User talk:George Orwell III/Archives/2011

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Thank-you !

Eureka, that was timely work on {{DNB01}}… and the most pressing…Thanks…JamAKiska (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

US Constitution

Hi George: I saw your October post on Talk:Constitution of the United States of America regarding using the gpo.gov constitution with "analaysis and interpretation". I agree that it would be great to get it proofread, along with some other historical versions that I've uploaded.

But the whole Constitution/Bill of Rights/Other Amendments thing seems very messy to me. Do you have any ideas on how we can accommodate multiple editions and hopefully address some of the confusion that seems to be constantly complained of on the relevant talk pages? —Spangineer (háblame) 21:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To note conversation at User talk:Jack Merridew#United States Bill of Rights — billinghurst sDrewth 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what got me thinking... —Spangineer (háblame) 23:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I had simply hoped to to take one of our more frequent page hits in the COTUS, to finally use the Page: namespace and reflect those National Archive scans. Index:COTUS (1787 Edition).djvu is nearly done except for copying the the wikilinks in the existing mainspace article and some bracket work for the signatures at the end.

The 1992 A & I (selected over the 2002 edition because it includes ASCII text versions while the 2002 does not), seemed like the best way to explain away all the quirks mentioned using official documents. Btw, much of the supplementary analysis refer to such currently uploaded historical works (i.e Federalist papers, Justice Story's essays, court decisions, etc.) so it seems the logical format to follow.

I believe the "Historical Notes" to the Constitution section explains how the Declaration and Bill of Rights helps to round out the Articles. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the rationale for keeping all of them separate (core constitution, bill of rights, additional amendments)? Why not use something complete like [1] as the primary version? Keep the historical versions and annotated versions, obviously, just not as primaries? —Spangineer (háblame) 02:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not imperative to keep them separate in my view - just don't think all the existing intra & interlinkage could be easily transfered to such a version that includes all three "legs" is all. Had the subject been developed along that theme from the start, I'd easily agree with using such a version as you have linked. Unfortunately, I believe that is not possible after all that has transpired here on WS and any links into WS from our sister-sites (& beyond) since. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. I don't know the extent of incoming links, but theoretically if we did switch to a complete version, I wonder if we could use put in anchors at Amendment 1 and Amendment 11 that allow us to set up redirects: United States Bill of Rights --> COTUS#Amendment 1, for example. And then on COTUS, have links to United States Bill of Rights (versions) or something of the sort in the header notes and right at Amendment 1. Key WP links we could change to point to the Bill of Rights versions page rather than the Constitution page. Anyway, just food for thought... —Spangineer (háblame) 13:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong here. I'm only going by the limitd tools available; there is an average of 300 or so daily page visits over the past year to our COTUS page according to that tool. Coupled with the current fact the 112th Congress is to be one "with a return to the Constitution" at heart, I suspect an up-tick, if anything, in the coming year regarding all things COTUS. Because of this liklihood, I'm in total agreement something must be done to our current articles regarding (and including) the COTUS.

IMHO -- first and foremost is getting rid of the current mainspace article for one built on the Page: namespace then transclude that back in its place. (see preliminary here).

The current COTUS article only has anchors to the Articles and Sections. The transluded work retains these anchors while introducing anchors to each and every clause/sub-clause found under each section/article as well. EX. aI-s8-c8 = Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

Moving beyond simple replacement to the main issue of versions and disambig. -- I'm open to your suggestions. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That mockup looks nice. I'm glad you thought of anchors... though we may want to double them up to preserve incoming links that use the current anchor names. I agree that converting to that pages version is most important; perhaps once others versions are in place (I uploaded Index:Constitution of the United States, 2009.djvu) we can discuss further. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I did keep all the existing anchors in that Index of Pages. I'm having trouble reproducing the "brackets" and associated signatures at the end though - maybe you can take a look? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try soon... though that looks quite difficult, you are right. —Spangineer (háblame) 02:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a Portal is needed?? See Portal:Constitutional documents of South Africa -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A portal would be great, but I'm not sure that would replace a dab page... the portal could contain links to all sorts of relevant materials, from Story's Commentaries to historical debates and SCOTUS decisions. A dab page would only include versions of the Constitution itself. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk about timing George Orwell III (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(being lazy and not read all the above; $20 IMNSHO) For definitive, authoritative, flagship documents I would happily proposed that at the base name that we would have a redirect that points to the most recent copy of the document (or we transclude the current copy into the base page name), and all the others are disambiguated named appropriately, and linked into a Portal that allows for commentary of differences, historical components, etc. This would stop all complaints about historical documents vs live docs. All listed, but the living document is at the name. If we never have the live document, then we would have the redirect go to a disambig page. This would be the one case we would use (disambiguation) in pagenames. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok -- but what we have now is peppered with audio and annotation links; just dump them for some version to come? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bracket racket

How about something like this?

New Hampshire		John Langdon
		Nicholas Gilman

Adjusting the width of an image is a crude way to make the brace longer, but it works... --Spangineer (háblame) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Or we could flip File:GullBrace.png 180 degrees. --Spangineer (háblame) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of experimenting with MATH and the similar bracket templates - the above seems fine to me at this point. Thanx. I'll get back to it hopefully later today when I have more free time.

I guess the next thing that needs to be addressed is to re-vist the anchor naming scheme and come up with one that will "work" across all the other versions as well as the original/mainspace one. Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

New Hampshire

$\left.{\begin{matrix}\\\\\end{matrix}}\right\{$

John Langdon Nicholas Gilman

Just add more series of "\\ " to the middle portion of the matrix definition (look at the source) to make it longer. Other examples on Executive Order 980 and related orders. At one point I had a solution using the Unicode characters which are parts of the bracket, which you could put together on separate lines to form a full bracket... it worked great on Safari, worked but looked ugly on Firefox, and didn't work at all on IE6, so after a couple of different approaches we settled on that one (look at the edit history of that order). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See - this is why you need to come around more often!

See Sandbox

Now who can simplify those tables and cell styles? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I met your brackets experiments into Sandbox; after some struggling I choose a png way into it.source, since I had to render some hundreds of brackets like your. They use local files, but if you're interested I (or you!) could move them to Commons. See it:Template:Anno di. The bracket is selected by the template considering the number of elements. Rought, but runs, and very user friendly... no code at all! --Alex brollo (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Unfortunately that seems to have the same rendering/transparency issue as the other similar image-file(s)-type solutions that I've come across. In short, the various files floating around such as your .png(s) are lacking in one area or another under certain browsers (i.e. IE & non-transparent background, excessive padding, etc.).

Sadly I'm even worse at editing such file images than when I am contributing to WS!!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Try Inductiveload's new new new {{brace2}}. It is clean, scales nicely in stretching but not thickening, and works well tables. I just gave it a wild outing at Page:The Harvard Classics Vol. 51; Lectures.djvu/331 — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a sh!tload easier than directly trying to wrangle MATH & the .png used seems near perfect under IE 678 too !!!!

<td><img class="tex" alt="\scriptstyle{

\left\{

\begin{matrix}
\ \\ \\\ \\\ \ 
\end{matrix}

\right.

} " src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/1/3/e13e7d2700bfd1c5aca0032a06161497.png" /></td>

... though I don't see why the template has all that extra spacing and line-breaks in it. <shrug> George Orwell III (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

<shrug>² prod inductiveload (talk • contribs)? As I said new new new. In this regard I am just happy to look at the result, and not care about its innards. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

... said the contributor with apparently no browser-version issues what-so-ever.

← Thanks Carl - The whole COTUS doesn't look half bad transcluded now. :-) George Orwell III (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bracket2 template is excellent. I'll simply throw away my pngs and I'll rob the idea! :-) I simply refused to study so far the tag stuff.... --Alex brollo (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's basically a templatized version of the stuff I posted above, which is something we probably should have done before. I'll probably update the other pages to use it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

looking for irish ancestries landing in usa..

Can Anyone help me ..i am trying to find ancestries from Ireland and England.im 64 and not to bright on this darn computer..Names i am looking for are Whitehead And Moss... Can Anyone help me please..adress listed is just for this stuff...Stella Doyle POB 478 Walnut;MS. 38683 GOD BLESS YOU......

This querry is really not for this forum but you may have some luck by starting here...

http://www.genealogy-search-advice.com/surnames/whitehead_family_history.htm

George Orwell III (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also to try RootsWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/ or Cyndislist http://www.cyndislist.com/ — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of WP templates

Hiya. With the templates {{wikipedia-inline}} and {{Wikipedia-in-short}}, do they still have standalone value following the embedding of the wikipedia component of {{plain sister}} now into {{header}}? Or can we look to convert the works using those templates to now use the wikipedia = value? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't speak for {{wikipedia-inline}} -- not my puppy -- but I just edited the rest of the articles using {{Wikipedia-in-short}} so that template can go bye-bye with my blessing if need be. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. Done. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I took a peak at the other one and it seems the only thing relevant still using that template is some User: page redirect to WP - fairly sure once that is resolved, nobody will miss that ugly duck born back in 2006 either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:FYI

MOVED -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Can I ask for a second opinion on topic here. I am not sure that I am operating on the same wavelength, communicating my point, or comprehending the response. I think that some of the work being contributed is either meant to be subpages, or it should be in the Portal namespace. Thanks if you can assist. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of his wiki background…but it might help if you built links to wiki articles for the various namespaces to which you refer. On the pages where he is sole editor, his links need help. From his most recent reply, I gather he may need help visualizing transclusion by way of example, like a DNB article. He seems used to dealing with hard copy only. If I understand the structure, the portal is the center of a circle formed within the various publications (level 2 of his tree [ring level 2]). What is confusing is that he has compressed levels 2 and 3 of the Heraldry publication onto the level two page, as opposed to a third level for the units, and then level four to house the histories…which may exist elsewhere and could make use of transclusion like here. He seems familiar with commons and images yet the links indicate a US govt. source, at least for now. CMH 60-1 is structured like other publications housed at WS and seems to fan radially outward from the portal. JamAKiska (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Potus-eo}}

Hi! I've taken the liberty of using a normal {{header}} template to replace {{potus-eo}}, as going through the proper header template allows easier consistency with other works. You can check out my version at User:Inductiveload/Sandbox3 and User:Inductiveload/Sandbox4. This will also hopefully free you from the tyranny of formatting the template, since {{header}} will handle that for you. I have tried to lay the code out in a logical fashion to aid future maintenance. If I've done it right, my version should be plug-and-play. Cheers, Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No thank you. The project is far from integration - I (we) will mange until then

— George Orwell III (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually tried that once, and came pretty close. The main problem is the extra section of the header coming above the notes. It looks best when it is part of the same HTML table as the main header, and not a separate table underneath (borders and spacing make it look a bit uglier). If support could be added somehow to the main header template for additional row(s) to be there, that may be a very good way to do it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course - that makes complete sense... oh wait a second - here comes dynamic-layout-bot where content must be separate from layout. Forget I said anything. :( — George Orwell III (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection for Template:Header/doc

Do we really want to protect the documentation page? Also does this mean that people cannot play in the header sandbox? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I removed the cascade protection, but the documentation was protected before I applied the cascading protection.

On a related note - you mention in Header's talk page something about if it's worth wrapping the components of {{plain sister}} that are embedded in the header into #if statements so that they don't call the template unless necessary? By all means - anything that minimizes anything calling into play in the typical "light-blue" notes field would be a major plus. This is exactly what I've been trying to overcome with the Header sandbox — George Orwell III (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Federalist Papers/No. 10

Thanks for all your work cleaning up redirects =). Somehow no matter what I miss tons of them, apparently... However, this one (The Federalist Papers/No. 10) I think we still need, as there are going to be incoming links from WP and potentially elsewhere. —Spangineer (háblame) 16:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Restored - but I think you put waayyyyyyyyyy too much faith in the amount of WP redirected traffic to specific pages or sections we can sucessfully generate. I'd worry more about getting readers to top level pages they can easily navigate from on their own first. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it. You may be right, but WP's article on Federalist 10 is featured, and many of the other numbers have their own articles, and they point to us. Given that we don't know I'd prefer to keep the full range of redirects, since they're really not hurting anything. —Spangineer (háblame) 05:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

post run comments

If you had any comments now that I've made a few runs with my bot, please comment Wikisource:Scriptorium#Bot_request_-_DougBot, Birgitte read the comments as ambiguous as to whether the community supports a flag. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

James Fitzmaurice

Thanks for this edit. I knew there must be a better way though it would be nice for the link to show the wikisource logo. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Errata template.

Thanks, I’ll drop you a line here when the file replacement is made. JamAKiska (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Errata file replaced, offset of 10 throughout. Thanks in advance… JamAKiska (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - I made the offset of 10 throughout now, let me know if there are any problems. — George Orwell III (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Went through both supplements and adjusted links to new locations. The diplays all look good except for the links from the article to the errata page, which is not displaying properly. See- Harbord, William The last djvu page with text is now 310. The links from pages not moved (volume 28 & 23 still function properly). Thank-you…JamAKiska (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK -my mistake; the last djvu page is now set to 310. See if the code unlocks hard text to a clickable link now. — George Orwell III (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Initial look is favorable, give me a couple of days of poking, just in case. Thank-you…JamAKiska (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd line displayed on Annesley, Arthur has 20, 10f.e. on the same line whereas on Errata page 7 they show up on separate lines. While the errata display for this article is unambiguous, there are some articles that have multiple columns and line numbers which might get confusing. On the errata page, the columns have tighter expansion limits that forces this text to the next line. Am avoiding use of line breaks where possible, can you adjust the template to remedy this? Thanks…JamAKiska (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That has more to do with the fact the for 1672 read 1673 entry is revealed to be as short as it is when it stands by itself after transclusion but enjoys the company of longer entries in the same column of the same table which "forces" the first three smaller columns to "scrunch" over while still viewed in the Page namespace. If all the entries in that column where as short as that one is, then the same "spread-out" display would occur in both namespaces irregardless (i.e. not really a template issue).

The only thing that can mess around with this unfortunate reality would be to set the column widths in the template to fixed values (long story made short - attempting that might fix this one display but wold mess up many others currently displaying just fine in the process) — George Orwell III (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh of course using a simple line break after "20," would solve this right away. — George Orwell III (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Would this be a reasonable time to employ line breaks ? JamAKiska (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, yes. The presence of the bracket in the scan pretty much demands the use of a simple line break (in this specefic case only I should add - don't know if they are used consistently throughout these volumes or not but a bracket is certainly used for this guy.)

I already applied this btw -take another look now. — George Orwell III (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice touch with the gulls, please take a look at this one Anstruther, Robert…thank-you…JamAKiska (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Will-do in a bit. — George Orwell III (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

blech... that one is worse than the first-one!

Well thats the best that I could come up with. Hope it helps. — George Orwell III (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, big boost…thats volume II, longer than I anticipated. I was looking at that symbology the other day and had no clue…thanks for blazing that trail for me… Volume I later tonight…JamAKiska (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Illustrator William Nicholson

Thank you for re-validating this page for me; I must have bumped it off somehow... Also with regard to Poems of the Great War... I added the cover image (copied from Project Gutenberg to Commons) by "William Nicholson" to the Main, and I have a hunch that the William Nicholson mentioned in the Note of the text might be the same William Nicholson who illustrated The Velveteen Rabbit... If so, I can create a "wikilink" to the Commons category on the Note page... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

US Constitution to pages

How long before we switch Constitution of the United States of America to pages? What needs to be done? Which version do you have in mind? —Spangineer (háblame) 17:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I never got an "OK" on pulling down the audio files so I left it at that. I'd go with the original 4 page index to keep the traditionalists happy. That one guy today with his 'careful' copy edits is sure going to be in for a surprise. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer the current constitution to the original, but that's a debate for another day (once a version of the former is proofed). Switching to pages is what is important to me at this point.

Yeah I pretty much want the Pocket version or at least the 1992 literal print but don't think that is fair to the prior contributors who may not be aware of this discussion and cannot speak up for or against it. I figure a phased change over time is appropriate. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the audio files... what do you think about linking to them in the header? Just text, no icon, like: "Audio version: Article 1, Article 2", etc. In any case, it's not our problem that the LibriVox recordings don't fit well in the structure that is best for us.

I'd rather dump them but if you can find a way to make it fit into the Notes field I have no objection to keeping them — George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you like the TOC at Constitution of the Confederate States of America? I think something like that would be good for COTUS as well. —Spangineer (háblame) 00:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to "steal" that anyway <grin> - I just never got around to it & then I just plain old forgot to. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just remembered something re: Confed. Const. - is there any particular reason you are keeping numbered list-items (clauses) as simple paragraphs? I would think that the benefits of the digital age lets us render (at the very least, in transclusion) these previous limitations of paper publications as they are intended to be conveyed for the reader. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, I see all that html as unnecessary complication (perhaps there's some value to it that I don't understand?). It's simpler to just use {{anchor}}, {{larger}}, and simple paragraphs of text, and IMO that's a good thing because it shortens the learning curve for new folks.

Viewed soley within the "legal-ese" practices of the day and at that general point in our world history, an Article heading indicates, Sections, &/or Paragraphs &/or Clauses are to follow. The "rule of thumb", basically, was a Section is the first sub-division of its parent (any Article), a Paragraph is the first sub-division to its parent (any Section) and a Clause is the first the sub-division to its parent (any Paragraph) and so on and so forth; any caveats here follow the premise a Clause can be a paragraph but it can not be a Paragraph. Not a major issue, for the most part, in the linked confed const. - every paragraph seems to have a leading number that reflects its position or title as a Paragraph - until you compare Art. I, Sec. 1 to Art. III, Sec. 1 that is. Most will say that is merely a minor oversight and I'll accept that at face value - its not a very complicated piece of legislation and thus easy to read with little room for varied interpretations. Can't quickly say how many Paragraphs are found in Art. I, Sec. 8 though.

The overall point here being once stepped-indentation (or more accurately staggered margins accented by bullets to signify a [possible] change in hierarchy) are no longer present (this visual loss of simple hierarchy is a negative symptom of publication btw), in-spite of letter or number designation(s) being found at the start of each new line in most/some instances (developing a recognized standard using such abbreviations in a bullet-like fashion is the response to that negative-symptom), you are at the mercy of of reader interpretation rather than the authored direction.

Logical ordering depends on the reader's understandng that 2 comes after 1 but 2 may not neccesarrily be greater than [in importance] than 1; or identifying a misconception - such as 1 must be done first & foremost, not just be present before a 2 can exist [dependency], and similar nuances common to interpreting legal-ese works.

I fully understand staying "true" to the original as first published is always the "best practice" - but the reality is that what was published is not always what was authored nor always what was meant to be conveyed to the potential reader. That pamphlet or book in hand (now scanned) was the product of a neccessary compromise between "I'd like to make every Paragraph into its own book" and "You can't afford to make every paragraph into its own a book", reached in order for any type of publication falling between those two extremes being faciliitated at all. Some prefer the compromise and call that "faithfully true"; I leave the door open for returning some of that surrendered intent now that some of the symptoms are no longer as severe or as limiting in the digital age today. Nothinhg major - almost exclsively this point on false-margins on bulleted subject matter via simple paragraph indentation (or the lack thereof) actually. — George Orwell III (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Second, I'm also hesitant to modify methods of emphasis used by writers: introducing things like bold text dilutes their original intent. The end result is something that emphasizes things they didn't emphasize: for example, Page:COTUS (1787 Edition).djvu/1 emphasizes section breaks but not "We the People", which is the opposite of the draft copy.

Agree 100000% on the emphasis point - never got around to tweaking the layout/font-sizes because I never really got any feedback on where this was all going eventually (or not) and on possible points of contention (like what you just raised & the latest contributions detailed somewhere below by a new vistor to WS Constitution).

Somewhat related to this is that I like how the Confederate Constitution, especially in layout 2, looks like the original text... I think it somehow subtly increases the credibility of our version.

Layout should be separate from content anyway so if the rendering in place, dynamic or not, does not tax one visitor for the sake of another, then I have no problems either way.

I don't have a problem with fixing true publication limitations, like inability to put side notes on the binding side of a page, or the ability to link to related content, or to continuously number footnotes. I don't see html numbered lists as an example of that though. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

.... and the difference(s) between a printed numbered list and a rendered html numbered list is what exactly? Are we to throw away the basic "rules" of lists in one case but not in the other or vise-versa? The old 'A number is only a number unless its a symbol posing as a bullet that happens to be in the form or shape of number - both of which work together with a block of text to impersonate a simple paragraph' argument eh? Indentation is to a paragraph as a margin is to the subject of a bullet; not the bullets themselves. Sure indent every new line after a carriage-return (think typewritter here) and of course your static bullet will wrap text that follows it underneath the bullet instead of next to it. — George Orwell III (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page George, and I greatly appreciate the way you set up the signatures! Regarding my edits, I have been very careful in looking at the original text as you advise. My Chrome browser allows for ample magnification of the scanned document, so in my various edits I have taken a close look. In my last edit, for example, I looked at the text in my booklet supplied by the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution and compared it with our text by reading Article I from the end to the beginning. (You'll see that my different edits generally started at the end of the document.) When I found a difference, I looked at the original text with the magnifier to compare. Thus I found the obvious capitalization error in Section 7 and the more subtle "encreased" error in Section 6 (among others). As for the larger text, I took my clue from the pre-edited version which has "We the People" and "of the United States" in larger text. Thus the "Article.I." (etc.), "done", and "In Witness" are now in larger text. In any event, it won't disturb me at all if all of the text is downsized to one standard font size. The only format change I can't figure out is how to indent the preface without indenting the whole paragraph! I hope you can fix that part. Best regards. --Srich32977 (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine for now but did you get the point that all of that is going to be replaced by the transcluded text soon or not? The other point I'll make quickly is to keep things simple becaause, for example, not everyone will be viewing that using Chrome - so what you may be thinking is an improvement or more accurate may not be true for other readers. — George Orwell III (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah-Hah! I see what you mean by the transclusion effort -- that my edits are all for nought (right now). That's fine with me. (I presume I can come back after the translusion is accomplished to edit some more, correct?) I thought your link was an explanation of the transclusion process, so I skipped looking at it. (Regarding Chrome, my point is that I was able to look at the imaged original text quite closely IOT get an accurate read on what it said. My use of Chrome has nothing to do with what other readers will see in Wikisourse or the original image.) George, I am not complaining -- I am a happy editor. Thanks! --Srich32977 (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

DougBot etc

GO3, I just wanted to clarify with you what your concerns are about my bots, etc, and why I've done what I've done. I'm not posting this on the admin nom because I don't consider it an argument for me for admin so much as a hope that we can agree or at least work together effectively, so I want to explain myself as I noted your comment on my Interwiki-Bot announcement and it concerned me.

