of the transfer of knowledge on a case by case basis (if at all) would have been the norm once again. In addition, I believe a Bugzilla was opened in haste over the switch from showing headers / footers via a gadget to a formal option preference because folks were late to find out about the change and assume something was broken in the upgrade instead of merely standardized. Can you really say this is a working model for development? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Poem formatting
Hi. I noticed your changes here. Maybe a naive question. I was wondering if it would be possible to do something similar to ts to be used with tags. The way you used the poem tag is much cleaner than the usual convolution of templates around poems. If the formatting part could be simplified as it was done for tables, I think that would be nice and user-friendly. I am asking also because I saw you are doing some work with the Paragraph tag in that direction, so I connected the two observations together ...--Mpaa (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was looking wayyyy down the road to having a paragraph tag, a span tag and a div tag template that can "act" like the table style one and it's parsing of style paramaters. The Paragrah tag or just is working OK so far (the only draw back being the addition of the closing tag &lt;/p&gt; here and there)
 * The reason I played with that page was it was a short application of 2 lines and I wanted to see what, if anything, the compact attribute added. In case you didn't know a poem tag is merely a div tag with the class set to ="poem"</tt> so its quite possible to do things with a template like what you were thinking of driving at.


 * This


 * versus this

<p style="width:90px; border-bottom:1px solid black; margin: 0.4em 0em 0em 0em; line-height:normal;"> <p style="font-size:inherit; line-height:inherit; margin: 0.25em 0em 0.25em 0em;">DECEMBER, 1872. <p style="width:90px; border-top:1px solid black; margin: 0em 0em 0.5em 0em; line-height:normal;">
 * becomes possible with the existence of styling templates for the 3 basic text containing element tags for example. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Statutes
Any chance you could assist in transcribing and adding to the tables the templates you helped restore were used for? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not interested in the slightest. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Request
Given the mess my attempts to transcribe certain printed table have become, it would seem the simplest solution is to nuke my efforts in respect of stuff for which scans exist (namely the Pages of Chronological tables) and to revert the Portals back to something approaching sanity, (I.E before I started to try converting them to table format, they were in list form, and that's perhaps what they should revert back to). I'd rather not do a mass revert myself. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * . . . I'd rather wait for more brain-storming to take place before "we" go full-on down that road. Please give me a bit to gather my thoughts.


 * In retrospect (for now) - I don't know why you are bothering with annotating anything at all, Portal or otherwise. Let's forget being familar with WikiWhatever for the moment and imagine we are landing here for the first time ever.
 * Do I 'believe' what I'm reading here on WS ?
 * Well no matter how ignorant or biased I may be, it's hard to argue with any mainspace content IF its faithfully reproduced from a side by side transciption of scanned pages right there for easy inspection or comparison by any & all who wish to do so. Now ask yourself again...
 * Should I 'believe' in what some annon. internet, unacredited persona adds beyond that easily checked and faithfully transcribed mainspace content with his/her originally researched & heavily annotated chicken scratch added to it ?
 * Fuck not. (No insult intended) Follow ?

I know an annotated "master" database like that would be a useful thing to compile and have, but the reality is only the handful of folks who have invested time in making it will ever use it for any sort of reference or source.

Well, at least that is what I've come to believe. Back later. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reverted all the relevant Portals (apart from one, which I did not undertake the formatting on, even though it was intended layout that was used. I'll leave a note on the person that did the formatting there) back to the state they were in prior to attempts to format them. This is because of what was said by various people. It seems trying to develop a set of

'usable' templates is better done in Sandboxes than on 'live' pages. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stautes header
Affected template - Template:Statute_table/header/sandbox With reference to the scans the header line should have a top and bottom line on the first part of the header? I've tried adding  but this doesn't seem to have a 'visible' effect?

Is there some aspect of the general table formating which is causing the style data generated by ts to be ignored?

I'm sorry to keep asking, but when the behaviour doesn't apparently match what the documentation states... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is what I'm seeing.. http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes.djvu/29&oldid=3843719 . This seems to be tricky to get right.  Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You type faster than I can think up a solution! sorry.
 * so far only the sandbox header with the optional continued 1st line is in place - but not completely. the braces & padding columns aren't folded in yet.


 * I need to move on to the sandbox chapter template so please just keep fixing the text so the coming template changes keep getting smoother and smoother. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing my own comment, I worked out what was causing various issues, and it seems I was looking in the wrong place., coding an explicit 'none' clause in some switch code  and making sure an  was generated in the appropriate place caused things to start working unexpectedly :)

Thanks for your help
Please read Template_talk:Statute_table - I've spotted a possible logic trip here... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also put this in Bugzilla - https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36579 - Having the ability to do tri-logic

params would in many cases make the problems I've been having vanish. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects
Good Morning. I was wondering what you would do in this case. I want to "keep" the title with lower case ("A little while, a little while"—which I created by a title move), since the poem's "title" is a first line. I don't need/want the other two... unless you see a benefit in keeping them for some reason. I have been requesting Speedy deletes ad nauseam recently, and want to be sure it is all "good practice." Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are in charge so do what you feel is best for your work. Feel free to speedy delete anything and everything that applies to the speedy delete template - numbers shouldn't matter. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

Statutes table template
I've been attempting to come up with solution to the braces :-Template:Statute_table/sandbox,

It's taken a few edits, and still needs some cleaning up and exact spacing issues resolved, but I think most of what's needed is now in the sandbox :). The code is set-up to 'autobrace' if needed.  A review of the sandbox code (and possible logic traps) before I switch it into general use would be appreciated.

Next step work out what format the portals should have and extend the template :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for attempting to clean up the portals, but I had not fully updated Statute Table to cope with the longer

entries yet, You are welcome to attempt it :) . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Read what follows carefully - SCREW THE PORTAL LIST FOR NOW - You can't get the normal 3 freakin' columns plain old normal transcription of pages to work 100% right so why in blazes do you keep re-adding junk about notes or long names or short names and years and so and so forth when you can't get 3 simple freakin columns to render as scanned??
 * WHY??
 * Why do you keep hog-tying yourself with double redundant switches that ultimately go to the defaults? Short...., long.... who in blazes is going to follow that circular contstruction beside you?
 * Finish the 3 coumn transciption of the scans god damn it and afterwards you can get the portal namespace to display how many other columns beside your heart desires without calling long or short balh blah blah whatsoever. Look at header now - its either the 3 column layout (like in the scans) or your multi-column variant; the namespace dictates which is appropriate automatically!!!!!!!!!!!
 * You're driving me effin nuts with this already -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm abandoning doing ANYTHING on this until someone like yourself that knows what they are doing has COMPRHENSIVELY <--- what is this why is this line break here?

overhauled the relevant templates. That is the COMPLETE set of header, year, Chapter, etc.. That easier than running around in circles trying to 'fix' templates for different uses WHILST they are still being modified. Sorry ...Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All the current templates work in the Page & the main namespaces (3 basic columns). Its you and the mysterious Portal namespace variant nobody but you has any idea what is suppose to be there. 6 columns? 5 columns? 4 columns? what are they titled? uses braces? No example to work towards!!! You sure haven't gotten one right without screwin up the other so what am I suppose to base the Portal one on??? Wishful osmosis? -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comprpomise, Let's split the templates into the 3 Col version and the 6 Col one :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So its 6 columns in the Portal namespace? What are they titled from left to right? -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reverted my contributions to the Portals, back to the pre template versions again, pending a comprehensive

discussion.

See next item concerning layout details :-) 11:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

== Concerning Table layouts for Statute Tables.

3 Col version is what is used on the Transcriptions of the scans, That's OK and mostly be sheer luck I haven't seemingly broken.

The 'extended' 6 Col version (intended for use on a portal) was

Or something similar. (Noting that the above should obviously take into account the bracing needed. )

Other comments -


 * i) I notes that in eaxmining the sources the so called revised Statutes includes a 'Page' Column which lists a page for

the Act/Statute concerned. This in Wikisource terms would be a link Column, but again this isn't a priority.


 * ii) All Acts after 1896 (or possibly earlier (like 1892) with some sources say any Act from the 1840's onward will have a short title), it seems overkill to have both a  Topic and short title for such.


 * iii) For formatting reasons, the long title should possibly be reduced in font-size to fit the layout, 'Full' long

titles can also, according to some source run to complete 400 word paragraphs!!.


 * iv} Longer term there is the issue of how to annotate the 3 Col version of the table with links to the Wikisource versions. This linking is obvious in the 6 col version, as the de-facto policy seems to be to use the Short Title as

the 'link'-title on Wikisource, although this isn't an official guideline to my Knowledge.

This needs a LOT more disscussion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All I've been trying to do is split this into a 3 column and a 6 column template based on whatever namespace we are in; not based on Type or Long, etc.
 * so this is basically what is going on....

 


 * Go back to the bottom of the Victoria Portal, The columns are numbered now; the first one is done (chapter Num). Fill in the rest of the columns as you need them to function keeping in mind column 4 is really three column span, 2 of which handle spacing and braces (do those last or skip for now). -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Take a look now - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Portal:Acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom/Victoria#1899_.2862_.26_63_Vict._Sess._2.29

I filled in some of the data based on doing 'research' on legislation.gov.uk :)

What it needs is someone to fill in the other details, time for a Scriptorum post once the templates are 'stable' again? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In terms of the bracing - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes.djvu/41 but I've now reached the limits of my coding skilss :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Statutes at large (Ruffhead)
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

&#123;&#123;pad}} and Proposed_deletions/Archives/2010-05
Template:gap was deleted following the process at Proposed_deletions/Archives/2010-05 we have changed our minds? — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Assume you meant Template:pad not Gap. Just a short name restored for now to test another approach to Gap (See Gap's testcases page for why I'm looking for a better solution) -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes . There has been a better iterative process implemented in later times loop, and I believe that Inductiveload used it in brace2. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not looking to loop the usual (en-spaces, em-spaces & non-breaking spaces) since one combination or another fails to justify, wrap or space properly depending on the situation.
 * Do you "see" anything here? →&#12288;←
 * &amp;#12288; for


 * Looking to use the above (~ 0.75em) with plain old &amp;#32; (~ 0.25em) spacing in some combination that at least fails neatly more often than Gap does currently. You'd cry if you saw the poor mobile versions or even simple PDF exports of most of our more recent pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

FR pages on EO summary lists
Just a question... how important do you think it is to have the FR references in the EO summaries? It seems like overkill to me... we do list them on the individual EO pages, so somebody interested in looking up a particular order can always find where it is, but I can't see the general use of having them on the list pages. I know the National Archives does that, but the Federal Register is their baby, and I'm sure they want to emphasize that. I'm just not sure we need to. Doesn't hurt *that* much, other than the pain of maintaining the lists in the first place ;-), but... not sure it's worth it. I suppose it's nice for orders that we list but do not have local text yet, but beyond that... seems like it adds to maintenance hassles and takes up room on the listing pages. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it ever gets to the point where the 3 CFR annual compilations are transcribed from the scans, then the template will mirror the back matter tables nicely. Of cource a main eolist-header template is needed.
 * For pre-FR volumes, the last column can easily be renamed 'Notes' or something. Its not a summary the way I see it, otherwise the lists would be under a Portal: namespace. Transclusion would be the ultimate goal here [tongue in cheek]. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Transclusions would be in the article namespace, not author ;-) Portal namespace may be a good idea, someday.  Not sure the best way to distinguish between the two.  Anyways, no big deal.  Can be changed easily if we ever decide against them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Say who? Look - having author subpages was Wrong to begin with but that's how I found it and blindly followed the premise not knowing any better at the time. Either they get tanscluded to prove the lists are accurate or they are suppose to be in the Portal or Project namespaces as contributor add-ons (i.e. original research). Don't stir the pot until they are finished at least, will ya? ;0 -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

hideTOCNumbers
Hey, I noticed in this edit you did to Common.css, the hideTOCNumbers was broken while it was being deprecated -- it now hides the entire table of contents, not just the numbers, because the ".tocnumber" qualifier was removed. This means that pages using it, which intend to show the TOC, don't (Executive Order 209 was the one I noticed it for). Could that be fixed? Or the definition removed entirely, so the TOC at least shows up, albeit with numbers? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just following the MW guidelines not to base hiding the numbers using any tag IDs. I wouldn't worry about it, at best there were maybe a half a dozen uses and three of them (209 being the 4th) are already switched. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand why it was changed, but seems best to either make it work (even if deprecated), or just remove it altogether, letting the table of contents show up again (with numbers). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then how do I get to fix the ones I didn't do unless somebody notices their previous usage is now broken? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Commented out completely -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Newbie patrolling recent changes
Hi, just to let you know that User:Simeondahl has patrolled over 200 edits in the past 24 hours—including those dodgy Merchant of Venice edits. Patrolling for other dodgy edits could be a challenge for a while. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up - I see what you mean :(
 * 15 year olds shouldn't be on here should they? -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not, I am age 14⅞ now and I have been here since 1996. It's a matter of experience. &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 17:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only are your math skills in need of refinement but your comic timing as well!! :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nations
Two letter Nations: where is "cs."(wikipedia.org) Czechoslovakia? &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 20:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "cs" is the two-letter language code for the Czech language, and that is what cs.wikipedia.org is for (the Wikipedias are based on language codes). Per List of Internet top-level domains, the cs country code was for Czechoslovakia, yes, but is now unused.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Of what possible interest would Czechoslovakia have in Matthew Fontaine Maury (a United States Navy man? I found him listed on cs.wikipedia. Thank you for your reply. &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 22:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Czech speaker, not necessarily someone there. It sounds like Maury has an international reputation as a pioneer in oceanography, so it's not surprising that he would be of interest to just about any nation. It could also simply be a Czech speaker (living anywhere) who wanted to translate that article for whatever reason.  Czech speakers were mostly part of Austrian Empire in that era, I think.  They had a pretty significant navy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that Czechoslovakia had a navy (circa 1850s). I thought Czechoslovakia was land-locked. I ask questions because sometimes I can find a bit of "new" history that I am not aware of. Since they have a navy that covers it for me. But wasn't Czechoslovakia once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire? If so, that could pull in Maximilian who was head of the navy. Maximilian and Maury were good friends long before Maximilian went to Mexico. Maximilian was also a bit of a nautical scientist. &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 03:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Czechoslovakia did not exist until 1918. Austrian Empire, then Austria-Hungary, and only then did they declare independence.  Austro-Hungarian Navy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Significant until WWI seized or sank most of it :{ -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems Maury is a common Czech name (now that is comedy) -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey there, Georgie Boy..., why would a Czech name Maury be "comedy"? A name is a name. Regardless, it is the individual and not the name that counts in history. Matthew Fontaine Maury the surname Maury there is French and the ancestry goes back to 1500 to Jean (John) de La Fontaine, advisor to three French kings. Matthew Fontaine Maury never sought power and wealth but he could easily have had it. He did what he did for science and his country and all of mankind. He was a humble, generous, and God-fearing man who always lived by the Bible. Anyhow, my interest encompasses how other nations benefited from M F Maury's work and all the more so with land-locked nations which I figured were looking at Maury's work with weather on land predictions. &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 03:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Executive Orders (POTUS)
Hi George, I was trying to do some editing, updating executive orders by POTUS using your POTUS-eo template, TextQuality template and Font-size template but got a lot of errors. Can you possibly visit my sandbox and check what's in there, if that's even possible? I'm new to wiki editing and trying to get the hang of everything. The info I have in the sandbox for the executive order page creation is valid, and I wanted to follow all the great contributions you have already made to the topic, but the formatting doesn't cooperate. Thanks so much! --Straus40 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)straus40


 * Which sandbox? Your edit history does not show any edits here on en-wikisource other than your above question. ;-)   Ohhh.... w:User:Straus40/sandbox.  That is on en-wikipedia, a different project, and templates here do not work there (and vice versa).  Each project (English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, English Wikisource, English Wiktionary, etc., etc.) is completely separate in this way.  Images can be shared between projects if they are on Wikimedia Commons (also a separate project), but that is it.  Logging in, these days, does let you log into all those projects (once upon a time it was separate too), but templates and editing are unrelated.  The corresponding page on this project would be User:Straus40/sandbox; if you create that page and copy over the content, you'll probably see it working a lot better.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What he said -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

link
He George, why did you remove this link (here and twice here)? It is not a link to a wikipedia site (where we should be restrictive), but a direct link to the convention on wikisource, which I'd think is a useful link... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because we don't inline wikilink anything else in simple summary listings but the specific titles or authors themselves. Period. Click on the document itself to open them and you'll see I linked everything directly within the content (Two of them I created fresh just to preserve the links by the way) not in the subjects or titles. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, didn't know that policy and hadn't seen the freshly created articles as I only looked at the content of the diff. Would have appreciated an edit summary though... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken, though it seemed clear enough to me that Nixon or Reagan did not author those Convention works directly - hence those Conventions have little buisiness being pointed to or from their respective Author: subpage listings via inline wikilinks. Inline wikilinking within article content is always the norm; not the exception. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do understand the viewpoint (only links to works of the author) and will abide by it in the future; but last week I simply took a different point of view: in the spirit of a wiki I wanted to link what I saw as a "unique pointer" (in contrast to the "Hood" in you example, which would be senseless as a link and not have a page here). Anyway, glad it's all cleared up! Rgds, L.tak (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, glad that's cleared up & that you now better follow the logic of the Author: namespace (same thing with Portal: namespace btw). As always - thanks for contributing here!!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this Google's handiwork? or is this normal?
Hi. Downloaded the .JP2 package of that famed volume 75 from IA and this is what I got. Uploaded to a picture storage site:

