Outlier59

Welcome to Wikisource

Hello, Outlier59, 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:

• Help pages, especially for proofreading
• Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy
• Wikisource:For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Monthly Challenge
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} 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.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

• Wikisource:Scriptorium; or
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

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 username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) 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) 05:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Header for Life among the Apache

I put a helpme message in the wrong place -- on the discussion page for Life among the Apaches at Index_talk:Life_among_the_Apaches.djvu. I want someone to check if that header makes sense before I create a lot of pages with that header. Can you help me? --Outlier59 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

answered at the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Life among the Apache red warning exclamation marks on watchlist

I've been working on "Life among the Apaches" for many days now. A lot of work. Do those red exclamation points on my watchlist mean that my work might vanish? Please tell me that won't happen! --Outlier59 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. That means pages need to be patrolled. BTW, you have autopatroller rights now, so it should not happen again now.— Mpaa (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll be careful. --Outlier59 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I fixed a problem with the title in the table of contents. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Outlier59 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Page:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.djvu/25

Dear Outlier59, I saw some of your struggles with this page and advance a small suggestion for performing joinery work on those images. As it is rather complex in operation I hesitate to push this upon you unannounced but you might consider having a look at {{flow under}} as it was intended to address this very kind of situation. AuFCL (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!! I think that's exactly what I need! They're transparent png images -- it should work! :) :) :) Outlier59 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The only thing not coming out right is the caption.... And I can't find where to put the alt tag. But it looks very doable -- see Page:Adventures_of_Huckleberry_Finn.djvu/42. Outlier59 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, hang on: I am a bit confused! Are we talking about /25 or perhaps Page:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.djvu/42 now? I had a bit of a muck around with the latter and think I may have something workable if you approve. I think you were very close but setting height2 to 600px had pushed some elements so far down that they were getting lost behind the edit window in Preview. Anyway I thought turning the caption into a floating span was a small price to pay...and that freed up alt on the File: line to accept the missing "W". If you don't like the result please redo as you see fit. AuFCL (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's beautiful! Thank you!! Outlier59 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Grammar of Heraldry

Hi, I started proofreading The Grammar of Heraldry and have found missing pages. Is fixing this up your alley? I’m not a technical person… Otherwise it is off to the Scriptorium I think. Cheers, — Zoeannl (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The Grammar of Heraldry

Hi, I started proofreading The Grammar of Heraldry and have found missing pages. Is fixing this up your alley? I’m not a technical person… Otherwise it is off to the Scriptorium I think. Cheers, — Zoeannl (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a technical person, either. Probably the Scriptorium is best. Good luck! Outlier59 (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

David Copperfield

Hi, I'm really happy to see someone working on the David Copperfield 1st edition. Please forgive me for messing with your work, but I wanted to see what I could do with the images, randomly picking the one on this page. I tried working on the edition the djvu file is linked to, but the lines are too fine, and it doesn't good scaled down. Then I noticed you were working off a collection of images with coarser lines, and produced a version that I think works pretty well. Could you let me know what you think? Mudbringer (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Mudbringer, you're more than welcome to improve the David Copperfield images! The images I put in place are from various editions, cropped from a djvu file page download and converted to a compressed b&w png file. Grayscale jpeg images look better, but they're also much larger (see my sandbox). I simply cropped, converted to b&w png, and uploaded. Outlier59 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Will do. The image I did was bigger than it needed to be; realized if I make the images about 1200px across they'll look almost as good, and be pretty reasonable in size. Thanks! Mudbringer (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Checking transclusions and updating the template

Hi. The trancluded=yes component is contingent upon running the "checker" tool and reviewing whether all the pertinent pages are transcluded. With Index:London - The Call of the Wild, 1903.djvu that is not the case, so it should not have been marked that way. I will add some extra text to the template documentation to make that component more overt. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that the first stumbled upon was probably the worst example. :-/ What I have been doing is transcluding the front and end matter if it has been proofread or validated, as it is part of the book, and only then marking as fully transcluded. So that is a slight difference from how we regard the proofread / validated state of the work. My reasoning being that if these pages have been transcribed and fit for display, then we should do so. These pages contain valuable information about other printed works, and bibliographic reference. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and works that are not transcluded, can be marked with Category:Not transcluded which enables quicker review, and good oversight that a work has been checked and purposefully excluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the checker tool, so I won't change any more index pages from trancluded=no to trancluded=yes. I think some of the trancluded=no tags are from not transcluding advertisement pages. I don't think I've ever transcluded advertisement pages to mainspace. Outlier59 (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Class "mathcentre"

Hello. I was about to dismiss this edit as an exercise in (bear with me please) foolishness when a bit of investigation reveals class="mathcentre" (or "mathcenter" if you prefer) only works for Preferences/Appearance/Math="PNG image" mode, and does noting useful at all for the alternative "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" mode.

