Open main menu

User talk:Hywel Dda



Hello, Hywel Dda, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


Add the following to User:Hywel Dda/common.js, save and hard-refresh your cache (Ctrl-F5 in Firefox and IE):

function colourBackground( pageBG, editboxBG, fontColour, linkColour, newLinkColour, extLinkColour){ 
    $('#content').css('background-color', pageBG)
    $('#content').css('color', fontColour)
    $('a').css('color', linkColour)
    $('.new').css('color', newLinkColour)
    $('.extiw').css('color', extLinkColour)
    $('textarea, input').css('background-color', editboxBG)

if (wgAction == "edit" || wgAction=="submit"){
    addOnloadHook( function (){setTimeout("colourBackground('#DDD', '#DDD', '#222', '#22F', '#BA0000', '#33F')", 100)});

The '#DDD', '#DDD', '#222', '#22F', '#33F' bit gives the colours of the page background, editbox background, normal text, internal, redlinks and external links in that order. can help you choose different ones if you don't like it.

Maury, I've finished that portion of the regimental list in Vol. 2, and know there are more Virginia units. Vol. 3's TOC mentions a continuation. Where is it? I'd like to finish this up while I'm in 'the zone'——Hywel Dda (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know. User: AdamBMorgan set those up. —Maury (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SHSP vol 3 rosterEdit

I've uploaded a new version of the DjVu for Index:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 03.djvu. It looks like the roster was removed from the previous one, probably long before it was scanned. You'll see lots of new pages on the index. Some of the numbering needs to be worked out but it is good to go at the moment. (NB: I'm posting this on William Maury Morris II's talk page too) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through these additions, and ascertained the missing pages are accounted for now...
03/315 01/475 1 FORMAT: vv/ppp, where...
03/316 01/476 2    ...vv = volume #, and...
... ... ...    ...ppp = position #
03/347 01/509 31
03/348 01/509 -
03/349 01/509 - Vol. 1 portion ends.
03/350 02/352 32 Vol. 2 portion begins.
... ... ...
03/427 02/409 101
03/428 02/410 -
03/429 02/411 - Vol. 2 portion ends.
03/430 new p. 102 Vol. 3 portion begins.
... new ...
03/465 new p. 135 Vol. 3 portion ends.
03/466 new - [blank pages hereafter]

I've created pages for the missing entries. Now, how do we get the dupes removed? I.e., pp.1-101 already exist.

I'm also curious to know the relationship of this roster to the SHSP: was it published therein? Or should it stand alone as a separate document? Hywel Dda (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, fellow Virginian. The situation is that AdamBMorgan knows how these things work and how to correct any of it whereas I never knew. I have always had to go to AdamBMorgan myself for understanding. The SHSP project was my idea for Southern History and genealogies but AdamBMorgan (aka Adam) set it all up. The source .pdf files that we all have worked from are located on Internet Archives (aka Adam is a no-nonsense, kind, and very intelligent fellow. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Aloha, Maury. It looks from the scanned TOC that this Roster was part of the SHSP as originally published, although it's unclear exactly how it was segmented (at least, it's unclear to me). Had I my druthers, I'd re-unite the roster as a separate document, but I can live with this. I think it would be helpful to add linkage therein, to enable the reader to jump between segments, but that can wait. Hywel Dda (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hola. I think you should be able to see the original volumes that were scanned into .PDF files. I feel sure it would help because you are working while never have seen them! The following is the link to the volumes. <scratch> —Maury (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Archive link: I used it to clarify some dates for this page, which will be of interest to you — Hywel Dda (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish I had known that link could have assisted you at an earlier time but I figured all are here on wikisource. Still chipping away on those rosters... I would leave them for last -- "last" meaning after all of the people's stories and genealogies on pages were complete in every volume. You could go through pages like a hot knife through butter and far more would be done in the same amount of time. I guess you love complexities. Those rosters exist in other books in these modern times but the stories of the Southern people don't. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not all the scans, but the recto for that CSN chart was not very clear. Anyway, now I know where to go. Yes, I'm challenged by the complexity, in part because ANYONE can edit the other stuff, although I do that as well, as a change of pace. Matter of fact, I'm going through Vol 2, page by page (I'm about 100 pages in so far) looking for errors that have eluded others... Also, still waiting to hear back from ABM as to getting rid of duplicative scans (and before you ask: yes, I put it on HIS talk page) Hywel Dda (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Understood. BTW, Adam sometimes disappears for a day or so. He gets sick from something every once in a while. However, if you look at your "watchlist" and see Adam posting, that is a good time to remind him of the question. He too likes complexities and not only helps others but he does his own works which usually are also complex. I'll go with Ben Franklin, "Simplify, simplify, simplify"   —Maury (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be willing to pick up where Adam left off but I'm a bit confused about what is duplicate in Volume 3 and what is not (or is separate like the Roster). When dealing with structural problems in any source file, such as duplicate/missing pages, its helpful to first deal with the physical accounting of the file (file positions or 'leafs') rather than the scan "order" or pagelist re-assignments/offsets (page nos., plates, index, etc.). This "accounting" is key to optimal transcription before hundreds of pages are worked only to find out the next 50 are crap scans or worse - missing altogether.