Display 1

Display 2

What would cause this? Do you have any idea? — Ineuw talk 05:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea. I thought you had a good image set from the previous uploads to IA. My .PDF was just a cleaned up version of IA's (taken from Google) so I don't know what to make of it. - George Orwell III (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem, I was just curious about the offerings in the repository. — Ineuw talk 13:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles
There are numbers of files there uploaded by you, some your creations, others that are US Gov. If you put information templates I will utilise Magnus's tool to move those that can be moved to Commons. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete them. They are either test files, illustrative only files or files I uploaded for others who didn't follow up on taking care of them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have time
Hi, our file for Index:Our knowledge of the external world.djvu has bad pages at /176, /177 & /230 with images of the scanner's hand. An alternate scan of the same edition is at. Unfortunately the two scans are slightly different in number of pages, otherwise I'd simply replace it. What's the easiest way to replace the pages? I'm happy to learn how to do this, but need some guidance. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello back. Sorry for the delayed response.
 * I'd be more than happy to walk through some of that process w/ you but you'll have to wait another day or two unfortunately. Real Life has taken my focus away from WS this week and the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare today hasn't helped my online-world's available free time either. I'll drop you a note if you miss this in the interim when I'm "back". -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm happy to wait. There's plenty of other stuff (RL and otherwise) to do. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Before we go down this road - I just D/L'd both and they are exactly the same edition (as far as I can tell) with in-synch page progressions throughout each Lecture, etc.. The extra 2 pages (library card & it's sister blank) are at the very, very end. You can easily replace the "good" one over the other and just create the 2 extra non-text pages without worry in my opinion.
 * Otherwise, the issue then becomes a resolution mismatch between the 2 versions. The 268 page version is taken @ 1980 x 3347, 400 dpi while the 266 page version was taken @ 2356 x 3942, 300 dpi. The bad pages can still be substituted but they won't "look right" compared to the others in both view & edit modes. Its still up to you but I thought I'd mention this before going any further. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been caught up with some technology problems, so have only just looked at this again. I hadn't realised that the extra pages were at the back (I just remember the time I replaced a file with extra pages near the beginning and it took all night to sort out the mess), so I think you're right. I'll just simply replace the file and get your help with another file when it turns up. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Search results
I am also seeing some progress in the search results. For example, Charles Dickens now comes up on page 4 (without the changed title!) Similarly, Emily Dickinson is now on page 2. I believe both were much lower previously. I have to admit, though, since my earlier comment I have started doubting whether the change would have the full desired effect. I think we will probably need other adjustments as well to see first-page results (widely recognized as dramatically increasing click-throughs). We will need to wait and see. I would guess we might need to wait as long as a month for Google to give all affected WS pages their new rankings.
 * I'm noticing some difference between when I'm logged in & when I'm not. When I'm logged in nearly (stress nearly) everything I visit has the new tag-line in the title tag and the Author: prefix is dropped when in the Author: namespace specifically. The same results are not seen for the same pages I visited when I was logged in however. Only a hard refresh (CTRL+F5 here) brought up the tag-line and/or lack of Author: prefix in those cases. Also, Dickens and Dickinson aren't the best examples since they have single surname redirects long in place in addition to their main Author: page (I just categorized Author:Marx to reflect the same for example). E. E. Cummings will be the real test since it was the basis for Hesperian's comment in WS:S Cross-namespace redirects... earlier. I will give it more time before I draw any conclusion either way I suppose. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as hoping for first page rankings go - I think you are being overly optimistic. Visit any page's History tab and click on the external page view statistic tool to see how many unique visits have been made to that page per month (note: rankings are out of date {2010) and manually changing the month in the URL works better than the pop-down menus at the bottom). Dickens only averages 700 or so hits per month so I doubt that average will ever legitimately warrant a listing on the first page no matter what we "do" locally. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are of course many factors that Google uses. And, we are trying to increase those stats via better placement. I also note that Arthur Conan Doyle makes page 1 though he only gets 1100 views a month. Since he is page #118 statistically, that means there may be at least 100 more pages we can get to page 1. BTW, it does look like the stats are current. --Eliyak T · C 05:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken about the ranking (not the monthly view stats). See the "top" page here. Its the 2010 list for overall rankings and I've never seen it updated for 2011 (or 2012 for that matter). Any way you cut it - traffic throughout this domain is uncharacteristically lower than one who spends any decent amount of time here would expect it to be. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as the WS title tag on other pages, I am ambivalent. I see that WP has it on all namespaces, but I can see how it might be appropriate to restrict it to only content and documentation pages. If you want, I would say go ahead and do it and note it at WS:S. --Eliyak T · C 00:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sold 100% on my own devil's advocacy there just yet either. I guess I will let events develop a bit before taking that step for now too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

autopatroller
Thanks, George. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you please undelete User:The Inheritance of Loss and User talk:The Inheritance of Loss for me? It's one of my en:accounts and I'd placed a copy of that user page, here. It should look a lot like w:User:The Inheritance of Loss. I'm going to transclude it into User:Br'er Rabbit, like some others are. There would be del-tags in the deleted histories; just revert those. Thanks. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ - You should probably let me know if you plan on using that account again or just going to copy something from it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The account's scuttled and will never edit again. (and no, don't block it; that would piss me off). I'm going to transclude it. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature for US Supreme Court cases?
Gday GO3. I need to move Venice to its proper naming for US Supreme Court cases so I can disambiguate the page, but I am struggling to find the right nomenclature. Can you please explain to me how they have been done, move it, or shrug, and I will go to some other dude. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the rub. Officially, the case was first titled simply The Venice, 2 Wall., 258, a civil war seizure of an enemy cargo ship of that name. Later on, the lawyer editions cite the case name after the owners of the ships involved, United States v. Cooke.
 * I'm not that much of an expert to know for sure which of the three possible case names is the most approppriate for today's running Supreme Court serial set....


 * The Venice
 * United States v. Cooke
 * The Venice (69 U.S. 258)

The last one is the one I've always tried to use but that doesn't jibe with Hesperian's recent disambig cleanups where things like the last option were undone back to the first option. Still, I say the last option makes the most sense given Venice is a noun beyond the name of a particular ship anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Works well for me, and especially the third where we have to disambiguate. After that they can work out their mess, with redirects etc. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Missed
I missed this User_talk:Jeepday when you posted it, got it now. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A few other bot accounts
Hi, there's some other bot accounts that aren't obvious as they have neither user pages nor user talk pages. They can be picked up on the statistics page. The list is a little beyond a third of the way down the page. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Categorization
I noticed your edit to Maintenance of the Month/Base Pages/E. I believe those pages need proper categorization as well. For example, Executive Order 1000 could be categorized as Category:Native American topics and/or Category:Executive orders dealing with real estate. --Eliyak T · C 14:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * None of those use the standard header template or any other flavors of header. -- George Orwell III (talk)


 * I'm not sure why that's relevant... granted I want to use a parameter in header to encourage categorization, but that is certainly not to say that header is a prerequisite to having topical categories. --Eliyak T · C 14:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh. well I thought it was all about adding Cats via header. Topical cats are added as needed, you just picked one that's rather technical & outdated. The EO project needs legal categorization - not topical. Its all about citation and the inherent authorization. The year and president behind it are already included neatly into the works eras. Everything else is just "fluff" in my opinion that will never be sought out in the ways one would envision for something like a poem or short story. You can add whatever you want the "old" way and if makes things go smoother for this, just restore the list. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Identical
Hi,

Just wonder if you knew Matthew Fontaine Maury and Index:A Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury.pdf are both one in the same. You can ask someone who knows how to run Match & Split to combine them and be done with it a lot faster. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I did the first one long ago and I am doing this newer one now so I do know that they are not exactly alike including adding illustrations on the older one that I did several years ago. I have always intended on working on more links and more illustrations on the older one whereas this newer one is identical to the book and has few illustrations. I figured that one should be identical to the book and thus the reason for the 2nd labour. Here is an example, the Washington Monument's cornerstone was a big thing when placed and there was a Mason's ceremony. I cannot add that to the "book" I will do but I can add it to the older work. In the National Washington Monument's cornerstone are many objects placed inside the cornerstone. Commodore Matthew Fontaine Maury has several items placed there. I intend to add this information and the Mason's ceremony asap but presently I am sidetracked as usual with other works. Yes, I am aware of the similar works but they are not identical and will become less identical. The older is more like a hobby whereas the text beside book is more for publishing and has less information. Please do not run anything on my work. Also, I am not concerned in having something done faster. I intend to be here for a long time anyhow just as I already have been since 2006—does that sound like I am in any hurry? . Kind regards, --William Maury Morris II (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if you are "adding" things that are not found in any published version you must make that clear to the potential readers out there. You are skating on the border of what can be considered annotated on en.WS.
 * After another more careful look in the waking hours, only the last three chapters of Matthew Fontaine Maury do not seem to match the published book that is currently uploaded. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When Matthew Fontaine Maury mentions a famous scientist and I a link and an image how wrong is that? He doesn't have links in his book either but I have added them. I did that book around 2009 before I started editing with book pages beside text editing. I those days I knew nothing of the kind of work I do now or even if it existed. If you look at the history you will find Billinghurst was watching over me in those days as well as advising me on some editing like the use of and other formatting I -- that was the 1st book I placed on WS not knowing anything about WS. I have seen Billinghurst in a conversation with someone about that entire area and Billinghurst told that person that the works in that format were of value. If you wish to delete it then do so, I don't know what you want me to do about those works but just delete whatever you are supposed to delete. I did not place a book in that format recently, it was done many years ago back to 2009. All administrators have had 3 years to do whatever was needed with what I posted in 2009, a work that billinghurst watched over and assisted in. The work I do now in 2012 is not like the work I did in 2009 when new to WS. It is that WS is changing as time passes. Do whatever is needed to be done. Books posted in that area were of a different format as  in that older area that don't have page images beside text. I am through with that work as of 2009. --William Maury Morris II  (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Look - I only wanted to improve and clarify what we have for the potential reader. I don't want to delete anything and there is no reason to delete that 1888 work at all. It could have used used the correct title but if you are "through with that work as of 2009" then I see no reason for any further correspondence regarding that particular work. I guess I will fix whatever needs fixing in the dark. Good day. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * George, you appear to be angry. Why is that? I was not and am not angry or even annoyed, I just replied with an explanation of what I know and as complete as possible. *I* myself would simply "delete" whatever needs to be deleted and that would be the last three pages on the 2009 work that you yourself mentioned. Be calmer, I am not offended in any of this. I use the term "delete" because there are areas that will have to be "deleted", or erased, terminated, whatever one may call removing text. We all don't use the same expressions in communications. You know what needs to be done with that work but I do not. Kind regards, --William Maury Morris II (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * George, whatever I said that may have offended you I sincerely apologize as I never meant to offend. You have been one of my favorite administrators for many years now. You have taught me many things in editing. I am forever grateful for these things and the kindness you have shown to me. I don't forget people that have helped me in my struggles. What is it that you think I should do is perhaps the a good question. I do not know and cannot just guess at the answer. Please don't hold a grudge against me. I am willing to assist in whatever I am supposed to do but I need to know what it is that I am to do. To the best of my knowledge there was no .pdf/.djvu on IA when I placed that book on WS. I typed from a family book that has a lot more information in it including a grand old b/w photo of one of Matthew's daughters wearing all of his medals in her wedding. When I found a .pdf file not long ago I determined to place it on WS as a replacement for the older version of 2009. Kindest regards, --William Maury Morris II (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an expression sometimes used on Wikisource that is somewhat like, "Give the person the benefit of the doubt" Claming up does nothing good in that context. It is a good expression because things can easily be worked out. I have tried but <U>no reply. Still, "Kind regards", --William Maury Morris II (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries - obviously my running of a few errands today was misconstrued as "angry silence" or something. I wasn't getting mad; just in a rush. :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Kool. It's good to know. I have always liked you as an a good, helpful, and intelligent administrator. But what was it that you wanted me to do: something or nothing?
 * The above aside - what I was hoping you would take upon yourself, as the current Maury family "historian", was to reach out the Naval Academy &/or Naval Institute to see what they say about the rights to the 1927 Charles Lee Lewis bio and find out the exact date of death for Mr. Lewis if not ascertain anything else.
 * Regarding your "family book" (and I think Diana Corbin counts as family), its painfully clear that the majority of your 2009 efforts is the same as the 1888 version - the difference being at the end with the last 3 or so chapters vs. 4 Appendicies. All I wanted to know qas 1.) is that pretty much correct? and 2.) are there any other major differences in the bulk of the chapters themselves? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I found this so it appears that you intend to keep both versions. I didn't work with a "file" on the 2009 version—there wasn't any. I worked from a book passed down to me and I hand-typed the text to WS. I collect old and rare books (esp 1st editions) as a hobby but they are never placed under a scanner for fear of harming the books and especially the spine. The book handed down to me has a lot more family information of those times that what was printed for the public. Kind regards, --William Maury Morris II  (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "problem", at least the way I see it, is that your "family book" effort of 2009 is an unpublished and therefor unverifiable book. Now I might believe you are indeed a Maury and legitimate, but not many who venture upon the work will be as forgiving. So without scans and a waiver of all possible copyright from you of that "family book" the best we can do (in my view) is to fully transcribe the 1888 Corbin work and then annotate that version with your "family book" info where applicable, if you wish to reveal that info that is. I just don't believe we can keep both works in their current state. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason I brought in the scans beside text .pdf/.djvu book from IA is to "upgrade" and "replace" the work I did in 2009 so that the book will be like all others on WS. The work is the same except for links and illustrations to prominent scientists shown on WP. I feel that the 2009 work I did has been ignored for 3 years as a "proper" book like what we do now in 2012. There is nothing in the last 3 chapters that still is not PD. By "upgrading" and "replacing", I mean "delete" the 2009 since it is not in the proper format we work with today in 2012. Otherwise they are the same book unless I added something from my own mind and have forgotten it. The two works are just in different formats. I have no plans to add to it. I am tired of it. I had planned to remove it (delete it) or enhance it. There are many other books I am interested in and I do not want to keep typing out Matthew's life. I have made him known again over the last 25 years on websites and listservers and other areas of Internet and am presently tired of my own name from it. This is why I suggested to you to "delete" that older book which is not in the proper format of the books we work on in 2012. That is like leaving it back on dusty old shelves once again and I do not want that. "Delete" is a word I use and I meant no offense in telling you to "delete" it. Technology is always "upgrading" and I like to upgrade things I like. If I want, I can add hyperlinks to the .djvu book now being worked on but I doubt (at the moment) I will even bother with that. Those scientists are amazing people though. My original intent was to create an illustrated version of the book that has been on WS for the past 3 years.

(WP & WC both have changed and still are changing just as WS. All of it is "deleting" (or "removing" - &c., &c., &c., and "upgrading".) Kind regards, --William Maury Morris II (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

http://archive.org/stream/lifeofsirclement00markiala#page/282/mode/1up/search/CHAPTER+XVII
 * George 3rd, I have taken the time looking at the last 3 chapters of Biography of Matthew Fontaine Maury that I was annotating and there is nothing in any of the chapters that is not already public domain. I just now finished with this one and it is still on Internet Archives date circa 1888 (1917)--William Maury Morris II (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)], THE LIFE OF SIR CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM K.C.B., F.R.S-- CHAPTER XVII, WITH THE TRAINING SQUADRON
 * "It was on this cruise that he began his work on "Inca Civilisation," and commenced to edit and prepare for publication Mrs. Corbin's Life of her father, Captain Maury, author of "The Physical Geography of the Sea."


 * "The work of editing the "Life of Captain Maury" he found extremely tiresome and intricate, causing him much labour. --William Maury Morris II (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage
Have you looked over the new patrolling feature I proposed us enabling at the Scriptorium? It does not interfere with the current method of patrolling so no one would be forced to switch if it were brought in. -- Birgitte SB  01:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about removing the watermarks
Hi, George Orwell III. Thanks a lot for uploading the djvu versions of Story of Turkey and Armenia and Islam, Turkey, and Armenia, and How They Happened with the added text layer. I have a question about the watermarks: what software do you use to remove the watermarks from the book pages? Does it work with djvu only or pdf also? Thank you in advance, Chaojoker (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * re: removing watermarks: I would like to know too. Kind regards, --William Maury Morris II (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only software that works everytime is Adobe's Acrobat Professional v9 (or higher) and even then it is a labor intensive process. I've searched high and low on this for some time now and nothing [free] even comes close to AcroPro. The only reason I converted the finished PDF file to DjVu was to easily add a text-layer in the process.

wmm2 & others; in the interim, I can do this when free time allots for it - just ask & point me to the file. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand. I have Adobe Acrobat Professional version 10.1.3 aka Adobe Acrobat X Pro and the only way I know is, as exactly as you say, "labor intensive." Respectfully, --William Maury Morris II (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with Index:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu
Hi, I've just got up to Record VIII and have discovered that its pages 2 to 7 are actually Record IX. i.e. DjVu pages 492 to 497 are now duplicates of pages 499 to 504. Does the copy you found have the right pages? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ??? Have you refreshed your cache and/or double checked the File: page to verify that. I'm not seeing that for Record 8 or 9 (unless its my cache that out of date now). Let me know. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had to re-start my computer. So, now the pages are not identical, but the content is. p491 is in the first person and then there's an abrupt shift to third person on p492 and the content is describing the martyrdom of Ignatius—which is Record IX. There's also a footnote on p494 refering to Record VIII. The same footnote is on p501. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright move on to something else while I do some checking but I'm still not sure that is not the way the file was before I touched it. I'll have to go against the Google Books version I found yesterday. I'll drop you talkback when I'm done. --- George Orwell III (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

After doing some comparisons between other tracts its obvious things aren't right with this file. For instance, the transition between position 343 & 344 in Tract 34 doesn't jibe re: grammar, certainly doesn't match the the Harvard copy I'm looking at and was not touched in my editing being before the missing Tract 35.