Well I reserve the right to beg to differ with you about what "is" and "is not" out of bounds regarding a nomination at this juncture but I can appreciate your point of view for the time being at least.

I wasn't suggesting anything was out of bounds, only that I didn't consider this a response to your comments at the nom directly and certainly not an attempt to change your mind there. You are free to reference this if you feel it's relevant there but it isn't an attempt to change your mind, only to explain myself.

Before I get to the crux of my reasoning yesterday, I should expand on the thing with the inter-language BOT first. That incident only plays a supporting role, if any, in my decision making process re: adminship. Questioning the arrival of the inter-wiki BOT so soon after securing the DougBot flag in that forum in the manner and tone that I did was inappropriate and in retrospect, I probably should have made you aware of my concerns directly on your talk page to begin with. I apologize for my behavior and regret the entire inter-wiki "incident" ever transpired. At that specific point in time, it wasn't all that big of a deal when strictly viewed through the en.WS policies & practices lens; quite the opposite - you had done everything required of you and then some as far as I can tell. I was even witness to some of it in the Page namespace sandbox on more than one occasion along the way.

At the same time, and without the en.WS glasses on, I personally felt you were a bit of a stinker not only for not following through with a tiny-smidget of BOT activity towards your original notice's stated course nor any of the equivalent alternatives out there, even after going around & individually asking for additional support right at turning-point of your request but mostly for having the huge balls & the nerve to come back a day or two (NOT a week or two) after securing said BOT flag with another notification with another request to be flagged for some other BOT! The fact that this type of BOT needed no such flag for open-access operation or to make many BOT-like edits either -- a policy tid-bit, it turned out, you seemed to be well aware of before I even mis-spoke about such BOTS and it first came to light in an open forum -- both of which is still beside the point of contention being made.

Soon afterwards, it dawned on me that you asked for this status in your notice in spite of this knowledge -- with the additional benefit of going through the existing BOTSs and/or similar BOT-like activity and presumably ascertained not much of a precedent, if at all, for such a flag for such a BOT.

I actually had no idea that we didn't flag interwiki language bots on en, I understood that they didn't need permission, on many subdomains they are eligible for a flag without discussion as can be seen by my bot's flags in other languages. I thought our policy was similar as I saw nothing in our policy to suggest they don't get a flag. So, I thought I was expected to get a flag and that it was only right to place a notice of the intent but that there wouldn't be any discussion because the approval would be automatic. I went directly to Birgitte after posting to get a flag. sDrewth explained the actual way it worked to me on IRC after I was well into it and after Birgitte had questioned my need for a second bot.

None of that mattered one bit in the sense that it was contrary to WS policies or practice. All it did was make me take notice and I only re-hash it again here, hopefully for an additional understanding on your part, as well as to preface what is to follow in my reply -- some of which is aided by a proper frame of reference.

I have no interest in "pins and badges" and I don't consider either a bot or an adminship a pin or a badge. However, it might be worth mentioning that I was really surprised by the nom here; Jay mentioned on IRC today that he had drafted it and was about to submit it without anyone having previously mentioned the idea to me (admin on la.ws had been discussed more than once). The tools would be useful and I know I can be trusted with them, but after several years as an en.wp admin, I have a somewhat jaded view and I often make fun of adminship (and of en.wp but so do a lot of others here ;-)).

Review - Notify/Request then secure 1st flag No new activity. Notify/Request 2nd flag 2 days later (not your week or 2 later). Still no new activity on 1st BOT. 2nd Flag never an issue nor a requirement. Plenty of activity on 2nd BOT. No new activity on 1st BOT. 2nd BOT "works" to add value to projects elsewhere. More BOT flag requests pending elsewhere as well. Thought these type of BOTS and the edits they make didn't need this flag to operate - ergo the comment made in passing about collecting pins and badges with the additional benefit brought to light in your nomination's own opening comments about even more possible bits coming your way in the future.

Many other subdomains require the flag, e.g. pl.ws actually notified me that unflagged bot edits by Interwiki-Bot were prohibited but that I could have a flag just for asking. BTW, Interwiki-Bot's home wiki is de and it was flagged there before even requesting on en iirc.

I'm sorry if you feel the inference was not on target but what other conclusions should I have been drawing that I did not and how?

(I will address 'Jay mentions' & where later on but I do make a note of it here first.)

Regarding my bots: When I asked for approval for DougBot I had been asking for a lot of custom bot work from inductiveload, so I asked him to help me set up a bot so I could learn to do it myself and stop relying on him. I had and have a 600+ page work on deck and a change to formatting even a few dozen pages in would be an incredible pain by hand. Along the way it struck me that it could be used to pre-format entire texts and that when the OCR was good it might be nearly done when a human first arrived. I was told by several people including sDrewth that the request was very non-controversial since it wouldn't be working across the whole project at one shot and probably wouldn't even get any significant comments but then sDrewth made a somewhat vague comment and Cyg saw my list of started works that I wanted the bot to help with and deleted most of my mainspace work so Birgitte found the result to be ambiguous. I was in the process of asking everyone to clarify when Birgitte flagged the bot, so I don't think I actually got to Cyg but I was going to. I had run my bot on a work I was in the middle of (Poems of Gaius Valerius Catullus) to demonstrate it but didn't really have any other work set up for it.

That didn't matter much either, again in the sense anything was contrary to WS policy or practice. I really had 'no concerns' at that specific point in time.

After receiving your message, (re)reviewing both the events that transpired since the last that I could recall and the events that had taken place since, looking for any over-looked "clues", etc. relating to the matter in various discussions, not finding anything super sinister or blatantly wrong or even remotely annoying in what I saw lying around in those various talk pages or whatever either -- it would have been unethical of me not to reply the way that I did.

I also agree that all the aforementioned was an unfortunate developmentat that stage. Was any of that a big-a-deal enough to start thinking differently than having 'no concerns' - not really.

After Cyg's action, I was more than a little frustrated and I had no interest in continuing that disagreement so I decided the best thing to do was to set aside most of the projects he'd taken action on for the time being so I could focus on a project with inductiveload to scrape works from a few sites (mainly SCETI), get better OCRs for some texts, and find other off-site resources to use as well as to work on the latin side of the Gaius work which led me to become more active at la.ws as well. Along the way, some folks at de.ws asked me on IRC about language bots, at the time they asked there were none that were active (oddly there are now at least four) and they lobbied me to use my bot. I told them I didn't want to for a variety of reasons but I'd look into setting up another bot expressly for that purpose. I tried to get Eliyak to do it but he was too busy with the translation project. So, I set up my own. I felt quite odd placing another bot out there only a week or two after the first but wanted to accommodate the folks on de and build my bot experience. That bot continues to get most of its work from suggestions from a few active de.ws users.

Here is where things went horribly south of 'no concerns' for me. Unbeknownst to you at the time and not in response to anything of your doing, this (for lack of a better term) inter-wiki BOT incident was pretty much water-under-the-bridge and shelved right up until the point of reading your nomination for the first time yesterday. This also seems not be of your doing but nevertheless, it is what brought the incident back up into the light here was what forced to me to confront it again. You see, your prior explanation for why the sudden shifts in activity, the change in priorities taking place, the introduction of this 2nd BOT, the continued inactivity of the secured BOT, the inconsistencies in the reasoning, the lack of follow through, so on and so forth, was all a bit too convenient for me at the time; the core of my concerns being made in a different forum - even better - in another language and all.

So mostly out of curiosity and still with a caveat of being within that specific point in time, I went looking around your edit histories and stuff. I read what could in English, online-translated bits and pieces that I readily could not, noted in passing the prior dubious edits being attributed an account named Doug, the explanations of why this account is not you at times; the instances when the account activity is made by "you"; global-accounts recovered; some User histories merged, yada, yada, yada. In general, mostly positive stuff, some of it negative, still more of it raising new questions rather than providing answers to the old one. Basically a whole lot of junk that, in my view and at that specific point in time, did not show your reply to my query being a truthful one.

I'm afraid I don't follow this. I don't speak any languages other than English well enough to use them for discussions. The only Doug's that aren't me are on it.wp and es.wp - as far as I know I have all the rest - and I don't speak a lick of either Italian or Spanish, a little German, a little French, neither one very well. There were a few odd edits showing up in my history at one point from pre-usurps but I thought they were resolved and I don't recall ever commenting on them nor them being in any way significant (else I couldn't have usurped by most projects' rules). I really have no idea what you're getting at here. Sorry.

Right. I didn't find anything because there was not much was directly made by you AND that needed translation if at all at the same time. I was, however, looking for evidence of the call for someone to take up the inter-wiki maintenance or some such discussion of who, when, where and why at least mentioning you in passing - anything made By Others prior to that point in time corroborating your given explanation(s).

Other than an occasional Copy & Paste of content attributed to you being re-posted somewhere else by someone else, nothing relevant was found. Attempts to verify discussions covering inter-wiki BOT itself were made in good-faith but freely admit a language barrier still exists on my end and that may have been the reason I didn't find anything too. I doubt it.

I only mention going so deep into this as to indicate I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until it was obvious I had gone too far back for anything I did happen find to be worthwhile or of any use now.

If you can link such discussions now, it could put an end to both our confusion in short order.

I guess that's not possible, there aren't any linked discussions, they were all off wiki and I don't think #wikisource or #wikisource-de allow logging, though I'll check. Part of the point is that interwiki bots are so non-controversial that they get auto approval a lot of places, so there wasn't much reason to discuss. There was a tiny amount of discussion on fr when I asked for my flag there and a little on ru, most of which was duplicated on en. By far the most on-project discussion was on en, due largely to my own misunderstanding and thinking I needed a flag here.

BOTs, snots. Not the point. Never was.

I didn't like the idea of a (rightly or wrongly) percieved opportunistic, alterior agenda driven, lying co-admin. Period. Would You? Plus I have little faith in your nominator's judgement. End of Story. The timing from one BOT to the other was unfortunate and a bit irksome but not of your doing (hopefully) for the most part. Ultimately, the manner in whch such decisions were made or actions were taken were not contrary to standing WS practice or policy. Nothing was said or done otherwise as a response either.

Not a big deal, this is not my first online rodeo. Being less than truthful is not an actionable offense - heck the whole inter-wiki incident wasn't even contrary to the vague policy as far as I was concerned. Being less than truthful doesn't even come close to the advantages I perceived would be coming from your way at some point. While it left a bad taste in my mouth - the matter was completely, 100% closed until yesterday, first by the particulars of the nomination itself along with the now re-surfaced additional belief you did not previously display the integrity worthy of having the bit and then made worse by the appearance of this message itself on this talk page afterwards and the revelation made in passing just above that... of course I did not find anything to do with any inter-wiki BOT in any WS sanctioned namespace - that went down in IRC.

Again, I don't follow, are you saying that I have been less than truthful? Or that my commenting here has made things worse? What revelation made in passing that you didn't find anything about in IRC? I'm am really sorry, I am completely and thoroughly confused.

The answer is yes - I did not believe that inter-wiki BOT story when first given - even less after looking for and not finding any such request or discussion taking place with you, without you or even mentioning you in passing. So again - yes - I thought you had been less than truthful with me.

Now, about 3 weeks or so later, you say in passing (my revelation)

... Along the way, some folks at de.ws asked me on IRC about language bots, at the time they asked there were none that were active...

Understand now why this was so infuriating just to read ?

You could have asked me about this rather than assuming I was not being honest. I didn't think the information was material and I certainly didn't think it required on wiki discussion, maybe I was wrong; apparently it at least needed an edit trail. Anyway, User:alkab (mostly only active on de.ws) came into #wikisource and asked about this right around the time my DougBot request was closing. I asked User:Eliyak and User:Spangineer about it and specifically asked Eliyak if he was interested or wanted to work on the issue with me and I discussed it further with User:Billinghurst and User:Inductiveload, all of this discussion was on IRC because none of it related to whether anything should be allowed but to whether anyone knew how to do it and whether they knew a reason why we didn't have an active interwiki bot. The following day or the next, after I had already requested a flag on de.ws, User:cswikisource-bot began to appear to be active on more than the three or four wikis he previously had been and started getting flags elsewhere; I was already making demonstration edits by that point on de. I requested other flags because, seriously, an interwiki language link bot with only one language is not really useful; there's a reason they get flags automatically on a lot of projects. I will continue to request flags where they are required or advisable and I've gotten two flags from the Stewards for small projects and expect to get more that way. BTW, you mentioned this above so I will address it here, my interwiki bot is benefiting en.ws, not just the other projects, it benefits all the tagged languages equally.

BOTs, snots. Not the point. Never was.

I didn't think it was all that important nor big-a-deal at the time because you've shown to be a positive addition in other areas/matters anyway. Looking past what at the time (rightly or wrongly) I thought had been taking place wasn't hard to do in spite of finding nothing. The order and timing of these events might have been better but again, nothing was done contrary to WS policy or practice. I had for a moment considered raising a proposal refining the Policies regarding BOTS to force the usage of one's flagged BOT for inter-wiki purposes if one existed in order to prevent 2 BOTS ~ 1 User working at the same time but wasn't confident enough to follow it through not controlling any BOT myself for starters. The "silence" of DougBot since has only proven no such refinment was needed at this time anyway.

I probably wish more time had passed between then and now so I'd have completely forgotten my mental note.

<-- fullying recognizing the point noted earier here instead

In your nomination, contributor to IRC. Template development, decided on IRC. Surprised to hear about nomination, happened on IRC. Why bother interacting on en.WS at all anymore? You seem slated for greener pastures by the rehabilitation coordinator himself already anyway.

Again, I don't understand. "contributor to IRC"? did I use that phrase? Nothing was "decided on IRC" that I'm aware of. I only mention IRC so you won't think there's an edit somewhere that I could have referenced. A lot of people use IRC. Nothing gets decided there. Is it necessary that before nominating someone you post a message to their user talk page asking them if it's OK? or that editors have a discussion about whether to nominate on wiki? Is it improper to ask on IRC, "what do you think of this bot request before I post it?" I only mentioned the comments that it was non-controversial to emphasize that it was conceived of from the very start as a bot to use when and if I needed it not to sit waiting for bot requests or to change categories on 40K pages in a single shot and that I was somewhat taken aback when one of the people that said it sounds very non-controversial then made a vague comment that at least in part influenced Birgitte's concern. If these are conclusions you've come to based on my references to IRC then they are most certainly not correct conclusions. I use IRC to ask questions and answer questions. Mostly it amounts to "Does anyone know how to do such and such?" and 90% of my conversations are with Inductiveload regarding scripts and coordinating image scraping.

Well hopefully you better understand my dilema - you said something in a reply to a concern of mine, that something was looked into afterwards, nothing was found supporting that something, -- have had the belief that something was less than truthful ever since.

Along comes the nomination. I find it's sponsor to be somewhat unsound in his practices and less than reliable in this area - especially in light of recent events. That fact, his shallow reasoning given in the introduction and my previous belief, rightly or wrongly at this point; it no longer matters, that you were less than truthful back then, put all together and it leaned just over the line of not publically voicing any opinion at all into I should publically state my opinion That opinion was a negative one on this narrow point re: adminship.

Then I read in this message (in gray above) the reason I found no evidence of what I had come to believe was than you being less than truthful back then was because back then that discussion was on IRC too. What am I suppose to do now?? Take that at its word without disbelief? Hardly.

Why not? What is so controversial or disconcerting about this? I'll be glad to address the merits but you check up on my comments and find nothing so you assume it didn't happen and that I'm lying and when I explain that it took place on IRC you are unwilling to take that answer because you now suspect me of dishonesty? That seems a bit circular.

Again. There is/was no question of BOT merits. The question went to character and that is a personal judgement which ultimately has, as I mentioned earlier, little to do with if you are positive contributor or not or if we were able to work effectively together or not. And, like I also stated earlier the matter as I had been percieving it was forgotten, non-issue. We are merely victims of circumstance here now that the status quo has changed and you have been nominated in the interim.

The new reality here being a nominator who's judgement and/or practices has caused him to recently resign as a CheckUser - giving me little faith to trust him from then on PLUS the "I didn't like the idea of "working" with (rightly or wrongly) percieved opportunistic, alterior agenda driven, lying co-admin" assessment, then perception, I developed. Putting aside this perception, again rightly or wrongly, is complicated by the fact no such log or history exists that anyone can link readily in order to come out and outright vindicate you now when no such vindication even mattered back then. I'm betting that distinction and how quickly circumstances can change is now a lesson learned all round re: IRC at least.

The fact you did NOT & are NOT blowing this or me off but rather decided to engage and question as a response is not lost on me here and I hope we can work together amicably when you are confirmed. Your actions then will, hopefully, prove my opposition now as being unfounded. My perception of you is already changing for the better as a result of these exchanges.

What transpired or did not transpire on IRC was sort of the point of the sarcasm being applied previously by me both above and below - either way, true or false, right or wrong, useful or not -- maybe too much of IRC is being "used" for matters that the community-at-large should be doing or involved with in the first place & within the confines of some true wiki-based forum(s) without actively realizing it.

Maybe so.

Am I Wrong in these Conclusions????

(If so, I guess you can respond to them in IRC so that the community-at-large will also never have the chance to see nor any record of those points being disputed as well)

You are absolutely right, that this has led me to set DougBot down and not use it further right away, but it was always conceived of an "as needed" bot and was billed as a bot to help me with texts I was working on. I just finished off Shaving Made Easy (save the images which aren't really my strong point) but it was not time effective to set my bot up for the various small jobs on that text. I will be using DougBot again soon as a list is piling up and it's about time to pick one of my other texts back up as well.

I have no reponse to this other than time will tell.

Bottom line, whether you support me for adminship is macht nichts and it doesn't bother me if you don't think I'm ready, but if you think I'm collecting badges or saying that I'm going to do things and then not doing them, that does concern me and I want to know if you think there's a problem. I hope that this has helped explain why I've done the things I've done over the past couple months but if not or if you still don't think it's good, please let me know. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are more than ready on the technical side of things and in spite of all the above transpiring, have the ability to be an admin. I just don't think you have the free time nor the disciplines to be an effective one given that it seems your attentions are consistently being pulled in too many different directions by way too many different persons all at the same time. I wish someone else had nominated you, to be frank and honest about this -- that plus everything else taken together as a whole, made it impossible to simply voice no opinion at all which I've done before.

As far as "free time" - I'm fortunate to be employed full-time and to have a family, so I'm not quite sure what "free time" is; thus you may be exactly on target. ;-) I would be curious to know what you mean by "the disciplines to be an effective one" so I can have some way to judge if we have similar standards in this regard. As far as my nominator, I suspect there must be drama history I am unaware of as I have no idea what this is about.

That is macht nichts.

I hope you prove me 100% wrong someday - obviously that day is not going to be today. You'll have plenty of opportunities to do just that once you are confirmed - which I never doubted would happen eventually from the jump.

— George Orwell III (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope so too. I had no illusions that I would change your mind on my adminship nom but I did hope I could change your opinion of me. I guess I'll just have to catch up the lost ground with actions; so you've at least set me a meaningful target. :-) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Prost — George Orwell III (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Prost.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously & wholeheartedly - Good Luck. — George Orwell III (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up on the new executive order.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I saw you around earlier today and know this subject was what you've been working on for months/years now. I figured better to drop you a line about it sooner rather than later so you can modify the related WP articles before the bottom-feeders show up. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dotted TOC page listing

Have a look at what is in it. Ouch. I knew that I could never be bothered with it, though didn't complain when others used it. Definitely not a case of keep it simple stupid, and all for some bloody dotted line. Burn it! <sigh> Billinghurst (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem, granted only at a glance, seemed to be an incompatibility with the part that converts links in the page namespace to article links in the main namespace upon transclusion -- not so much the z-index solution to the dotted line rows thing. I think that auto-link conversion thingy was behind another problem or two but I can't seem to find it right now. I recall it is coded to something along the lines of a span style of "align:right" (invalid) rather than "float" or "text-align right" and that (for some reason) botches the transclusion via unintended inheriting of paramaters or styles (or something just as obscure). — George Orwell III (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

With {{namespace link}}? That part remains, and I can see the same problem with the template in other places, though I haven't done a one to one whether they use namespace link too. Billinghurst (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No {{namespace link}} is not coded into the Dotted template but was added in place of one of the un-named parameters if I remember that Page correctly. I THINK it's the other one {{DJVU page link}} in conjunction with (without?) the namespace link after transclusion in an "inheritable" type scenario. I know it "looked" fine back on March 1st or second when I expanded the margin parameter in order for the table to center properly under IE. What happened after that to cause the forced absolute and its relative(s) positioning to "jump out" of the table and into the corner like that -- I have no idea (unless you revert the fix or something). — George Orwell III (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

deleted "The Home Monthly"

Well, so much for that project, lol. It was probably too ambitious anyways, Google Books has decent transcripts, but it's like 100 articles per issue - I must admit I wasn't looking forward to it. StateOfAvon (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Toggling the header

Just to let you know if you need quick toggle header text User:Billinghurst/HeaderToggle, which is available as standard cheat {{subst:User:Billinghurst/HeaderToggle}}. Any suggestions for its improvement are welcome and if it is something that should be in the template space, we can move it over. Billinghurst (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

TOC numbering

Re [2]: Thanks! I didn't know that was even possible; it definitely looks better. - Htonl (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I just "discovered" that id/class a few weeks ago myself (wish I had known about it from day one!! ) — George Orwell III (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Presidential doings is any utterance and writing personal?

For US Gov employees, I wonder whether the president is ever "off". So I have paused before deleting 2008 Republican National Convention/George W. Bush's Republican National Convention speech. If you think don't pause, then that is fine, one just never knows, especially with relation to your special archiving legislation for US presidents. Billinghurst (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I believe you are correct in your assumption but technically there is no legal statute or even official government website with anything like the Obamas' CC 3.0 release that we can point to justify keeping such narrowly defined works such as campaign convention speeches in the case where the official is in office but cannot be (re)elected him or herself. Anything prior to Nov. 8 2008/the Obamas or the Obama Admnistration is open to assumptions and interpretations of legal standing by us amatuers and therefore, unfortunately, too close to fairly call as far as hosting on en.WS goes. I say delete it now and one day maybe it can be restored - but that day is not today. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oi

(Deletion log); 21:08 . . George Orwell III (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk"

You...Orwellian tyrant! TheSkullOfRFBurton (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh Oh Did I delete the wrong thing again or something? Just point me to it & I'll restore it for you ASAP. Sorry — George Orwell III (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am just being punny with your name.