Going by your Vol. 3, DjVu source file position 315 is really scan page 1 (not shown, unnumbered by printer) of the Roster of General..., which is the same as the current Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 03.djvu/315 even though the latest pagelist now says its Page 1 instead of the oprevious Page 305.

So if you can help me figure out what positions are duplicate, I'd be happy to trim them for you folks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hywel, accept George's offer! He is one of the smartest, if not THE smartest, administrators on en.wikisource and he apparently loves the most complex of complexities! —Maury (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ohhh... I think I got it. The Roster in Volume 3 has duplicate portions of Volume 1 & Volume 2 in addition to a (new) portion for Volume 3 that [it seems] were all published together at the end of Volume 3...
The question now becomes 'are the pages in Vol 1 & 2 duplicates to Vol 3 or the other way around?'. 'Should Vol 3 be trimmed and left only with the "new" Vol 3 specific pages?' 'Should the Roster... be a stand alone source file altogether?'

Not being all that familiar with the serial myself, it begs the question 'does the Roster... keep going like that in Volumes 4, 5, & 6?' first -- followed by 'does any of the volume's contents cite or note items found in the matching portion in the Roster...?' -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Aloha, George. You've understood my table! Now, I haven't perused all of the original Archive PDFs, but I am led to believe that Jones' Roster was tierced & presented in Vols. 1 & 2 as they are currently edited, and that the third segment (or 'abdomen') to be included in Vol. 3 consists of 03/430 through 03/472. Whatever you do, please leave what's in Vols. 1 & 2 alone—it's the newly-restored 03/315 through 03/429 that will need culling (i.e., THEY are the duplicates of existing, transcribed work). AFAIK, it ends with Vol. III. Sounds like a plan to you? Hywel Dda (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely. I'm troubled by that 'proofreading cheat' approach and how that winds up making the Index: pagelist assignments / Page: proofreading status somwhat problematic.

In Vol. 2 for example; while DjVu position 332 is really scanned-page numbered 32, it's PageList assignment is 322 - the begining of Vol. 2's Roster of ... content. So not only is the assignment off by +190 at that point, but to the unfamiliar - the first 31 pages of the Roster of... is "missing" (though they exist under the Index: for Vol 1). And then following position, 323 [or scan page numbered 33], has a status of 'non-text' to boot due to the 'workaround'. All that seems kind of a mess to me but it's up to you guys at the end of the day. Still, I'd appreciate Adam's expert thoughts on this before making that cut (not a big deal nor time intensive btw). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

GO3, I fully understand your qualms. I'm late to this party (albeit invested in the project, at this point). It appears the Roster was incorporated in the SHSP volumes in a way that runs afoul of my aesthetic sensibilities: Roster page numbers do not correspond to SHSP volume page numbers. As I mentioned above, I wouldn't mind seeing Jones' Roster as a separate document, linked from the SHSP where appropriate. I was also one of the unfamiliar you mention: I only learned where segment #1 is, quite recently! That "mystery" can (& probably will, if I have anything to do with it) be solved by adding links, to bridge the Roster segments. Yes, it's a mess.—Hywel Dda (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

<shrug>It is just a little too much to accept hosting 3 flawed Index:s when stripping the Roster.. into its own stand-alone at least leaves us with only one ugly duckling to deal with. Plus it's a bit odd that Vol 2 doesn't have the portions from both Vols 1 & 2 while Vol 3 has the parts from all three (like a planned progression or something).