If you are wondering why I am making a meal of this it was somewhat at my prompting that George Orwell III made this addition:

/* center certain math usages */
img.mathcentre, img.mathcenter {
	display: block;
	margin-right: auto;
	margin-left: auto;
}

However this is now something of a triple-fault situation, because not only does mode="MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" not generate and <img> tag for the above to work upon, it now instead generates a sequence of this structure:

<span>
 <span class="mwe-math-mathml-inline mwe-math-mathml-a11y" style="display: none;">
  <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML">
   <semantics>
    ---elided for brevity---
    <annotation encoding="application/x-tex">{\displaystyle \delta ={\frac {e\mathrm {F} l\left({\frac {l}{2}}+h\right)}{mv^{2}}};}</annotation>
   </semantics>
  </math>
 </span>
 <meta class="mwe-math-fallback-image-inline mathcentre" aria-hidden="true" style="background-image: url('https://en.wikisource.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/85fad57337b2e4c662bbb91964a65887f151f893'); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-size: 100% 100%; vertical-align: -2.171ex; width:18.037ex; height:7.843ex;">
</span>

N.B. The nominated class "mathcentre" appears only on the (normally inactive) fallback <meta> tag: so even fixing the CSS will achieve precisely nothing.

Apologies to Outlier59 if this all means nothing to you, but I expect this is the ringing of a death-knell upon a series of ongoing experiments. Will FreedImg be the next domino to fall? AuFCL (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@AuFCL: I don't understand all the technical coding, but I thank you for understanding it and trying to make it work for everyone! I'm holding off on transcribing Radio-active substances until the math display is fixed. Outlier59 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for snowing you under with the technical stuff which was admittedly aimed rather more at GOIII. The long and short of this (and I am kicking myself for not making this point up front!) is that since class="mathcentre" was an attempt to make math fragments self-centring but evidently will no longer be supported by future evolution of <math> (and that is an issue I can get white-hot angry about all of itself! Don't these guys know what regression tests are intended to be used for?): this form is always going to be redundant:

{{c|<math class="mathcentre">\delta=\frac{e\mathrm{F}l\left(\frac{l}{2}+h\right)}{mv^2};</math>}}

and can always be replaced without hesitation by the form:

{{c|<math>\delta=\frac{e\mathrm{F}l\left(\frac{l}{2}+h\right)}{mv^2};</math>}}

As a further aside MathML appears to be rendering with a lot more vertical padding than formerly did PNG mode, so don't even concern yourself with waiting for all this stuff to "come right" without including reference to Lucifer rugging up and donning ice-skates to get to his workplace. AuFCL (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have just had a further (horrible) realisation. Pardon my asking but which browser are you using? PNG mode works best for me using Firefox but MathML is a bit of a mess with line-heights being forced to unrealistic values like 71px etc. On the other hand Chromium works correctly (for me) in MathML mode. So it is starting to look like <math> performance is currently fragmented across browser; mobile and chosen preferences. I wonder which combination the developers are using...? AuFCL (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Bah! Please ignore my last. Turns out I was a victim of phab:T122400 and the "temporary fix" described there removes the "extra line-height" problem from my system. So that part at least was a Furphy. AuFCL (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

New texts

When you add a "New Text" to the template, be sure to add it to the top of list. The one at the bottom is usually the next to be removed. I've made this change already for your addition of the M. Curie paper. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Page:CIA World Factbook(1982).djvu/2

I really don't see any harm in my little game, and there is positive benefit in emphasizing the contribution of our sistersibling libraries, without whom there would be no books to scan. I only transcribe the library graffiti when it is on a page by itself. Certainly when it accompanies other printed text on a page I leave it out. Library Guy (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Author pages

In the past, the English Wikisource has listed only the English copies of texts, not works in other languages. If you feel we should change this practice, please start a discussion in the Scriptorium.