Oh OKie Dokie. :-) (my secret master plan must be working)! — George Orwell III (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Any chance you'd help a newbie add Tancred? Doesn't have to be DJVUd, just figured you might have some secrets/help with auto-adding the Roman numerals, or cleaning it up, or some way to import it over from Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20004/20004-h/20004-h.htm TheSkullOfRFBurton (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed this the first time...

I believe that Roman numerals should only show for the reader's benefit (as found in the original) but really be straight numbers underneath

[[../Chapter 18|Chapter XVIII]]

Who searches for something using Roman numerals? is the logic behind that btw.

As far as adding works - I'm probably not the best person to ask. While I'm all for proper proofreading, etc., I don't subscribe to the current mindset and practices in place for adding such works. They seem to only serve a very narrow and very exclusive group of editors well and think they pretty much want it to stay that way. I suggest asking some of the other regulars instead for guidance. — George Orwell III (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, I'll keep that in mind with Arabic numbers in the future - thanks for the hint. As for the rest...I think I'm agreed with you from my limited view of WS and that's why I'm on your talkpage, and not theirs :P TheSkullOfRFBurton (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to troll for opinions here, but trying to figure out if I'm a little too "far out in the extreme" in my last response on my talkpage - it's bothering me how unwelcoming the project seems, and how hostile to new works being added. I've spent like six hours a day on Wikisource, made 600 edits since March 22 - and have added 21 new works to Wikisource by the same husband-wife duo (who died more than a century ago)...and have caught nothing but grief for it..."oh, this page should list its license or it will be deleted", "this letter to the London Times dated August 8, 1879 has no details about its source, it should be deleted"...and now this. It's...beyond frustrating for somebody improving the project by adding dozens of new, obscure, works by a famed author. TheSkullOfRFBurton (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - I got sidetracked once again.

Well I see that you "quit" so I don't know if you'll even see this but after taking a look and back-tracking a bit - it's not so much one side was more extreme than the other but it seems to me this is another classic case of talking past one another.

You don't seem to be picking up on the need for citing well-established sources for content, linking/contributing this content for all to see as well as running the particulars of copyright of a work to ground while the other side doesn't seem to understand there is no easy way to pick up on these things as they relate to nearly all newcommers other than by example and a soft touch.

Many of your points are of like mind here; some are not -- irregardless, some just flat-out seem to be based on assumption rather than investigation. You lost some headway with the Catholic Encyclopeadia point; it is uploaded as a scan (Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/581) for example.

At any rate, I'm not going to dwell any further on this. Hope you reconsider and good luck if you don't. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Military Order of November 13, 2001

To me that name is ambiguous, as I would think that there were military orders on that day all over the world. Could we swap the title and the section around, and move it to the alternate name and leave this as a redirect? Billinghurst (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. That is it's correctly LoC cataloged name. The redirect should suffice. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you changed the name to Military Order of November 13, 2001 (2001). George Bush was pretty f_ckin stupid but he didn't stutter. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How would the LoC handle other military orders of the same name? While we can use the LoC as one of the guides in this place, when they make US-centric decisions, we have to look to how it fits in our broader scheme, especially when a name is unhelpful. FWIW, that is the year of publishing, not part of its title. Just like some legislation can have a year, then be updated in a later year which would mean we could have various years of publication.<shrug> If you think that the positioning of publication year is showing in the wrong place, then we need to reopen that discussion. Billinghurst (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

When did this become wikipedia? I thought this was a library? What is an unhelpful name exactly? If there were other orders of the same name from other countries -- I'd Dab it with U.S. in the title. If there were orders in the U.S. of the same title, I Dab it with its publication page no & U.S. If there was some other military that actually published its orders to detain prisoners outside of their borders or the battlefield - I'd worry about this. Zero miltary orders published in the Federal Register in the 10 years since and I'm pretty sure the same applies for the 45 years before it.

move along - nothing to see here. :-p — George Orwell III (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Display issue while editing DNB errata table.

Errata pg 230 reads normal, and yet when I enter the edit mode, most of the data disappears from view. The first entry of page 230 is a follow-on to the previous page, hence an optional page 2 entry using the DNB errata Template. As such, Thomas Radcliffe does not need to be included as it would be redundent. Please take a look from your end and advise...thanks...JamAKiska 17:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hit "show changes" from that first edit mode and you'll see you are cut-off at the exact point where a second batch of no-includes start. Some versions of IE (properly from what I've gathered so far) will close (or open? I forget) the 2nd no-include tag prematurely. You'll need someone with a different browser to fix this because I can't (I use ie too). You can substitute the page to the sandbox to recover the content being cut-off as long as you remove the 2nd noinclude before clicking on preview or save (or restore an older version not using the 2nd noinclude between the typical header and footer noincludes). — George Orwell III (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks…switched browsers…looks better already…JamAKiska 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE!! should work under all browsers with the fix I just applied

Well it seems we missed each other so I went ahead and managed to come up with a rather elegant workaround if I do say so myself <wink>. Let me know if that will do but more importantly -- if you understand the bug with using additional noinclude tags between the existing header and footer standard noinclude tags under some browser versions and the need to avoid applying such "fixes". — George Orwell III (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done…thanks George…JamAKiska 20:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Referenced Work Icon

Hey George,

I placed another test template into Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; located in the notes field, I think it stays in-line with most of our other links, icons, explanations etc. Maybe our featured can be placed there too? What do you think of it in this work? - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to "useless"

Responded on my page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Published document or construct

Unsuccessful attempts to amend the United States Constitution to me looks like a local construct, rather than a published work. If it is a construct, do you believe that we should then be moving it to the Portal: namespace? — billinghurst sDrewth 16:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a tough one for me. I guess making it portal but leaving it linked in the series as is woud be fine. The 6 unratified amendments have been published & are part of the Cotus A & I Project (see the Constitution's talk page) but the others seemed to be failed "acts of Congress", not something lacking due to inaction by the 50 States.

Might as well move it the Portal namespace because I don't have the time to create all that failed legislation right now. — George Orwell III (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

COTUS

Hey George,

I went in to go proofread the work, but I find it impossible to verify against the historical scans. How do you feel about transcluding the 1992 print instead, and offering a link to view the historical scans? - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That big screen monitor of your's not working out anymore?

Just kidding... and I hope you are too. The U.S. Constitution is pretty much a sacred cow and folks got thier knickers in a bunch when we decided that a transclusion of the original - based on, and cross checked with, the 1992 A&I & 2007 pocket edition literal prints anyway - was better than having folks come in and make there own interpretations, anchors and interlinks every so often (that is partly why it is so convoluted in HTML structure too).

If you don't trust what is there now - move on and somebody else will hopefully do the honors soon. — George Orwell III (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I have a short, wide screen; the perfect combination for really long lines at en.ws..

I just rechecked to pages, and what I failed to see before was that there are .jpg scans which are significantly clearer to read as opposed to the .djvu files, which are entirely illegible. I tried increasing the scan resolution, but it still doesn't appear to be nearly as good as the .jpg; what if we proofread against the .jpg scans instead? - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd, I can read them just fine. Still, I'd much rather you just moved on to somrthing else in the References project instead of finding ways to undo weeks of refinements unrlated to that effort. — George Orwell III (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not my intention, and I certainly appreciate the effort you put into it to proofread, but I am concerned. If I cannot read the .djvu pages as nearly as clearly as the .jpg images, then others will not likely be able to. I can move on, of course, but someone must validate it! - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Treaty with Tunis (1797)

Not sure what you do with the background works of USS at Large, so I will leave it for you to do anything else required and format … I so hate sidenotes that run together and not sure how much you place in that area to separate. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure myself. User:Tarmstro99 is the one who is all things USSaL, not me. I'll bring it to his attention next time we cross paths though. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay and thanks. All things US and politics I treat as a blur where I put my fingers in my ears and sing "la la la" and I am never quite sure who is the expert where. The challenge for the USians and their broad morass of the included US legal and political matter is to identify (in a matrix?) of who specialises in what. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm fairly certain this should be a sub-page of Volume 8 somehow; I'm just not sure what the proper folder path would be for a treaty -- on top of the fact Volume 8 currently lacks a full framework broken out into the appropriate sections, etc. What possesed you to make it transcluded with an Index pagelist completely not proofread to begin with anyway? — George Orwell III (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The work already existed as applied text, I just put text against our source, and proofread while grubbing through the cleanup of the links that still point to WS ns, not the Portal ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd pass on making anymore conversions to pages in USSaL, 3 CFR, Fed. Reg. etc. if no corresponding "frame" for them exists at the same time. Thank You. — George Orwell III (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

... and in case it hasn't become crystal clear yet I will proactively "fight" for most things U.S. in this subject area whenever possible -- but by no means does this automatically mean I am an expert in that area at the same time. Like you alluded to above; its make-up covers a wide swath of semi-interconnected nuances and no one contributor can easily paint them together as a whole correctly under a wiki based format it seems. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Baltimore & Ohio Railway Cases

Hi, I see that for all the Baltimore & Ohio Railway cases you moved the other day the /Opinion of the Court subpages have turned up on Special:LonelyPages. I had a look, but I don't know how to fix them. When you've a moment could you have a look? If you tell me what to do I'm happy to do it. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been bothering me for some time too since they are not orphaned. See What links here for example [3] and you'll see the Opinion of the Court sub-page is shown properly as linked. The same holds true vise-versa, the top page is shown as linked to the sub-page.

The only thing that I can think of that might be causing this "non-truth" is the casename= parameter in one of the templates being used still shows the pre-move casename and not the new one. This was promised to be amended via bot once the last 100 or so Reporter cases were finally imported so that it could be done in one shot rather than piece-meal. I just corrected one of these template parameters and nothing changed so I don't know what to make of it except a system lag, an outdated cache or something just as not under user control. — George Orwell III (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've found the problem. The linking is based on the Casename field in the CaseCaption template on the Syllabus page. It seems to the only thing driven by that field. There are no changes to the text on the page when changing the field. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If I remember right, that parameter was never intended to output any viewable text. It should be an internal generated value to help align the existing (and woefully innacurate) imported casenames and any subsequent splits or disambiguations applied in the correcting of the casenames afterwards. The whole problem stems from the intital "database" replicated all over the internet and the actual scans of the U.S. Report[er] only recently made "available" to the general public through piecemeal archives. This project's basic premise, as I understand it, was to import the "mess" that was being used for years now at other legal sites and then go about correcting one thing or the other as they arose during reviews.

As you may have noticed, the importing of content started last July and still has about 70 volumes left to go so all that has been done in the interim are corrections to categories, sub-pages and case name disambiguation. The actual content still needs further reviews and, of course, scans to match. Lot of work yet to be done in short.

As far as your theory goes, I don't believe it will correct the orphan listing part. Fairly certain I've tried this and nothing changed in the next re-freshed list but it has been awhile so I might be mistaken. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to have worked. I experimented with Adams Manufacturing Company v. Storen/Opinion of the Court, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Carroll & Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Fifth Baptist Church of Washington all three of which have gone from the updated list. RL is about to get in the way, but I'll get back to the others later today (it being Tuesday here already). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's great!!! but I wouldn't go crazy with this just yet. I'm fairly certain we can find a more elegant solution through editing the template rather than editing each case and each sub-page manualy. — George Orwell III (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the tweak you've made to the template has taken out quite a few. There are some remaining, but they look to have other issues causing them to be orphans. For RL reasons I'm down to ca. 40% brain power at the moment, so won't touch them for a few days lest I mess them up. However, I'll get to them soon. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean by 'some remaining' - I took a stab at those left over on the first page and they did indeed have unrelated issues causing them to remain on the list. No rush; if you get to it by the end of the year that is good enough for me (& the Project) — George Orwell III (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Examples of index template

I have been playing seeing the opportunity has existed and have a number of scenarios at Wikisource:Sandbox/Index.

I had the two icons in a row, and they got squished. I hadn't wanted to put to the RHS as they force the RHS width, and if no transcluded ToC or other RHS material, then the <pagelist can expand. Anyway, the setup allow us to tweak and watch the effect. Putting more into the RH column pretty means we are going to stop the close to full width spread of Pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Good job. I think you might want to re-check your findings under a different browser before making any judgements though. I can tell something is not right with the TOC in Sand3 -- no line wrapping and big gap between Chapter and it's Roman numeral. Other than tht I can see what you're saying; no real elegant solution has presented itself yet. I don't mind losing the 2 icon's total width on the RHS, forcing the 2nd column's width to be set (anything more than 20 or so pages per row is a bit too busy for my eye anyway), but we can just take them out of the table altogether at place them before the table(s) even start. Maybe even have them play as "table captions", floated right, instead?

Also, after another look, the original simple text entry approach, with the help link, kind of gets lost when that much stuff is "going on" all at once on an Index page imho. — George Orwell III (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, page redraw was problematic with its time and location of rollback. Three sandbox index pages are primarily data dumps to get bulk. I grabbed something big and didn't check its coding. Feel free to play in the sandbox, I am out of that space for a while. Sleep! — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

update - I made some changes so that the pagelist can expand to something greater than the remarks' 30% width setting was allowing yesterday. I believe we can get it expanding over to the right even further if we drop the icon labeling text. Save for that weirdness in Sand3's TOC table, these changes look fine across at least IE 6's default skins/font-settings -- you'll need to tell me if you see the same under your setup. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the converted PSM V03 index page

Popular Science Monthly Volume 3.djvu/813 contains the missing last index page which was reconstructed from this .jpg file.

I can "fix" this by inserting File:PSM v03 p790.djvu into the existing bundle if you like. Since the ommission is about 20 pages from the end, its not a big deal to insert the missing page and shift the files that follow "up" by one. Of course we'll need to move the existing pages in the Page: namespace up by one once the Index is aligned for the new upload as well as tweak any transclusions, links, etc. associated with those pages. — George Orwell III (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. However, don’t waste your time because there are numerous errors of this nature (see Proofreading requests section above). I feel that by putting the appropriate explanation in the Page namespace encased by <noinclude> is sufficient info for future editors. This is primarily a poor quality Internet Archive scan, something I spent a lot of time studying and can write a small book about. :-)— Ineuw talk 19:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It will take me longer to upload the corrected djvu than it did to "move" the files that followed the missing point and the insertion of the missing page itself. I just didn't want screw anything up that may be listed, linked or transcluded around those pages re: this Project. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Please see Article proofreading requests for Volumes 1 to 25 for more replacement pages as images.— Ineuw talk 20:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Swapping a bad page scan for a good one is even easier. So is deleting a duplicate page scan. I just stink at the part where grabbing & making an "image" (black text) fit on a background (white page typically) of the same size (height x width & DPI) is involved. Got lucky with this one.

Even though this missing page happen to need that groovy grayish background used throught the work instead of plain white, it was easy because there where plenty of front & back matter blank pages to pick from (same size as the pages with text for a change). The basic text layer came from the online converter Any2Djvu - I just fixed up the most glaring mistakes before re-inserting it... [4].

Inserting a page in a djvu that has a huge number of pages created in the Page: namespace is really the only pain the azz -- and that's more about staying true to a botched scan's internal structure than it is about moving hundreds of pages just to make room for one.

All really need is a decent jpeg or tiff of the text using black on white - preferably with the same dimensions as the rest of the pages (1891 x 3308, 300 dpi in this case) - I can swap those 3 blurry pages out 1-2-3. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am awed!!! . . . . by your conversion HERE. Let me study this and I will put together a list of pages where such problem exist. (There are many) For the time being, I am focusing on the Tables of contents & main namespace article title pages to facilitate quick results for users. Many thanks, and I’ll be back :-D.— Ineuw talk 06:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoa... you may be expecting more than what is actuallly do-able here. That was not the typical index page (single column) and was relatively short (so I manually corrected the OCR before insertion and upload).

THIS is more like what you can expect to get once a decent black & white JPEG (or TIFF) is modified to meet the existing scanned djvu's layout (old-paper colored background in this case) then converted to an indirect (stand-alone) djvu file which will eventual be swapped in as a replacement. Now I "could" fix that OCR up too before insertion too but I'm not that time wealthy to do all the steps needed to reach the staus you saw for that Index page in Vol. 3. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. -- please "fix" the the current Vol 3 pages to render as designed now that p790 has been inserted. I can't edit the page before it because that little multiple noinclude trick doesn't allow some browsers to enter edit mode without loosing most of the content. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Again thanks for your help, and apologize for the poorly worded post about my "coming back". I only meant to return to ask some relevant questions on the image manipulation process, but definitely don’t wish others to do my work, knowing full well that since being retired, I have more time and would rather share it to help others. The "relevant" questions related to the software used, but if it’s not in Windows, then it’s of no help. Also, after studying your work, I came to realize that in such cases it’s best not to change the image to grayscale because the process itself degrades quality. Finally, when I looked on Internet Archive, I noticed that sometimes they have as many as three different copies of varying qualities LIKE HERE. P.S: I bookmarked the above pages you corrected and will proofread then soon.— Ineuw talk 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I did not mean the previous to come off that way actually. I don't mind doing the work but my free-time (and skill sets it seems) swings from one extreme to the other on a day-to-day basis and I did not want to disappoint the Project was all. Now to the matter at hand...

Software: I am pretty much locked into using Windows XP with IE6 for compatibility reasons @ work so we are not going to clash in that regard at all. The djvu specific software for manipulation of both types of djvu files comes from the plain-old DJVULibre software package (HERE). Now that GUI interface is useful in itself but somewhat limited for the type and quality of manipulation needed on our various Project's problems. It does, once installed, come with a dozen or so command-line (DOS based) tools that go way beyond what you can do with the push-button GUI viewer. Those are what I have been playing with for almost a month now and have learned a great deal but far from everything there is about djvus, conversion, etc.

Being unfamilar with image file manipulation - I've only been using plain old MS-Paint so far. That is partly because I have realized thru experimentation that there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to image quality, conversion to djvu and the all important OCR routine that gets us a workable text-layer (more on this later). For now, trust that text (exclusively foreground) and background (various shades and/or colors mostly derived from the scan & its quality) make up the premise behind djvu files. The standard was intended to create a type of file that went beyond the existing compression routines of other file types such as PDFs, HTA, etc. by "treating" each page independently rather than as a whole afterwards when all the pages are put together into a single doc. This is great when the finished doc is mix of images and text -- the text-only pages (few colors i.e. black, a few grays and white) can be treated far differently than the image only pages (64k+ of possible colors). For what we do here on Wikisource, 90% or more of it being straight text and line-drawings, the djvu standard is a poor, poor substitute for the common PDF file. The only reason, as far as I can tell, that we do use so much of it is a.) the compression benefits making for smaller and smaller files if done right and b.) the ability to treat each page as if it was separate from the rest and still only have 1 djvu file to deal with. I'll let that simmer and touch back on this as well after you've absorbed this much.

The last part is the text-layer we need. There is a misconception that OCR is the be all and end all when it comes to proof-reading. It is merely the easiest and cheapest way to create a hidden-text layer based on an image file (i.e. scans of physical printed paper). We know the resulting text quality varies from one work to the next but the idea that same blasted hidden-layer in a PDF file is any less "true" than some scanned POS is flat out false. Though I have not put together the heart-breaking examples where MONTHS of OCR clean-ups could have been averted by simply using the PDF at Archive.org instead, I believe you can understand my over-all point here -- the methods used to create hidden-text layers, one of them being an OCR, should not dictate our approaches to creating WS works as long as side-by-side proofreading takes place. Next, I don't have thousand dollar OCR software or something either here. I use the free online Any2Djvu service. Because of that reality, the only thing I can control is the image or doc uploaded or linked to the service -- not the settings actually controling the OCR process. This leaves us a handful of approaches. Hopefully we will discuss those some point in the near future after I get some feedback/questions when you've read all this. — George Orwell III (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Studied what you wrote and everything, like text layers, differences between .djvu and .pdf make eminent sense. About a year ago, I tried using djvuLibre but realized that I was taking on too much, get sidetracked, and get bogged down in an additional area without improving the primary focus, like proofreading. Since you’ve posted your reply, I’ve come across an image quality problem with the PSM uploads and am working through the issue with the kind help of someone on the Commons. Thus, I must set this to rest (again) for the time being, but completed the proofread the 3 pages of Volume 3 you corrected. I already know that there are additional bad pages later on, and when I reach them, will return with some questions. Also made an offline copy of this post for reference. Many thanks for your help.— Ineuw talk 04:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As you wish. How about this (an open offer for anytime you feel its needed)...

If you identify a bad page, I(we) can locate a replacement page, I make a "poor" image of the replacement page, upload it locally here, you can "fix" it to match the existing volume's dpi, resolution & etc., re-upload the improved image, I download the fixed image, convert it to a stand alone .djvu, OCR (or edit) the underlying text of the stand-alone and, finally, merge the now content-rich, much-improved, stand-alone djvu into the bundled main djvu of the PSM volume in question? — George Orwell III (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Some initial notes on orphaned cases

Hi, I've started making some notes at User:Beeswaxcandle/Notes on Cases for the things that I either can't fix without leaving a redirect or don't understand how to disentangle what's happened. Please feel free to play as you see fit. I'm through the first page (500) of the orphaned list. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ind. society & its future -- source and license

"Edits should not be made to articles tagged with possible Copyright Violation banner still in effect."

Says who ? There's nothing about it in the copyright policy. One tag says the document doesn't have a source and another says there is no copyright information, why shouldn't I add a source and copyright info and remove the templates ? Unless you just want to increase the page's chance of being removed. --Protious (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Any source added, or other changes made for that matter, during this period of revierw and discussion over the copyright issue usually do not recieve the attention those change(s)normally deserve in regards to proofreading against an uploaded copy in PDF or DJVU form. I just wanted to avoid the inevitable when changes are made such as those today -- locking the article from all editing until the current issue is closed and the next one does or does not get addressed.

BTW... Adding a source where the copyright is held by Time Magazine solves nothing because we can't use it for proofreading in side-by-side editing either.

Anyway, I moved the other issue tags under the CopyVio tag so they too will remain hidden as long as the CopyVio discussion is still going on. — George Orwell III (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the page still appears in the categories as having no source and no license template while we do have a source and license information. My main problem is that these things will affect the judgement of whoever chooses to keep or delete the page by giving them inaccurate information. Also the Times Magazine page doesn't have a copyright notice.

BTW I just noticed you're an admin so you can tell me: what exactly is the protocol here ? how long does the page stay blanked ? who ultimately makes the decision to keep or delete ? --Protious (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, I would have MUCH preferred this (and other works) languished where they were; in whatever state they were in since last touched years ago & static ever since. Some regular contributors here decided not-too-long ago to revive a long dead project, Wikisource:WikiProject References to Wikisource, and that's how this got dragged up into the spotlight after all this time - not because I have some ax to grind or anything.