More in a bit as I discover them... -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK things are becoming more clear - Tract 34 was clipped and mixed with Tract 35, Record VIII was clipped and mixed with Record IX. Tract 36 and Record X seem to be OK. -- 01:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just reached that conclusion myself. I should have twigged to Tract 34 as it was the only one that didn't have a multiple of 4 pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Update... I've fixed Tract 34 & 35 (which will require more bulk page moves of -2). I can fix Record VIII because it also matched what we had (1st page only) but Record IX is not lining up by an offset of 3 sentences. So..
 * Tract 34 was missing its last page @ position 344 (total of 8 pages)
 * Tract 35 was missing its 1st page, now @ poistion 345 given the above. (total of 4 pages)
 * Record VII was misng pages 2, 3 & 4 of 4 total, soon to be @ positions 490, 491 & 492 given the above.
 * Record IX was missng page 1 of 6 +2 existing blanks at end for a total of 8 pages. I don't know what to do with this just yet because of the offset. I will add the current 1st page just to hold the position so we can start moving stuff around (again).


 * As I'm into being pragmatic rather than precious, why don't we just outright replace all the pages for Record IX and that way avoid any worries about sentence offset? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that was going to be my next call. I just want to be sure that I've exhausted every route first so the next upload will have all the positions correct but only Tract 34 Tract 35 and Record 8 will have the correct pages to match. If I don't find a exact replacement then I can insert Record 9 in total without affecting the positions at all.
 * I've been bouncing back and forth between the two versions and it appears only Record 9 is off. - Go figure . -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the books were made up of a set of Tracts, as printed - rather than doing a new print run just for the book. Which is why I assumed that whole tracts were missing rather than a couple of pages missing in the scan. So, I suspect that there are two different print runs of Record IX involved, from different plates as the printers used changed partway through 1834. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well no luck finding an exact match to the existing 1834 print. Another 1834 print had more differences beside Record 9 than the Harvard edition I've been pulling pages from so far. The 1839 & 1840 editions, I guess, differ much in the same way (have a longer quoted verse from [a different version of] the Bible under the titles on the first page of the record, throwing off the page break by a sentence or more). I'm in the process of uploading another DjVu where the entire Record 9 is replaced with the 1834 Harvard print- check in about 20 min. from the time of this post. I'm sure the content is exactly the same between the existing and Harvard editions; just offset by those three or so lines at the originals page breaks like we spoke about a day or two ago. Let me know if there is anything else I can do & let this be a friendly reminder for everyone to stop Proofreding something as soon as an error is discovered otherwise we'll always have the additional drama of bulk moves to deal with (I know this is not an issue when it comes to your editing in particular however). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks George, very much appreciated. Sorry that it turned out to be a bigger mission than I first realised. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Can I just say your efforts over the last few weeks (maybe longer but I've only noticed in the last few weeks) are absolutely awesome. I plunk away at really easy stuff that doesn't take any real thought or effort, well aware that there are problems here that are much bigger and much harder to fix. You are hammering away at the big hard-to-fix problems, the stuff that most everyone else puts in the too-hard basket and ignores, and making astonishing headway. Very much appreciated. Hesperian 01:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well thank you very much. Comments like that make it all seem worth the aggravation. I've been quietly "fixing" and [re]uploading source files for many months now if that matters - the only handicap to what I can accomplish comes by way of recent wmf upgrades that imposes something like a 1 hour "time-out" for inactivity. Couple that with my connection speed & I've lost the ability to upload large, fixed files such as 1911 Encyclo. Britannica, Volume 11.
 * At the same time, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't admit that most, if not all, of my actions to address what I affectionately call "the junk" on en.WS comes from [trying] to follow your lead. For example - you started filling in pages with "no text" or "problematic" and I thought "well why did he miss such and such Page in this Index: or that?" A little bit of investigation and viola! I've manage to find the root cause for your "miss", and from that, am able more often than not to correct the underlying flaw in the file itself (Index:Federal Cases, Volume 19.djvu was a recent prime example of such a follow-up to your efforts resulting in both File recovery and pagelist creation). I think I could compliment whatever it is you're up to at any given moment but as to what exactly that may be is not always abundantly clear. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, our George, I do think you might pass a body that gravy, "Certainly,” he replied, “Won’t you have the joint as well?”
 * From The White Peacock. William Maury Morris II (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, George, for fixing that url. I could not remember what to do and all I needed was to remove the pipe sign. Sheeeech... Thank you ever so much. *I* was struggling* Respectfully, Maury (William Maury Morris II (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Undelete Request
Any chance you'd be able to undelete Index:Jeremy Hunt S4C October 2010.pdf and related pages please? Source file was wrongly deleted at Commons and has now been restored. Cymru82 (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Page:COTUS (1992 Edition) Part 6 of 15.djvu/2
George, this page has been marked problematic by Ithsmus and afaics this page is a contents list for the whole package and probably neither of the 1st 2 pages should be transcluded. But I'm confused by the whole project as it doesn't appear to have been transcluded so can you sort it out? Thanks, Chris55 (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

US District Court Jury Verdict SRF v Ananda 2002
Hi George - just uploaded and transfered text to the box on the left - I proofread it and made corrections. What is my next step? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:US_District_Court_Jury_Verdict_SRF_v_Ananda_2002.pdf/1 Thank you! May I request that you watch this document? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See SRF v. Ananda jury verdict. You should go to your user ptreferences and turn on the header and footer view for the Page namespace/ProofReading for starters. Post here - Scriptorium/Help - if you need more help. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi George I have left a note on Scriptorium to ask for help with finishing the uploading process. I honestly don't understand what to do next. Can you help? Need to get it up as soon as I can.  I uploaded another one with no problems.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi George, Need to know how to move this along as I need this document on Wikipedia. One person proofread and edited the first page and I took his "suggestions" and added them to the rest of the document. I need someone to complete the proofreading. I have posted it on Scriptorium. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The point here is for you to setup a document by providing a scan that can be easily transcribed by volunteers and then transcluded into a single article to the mainspace. This is not a on demand service. If your article doesn't get addressed right away - no problem - lazy vistors can refer to the scans if thet don't want to proofread anything. If someone wants to dispute something in the main article, they can click on the little numbers on the left (pages 1 thru 6 in this case) to take them to the scans so they see the scans and compare the transcription themselves (i.e. proofread it for themselves). All you really need to do is just set a document up and if folks don't proofread it doesn't mean its not valid because the scans of the original are always there to back you up. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you George for your help and explanation. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests
Please delete the following pages or files:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yogoda_Satsanga_Sakha_Math,_Ranchi,_India.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yogoda_Satsanga_Society_Headquarters_Dakshineswar,_India.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:1969_AY_editorial_page_list_explaining_7th_edition.jpg

Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't help you with the 2 on Wikipedia... you'll need to request deletion there if those 2 aren't already gone. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Getting somewhere
George, I was struck by your antagonism to the proofread extension on the forum. I don't know the history - can't find it in the scriptorium; all I can see is that participation in WS plunged a couple of years back and I wonder if that had anything to do with it.
 * History is simple. Somebody had a brain fart, came up with a mess of half-script married to half-code, a dozen or so folks blindly applauded the idea and let it run its course without thinking it all the way through. Then one day the brain fart evaporated and that was the end of development. I think the PR process & theory is just fine (though a bit too complicated for the average user to fall in love with without making an effort to win over all her ugly friends at the same time). The extension itself could use a major overhaul & that is what I'm primarily pissed off about if anything at all. You won't find much of a history for development here on the en.WS - it takes place elsewhere. A good part of it takes took place on the Multi-Lingual Wikisource (or OldWikisource). The rest comes from IRC the best that I can tell - being opposed to parallel forums to en.WS myself where no accountability nor logged history takes place for the benefit of the entire past, present & future en.WS community - I cannot say that is 100% accurate for sure.

What strikes me now is that there is an adequate software mechanism for getting works proofread but no human organization supporting it - in English at any rate (the French, Spanish etc. seem to have taken to it more).
 * I can sympathize with you but can't really offer you an adequate explanation as to why that is the case today. Being the "oldest" of the WS domains, I suppose it would be normal to have the most hang-ups

Is there a load of hidden rage which doesn't want to see it work?
 * Nahhh.... I doubt anyone is that angry about all this. I do think you're becoming a bit too stressed-out about having all green boxes in the Index name-space when the goal should be an all green status bar in the main name-space. It would be nice to have both at the same time but most folks here aren't all about building charts to track status to justify one approach or another but transcribing & transcluding works so they exist in an easily verifiable state in the main-space. The Index name-space was really more of a temporary work-bench that normally gets forgotten about if you've done a good job of ProofReading and transcluding a work in the first place. Its only recently that it has been elevated to a status of gateway to meta-data or whatever in blazes else it is suppose to accomplish beside simple page alignment and re-numbering as first designed.

Is there any way of addressing this or is every discussion going to meet a wall? Hopefully, Chris55 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me think about about this a bit more. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It explains some if there was a technical fix for something people didn't see the point of. Personally it seems a big strength to me having the scans accessible but I can see it's a bit patched together; which is why I thought suggested we need to interpret the categories "flexibly".
 * Individual page proofreading-status is all that really matters at the end of the day. If a particular poem I was looking for online pointed me to en.WS happens to be 6 pages long out of a total book that is 256 pages long - why should it matter what the "status" of the Index is as long as those 6 pages have been PR'd, validated and transcluded. To further the hypothetical.... I call bull-shit on a particular line in the poem, somebody says to click on the little numbers to the left and I wind up eating crow after I'm taken to the Page namespace for the page with the line in doubt on it & see for myself that the line does indeed match the scan. Again, why would anyone care about the status of the entire book?
 * Ok, I have a different perspective in rating the importance of ebooks being downloaded via EPUB etc. There, the whole book needs to be finished.
 * Oh I'm in complete agreement with you, full-well understanding mobile, eBooks, Epub, etc. are the future now. The problem is we are as only as good as our last mistake; all volunteers working under the honor system and little else. I don't upload eveything under the sun that I'd like to see get worked on because ultimately I know I would never be able to get to it all myself while some folks do not have the same problem with uploading to what eventually amounts to nothing but junk around here. What are the chances that there will be broad intrest in another man's junk? I can tell you --> slim to never.
 * I don't understand how the bar in the main space is computed - it certainly doesn't correspond to the proportion of pages in the page space. What does it signify? I'm not worried about green boxes, but it seems to me that before a project is accepted as "done" someone else should be required to look at every page. (I certainly haven't done that for the 10 I've done recently!) At the moment everything is tacit: it was a big surprise to me that anyone should think that adverts are essential. Chris55 (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mehh... the mainspace status bar should be refecting the PR status of all the Page:s transcluded and rendered on that mainspace page by the pages tag, but that's been retarded by hook & crook as well. Its rigged not to show any pages yet to be created, transcribed, proofread and validated that would also make up the total pages for the section or chapter in question. If a chapter is ten Page:s long but only six of the ten are validated etc., the only indication that pages are missing from that chapter are the redlinks at the end (something the potential reader might not be familiar with). The mainspace status bar is missing the "white" color normally know as the indicator a Page: has been allocated in the pagelist tag but has not being created yet. As it is now, the status bar would show all green for the six pages that exist and the vistor would have no clue 4 pages are missing (your lopsided proportioning).
 * That's an important fault (imo). It shouldn't be rigged. I should be able to tell if only 10% of the book is transcribed (a common situation).


 * Yup. If it wasn't lumped in with this part of the PR extension or that part of the dynamic layouts I might actually have found a way to fix it but its above my skill set the way things stand as is. Bitching about hasn't won me any favors either. I did manage to get a template to mimic the way it is suppose to work (Template:PageStatus/testcases)


 * The more you dig the more disappointed you'll be (just like I was). I was surprised you only found 100 issues or whatever on pages where the Index: has been statused 'Done'. As I understand it - people were more concerned about transcribing that one poem, and that one poem only, before the policy changed to discourage slicksters uploading 600 page works only to transcribe their favorite piece or part while forgeting the rest. Since then, folks have come up with all sorts ways to get only what they want & little else and I'm afraid passing works up the PR status tree in spite of ommissions or flaws still being present has become all too common. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been stopped from finding more . I haven't even started on the "Done" pages because they weren't in the initial lists and I suppose that I should add another list... Thanks for the reminder! Chris55 (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'd rather these pages het statused 'Adv' in the pagelist and just not be created at all until someone who actually needs them comes along to work them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Been doing that this morning! It doesn't solve the problem of spotting the deficient ones but I need help from Hesperion on that one. Incidentally can you see what is wrong with this page? The first (title) page was omitted and I thought I'd only transcluded the English part, but both languages appear. Chris55 (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * done? Not pretty but it did the trick. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Just for the hell of it, I tried another solution and it was as I'd guessed. The "fromsection" must be the last section on the page. Undocumented feature or unrealised assumption? Chris55 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah... of course. Its hard to keep it all the "quirks" straight without a cheat sheet. Fwiw... I don't think that page belongs with the rest (if it did, the No. would have been repeated on the French side too) but I'm not a lawyer. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Having established that, it's pretty obvious that the proper fix is: <pages index="V750 2.djvu" from=1 to=1 onlysection="english" /> <pages index="V750 2.djvu" from=2 to=4 /> . yuk. But aren't numbers international? Chris55 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Errr... respectfully disagree. The correct fix. imho, is to set the language id to French for that section using a block tag (div, p), have a defined element class in place and set it in common.js and/or common.css so that these "inline" greek quotes or french sections don't display in the main namespace when detected to be present by default unless intentially set otherwise - putting an elegant end to the use of section tags as far as language differention/exclusion goes once and for all across a much larger swath of junk. point taken on the number thing,,,, have lost interest after typing the above. :( -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request
Hello George please remove Autobiography_of_a_Yogi_Publishers_Notes_1956.pdf from wikisource - I am adding to commons instead. thanks Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do & sorry for the late reply - the weekends are for maintenance around here and I got caught up in it. I'll take a look at this again by tomorrow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Down and uploads - file transfers
Hi. As I said before, I gladly do the transfers because don't have to watch it while I proofread. Don't always monitor my watchlist, as I am focusing into proofreading and loose track of happenings around me, and it's by chance that I remembered to glance at it and noticed your file transfer request. The WS email notification doesn't always work (it's been 6+ hours since you posted the note), so please free to email me directly, at least the email is always open. — Ineuw talk 09:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple of split files I've just noticed
Hi, I'm doing some maintenance and just picked up on the following file pairs: Based on your conversations with Hesperian, can I leave these with you to be dealt with in the fullness of time? (i.e. there's no urgency from my perspective) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Index:Beowulf (Wyatt) x-xi.pdf and Index:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu; and
 * Index:Dnb vol60 p18-19.djvu and Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu


 * Yeah, thanks. You can send more of these my way as you come across them. I've fixed Beowulf already but DNB vol. 60 will have to wait since it has blurred / cut-off pages on top of those 2 missing pages. Plus its a formal WikiProject so any action will have to be discussed & cleared by them first. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:The_Coming_Colony.pdf
George, on Billinghurst's talk page he thanks us for this book on Australia that he wanted. But where is the Index final version ready to be edited, proofread, validated? Respectfully, &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 07:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time to hold hands. Fish or cut bait already. Tell him to make a decision - I gave him 2 options - a PDF or a DjVu. Review each and pick one (or none). This is getting ridiculous. The inability to obtain the work due to location is one thing. The inability to make that work once provided into something workable is NOT MY PROBLEM it his or yours. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to hold your hands and I don't like to fish. My only interest is hopefully to see that what we both have worked on and what Billinghurst asked for gets completed. It is not a "problem" for anyone. It might just sit there but that's okay with me. I hope that you feel better soon. Cheers, &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 12:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel better? No you mistake my bluntness for some illness - that is not the case. I'm being dead serious here, if you can't get a file, and we come up with 2 formats of that file - what more is there left on my end to do exactly? I don't upload to IA ever - if he wishes, he can upload the PDF to IA. I provided a DjVu version - it that is unacceptable upload the PDF to IA and take their DjVu instead. So again - what more can I do exactly? Do not extend this into something that it is not. I've said and done all that I said I would & could. Good day sir. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi Copyright and Publishers Notes 1956
I am attempting again to process this file for wikisource. I need your help to open it to an index page so I can add the words and then bring it to a page. What should I do next? thanks again. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I got it started Thank You!Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

George I just spent an hour or so typing in all the words - how do I transfer this to Commons? Sigh....Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Also is it possible to upload a pdf of multiply pages onto commons?Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A be that as it may report on file conversions
Hi GO3. Didn't plan to step into your territory until I realized how profitable it is to do pdf/djvu/pdf conversions, file trimming, uploads/downloads/uploads and links to the commons. :-)

So, the following is a report of things I've done and the progress (and regress) I made. Please feel free to comment:


 * 1) Installed djvuLibre which only permits me to read a file in GUI mode, but not to trim or delete pages. I suspect that one of the included command line tools is required for that but, I am not sure which and I am really not interested in creating batch files. So, switched focus to .pdf file management. . ..
 * 2) After installing (and uninstalling) numerous .pdf softwares, I settled on pdfsam to manipulate the .pdf files and a new world opened up to me, but not without its attendant headaches. (At this point it's important to point out that my original estimate of profitability have increased considerably.)
 * 3) pdfsam is good to delete individual pages if the page count is less than 150 or so (depending on the file).
 * 4) Larger files need to be split, the pages deleted, and then merged. This works well when there are a couple of pages need to be removed, but not when deletion is required every 3-4 pages in a 235 page file.
 * 5) One must expect stack overflow when several pages are deleted. This Java issue requires a command line parameter to increase the memory stack but I haven't figured out which java .exe is called by pdfsam and how to add the parameter.
 * 6) The one thing I haven't figured out is the software you use to remove watermarks, and whether this is done manually page by page, or there is an automatic way to remove all watermarks. If done manually, page by page, then I know the true profitability of the undertaking.

