User talk:Spangineer/archive01

Welcome and Copyright question (Pensées)
Hi and welcome. As to the copyright, I think you're probably right about the intro. As to the others, it's a little more up in the air. You may want to see if you can find earlier editions and see if the notes and index are in any earlier editions. - illy 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Soft redirect script
Hi! I notice that you are converting real redirects to soft redirects. There's a script you can add that will make it much easier to do. Copy the following to User:Spangineer/monobook.js:
 * ''Code removed for readability; see.

—unsigned comment by Zhaladshar (talk).


 * Have you cleared your browser's cache? That might be the problem.  There are directions on how to do that on your monobook page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Max/moves
I'll look into the cap. I can only think that it's because you're still a "new user" so it's limiting the number of edits you can make a minute.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 12:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
Thanks for alerting me. I have it all cleaned up.--BirgitteSB 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I try to check in while I am at work for this sort of thing. If you have IRC you can always yell for a steward when no one is around.  We don't get too much vandalism here, but it is not uncommon for there to be some lag time before one is blocked.  I am leaving the talk page alone for now, because I don't want to give him any more attention, but I will keep an eye on it.--BirgitteSB 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Soft redirects
First of all welcome and thanks for all your great work. Also, regards to Erin. We have been doing quite a few soft redirects recently, because the search is not working as it should, and we are making an effort to rename and format all of the existing content. However, if you feel that the redirect is justified, please feel free to revert me. Danny 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of American Literature
Hi, Spangineer,

As you can see, CHAL is fairly incomplete. And, it's pretty much been that way for months (that's something I only add every once in a while when I get bored with other projects). My source is Bartleby, as I can't find it anywhere else (well, there is one other source, but it only allows you to view so many pages before it makes you pay). If you want to add it, that's great! I could use all the help I possibly can to get it added. It's not the most complex work to add—relatively easy, actually.

On Bartleby each "chapter" is divided up among its different sections. I'm adding all those sections to one page and then adding the bibliography after that (also on one page). And that's pretty much all there is to it! It can be a bit demanding, if there are a lot of formatting that has to happen (like italicizing names) and turning works into links (I try to make all works referenced on those pages a link so that once we add them to WS people can go read the work it's referring to), but it's a fun project, nevertheless. If you decide to help, good luck!

Oh, and you can just about any page that's been added as a sort of template for how to add the others.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pilgrim's Progress
Thank you for using your Wikiexpertise in reformatting this text. --Drboisclair 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted a message on your Wikipedia account about the Bunyan text. It might be helpful to have two texts: one as Bunyan wrote it, and one that is corrected according to modern spelling and punctuation.--Drboisclair 04:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long delay in answering your question about the edition that should be displayed. On the First Part the 11th edition of could be considered the source. Here is part of the introduction that carefully analyses the 11 editions of the First Part: "The question 'What editions, if any, did Bunyan supervise?', like most questions one would like to answer, is hedged about with many difficulties. Though a definite reply may not be given, it may at least be possible to establish a strong probability. The substantial additions to both the text and the marginalia made in the second and third editions are sufficient evidence that these editions passed through the author's own hands. After the third edition the new material is confined almost wholly to marginal notes and scripture references. A few words introduced into the body of the text, eleven marginal notes, and four scripture references constitute the additions of the fourth. The fifth makes no additions to the text or to the marginalia, but omits one marginal note of those in the fourth and four scripture references. The sixth omits two of the scripture references of the fifth. The seventh makes no additions to the marginalia, but omits one marginal note added in the second, eight of the forty-seven added in the third, and eight of the eleven added in the fourth. The marginalia of the eighth and the sixth are the same. The ninth, 1683, makes no additions to or omissions from the eighth. The ninth, 1684, adds four marginal notes to those of the first ninth and omits two scripture references. The tenth contains all the marginalia found in the second ninth with the exception of one scripture reference. The eleventh contains the same number of marginal notes and scripture references as the tenth. Evidently, after the fourth edition the additions even to the marginalia are insignificant ('Introduction,' The Pilgrim's Progress..., edited by James Blanton Wharey, second Edition by Roger Sharrock, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), lxxxvi-lxxxvii)."

Does this help in mentioning which edition to use? I would say the 11th of 1688, which is what I have.--Drboisclair 22:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Federalist Papers
You moved these articles to, e.g. The Federalist Papers/No. 10, rather than Federalist No. 10. First, this seems like an odd way of titling them, although perhaps this is WS policy. Second, this has broken the links to these article on the WP side of things. Let me know how to fix the wikisource template (on my WP talk) and I'll knock off the necessary changes. Much thanks. w:User:Christopher Parham. 04:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor Folk
Hi, Spangineer, just wanted to let you know that I've split Poor Folk. It seemed like that had been all but forgotten, so I went ahead and did it. If you'd like, please help to proofread the text; thanks! ;) &mdash; Webdinger BLAH 03:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Executive orders
Hi. You posted two tasks on the bot requests page. I've written a script for the one about the executive orders. My bot can run it anytime.