Being that the guidelines, rules, practice and understanding of how we approach copyrights, proofreading new works and similar constructs have changed quite a bit since this and a handful of other articles were first created, then became idle or static, there was no choice but force a review of every aspect of the work under the current practices.

Now the legal aspect has changed for not only the Unabomber's manifesto but all his works in this interim between when the article last became idle (Mark II sometime in 2007 that is, Mark I was deleted shortly before Mark II came into existence circa 2004 if I remember this right) and today, with a couple of Federal Court rulings solidifying a lien by the victims of the Unabomber ordered as part of a $15 million dollar restitution. Long story short, there might be too much of a legal gray area both because that release in 1995 to PD was made in conjunction with an unlawful act while he wasn't identified yet and second because of the court rulings since he waived all his copyright owner/holder rights in his plea bargain. He has exhausted his right to appeal parts of that plea bargain, a good portion of which dealt with copyright among other property, to no avail in 2009.

The CopyVio banner has the link to the discussion that has taken place so far and those can last for at least a month by unwritten rule-of-thumb (typically)... but I believe this will take longer than most reviews just because the article has been so static for so long and has been used/abused/beloved by many other sites & people without much regard of who has been hosting it up until this point in time and don't know about all the things that have "happened" since ~2001 we he was first convicted then sentenced. — George Orwell III (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

United States Statutes at Large

Are you building Mainspace pages out of Chapters for these volumes, so that if I were to complete the Index:pages which correspond with [[United States Statutes at Large/Volume 40/65th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 53|Chapter 53 of Volume 40]], and [[United States Statutes at Large/Volume 41/66th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 80|Chapter 80 of Volume 41]], which include the following sections I am "interested" in:

• Act of Congress approved August 10, 1917, Section 4 -- 40 Stat. 277 and
  • as amended by Section 2 of the Act approved October 22, 1919. -- 41 Stat. 298,

...then I could create the corresponding Mainspace pages for them? I'll take a look at the sidenote formatting used on other pages to figure out that part... I haven't done sidebars yet... Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

While I help locate scans and organize pagelists a bit for the USSaL project whenever the opportunity presents itself, User talk:Tarmstro99 and his BOT are really the ones to look to on the ins and outs of editing and transclusion. So far, only Volume 1 is far along enough for use as some sort of guide on how the project is suppose to work and I suggest you check there for insight first and then ask Tarmstro99 directly if you still have questions.

But from what I can tell, your above seems fine as far as my limited knowledge of the project goes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that there's a period after the brackets ([H. R. 4961.].) in the date section of the USStatChapHead template on this page... Template typo? I think I found it here in the template ({{bottom border|{{{date}}}.}}). Can the period just be removed from the template? Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean & good catch. This is unavoidable as we (or specifically me) was forced to squeeze the chamber and bill number at the end as part of the (((datenum}}} parameter when it should probably have its own stand-aloneparameter (this would also do away with the extra 'underline' if I'm reading the coding correctly).

Again this is probably a case where the early volumes did not cite the enrolled bill number enacted into law like the later ones started to do so the template needs tweaking. I'm relectant to mess with it as previous attempts have been 'less than constructive' on my part. I'll try to catch User:Tarmstro99 between classes and bring this to his attention (two heads might get faster results here since I'm pressed for free time until later tonight so feel free to draw him into this discussion if need be). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As usual, I spent way too much time looking into a "period"—of all things! Par for the course! Thanks for looking into it :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the Chap. 53 purpose oversight... I try to be so careful... but every now and then something falls victim to my copying & pasting. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

<tsk> Please; it is I that should be thanking you, not the other way around. Thanks to your excellent work, I've been able to piece together "Lever Act" related Court opinions and Presidential Executive Orders that only now begin to better reveal the entire picture surrounding this topic and its tangents circa 1917 on forward. I'm sure as you further expand upon the various isssue(s) from Earle's perspective thru his works, I'll be able to tie more of the boring leagalize and legislative background stuff we already have on en.WS to one degree or another, better together. So again, thank you!!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can thank Earle's sister then, for she is why I even started on Wikisource to begin with... I only stumbled upon her brother researching her genealogy, and I became hooked! Somehow he makes "boring legalese" interesting to me... at least as he expounds upon it! Glad I could help... You comment made my evening! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

t or i?

That looks rough... Hope you catch a (nowiki) break today! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's driving me nuts!!!! I think things look "better" after everything gets tanscluded into the main namespace with all the sidenotes being forced to the right-handed side... and even the left-handed sidenotes in the Page: namespace seem cleaner but for the life of me I can't figure out why the right-handed sidenotes in the Page namespace is rendering jagged. What are you seeing in either namespace/various dynamic layouts currently???? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me (link) to something? I want to know exactly what you want me to take a look at... Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This looks good to me (in Chrome)... No "jagged" rendering there, and no sidenote text overlapping... Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Lever Act will do just fine for now -- please take a peak at it as individual pages in the Page: namespace and cycle through the dynamic layouts in the main namespace as a whole. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Even-numbered .djvu pages are off (twin R-sidenotes overlapping), but that may be because of how the template is currently set...?

That's just it -- in the Page: namespace, the right-handed sidenotes (even numbered djvu pages) is set to the mirror opposite of the left-handed sidenotes (odd numbered djvu pages). Both types of sidenotes are forced to the right in transclusion and "should be" unrelated and irrelevant as far as the Page namespace is concerned. I'll keep tinkering I guess but as long everything looks OK in the main namespace, I guess I shouldn't complain. Let me know if you observe anything strange or have any additional thoughts/ideas. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What is a "dynamic layout?" Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

When viewing an article in main namespace that consists of a group of pages transcluded in from the Page: namespace, you should see an additional menu section alog the left-side of your screen along with "navigation", "toolbox", etc. named "display options". The default is Layout 1 and if you click on it it should switch to Layout 2 and one more click should give you Layout 3 (the goes back to Layout 1 on the next click).

If you don't see the "display options" section, log out and see if it appears then. If it does appear when logged out, that means it is a WikiSource specific setting that is causing it not to appear when logged in. If the section also does not appear when logged out, it usually means a broweser setting is causing it not to appear in either state. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I assumed you realized that odd-numbered pages have sidenotes appearing on both the left and right sides? I figured you did that for comparison purposes(?) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Grrr... no. I don't see that and beleve me it was not intentional. Back ina few. George Orwell III (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How I see it in Dynamic Layout... I'll be gone for a while, but will check back in in a few hours to take a more detailed look at things... Londonjackbooks (talk)

In the sidenotes, I can't make out whether it reads Ante, or Anie,—not being familiar with said legalese...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Its most definately Ante, (something similar in Latin to Infra or Supra but I can't recall if it indicates before/previously or after/later-on at the moment). -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Versions of Price Fixing

Well—I just today viewed a shorter version of Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty? Same copyright date, less two chapters. More details are given on the Talk page... My question is: Should I retitle (via moves) the version I am transcribing to WS to reflect the fact that it is an "after-repeal" version to distinguish it from the "before repeal" version? Or just leave it as is? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Before getting further into the nitty-gritty details about versions, editions, annotations, etc., something doesn't seem right to me about the timeline of events here. The amendment to the 1917 passed Act was approved October 22, 1919, 2 days later, we have the letter mentioning the article -- this is relevant because at this point in time Holmes presumably makes a mental note of such essay's existance but it does not have the 2 additional chapters yet.

Moving on, a 1920 copyright year makes sense for something that was created in late 1919 but it doesn't jibe with the Supreme court's ruling in 255 U.S. 81 on February 28, 1921 making the amendments of 1919 unconstitutional if not the entire Section 4 as first passed back in 1917 (that part is not clear but the court's decision date is fixed nevertheless).

Baring any action on Congress's part in the interim between October 22, 1919 and February 28, 1921 that repealed the Act (your the successful repeal of the majority of the Lever Act in December of 1920) I don't see how the edition with the extra two chapters could possibly have anything other than a 1921 or 1922 copyright date -- making it almost certain we need to host 2 [mostly redundant] versions of the work. I will go poke around for stuff passed in late 1920 that might have to do with repealing the Act prior to the Supreme Court's ruling. Back in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No wonder I got confused - the 1917 act, as amended, expires (not repealed by another Act of Congress or through the Courts) with the Proclamation declaring the end of the hostilities (Sec. 24). Off to find the Proclamation.... -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Grrrr... maybe not. Proclamations really only show repeal of licenses and transfer of functions to other agencies, etc. but nothing specific enough to indicate the invalidation of Section 4 took place via Presidential action -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I took the "successful repeal" bit from here... If the information isn't correct, or doesn't correspond with the text, I can remove it from here as well, and replace it with correct information...? My ignorance is showing! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just not adding up. No indication the House resolution (introduced by Volstead?) passed in December 1920 was also a.) un-amended by the Senate further and/or then b.) passed by the Senate in a manner that repeals the Act or sections with it like we "think" it was. There are too many conflicting details from the various available sources. Begining more intensive (& independent!) research. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

---

research

( Act Aug. 10, 1917, c. 53, § 4, 40 Stat. 276 )

• Act of August 10th, 1917, chapter 53, section 4, volume 40 United States statutes at large page 276

– we have this hosted already

[ Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115⅛ff. ]

• United States Compiled Statutes, 1918, section 3115 one-eighth ff

–

• United States Compiled Statutes, Annotated Supplement, 1919,

– Volume 1, Title XVII-A (or 17a), National Defense, section 3115 one-eighth ff, page 660

( Act Oct. 22, 1919, c. 80, § 2, 41 Stat. 297 )

• we have this hosted already BUT

– need to see 1919 Supp. Fed. Stat. Ann. 60.

– Title II was [not]* repealed along with Title I and the rest of the 25 sections remaining of the Lever Act on March 3, 1921 (NOT December 22, 1920) c. 136, 41 Stat. 1359

– Section 4 [original] as amended by section 2 ruled unconstitutional in 255 U.S. 81 on February 28, 1921.

*See George Orwell III's 04:57, 29 May 2011 edit a few entries down Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Getting back to the issues with the timeline of events, I've come to realize what is needed to show when and what specificly was repealed in the Lever Act (§§ 1-7 & 10-25 of the August 10, 1917 Act; the best I can tell Secs. 8 & 9 where not affected by the supreme court's 1921 ruling on section 2 amending of the original section 4) is to compare the 1918/1919, the 1919/1920 and the 1920/1921 Compiled Statutes to see if §3115⅛ff still exists or not. This is not that easy to do because most of the online copies of this series is missing or labeled wrong as well as most of the cross reference sources available. I got lucky with 1918/1919 above (mislabeled 1916) but I've got feelers out and hopefully something will materialize by next weekend.

Found mention of a Resolution of March 3, 1921; don't know if this has any significance or not (brackets below—and contents therein—are mine):

(Oh...I see you already mentioned that above. So much to digest...) Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)...Just read your 4:57 update below; editing at the same time... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FOOD AND FUEL

See the Resolution of March 3, 1921, set out in the title War Department And Military Establishment [see also p. 315] in this supplement, infra. This resolution repeals much war time legislation, including the Lever Act, so called, and amendments thereto. The Lever Act is set out in 1918 Supp. Fed. Stat. Ann. p. 181, and amendments thereto are set out in 1919 Supp. Fed. Stat. Ann. p. 60.

I'm an idiot. I found this yesterday and even added it in research above ( 41 Stat. 1359 ). Now that I'm re-re-reading it more closely, I realized the opposite is true of what I thought was being repealed yesterday - Title II of the Act of October 22, 1919 was NOT repealed but everything else WAS repealed (this includes the Act of August 10, 1917 or as we've come to know it sections 1-25 in the Lever Act.) So we've found the real repeal date March 3, 1921 (1 day before the swearing in of the next President btw). Goes to show you; two heads are always better than one. Excellent work at any rate!!! -- 04:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hosting two versions

Here's where I stand right now with regard to availability of page images for this/these text/s:

This might be telling:

• from the Catalogue of Copyright Entries (Library of Congress), Vol. 18 (1921):

"Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty?...Philadelphia, 1920. 183 p. 26cm. Bibliography: p. 183. © Dec. 15, 1920; 2c. and aff. Jan. 7, 1921; A 605311; G. H. Earle, jr., Philadelphia. (21-1069)"

Q: What does "2c. and aff." stand for? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've always operated under the assumption that meant something along the lines of "two copies submitted on December 15, 1920 and copyright affirmed January 7, 1921". I've never been able to find a key or similar index that definitively proves that but to be honest, I never really tried all that hard to find one during my online travels. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I started photocopying the longer version a bit ago, but ran out of both dimes and time (I had to travel some to get at this copy). I got through Chapter 6, plus the last page from Chapter 10 and one page of back matter. The shorter version I recently requested via an interlibrary loan, hoping to take photo images of the remaining chapters/back matter for transcription. I did not know it would be a "shorter version"—let alone that one even existed! It is an in-house-only read, and so I photographed Chapters 7 and 8 and the back matter (also all of the front matter for comparison purposes)... I have to say I was a bit frustrated, but the knowledge of there being two versions at least placated my disappointment somewhat... but not much... So... If I am to host both versions, should I then photograph the whole text of the shorter version (I would rather not have to), or is it enough that the TOC chapter/page numbers correspond in both texts through Chapter 6, and assume they are identical? One way or another, I want the final two chapters of the longer version, and hope to get them eventually—definitely/hopefully by summer's end... Thoughts??? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally speaking, & to date, I've observed you to be more than "just thorough" when it comes to transcribing a whole spectrum of works. You go beyond that to be blunt about it.

Because of this I have no problem believing you when you say there is no content difference for chapters one thru six in both the short and the longer editions. Some folks will argue that format, layout and similar nuances "matter" so you must host both versions to stay true to the originals. I, however, see no point in undertaking such endeavors just for the sake of font and line break differences (Its not poetry - its an essay/analysis confined to a narrow topic or issue for cris' sake).

If the difference is truly just 2 more chapters to the original first 6, I would dutifully list both editions and any relevant info on the Author page, host only the longer, later version, note the differences between the two editions whenever applicable and move on to improving then finishing the piece that encompasses the most relevance for the possible readers to come. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How would you suggest I differentiate between the two editions on the Author page? i.e., instead of "early" or "later" edition... What would the correct wording be? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

see paragraph starting You know, it just dawned on me... below

The Aftermath

That Wikipedia article also isn't all that accurate but that's not my concern just yet. What would be helpful is to read the rest of Earle's analysis (Aftermath and Final Summary) to help pin down the order of events so we can go about correcting all the inacuracies here first. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm anxious to get at that [longer] copy again! It's in a precarious way (detached spine, etc...), and I'm afraid the library might soon decide to "retire" it... The final chapters were not conducive to photocopying, so I'll bring my camera along next time around... I'll digest your above information in a bit... Thank you for all! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This from the 10 November 1920 issue of The Nation:

CUBA'S moratorium, like the Japanese panic of April and May, is but an acute local symptom of the world process of deflation through which all nations will have to pass in the coming decade. When the bottom dropped out of the silk and cotton markets, and the price'of raw materials was cut in half, Japanese merchants who had speculated on the basis of the inflated war and armistice prices were caught, and banks and stock exchanges were closed while temporary adjustments were being made. Cuba's difficulties are similarly caused by the sensational drop in the price of sugar and rice. Sugar alone accounts for three-quarters of Cuba's total exports, and when the artificially high prices in the United States broke, Cuban banks, which had been lending on the basis of prices one hundred and fifty per cent in excess of those now prevailing, were inevitably short. American bankers can tide Cuba over her present crisis, but the adjustment must be disastrous for many who had speculated upon the high prices. A similar process is inevitable elsewhere; and just as the burden of war prices was borne by the workingmen and middle classes, so the onus of deflation is discharged upon the workmen in the form of lowered wages and jobs abolished, while retail prices drag far behind raw materials in the promised price drop....

Reference the above with the first paragraph of Chapter 9, which speaks of Japan's panic, moratoriums in Cuba, etc., and I believe you'll (hopefully) have a better timeline to work with in regard to versions... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It may also be telling where on the same Chapter 9 page, Earle states, "it is being asked: 'How was it possible to predict accurately the inevitability of all this, in the foregoing pages, written at a time when everything was at the highest, and the public convinced that it was there to stay forever?' So Earle had initially written much(?) of the "foregoing pages" during a more profitable time? When might that have been? (I haven't yet read the rest of the chapter, so answers might lie there)... The Japanese panic having taken place in April/May of 1920 would mean that the "preliminary version" would have been written at least prior to that? [or, at least, the version would have begun being written sometime prior to that?]... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Having a "duh" moment, I looked back at all the cases listed in the first eight chapters to see what the latest ones were to give an indication as to when the preliminary version was written... The top two "winners" are:

• Ohio, etc., Water Co., vs. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U. S. 287 (listed as "not yet reported" in text, but lists the June decision) (decided: June 1, 1920; argued: Oct 15)
• Weed & Company vs. Lockwood, 264 Fed. Rep. 453 (listed as "not yet reported" in text) (decided: ?; argued: Oct 18-20)

So...the preliminary version would have at least been penned after June of 1920. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the excerpt above I would assume the time of the most "profit" was referring to the period before the Act of Oct. 22, 1919, chap 80, section 2's amendment of the 1917 section 4 - the same amendment(s) that were ruled unconstitutional in 255 U.S. 81 on February 28, 1921. This nuance easily becomes overlooked because some 3 days after the court's opinion, Congress repeals the Lever Act anyway.

I'd be curious to see what the latest case citation made in the analysis was - might tell us something that way too... George Orwell III (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you note that I have uploaded the remaining images for the text? The LOC obliged me with scans-to-pdf of the remaining pages which I turned into individual pages... I looked through the cases listed in Chapters 9 & 10, and there were no new(er) ones listed... The latest was Ohio, etc., Water Co., vs. Ben Avon Borough, and it was still listed as "not yet reported"—same as in the previous chapters. So for now, all I can narrow down is: Early version post June 1920 (nothing "profitable" or "at the highest" economically about that time frame, was there? [I do not know my history] But I do not know, of course, exactly when Earle began writing the long essay; all we know is that it was completed post June 1920); later version pre Dec 1920. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

Now that the timeline of events has become a bit more accurate, I'm left to wonder again how best to rectify the two version issue. I am somewhat skeptical only 1 copyright entry exists for both versions now that the intial shorter version no longer shares December 1920 as a copyright date with the incorrectly assumed December 1920 repeal of the act. A March 3, 1921 repeal date makes me wonder how he could write 2 chapters titled Aftermath and Final Summary and still be able to amend the original copyright. I'm curious if the shorter version is 183 pages long (give or take) or if the longer version is. Anyway, unless something else comes to light and before we can actually read the 2 extra chapters, I'm leaning towards listing the shorter, earlier version the Preliminary Revision and the longer, later one the Final Revision (or maybe Final Edition).

The "shorter" version is most definitely 162 pages long (despite what its TOC says, as it contains a typo with regard to the Bibliography—which falls on page 162, and not 163.) The "longer" version (hosted here—in part—*sigh*) is 183pp. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, it just dawned on me that you don't have deal with the earlier edition at all or even list it. If the copyright in place (now expired) is for 183 pages and the longer [and assumed to be later] version is 183 pages there is no way to justify hosting or mentioning a version thats 20-some-odd pages shorter. It doesn't exactly "fit" with the order of events as we think they transpired but a good portion of what we currently have is based on rational assumption or logical deduction as well. It doesn't pay to over-think this any more than we need to or is even possible without reading the last 2 chapters. If you still feel the shorter version needs mentioning or its own listing, designate it a published working draft or something. Let the 'final revision' be the only edition (because that is what what the copyright registration in effect is telling us). -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to go! Gotta run! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My only concern is how deep his Aftermath analysis goes. If he is citing incidents, examples or rulings that are more or less a year from the intial copyright date, I would think that is too long a period to between revisions not to host both versions (which would sort of make them editions & not just revisions if understand "library logic" correctly that is) -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The library is still holding the early (shorter) version for me (until June 9th), so I have time to photograph the pages if you think that is the desirable route!? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems I just keep getting dumber! Certainly more confused!... Looking back at the inscription on the (longer) version I initially photocopied in part—I didn't upload the inscription page to WS, and so have ignored it all this time—the recipient of the copy, Laurence D. Beggs (Earle's son-in-law), inscribed the date of his receipt of the book: "March 3d 1920." (More on that here) BUT, that brings to mind two points:

1. Earle speaks of the "Japan panic" in the copy (Ch. 9) owned by Beggs (which a source I quoted here stated took place in Apr/May of that year).
2. We know that the latest case mentioned was decided on June 1, 1920.

Either Earle was prophetic, or I've missed something here!? (Won't you be happy when you get to archive all this??) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, the "analysis" still doesn't quite jibe with the order of historical events even though we've nailed down more and more of the relevant dates independently from the work itself (i.e. Statutes at Large, Court Reporter, etc.). If we ignore all that has been discovered via various tangent researching to date and just go by the December 15th, 1920 copyright registration date, most of the seemingly conflicting content vs. events can be overlooked in general (but on a personal level - I am one that loathes turning a blind-eye to conflicting facts or leaving the door open to more reader assumptions whenever possible). Still, I believe the effort is worthwhile if we can summarize our findings to the best of our combined ablities on the work's mainspace talkpage at the end of the day.

... and thanks for verifying aff. once and for all. I'm glad I wasn't off by much all this time at least. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may... not to mention letters toward the end of Ch 6 which are dated May 29, 1920 (in both long AND short versions!) that I have not yet transcribed ... OK, I'll take your advice and ignore the "seemingly [good word] conflicting content" for now, and get back to transcribing. My own "reader assumptions" at this time (subject to change) however?? Initial much shorter essay (pre-March 1920) that pre-dates both versions we know to exist; explanation of Beggs' own inscription date mystery?: rebinding(?)... Enough on this! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Quotation quandry

As you may have already noticed, much of the text is made up of quotations from various persons/sources other than Mr. Earle himself (see example). In the original text, (I don't know how to correctly describe this...) quotation marks precede every line of text that contains a quotation. Does WS have some sort of template that can mimic that formatting? I ask, because I am currently transcribing a quote that spans 4 pages. My thought was to either utilize a template for this (if it exists), or to indent the text and make the font smaller to make it more evident to the casual reader that it is a quotation—someone other than Mr. Earle speaking. If the latter, what would a good "rule of thumb" be as to the suggested length a quotation must be in order to bother with indentation/smaller font, etc. Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

All of that today falls under a single opening quote for each new paragraph (I caught maybe 1 paragraph break and 2 drop in/outs by Earle in 4 pages) and a single closing quote at the last paragraph. This is a symptom of the printing-press and/or the publisher of the day which even then, had been phased out from most legalese manuals-of-style at the turn of the century. Technically, all you really need is one opening quote at the beginning and one closing quote at the end of the block of text that is in question.