Currently, there are three uploads on IA waiting for processing, but I don't expect them until after Labour Day. One is yours, one from WMM2, and one is from Mpaa.

Your comments are much appreciated. — Ineuw talk 00:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Work with missing pages
Hi, Index:Edgar Allan Poe - a centenary tribute.djvu is missing most of the illustrations listed on Page:Edgar Allan Poe - a centenary tribute.djvu/15. There's another copy on IA at that has them. What can I do to assist with sorting this out? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For starters - have you looked at the quality of the portraits overall? The images in the original University of California pdf are just as bad as those in the Cornell pdf. Granted the Cornell pdf appears to be far more complete and in synch as originally published than the U-of-C one (142 pages vs. 116; minus scan page 64 in the former) but in both instances, converting & using the DjVu over the PDF was a mistake in my opinion because the image quality is further degraded in the DjVus compared to the PDFs. My initial thoughts are to replace the missing p64 in the cornell pdf [easy] and upload that new to commons - then have someone bulk move the pages from the existing DjVu Index: to a new PDF based Index. Both PDFs had a text layer in place already btw - making the use of a DjVu here, again, rather pointless. Would this be acceptable to you? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing it over to a pdf is fine by me. I was just looking for a relatively straightforward file for the PotM validation list, which is happy with either file format. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - see Index:Edgar Allan Poe - a centenary tribute.pdf. After identifying the DjVu ranges that need to be moved to the PDF with the needed offsets (if any), list the entire task at Bot requests. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As I was replacing this one in the current "to be validated" list, I promptly found another problem one. Index:A New England Tale.djvu has duplicate scanned pages at /219 to /222. These should be print pages 208 to 211, but are a second copy of 202 to 205. The missing pages are not in this scan. Angelprincess has typed in the correct text from. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One at a time; I'll come back to this after the above is resolved in a little bit (maybe a couple of hours). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The edition the patched text comes from (1852) is not the same edition as the uploaded DjVu was made from (1822). The page numbers do not line up (nor the total number of pages between the two for that matter). The text appears to be the same but I'm not going to word-to-word match 4 and a half busted pages. There is no way to determine for sure where exactly the page break should occur so what is there now I assume is just a "best guess-timate". Without a matching edition - this Index is forever incomplete and thanks to that - was big honkin' waste of time in my opinion. The 4 pages should be marked problematic & noted for missing scans of the original. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I found the 1822 version on GoogleBooks, converted the 4 missing pages and uploaded a corrected DjVu file containing them. A careful proofread and validation of the 4 missing pages is still needed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Big djvu file
Hi, don't know if you're able to help with this problem. I've found a copy on IA at, but the files are massive. Are we best to leave him /her uploading 198 files, creating 198 Indices, etc. etc.? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weird, I'm a "him" here. Where's the rest of this conversation about me? I've already uploaded all the files to Commons, and I'm about 1/6th of the way through the indices. Xaxafrad (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While I think 198 Indexes is a bit overkill for just one work - there is no hard and fast "rule" against such an approach. I would have liked a more orderly file size reduction and subsequent upload myself but I guess that train has left the station.


 * What we can absolutely forget about is listing them as needing text-layers via OCR or otherwise. There is no way one can split up a work into vastly smaller portions rather than reducing them just to get around the max. file upload limits on the one hand and then turn around and expect extra labor on anyone else's part but their own to apply 198 missing text-layers on the other hand. That won't happen.


 * Xaxafrad, you should first be running these file parts at http://any2djvu.djvuzone.org/ before uploading them to Commons to apply the missing (and now split-up) text-layers via their OCR engine. Kindly re-do the existing files you've uploaded and status-ed as needing a text-layer in this manner and please do this to any DjVu file that you know beforehand to be lacking a text layer in the future. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit slow in noticing this page again. I just popped over to thank you for saving those TOC tables. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems I also owe you some gratitude and an apology for taking 20 minutes of your life to fix my mistakes. So, thanks again, and sorry! It shouldn't happen anymore. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please check out the code in this sandbox?
After spending a lot of time studying HTML5 and played with the "rule" in the sandbox (as you can tell from the change log), think I managed to find a replacement for rule using HTML5 rules: Could you please check this HTML rule tests and give me your opinion? Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 04:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have my IE8 drive here at home so I'm only able to provide a review to the best of my recollection & not so much field testing.


 * The center tag is still going to be an issue if it isn't already. That was slated as deprecated by the w3 folks before they passed on HTML 4. I also believe that was convoluted logic behind creating the center template - the fear was that support for the center tag would one day be stripped out of the specification for good.

There was no other way centering worked for you? Such as....

<hr style="height:1px; background-color:black; color:black;" />

<hr style="height:1px; background-color:black; color:black;" />

<hr style="height:1px; background-color:black; color:black;" /> <hr style="height:1px; background-color:black; color:black;" />

<hr style="height:1px; background-color:black; color:black;" /> <hr style="height:1px; background-color:black; color:black;" />

... if those work, then changing one or the other auto values for the margin parameter should align the line left or right accordingly as well. --05:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My intent is to quickly replace the rule code to stop the proofreaders' concerns. Your first sample also works and only the width parameter needs to me assigned to a variable. The "margin:0em auto 0em auto;" is never touched.


 * Proofreaders always use for a double line, so the second example cannot be used as a replacement. I created another test using your 1st example code for both single and double lines. HERE or as follows:


 * What I want to know if it's OK to replace the template. After all, I couldn't do any worse than it is now, moved to the left. — Ineuw talk 06:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you get the line centered using my way above then fine - you can replace it BUT the old  and   variables won't work without further modification.   is not an issue since it is (& always should have been) the default alignment.

We need a way to convert the old left to a new left.... <hr style="height:1px; background-color:black; color:black;" /> <hr style="height:1px; background-color:black; color:black;" /> ... and the old right to new right.... <hr style="height:1px; background-color:black; color:black;" /> <hr style="height:1px; background-color:black; color:black;" /> I know there is a way to do this without messing up the old syntax in use but you'll have to forgive me - its late and I cant' seem to get the needed SWITCH line to cover all 3 possibilities -- align left, center and right -- from my brain to my keyboard :( -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please! I didn't mean it tonight. . . or tomorrow night. Just wanted the ball rolling. :-) I believe that you're in my time zone as well, what are you doing up so late??? — Ineuw talk 06:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm in NYC proper. I'm in the middle of a long drawn out debate in a private forum over "why Obama sucks but nowhere near as much as Romney blows" . When I get an idiot break (frequently now that it is getting late) I pop over here to see what's up and junk. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Update - I modified rule to reflect the above discussion without changing any of the previously used syntax. If you can go around and make sure it is working in a few places I'd feel a lot better since I can't account for other popular browsers at the moment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good in stand alone mode, double style at 65% and tested several title pages where the rule was part of a header template. Once the cache cleared (Ctrl-F5), it was fine. Thank you.
 * P.S: Can I post a message to other concerned proofreaders in the Scriptorium to test and clear their cache? — Ineuw talk 00:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. But I'd also mention that the  parameter (infrequently used, if ever, as far as I can tell) might need further tweaking (i.e. - also needs to be moved to div tag instead of hr tag) to work as it did before once again. I can't be sure since I can't find an example of it being used anywhere & it was not exampled in the template doc in spite of it being mentioned. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I don't see a problem in adding the style="color/back-color" parameters and the height variable to each of the div's. The advantage of notifying users would expand the scope of testing and find problems quicker. Perhaps there are some proofreaders who use(d) the rule with increased height. In any case, we are aware of the potential issues. I pasted the current rule code into THIS SANDBOX to test the possible div additions. — Ineuw talk 01:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood - height, color & background-color are exclusive styles to the hr tag and should not be moved to the div tag(s). The   parameter added addtional stylings to the three aforementioned style parameters for the hr tag (i.e. possible padding, floating, clearing, etc.) Now that some parameters have been deprecated, there is no guarantee these type of additional stylings would still work unless they were intiated under the div tag - again I cannot say for sure because a real life use of the parameter seems to be hard to find (if ever used at all). At this point I'm not even sure if its worth mentioning at all - lets stick with the original change & announcement. If somebody's ubber special application of rule is still broken, they'll speak up and we'll address it then. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's clear now what you meant. I assume we can't find any existing implementation of the "rule" where the additional style elements were already used? — Ineuw talk 01:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I sure could not find any use of the parameter but the number of uses of rule is rather large so not finding anything in 20 minutes of searching might not mean much. Like I said - let's cross that bridge if we ever come to it. right now size and position are working fine and those are by far the majority of the applied uses prior to the recent change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. What I meant to say is that if the proofreaders' previous implementations are still off, they need to clear the page cache several times and only then report if something is wrong. It's better of they do the checking than you having to go searching. My case is limited because I only work in PSM, and there are minimal variations of the rule implementations and I tested them all. — Ineuw talk 01:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.


 * On a different note can you upload File:Dnb vol30 1892.pdf to IA? Its Dictionary of National Biography, Volume 30, 1892. If you can request a crop of whitespace margins somewhere on there please add it. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course. Consider it done.— Ineuw talk 05:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Completed The Dictionary of National Biography (Volume 30) .djvu upload to the commons. — Ineuw talk 22:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

File that needs a minor fix
Hi, (at least I think it's minor fix). Index:The Government of Iowa 1911.djvu has a single extra page at Page:The Government of Iowa 1911.djvu/27. The full map folded out is on DjVu page 29. I've checked the rest of the maps and they're fine. TIA, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll get on it sometime tonight. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the wait; now... Are we sure this is an "extra" page? In the DjVu source file under DjVu Libre, its obvious this map is a fold-out because the image is rotated by 90 degrees compared to the rest of the book including the other maps (i.e. landscape print instead of normal portrait print). It appears to me position 28 (blank) should be swapped with position 27 (map still folded) rather than deleting position 27. If the map was any larger, it could not have been landscaped and would have taken up 2 pages just like the other maps. My sense is the pages should be swapped and the 'still folded map' view should be ignored. This way we would still be true to the original binding & left-right-left page progression but fixed for proper transclusion etc at thesame time.
 * Well that's the way I see it but ultimately it's your call and am happy to progress as you see fit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The page at position 29 is displaying as a different size for me, so I see that as having the folded out map and therefore the folded map as unnecessary. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the image of the left-page partially blocked by the extra fold-over on the back of its adjacent right page lying on top of it is redundant and confusing to say the least; but it is needed in order to maintain as true as possible to the original binding.
 * My point is that left-facing should remain left-facing and vise-versa throughout the book when measured by the relation between its DjVu position progression as well as the scanned page number assignment.
 * Correct:


 * position 26 (even) = scan page 8 (even), heading THE GOVERNMENT OF IOWA. (left facing)
 * position 32 (even) = scan page 10 (even), heading THE GOVERNMENT OF IOWA. (left facing)


 * Incorrect (as it would be if the page was deleted):


 * position 26 (even) = scan page 8 (even), heading THE GOVERNMENT OF IOWA. (left facing)
 * position 32 (even) = scan page 11 (odd), heading POPULATION AND ETHNIC ELEMENTS. (right facing)
 * I understand your point and all it would take is to excluded that page in the pages statement to over come it when transcluded in my view. Still, do you see my point any better? -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given my preference for pragmatism, I'll buy it and keep an eye on the transclusion when it happens. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata related
Hi,

On the test-page http://wikisource-dev.wmflabs.org/w/index.php/Index:Picturesque_New_Guinea.djvu , I notice the thumbnail (and assume all other subsequent useful embedded tidbits) generates the error message:



I tried a long time ago to get someone to verify a.) the latest DjVuLibre package is indeed currently installed and b.) if it is, to verify the installed folder paths match as needed by the XML related .exe files.

You see for example, a typicall local default Windows install creates a folder-path containing the needed .dtd file(s) in...


 * ..\DjVuLibre\share\djvu\pubtext\DjVuXML-s.dtd

. . . while the at the same time the executable, DjVutoXML.exe, expects them to be installed in...


 * ..\DjVuLibre\pubtext\DjVuXML-s.dtd

. . . so if you don't create copies of all the .dtd files at the 2nd folder path, an XML will never be generated; thus no "easy" metadata or mapping and so on via XML.

If the same holds true for server installs, then...


 * /usr/local/share/djvu/pubtext/DjVuXML-s.dtd

. . . on our server install probably should be...


 * /usr/local/pubtext/DjVuXML-s.dtd

... instead.

At any rate, I thought I'd better mention it after seeing the error since I never did get anybody to verify my theory years ago. Even more, I recall most of the XML coding was bypassed early on for straight text dumps because it was truely "broken" in the DjVuLibre package at that time - this is no longer the case in the latest build & that is why verifying the latest build is indeed on the server is also helpful regardless of the folder path thing above.

Please respond on my en.WS talk page if you need to. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that this bug doesn't append in labs, but there is a bug with instantCommons (the feature that allow not-Wikimedia wiki to use Wikimedia Commons) that break djvu metadata extraction. I've just submitted a patch that solve, I hope, this bug. Tpt (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK - you would know better than I would.
 * I was refering to / concerned about these points in the code however...


 * http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/media/DjVuImage.php?view=markup#l285
 * http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/media/DjVuImage.php?view=markup#l223
 * Not that I know what it all means but it seems at one point the XML part was left behind because it wasn't working. That's been fixed & why I wish to know if we have the latest build installed. If it still isn't working - my bet it is because of the folder path mis-match. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Replacement for a damaged PSM page
Hi. Is it possible for you to replace THIS PAGE with THIS UPLOAD? It's not urgent at all. I already completed the proofread from the image, but it should be replaced for validation. Not being sure, I created this .pdf from a .png, although I can upload it in any format needed. — Ineuw talk 00:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Should not be a problem - but here we go again with the over-compression of a file ontop of a image that should need no compressing. Can you point me to the original source of the replacement page so I can try "pulling" it clean.... or is that a whole 'nother can of worms in it of itself? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, I am curious about how you go about doing it and this was my way of initiating the process. I wish to apprentice to the Master so that I can learn the secrets of the craft/art. It's by no means an underhanded way to initiate a palace revolution. (I never watched shows like the Game of Thrones. :-D.) Now, enough of my jabbering and here is the link: PSM Volume 10 Page 477. — Ineuw talk 01:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a big on Game of Thrones too!
 * First - I uploaded a what I've managed to create in the interim to File:temparoo.djvu. Take a quick peak while I try to whittle this down for you if I can. Back in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's perfect. It will serve well for validation. Like I said, it's not urgent. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 02:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

✅

I've wiped 3 drafts in over 40 minutes on this because I couldn't even understand what I was trying to explain by the 3rd or 4th paragraph in. Back to basics.

The goal is to replace a single indirect DjVu (position) within a bundled djvu (DjVu source file). There is no app or utility that does for you on the fly & on line so we need to do this all locally. This means we need to download the problem DjVu to some place on your computer where you can easily "work" on it. First question: Do you have the latest (~may2012) DjVuLibre already installed on your 'puter? If you do, the best place to download the problem djvu would the same base folder where the DjVuLibre files reside. If you don't have DjVuLibre, it begs the next question: Are you comfortable working in "DOS mode" or a command window? are familar with the basics of batch and executable files? know a bit about command line syntax and switches? Well hopefully you are and do so we can pick this up tomorrow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insert and your message about the process is eminently clear.

P.S: I am not sure if I am in town tomorrow night. There is no hurry. Good night. — Ineuw talk 09:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the latest DjvuLibre May 2012.
 * Very comfortable with DOS. Started computing in 1984. MS-DOS 2.1
 * Still use the command prompt window regularly - and comfortable with switches.
 * Write batch files all the time to rename the .JP2 files for images. Otherwise I couldn't manage the thousands of PSM images.


 * Then you should have no trouble with this...

First thing to keep in mind is that the DjVu source files we deal with on en.WS are 'bundled' Djvu Files. A bundled DjVu file is a collection of 'indirect' DjVu files - usually one indirect DjVu file being a single scanned page of the original source document. All these seemingly disconnected indirect DjVu files are organized for viewing by a central DjVu file - designated the 'index' DjVu file. Editing the Index DjVu file allows you to quickly and easily add, delete or replace individual 'indirect' files pretty much on the fly.

All of that mobility is wasted in en.WS because the PR extension only deals with 'bundled' DjVu files - files where there is no central 'index' DjVu file holding the page progression and other such data. This info is spread across all the individual DjVu files that make up a 'bundled' DjVu file - making it rather hard to manipulate the addition, deletion and replacement of one or more individual files.

Second thing to keep in mind is not much can be achieved on the fly or on-line. In other words, you'll need to download/place any replacement DjVu files in the same directory as the target DjVu file - all of which needing to be subject to the DjVuLibre executables themselves. Again best to have all the files that you are going to work on and the executables all in the same folder.

In this instance, you already knew of a 2nd 'bundled' DjVu containing the better scan of page 477 compared to the existing DjVu. The summary of what should have been done is pretty much.
 * 1) Download the faulty DjVu to the DjVuLubre folder
 * 2) Download the replacement DjVu to the DjVuLibre folder
 * 3) Identify the position of bad scan page 477 in the faulty DjVu file (was 493)
 * 4) Run Djvm.exe command line to delete position 493 from the faulty DjVu file
 * 5) Identify the position of good scan page 477 in the replacement DjVu.
 * 6) Save that position as a indirect DjVu using some other temp file name (the temp name will be for the indirect index djvu file. The file we need [the target] will keep its existing name)
 * 7) Run Djvm.exe command line to insert [the target] file in the faulty DjVu at position 493.