Now, I've asked for a bot flag on the Scriptorium, but so far the community has been quite silent. I'm not quite sure if it's technically OK to just continue operating the bot without a bot flag in slow-motion (that's why I refrained from assigning this task to it). Right now, nobody seems to really care. In any case, I'd be glad if you checked out the script and, if you find my request reasonable, spoke up in favour of my bot flag request.

(BTW, your "Click here to leave me a new message" link points to Wikipedia.)

--GrafZahl 09:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for supporting my bot. I'm planning to run the executive orders task tomorrow, 9 November 2006, 9:00 UTC. If you've got questions/concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you!--GrafZahl 11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Collective works
Actually, there's a discussion going on right now about it. I'm unsure of what constitutes a "collective work"--traditionally we've only used it to mean reference-style works. I'm trying to come up with a more expanded view of such works to make categorizing them all efficient. Odds are the category I removed will go back.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What I've done is I've added Category:Anthologies to it, which is a subcat of Category:Collective works.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi, Spangineer,

You are now an admin. If you could go to "Preferences > Editing" and check the box that says "Mark my edits as patrolled" that would be great. Thanks!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've done as you requested. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for welcoming me. I had felt lonely over here for a while. Smee 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Signature image processing
Ta; I do think that arc and spot welding might include brief mention of SIP, since it's one of the few significant technologies to have impacted on them in the past half century. Warning: I'm an amateur aficionado, so please don't assume I know much about the maths or the algorithm. Thanks for checking it. Will be pleased for your subsequent review after a week or so. (Do you think it's too technical?) 124.170.52.89 01:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC) From Tony1 (Why am I not logged in?) 124.170.52.89 01:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Language question
I wanted to add a work that was translated from Latin. The title though is still in latin. Shoulf I just add the work with the latin title?

(please reply on my talk page.

Thanks, Skunkmaster IV 02:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! ---Skunkmaster IV 04:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Footer
If you want to clear the template, feel free to go right ahead. GrafZahl left the following note on my talk page: "Footers are now auto-generated on pages using the newer header2 template. Only from those pages should the footer template be removed, small pages notwithstanding." - Politicaljunkie 14:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Long S
Interesting, didn't know we had a template; I've always just copy/pasted the letter, such as "an abſolute conqueſt o'er his ſoul" from Exhibition of Female Flagellants. But either way works I assume, cheers. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Bahá'u'lláh. 07:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Scanned English books in DjVu
Hi Spangineer,

Mistake of mine: I did it because I was used to the corresponding French category but I will correct the wrong category at once. ---Zyephyrus (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.---Zyephyrus (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection to deleting this category if the other contributors who have used it agree. One of them is Psychless and the other one is 虍 - --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikisource seems to be a good idea: I will add this category too when I create scanned French or English texts. So the scanned books that I create will have: category:English scanned texts; category Djvu files; and category Wikisource: do you think this is correct? ---Zyephyrus (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I find it useful to have two categories: one for DJVU, one for other files. It seems that many DJVU are not included. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yann, could you explain further? I'm not sure what you mean.  Right now all djvu files on Commons should be in commons:Category:Djvu files or one of its subcategories.  If some aren't in there, that's a problem, no question.  The problem as I see it is that from there things get redundant.  I don't see a reason to have categories like commons:Category:En Wikisource book djvu and commons:Category:Scanned English books in DjVu, because language is determined by the category commons:Category:Scanned English text and whether they're on Wikisource or not is irrelevant.  But some people will disagree with that, potentially, but hopefully everyone agrees that there's no reason to have both commons:Category:En Wikisource book djvu and commons:Category:Scanned English books in DjVu. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:New texts
My apologies. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What Social Classes Owe to Each Other
User annotations are the beauty of Wikisource. I don't see a problem (I do it myself). The Template:User annotation is helpful in distinguishing annotations from the text; I added it to the page in question. Anything that helps the reader understand the text better is a good thing. Also, don't feel obligated to proofread in return, unless of course you find something that interests you. Thanks for the offer though.Ingram (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A habitual vandal active here
I just reverted an edit made by a habitual vandal (presently named User:Smog Glue)who I just noticed because of an edit he made at Wikiquote. ~ Kalki (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ping
I've replied on my talk page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Original page numbers
I'm afraid I have the same questions and no answers.