The quotation (by Henry George) starts 1/2-way down p. 151, and continues with neither paragraph breaks nor Earle interjections, and ends at the very {{nop}} bottom of p. 154. Earle resumes solo at the top of the next page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. Thought I saw a pause in the quote. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No biggie... I could have made a mistake, so it prompted me to check! By the way, I like what you've done with the Talk page for the text, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I prefer not to bother with such symptoms of publication and don't know of any template that does as for you -- at the end of the day staying that true to the original is not helping what is a brutally over-edited court opinion even before you get to the questions of 'how hard is this for the possible readers out there to follow?' without all those run-in statements and excessive quotes getting in the way as well.

Perhaps what Holmes was referring to when he called it a "somewhat verbose" discussion! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If you take another peek at Chap 80 in Volume 41 (Act Oct. 22. 1919) today you'll see that the lack of a decent >blockquote> tag around here makes me follow the simple rule that quoted/inserted/amended text should always be differentiated from the meat and potatoes text. I like to make the text in question "smaller" in margin than the text leading into the block-o-quotes and return to back to normal L & R widths and normal top & bottom padding as needed afterwards. Repeat whenever necessary. -- George Orwell III (talk)

I had to go over to the Main to see the difference, for the "smaller margin" doesn't render (at least on my computer) in the Page:namespace, but it does in the Main. Looking as well in the Main, I see you're still plugging away at sidenotes. I may be stating the obvious to you (don't hate me!), but in case you weren't aware (please don't hate me then either!), the sidenotes overlap into the main body of text (at least in my view of the page)... May the template soon bend to your will! ;) Thanks for the tip! I'll look over the formatting & give it a shot... Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

When ever you see something like that, if you could verify it by skiming through similar works in volume 1 or 2 to insure its a coding thing and not a format one that would be great. I'm getting the feeling we might have gone a bit overboard with the hard-spacing to force or not to force a line wrap. Also, I was always under the impression forced line breaks should just be <br> or <br /> not </br> buy I don't think it would cause overlaps.

Also the appearance of smaller margins in the main is intentional. I try not to tinker or deviate too much from the scan in the whenever in the Page: namespace (that what its for). -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check from now on. And, I never quite understood the differences between <br> or <br /> or </br>... I'll take your advice not to use the </br> anyway! So you think the "hard-spacing" (I assume you're talking about my use of non-breaking spaces?) could be the culprit? Does it make the sidenote margin too wide?

Looking at Vol. I, I think my use of non-breaking spaces/breaks are likely the culprit—forcing the sidenote width to be "too" large for the parameters assigned. Should I do some re-do's of the sidenotes? I don't mind! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ifeq compatible with hws/hwe?

I applied the ifeq notation to the lengthy quotation by Henry George... It seems, however, that it breaks up the line between pages 153 & 154 after the word "marble"—which was hyphenated (see rendering in the Main...toward bottom of page). Maybe I have formatted incorrectly somewhere? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Hmm... It seems to also happen (with no hws/hwe) between pp. 151-152 also; but not between 152-153 for some reason. Should something be placed in the footer maybe? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed (I hope). You need to hit return after the opening div and before the closing div -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Text images are now all present and accounted for!

...Thanks to my newest best friend, the Library of Congress :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI on "aff."

from the Digital Reference Section, LOC:

"Yes, in the copyright entry you mention, "2c." indicates that two copies were received by the Copyright Office. The abbreviation "aff." stands for "affidavit of American manufacture," and simply indicates that the Copyright Office received a sworn affidavit that the work in question was created in the United States. Such an affidavit was required by U.S. copyright law at that time. The date that follows (Jan. 7, 1921) indicates the date the copies and the affidavit were received by the Copyright Office."

formatting

What are your thoughts on formatting for the letters on this and subsequent pages?—prose? block center? setting width? I don't like how it renders in the Main as it now stands... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Earle leads up to the point where the letters appear in the work with the line, "... The following are fac-similes of the letters, ..." so I would give the reader fac-similes of a letter. Take a look at the mainspace rendering now to see what I "usually" do for such nuanced differentiation in the main namespace.

Also, I took some time out and refreshed the 'unconstitutional case' (255 U.S. 81) to a GoogleBooks hosted Court Reporter scan now linked on it's talk pages. If you get some time, please do a quick review of it now to make sure I didn't miss anything in my tunnel-vision since we don't have that volume scanned and uploaded for side-by-side proofreading just yet. Thanks in advance - don't worry about it if you can't -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I can! But likely tomorrow, for it is late. And my requests are always "at your leisure" too, so as not to pull you away from your own editing... I appreciate all the help... Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

255 U.S. 81

Using the Google Books text for comparison:

The trivial:

1. After point #3 at the beginning of the statement, the word "This" is in small caps in the original.
   • Got it-fixed.
2. In the paragraph that begins with "The regulation of the prices," the orig. lists an "anno" in italics, and an "id." in non-italics. Looking at the rendering of the other uses, I assume you caught that and corrected the two errors(?) in the original?
   • I found it strange that a stray citation would differ from those before and and after it of the same type so I went with making them all uniform in spite of the scan.
3. Do you combine "Fed.Rep." on purpose or should it be "Fed. Rep." with a space?
   • Yeah I realized that was going to be an issue for some. For most citation redirects, templates and interlinking, "we" generally drop these types of spacing internally & underneath and pipe the content however it may appear externally or on top. In the case of Fed. Rep. the problem is that is no longer the common form of citation for the first series of the Federal Reporter. I went and found the old template that should be used for linking/citing purposes and tweaked it to work both with the old and new styles.
   1. • {{FedRep|0|264|218|link=264 F. 218}}
        • Using "0" (zero) for the 1st param indicating the series No. gives you the expanded (old) abbreviation for the 1st series = 264 Fed. Rep. 218
      • {{FedRep|1|264|218|link=264 F. 218}}
        • Using "1" (one) for the 1st param indicating the series No. gives you the current (common) abbreviation for the 1st series = 264 F. 218

I've gone back and applied the template to a page or two already. Hope to replace the remaining instances as I come across them.

The [seemingly] significant:

1. • Under "Counsel for the Parties": The original doesn't list "Mr. William L. Frierson" (Solicitor General) at all...
     • Understood. I mentioned this kind of issue some time ago concerning this Wikiproject in general. The last name was there originally and I figured better to tie that to a full name, link the individual to his WP article and associate his function in the court as well rather than remove it in light no internal scan on WS anyway. This will be a frequent irritation throughout most cases not just the Lever related ones (ex. sometimes they cite the legal & reporter info; sometime they don't. I figure more is better [unless its too repetative or otherwise redundant] so I add, tweak, keep, etc. as I find it or think is better for the possible readers out there beside us.

I have yet to look over the Opinion of the Court, but will try to get at that later today... Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm jumping from one task to the other with no real "plan" today. So much to read so littel time. <sigh> -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Opinion of the Court

I proofread the opinion page using side-by-side window views w/ the Google Books version. Of course, if another version is eventually used in match & split, some of my changes will likely be reverted (like the antiquated use of "reënactment," etc.)... Hoping I didn't "undo" some things you have determined to be "better practice" and make more work for you...? I will get to the Pitney concurrence perhaps tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Finished Pitney Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a bit. I want to start & finish 229 U.S. 373 first. I'm sure its fine but I'll touchback here either way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sidenotes, revisited

I was wondering if you are still playing with the sidenotes template... Thinking my use of non-breaking spaces may have been the culprit, I played with formatting in my sandbox, but using non-breaking spaces—and not—both produced the same effect... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can effectively test sidenotes in any other namespace but the Page: and the main namespaces (which really means sidenotes as they appear in the main namespace after they are transcluded from the Page: namespace anyway).

Instead, try your tests in Page:Sandbox.djvu/1 and transclude it to some mainspace page temporarily to see if you still get the same results then. If you do - I'll have to take another look at the template(s) I guess. I did check several pages in volumes 1, 6 and 33 and did not see anything but a cleaner rendering across them all. At any rate, let me know. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Transfered text (without using nbsp's) to Page:Sandbox.djvu/1, and (if I did it correctly) the following is how it transcludes into the Main. Still shows overlapping. Let me know if I did something wrong! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Always use templates Sidenotes begin and Sidenotes end in the Page: namespace (typically} in the non-included header and footer sections. Never use USStatCols start and USStatCols end templates in the Page: namespace.

Always wrap the <pages> statement in the main namespace with the USStatCols start and USStatCols end when transcluding Statutes at Large pages only.

Are you still seeing something out of whack as before? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

EDIT - Ok I checked Volume 40, Chapter 55 under IE 6, 7, 8 & 9. No problems in IE 6 and 7 but about a 2em overlap of the main column text under IE 8 and 9. Before I go any further are you using IE8 or IE9? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither; Chrome. Sorry... I am back and forth from the kitchen... Stirring two pots at once, apparently; one figurative and one literal ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn it - I'm not familar with Chrome and I guess you are still seeing an overlap even with my recent corrections applied since your prior 00:23 post?

If you still see the overlap can I ask you if you might know if there is something similar to 'view source', 'view HTML' or 'view code' under Chrome in one of the drop-down menus or possibly if you right-click somewhere over the text? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Same (2em) overlapping in my IE (9, I think) as in my Chrome (looking at my Sandbox2 and V. 40)... Let me check for a view source... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In older versions of IE it was accessible doing the right click thing or was in the view menu next to file, edit, etc. across the top... -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I got it... What page do you want me to copy source info from? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Chrome "view source" of chapter 55

Ok what might help me is if I saw that source code. Go to back to the main namespace volume 40, chapter 55 page and make sure the dynamic layout setting shows Layout 1. Now open that "view source" thingy. If you could locate <div id="headertemplate"> and copy everything after that up to the <!-- arrow above the line NewPP limit report and paste it here, it might give me a clue to whats going on and how to fix it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

<div id="headertemplate"> 
<table class="headertemplate"> 
<tr> 
<td class="gen_header_backlink"><span id="headerprevious">←<a href="/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_40/65th_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_54" title="United States Statutes at Large/Volume 40/65th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 54">Chapter LIV</a></span></td> 
<td class="gen_header_title"><b><span id="header_title_text"><a href="/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">United States Statutes at Large</a>, Volume 40</span></b> <i>by <a href="/wiki/Author:United_States_Congress" title="Author:United States Congress" class="mw-redirect"><span id="header_author_text">United States Congress</span></a></i><br /> 
<span id="header_section_text"><a href="/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_40/65th_Congress" title="United States Statutes at Large/Volume 40/65th Congress">Public Acts of the Sixty-Fifth Congress</a>, 1st Session, Chapter 55</span></td> 
<td class="gen_header_forelink"><span id="headernext"><a href="/w/index.php?title=United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_40/65th_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_56&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="United States Statutes at Large/Volume 40/65th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 56 (page does not exist)">Chapter LVI</a>→</span></td> 
</tr> 
</table> 
<table class="header_notes"> 
<tr> 
<td></td> 
</tr> 
</table> 
</div> 
<div style="position:relative; width:49em; margin:0.0em 11.5em 0.0em 0.0em;"> 
<div style="margin:0.0em 0.0em 0.0em -3.0em; padding:0.0em 0.0em 0.0em 15.0em; text-align:justify; clear:both;"> 
<div> 
<p><span><span class="pagenum" id="287" title="Page:United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_40_Part_1.djvu/306"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; vertical-align:middle; right:0; width:12em; margin:-0.5em -11.0em 0.0em 0.0em; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 0.0em; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:83%; text-align:center; text-indent:0em; line-height:1.0em;">September 19, 1917. [S. J. Res 93.]<br /> 
<s>                              </s><br /> 
[Pub. Res., No. 11.]</span></p> 
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapsed; align:center; margin:0em auto 1em auto;"> 
<tr> 
<td> 
<p id="chap55" style="font-size:90%; padding-top:0em; padding-right:0em; padding-bottom:0em; padding-left:0em; text-indent:0em;"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">Chap</span>. 55.—Joint Resolution For improving Willapa Harbor and River, Washington.</p> 
</td> 
</tr> 
</table> 
<p><i>Resolved by the Senate and House of Repesentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,</i> That the Secretary of War may proceed with the work of improving <span style="position:absolute; right:0.0em; width:12em; margin:-0.5em -11.0em 0.0em 0.0em; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 0.0em; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:83%; text-align:left; text-indent:0.0em; line-height:110%;">Willapa Harbor and River, Wash.<br /> 
Construction of improvement work authorized.<br /> 
Vol. 39, p. 405.</span>Willapa Harbor and River, Washington, in accordance with the authorization in the river and harbor Act of July twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and sixteen, provided he is assured that the city of Raymond and other local interests will contribute the sum of $71,775, being one-half the actual estimated cost of dredging in the North and South Forks of the Willapa River above their junction and will comply with all the other conditions of cooperation imposed by the said Act.</p> 
<p>Approved, September 19, 1917.</p> 
<p><br /></p> 
</div> 
</div> 
</div> 
<p><br /></p> 
 

My better half may have to use the computer soon, so if I don't answer back promptly, that's why! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries - I will be busy looking at this for some time anyway...

Another "duh" question from me: Dynamic layout 1 is the "default" layout, right? I don't have to click on it to get to it? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to click it if it automatically showed 'Layout 1' on entering the page... Again - thanks & back in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't think I've isolated the quirk between the two browsers but just to eliminate one possible path for sure, can you take a look at Chap. 55. again and see if the overlap still exists? -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't get any closer than that without overlapping, but as it currently stands, no overlapping! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Address by Hamid Karzai to Joint Session of Congress copyright?

Unlicenced. Thoughts? Not US employee (well not officially). — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ughh... I would think Karzai waived his rights (making it PD) in an attempt to reach a broader audience but without a specific statement to that effect, its hard not to follow our own muddled logic to date and not host such a speech (unfortunately). -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am always comfortable to consider intent. If there is a reasonable means to apply a tag due to the place delivered and the means of recording, then to me that intent can be assigned without a blackletter interpretation. I am comfortable sailing close to the line, and not set the bar a good distance back, and if we get a takedown notice for a political work in the US legislature, so be it. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that's more along the lines of the typical American view that I personally believe to be correct and in compliance without the WS member/admin hat on. Speeches, regardless of the individual in question, made on the floor of what is commonly thought of as "the People's House" [of Representatives], implies an address specifically for the U.S. public-at-large and in general other world governments, etc. By that logic, the speaker's intent seems to be one where he/she meant to waive any claim of copyright (or at least free access to copy & redistribute w/proper attribution) in order to help generate greater circulation and the like.

That said, I'm not so sure PD-USGov applies -- though an argument "could" be made that it using it is OK now that the Congressional Record has been associated with the work and linked. Still, the caveat with the Congressional Record has always been understood as not superseding traditional copyright. Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How about Template:PD-in-USGov? Also something like Current Crisis in South Africa & Ehud Olmert's 2006 Speech to the US Congress would fit somewhat there. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Better.... but not quite right either since we're talking about visiting representatives of some foreign government for the most part more so than any specific Federal entity or agency here. The premise in that PD banner, however, is almost the same for the speech-before-Congress instances but the lack of any attribution and/or the possibility the work may be protected, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, if the author so chooses to exercise that right, makes using it problematic (in my view) as well.

Testimony given before a Congressional Committee, even if it is just a statement entered into the record without being read aloud, is not copyright protected. An address or speech (i.e. no such back-and-forth interaction as you would typically have in the case of testimony) is more akin to a 1st-public-performance of what amounts to a scripted work (the speech). Testimony goes toward consideration of evidence in crafting policy or law whereas a joint-address is more horatory or honorific in nature.

In short, the Bishop Tutu testimony is in the clear as a work of the Federal Gov't but the Olmert & Karzai speeches most likely need some combination of PD-USGov plus at least one other template covering the aspect(s) I mentioned above. I'd rather not add another incorporated template of 2 or more copyright principles acting in concert if at all possible - the fact that ascertaining whether or not the speaker before Congress in question has/will exercise his/her copyright protection would then most certainly fall to the WS contributor rather than leaving it up-in-the-air for the possible reader to determine with that type of combination license applied.

The sad reality here may still be that without the leg work needed to obtain permission in each & every instance, most of these speeches aren't up to current standards no matter how we try to slice it and probably shouldn't be hosted. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pamphlet classification

For Index purposes, would a pamphlet of 7 poems be classified as a "book" or a "collection"? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

More info: all poems written by same author; one quotation from a former President.

Some of us mentioned in passing the current choices were too limited but it never went beyond actually doing something about it if I remeber right. I see it as book is to pamphlet as collection is to a series so I'd go with book until something better comes along. Of course, if there is a formal copyright entry under the "collection" section or something, I'd go with collection here too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No copyright statement within pamphlet; not part of collection; published privately in 1917. I'll go with "book." Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico v. Hermanos

Can you see what is to be done with People of Puerto Rico v. Rubert Hermanos and Puerto Rico v. Hermanos? They aren't the same case, but their titles fail to disambiguate each from the other. Cheers, Hesperian 01:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Done - Sorry for the delay. Side-tracked by meat-space once again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

3 CFR 1936-1938 Comp

I was wondering if my solution to the missing page images is sufficient. I inquired about copyright specifics at Commons, just because I didn't know if there was a legal reason some images did not render in the final Archive.org output, or if it was merely a matter of the PDF "translator" (my word, don't know what it is exactly) not being able to pick up the images during the conversion process, or whatever... Anyway, let me know! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - that will do fine. I'm hoping for an early wrap-up here by late Friday afternoon so I can take stab at it this weekend. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Good. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

New York Company v. Pennsylvania

The work New York Company v. \Pennsylvania looks a little strange with the backslash in the middle of the title. I was going to move it to New York Company v. Pennsylvania however that is already taken by another similar work. Looks we need to some sorting and disambiguation, and wondered whether I can leave that little cherry in your capable hands? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Done 1st party wasn't full company name. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oblique "patting" comment

Oh dear, I was being jovial/conversational, though obviously oblique and vernacular. I was just meaning they have responded to "being nice", but it was a throwaway line, so probably just belongs in "aha, thanks" <raised eyebrow> category. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh please.... I was just taking advantage of a strictly American interpretation of the phrase at your unwitting expense. How ever you all manage get things done down under is no concern of mine. That could be a standard business practice for all I know. <chuckle> -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Law reference

Question: I would like to (one day) start filling in the "missing" reference sources noted in the Earle texts. For example, WS does not have 1894 A. C. 559 (Nordenfelt v. Maxim) hosted here... I would like to fill in some of the blanks so I can link to the "missing" cases text, but I don't know if I should merely add a Mainspace page with the text of the specific case (noting the source from which the text was copied on its Talk page), or if you all would prefer creating whole Index:pages that could some day be completed. If the latter, is the above noted source (Law Times Reports) one that you would recommend working from for an Index? I figure you are probably specific, as well, with regard to case notation, and I don't want to start biting off more than I can chew (or give you more to fix than you probably desire after I've botched things up! )... Thanks for any direction, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of U.S. case law frameworks set up already that run the local-to-supreme court spectrum but how to approach something like English (or Crown?) case law is really something I know very, very little about. The best person to approach on this, off the top of my head, would be User:Htonl. I may be 100% wrong here but I believe his South African law projects are pretty much along the same lines as the English system of old (or should that be olde ?) was; maybe he can help you. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try to remember that I have even asked this question, and will pose it to Htonl tomorrow. Again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

376 U.S. 254

Can you sort out the apparent duplication between New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254) and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan please? Hesperian 11:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ta. Hesperian 12:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Can we keep it at this page, as this is the most common title for this case in secondary sources and is also its location on en.wikipedia ? -- Cirt (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm affraid that doesn't jibe with the directly above's attempt to wrangle article disambiguation in general across en.WS nor does it mesh with the Portal: law project's attempt to organize thousands of supreme & federal court opinions. Sorry. Re-direct to it using whatever and however you wish. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for creating those redirects! You think the way it is now, it's easy for the reader to navigate between New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254) ? -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know & its not really my bag. I'm never concerned with Wikipedia to be frank and I just just pitch in on the Law projects when nobody's around like now. I know the project goal was first to import and organize the opinions then to review and intra & interlink as needed last. As I mentioned before & as i understand it the focus is on all the opinions as a whole here on en.WS -- not as some random top 20 list that is concerned with only the greatest hits or the most popular ones.

If you can't wait for the regular editors to return to the Law Projects, I suggest you do whatever it is that is so critical for you in the here and now & that pleases the possible Wikipedia interloper but keep in mind it can be undone at random and without warning because it most likely conflicts with other folks and their efforts to organize and maintain standards here on en.WS. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

George: Nothing is critical, it is perfectly okay, please, I appreciate your editing here and all you have done so far, I was merely asking a question of ease between projects. I think it's great that all cases are being imported here. I'm sorry we appear to have gotten off on a negative tone in this above conversation, and I'm not sure how that happened. Once again, I emphasize to you, George, I am grateful for your contributions here, indeed, even related to this issue. Hopefully we can shift the tone of future discussions. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record I'm not the slightest bit fussed over which name is used. This is just the standard Wikipedia mode of naming disagreement which boils down to a question of how much we follow usage in the real world versus how much we impose internal consistency. I spent years involved in naming disputes at Wikipedia and no longer have an appetite for them. I was only concerned to eliminate the duplication, and passed the problem to George because I thought myself qualified to adjudge neither which had the better content, nor which the better title. Hesperian 00:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries and sorry for coming off so gruff - its more my issue than anything else. Over the months, I've tried to "encourage" that band of editors to be more involved in community discussions to avoid such overlap or maint. issues etc. to no avail. Unfortunately, real life (or meat space if you prefer) gets in the way and they usually take-off all around the same time -- leaving the project half-way done in almost all key areas by most normal measures. Knowing that these characteristics would eventually conflict with normal housekeeping of one type or another around here, as has been the case in recent weeks; the latest just being disambiguation, I'm just frustrated with the entire approach and progress. Attempts to unify and collaborate under one umbrella of guidelines has not taken hold to date and I just don't have the skills to automate the thousands of tasks needed to properly review and/or modify these works to a level where scans can finally become a factor in the editing and/or verifying moving forward.