I'm going to let this simmer a bit more - at least until others like Adam chime in - but right now I'm leaning towards cleaning 3 volumes at the expense of creating a one stand-alone Roster.... -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Until a coupla days ago, Vol 3 was missing its part of the Roster: there was nothing there! AdamBMorgan re-introduced those pages in toto (that it was there previously is an assumption of mine) and he probably erred on the side of inclusion, to see that nothing was missing. If Vol 3's duped pages are removed, that 'symmetry' would return (i.e., no reproduction of parts among the three volumes).

As to the 'proofreading cheat' you mention: what better alternative is there? These charts are created spanning verso-recto, which is perfectly fine in tangible book format. But Wikisource doesn't accommodate reading "across the folio" (AFAIK) & this cheat/compromise preserves the information in a context that makes sense. I had a run-in with an administrator last month, who says (for all that I know, correctly) that the status "Without text" should be used only in cases that literally meet that definition. I asked HIM for an alternative as well, and never heard back. To my mind, we're keeping to the SPIRIT of the text, if not strictly to the verbatim type-set format. Still, I'm willing to learn a better way: I didn't initiate this practice, but it seemed a reasonable way to finesse the problem, so I've followed it.—Hywel Dda (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

well I know there is a way to pull this using a combination of ifeq and the visibility: hidden; display:none; css stylings but its been a loooooooong time since I did anything like merging framesets in regular HTML never mind under the wiki-markup. But that aside, there must be a way to produce an output like...
   Name State To Whom to Report Appointment Rank Confirmation Acceptance Remarks
58 Buford, A. Kentucky Gen. J. E. Johnston Nov. 29, 1862 Sept. 2, 1862 Apl. 22, 1863  
Assigned to the command of the 2d division of Forrest's cavalry, composed of the brigades of Colonels Thompson and Bell; Lyon's brigade subsequently constituted a part of this command; in 1865 command consisted of the brigades of Roddy, Clauton and Armistead.
given the time. I'll keep poking myself to see i can't nail it down.
I'm not sure how that obviates the need to integrate two pages horizontally, though. The biggest problem with these tables is that each column is at the mercy of its longest entry (e.g., "North Carolina" dictates that column's width). That doesn't really show up in your example, but the original Roster has to accommodate those stretchy contents, which is why it spills into two pages.