In any case, when we have a "Translations" section on an Author page, it indicates those translations done by that author of other authors' works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Does this look right? Author:Nathaniel Bowditch Outlier59 (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Your additions look fine, although I have tweaked the link to Laplace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Index:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management.djvu

Would appreciate someone else doing a 'style-consistency' pass over this work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Try setting the style rules on the talk page before proofing it. What I usually do is find a few 'sample' pages to format the way they look like they should be formatted, then keep a note of the 'sample' pages for future formatting. I try to put that information on the Index talk page, but sometimes it just ends up in a note file on my PC (not good). Anyhow, the idea is to choose the format before doing much proofing. Title sizes, bold, special fonts, spacing between subsections, anchors, headers and footers... that sort of thing. Have a few sample pages proofed, then editors can always click 'edit' on the sample pages to see the actual formatting code (without changing it, but maybe making a copy).

I'm still pretty new here on Wikisource, so I'm bumbling along as best I can, like most volunteers. Right now I have a few projects I've already committed to, so I can't do a pass through Mrs Beeton. If you try writing editing instructions on the talk page, I'll be glad to give feedback. Maybe something like... 'Do you think that's font-size large, or maybe extra-large... or xx-large....' Frankly, that can be endless. I suggest you set the style and -- unless someone shrieks loudly about it, with reasonable justification -- move on with the proofing. If you're off-base by large vs xx-large for a title, nobody sane is going to make an issue about it after half the book is proofed, unless they're willing to re-format the entire book, within, say 30 days....

Some older works were proofed without formatting instructions on the talk page, and they're very inconsistent. We can't change the past. Best to just move ahead. :)

Outlier59 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome gadget

Hi. I noticed your query to EncycloPetey. In case it is of interest if you check your Preference settings under the Gadgets tab you will find an entry titled "UserMessages: Adds a script for welcoming registered and IP users, with {{Welcome}} and {{Welcomeip}}. (See bottom left, below toolbox.)" If you check the box for this and save your Preferences again, upon visiting any users page you will find a new menu item beside "Read|Edit|etc." called "Notify" with two sub-items: "Welcome" for normal users and "Anon welcome" for IP address users.

These will generate the standard "boilerplate welcomes" I think perhaps you were looking for? AuFCL (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@AuFCL: I changed my preferences, and the "Notify" tab now shows up, but nothing happens when I click on it when editing a user page. So I typed in the Welcome tag at User talk:Packer1028. Outlier59 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I have not gone through the gadget code with a fine-tooth comb so am uncertain as to the details but is it a possibility it only operates upon empty user pages, as a precaution against duplicate "welcomes"? I'll have a look when I get some time free (probably not today!) and will get back to you if anything edifying turns up. AuFCL (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I doubly apologise. The coding of that gadget appears to be quite insane and fragile (and indeed contains many comments from the developer and/or subsequent maintainers to that very effect!) It appears to be no longer functional although I can vouch for it working quite well in the (semi-distant) past. For the time being entering ==Welcome==(new line){{subst:welcome}} ~~~~ (for normal users) or ==Welcome==(new line){{subst:welcome-anon}} ~~~~ (for IP addresses) on their talk-page will achieve the same effect as once this gadget did perform. (Final note: the subst: is not a requirement in wikisource but is a nice touch as it means people's pages will not be updated if the template later changes. More vandal-resistant too.) AuFCL (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish I were making this up. I took a local copy of the gadget code yesterday, intending to try to fix the benighted thing. This morning I tried it (as yet unmodified) and it worked! I shall now retreat in complete confusion. AuFCL (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

(Follow-up) Ah! I had accidentally left the "proper" gadget enabled. So it works when the gadget code is loaded twice! I am beginning to think it might be a load-order/race condition. As Billinghurst has revealed he has a completely different technique for achieving the same effect I see no more incentive for looking into this matter further. Giving up. AuFCL (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought

Do you think we're being too hard on User:DavidPorter65‎ ? He's new and enthusiastic, and though he needs to learn that ignoring the ProofreadPage process isn't an option for Bible (Douay-Rheims Original), I'm worried that in our haste to get that project off on the right foot we might scare him off. Maybe I'm just second-guessing myself :S —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: To be honest, I'm not sure what's happening here. I was trying to be welcoming to a newbie. He said he was inexperienced with Wikisource, so I suggested he look around for a bit. Next I see he asked Billinghurst to add a Bible to Wikisource, and Billinghurst brought in some files from IA and created an index file, and the "newbie" is typing the text into Namespace. This all happened quite quickly (on my pace of working).