Anyway, sorry again and feel free to reach out to me if needed in relation to these works in the interim; I'm not a lawyer but I've read more law and decisions than I probably should admit to so I am familiar with the basic ins and outs at the minimum. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. I will of course defer to both of you with regard to naming conventions. :) I wholeheartedly agree with this initiative to import all documents related to U.S. Supreme Court cases! I just think redirects are cheap, and help to assist those from other projects to find the case pages. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

354 U.S. 298

Hi, can I pass another problematic one your way? — Yates v. United States (354 U.S. 298) and Yates v. United States (354 U.S. 298) - duplicate. The latter existed first, and appears to be more complete. I had to move it to turn "Yates v. United States" into a disambiguation page. Hesperian 05:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done

Thanks again. If you're interested, I noticed an odd problem with one (some?) of BenchBot's titles, and left a message about it at User talk:BenchBot. I don't know if BenchBot's driver is still watching that page, and fixing the problem is a very low priority for me. Hesperian 06:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a known issue. Seems to drop the rest of the correct case name when certain symbols are mistaken as punct. (or vise versa) and then all the sub-pages that follow do not become associated with the main page as intended. If I remeber right, it started right around Volume 400 and that's when everything was put on hold until Stephen returns to tweak/fix it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Hesperian 06:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, pass them by if you can or check the volume list (first three digits interlinked) for clues to the right casename. Its not so much the BOT but the source data itself. You'll see its screwed up on all the Law sites irregardless of our import code. Exmple -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Revised Code of Washington

You probably don't know the work itself, however, is there value in the work in this format? To me what we have is pretty useless due to either no data, or no dates of legislation. — billinghurst sDrewth

Errr.... has the cheese finally slid off my cracker or is that nothing but the list of Titles with not a single entry?

If it is, I see no reason to keep it personally but it probably should not be in the mainspace in its current state with no citation indicating current, consolidated, obsolete or some combination thereof at any rate (i.e. its original research because we don't know what or where the intended content was to come from). — George Orwell III (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Seems to be my day (again) in WS:PD. Sometimes doing quiet maintenance causes so much noise. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may be so forward and rather blunt about the matter - I never understood what exactly the point of selectively going through the main namespace and dragging up one article or another for consideration concerning this action or that consensus is. I can understand discovering that an existing work conflicts with a new or better work in some way to the possible reader and thus must be addressed, but if its not bothering anybody, do the header or cat changes that really constitutes maintenance, leave well enough alone & move on.... or is there some method to this persistent madness that I am not aware of??? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the Table of Cases page formatting fix! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Page not transcluded, but …

At Index:Emancipation Proclamation (1863) there is a link to Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 12.djvu/1320. The latter page is showing up as validated though not transcluded. I cannot work out where the bits fit together, and as the work has some of your fingerprints, I am here to ask. Does this page need to be transcluded into the Index: work, or is standalone, and the link artefact to be ignored; in which case I can mark the Index as fully transcluded and move on. Alternatively, does the page need transcluding, and that linking is independent of what is the true parent index, rather than where it is manually linked. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Executive Order/1862

Would you please finish adding its content before any administrator deletes it?--Jusjih (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick help

What are the templates for Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 40 Part 1.djvu/236 to format the section headings? And any other formatting changes that are needed, so I can do them right next time. Much thanks. Int21h (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's some pretty good proofreading if you've never done it before!

Yeah, that question has only come to light in the past month or two & is even more problematic in the various forms of appropriation legislation over the decades. The issue is that more often than not a section Title or similar sub-division will have a corresponding side-note along with it, so wrapping and/or centering these entries "breaks" the current sidenote output to one degree or another when applied. It's going to need a sub-type of the current sidenote template to handle these specific instances properly, anchor tags and all, but it will have to wait until some sort of USSaL dynamic-layout is created (which will do away with a lot of the old templates and their formatting quirks in the process). I used plain old html for your example but by no measure is that the absolute must-do way of doing it either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Int21h (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I am also having problems with the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act of 1973. It does not seem to be transcluding all the pages, specifically the last of the 3 pages, and I am having problems attempting to maintain correct indentation of a split paragraph in the USSaL (pages 707-708) but having the paragraph (Sec. 2(4)) merge in the full Act page. Not really sure how to solve, thinking you could take a look when you get a chance. Int21h (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The : is really a HTML defined-list <DL> tag minus the defined-term tag in wikicode (some folks mistaken believe it is the same as an indented paragraph tag or something). The page break forces the previous page to close these defined-list tags unless you use the straight html tags to begin with and close them yourself in the non-included footer. The same holds true on the following page's non-included header; it needs the straight html opening tags otherwise a line-break & paragraph tag (default & not-visible until saved) want to be the first opening code in the editbox instead. It's fixed now and a diff view of the edit histories on all three pages should be fairly clear to follow. Just ask if you don't. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the purpose of this

This span [5] is not a wrapper. It's used by User:Doug/oldws.js, which is imported into the common.js, as a tag to tell it to replace the first of a duplicate arabic interwiki link with a link to oldws. There is no need for it to wrap anything.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No misunderstaning - <span .... /> [ no closing tag ] is not part of any specification that I've read; CSS, W3 or otherwise. My verbage may not have been the best but the point was a closing tag, even one that ultimately 'wraps' nothing, would have been best for the greatest possible cross and/or backward compatibility.

Without a proper closing tag for the span entry, my entire Special:Recent changes page was prone to your display:none setting; not just (what I assume) was really meant or intended for a single old entry or possibly the entire list of other language Wiki-sites. Seriously, everything after the top info-box went hidden here. No worries; its resolved. :) George Orwell III (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

United States Statutes at Large/Volume 40/65th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 75

It needs some tweaking, and I am not sure what is correct for the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again.

What exactly do you see out of whack with it? Nothing jumped out me. :( - George Orwell III (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not seeing the right sidenote of about 1-2 em in width? (FF6) — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, that is not correct, it is a weirdo in both FF and Chrome. The formatting is pushing out beyond 100% width, irrespective the width of the browser (and note that applies when you stretch it across 3600dpi width on two sceens), and forcing a bottom scroll bar. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

? ? ? ...and that's being viewed in Layout 2?

fyi... most of the USSaLs are using Inductiveload's proposal on WS:S for a default dynamic layout for that btw and looks no different except we didn't want the header to follow the text container's settings all the time. Can't use Chrome or FF here so I'm stuck dealing with IE. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I will try to look at more pages, however, there is something seriously wrong with the formatting with the template for both Layout 1 and 3 and that is in FF, Chrome and IE6 (logged in/logged out). IE6 just looks ugly for a range of pages for a number of works, and layout 3 is just atrocious, and again pushes beyond 100% width. Can I say that it looks less worse in Layout 2 for IE6 than any others, for others it is just wrong wrong wrong.— billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do. I need you and other folks feedback in order to do away with all the extraneous formatting & workarounds with a new clean dynamic layout for this and similiar type of works once and for all. For starters - how does United States Statutes at Large/Volume 40/65th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 1 "look" in Layout 2 specifically; any better? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Layout 2 is the least objectionable of the three, but that is not much of a compliment. (1) Sidenote fonts should match the body text (whether serif or sans is of no real concern to me, but it’s jarring for them to be different; serif fonts should of course be used for the printable version); (2) there needs to be a bit more of a “gutter” of space between body text and sidenotes so they don’t run directly into each other, even 1em would be better than it is now; (3) size of sidenote text needs to be reduced to about 60% of the size of body text to better match the appearance of the source scans in the Page: namespace. I’m happy to bend my meager skills toward trying to improve the layout, although I fear they may be insufficient to the task, as my recent mucking about with the sidenotes templates probably confirmed. Tarmstro99 13:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Layout 2 is the best out of a bunch of bad choices, I agree. I hope to propose a 4rth layout that should be the default for USSaL pages and similar works one day in the near future to supersede Layout 2. In order to do that we need to eliminate the USSaLColumnStart and End templates in the main namespace AND create our sidenotes class applied thru our own USSaL templates that renders just like the scan does in the Page: namespace BUT also seemlessly integrates with Dynamic Layouts be it the new layout to come as well OR the current Layout 2. Currently this is not possible with all the items in play.

Now woving to the 3 points above...

1. FONT. The current Layout 2 font is nice but it introduces another problem - several characters and most numbers (the number '9' for example) are "dropped" to align in essence to text bottom rather than baseline vertically. Not only does this "mask" some inline refs if they happen to start up against one of these characters, but it makes the line height of the sidenotes overlap if the same font is used for both content and sidenote. The only reason a different font was tested was to prove that 2 lines of sidenotes nearly fits to what amounts to text-top & text bottom of 1 line of main content associated text that way; using the same font nearly always guaranteed sidenote overlap if one happened to be right up against another sidenote. Let's look for something "better" than what layout 2 is set to at the moment.

2. GUTTER. Another long known and circular issue. When certain folks see 1em or so of spacing between the two others see them right on top of each other & vise-versa. Well this can't be fixed for all Users unless those Column wrappers are eliminated first. Then the sidenote templates can be modified to render properly. The problem is prior to dynamic layouts enjoyed basically a 12em left margin w/padding, a 36em center content column w/padding and a 12em right margin w/padding just like the premise is under the Page: namespace. Now that Layouts are most likely going to be universal, transclusion or not, we automatically "lose" 3em on one side (or the other depending on Layout) for the container holding the page-number links. What needs to happen is keep the sidenote template rendering pretty much the same in the Page: namespace BUT shift everything left in our case of all right-side sidenotes so the formula becomes 9em - 36em - 15em WITH a custom layout yet-to-come 4rth Layout in place to offset the 3em loss automatically imposed by dynamic layouts regardless of which one in use. If you followed me this far, then you might also realize that the sidenote template(s) we use need to render a certain way in the Page: namespace while another way in the final main namespace. I've already done the split functionality per namespace in the templates - all thats needed is tweking the settings under the new layout AND without any column wrapping divs or templates in place (like the test Chapter one linked above).

3. SETTINGS. You are not going to get anywhere without adding the test layout to your monobook.js file and some entries to your monobook.css file so it comes up as a 4rth choice in your Display menu. Only then can you and anyone else who cares to pitch in actually make changes that I or others can provide feedback for. Currently, we are slaves to Layout 2 and our particular browsers & settings

Just let me know if its OK to add the particulars - I doubt you are using the monobook skin but that seems the logical place to work the kinks out first and then see if it flies under vector as well. If not no big deal, that'll will just be a two pronged approach instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Female Prose Writers of America fix-ups

George, this work is nearing completion. I saw that you did repairs on the djvu file, and if you have access to a djvu editor, I was wondering if you could assist in carrying out an idea I had. That is, to add the pages missing from the University of California edition from one of the different editions available at archive.org. The idea I had was to replace the blank pages at the beginning and/or the end of the work with the missing pages and just give them appropriate labels on the index page, instead of trying to add them back in the middle of the work and migrating all the validated pages forward (because after all, the interspersed pages would belong to a different edition and probably deserve to be set apart).

The copied text of the missing pages which are right now compressed into the picture pages are marked in blue on the index page right now. So you could be of big help even if you just direct me to a djvu file editor so I could make the appropriate changes.

Thanks, ResScholar (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help in any way I can. For starters, there are three (sometimes four) software packages involved. The main bundle needed to approach this task is the latest version of DjvuLibre, followed by PDF-2-DJVU and optionally Adobe Acrobat Professional v 8.0 (or higher).

The question then becomes do we just want to amend the current djvu uploaded to Commons by adding missing pages to the "end" and then edit the pagelist to display them in their correct order or do we want to fix this book properly by inserting the pages where they originally appear in print and then use Inductiveload's script to move any of the existing pages affected by the new insertions?

Personally, I hope for the latter - a superior & complete fix producing an end produsct that out-shines anything else like it hosted online elsewhere... but I'm open to whatever it is you decide is best here. I'll pause here and give you chance to download and look over the software involved plus time to consider my comments so far. Either way - let me know; I should have plenty of free time over the coming weekend too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

p.s. It dawned on me afterwards that you think the University of California version (1st edition, published 1852) is unavailable elsewhere. That is not the case - see the HathiTrust copy. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

George, when I asked you for assistance, from some discussion I saw I had assumed that the work had been abandoned as too problematic to finish. I was looking for a quick way to complete the job. When I read your reply I inferred there were other users that could and would be willing to help do a finished production, so I was given fresh hope.

I'm sure other folks could & would do a re-fresh, but if one is only concerned with "how it looks" in the mainspace and not-so-much about what was omitted/inserted/hacked manually as a workaround in the Page: or Index: space to get to that point then its not surprising nobody was willing to step forward. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That hope helped carry me over an obstacle of unforeseen difficulty, the distribution of curly quotes in the work, which was about half and half. Since I wrote you last, I have added them to about 90% completion. But now I see you were just talking about using Inductiveload's script, not that he'd necessarily be involved.

Go ahead or finish with whatever it is you need to edit, it has no real impact on the missing page-scans part of all this. Yes, I will need to ask Inductiveload to run his script to move the existing pages as need to "make room" for the missing pages once inserted.

The question then becomes if you want to restore the source file structure to the original scheme as shown in the HathiTrust version linked just above. The reason the Archive.org copy of the work is "corrupted" is that the uploader tried to trim the 2 blank pages found after every portrait image (ie. Blank - Image - Blank - Blank TO Blank - Image) but screwed up somehow and clipped some text pages as well. I need to know if we want just to correct the mistake by inserting the missing text pages or do we want to go all the way and insert the trimmed 2 blank pages as well. It makes no difference to Inductiveload's script which one gets implemented and inserting 2 blank pages is not much more work on this end either. Its totally up to you but I need to know an answer to this asap. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So tell me if you think it's fair for you to do the djvu insertions and the page moves with those tools, since those two tasks would seem best coordinated together (and I doubt I'd find further use for the skills them once I've learned how to do them), and I can rest on my curly-quotes edits carried to completion as well as the 220 or so pages I will have proofread or validated. I could also probably do picture whitening with the basic tools at my disposal (but would probably need help with the signatures), and finish the font-sizing consistencizing that I did along the way of the curly quote task.

I can handle what I've described today just fine. The problem is free-time. I won't know my weekend schedule until late Friday evening here at the earliest. Hopefully I can start this weekend and be "finished" by Monday or so. I'll check back here with a go/no-go as soon as I'm sure. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your infectious enthusiasm, ResScholar (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. & as for those portrait images - you can tap HathiTrust's copy for portrait images with the phoney background already removed fwiw.... -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Well I went ahead and uploaded what the replacement file will look like and the new pagelist for it. Check it out Index:Femprose.djvu and let me know what you think. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks excellent. I see you opted for the blank pages (had to make it perfect, didn't you?). I didn't get what you meant by the "phoney background" on the portrait images, though. Do you mean the cropping someone used when they added them to those biography pages? ResScholar (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The "phoney background" is that composite off-yellowish background image applied to each page to give it the 'look and feel' of the original aged paper or something. Its application distorts the intended grayscale/colors present in the original images (and makes black-ink text look brownish if you haven't noticed). No big deal; its just my own preferrence to avoid such backgrounds whenever possible is all.

Anyway, I made it "perfect" only because it is 1000x easier to delete unwanted pages than it is to insert missing ones. I've left a note on Inductiveload's talk page pointing to this discussion as well. If he's OK with the 19 page staggered move (inserting the 3 missing pages & the 16 blanks plus the 2 swapped pages), then its really up to you to sign-off on that full fix-up . . . or we just do the 3 insertions plus the swaps if his (or your) free time is too expensive for the full fix-up. Either way - you'll need to tweak each mainspace article to reflect the updated pagelist for proper transclusion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Inductiveload finished the moves. All that is needed are the corrections to the mainspace <pages> values -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I started to update the mainspace articles starting from the end and worked forward. I got as far as djvu page 164 (scan page 142). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well hope you are OK - couldn't wait anymore so I went ahead and finished off the remaining mainspace adjustments. Hope I got it all. Prost -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: "phoney background", thanks for the education about the pictures; I thought it was real! I'll get to those as my next project. I'm not sure what you meant by name-space page values; I scrolled through a few of the early pages and didn't see any edits by you, just Inductiveload. But thank you for doing whatever you did to move this work towards completion. I've been concerned about Cygnis' adminship vote of confidence (I will write more below) and then visited relatives and made up work. ResScholar (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I beg to differ about who refreshed the bulk of the work. You should have clicked on Related Changes from the maispace cover page to see the most recent activity. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse me, my plea of ignorance had to do with parsing the very phrase "name-space page values" not whether you applied it correctly to yourself. I could only imagine it meaning what I can now describe as the page-space page numbers matching to the new index page in name-space, now knowing what "-space" means. I saw Inductiveload's name on every early page-space page with no further edit, so I was sure I was mistaken, and in expressing my confusion, accidently described what had happened in name-space as well--a few early contributions by Inductiveload--which were of course followed by many more by you.

Thank you for keeping this large and significant work in readable condition in my absence. Had I understood there was a concomitant task with the index move, (fixing all the chapters being off) I would have either assisted or excused myself in some way if I couldn't have helped out. I'll get started on the pictures as I promised, though I admit I haven't looked to see if they are already done! ResScholar (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing pages in some CFR volumes

Hey -- I had seen on Wikisource:WikiProject United States Executive Orders/Indexes that some of the pages were missing in the scans, so a while back I went to a library and scanned some of those pages in. I'm finally getting around to figuring out how to manipulate .djvu files to insert the missing pages.... I just uploaded File:Title_3_CFR_1938-1943_Compilation.djvu with three new scans (pages 1327-1329). I got OCR in there too, I think. If it all looks good to you, I could gradually work on the other scans I made, which would fill in the gaps in some of those other volumes. Not sure if I got them all or not, but I do have some more. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's great! It looks fine and the OCR is better than average too. FYI... I finally got my hands on Adobe Acrobat 10 Professional and I'm in the process of re-doing those Compilations that carry that 'Digitized by Google' watermark (just finished 1971 to 1975 Compilation last week & will start to re-do 1936 to 1938 Comp. after I finish up 1996 this weekend). Some of the more recent ones need the white-space margins cropped-some as well.

Its a real pain manipulating first the PDFs and then the DJVUs but I'm slowly coming up with a good work flow. I've already padded most of the missing pages with blank place-holders so in most cases you'll just need to re-size-to-match & then swap in the missing pages.

Please - don't be tempted to create any more pages in the Indexes until I get around to moving those that have front matter to the end. Unlike the Statutes at large project, I'd like to be able to avoid needing any offsets for the 3CFR template (i.e. Page:Title_3_CFR_1938-1943_Compilation.djvu/1428 = 3 CFR, 1938-1943 Comp., p. 1428 ) -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Yeah, I had first tried with an older version of tesseract for OCR, but the newer tesseract 3 is far, far better. I also combined the Help:DjVu files/OCR with Tesseract script with a chunk I found on this blog post which creates better positionally-aware text, I think anyways. As for the scans, I did not bother resizing them -- they seem to work fine even if the new scans are a bit bigger than the existing pages. I used the unpaper utility (as mentioned on the help page here) to align and remove borders -- it does work pretty well. This is all command-line stuff, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... sounds like you are getting better results your way rather than my struggling with ANY-2-DJVU online and DJVULibre/PDF2DJVU offline way. My "problem" or "issue" is that the GPO generated PDFs are near perfect with their text-layer so a local conversion using PDF2DJVU (last month's updated ver.) brings the root-text very nicely into a djvu BUT doesn't do "enough" x- and y- coordinate mapping to distinguish columns, headers or paragraph breaks when eventually rendered in the Page: namespace (I refuse to believe there is no easier way around this than to edit pages afterwards on en.WS in the Page: namespace btw). On the other hand, a GoogleBooks conversion is far more work intensive AND far less reliable when it comes to the text-layer (if any) so maybe I can rip the 'watermarks' out and then let your script handle generating the OCR?

For instance, 1988 Comp. keeps crashing when trying to generate an OCR layer - maybe you can take a look at it while I upload & set up the finished 1996 Comp.?

I will read up on your Tesseract and blog pointers a bit later and form some questions on how to try and duplicate it here locally. Thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-visiting cropping 8.5in x 11.0in original PDFs to 5.5in x 9.0in PDFs before conversion to djvu file format:

• 2008 without trimming whitespace first
• 1999 with the trimmed whitespace

... IMHO, there is no comparison - a pre-conversion trim (& centering) makes for far better .djvu rendering in the Page: namespace as a result. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I just uploaded File:Title 3 CFR 1982 Compilation.djvu with the two missing pages inserted. For your other stuff... agreed on the cropping, if possible. There is PDFCrop which looks like it does what you want... it has some dependencies though (I don't have them all installed) and since I can't try it, I don't know how well it handles text (i.e. if it corrects the positions of the text layer). I'll take a peek at 1988, to see if my txt way will work. It just uses tesseract (for the OCR) and djvulibre (for manipulating the .djvu files). Tesseract 3 can deal with columns in the image, though I'd have to guess that GoogleBooks text layer is superior to what tesseract can do (even though it is a Google project... the online text layers seem terrific usually). But if there is no text layer, my stuff seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah... but therein lies the rub - you don't always "get" the hidden text-layer one observes in plain-text view on GoogleBooks when going on to download the full-PDF. Beside the annoying insertion of Google's disclaimer to the begining of the original PDF, only certain types of text-layers (micro format with coordinates embedded and hidden along the left margin/footer) manage to make it to the downloaded full PDF. In addition, some characters Google substitutes for normal punctuation do not play well with djvu conversion - making erroneous line breaks as well as the "little square" default character when conversion doesn't recognize something.

GPO's PDF's on the other hand, are far better as text-layers go but one has to "break" the certification first in order to manipulate the PDF AND keep a similar font as seen in the original. This means doing 2x the work for the same single result (PDF to DJVU back to a PDF and finally back to DJVU again). Unfortunately, GPO only hosts from 1996 to 2009 with promises of older volumes to come some day in the future. I'm going to go back and re-do those before taking on Google's volumes.