The only change from this basic outline is when you have to make your own replacement DjVu file instead of finding an existing one like you did. In that case the normal PDF to DjVu steps must take place before the above steps can take place. - George Orwell III (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't thank you enough as this is an excellent guide. I will experiment with it later this week. Have a nice evening. — Ineuw talk 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Story of a minor success
This post begins with the first sentence of the last paragraph above. Waited until coming across some bad scans (in Vol 51 of PSM ) this page after replacement + this page after replacement, and followed your instructions into the mysteries of deletion & insertion of djvu pages. Starting with the end, I successfully replaced two damaged pages, although there are several unknowns remain. Here are the steps:


 * 1) Searched IA and found another copy of the volume 51 with clean pages.
 * 2) Enlarged the page good images to their max., (as User:Inductiveload & User:Cygnis insignis taught me to get the highest resolution), copied and saved them as .PDF, using Irfanview.
 * What malarkey - you should get the max resolution for whole images not an image comsisting of primarily text on a page. Sure the greater the resolution the more likely an entire image (an image taking up the whole page with maybe as much text as a caption) will come out better in the end but the real problem is compression/de-compression that comes with changing the file format from one type to another. Just like a xerox of a xerox of a xerox of a page of typed-text will degrade with each new incarnation, so too is the case with converting one file format to another and so on. I understand there is a pic on the second page linked above but that image, as well as entire page images, are being added separate from the DjVu file as stand alones afterward. Nobody cares how poor the DjVu thumbnail's capture of that small portrait is - you are normally replacing it with a separate image file anyway. You must understand you are starting with a minimum of 2 previous incarnations before you even touch any file - the first being the .jpg, .png. etc. from the physical scanning of a page & the second is when all the scans are made into a pdf (for us, the third comes from the conversion from pdf to djvu). If you did not want to follow my steps for djvu to djvu deletion and insertion you should have just used the PDF file on IA for those two pages & start from there.
 * 1) Using PDF2DJVU GUI.exe from Sourceforge, converted the 2 PDF pages to Djvu.
 * So we have an IA hosted PDF, converted to an IA hosted DjVu (or EPUB), to your "image" extraction back to PDF only to change it back to a DjVu? Sounds similar to the 'Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox of type written page of text paradox' no?
 * 1) Downloaded the volume and stored it in the program directory.
 * 2) Using djvm.exe in command line mode, deleted the two damaged pages containing the fingers of the IA volunteers, and then verified the results with djvu in GUI mode (very fast).
 * 3) Merged the two new (consecutive) pages using djvm.exe in command line mode, into one file and verified the results with djvu in GUI mode before proceeding to the next step.
 * 4) Inserted the merged file in the correct sequence and verified the results with djvu in GUI mode before proceeding to the next step.
 * 5) Uploaded and replaced the old file.

The reason of writing all this is because I intend to write a micro detailed WS page for others who are interested. GO3, Many many thanks again.— Ineuw talk 07:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * 1) The most important is the text layer which I assumed is automatically generated (it isn't), so the above pages are without the text for the moment. Will download the text file and insert missing text layer, but there must be another way.
 * You lost the text layer because you didn't start by extracting/converting the 2 pages from the IA hosted PDF file - you used a pdf file of your own creation (because you treated a page of text as a picture of a page of text in reality). or you lost the text layer because you didn't extract the 2 pages from the IA hosted DjVu file and simply insert them into the existing DjVu file. If you can't highlight and copy a single word of text from a pdf file then there is no text layer to begin with and will not be created when using PDF2DjVu. You'll need to run the finshed djVu for OCR online at Any2DjVu.org before you insert the standalone DjVu's into a larger existing DjVu file. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) When using DOS command line mode, replace spaces with the underscore in the file name or enclose the file name in (") quotes.
 * My DOS handles long-file names without the need for quotes or underscores. This is probably a local setting or something in Windoze.
 * 1) djvm.exe is a bit quirky may not perform the task properly on the first try. One must check the results in GUI before proceeding.
 * Yes, large files of mixed base dimensions and or resolutions take longer because it assumes the first page's properties are pretty near the same as all the pages that follow it. This is why it is better to remove the GoggleBooks disclaimer front page before running any type of conversion to that PDF file; it is always 8½ × 11 inches and that is rarely the size of any book pre-1923 or not.-- George Orwell III (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, so it was the playoffs. "So many suspects, so few victims." [I am watching "Homicide: Life in the street", intermittently. Love police procedural shows. :-)] Everything you wrote is 100% correct. As or the text layer, pasting the text for two pages was not a problem, but will follow the correct procedure with the next batch of bad scans, which I am certain to find. Thanks for the comments. They make indispensable additions to the help page I am planning. — Ineuw talk 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup - today was the first day that the games ended a decent hour!!!


 * One more thing I just noticed - merging even two consecutive pages creates a bundled DjVu. Inserting a bundled DjVu into another bundled DjVu is not considered "healthy" for the file. Its best to insert pages one at a time at the same position of the bundled DjVu starting with the last replacement page first. This way, the main layout (or hidden Index file) is only dealing with a batch of nothing but indirect DjVu files and re-ordering its internals one at a time (same logic applies for deletion and that is why batch deletions can't be done from the command line either). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for the additional info. Makes perfect sense.— Ineuw talk 02:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Emancipation Proclamation
I tagged this work partly because the preliminary version has no stated source, making the page a mishmash of validated scans and a potential fidelity issue. It came to my attention via Featured text candidates. The 150th anniversary is in January 2013, so it would make a good FT for that month. It isn't technically eligible for that while the second-hand text is there (not without at least a textinfo template). Do you have a source for the preliminary version? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First, there is hardly ever a fidelity issue when it comes to United States legislation or executive instruments. on en.WS. Tarmstro99 has uploaded most of the Statutes at Large and I've uploaded a good chunk of Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The scans exist - the labor to transcribe it all is what is missing. So the scan for Proclamation 93 (the September 22, 1862 issuance) can be found starting on ( 12 Stat. 1267 ).
 * Second, the previous issue with all this was the instance to use the popular name (The Emancipation Proclamation) to describe the two issuances in question, Proclamation 93 of September 22, 1862 amd Proclamation 95 of January 1, 1863. There is no such formal recognition nor subsequent compilation that ever uses the term Emancipation Proclamation for one, the other or both Proclamations. Being a site that deals with source texts and not popular or encyclopedic articles we would be in error if we used anything other than the original designations or the current designations...


 * Original --> Current
 * Proclamation of September 22, 1862 --> Proclamation 93
 * Proclamation of January 1, 1863 --> Proclamation 95
 * ... was my view and I believe it is the appropriate view for en.WS as well. Other folks insisted on going the mish-mosh of the two into one route (although they all scattered like rats on sinking ship when I asked to provide an official document and not a later reproduction titled the Emancipation Proclamation. Others begged to keep earlier drafts of the Proclamation(s) as that was the condition I found the content in by contributors who came well before I did.
 * All well and and good but not exactly well organized. Now - what exactly do you think we can do to fix all this? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought it might be part of what I think of as the "Classics Problem": texts that are so well known that no one can be bothered to proofread them for Wikisource. If I were doing this from scratch, I would just make it a disambiguation page.  I have made another edit which might work as a compromise and at least makes clear the these are two separate works.  It's a little better although not perfect. The NARA engraved version might help as well. Feel free to revert if this is not acceptable. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "Classics Problem" absolutely applies in this case. However, I should have made a clear caveat in the above that I wasn't exactly "a well versed sourcee" at that point in time either; I'm partly to blame for the existing mess. Disambig is the way to go here for several reasons, the first being that most are not made aware that 95 would not have easily come into existence without the 100 day "buffer" outlined and initiated in 93. And, as you may already know, Lincoln's cabinet was comprised mostly of his political rivals and this makes any drafts, revisions or copies given-to / attributed-to Secretary So-and-so rather important in the overall historical context. So I don't particularlly like the change knowing disambig would be the "correct" way to do this - though I absolutely agree, the "double" transclusion is a better way to clarify that two executive issuances are involved here. Also - I'm not sure what you mean by "NARA engraved version"? The images for Proclamation 95 do come from NARA (see File: info) and is considered the the "official" version & the original final text. NARA has not provided Proclamation 93's pages in the same manner as 95 was so that is why we must turn to the compilation (annual Statutes at Large, Volume 12) to get that content (though I'd loathe to include the sidenotes in that instance personally). Plus, if I recall correctly, the NARA text and the SaL text matched for Proclamation 95 in case it matters somehow re: fidelity. I will try to make a PDF out of the NY Library's images of Sec. Seward's edits to Lincoln's draft shortly. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * By "NARA engraved version" I mean Index:EmancipationProclamation.jpg. It was one of the images included on the page. According to the file page it was a year later in New York.  I thought having multiple printings of the proclamation would reinforce the disambiguation page.  I have to extract the framing image before transcluding it, however (I've downloaded it; I just need to work on it). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh OK... but to be clear - versions like that were sold as souvenirs by 3rd parties (yes, sometimes by famous publishers/engravers of the day) to celebrate or commemorate the Proclamation(s) and what it meant to freeing the slaves, the Civil War and the like. By all measure, some of these reproductions are nice to have and even historically notable but I wouldn't go overboard in hosting them all. Remember -- the only official images have the Great Seal of the United States affixed w/ full signatures while the official drafts have only placeholders for one, the other or both. Proclamation 95 is transcribed from the 'seal-affixed' NARA copy. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Your notes on PSM Index for Volume 3 and the source for the scans
Hi. Just noticed your comments ON THIS PAGE. User:Mattwj2002 used Internet Archive as his source where multiple copies of the same volumes exist, but never Google, except our recent conversion of Volume 75 from PDF. Also, he never used the Houdini Collection.

This was his source for Popular Science Monthly Volume 3 and this page was used as the link to IA sources of all volume, and which matched Matt's list, with the exception of Volume 75 My image uploads of the .JP2 packages were from the same list. — Ineuw talk 00:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well that was posted awhile ago to aid me in understanding why there were missing indirect djvu file number sequences before I went about repairing the source file (see File: history) & I'm not familiar with Matt's work either. The source file was missing a page and had some duplicates. The link to Google was for comparison reasons only. I could have used one more specific to the original upload (i.e. the N.Y. Public Library version) but at the time it was about verification that no other pages were missing and any version would do for that purpose. The end result was that I could not explain the gaps in the sequential indirect djvu file numbering because other online versions pretty much followed what we already knew & had uploaded. I will delete the talk page in a bit.
 * Nevertheless, it seems you need to come terms with a simple fact - at the core, ITS ALL GOOGLE!!!! Even the Microsoft works come from the program setup between libraries & universities and the Google Digitization initiative. Sure cover pages may differ; the watermarks may differ; page backgrounds may differ; procedures may vary slightly; but little else is different about an IA work from the GoogleBooks hosted version(s). IA primarily serves as simple legal workaround to the editions blocked by GoogleBooks for a user's location vs. possible copyright protections in the originating country. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your notes. I only mentioned this to save you precious time when you come across a PSM anomaly. In the case of PSM, it may be a time saver if you post a message to me. If I contributed nothing else to WS, at least I've done a lot of research to understand this project technically, and the subject of corporate contributions and their influence on the process and the hosting of PD materials on IA & elsewhere. Last summer I had an unexpected (and an eye opening) opportunity to talk to someone who is connected to Internet Archive and Creative Commons, whereby I was enlightened to the realities of Public Domain materials and their dependence on Internet giants, MS and Google, etc. — Ineuw talk 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

the adding of id
You know my slowness with some components of html, however, I see that you are naming many of the divs, etc. Is this now to be an expected practice? Is there simple guidance? We have enough practice to probably consider some guidance at Help:Building templates to sit beside Help:Templates where some of our more common practice and naming conventions can be stored. Thoughts? — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I do it out of habit more than anything else because that was the way I was taught to write hyper-text. I left them in place in case (See Hesperian's talk page, WS:Sandbox) my edits today turn out to be unacceptable or need further tweaking. When reviewing raw html, ids help identify one thing from another without having to sort through the [repetative] content at the same time is all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:The Exploration of Australia - Calvert - 1896.djvu
Are you able to download this? I have tried repeatedly over months using various user agents, and I always get only the first 9.9Mb. (I have just grabbed it in full from IA instead} Hesperian 11:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm wrong, this is something new. If I try to download /anything/ I get chopped at 10Mb. Either something is wrong with MediaWiki, or I am getting throttled as punishment for the ludicrous number of DjVu files I have downloaded in the past few months. Hesperian 11:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ???? Didn't I replace this already with a DjVu converted from a fresh GoogleBooks PDF back in August???? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you did. It turns out my problem has nothing to do with this file. Any attempt to download from Wikimedia a DjVu file bigger than 10Mb dies at 10Mb. But only from a certain one of my computers. I think Wikimedia might be throttling me. Is that any way to treat a friend?! Hesperian 23:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh OK. 'no worries' then.
 * As far your downloading troubles go keep in mind we've been "upgraded" to wmf1.21 a day or two ago. My bet is that your problem(s) are tied to something to do with that & not so much your activity. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I make a subtitle?
When I added this line to the header of The Swedish Match, it did not show up on the page:


 * subtitle = (The Story of a Crime)

Sociophilosophy (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You can go two different routes here...


 * section = (The Story of a Crime)


 * or...


 * title = Title  (The Story of a Crime)

-- George Orwell III (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Un-protect pages Darkness and Lights
The pages Darkness and Lights are still "protected" - can you un-protect them, so I can create disambigs... Thanks Sociophilosophy (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ - sorry about that -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Federalist &co.
On Hesperian's talk page, I see that you know something of the current problems with Dawson, Ford, etc., and linking the versions of the Federalist papers. I am running into a related issue in that I have been transcribing Index:President Jackson's Proclamation against Nullification.djvu, a presidential proclamation that already links to a redirect, and thereby to an existing (but different) version. The extant version seems to be a much later reprint, while mine seems to have been issued in 1832.

Now, my difficulty is that I have no idea how to disentangle the several current redirects and such to provide for (a) disambiguation of the versions, (b) a place to transclude my work, while (c) not breaking any desirable links from other works. Can you help? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems like another instance of the "classics problem" much like the Emancipation Proclamation discussion somewhere above. The problem is that there are only 2 "official" versions of any proclamation of that era 1.) the one with the Graet Seal of the United States along with the signatures at the end and 2.) the prima facie evidence of such a proclamation reproduced in the annual Statutes at Large compilation of laws and executive instruments ( in this case found starting on 11 Stat. 771 ). Everything else is not considered "official" but "horatory" or "celebratory" at best.


 * My feelings are only the official versions should carry the official designations and everything else should exist seperate from the official version and be listed on a disambiguation page under some other title reflecting their origin, etc.


 * In order to accomplish the needed disambiguation in this case, the Statutes at large version probably should be transcluded under Proclamation 43 but the fact that somebody had created the Proclamation prior to the creation of the Statutes at Large project makes it hard to just replace existing works without the possibility of making original editors "mad" (the classics problem). If you are willing to do the work then I am more than willing to support the changes using the above outlined rationale as the justification. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * While I am willing to do the work, my plea for help comes from the fact that I really don't know where to begin or what to do about the issue. Without knowing what to do, my desire to do the work is hardly going to get anything done! --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now you've lost me - you're not familar with what a disambiguation page is and does? -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know what a disambig page is, and what a versions page should look like. The problem is that I do not know which of several possible names to use for the page, or what locations of existing documents should be changed (if any), or which of the many existing redirects should point where, or under what title to create the transcluded copy of the particular printing that I'm working from. To see a bit of what I mean, follow the existing link to the document found at Index:President Jackson's Proclamation against Nullification.djvu (which is not the one I'm working on!) and check "What links here".  There's a Gordian knot there that I don't know how to unravel. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (Sorry for the late reply).

OK now I follow you. The way I see it Proclamation Respecting the Nullifying Laws of South Carolina should be the disambig page. That is title given to the proclamation in the Statutes at Large and the United States Code says the SaL is to be used as prima facie evidence of the originals. Everything else should redirect to that disambig page that is not transcluded from hard scans that we are currently hosting; those transclusions from hard scans should be listed on on that disambig page. So in general, the layout should be shomething like this


 * Proclamation Respecting the Nullifying Laws of South Carolina (disambig title page)
 * Proclamation 43 (from 11 Stat. 771) (mainspace page)
 * Proclamation of December 10, 1832 redirect to the above
 * Proclamation 43 of December 10, 1832 redirect to the above
 * President Jackson's Proclamation, 1832 ( from Ford's edition of the The Federalist.) (mainspace page)
 * President Jackson's Proclamation against the Nullification Ordinance of South Carolina (from the Library of Congress) (mainspace page)

... and I'm pretty sure I'm missing one or two other instances being transcluded to the mainspace. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. But, shouldn't the main entry be a versions page rather than a disambiguation page?  I thought that disambig pages were used to distinguish different works with the same or similar titles, while version pages were for different versions or editions of essentially the same work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure - seems right now that I slow down a bit and think it through. The naming might vary but the content is pretty much the same for each so versions would be more appropriate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about transclusion of United States Reports
Hi, can I direct your attention to a question on User talk:Mariewalton about transclusion? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Boy, there's allot to like & allot that needs tweaking for that one. I won't have the time required for all that until maybe mid-next week. I say transclude some cases and see what develops on its own until then. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Proofread issue
Hi George. Do you know if someone report [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Historical_Essays_and_Studies.djvu/156&oldid=4098762 this bug]? The last line should not generate a new paragraph. I know we can "fix" removing the breaklines, but I'd like to keep them to make easier the revision process. Giro720 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a known, ongoing issue. The only way I know of to defeat this without actually messing with the content in the textarea box is to add a hard return and then the tag on the next line in the footer box. See my edit diff to the page you linked above in case I'm not being clear enough here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Giro720 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To note that it does not affect the transclusion process where the issue disappears. Alternatively, if it does upset your sensibilities, then in the footer field of the Index page, you could put in <tt>&amp;#10;</tt> before the references tag, and that is the unicode for line feed, which will automatically apply the result. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

With the loss of MW native support of &amp;nbsp; ...
With the loss of these characters being natively supported by MW the browsers will still continue to support these characters, and one would think that would be for a long time, probably forever.
 * What makes you say this? For every HTML defined character I input in the edit box, it becomes changed to its unicode symbol or hexidecimal equivalent once saved in the underlying HTML regardless. Its a waste of resources imo and promotes a fork in the approach to compliant editing. Better to rip the band-aid straight off and deal with the sting sooner rather than later. - George Orwell III (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That said, I am wondering whether we can still have a few smart templates. Something like &#123;&#123;&amp;deg;&#125;&#125; that may have in the heart of it the code for degrees (whatever it is) or preferably the unicode symbol. I would think that it would even be possible to have it so that the template safesubst so it just disappears, alternatively just run a bot through every so often to force them out. Othertimes it can mean that if we run the bot through pages, and find the old style code, we can just wrap it into curly brackets and zap it anyway. Slow but eventual process. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'd support something like that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Page:Love, A.E.H. - A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity (1920).djvu/contents-chapter-start
Hello George,

Could you please undelete Page:Love, A.E.H. - A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity (1920).djvu/contents-chapter-start, or suggest an alternative naming scheme for templates specifically for pages within this djvu file?