BTW, I'm a big fan of your namesake—Hywel Dda (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Its appropriate for the current era isn't it? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Double-plus true. I graduated from college in 1984 & was very pleased with the timing... Hywel Dda (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm back (and I'm not always sick when I'm away for a few days). So, to address various points:
  • "Proofreading Cheat" was the simplest solution that came to mind to solve the problem of a table split down the centre over two pages. If it had been printed in landscape, this would be easy. As it is, another possible way to do this would be to extract the individual page scans for the table and reconstruct them so each "page" in the scan (and here on Wikisource) is really two pages; as if the volume had been scanned two pages at a time. That would lose the XML data (the page text), unless we could do the OCR again, but it would make the page image match the text in the corresponding Page-namespace pages. Lots of sectional transclusion might be another option too but I haven't tried it and I'm not convinced it would actually work. If there is a better way, I'm happy to hear it.
  • The pages were re-introduced by selecting a different copy from the Internet Archive: southernhistoric03sout instead of papershim03soutuoft. I didn't alter the scans themselves. I think the first scan was simply incomplete (maybe someone had physically stripped the Roster out before it ever went near a scanner).
  • I would guess that the SHS published the Roster as an appendix with volumes 1-3, splitting it over the first two volumes and then repeating the full version in the third volume. The roster is dated 1876, so it was possibly still being written as volumes 1 & 2 were being published. Presumably, when they got to the final instalment, they just decided to print the entire thing again.
  • I think the Roster is complete as of volume 3. Volume 4 does not have its own table of contents but volume 5 does and it does not list anything like this document.
  • The Internet Archive is down for maintenance as I type but it is possible there is already a standalone version of the Roster that was published separately and scanned into the Archive's collection. From Google searches alone, rosterofgeneralo00jone looks like a good candidate.
  • Technically, we should proofread and transclude every version, but that would be a bit tedious and redundant. On the other hand, especially if there is a separate version on the Internet Archive (but stripping the compelete version out of volume 3 would work too), we could treat all the versions of the Roster attached to the SHS Papers as not part of the work itself (like we do with adverts) and move the already-proofread pages across to a separate Index.
Sorry for the delay. I think that briefly covers everything. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Adam, I hope that you did not misunderstand my statement, "He gets sick from something every once in a while, which doesn't mean that you are "always" sick. Many if mot most people get sick from something every once in a while. I recall once suggesting that you "drink orange juice" on your talk page. IA is back up. I like that Roster book you point to. I personally would prefer all of these pieces of rosters were connected together. The men who put them together printed them as they got them -- piecemeal. The SHS relied upon subscriptions and they relied upon Southerners who were civilians as well as soldiers to mail in what documents they had as well as stories on what they went through. It was all incoming in pieces. The SHS had to organize those pieces as fast and accurate as possible. The North had many of the needed documents taken from the South. They battled each other after that war for those pieces of information. I believe, without looking back, that this is all covered in Volume 18. If not then I can find it. The South had materials the North wanted. The North had taken materials the South wanted. They waged a different kind of war back and forth for a long while until finally they were able to make an agreement. Only then were both sides able to complete their respective works (Official Records of the War of the Rebellion) with confidence as opposed to suppositions. Former Va. Maj Genl Dabney Herndon Maury was in charge of the SHS at that time and he covers this in his writing. The North was trying to get papers from the South with no exchange. Dabney (Executive Committee] on behalf of the Southern Historical Society said, "No, not until you open your door to us and we have an even exchange" -- and that took awhile. Does any one want the exact source to what I have stated? I can find it. In short, the rosters were put together as they were figured out without having all needed documentation. They were printed as that information became available in each publication for each newsletter. It was only later the newsletters became volumes as were printed as such. Kindest regards to all, —Maury (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No offence taken; I meant that lightheartedly too. Now I've had a look at the scan I linked to on Internet Archive, it is a combined version of the whole Roster of General Officers by Charles Colcock Jones. The description notes it is a rebound version of the SHSP instalments: "Issued as supplement to Southern Historical Society papers. v. 1-3, 1876-77. Detached from first set of that publication for separate binding." That does put it into a grey area for the Inclusion Policy but I think it's old enough to be OK and, probably more importantly, this is a scan of the Library of Congress' copy, with a control number and everything. They're probably in a better position to decide what counts as a book or not than we are. So, what does everyone else feel about this? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I would go with the Roster on Internet Archives ( if only because of what you, Adam, have stated. Consider too, it would fulfill a book by our established "Author:Charles Colcock Jones" [Jr. actually, his father was a minister] but Hywel needs to decide since he has the ability to work with these rosters. As always, respectfully, Maury

ALL: I can continue to work where-ever the pages are, but (and I think you will find this understandable) I'm only going to transcribe something once! I've been contributing to Wikisource for but a short time, and will defer to your judgment (i.e., whether the segments stay scattered across Vols. 1-3, or are excised & reconstructed contiguously as a separate document.) Maury, the decision may be yours... Hywel Dda (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Fellow Virginian, I understand your points. I have thought about this situation a fair amount of time. I would not want to be "spinning my wheels" and getting exasperated either. If it is my decision, continue onward instead of working a whole new book which would be starting all over again. I knew those rosters were going to be a b- which is why I suggested saving them for the very last - Santa might come along and fix them Christmas.