Don't go crazy with 1988 - it was a rip from HathiTrust originally so it might be the file(s) & not the software. I'll check out that PDF cropping tool, thanks, but now that I have Acrobat, I might as well stick with the devil I know for the next few Comps I'm planning to convert. - George Orwell III (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of File:Title 3 CFR 1988 Compilation.djvu. The text seemed to work on my end, but does not seem to work on Wikisource. Hrm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Its there. The text is a bit more thn half of the entire .djvu file and that means even longer cache waits (if ever) to get it to display. I couldn't even get to it finish even a quarter of the pages at a time but you managed to attach "something" all the way through. Just a note - it doesn't make any sense to use "per word" (x and y coordinates for each & every word) because the Page namespace cannot differentiate such fine mapping. If that thing has a "per line" setting, use that instead. (a "per word" setting is only good for table cells and their contents getting separated from one another and little else in my view). -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. And yes, I see the text now, cool. I just have a simplistic script to go through every page in turn, generating the text then adding it for each page. It took a long time to run (several seconds per page, and 760 pages) but nothing hard. The word positioning seems useful in some circumstances -- when I do a search in a DJVU viewer, it can highlight the exact words on the screen. Wikisource may not be able to make use of it, but other tools can -- since it's supported by .djvu, may as well include it for potential use by others. That is really an artifact of using the script from the blog page I mentioned -- it seems to be able to figure that out given the positional information from tesseract (which gives positional info for each character). The script posted here on the help page just does it line by line. Does that extra information cause any harm to wikisource? Since it's automated as part of the script, it's no extra effort to create it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No harm done and "word" is the default in most cases but there is a point of diminishing returns. 1988 is a bad example for a "light-weight" .djvu file since it has so many Proclamation ANNEXES with even more than the typical number of pages rotated 90 degrees. Searching extracted text under para, line or word (even chara) works fine here so its more of a post page-creation issue than anything else. If we eventually run one of Tarmstro99's clean up scripts, using line makes for easier clean up of complete giberrish or unneeded line breaks is all. If anything, I wish Page: recognized para more so than either line or 'word. Right now, page creation makes for one long run-on sentence of sorts where as paragraph returns would be most useful to BOT run page creations. When one gets into the area of Commons upload limits, it helps to use line to recover what becomes wasted file size upon rendering in Page: anyway. The entire point of coordinate mapping is more useful the "other way" - being able to take a horrible scan of some old work and using the mapping to create a new born-digital PDF with all the formatting, etc. that matches the original - instead of the simplistic code underneath the Page: namespace used for what amounts to nothing more than a text dump. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Title 3 CFR 1984 Compilation.djvu uploaded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. will take a peek later. After doing three volumes in a row, my brain is kinda fried right now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Title 3 CFR 1978 Compilation.djvu and File:Title 3 CFR 1964-1965 Compilation.djvu upload with missing pages inserted. I think that's all I have. Perhaps in a month or so I could get the pages of that last one, and any others which come up in the meantime. I have discovered there is a slightly newer version of tesseract out there (3.01; I was using 3.00). It has a new option which does a *much* better job on vertical text. Interestingly, it also hung when I tried to re-process the 1988 one to see how it would do; it looks like the new one has a very slight bug -- my script needs tesseract to run twice, once in text mode and once in "box" mode to get the bounding info; the two runs differed by a character (O instead of 0) about a hundred pages in, which caused problems for the script in correlating the two. On the other hand, there is also a new option to generate a type of HTML format which seems to correctly guess at paragraphs, and has all the bounding information in the file too (a format called HOCR), and it looks like it would be possible to transform that into the DJVU format with paragraph information. Maybe someday the Wiki software will be able to pick up on that if I can get it going. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.... that "box" mode sounds familar - I remember reading something similar somewhere weeks ago. It was equated to the region or column parameter in DJVULibre but I didn't think that "solved" the paragraph break issue (though it could go along way in scans with 2 columns of text per page). Once the ability to extract a text layer using para-like settings is possible, all thats needed is a script that inserts the HEX (or Unicode?) equivalent to 2 typewriter returns at the closing parenthesis for the last word place-holder before the close of a para section. The H-OCR sounds like the same solution but via a different approach (the close of a typical HTML paragraph tag instead of the HEX or Unicode thing - which the Page: namespace already can process as a paragraph when rendered). The only issue then becomes paragraphs across 2 pages as it may interfere with the current transclusion scheme(s) to the mainspace (I feel this is still better than the current practices and can still be scripted in or out as neeed after page creation).

Anyway - look forward to hearing any further progress you make in this area and thanks again for patching those pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The "box" mode is a file with the bounding box of every individual character on the page, and nothing else. The script I found (and used) correlated that with the alternate, plain text output of tesseract, which at least gave word breaks but no bounding boxes -- the script correlates the two to compute the word and line bounding boxes. The HOCR output with tesseract 3.01 (apparently a format used by other OCR software) includes bounding boxes for words, lines, and regions, and additionally includes the paragraph markers (though at closer inspection it looks like I'll need to compute the bounding box for the paragraph part). Since the HOCR format is actually HTML, it renders as regular paragraphs when you open it (the bounding boxes are in the HTML attributes). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Those boxes are present in DJVULibre too - just not any higher than per line. Unfortunately, all that seems like 2x the work when it comes to PDFs with text layers and mapping info already present. Currently, there is no simple way to convert that info into a DJVU AND retain the page (a box), region (header, body & footer boxes), column (one or more column boxes within the body region box) & para boxes so that the text dump to Page: namespace (another DJVULibre based executable) reflects what was originally in the PDF. I realize now what you are addressing (& also important to en.WS) more so are images and similar file types (text-less PDFs) that need both "boxes" and the letters with them mapped then recognized. This is great for GoogleBooks based stuff but not so relevant for Archive.org based stuff since the "simple" mapping & text are already present. What's needed is way to preserve the content and expand upon the mapping with HTML-like tags so that the Page: namespace requires less manual formatting. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I probably haven't quite followed the issues you are having with converting PDFs. Do the available converters lose the paragraph information when it converts to DJVU hidden-text? Look at the 1988 file I just re-uploaded; that does have para information I think. Does the Page: namespace make use of that? Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of File:Title 3 CFR 1988 Compilation.djvu; see what you think. This was done with tesseract 3.01, which seems to handle vertical text and tables much much better. Secondly, I tried to use the hOCR (a somewhat generic, HTML format used by some other OCR tools) output of tesseract to generate the DJVU hidden-text (had to write my own script for that), which should preserve page, region, and para information as calculated by tesseract (not so sure about column). I'm not sure the Page: namespace can make use of that though. I had to work around a tesseract bug with hOCR output on vertical text as well. See what you think though. Lastly, I used minidjvu instead of djvulibre to recompress the actual bitmap images. minidjvu will use a "library" of recognized shapes -- on pages, if it finds virtually identical letters, it will make that letter a lookup into the dictionary, with a single bitmap, instead of storing the separate scans. This is what DJVU is designed to do, but it appears that the cjb2 compressor of djvulibre does *not* do that, leading to much much larger files. There are some tiny differences in the bitmaps if you look closely, but they are pretty minor to me. I'm not going to have as much time to work on this stuff for the next couple weeks, but Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding!!! That workflow on 1988 is near perfect - and I'll bet if it wasn't an image by image rip from HathiTrust to begin with, it would be on par with the GPO certified versions. If minidjvu is something I can execute in a Windows environment without all that scripting jazz, I'd appreciate a pointer. I will experiment on the new 1988 djvu file to see how well I can preserve column and paragraph structure when converted back to PDF and then again to a DJVU this weekend (hopefully).

Totally understand you have time constraints and have no problem with you putting any of this on the back burner here. You, as always, have helped more than one can normally expect from any contributor already and then some. Your time away will give me a chance to crop what I can crop as well as hunt down the rest of the volumes missing from the 1990's anyway. Please touchback when time allows - your process will certainly be the best way to rectify all those Annexes, rotated or otherwise, that lack a text-layer even when they come from GPO.

.... and thanks for EO 418! -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Minidjvu is here; they seem to have a Windows install package and a "minimal" UI. I don't use Windows, so it's a command-line tool for me. I ran across a mention of another GUI here... no clue if that's useful or not. Basically, it takes all the base images (or a source djvu) and produces the djvu file. I don't know if it preserves existing hidden-text layers if given some in a source .djvu... I only used it with source bitmaps so there was no text layer. I added that later by using tesseract and the djvulibre tools, though I had to write custom stuff to convert the tesseract output. And as for EO 418... yeah, looks like archive.org now has some of those "Executive Orders relating to the Isthmian/Panama Canal Commission" volumes online, so several EOs which were only visible using snippet view on Google should now be doable. Those were some of the ones which really irritated me that weren't online before ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1936-38

I uploaded an OCRed version of File:Title 3 CFR 1936-1938 Compilation.djvu, however when editing a page it seems to pull the text from 19 pages away. It seems fine using djvulibre tools, but I have no idea why it doesn't seem to work here. I could try re-encoding the file with minidjvu (it doesn't compress that much for this one), but I wouldn't know if the same problem would just recur. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same thing here in the Page: namespace. I will D/L the file and have a look at it tonight. I guess there is not much left to compress as I've trimmed the watermarks, revived the missing images (boat) and cropped the whitespace already. I'm happy with how all that worked out - just wish the GooBoo version was of a better quality to begin with. The version prior to my 10/2 upload had a better than average text layer but lacked in every other department. I'm thinking this might be a case to restore that version, get a bot to run (creating all the pages w/text) and then switch back to this DjVu, leaving it without a text-layer. You can try whatever you think might work - I do not mind 1 bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I downloaded it and first tried to Open it in DjVu Libre only to find it loaded 524 pages before releasing focus back to my mouse & pointer. I then tried to extract the layer via command line only to have it fail before it really even started with [1-10100] Text layer hierarchy is corrupt . I'm going to try the online Any2 service next to see if the same/similar thing happens (if it manages to finish that is). BBL. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. OK I may try to play with that again... see if I can reproduce that error, then see how to avoid it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hold it. The same thing happens when Any2DjVu creates an OCR'd text layer. Its not the process - its my file. Have no idea how or why but its certainly starts with something in the DjVu file itself. Damn it. What next? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Scratch that - apparently that loading in GUI mode is due to the double columns of text (I think). I am able to extract the Any2Djvu generated text layer once I let the GUI finish and close properly. Still the same error on your DjVu just as before though. Craps out right after the 6th page but terminates in spite of the error so I do get a small .txt file of the 1st six pages in extraction. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I played around with your upload a little to no avail. I thought a "trigger-word" early in the offending p0007.djvu file (page 7) might have something to do with the error but I eventually eliminated that possibiliy. Swapping in another page worked - up to Page 17 and then the same failure. Swapped out p0017.djvu only to fail on extraction again so I said screw it.

Extracted the original text layer from June 18th uplaod, renamed all the indirect page names to match the October 2 file's outline structure manually and applied it with fingers crossed. The 2 files were close enough in dimensions not to c rap out when merged. Of, course the hidden text doesn't line up with the printed text in DjView but like I said before, the Page: namespace isn't that smart being set to "Detail=page" and all to care.

As an aside - figured out why DjVu-to-XML wasn't working; the folder path for the needed .dtd file doesn't match the default folder install paths in the Win32 version. Duplicated the needed folder & files and it works:)

Now if I only had a clue what to do to with it !!!!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked again and djvulibre was having issues with my originally uploaded file (but a GUI djvu viewer did not). I ran my process again, and it seems better, though tesseract really struggled and I think did not obtain text for some pages (possibly the cause of some of the other issues). The OCR seemed about on par with what you just uploaded, save the missing pages, but seemed to get a lot of things the current one does not while missing lots of stuff the current one does, so probably about even ;-) May as well leave what you did, which should work at the page level at least, though the word and line offsets are probably all wrong now. If you know the exact insets you cropped the original for each page, it may be possible to write a quick script to adjust all the offsets in the text layer to make them accurate again.

Say, where are the links to the full-year 3 CFR volumes on the gpo.gov site? From memory they were pure PDF to start with, which should be better than any DJVU version. I may be able to play with PDFCrop now to see how it works (or if it works), just to see if that route looks better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR

1996 to 2000 are done (3300 x 5400 @ 600 dpi which should be something like 5½ inches by 8 inches if I remember right) already. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get a little time to play with them, but have been busy. I'm thinking those would be better off as PDFs, as they seem to be vector already -- not much point as DJVUs (which is more meant to be a format for scanned bitmaps). Do the tools here pull the text layer out of PDFs or does it only work on DJVUs? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There was once an issue that put all the text under the 1st page instead of a per page basis with some PDFs but I don't think GPO would have something like that going on. The reason we are avoiding PDFs has something to do with PediaPress or the lack thereof. Personally I don't care for one over the other but in light of the PDF portion being even less developed than the DjVu portion is in the "current" code, I'd stick with the devil you know in this case (well for the time being at least). -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Alexandria

First bureaucrat request: I have a user wanting to Usurp the username "Alexandria". Account has no edits but two deleted edits[6], which appear to be a highly competent (but ultimately duplicate) shot at 335 U.S. 538. Any idea who they are, and whether they might be back some time? Hesperian 00:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have any recollection of or history with the User, Alexandria. Upon review, it seems all that took place was that I moved/deleted what Alexandria correctly pointed out as a dupe but went about it the wrong way by Blanking the page instead of tagging it properly.

I see no logical reason to expect the user's return to the USSC project let alone to en.WS in general. I'd be fine with and support the usurption request given the apparent lack of any further 'presence' on en.WS in case it ever does come up somehow in the future. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My welcome was merely because they created an account here. SUL wasnt available to non-admins in March 2008. There is also a SUL request at w:User talk:Alexandria, where I assume this person first registered an account, before account creation dates were even recorded. I can't find email enabled anywhere. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks gents. Hesperian 01:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you do tables ?

You do good work, George Orwell III, and I thank you. Good help is sometimes hard to find! Do you do tables? There are lots of them in those same volumes. Thanks again, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 06:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks & likewise.

Before that; I just went through the 52 volumes and realized a majority of the Volumes are bundled into DjVu's containing 2 or 3 Volumes each. Call me crazy but I kind of remember splitting Vols. 1 & 2 into 2 separate Index: pages (with Adam's blessing?). I had thought, at the time, "we" agreed to come back to visit the series once more Volumes were uploaded to split them all up into proper single Volumes. I intend to take this up with at least Adam in the coming week but I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on doing that or anything else that may be needed frame-work wise for that series.

I cannot recall "anything else" that is needed at this time. However, I do think every file should be one volume just as the hard-copy volumes I own are all separate volumes. It is the way they were originally made when placed into volumes. Perhaps Adam did it differently so people can search several volumes at once? He's very smart in his work just as you are. You two are the professionals here who can figure out what is best. I just edit as best as I can. The volumes are valuable and worth having on Wikisource because they are American history from the Southern perspective. They are, as stated by a well-known and living author, "second only" to the "Official Records of the War of the Rebellion." My volumes are old but the reprints by Tom Broadfoot's publishing company were—many years ago—selling for $2,000. The indices (3) sold for $50 each and I did buy those new since none other existed. These and other volumes like Confederate Military History. Confederate Veteran, Official Records of the Rebellion, Confederate Navy, were all republished during the time period of Ken Burns Civil War series that came on television and also during the same time period of Alex Haley writing of "Queen" and "Roots" published in 1976. These two men and other books produced using during that time caused a lot of people, such as myself, start studying that war and seeking ancestry in that war through these volumes WS now has. I feel sure you know of more history behind this era and "The Beat Goes On" as people continue and newer generations become interested in that war, its effects on the past, present and probable future. When I started after Burns and Haley, I did not know the names of confederates verses union men and in reading the volumes did not know who was who (who was whom?). U.Va. Confederate Cemetery was only four miles from my Virgina home and I knew and cared nothing of those men and that war as a youth. For me, everything was science, physical activities (sports) and girls. So, the television, books, and volumes unearthed from my elders changed the rest of my life. It is amazing how important saving books are! I suppose that is why most of us are here -- to experiment with code and save old materials of our ancestry and the works of not only our nation but of the world as best as we can. I myself am highly impressed with the volunteers on wiki projects and every person working on wiki projects is of great value far beyond our mortal lives.--Maury

Ah... so you have the benefit of the original volumes and they are indeed not "bundled" - that locks it. I'm sure Adam just uploaded the files already created and bundled by somebody else so there is no blame, just circumstance. Hopefully, I can start splitting these up this coming week. I will work from Volume 52 on down to avoid the eventual file (re)naming issues over on Commons where the files are actually stored. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Now back to tables - sure I can pitch in (time allowing) but I'm actually chatting w/you while I punch away at fixing broken/new .DjVu files in the background at the same time. I wouldn't count on me making a sustained effort on something like that for the next couple of days (if not a week or two). -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have so much editing to do or I would take the time out to learn about making tables but I admit that I do not want to take out that time and tables do not look interesting to me. With the volumes I get to (closely) read and learn the material as I edit. It's not just reading, I am empathetic and get I get involved with the emotions involved. This war I presently write of helps me understand other wars and all that went with them of our past and thus helps me to understand myself better. I understood your playful "chatting" and I went along with it. When I am not talking or reading or listening then I am writing but I am no typist. That's okay if you do not wish to work with tables, I dislike them too. I think all here do what they like and can do best and the many wonderful wiki projects continue to grow. I agree with LondonJackBooks, it is "addictive." "Do you do tables? --personally, I don't do windows. Again, I thank you for what you have done. Be proud that you have that kind of knowledge and that you are kind enough to share it with unknown generations yet unborn. Kindest regards, Maury (—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

<chuckle> You obviously understood my tongue-in-cheek banter so you were obviously American - Mission Accomplished!

Anyway, its not so much that I don't want to help as much as it is motivation to get you to start looking into doing it yourself. Plus you pointed to 52 volumes, not a specific page where I can do 1 or 2 and then you can repeat as necessary by copying them, changing the values/text as needed. Its the way everybody "learns" something new around here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

<smile> Hello again, George Orwell III! You have a playful and well-mannered personality. I do not think that I will have any problems with tables in those 52 volumes of the Southern Historical Society Papers nor the many volumes of Confederate Military History. It is easy to figure——imagine how many years it will take just me to edit all of those pages showing no tables. I think I will probably die of old age and will be needing. . . . R U a skilled wood-worker? If so, do you do coffins? <"Grin" goes the "Reaper"> . . . . and if I survive all of those years and editing (with my one hand) then I will go back and do the tables although I suspect technology will be able to do editing by then. ;0) Very Respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 21:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I can sympathize with your thoughts on Project scope being too great to overcome. I felt much the same in my early days here as well (though upon reflection, it doesn't seem all that long ago). The point I'd like to convey to you is not to concern yourself with what you correctly assume won't get done by you but focus on what you can do & do it well. Others with the same intrest will eventually come along (and leave just as quick). The projects that not only survive but eventually thrive are the ones that have an excellent pre-existing condition--

• Having a sound foundational framework already in place so new folks can jump right in and do the simple proofreading needed while they slowly pick up on the ins and outs of a finishing an article or work; and
• Having exceptional existing examples around, covering the entire scope and width of the series, so new folks can use them as templates to refer to or strive for. 'Seed and Lead' by example in other words. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can accomplish those two points, everything else you or others manage to contribnute can be considered gravy. (ps I'm not always so cheerful - a 3 day weekend meant possible nookie, plenty of sleep and lots of football [American proper]. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

George, you give good advice. Others on WS and other Wiki areas also have given good advice -- sometimes to other people and I just read it -- but good advice nonetheless. You have both knowledge and wisdom. Personally, I don't believe anything is too great to overcome. Some things just take longer to learn and are dependent upon one's "learning curve" as well as other factors such as personal interests. You state that you are not always so cheerful and I ask, "Who is?" There are times for play and times for seriousness. We have done both. I do not agree with all that you have stated but I do believe I understand what you have stated. I also appreciate people that take their time to give good advice with a good attitude towards their fellow persons. I need sleep now and I need to speed up my work for completion, therefore I can chat no longer on the subject of tables. Continue to be kind to everyone. God watches us all. Respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 09:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Abhisheklalm

The Agni and Garuda Puranas are classical texts that would fall under our purview. I'm having trouble finding the translation source (several of the sites that host it point to urday.in, but the trails stops there), but that's a problem that can be resolved in a different manner. Abhisheklalm probably followed a link to Help:Contents and got lost. Indef blocking seems to me a bit overkill for what could've been a new user eager to add Indian classics with some assistance, which I'm more than happy to provide. Please consider unblocking. Prosody (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Then why was it prefaced with a disclaimer to the effect saying "I freely blah blah blah... to the world" if it was a legitimate published work by some recognized author?

I'll unblock him/her if you believe that was all done in the name of... as you say, but I've been burned by some Asian/Pacific-rim folks before. Thank you for bringing this to my attention but Fair Warning is still in place. One more "swami sez" dump and he/she will be banned again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing PSM image

Thanks for the reminder about our conversation of last April. Taking you up on your kind offer, I will return to this post with the name & location of the original image to be inserted at your leisure. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 21:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the uploaded image to be inserted in the .djvu HERE.— Ineuw talk 21:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem (I'm hoping). I had read up a bit on that exchange after deleting the very files (w/ its discussion) earlier this week only to see you point Kathleen Wright to it today. I'm sure you saw me update the link.

One question though... I'm seeing that map before the blank page - not after it as you've linked just above - in the "original" PDF file. Are we sure it that is suppose to be DjVu page /22 and not /21 ?

Anyway, I'll touch back here with my progress (a stand alone djvu test file like last time) in about an hour; maybe less. I'll hit you up on your talk page if something goes "wrong" or I have a question before then. I just have let DjVuLibre finish what it is already doing first. Let me know at your leisure if the end file is really DjVu /22 or going to be swapped for /21 like I'm thinking it should be. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I relaized I can use the online version (Any-2-DjVu) while my system struggles to finish up at the same time.

• File:PSM V30 D21.djvu

I really don't think it needs to get any "better" than that but it wouldn't be the first time something rendered OK here but not for someone else. Anyway let me know if that will do so I can DL and swap it into the current v30 DjVu file -- 22:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Image looks tampered with to me. Check out the orig. at Archive, and even that looks like it was inserted after the fact. Supernova (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the dimensions don't match the rest of the pages but there is little I can do about that except maybe rotate it 90 degrees. Still, if you consider that is not the image that will ultimately be transcluded to the mainspace but is the thumbnail for the Page namespace only, then I don't see it being much of an issue. I think the point of inserting this into the main DjVu is to stay true to the original and to avoid confusion like KathleenWright encountered during validation. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think that the original image was tampered with, but probably it's missing the folded half. There was a similar case of a map as well in another volume. Also, (and I am talking of personal experience with other PSM scans,) Internet Archive volunteers are not always very diligent, make mistakes and end up making a mess when trying to correct. — Ineuw talk 02:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So the test file is OK to insert? and replace it at position 21 not 22 in the existing DjVu? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The test file is perfect. It should be inserted in .djvu position 22. - 21 is a blank dust cover/ink smudge protector page and it also has been stamped, so I am sure it's 22. Thanks — Ineuw talk 03:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okie dokie - you're the expert; 22 it is (but it sure does come up as 21 here). Some time needed to download and upload the file so look for it in a couple of hours (or check back here). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• A belated thanks. :-) — Ineuw talk 17:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate PSM pages

Hi. Taking up your offer, (and time,) again, I came across two duplicated pages in Volume 41. Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 41.djvu/874 and Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 41.djvu/875. Could you please remove them? I stopped working on the volume because I am not sure if the rest gets to be renumbered. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 17:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem - deletions are easy. I'll get on it in a few minutes. I'm assuming the rest of the volume is without flaw? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks a lot! I can assume that the .djvu numbers will readjust to reflect the change? I am currently working on the volume.— Ineuw talk 01:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Only the pages after the point where the duplicates appeared will change. Looks like 20 pages or so to the end will be affected. They will need to be moved up two positions manually afterwards (Timewise I can handle that today as well.) -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wanted. The numbers of the .djvu should should continue to increment naturally, even if they drop by two after the deletions.— Ineuw talk 03:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Done - Pages and Index realigned to reflect updted DjVu file. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Now I can go to sleep. :-) — Ineuw talk 07:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Cygnis Insignis vote of confidence

George, I'm concerned the charges presented against Cygnis in his Administrative vote of confidence paint a false picture of what happened with Cygnis. It's possible he was being subtly harassed before the incident (and seems to have been harassed by disingenuous remarks in the Scriptorium afterwards. For example Theornamentalist said "I just want to work with you", and then a couple months later embarks on concerted persuasion at his confirmation to remove his admin tools.)