Thanks. Valhallasw (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Maybe you're not familar with the Page & Index namespaces after all - I had thought your username was a familar one but I guess I was mistaken. Sorry about that.


 * We don't manually create pages in the Page: namespace for any soure file unless it is part of the 'pagelist' rundown found on the base Index: page (Index:Love,_A.E.H._-_A_treatise_on_the_mathematical_theory_of_elasticity_(1920).djvu in your case).


 * Not sure what you are trying to do since the pages containing the table of contents are already being transcluded to the main namespace (A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity) - its just not fully completed yet. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My name might be familiar from a different context - I'm new to wikisource, but not to wikimedia. My goal was to abstract away details from the contents Pages, by providing a template for the headers, as well as templates for the table header, table rows, etc. Templates are an obvious method to do this, and I thought it would be reasonable to put these templates close to the pages where they would be used. Should I just create them in the main Template: namespace, then? Valhallasw (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Still not quite following you. We have templates (too many imo actually) that handle all that. One set of those templates, a series that mimics a dotted table of contents row, is already in use there [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Love,_A.E.H._-_A_treatise_on_the_mathematical_theory_of_elasticity_(1920).djvu/14&action=edit]. Feel free to elaborate further.... -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstraction leads to consistency and better maintainability, which leads to increased quality. Templates are a way to do this. As a bonus, they make my life easier. These templates are fairly specific for this book (because they contain links, etc.), so the sensible place to store them - in my opinion - was in the under in the same page tree where they would be used. Apparently you do not agree, because you deleted the page. As I asked before: what would be the preferred place for these templates instead? Valhallasw (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahhh OK. The simple answer is to create all templates on wiksource in the Template namespace regardless of how much usage they get. The point is that the Page namespace is not set for subpages so what you think is a folder and sub file...
 * Page:Love, A.E.H. - A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity (1920).djvu/
 * contents-chapter-start
 * ... is really ... just a file
 * Page:Love, A.E.H. - A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity (1920).djvu/contents-chapter-start
 * -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, perfect. Thanks for your help! Valhallasw (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

min-width and HTML 5
Hello.

I bow to your greater knowledge regarding this. Damn, I thought I was being so careful and doing the right thing making the substitution, and was wondering why undefined was coded like that! Pardon my gaffe.
 * Its a recent thing. See changes per http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/HTML5#Avoid_HTML_named_entities I see no reason to skip around applying one form over the other - especially in a template. &amp;nbsp; gets switched automatically regardless to &amp;#160; so I say why hold on to the outdated modes for no good reason?

Seriously can you recommend a HTML'5 reference? My old-faithful O'Reilley 3rd edition predates Y2K! MODCHK (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I could. W3.org is the place where the latest revisions are pumped out from but they do a poor job of comparing and contrasting the differences/changes between 4 & 5. I've tried to refresh myself from there but I'm slowly coming to the realization I never really had a full grasp of the principles of 5 to begin with. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding W3.org: my experience entirely. I was thinking I was just too stupid/unpracticed, but if it is your experience as well... And thank you for the entities-not-in-the-DTD's issue heads up too.


 * Billinghust has just noted an [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Min-width/doc&diff=prev&oldid=4111521 undesirable fragility] in min-width as I had written it, so maybe it is simply a bad idea anyway? I am about to write to him directly, but would you please be so kind as to have a look in as well? MODCHK (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure... I'll take a look a bit later. Not exactly sure what a fixed right margin means exactly though :( -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 15.djvu
Diverman somehow indicates that there is something at vol. 15 but I don't get image. We have some problematic pages in our version. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a 2001 reprint of Volume 15 (July 1888). Its only partial view however so the best that can happen there is a page by page scrap from the html displayed pages available. Do want me to dig through Google for a full version instead? -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, re: vol. 15 I see the book cover which is a burgundy wine color and I can scroll through the pages. &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 14:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah but that is not as good as downloading the whole book or seeing all the pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow - talk about a hard volume to find! Google (USA) does not have a full view version of Volume 15 it seems. The links follow just in case somebody in Canada, India, New Zealand and so on might have better luck on getting them to full-view/download...
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=ys25tgAACAAJ
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=LhNMewAACAAJ
 * I do have the ability to download the DNB Vol. 5 Reissue (1908) containing the content for original DNB volumes 13, 14 & 15 (1888) in case it matters. I added all that info along with the above links to the Index: talk page for volume 15. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Grrrr.... and what is wrong with http://archive.org/details/dictionaryofnati15stepuoft exactly??

Scratch the far above; the Archive.org entry has led me to full versions of vol. 15 (July 1888) on Google Books. Just let me know what you folks need done next - is the IA copy ok to trim to match our current index or not? If not, should I procede with the whole GooBoo download/conversion affair? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW... I trimmed the IA DjVu above to match the existing pages and re-uploaded it. All pages marked 'Problematic' for blurred scans should be OK now to PR (& validate). Not to beat a dead horse but.... if you uploaded something from IA, regardless of the original source being GooBoo or Microsoft at the time, some 4 or 5 years ago now - please Go Back and double check for updates/re-dos at one or both services. Even the original GooBoo version of vol 15 prior to the Microsoft replacement I just uploaded over it was cleaned up by Google in the 6 years since it was first added to IA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Original publisher damage and correction - Options?
Hi. I hope you are weathering the storm from a safe location.

I came across a problem of two pages originated from and then corrected by the publisher:

Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 54.djvu/119Corrected on:Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 54.djvu/121

Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 54.djvu/120Corrected on:Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 54.djvu/122

In addition, this volume contains 221 advertisement pages at the end of the volume which concerns me because I don't know if they are to be proofread. Personally, I will now skip them to save time so that I can progress, although I do have the original .JP2 files downloaded and saved for later.

Nevertheless, for the sake thoroughness and practice, I proceeded as follows: My need for guidance on how to proceed is why I am posting this:
 * 1) I checked IA and they have 3 copies - all containing the errors (naturally), but our present Commons copy has by far the best scan clarity.
 * 2) I downloaded our Commons copy and made additional copies. In one I removed the two damaged pages only.
 * 3) In a second copy, I wrote a batch file and removed all the 221 advertisements as well, (in reverse page order) but retained the blank end pages and the rear cover.
 * 4) I checked both versions using the Djvu GUI viewer and everything is fine.
 * 1) I can simply abandon the changes and continue with our original copy because nothing is missing and in the main ns we will just skip the two bad pages. This way I don't mess up the page order and lose a few proofreads which follow. (Although, this is not a big deal.)
 * 2) Use the version in which two pages with the error were removed. In this case, I am not sure if I have to upload to IA to generate a new text layer? (I am confused about this).
 * 3) Use the version in which both the two pages with the error and all the advertisements were removed. Also, in this case, I am not sure if it has to be uploads to IA for a new text layer.

Your guidance is very much appreciated and there is no hurry. I have numerous other matters to look after in the meanwhile.— Ineuw talk 17:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pressed for time, as you must know all thats gone down (& still unfolding) in NYC this week, but I'll keep checking in when I have time.


 * I'm skeptical that the original publication would handle Errata in such a slap-dash manner. Is there any other PSM example where errata is handled in this way? ... in another way? I'd like to see anything like that before movig forward here. My gut says the Errata would be added at the front or back matter - not placed over the related article start and then duplication made of the the offended pages. That is something the person scanning the pages themselves would seem to do; not the publisher.


 * As far as the adverts - I would have whacked them all and kept the end blanks plus back cover as well. That seems fine to me in this case. Text layers over-all are not affected by page deletions. Its when you save a page vs extracting a page to (re)insert it that a layer might drop (rare). At any rate, running individual pages against Any2Djvu.org online will easily apply a text layer if there is any doubt. You can Check any DjVu for a layer using the menu(s) in DjVuLibre in case its not clear if there is or isn't one present. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments and here are three different versions on IA.


 * Our Commons copy on IA.
 * A copy from the University of Toronto on IA
 * Google/Harvard U copy on IA


 * While we may never know for sure, I do have several valid reasons why it's an original. No other source would have had the original pages for replacement, except Appleton's. Not a library, nor IA. Especially IA would not have had that typeface of the ERRATA, as it looks ancient. Also, Appleton's printed several differently compiled versions of their volumes as seen by various IA uploads listed here. Finally, I do have a couple of pages with an original pink errata note with a similar typeface, but they dealt with a paragraph corrections referred to a previous month. I just have to find it.— Ineuw talk 19:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I've been given a more plausible scenario by a friend who was displaced last night & caught my exchanges with you in the interim....


 * She said to think of the Errata slip as a modern day subscription card shoved into the binding between pages of any modern magazine - you know - the kind with a preforation for ease of removal by tearing it out. Now that would make more sense to me than the printer making a mess by duplicating pages or whatever and having them placed into the binding. The reason scan pages 110 and 111 are duplicated is because the person doing scanning had no other way to show this smaller-than-a-regular-page "postcard" insertion other than laying the back (blank) flat against 111 (obscuring the middle text of 111) and vise-versa (to indicate where & what article the Errata info pertained to) for 110. In light of this - and if you accept the premise - I don't think you need to remove anything and handle it like you said in the final transclusion. The left-right page progression remains intact before and after this blip as well. Of course a note explaing as much would avoid any future 'Problematic' noids from possibly creeping in and raising the same concerns in the future, ruining the PR status for no good reason in the process. At the same time it might be eaasier to understand if 110 without was followed by 110 with, then 111 with and finally 111 without instead of the progression in place now - but that is totally up to you and how well & where you make note of this nuance I guess. In any case - Pretty Sweet huh? :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense and I will leave things as they are, including the Ads at the end. Sometimes in the future, I will clean and upload them but not now. Thanks for the advise.— Ineuw talk 03:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Formatting template for Wikiquote
Hi there George, hope you're doing well!

I wonder if you could help me out with a formatting template question over at Wikiquote. Please see this comment. Is there a template we can use from either Wikipedia or Wikisource, with this in mind?

Thanks for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "We've" started down the road to make this somewhat possible already. Stuff from U.S. Reports volumes13 thru 499 pretty much work by citation already via a redirect ( 280 U.S. 396 from your talk page example does exist here on en.WS ) so on wikiquote all you'd need is  to land there. The problem is either the page numbers within the case opinion need to be added/anchored manually at the appropriate points within the content or the need to utilize the proofreading system to transcribe scans of the volume(s) where the corresponding page numbers/anchors will ultimately come up in the mainspace automatically upon transclusion. The other underlying issue here is that interest has dropped off in this area and many more hands are needed to accomplish one working form of an anchored link or the other for supreme court case opinions that we host (not to mention adding the other 60 or 70 missing volumes themselves).-- George Orwell III (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the page numbers are as important as the cases themselves, so that's very helpful, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Updated index data import function
I have updated the javascript file that allows for the population of the Index pages with data from the book template at Commons. The translation file doesn't have all the fields in the Index template (yet). If I get a chance in the next couple of weeks, I will try to get around to turn this into a gadget. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

DNB Volume 25
DNB V25 upload successful — Ineuw talk 15:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Vested saga
Hi there... just saw the note on the Yogi book. Seems like it's closed now, and I may have missed some of the questions, but... two cents I guess. At first I was surprised that Gutenberg had a book with a clear renewal, but then I saw the court case -- OK. Seems like the 9th Circuit ruled that the copyright in the books did not vest, so there was no valid renewal. But, there could be some for contributions to periodicals -- that's good to know, as publishers may then have the right to renew stuff in magazines even if not vested. But it would seem the 1946 book would fall under the no-vesting interpretation. The later court case did find that many copyrights did get transferred to the church, so I'd tread carefully with that person's works, but it would seem the initial book itself would be clear-cut. As for a 1951 edition with more material, yes that would have needed its own renewal, but that would only cover material newly published at the time. The copyright of the earlier material would not be affected. If the 1946 was was not properly renewed, but the 1951 additions were, then just those additions would remain under copyright, but that cannot be a claim over any previously published material. Likewise, it would be theoretically possible for the 1946 stuff to be renewed, but not the 1951 stuff -- in that case, the additions would have become PD but the original would not be. From the looks of it, the earlier edition would seem to be fine to host, modulo any other criteria (i.e. completeness). But, seems like it's moot now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, all that was over a single chapter. They tried to mix the fact that the chapter was from the 1951 edition whie we host only the 1946 edition in hopes we would strike it down as a copyright violation - making it seem that the entire 1951 edition was a copyvio to outsiders or whatever. I doubt the matter is closed; we are basically waiting to see if somebody uploads the entire 1951 edition or move to review the status of the existing 1946 edition. What I was hoping to pick your brain over is to see "what if" the court case didn't exist and I think you touched on that. We know the 1946 edition was registered in 1946, author died in 1952, was renewed in 1974 (before the 1976 copyright act) so the book being in its first renewal term until 2002 and considering the author's death date, it is impossible for the rights to be vested to anyone other than direct family (none) at this point in time. Am I right about that & the no need for the court case to even come up as far as the 1946 edition goes?... or is the first renewal term extended to 56 years by the 1976 act?...or was the 1974 renewal moot to begin with either way; the rights could not have been legally vested to anyone save the author's immediate family in 1974?


 * The problem with the 1951 edition is that there is no indication, as far as I can tell, of any additional registration for any changes to chapters 1 thru 48 and the addition of Chapter 49 made in the catalog of copyright entries 1951/52. I'm not willing to entertain another long drawn out debate over the 1951 edition if nobody can show that it was properly registered in the first place if & when it gets uploaded if I don't have to! -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the vesting rule, any promises made by the original author are null and void upon his death prior to the renewal term starting (or per a recent ruling, before the date the renewal is actually filed). The publishers would have to re-obtain the rights from the estate or heirs in order to have any renewal interest.  It appears that never happened, so there was no valid renewal in 1974, and the book became PD on January 1, 1975 (or perhaps the 28th anniversary of publication -- forget when that rule was changed), and that is that.  Nothing afterwards revived it.  As for the 1976 Act... I don't think that changed anything in respect to the vesting rule for anything published prior to 1978.  Those still had a 28-term to be renewed.  The 1992 law of course did change things, since renewals were no longer required, so 1964 and later works are still under copyright regardless (if they had copyright notices).  The vesting stuff still matters for those 1964-1978 works, but it simply becomes a matter of which party owns the copyright -- nothing from that period can become PD due to the vesting stuff.  The 1998 law which extended copyright another 20 years (creating an extended renewal term) I don't think changed things either -- I don't think it created any new vesting threshold, and the initial 28-year threshold remained the same.  If renewal rights were transferred, they remained transferred for that 20-year period, for the most part (though there were some new rules which allowed authors to try to reclaim the rights if they follow a particular procedure if the work is beyond 56 years from publication).   In general the problem of determining if a party re-obtained rights after an author's death is a thorny one, and one where lack of evidence might usually lead us to delete anyways where we see a seemingly valid renewal.  But, the court case cleared up that aspect in this situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Overall, I assumed as much - but you've helped break my leanings down into even further detail and that will help if & when the time comes for it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As for 1951, works never had to be *registered* to have copyright, at least for the first 28 years -- they only had to be published with copyright notice. So, lack of registration is not indicative of anything.  The big thing would be to see if the additional work was *renewed* in 1978 or 1979 (and those records should be online at www.copyright.gov).  And, of course, if that renewal was done by someone who had a renewal interest. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the whole point of finalizing the Chapter 49 argument by deleting it as an excerpt of a larger, incomplete & un-hosted work rather than as a CopyVio was to put the ball into the other side's court. I made it clear scans were prefered to another copy & paste when it came to the 1951 edition just for supporting the copyright notice (or lack thereof) point. Searching the Copyright.gov records will have to wait until the site is back up after this holiday weekend it seems. And when I get some real free time, I'm planning on researching the court case(s) further to see if I can't put any of the lower court rulings into better perspective with the 2000 ruling as well. Many thanks once more & until the round; Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__