IA accepts pretty much anything. The 2-volume 1609 Bible version at (Internet Archive identifier: holiebiblefaithf00mart_0 and Internet Archive identifier: holiebiblefaithf00mart) was uploaded by the Boston Public Library. The 3-volume "first edition" was supposedly scanned and uploaded by fatimamovement.com; it seems to be a copy of the Boston Library version with fatimamovement marks. I don't know who or what fatimamovement is; no betterwhois information on the website.

I regret getting involved with this. I'm finishing up some other things these days, then I'll try to do some proofing on Bible texts we have here, if I can figure out how to do that. If not, I'll just move on to something else I can plod away at. Outlier59 (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Do you want the 2-volume 1609 Bible version from Boston Library at (Internet Archive identifier: holiebiblefaithf00mart_0 and Internet Archive identifier: holiebiblefaithf00mart) here on Wikisource for proofing? Outlier59 (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand I believe every Bible is worth proofing, especially if we have a decent scan. On the other hand, somebody has to actually proofread it (and it won't be me), and most of the Bibles we have already are incomplete. I think most editors here would prefer focusing on completing the ones we have over adding new ones, but would acknowledge that ultimately we would want all of them hosted here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, the files you linked to are already on WS: Index:Bible (Douay Rheims OT1, 1582).djvu and Index:Bible (Douay Rheims OT2, 1582).djvu. It looks like the ones you linked are better scans so it will be very worthwhile to upload them as new versions of the files we have! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, your message wasn't clear. Can you clarify? What do you want to use for the Douay Rheims bible here? Outlier59 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Essentially this is the gist of my message:

• Adding new versions of the Bible to Wikisource is good; improving the Bibles we already have is better.
• The files Internet Archive identifier: holiebiblefaithf00mart_0 and Internet Archive identifier: holiebiblefaithf00mart are scans of a Bible we already have, i.e. Bible (Douay-Rheims Original).
• The files Internet Archive identifier: holiebiblefaithf00mart_0 and Internet Archive identifier: holiebiblefaithf00mart appear to be better than the files File:Bible (Douay Rheims OT1, 1582).djvu and File:Bible (Douay Rheims OT2, 1582).djvu. Therefore, replacing File:Bible (Douay Rheims OT1, 1582).djvu and File:Bible (Douay Rheims OT2, 1582).djvu with Internet Archive identifier: holiebiblefaithf00mart_0 and Internet Archive identifier: holiebiblefaithf00mart would be improving a Bible we already have, and this would be a good thing.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. Outlier59 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Imperial Gazetteer of India

You seem to know what you are doing with pagelists :)

Any chance of doing the volumes for this?

Index:The_Imperial_Gazetteer_of_India_-_Volume_10_(2nd_edition).pdf being a sample I did earlier. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you made a decent start on the pagelist for Index:The_Imperial_Gazetteer_of_India_-_Volume_10_(2nd_edition).pdf, my only quibble being I believe you need to put the dash on the blank pages in quotes. Later, when the volumes are being proofed, people will come across pages with no text, and some page numbers will turn gray on the Index file. I happen to like seeing them as gray dashes (no page number) on the Index file; probably just a preference; I don't think there's any rule about that.

I'm plodding through some other things these days, so -- sorry to say -- I can't help you with this right now. By the way, before you classify an Index file as ready to proofread, you should probably add a running header to the Index file in cases where it's obvious the book has a running header. Saves questions and time and aggravation later.

Sorry to be not-helpful, but I'm just a minor plodder, poking away at a few things at a time for a few hours most days. You're perfectly capable of doing those Indexes, and you seem to like working on Index files. Why not forge ahead? Outlier59 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Page talk:Bible (Douay Rheims OT1, 1582).djvu/933

@Prosody: and @Billinghurst: I don't understand what happened with the discussion at Page talk:Bible (Douay Rheims OT1, 1582).djvu/933

1. I never receieved a notification that DavidPorter65 mentioned me on that talk page.
2. Prosody said he removed "the link www.latimamovement.com at the bottom of the page" -- which I can't see in any version of the page.

Sorry to be stupid about this.... But what in the world happened there? Outlier59 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

/me shrugs as I didn't pay a lot of attention, I just poked a different direction as I had seen that you hadn't edited.

Re pokess, do you have them turned on in your notifications? The other thing that may be the issue is there was commentary about some changes in notifications due to some other issues. Read the wikitech-news at WS:S for the detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Page numbering

I've reverted the good faith effort, on the Index file you mentioned.