You say Cygnis was a lousy communicator. I'm not quite sure what to ask you to do, because if I were to ask you to elaborate about this conclusion of yours by your own personal experiences, it would add fuel to the anger already evoked by what I perceive to be misrepresented charges.

Or let's suppose I were to elaborate my own reasons for doubting the charges at ws:Admin, and asked everyone to reconsider their vote. Maybe you had thought the charges were similar enough to your own experiences with Cygnis that you had wanted to allow the charges to act as an acceptable substitute for your own experiences in order to save yourself time; I would in effect be asking you to stick your neck out and become a primary accuser.

Yet, I'd hate to see Cygnis' administratorship end like this. And I think if there are valid reasons for his removal they ought to be presented as such. Also there was no effort made by his accusers to address his claimed misconduct at the Administrative Noticeboard, for example.

As able, I am going to present my reasons for thinking Theornamentalist's and Doug's accusations show a false picture of Cygnis' conduct, or at least reasons for thinking it plausible that they do.

This is really the most I can say without reaching the point of talking behind people's backs. I guess all I can ask you to do is to please consider my reasons if I find myself able to present them at WS:ADMIN in the coming days. Thank you. ResScholar (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

CI had Doug, Theornamentalist, and anyone else in what I like to call the IRC Illuminati dead to rights on the adding the "Related Author" parameter. I know because if you go one step further and go back to the original January/February discussion elsewhere leading up to the one now being cited, you'll see that the implementation of the Related Author parameter was not done by 'consent of silence' or however one describes it. I had clearly voiced my opposition in both places (in February of 2011 btw).

That said, - CI blew it. He could not simply stick to the facts and argue the merits of "silence equals consensus". You don't go around reverting stuff, get questioned on it and refuse to reply - other than bloviate on how much he knows and how little everyone else's contributions matter -especially when fellow sysop's are concerned. He made a bad poicy even more possible to take hold; not prevent it. And its not the first time behavour, tone and language has undermined an arguable position for him/us.

If I thought he will change for the better and not get even worse as time goes on then I'd consider changing my vote (I don't). If I thought he didn't think his time was more valuable than anyone else's I would have elaborated in my explaination/vote to oppose (He won't). As the way things stand now IMHO, he's a cancer that must be cut out before it spreads. I see no signs of remorse; not even an explaination or comment to the points raised on the confirmation page this past month. He simply doesn't need Admin tools to complete his work - just click on the Stats at the top of that Admin page to see what I mean. Plus, my limited "investigation" into this matter showed he's been interested in nothing but his own titles; not the greater community at large, if and when he exercises an Admin right. The drama that comes with him just isn't worth it as an Admin; His contributions as editor are hard to match.

Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A djvu insertion for history's sake

Hi. Going through some old work, I noticed that this page, which found somewhere and copied the text manually, is sitting in the image gallery. I think for the sake of anyone who desires to validate the page, this should be inserted as a replacement of this fuzzy original. I really don't remember where I got this from (perhaps an Google scan?). The IA online reading copy is the same unreadable version. Now - this is really unimportant and leave it up to you to deal with whenever. Your thoughts are much appreciated. Have a nice part of the day wherever you are. — Ineuw talk 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the stand-alone test file ( Index:Psm_v03_p0398.djvu ). If that is OK to substitute by you, I can go ahead and swap it in for the blurred existing page. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's excellent and legible. It will help others to validate.— Ineuw talk 23:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, the next page after this one is all messed up too - I'm going to go try hunt it down and see if I can't fix 2 in one shot. I'll touchback here later -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So sorry, I don't know how I missed that, and from where and how it was proofread.— Ineuw talk 00:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Done pp. 398-399 replaced. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again and much indebted. Since sheep, goats, or chickens are not permitted at my place of residence, please select any article of your favourite topic in PSM, and I will proofread it with pleasure (and free of charge). Have a nice day. :-) — Ineuw talk 05:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

More missing PSM .djvu pages

Hi. To be honest, I am running out of sheep and goats to offer in payment, but I need your kind help in inserting these two pages File:PSM V43 D P563.jpg and File:PSM V43 D P564.jpg into the queue after Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 43.djvu/578. They are both missing from our copy and found these on IA in the Houdini collection. Also, please increase the .djvu numbers accordingly after the inserted pages. I am aware of the consequences. They will affect some images and will rename them (on the commons), once I completed verifying the complete volume, while I hope that nothing else is missing. This is absolutely NOT urgent. I have plenty of other things to do in the meanwhile. Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 06:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put it on my 'to-do' list. I wouldn't expect a fix in the next couple of days anyway but things can change in a instant. I will post back here to report any progress on my end & we can discuss the specifics on moves, etc. at that point. Keep up the good work !!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK the test file is up. See Index:PSMv43test.djvu for the two pages in question. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

They are perfect, clear and easily legible. thank you again, . . . and again. Am I correct to assume that the subsequent .djvu numbers will be incremented?— Ineuw talk 18:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OK here's the plan. Once I upload the new volume 43 with these two pages inserted, I will have to reflect the change of +2 in the pagelist on the Index: page. Next I will have to notify InductiveLoad that we need a bulk move from ...djvu/579 to the end by an increment of +2 (this will take some time to complete). Once that is done and the new 579 & 580 are created, we are basically done editing in the Page: and Index: spaces.

Any articles transcluded from the previous 579 to 900 range to the mainspace will need to be edited and in every instance (except of course the article currently missing 579 & 580 if it exists), the change will always be a start and end range requiring +2 pages. Clear enough? -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like you accounted for the missing pages in the pagelist previously so I'm not sure if you really need to anything in the mainspace for existing transcluded articles or not. of course not - nothing has been moved yet!!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Two empty text pages are needed

Thanks for the insertion of the djvu pages, and want to know if it's possible to insert two empty text pages to shift the text to align with the djvu insertion? If not, am I correct to assume that I have to do this manually, since I've never had to deal with anything like this before? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been moved yet and that is why the two pages have not come up blank yet. I updated the Index: pagelist right after I uploaded the new file on Commons and left a request on InductiveLoad's talk page to run the script soon after. Unfortunately, he hasn't been around this weekend at all as far as I can tell so that's why nothing has changed since. I hope he's around tommorrow but if he isn't I will have to ask around to see who else can run the bulk move script, so I'd leave vol. 43 alone for now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much - I don't know the process and I was hoping that I won't have to move the 100 or so pages manually. :-) — Ineuw talk 07:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Bulk move completed -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jerome Agreement

Whatever happened since the Jerome agreement was first posted, now the text is just about the bands Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, instead of the Sac and Fox bands. I repeat myself with what I said over at Doug's talk page. But these are multiple documents that involve more than a dozen bands in Oklahoma. There were individual agreements with each band during the 4-some years of the Presidential commission that was formed to get the bands to cede their land in favor of white homesteaders. Not about any one band of native Americans, but about the redrawing of Oklahoma for transition into (white) statehood. I didn't know this when I first posted about the Jerome Agreement. But there's a lot of legal documentation out there somewhere. You're welcome to keep track at my Sandbox. I will be creating one Wikipedia page about the Presidential commission and the legal documents it created. Hopefully, I can also come up with the subsequent lawsuits and legal rulings that happened into the mid-late 20th Century. Like you mentioned over at Doug's page, I agree that there probably was never one document really named the Jerome Agreement. Maile66 (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got it figured out...

First a list of possible documents that may or may not "fit" as the definitive Jerome Agreement:

• October 6, 1892 -- Fort Sill/Commission document w/ signatures (not likely to be available online & for free) Kiowa, Apache, Comanche, Fort Sill Oct 6, 1892 excerpt w/o signatures
• October 22, 1892 -- Preliminary Commission report to Secretary of Indian Affairs (can't find it)
• November 17, 1892 -- Formal notice and Report from Sec. Indian Affairs report to Secretary of the Interior. (can't find it)
• December 16, 1892 -- Supplemantary report from Commission to Secretary to the Interior (can't find it)
• December 23, 1892 -- Secretary of Interior report to the President (can't find it)
• January 4, 1893 -- Presidential message to Congress on all the above reporting. ( FOUND IT!!!) Senate, Executive Document No. 17, 52d Congress, 2d Session, 1893

Its the same one referenced in the Supreme Court Case. It also has all the notices/reports going back to Fort Sill plus a early draft of a bill to try and ratify the treaty, etc. moving forward from 1893 on.

Please remember - this is still not what was ratified so I don't know if you can or should call it the Jerome Agreement or not. What was ratified, however, is now up as a July 8, 1900 creation date linked back to the actual Statutes at Large volume & page. I think THAT version is the real trigger behind the court cases that followed moreso than anything cited from 1892/1893. Hope that helped. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

See Above link on Fort Sill - it's one part of it, but only the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache. A lot of this is available at the Oklahoma State University digital library. I know nothing about downloading them to Wikisource, but I think they're there. Yeah, you're a lot of help to what I'm doing. We'll see how this all works out by the time I get finished. If you scroll down to the references section of what I'm working on at my Sandbox, you'll see that I've link any agreement documentation to what I've mentioned it. And it's all from OSUMaile66 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My friend... that is the same 1900 ratified version with a 1892 snippet (no signatures) inserted - which is key because the number of signatures determined the validity of the majority for a tribe --> goes back to the legal argument in the court cases). When I say you won't find it online I mean the hand written copies themselves - not the transciptions that came soon after.

I know its hard to follow but Section 1 thru 5 on the page that you linked are for a 1898 Fort Hall agreement that did not have David Jerome playing a role from what I've been reading - followed by Section 6 (which is the older 1892 Fort Sill agreement). That is why it is incorrect to associate a statute where only 1 out of 6 sections can be considered Jerome-ish if at all not to mention are not cited in the court opinion to boot. Only section 6 was mentioned.

FYI... If you can't open the PDF file I linked directly from WS try HERE to download/open it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. Yes, it is somewhat hard to follow at times. Thanks for your guidance on this. Maile66 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I was able to access the PDF download. It's going to be of great help to me. Maile66 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, George. I can give you some clarification now. There was no Jerome Agreement, and those three places on Wikipedia that refer to an agreement by that name, have done so erroneously. There were eleven separate agreements over a period of 2-1/2 years, each one ratified on its own, just like a treaty. Each agreement was named "Agreement with...." and the name of the tribe(s). There was no aggregate document that included all the separate agreements in it. The one you have as Jerome Agreement is actually "Agreement with the Comanche, Kiowa and Apache". It's looks big, because that group was one of only two that required the three-fourths of all the adult males for signature (almost 500 signatures in this case). The other was the agreement with the Cheyenne-Arapaho. None but the one with the Comanche, Kiowa and Apache dragged out like it did before ratification. Although some later had legal claims and judgments, the Comanche, Kiowa and Apache one went through several years of Congressional attempts to amend it before ratification. When I finally publish what I have over on Wikipedia, it will be an article named Cherokee Commission, because that was the official name of the entire effort. David Jerome wasn't even its first Chairman, but the third one.Maile66 (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Here 'tis on Wikipedia

Cherokee Commission Maile66 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PSM redirects

Hi. With reference to Popular Science Monthly/Volume 68/June 1906 and the others, this is just to inform you that I recreated them, hopefully redundant now. I typed a "/" instead of "#". Did not realized that, as they worked anyhow. Sorry. --Mpaa (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem - they just came up on the Double Redirect maint. list this morning was all. I knew pointing a redirect at itself probably wasn't quite right but how to fix them escaped me at the time. Now that I see an anchor was intended, it all makes perfect sense. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

SHSP redux

George, I do not know if this is proper or not but I do think the situation needs to be resolved, or let go. MOve it to my talk page if you prefer but it came from Adam's page. I hereby paste the following:--

---

34 SHSP volume splits

Hello again; hope this finds you and your's well...

After resolving an issue or two in the series of SHSP volumes, I see some of the DjVu files are actually bundles of 2 or 3 volumes a pop. Not clear if you were the actual uploader or not but in case you were, would you mind if I split them up into individual volumes? I understand from William Maury Morris II the volumes were indeed bound and published as separate volumes as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead. I was the uploader but I only noticed a few combined volumes at that time; I only realised the majority were also combined when I tried to add page numbering to the index pages. (I didn't split the bundles I knew about because I lost my DjVu software in a computer crash a while ago—I've only recently re-downloaded DjVuLibre—and I've never actually practiced splitting files. I didn't want to hold everything up.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 35 Were the SHSP 'volume splits' ever done?

George or Adam, or whomever —

Were the SHSP volumes ever split? It does not *appear* to have been done but they should be split no matter who knows how and is willing to do that properly. There are 52 volumes totaled. None are combined. Thank you, —William Maury Morris II Talk 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 21:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I still have this on my to-do list - all I need is the free time & there are things listed before it as well. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This presents no problem to me, George. I fully understand having other things to do. Any good worker always has other things to do and sets priorities. My curiosity was whether when splitting the volumes *would it affect any proofread text* since the SHSP volume pages and "deju" page numbers are different. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

PSM Volume 47

Hi. The purpose of my posting in the Scriptorium about this bad volume, was to respect your precious time on the site and not ask you to waste it on my issues. This is one of the responsibilities of people like me who acquired this luxury through aging. :-)

To make this post short, first I want thank you, and second, I would suggest to recreate the volume from scratch, rather than running a bot. It's not worth your, or other editors/admins' time.

Nothing is lost. I have a record of where the images are, and who validated them. The two proofread text of inner cover pages were also preserved. I also have the accurate page index from the end of the volume, through which I learned of the missing pages. Remapping the pages on the index and recalculating the djvu number relation to the page numbers for the TOC & the Index is all routine. Appleton's did adhere to a fairly standard layout for the volumes and the new copy is part of this standard. I would only need the re-creation of the pages (which is also a bot). — Ineuw talk 20:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries - I actually like problem solving if you can believe that.

Even less is gained by trying to [re]create the Index and all the Pages. You see; you can't just delete the Index and that takes care of all 900 pages as well (i.e - in order to retain the same naming convention for a brand new Index: to match the other 70 volumes, the Page names/titles within an Index must be available --> you can't just easily redirect 900 of them from some other name/title without making a huge pointles mess either). So it boils down to fixing ~300 pages by moving them or delete 900 followed recreating the same 900 but with different OCR'd text (I see little difference between the old and new text layers but admittedly I did not look at more than a dozen pages here & there).

The absolute worst practice on en.WS is letting a bot/script create all the Pages under an Index before verifying the PageList to thumbnail numbering. A simple insertion of 2 blank place holder pages prior to creating the 900 or so Pages in Volume 47 (or Volume 43 for that matter) would have allowed editing to continue without these headaches popping up months later and we could have still swapped to better and better quality DjVu's on Commons as they became available without affecting Proofreading and/or transclusion at all. The absolute worst case scenario is the insertion of missing pages after the fact (swapping or deleting duplicate pages - pages that in essence act as place-holders the same way a blank insertion does - are just a matter of minutes in editing plus the time to upload the fixed DjVu to Commons; the caveat being how long it takes to actually locate the missing pages with their content and converting them to DjVu's for insertion/replacement of course). You, my friend, are just having a run of some bad luck after fixing the previous volumes before 43 & 47 fairly easily. Such is life.

Anyway, you need to make some noise to get the bulk-move-Bot ball rolling instead of asking for tables, reports, etc. on one PSM thing or the other in the interim while these 2 volumes remain in a state where they really should not be touched in the slightest until straightened out first. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your answer clarifies numerous mysteries and provides a better insight & understanding. I will post the required requests at Bot requests, but first, I will also place notices on the Index: pages as well. Thanks again.— Ineuw talk 23:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Bulk move completed -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

At this juncture, I can only offer my thanks for your efforts, since (in biblical context), I've already given away all my livestock. Thanks for all your help. Also, remaining truthful as always, this note of thanks is almost identical to the one I posted to Inductiveload. — Ineuw talk 04:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Position Statement Regarding RRT’s Providing IV Care to Pediatric Patients During Transport

I am not sure what to think. Document on its own and not in any context, the categorisation, and probably the copyright. I converted to override_author. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, it doesn't appear to pass copyright being the Board's positions doesn't seem to be part of the State's actual code (T.C.A. § 63-27-102(4)(A)), but pursuant to it. The rationale for allowing State laws compared to Federal law is the Supreme Court's rulings stating people should have access to the rules they must follow and abide by. Of course it still could be in PD if placed into it but I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble of running that to ground if we go CopyVio. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

DjvuToXml

I replied here to you. --Alex brollo (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

True History of the Profound Mexico

Thanks a lot for the help, saved me a lot of time. Learning something new everyday.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio keep

You have a number of entries at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-manifesto with simple votes of Keep. Can you take a look and see if you had a valid copyright reason for keeping them? On some others (now archived) you had provided CC3 license. Jeepday (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I provided all the "evidence" I could - Everything from November 4, 2008 to January 19 2009 was covered by an interim Change.gov CC3 license that eventually became the Whithouse.gov's CC3 license moving forward on through today. Until Obama is out of office and NARA formally sets up his Presidential Library, all the other stuff not falling into that date range can be construed as not in the public domain or have some sort of copyright protection(s). I'm not going to try and convince everybody Obama will indeed leave office one day, his Library will become part of the National Archives system sometime afterwards and all that other stuff will eventually be PD nice & proper anyway. Common sense doesn't get very far around here at times and I'm afraid this is one instance where only time will resolve the status of those works to the satisfaction of any majority. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

... to expand upon the above since it is sure to come up in the coming 2012 election cycle -- the argument will be made that political/campaign speeches similar to those made prior to Obama being elected in Nov. 2008 should-not/can-not be considered works created in the course of a President's official Federal duties and thus do not fall under Title 17 and PD-USGov. This is absolutely correct given a particular point in time but works must be carefully weighed against (1) a near certain future of a Presidential Library being established in addition to (2) Obama's recognition and application of a CC 3.0 license in addition to normal Title 17 provisions for the first time in history (i.e. WhiteHouse.gov). Only the winner elected to President enjoys the benefit of having his campaign (the speeches, the Op-Eds, the debates, etc.) leading to that victory (re)archived in a formal Presidential Library by NARA after leaving office - making it 100% true that those 2007/2008 stump-speeches and policy positions cannot be hosted as of today (but that will not be the case for all time).

That said, the use of CC 3.0 to supplement normal Title 17 exclusions for the first time plus the introduction of a Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents by the Government Printing Office begining with the Obama Administration makes it rather hard to exclude the coming 2012 election cycle works - be they political in nature rather than created in the line of official duties. George Orwell III (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. We know I will have to delete the stuff currently without a clear CC 3.0 license, we also know it is not that hard to recreate it when available as PD. Jeepday (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Two left that are potential CC 3.0 I looked at the links in change.gov and the licenses did not jump out at me. If you are comfortable adding the correct template to the articles I will close them as keep. Jeepday (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DONE. I added the 2 licenses and marked the entries closed/keep myself. If nobody else has said it, let me be the first - damn good job sticking with a nasty issue to its very end months later. I wish more unavoidable issues were treated that way persnonally. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

:) Jeepday (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

template:header seems to be broken.

The {{DNB00}} is suddenly broken. I see that you recently modified {{header}}. Do you think there is a correlation here? -Arch dude (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. I'll revert the two MediaWiki changes until I can press further with this properly. Thanks for the heads up. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! DNB00 is uses on more than 10,000 articles. The symptoms are:

• the title in the header is displayed in grey text instead of black text
• the page footer is displayed immediately after the header instead of at the bottom of the page.

I am a very experienced programmer with working knowledge of more languages than I can count, but I have never been able to figure out how that footer stuff works in our template system. -Arch dude (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Executive orders

Hello. You have mentioned my collection "donnelly collection" that was hosted on UHUH.com site. The sysop has been behind by many years and has not kept the collection updated. If you have any questions or comments just ask. There are over 3,000 orders in the collection with another 3,000+ in book form that is needed to be scanned. -- Ldonnelly9 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your input and clarification ("we" had guessed that was the case pretty much anyhow). We are also in the process of providing scans to back up the transcriptions as well. Please check out the "current" list of compilations and/or indexes HERE. In addition, most EOs hosted on Wikisource issued prior to 1929 have links to their sources provided in an infobox found on its TALK PAGE whenever available. Any additional input or info you might have in this subject matter is more than welcomed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Executive orders

There is a book which I have in my collection. CIS Index to Presidential Executive Orders and Proclamations. This is a huge index to this information and has become a valuable source to locating the number of the EO. While still may be under copyright the book sells for over 10k with another 5K for the supplemental books. —unsigned comment by Ldonnelly9 (talk) .

Ah... the infamous Congressional Information Service's Index last published in the 1980's if I remember right. Its not going to be PD anytime soon but GoogleBooks has it up so I don't how much longer that is going to last I guess. We figured the numbering is pretty solid from ~Hoover on forward to today so we just go by Cliff Lord's INDEX for the earlier EOs. Then it is just a matter of hunting them down in the various annual agency/Secretary reports, etc. instead of waiting for NARA to get around to it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Devonshire thanks your amber to green

Thx for doing that. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

copyvio

Could you please see my answere to your question about possible copyvio. Thanks HAKmasnakic (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry link was incorrectHAKmasnakic (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Walterjames123

Hello. I see you just blocked this user. Can you please remove this page ? (crosswiki spam). Thanks by advance. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)