Personally, I would download them, clean them, and upload them as horizontal images and that's that. I (and Adam and George) have been on Wikisource for many years (me 2009 I think) and we have seen people put far less effort into several entire books. You are to be commended for as much as you've done. You're tough-or stubborn? You must "take after" your Dad! You will not see anyone else doing them because either they can't or won't for whatever reasoning. Stay the course you have established for yourself and keep "chipping away". That's my thoughts on it. But in the final analysis, you must decide which you prefer to do. Most Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I will see if I can modify the scans as described. It will probably be next week before I can do that, however. In the meantime, it will be fine to proofread the non-duplicates as we can move the pages later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

/* SHSP volumes */

Hywel Dda, have you given up on the Southern Historical Society's Papers? There are many volumes and lots to do. You need not wait on AdamBMorgan. He always stays very busy, and in fact, is always over-loaded with things to do for others and for himself. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Maury, I'm finishing up Jones' roster at the end of Vol. 3--there's a number of things that need validation back there—Hywel Dda (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It's strange because none of them showed up on my watchlist. I'm glad I asked and you told me about it. —Maury (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hywel Dda, Please color some of the yellow squares in SHSP 3 with your green crayon. I'd like to see that volume totally done. I would do it but I am not allowed since I proofread them with my yellow crayon. Kind regards, Maury

Maury: why are you proofreading those pages on SHSP 3, that duplicate Jones' roster from vols 1 & 2? I marked one of those pages "problematic" for this reason.

It's simple, I didn't know any better or I was sleepy or any other excuse I can think of.

BTW, that link you show above with the golden padlock leads to "Bad title". —Maury (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point in redoing the work there, especially when (AFAIK) a final resting place for the roster has not been agreed upon—Hywel Dda (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Agreed. —Maury (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: I didn't mean to save that! Hit the wrong button while previewing! But currently, as we discussed before, I don't see those colors on the index page (no grey/yellow/green/blue pages). Damned annoying. Chip The color problem has hit others here too. It will be worked out within a decade. They're all government workers. <smile> —Maury (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


From "Scriptorium" 5.8

Quoted: Its a result of a recent "drop-out" related to caching & css the best that I can figure. A purge or two (maybe three) of your various browser/page caches should restore the status colors back to normal. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeswaxcandle, for pointing out the solution to my Colors question. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) End quote

Hywel Dda, wake up. Above is the solution to our colors (or lack of colors) situation. I asked around. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


Wow! What happened? When you awake you awake immediately! What happened - did you drink a large cup of caffeine? <smile> You do excellent work my fellow Virginian. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, once again! You are really a perfectionist! Not a lot of people do as well as you do. I have been looking over your recent edits. I suppose the best word here should be more along the line of "congratulations" on your high quality work. The South, the Confederates, and their descendants all thank you and know you are a true Son of the South. Sincerely, —Maury (talk)

I think we both agree they deserve the best efforts I can give them—Hywel Dda (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, but I don't know, even amongst Sons of Confederate Veterans, and Military Order of Stars and Bars, many who can, or even would do as you do. Most of what I have done there on the SHSP volumes was when I was just learning what to do on WikiSource with the rules and codes. Still, I got a lot transcribed. Do you know how to create a name mainspace? That area where one can look at all pages of text at once? I find that a lot easier to work with. The first 2, or 3 volumes have been done. You really do deserve the earned respect for your work. —Maury (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm unclear about "mainspace" - I'm just an old-fashioned pedant—Hywel Dda (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

SHSP VolumesEdit

Wow! Great work! You seem to be finding stuff I perhaps should have done.