A pair of pdfs that need some clean-up
Hi George, Index:Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico) Vol. I Part 1 i-276.pdf & Index:Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico) Vol. I Part 1 277-end.pdf are two parts of the same work. They've been downloaded from Hathi Trust, and the Hathi Trust junk text is still on the bottom of every page. Is this something you can sort out, or should I just get Mpaa to run a bot over the pages? The OCR looks reasonable except for the double linefeeds on every line, so I'm not sure whether we need to send it off to IA as well, although I think it would be better to have single file. Your advice as always would be appreciated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a stab over the weekend. I don't know what Mpaa can do for the files - the PDF text layer(s) are not the same as the ones found in DjVu's. No harm in asking him in the interim I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant that the Hathi junk is at the bottom of every page of the OCR in the Page namespace. As it's the same text I wondered about asking him to just delete it, and let Frglz get on with proofreading (assuming we would leave the files as PDF). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is the same, which would be a first for me - usually a running timestamp is involved - then you can go that route to create the page and then have a bot remove the unwanted duplicated Hathi text. You then probably keep the watermarks in the thumbnails as well as the bloated Hathi margins in the process. If that is acceptable, then by all means proceed down that road with Mpaa. The soonest I can give it the attention I think is needed would be over the weekend at the earliest (no guarantees). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right (of course). I hadn't looked that closely. I don't think that Frglz is any hurry as he's finding his way around the complexities of Fieldiana copyrights for another couple of papers. And given that we're volunteers I decline to put pressure (or deadlines) on anyone in this community. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I can remove the double line feed and "Generated on 2012-11-03 04:57 GMT … #pd-google" before creating the page and then create the page. So only ne swept will be needed. I’ll keep an eye here. Just let me know if you want me to go ahead and if you want to merge the files or not before moving on. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mpaa - I've tried at different times today to download or open one or both file with no luck. It keeps droping the file @ around 4M out of ~70M. I'll try some more this weekend but stay tuned with that script just in case. PDFFill pdf tools won't open them either, otherwise I'd just try to crop the margins so the watermarks and timestamp get cut out in the process. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Index with a couple of pages out of order
Hi, Index:Air Service Boys Flying for Victory.djvu has somehow got a pair of pages out of order. I've moved onto other things and will leave it until you or someone else has got time to disentangle. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - like the discussion just above; attempts to download from Commons still failed at about 3Mbs into the download. I downloaded the original from IA instead, made the fixes and re-uploaded the file over the original on Commons - no problem. Go figure (it must be me and a recent #*!%$ Windows Update or something). I cannot do the same for the above PDFs since they are pulled compilations from HathiTrust and not single source files (like GoogleBooks which also works just fine). Any chance of a 3rd party hosting site??... or wait until this problem clears up I'm afraid. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just tried to find an alternate version of the snails, but Google books will only show me Vol 2 part 2 and won't let me look in detail at any of the other covers in the series to try and find Vol 1 part 1. Guess we'll have to wait. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes appearing under bottom nav bar in Main
Using the "header=1" transclusion method ( <pages index="A Book.djvu" from=1 to=2 header=1 /> ), footnotes appear below the bottom navigation bar in the Mainspace ([//en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Kernel_and_the_Husk/Imagination_and_Reason#cite_note-1 see]). This doesn't seem desirable. Is that something that can be tweaked somehow? I don't believe there has been any kind of consensus on this method of transclusion... It seems simple enough, and I have used it with one or two works already, but is not without its issues, and 'can't' (i.e., I couldn't figure out how) be used with certain works that are more 'complicated' and need flexibility... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by  below the bottom navigation bar? I see the footnote about 2 ems below the last line on Page 58 and about 1 em above where the cateogry bar always is - nothing that resembels a bar with anything to navigate to or from. Please elaborate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This happened to me yesterday as well in Eskimo Life/Chapter 14. By "bottom navigation bar" LJB means the blue bar with previous and next links that appears at the end of the text. I think tweaking/adjusting will be Tpt's work rather than ours. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not seeing anything like that (the old footer template I surmise) on that page either - though the left margin is way too over padded for some reason there. It probably won't go away because - just like the page-text shadow-highlight field doesn't select or park properly - dynamic layouts were rolled out prior to changes made in the server generated default skins since. Everything was lumnped together (page nums show/hide doesn't work; the shadow highlight thingy; layouts 1, 2 & 3, etc.) into one js to sell all the ideas as a package and now everything is askew for the same reason(s). I've went on and on about this several times already; nobody cared to support the separation and clean-up of DL features each time; so I stopped bothering to speak out about it - I just turned most of it off here locally. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

New DNB Volume 25 uploaded
Went back to the beginning, downloaded your original WS copy again and uploaded it to IA as Dictionary of National Biography (Volume 25). It's being processed as I write this. From the IA processing progress going on at this very moment, I know that my first upload is corrupted because I retraced my steps for the first upload (there is no room here for confessions). For future reference, we can replace that same upload with another copy, rather than a completely new one as I've done now. (I live & learn #1). Also, there is no field for the publication date and some other helpful info when uploading, only after all the formats are generated. (I live & learn #2). Currently, as it's being processed, I can look at the progress but otherwise, it's locked. — Ineuw talk 20:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Best news I've had all day! You da man! (or the lady! i forget). This means I can still get something done (albeit 3 weeks later) before tomorrow is lost on stuff n' stuffing. Have a Happy. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's uploaded to the Commons, but it's best if you take it from there just to prevent me from more screwing up, and Ineuw is a man. Happy Thanksgiving from Canada. :-) — Ineuw talk 23:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get the file?
Curious where you got File:Gloss_on_The_lamentations_of_Jeremiah.pdf, I was in touch with the museum about jpegs but hadn't heard back from them (actually had some e-mail issues, they may have written). Did you simply scrape it and assemble the pdf or did you find it on their site? If you scraped it, could you upload the jpegs or point me to them? If they had a pdf on their site, could you point me to that? They want me to give thoughts on other works and I was having some brain lock when I tried to navigate their indices. Thanks - and thanks for uploading this.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Went to... http://art.thewalters.org/detail/19816/gloss-on-the-lamentations-of-jeremiah/ ...and hit the 'Download PDF' button at the very bottom of the page. "Brain lock" may be too light a term? -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL, paid no attention to those orange buttons, except to notice the Twitter link. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I screwed up another IA - Commons upload
Hi. Apologize for my slow learning process but messed up again as follows, and can't yet figure out where I've made the mistake.


 * 1) Downloaded the PDF copy of this IA version.
 * 2) Split the above PDF and inserted the two missing pages from this Google copy and merged the split, after which the PDF was fine.
 * 3) Uploaded the PDF under a new name and derived this new version.
 * 4) Uploaded the derived .djvu to the commons and created the Index:Vanity Fair 1848.djvu here on WS. Only, there is no text layer. :(.
 * 5) Can you please point to where I missed out on the process? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 01:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

.... from the notice at the top of your WatchList page:

New DjVu text layers not appearing


 * Text layers are not appearing for recently uploaded DjVu files when proofreading in the Page namespace. It is recommended that users not attempt to proofread affected files.  See Scriptorium and bug 42466 for details.

... so its not anything you did or anything I can verify at the moment either way. Same story with that DNB Vol. 25 we were struggling with in case you missed that discussion too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and yes, I rarely focus on the Scriptorium for distraction reasons but from now on, I will read the comments on my watch list. — Ineuw talk 04:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing OCR layers
[Excusing any error in terminology,] Volume 4 of Byron's Poetical Works is missing OCR layers on most if not all of the remaining to-be-proofread pages. I have no problem going to Google Books and copy/pasting the text onto each page (our OCR button option gives a poor rendering in this particular Index), but I was wondering if there was a different way (better? easier?) of 'grabbing' OCR without it impacting the already-proofread pages or creating too much work for anyone but myself. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why that happened - I know I inserted 2 missing pages and replaced some others (Nov. 9th) but that is no reason for the layer not to come through. Anyway, I don't know of any other way to do that but copy & paste as you suggested. I'd be curious to know if any of the pages not created yet do come up with a layer or are all of them affected. Please keep an eye out for that & let me know.
 * I don't recall the text turning up missing after you did the insert/replace, etc., but I just might not have noticed—and it might not even be related. If by "come up with a layer", you mean does text appear after clicking on the OCR button while in edit mode, the answer is yes; but it is a very poor layer riddled with errors, and would be easier to type it all in myself than correct all the OCR mistakes... The yet-to-be-proofread portion of Vol. IV consists of Byron's longer poetic works, which I don't necessarily plan on proofreading myself (I'm concentrating mostly on his shorter/individual pieces).  I just want to prep the unproofread pages so that when someone comes along who might want to tackle it, they won't look at the project dauntingly and say "forget it." [reading your "Diff. note" now] Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarify: look for a text-layer to pop into the edit window when you go to create a page for the first time under Edit mode (not via the OCR button). When text appears in the edit box automatically, it is the embedded text-layer dumped from the source file. When you hit the OCR button, a program tries to detect the text from the thumbnail of a scanned page and dumps the results into the edit box. This is never considered a text layer. The source file does not incorporate these results into itself even when you save/create the Page:. 'The OCR button never embeds text into a layer within a source file' is another way to put it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Curiosity questions for you now... So, in what situations can a text layer disappear where it once was present?
 * Once embedded into a file type that handles, for lack of a better term, multiple layers, such as PDF or DjVu, a text-layer can only be lost if forcefully removed from the source file by a user; by accidental or incidental corruption of the source file; or (as in our case) by a programing glitch in the main code that prevents it from appearing inspite of the fact a text-layer is indeed present in the source file.
 * And what is the process of getting it back once lost (can you?)?
 * I forcefully extract (or remove) embedded text-layers from certain DjVu files in order to edit/add them back into better quality or corrected DjVu files. This requires one or more downloads to my local drives and basically manual manipulation of the DjVuLibre software package. You cannot do this "online" with some file on Commons. The same principle holds true for PDF files though I haven't figured out how to do this yet on my own. A corrupted source file can be fixed in the same manner as above but any corruption of a source file typically goes beyond just the embedded text-layer so it is better to just replace/recreate the existing bad file with a known/new good one. In our latest bug, the text-layer is embedded just fine in the source file but some stupid upgrade to some yet to be found part of the main code is preventing the normal read & dump of the layer to the Page: namespace.
 * If some proofreading of an Index has already been done, would such text layer recovery affect the already-proofread pages? (My line of questioning is starting to be based on assumptions, so I'll stop here) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Since developers early on opted for a plain old read (the source-file text-layer) and dump (it as plain text to the Page: namespace) method, nothing you add, edit or save text-wise will ever change the text-layer in the source file. The interaction is one-way and rather stupid but I guess it was the best that could be done at the time. The sad part is that a more complex way of manipulating the text-layer was never fully developed. That variant would allow for many more on-the fly features (positioning using coordinates instead of just left, right & center) while cutting down on the amount of manual editing needed (A paragraph would be dumped as paragraph instead of one long run-on sentence) plus the ability for two-way transcription (you fix up the initial text dump of the layer like always but when you save it the changes are also saved in the source file -- and that is what other repositories and libraries are looking for). I'm afraid we're too far along on the plain & stupid path now that switching to the more complex variant would be hard to sell the community on. (I can still dream though) -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (Keep in mind my naivete when you read this question) What library, or repository (of whatever), in the world would have the most at stake in utilizing a more "complex variant"? and what process of transcription, etc. would/do they use? I was looking to see what the LOC had to offer, and some of their instructional documents are dated in the 90's... Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most entities with a digital (or online) presence (HathiTrust, universities like Stanford, Harvard, etc.) would be interested in validated text-layers produced with the more complex variant. As you know, even with "Dynamic Layouts, we struggle to properly scale and position images in relation to text & font-size all framed against a fixed screen area (or as some call it virtual paper). If the more complex coordinate mapping (think of this as points on the old x and y axis from your school days) was utilized, the scaling problem could be easily computated "up" or "down" for each numerical value. Basically, a validated complex text-layer is worth its weight in digital gold because it can be easily converted and manipulated into just about every document type ever created. To see the first 3 pages (page 2 is blank) of an experimental example of the more complex text-layer extraction using coordinate mapping points (not to mention post-spellchecked "WORD"s), see the scroll-box below. Note that areas of our digital page (3300 x 5400) can be allocated into Regions (for image floating) as well as [Page]columns (more than one column on a "page") as well as reflect Paragraphs, Lines and, of course, Words.

<div id="full" style="margin-left:2.5em; padding:0em; border:1px solid gray; width:700px; height:400px; overflow:auto;">
 * The above would be the interim info extracted from the source file and still needs to be parsed (here's where the wiki-developers stopped developing) before it can be viewed as 'Lines made up of individual Words all grouped as Paragraphs on virtual paper' but I think the premise is clear enough to better grasp now. The software involved to generate the point where an XML (the standard used in the above scroll-box) is created is the same as we use now - DjVuLibre. What is missing is the part that takes the XML and translates it (or dumps it) into something the Wikicode can present for viewing and/or for further editing. You won't find much info on this because DjVu is not a popular file format being used by the virtual masses out there - PDFs are, and that whole other ball of wax - so nobody has made a (free) way to "do" what we're missing (yet; somebody needs to develop the rest is all). Also understand that the above complexities can be achieved with PDF files but that currently involves lots of licensed software ($$$) so we don't have-it/develop-it/use-it in the Wiki-world as other entities might.  Better? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My questions are now multiplying, but I'll try to keep them relative to what we do here when/if I ask (i.e., when I can phrase them somewhat coherently!). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Continued

 * So, the above scroll box shows the result of formatting (prob. wrong word)—whether spell-checked, 'proofread' or no—just like if you were to "View source", right? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above scroll-box is the "view-source" -like resulting output of executing one of the other files that comes with the DjVuLibre software package (DjVutoXML.exe) against any given .DjVu source file. It is meant to illustrate the difference in complexity compared to the output of DjVuDump.exe (or DjVuTxt.exe? I forget) which are also DjVuLibre packaged software pieces that are currently installed on our servers and used to "dump" the embedded text-layer to the Page: namespace when you go to create a page for the first time. I'm sure you are familar with that output already - plain text, no indentation, end-of line soft returns, etc., (plus if you saved it as is without editing, you would loose the paragraph ends and gain full line-wrapping continuity) - but I can whip one up or point you to an example if you can't visualize it for some reason right now. The nuance worth noting in the differnce between the two outputs is that the current text-layer extraction is nothing more than a one-step simple "dump" resulting process while the other (in the scroll-box above) is an interim-step in a more complex unfinished process that takes the embedded text-layer's standard format/content and converts it into something (specifically, an .XML file) that other existing [free] softare can manipulate still further once a "template like" definition file is applied against it. In watered-down terms, the result of applying predefined-actions crafted into a "template-like" process can, for example, result in the automated removal of all the <WORD> text wrapped in <LINE> tags found between opening and closing <PARAGRAPH> tags on a scanned page and present it for the first time in edit mode just as if you yourself had merged all the lines, added the end-of-line blank-space and double returned it at the end so upon your save, it all came up as a proper paragraph of text in view mode. This could mean, theoretically, the only thing you would have to "do" in ProofReading while using this imagined complex variant is to check & correct for errant characters before you save a page created for the first time -- and even that can be automatically programmed into the processing (i.e. run a spell-check on everything wrapped between <WORD> tags; if a hyphen appears as the last Character in the last <WORD> tag before a closing </LINE> tag, drop the hyphen, skip the addition of an end-of-line word-space and merge the content with the content wrapped in the first <WORD> tag found immediately after the next opening <LINE> tag). Of course the output will never be perfect (there are instances where a hyphenated phrase happens to split at the end of a line; & there will be words so corrupted from poor Optical Character Recognition that the spell-check will replace it with some other completely foreign word and so on) but I'd consider things like that minor irritations compared to what we go through now manually.  The point here was to better grasp the possibilities & what they involve (i.e the same thing - the DjVuLibre package), understand that our Wiki-developers opted for just a one-step dump early on in our history rather than continue to develop to completion a more complex interim-step scheme over time and illustrate how the first interim-step XML conversion could lead to even further automation of basic formatting in addition to the incorporation of neew features via other [free] 3rd party software. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You mention the "scaling problem"... Are you referring to screen size discrepancies between devices (where the setting of width, etc., can pose a problem)? Also, with regard to computating ('computing'?) 'up' or 'down' (if I understand what you mean,—and my next question will reveal whether or not I actually do), can you also not computate 'left' and 'right'?  If you have height="5400" width="3300", as well as WORD coordinates, would/could not a program use those parameters (right word?) and proportion them based on the type/size of device used?  How would that work?  Again, my thinking is all over the map, and being that there are many stages in the process, I haven't grasped it all yet...  Trying, out of curiosity, but not wanting to waste your time either.  Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "scaling problem" is two-fold. The most annoying and "least solved" by the further development of the above to its theoretical end concerns images. Images do not shrink and grow in relation not only to the page size (or view screen) in use, but to any of the other content that the image may share a page with. While the use of Coordinate Mapping to easily shrink or grow the proportion-relation of any [text] content to it's page size is, as you allude to, self-evident mathematics, doing the same with images that may share a page with other content would be hard to do under the current Wiki coding (its hard to do without all this extra theoretical mumbo-jumbo irregardless). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I broke your formatting; hope you don't mind. What is it about the current coding that makes images 'problem children'?  Another question about images: What is it about the command (right word?) 'frameless', etc., when placed within Image.jpg that reduces the image size?  Are they preset dimensions? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I come from a school where "breaking-in" is expected so its never an issue as far as I'm concerned; I can't speak for other folks, however. The only thing I ask is that you copy & paste the original signature & date of the comment in question back to the break-point (done). This courtesy varies from forum to forum but the overall reason to do something like that is to preserve the continuity and such of the discussion well enough that somebody else late to the discussion has a chance of following it as it original developed. Now, I'm not the most well-versed person around here when it comes to images but the way I understand the 'frameless' parameter is that it is no different than the 'thumb' parameter except that is prevents the caption & border from appearing. What most folks forget in all this is that the default size used by 'thumb' (and by extension, 'frameless'), is determined by the setting in one's user preferences; the default being 220px. Now that would mean an image larger than whatever a user has set for a default in their user preferences would be automatically shrunk down to that setting's size.  The way to get around this is documented but hardly ever applied around here for some reason (& personally - I think it should have been the mandatory syntax used both on the fly and in templates all along). So, to get your larger than the normal default (220px) image to display frameless and in its unaltered full size, you should use the syntax (not really a 'command' as you questioned in this case) <p style="text-indent:2em;"> Image.jpg   If your original image is the size of a school bus and want to reduce it into something a computer screen can handle, just force a size like usual. Example for forcing a 600px size: <p style="text-indent:2em;"> Image.jpg   The "problem" with forcing a size is that while the finished rendering may look just fine under your particular computer conditions, not everyone will have the same or similar enough settings to "see" exactly the same results you are seeing. This is primarily what I meant earlier about getting images to display in proportion to shared or surrounding content well enough for "everyone" being hard enough as it is just using the methods available under normal Wiki-coding never mind introducing the more complex variant into the equation on top of the same Wiki-code limitations. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The second problem I think you already have developed some insight into - all futhering it requires is the development of "math" formulas that automate the execution of pre-defined settings and/or parameters. So, if you have an original height="5400" & width="3300" for the full "virtual-paper" size, a set DPI (dots per inch) of 600 and a bunch of x-min, y-max, x-max, y-min coordinates for at least the <WORDS> in a <LINE> you can easily envision how computerized computation can determine not only appropriate font size to mimic the original proportions found in the original scanned [paper] page but also the means to extrapolate the values for margins, columns, tables, word spacing, line-heights, indentation, paragraph spacing and the like. If you look carefully at the   (x-min) for every first <WORD> located immediately after every opening <LINE> tag in the following....