Your problem is the same as mine. The original typesetter marked the page break of the original work, but floated it left or right from its actual position. In order to duplicate this, (1) you need to know the position of the original page break, and (2) you need the technical ability to execute a float from that position. I only achieve (1) occasionally, and fail dismally on (2), and therefore I have given up and will mark them up as best I can, but leave them inline; for an example of the best I can do, see Page:Miscellaneousbot01brow.djvu/326. Your (2) looks even more problematic than mine.

Hesperian 06:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: The technical problem that I am seeing is a bug in Firefox that has been fixed for the forthcoming 3.5 release. I understand (but have not checked) that IE also has this bug. On correctly implemented browsers, float left and float right will do exactly what we want. Hesperian 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Float left
Hi. I just peeked at my watchlist here (I'm busy, not too wiki-focused) and noticed that you've added margin args to this float template and that it is in use already. Anyway, I have a concern; you've opted for an assumption that the left and right margins should always be the same (top/bot, too) and I don't think this is a good assumption. I'm thinking that when floating left, a margin-left of zero and margin-right of say 1em would be best; flop it for float-right. Modest values for top/bot would be more like .5em, as you're using in the invocation I looked at; making this a default will make a mess of most current usages, however. There will be cases where one wants to override any defaults. Maximum flexibility would be offered by allowing the passing of all four margin values, but that does make for messy usages. Anyway, I'd like to talk a bit before this gets too far along. These are just my off-the-cuff observations and I'll have mulled on it by next post (which is likely tomorrow). Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * see an example variant; reverted for now


 * I completely agree; more flexibility is better, and at least in the case of the book I'm working on, setting left margin to 0 is more accurate than keeping right/left the same. Feel free to revert it back; then we can decide what to do about the other works and whether the defaults should be changed. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 13:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I reverted it back for now; this should put the stuff flush-left and the same could be done for Template:Float right — however, I'm inclined to fork this usage to another pair of templates. The float templates should be very generic as they're encapsulating a specific css attribute; what we have here is a specific type of reference that happens to employ that technique — and some more. We should not be encumbering the generic case with too much that only applies to a focused issue. Go slow with this please, so that usages w/args can be found easily and refactored. I'd prefer to see the float templates reverted and possibly a simple hard-code margin of about 1em on the inboard side. By forking these usages off, we can go nuts with problem-specific code. It's not like the template-space if full. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

the partisan
Hi Spangineer,

I just purged the file you are working on, so that you get the OCR right away in the text box ThomasV (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandal again
User:Fandal - A New Beginning. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OCR button
Hello,

The ocr button is now enabled by default. you'll need to update your preferences as it's been disabled for you. sorry for the inconvenience. ThomasV (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured text
Did anyone actually read the featured text this month? Do you realize it's got a silly error that is displayed on the main page? ResScholar (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Description of a City Shower on WS:FTC
Hi Spangineer,

I noticed you opposed promoting Description of a City Shower because of lack of proofread scans. The relevant scans have now been validated. I was wondering if you could revisit this entry and see if there are any other issues with it. Thanks.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Index:Journal of Negro History, vol. 7.djvu
This one was your index page creation. Anyway, I have updated the index page, and purged the File at Commons, and it now has the text layer available. billinghurst (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * this Index:Sequel of Appomattox.djvu similarly billinghurst (talk)
 * and Index:Forgotten Man and Other Essays.djvu billinghurst  sDrewth 
 * and Index:Life of Francis Marion.djvu anon
 * Index:Letters of Daniel Webster (1902).djvu
 * Index:Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1761-1765.djvu unk.
 * Index:Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction.djvu

Regarding the gap template
Hi Spangineer. Read your note regarding this template. I think it really distinguishes a paragraph, and even though it's very old style, it's still used these days. It adds a touch of reminiscence to the original document and is a very useful also for inline spacing, like a short verse, or offset text. It's spacing is variable.

I do this kind of work offline in a text editor with keyboard macros which eliminate the tedious repetition, typos, and is extremely quick. Formatting and proofreading a text page takes about ~5 minutes. In Wikisource, I use this TOOLBAR with various modifications, to suit the need of the moment, although this is a slow process. I hope this helps. — Ineuw (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Little request

 * ''Notice modeled after

As Template:New texts is monitored in IRC, and many users have it in their Watchlists, I was wondering whether you would consider adding the name of the text being added to the edit summary, rather than solely +1,-1. Even if it is just have +Name of work, -1 that would be most helpful. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm rather inconsistent in what I put in there; I'll try to be more helpful. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 00:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)