You plan on checking Volume 1 as well? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Aloha, SF0. Another pair of eyes is always helpful, doncha think? I have a feeling I overlook things another would spot ... additionally, I'm reading the articles as I go.
My plan is to finish w/'3, return to reviewing '2, maybe THEN '1, although I may be called away at any moment if Maury runs into a multi-page table. I was sidetracked by Charles Jones' roster, which has been much discussed (see above) as to whether it should be a separate work. What do YOU think? Seems somewhat disarticulated, spread across the three volumes (IMHO)—Hywel Dda (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not qualified to comment on technical issues. but my my views is that the roster if attached is with the 'scans' the proofread pages need to be there. How it's later assembled is a different issue... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

ON second Thoughts, I see there is a seperate version of the roster which is being tweaked in termss of the scans. Proofread page needs updating to cope with multi-page tables I think ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think of this as a technical issue, so much as an æsthetic one. Vol. 1 has the first third; Vol. 2 has the second, and the last third was missing: the whole roster was recently appended to Vol. 3. Maury suspects it was published seriatim as pieces were available, and that may be true, but it makes following the thread difficult. (My table above maps the duplicated scans) Hywel Dda (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to See - One day you will complete SHSP Three. . . :0) —Maury (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

...and you just want to know: will you live to see it? I think you will & I'm sure we both hope so. BTW, I ran across this editorial page recently, which certainly confirms your view that Jones' Roster was published in sections as they were available. I shall be interested to see if the forecast corrected version appears later in the series—Hywel Dda (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I was not hoping to live to see it validated by anyone because the file is already here. Too, I had already transcribed that file. Just the files alone is enough in my opinion.

My statement was actually a compliment to you on how many pages I saw you validate one day. You keep chipping away.

I think I had remembered that the roster was done in parts and published as those parts were completed with the opinion they would someday be worked on and made more accurate. Perhaps I read it on the page you have shown that link to but there may have been something elsewhere. After the publication of the Roster in its present form is completed, it is designed to thoroughly revise and correct it, make such additions to it as may be necessary, and then publish it in separate book form

However, aside from the roster I did know materials were sent in piecemeal to the Society. One of my favorite parts is Mrs Henrietta Lee's question to yankee "General Hunter" as to why did he burned her house down (he also destroyed Virginia Military Institute in Va.) and especially her condemnation of him, and most especially her thoughts about a prayer for him. I think she spoke (wrote) in a context that all true Southerners felt.

My primary goal was to gather all possible files and get them here where they will last. I have all 52 volumes in hardcopy volumes, most are here on, and all are on fully searchable and excellent CDROM(since 1998).

But not all people will find all of these volumes in one place or see all in one place for various reasons thus the importance of placing as many files here as possible. Therefore, perhaps those who care will seek or accidentally find all of those papers in one form or another.

Years ago I was visiting the Confederate Cemetery &c in Fredericksburg, Virginia. I had sold many of the SHSP CDs over the years to universities, and individuals when I was in the SCV., &c. To my pleasant surprise my wife handed me one of my own SHSP-CDs purchased for $70 from the "visitor's center." I still have it and to you my friend, if you are interested, I can send you a free and complete copy of the searchable SHSP-CD in return for all you have done in caring and in working here. You are a true Southerner and fellow Virginian who really does care and you have proven it when you never had to care or bother to work on them. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

—Maury (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Maury, That is a very generous offer, and I thank you for it. As an over-paid Gummint worker, I can certainly afford to buy one from you. But I tell you what: when we're done, if you haven't found a worthy recipient who would have trouble buying a copy, I'll accept your CD. It will give me something more to spur me on! Hywel Dda (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Chip Ahoy! I am not selling any SHSP-CDs. I sold out long ago. I kept 2 for my labors and for my research in case one stopped working. If you want to buy one these days it comes with many other sources such as the Confederate Veteran, Complete Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, and many other works all on one DVD. I have nothing to do with any of those. I'll find the link for you so you can see what is available. —Maury (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with this company other than I know a lot of details about it and I myself have purchased this excellent DVD.I refer to url

 Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies
• Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies
• Map Atlas of the Official Records (high resolution)
• National Archives Guide-Index (5 volumes)
• Dyer's Compendium
• Fox's Regimental Losses
Southern Historical Society Papersall 52 volumes)
• Confederate Military History
• Campaigns of the Civil War
• Biographies of 7 Confederate Generals (J.A. Early, J.E.B. Stuart, J.B. Gordon, R.E. Lee, J. Longstreet, G.M. Sorrel, "Stonewall" Jackson)

Nothing is left out of these earlier CDs that later were placed on one DVD. I strongly suggest, from my personal knowledge, do not buy from any other source because of quality reasons. I get nothing from any sales. I have nothing to do with the company but I have their works and they are excellent, especially when comes to their quality search engine,