<div id="full" style="margin-left:2.5em; padding:0em; border:1px solid gray; width:700px; height:200px; overflow:auto;">
 * ... you should realize they are all nearly the same (~'<tt>1986</tt>') except for the first <WORD> of the first <LINE> found wrapped between the two <PARAGRAPH> tags ('<tt>2060</tt>'). '<tt>1986</tt>' being the "lowest" starting-point of all the lines is, of course, the difference of some part of the total page-width resulting in what amounts to the left margin of the virtual page; the '<tt>2060</tt>' being the indent of the first word in the first line of a new paragraph. Look again at the above but now for the  (x-max) of the last <WORD> located just before the closing </LINE> tags. Same thing; they are all within a handful of points of each other, the "largest" being '<tt>3383</tt>' in this case. Except for the last line's value ('<tt>2257</tt>'), if you do the same math as before against the total width we'd have the right margin.  Take the "lowest" starting-point and the "largest" end-point of all the <LINE>s wrapped in a <PARAGRAPH> tag and viola! you have the <PARAGRAPH> width. Take the "lowest" starting-point and the "largest" end-point of all the <PARAGRAPH>s on any given page and viola!, you have the <REGION> width (not shown above) -- run some more math and we have <PAGECOLUMN> width (also not shown). More Math --> yeilds a completely centered <PAEGECOLUMN> with the approriate padding, if needed,, added by values defined in a <REGION> which contains multiple <PARAGRAPHS> in such a way that all the <LINE> (+line-spacing), <WORD> (+word-spacing) and similar nuances mimic the typeset (i.e. font-size) found in the original printing now scanned into a source file, all done Auto-Magic-ly.  I realize now the above may be too much to take in at once (I'll water it down if need be) but I hope my original sense from your reply was corrent in that that you already knew where the "math" could lead us once all the formulas taking the x & y XML info were worked out and implemented. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You could water it down for me, but then I'd be even more in the dark. I like the "fire for effect" approach; while I may not get everything you are relating, I have at least a better idea of things. So thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Different note
On a different note... I'm always checking and testing various "stuff" quietly in the background as you must already know. Starting with the upgrade that ruined text layers (the one before last) I noticed a major change in the way "mobile view" (acessed throuh the link at very bottom of the page on home computers) handles a lot of our "normal view" mainspace templates. I don't want to alarm you prematurely but it looks like most of the centering type of templates do not translate to actually centering anything in "mobile view". Until I get a better grasp of "mobile view" on an actual mobile device, I'm asking that you peek in on "mobile view" for any of the works you normally transclude to the mainspace and make mental notes of what works and what doesn't. No big deal (yet) but if it persists we might need to stop digging ourselves further into a template/compatibility hole. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll do some testing/comparison and give feedback, but I don't have any mobile devices myself,—just my home computer. I never even noticed the "Mobile view" link below; but that's not surprising... It took me a couple years to be told about availability of the "Watchlist" link above as opposed to receiving email alerts. I'm a slow learner... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a fact of life - folks today just are not buying desktops or laptops in the numbers they once did from just a couple of years ago; its all about smart-phones and tablets nowadays. That means there will come a day in the not so distant future where "mobile views" will overtake "normal views" as far as visitor traffic goes (contributing & editing will most likely remain "desktop" based). Keeping this reality in mind, it makes sense to start keeping an eye towards how well our finished works look in that view sooner rather than later. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)As a starting point, things seem generally to center fine in Mobile view for centering of text (can you see this?). Thumbnail images, however (see same link), no matter how you format their alignment, seem to automatically center no matter what.  The only thing that doesn't seem to center in Mobile view are regular images (i.e., not thumbs) with the centering 'command' within the transclusion formatting.  Right alignment (within image transclusion brackets) seems to work, however. And centering images works if you "force"-center the image with the centering formatting outside the brackets.  Hope I'm explaining myself okay.  If I'm missing anything test-wise, let me know... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. My initial inspection shows centering works best when a width value is present (and we know where that road leads). I look at it some more later.


 * P.S. If you find me not using correct terminology, please let me know the right way of saying something. Thanks for your description of how OCR layers work; I wanted to ask for details, but waited to see if you would elaborate first... and you did... It'll take me a few to digest it.  Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets clear up one thing - OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software is but one means to create a text layer. Additional software is used to embed that text layer into file types that accept a predefined standard for text-layers such as PDFs and DjVus. Expensive OCR programs have numerous predefined routines based on tedious trial and error over time in addition to the ability to customize paramaters for near perfect results. The freeware-ish stuff we are exposed to online is severly less than that. Of course the quality of the image or scan makes the largest difference either way. The point here is that OCR is but one way to generate a text layer. Other software is used to embed or extract text-layers from source files. So technically 'OCR layers' is not a proper term. The proper ways to describe what we deal with are...
 * an embedded text-layer generated via OCR
 * a hidden text-layer generated via OCR
 * a text-layer via OCR
 * OCR generated text-layer
 * ... and the like. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the above. I need [technical] things spelled out. I'm printing it all out for later absorption. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yogananda
Hello George Orwell, I noticed you linked [//en.wikisource.org/wiki/Self_Realization_v._Ananda_Church one of the court documents] to the author page - please link this [//en.wikisource.org/wiki/US_District_Court_Jury_Verdict_SRF_v_Ananda_2002  final jury verdict] as well

- Thank you - I would but don't know how. Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again,
 * I'd gladly do that but I'm not sure there is an appropriate place in the document that makes sense to in-line link to that other document. It seems like the closest match would be in the 'Conclusion' section under the phrase "... remand for further proceedings..." but the other document is only the result (verdict) of the "further proceedings"; not the transcript of the proceedings itself. Plus, its so close to the 'See Also' section where the link is already given that I'm not sure it wouldn't be considered redundant. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what you mean. I added the link to the final jury verdict to above the document under the link to the actual 2000 court document to be sure the reader sees the full litigation. Thanks! Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum
Greetings! Thanks for using our materials and transcribing them. We have a lot of documents posted at Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, and we are planning to upload more. Are there any tips you might share with me to make future uploads more useful to you and Wikisource? Bdcousineau (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken a quick look and (at face value) the uploading as PDFs are just fine by "us" but if you can strive to reduce or crop the amount of extra white-space per page that would be better for final rendering as well as for the thumbnails generated in our ProofReading process.
 * In some cases It looks like they took the original 8½ × 11 page of content with its own margins when it was first created, reduced the overall scan size, then applied the scan back to a full sized PDF page for some reason. Too much whitespace means less content space to accurately zoom-in on when a document scan was blurred or smudged.
 * Anyway, the point is to reproduce the original paper version as best & as closest as posible electronically and that's all we really require. It would be helpful if the PDFs had their own embedded plain-text layers of the scanned page text in place already but as long the scanned documente is complete, crisp and clearly reflects the original formatting, anyone interested should be able to transcribe & proofread them given the effort needed from there without it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, does that first copyright page bother you? We have considered removing it – it is not part of the historic record, it was added during the scanning. You can find me over at Wikimedia Commons. Best, Bdcousineau (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't neccessarily need to delete it (we can leave it out in final mainspace transclusion for example) but it might be better to move them to the last page so an 7 page document + 1 page copyright disclaimer isn't eventually transcluded by ommiting the first page (i.e. 2 thru 8 instead of just 1 thru 7) giving the impression of a larger than actual page count to the unwitting.
 * There is so much stuff on my plate as it is that I won't be able to give these the attention they deserve for some time yet to come but feel free to reach out to me with any other questions you might have in the interim. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your time and comments. I hope to have "Wikipedian-in-Residence" in place in January 2013, who may reach out to you again. Have a great day. Bdcousineau (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Index:Dictionary of Greek ...
Hi. Even if I doubt that someone will ever proofread this … I noticed that: 1. D54 has partial text layer, 2. from D55 onwards, text layer and images are out of synch (text displayed in D00n belongs to D00(n-1)). I tried to check the djvu extracting the text layer, and page 54 looks OK. Something is fishy. Either something wrong with the file or with the way text is pulled out of it (wild guess: maybe some special character is confusing the extension?). I wouldn’t know how to tackle this but might be worth while at least checking the reason. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Two things to check come to mind off the top my head...

<ol> <li> DjVu files have an "outline". The quick way to get this is from the DjVuLibre DjVuView GUI's menu bar --> Edit --> 'Copy Outline'. Look it over to see if an indirect djvu file name is repeated 2x and/or skips somehow from the logical contiguous numbering scheme being used. If say a "double-entry" exists, I've seen this throw off the layer to thumbnail marriages before. You'd then need to use DjVused.exe to properly extract, repair and merge the outline in the DjVu file.
 * I could not find your command. What I did is looking into: DjView->View->Information but could not find any double or missing entry in the sequence.

</li> <li> If you extracted the text-layer to a .txt file using DjVused.exe, run a 'find' against it using <tt>page 0 0 </tt> (thats the word page, space, zero, space, zero, space). Make sure any resulting hits are not located anywhere in the bulk of a page's content but are only being found at the very begining of each page as the 1st line immediately under the "set-txt" if at all. If you find one in the bulk of the content - its splitting a page in half. </li> </ol>
 * I see something like this, but no "set-txt", with a pattern of this kind.


 * This is where the text is lost (bold is in page 54, the rest is gone)


 * .... but even before the above - what happens when you try to merge the extracted layer back over the existing layer? If it succeeds then its unlikely to be a text-layer formatting issue. If it fails - we know for sure something is corrupted somewhere and move to doing the aboe two steps. (REMEMBER to make a copy of the file before you start experimenting just in case). Let me know - I won't have the time to look myself until later tonight. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not tried this as I wouldn’t know how to verify I succeeded or not. As I currently cannot judge the current content, I wouldn’t know how to judge the new one :-(.
 * I think this is going beyond my (basic) knowledge of djvulibre and djvu. It is OK if you do not have time to look into it. On my side I think I’ll drop the subject soon. I gave a try but I feel I will not be able to quickly converge to a solution with my current knowledge.--Mpaa (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * quick reply --> try the text layer reinsertion after you back up the original. The program will either give you an error and some error codes or finish quietly back to a normal command prompt. I'll address the 2 snippets you gave above in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hold on - I think you're not dumping the text to the "right" file or worse watching it scroll by.
 * To extract the layer from a DjVu file -- from a command line within the DjVuLibre folder type
 * <tt> djvused stupid.djvu -e 'output-txt' > stupid.txt </tt>
 * To re-insert the layer to a DjVu file -- from a command line within the DjVuLibre folder type
 * <tt> djvused stupid.djvu -f stupid.txt -s </tt>


 * I got this error:


 * The DjVu file should be in the DjVuLibre folder. Stupid .txt will be created in that folder as well........ and find the preference menu to turn on all the pop-down menus etc. in the DjView GUI appelate, -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Tsk... an 83Mb DjVu file uploaded by a member of the "wishful thinking cartel"? You are a funny guy.

Save yourself the grief -- Either spend the time to re-run OCR verification on it via Any2DjVu.org in your background to see if the file can be healed that way or nominate it for deletion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

....and in case you ever get "there", this is what I think should fix the page 54 section you pasted above


 * Hi. I think I give up and leave this to "the wishful thinker".--Mpaa (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's too bad because you already searched for and found that error point earlier; look at your topmost copy & paste above --> page 0 0 2008 3334 (same coordinates as in the later error message.
 * You can only have one set of "page" coordinates between "select" actions

<tt>select whateverstupidlonginternalnameIAused_0053.djvu</tt> <tt> (Page.... </tt> >>Snip<<

<tt>select whateverstupidlonginternalnameIAused_0054.djvu</tt>


 * ... you have at least one instance of 2 "page" s in one selected "section". You should also understand that the parenthesis all throughout the layer kind of act like the opening and closing tags for any defined element found in HTML. This type of syntax error is sorta like when you leave off the closing DIV tag or something and everything after that point got formatted by accident in the process after you saved the edit window.
 * A proper section contains the same number of left parenthesis as there are right parenthesis for every area designation (word, line, para, region, column & page). Sometimes left parenthises and right parenthesis are on the same line (in the case of a 'word') and somethines the right on parenthesis' will all be clumped together )))))) at the end of the very last line of a section.
 * If all that makes no sense, search for <tt> page 0 0 </tt> as before (hopefully there will only be one instance whaere "page" splits another "page" coordinate) and delete the entire section. If that sill uncomfortable - just wait .... the reapplication of OCR at Any2DjVu I started 3 ~hours ago will finish one day and then it will be just another day or so to upload it to Commons. :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that has been resolved, I took a another peek at this file as is to see if the same things were happening. Other than a poor quality text layer - the splitting around page 55 and subsequent thumbnail offest is stopped happening there. Go figure? George Orwell III (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks GOIII. Looks like we were chasing ghosts …--Mpaa (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed. If the file you experimented with was the same one currently on Commons, the text layer is still corrupt. Just because we get the dump in a fashion that does not reflect the flaw, does not mean the file is flawless at the same time. But since I have no desire to work on large 'maybe one day...' files such as this & some form of the layer pops up now, I say 'if you can live with it - so can I' & lets move on. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can survive with that. Actually I happened to find a series of three volumes, ed. 1870 . This one is edition 1850 and one volume only … I would opt to delete this one. There are already 3000 pages to enjoy with. I do not think we will ever be able to have 2 versions of this work.--Mpaa (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. See the Scriptorium proposal to approve the Versions guideline if you haven't already then use it to [help] support a nomination for deletion. I'll second it right off if I see it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

messes
I guess I'll instead make the mess here. I was trying to clarify that what I had said was not correct because it could influence !votes and seemed to have influenced yours. Unfortunately, the policy page was changed after I posted to add in the reference to meta. The policy never said that before, it referred to inactive meaning no edits in 4 months. It was also important because the policy says (or said) that the desysop is automatic unless enough confirm votes are cast. Talking about it on the policy page is a great idea but when there are three different statements of policy and editors are changing them during the vote, I think it deserves to be mentioned.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I see now that many parts were put in motion at once so it made sense. Still, the group can walk back what the articles stated all they want - the 3mo, 6mo & 1yr links at the top reflect the min. 10 logged Admin actions per Meta policy (shaded vs. unshaded). The point here is that the policy and the follow-up have been sloppy - fix it one way or the other and move on. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

File:XX%.png
Hi, this file has been nominated for speedy deletion. Do you want to retain it? Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It didn't really exist anyway - I only made it a redirect for maint. reasons awhile back. Speedy deleted already. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DNB vol 27
DNB volume 27 was uploaded. Let me know if you want me to do the commons upload. BTW, did you do a direct IA --> commons transfer of vol 26?. — Ineuw talk 02:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Being that most of the recent files are replacements for existing ones, I have to further edit the IA produced file locally in order for as much as possible to line up with what has already been created. This means its a download here; some editing & then a [re]upload to Commons followed by BOT requests to bulk move the stuff that I couldn't/shouldn't align here locally. The corrections are getting harder and harder because the files I'm replacing now have been around for sometime and many times all the pages have already been worked on/created to one degree or another. After Vol 27, there will be only 4 known defective source files left from the 40 something that were statused that way when I started down this road - with a few more like your's that have popped up along the way. Of course there are many more Indexes that are flawed and not statused to reflect that on purpose. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, I take it that you will deal with Volume 27 when the derivation is complete. As for any other volumes needed to be uploaded to IA, you can count on me, just leave messages as before. I have both the time and the resources. — Ineuw talk 04:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you I've got it from there. Uploading is all I need to navigate this fabulous disaster from here. I'll let you know. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Complete Confectioner 1800 was uploaded
Hi. Complete Confectioner 1800 was uploaded and is being derived at this moment. — Ineuw talk 08:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Author:Michael Patrick Murphy
Not an author, not likely to be an author now, so an author page seems incorrect. I don't feel that a portal for the individual is appropriate, though we could. How would you feel about a general portal page for US military citations, and we have a specific section for a person? — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I typically don't create anything unless its needed and a Portal: page sure doesn't seem to be needed at this point. The Author: page can go imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Index pages need swapping
Morning. At your leisure, and it can be after the New Year too—I just noticed that the order of the [2] dedication pages for Kipling's The Five Nations are swapped (vi. comes before v.). I looked through the rest of the text, and all other pages appear to be in order. Thanks, and Merry Christmas! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

RSVP por favor. I'd like to start proofreading that text, but don't want to until it is squared away. I'm still proofreading Byron's stuff, but would like to take a break for now from all the formatting and do some easier poetry for a time. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. I missed this the first time somehow - sorry. I'll try to get this resolved by the end of today for you. Again. sorry for the late response. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

✅ - DjVu source file fixed. Somebody has already validated the pages in the incorrect order though. I'm sure you can straighten things out now however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)