—Maury (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

—Maury (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

/*Confederate Military History*/ 12 volumes on en.wsEdit

Chips Ahoy! When you complete CMH #3 Are you going to transclude that volume and What do you plan for the images?—Maury (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Aloha. I'm not planning on transclusion, as I am not familiar with the process. Neither have I plans for the illustrations. Is there something wrong with most of them as they stand? Of course, there's little I can do with maps, particularly the incomplete ones Hywel Dda (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there is nothing wrong with what you've done as it stands. Transclusion is done so that the work can be read like a book as opposed to looking into every cell. I don't know how to do transclusion either but it must be fairly easy because so many people do it. I plan to get around to doing the illustrations (I have two large books to finish first) since you don't lest the book isn't complete. Maps are just illustrations to me and I do okay with illustrations. You are excellent with proof-reading! - and determined. I note that you are also a perfectionist. Besides that you have enhanced the work with your wikipedia links. Congratulations on a job well done. Thanks again for the photo! Pineapples, Coconuts, Palm Trees, Sailboats and Hula Skirts —Maury (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Chips Ahoy there,

Editing just three SHSP volumes was exhausting wasn't it? Imagine all that the surviving Confederates went through during and then *after* the war just telling the war from Southern viewpoints for generations to come. They were an incredible people but alas, I don't think many Southerners of these modern days care. That war is too old now. When I was in the SCV/MOS&B, the guys didn't care unless it was to try to win a debate against one another. During that time period they spent a lot of time arguing amongst themselves until the SCV and MOS&B split into two factions -- something that had not been done before. That is what the modern Confederates accomplished-a dividing of descendants of a once proud and noble Southern people who had fought and worked together as you have seen. Of all the 30,000 members they were divided and never did they do one book of the SHSP which is why I chose to work on the SHSP and to go in a different direction to actually accomplish something worthy as a descendant of true Southern Christian warriors. Lee, Stonewall, Stuart were once sacred names in the South. They gave their best.—Maury (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking a short break: I'm about half-way through reading vol. II & editing as I go. But sometimes I just need to cleanse the palate for a bit—Hywel Dda (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I totally understand needing breaks. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Oh, I didn't make that many mistakes. I was told by three administrators that <i> and </i> are fine in the header as opposed to '' so they aren't mistakes. Also, that was when I first started and didn't know to use '' so I used what I knew from the old days of webpage making. Regards, —Maury (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, Maury—I'm just aiming for consistency, and changing things like that as I encounter them, whilst reading the text. No rebuke is intended—Hywel Dda (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Chips Ahoy! You leave a very neat edit trail behind you. —Maury (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hywel Dda, are you still around —Maury (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hywel Dda, are you still around —Maury (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hywel Dda, are you still around —Maury (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hywel Dda, # 8, Here we go again!. . . Anyway you want it presented is okay by me. Something is better than nothing and it can always be changed by someone else with anything that may be better. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header templateEdit

Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hywel Dda,

In thinking the situation over I believe the best (smartest) person who works with complex codes and loves them is George Orwell III (talk). I do not believe that Excel can be converted and applied here on Wikisource to replace an image. But if anyone can do that and make it searchable I place my bet on George. I have known him here for decades and have seen his work. Personally, I would just use that image I e-mailed to you. Ask George and place the query in Scriptorium where everyone helps one another. I know of no searchable images on Wikisource. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

/* dictionary.reverso */Edit —Maury (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Re-inventing the wheel. - Removing every RunningHeader in every volume and Replacing with rh on Every page - Why?Edit

Hywel Dad,

There is no need to remove every RunningHeader and change to RH or rh in every volume and on every page. Some people prefer RunningHeader as ShakespearFan00 and others used on the SHSP volumes. I myself use rh but on recall Billinghurst himself stated to me long ago that it is preferable to use RunningHeader. I believe he told me it was so new people here would better understand the coding. Either works. You have been re-inventing the wheel. —Maury (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Return to the user page of "Hywel Dda".