Can you please start a disscussion so there is ONE agreed standard for page numbering across the entire English Wikisource?

I've been told (previously) to consider using at least three different approaches (on various Index files) depending on who I ask, and it's frustrating when I get concerns from other contributors like yourself, when I am acting in good faith. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I have no doubt your edits are good faith! It's just that sometimes you seem to be editing too quickly for the newbies -- not giving them time to do something at their slower pace than more experienced editors. Maybe you could offer help in the talk page before editing an index that's being actively worked on.

I'm not sure there will ever be a single standard for numbering Index pages, but I think it's worth working towards. There are two pages that I've found here about Index page formatting: Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files and Help:Index pages. To start with, it would help to have a single page. Some of the information is probably out of date. I think some of it is too technical (but I'm not a techy person, so I'm biased on that, I admit).

I'm willing to propose merging those two pages into one set of instructions. Would that help, as a start? Outlier59 (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to take the latter suggestion to the Scriptorum thread I started. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW It would be very much appreciated if you could take a look at the works in Category:Index - File to check, I've added pagelists where I can, but there are a few works I can't touch for copyright reasons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Images

Hi, thanks for this -- much appreciated! Did you know that @HesperianBot: can grab high quality images from Internet Archive-based DJVU files (actually, from the higher-quality jp2 files) if they're linked via the {{raw image}} template? That's why I typically just link stuff that way -- then eventually, I go back and move stuff to Commons. Saves some effort, and gets the best scan. -Pete (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I noticed that {{raw image}} doesn't plaster MISSING IMAGE messages all over the public pages like {{missing image}} does, so I experimented on your project -- very glad to hear that's OK with you! I also uploaded a jpg file, if you want it. I think {{raw image}} only works automatically/via-bot with full-page images, not cropped images. Outlier59 (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool, experiments are good...and I try not to be too defensive of "my" wiki contributions! Yes, in order for the bot to do its thing, the raw image template needs to be in place, and the bot will import the entire page. What I've found is that when used in concert with CommonsHelper (to move the file to Commons -- a step I wish could be skipped when we're confident an entire work is PD) and CropTool (to quickly and easily crop the image), it's a very useful thing. Note, @HesperianBot: only "does its thing" when @Hesperian: manually runs it (it's pretty resource-intensive), which I think is roughly annual. So I tend to accumulate a lot of pages with raw images, and bug them every once in a while to run the bot. I generally don't find this to be a problem, as the works I'm typically transcribing for this purpose don't have a lot of value for their text, so I'm in no rush to "complete" them. the images are my main target in most (but not all) of these cases.

If you're curious, I published a blog post and a screencast video of my process for extracting images. -Pete (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi I probably run it more like four or five times a year. If it's been a while since I've run it and you're impatient for images, I am open to being poked. Hesperian 01:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks! @Hesperian:! Nothing I'm feeling too urgent about. One thing I've just remembered though, that I've been meaning to ask: Is it sensitive to whether the source link is of this format: [1] or this one: [2]? (That is, the word "details" or "download" in the URL, determining whether you see a page layout of the book vs. a list of file formats?) I remember I had some trouble when I linked directly to the DjVu file, but I'm not sure what the best URL is to use. -Pete (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it tries not to mind what the link looks like. It attempts a good five or six pattern matches, including both of the above. Hesperian 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I wish more of this information were more easily available to newbies. I've been bumbling around since October. Now I'm mostly doing straight proofreading and validation -- mostly because other stuff is so f***ing vague. (Sorry for profanity -- I've had a long day.) If Wikisource wants volunteers, I strongly suggest they develop a snappy and concise orientation video for new volunteers. Comments like the one in the next section of this discussion page DO NOT encourage volunteers. Outlier59 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Outlier59, amen. I couldn't agree more strongly. If you'd like to brainstorm more videos, I'd be happy to discuss and work on them. Maybe we could start a page for brainstorming videos, say, at Wikisource:WikiProject Screencast. Did you watch the one I linked above? Any feedback? I'd imagine they might be a bit more useful if we composed them specifically to match the content of some of the high-traffic help pages here. -Pete (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

/* raw images or missing images = UGH *|

Outlier59, please stay away from my and some others project of England. I am online everyday and I don’t need an electronic reminder to tell whether an image is missing or not. It’s highly annoying to me to be reminded and have to remove those notices. I have covered 2 volumes already and I don’t need those blasted annoying reminders to tell me about my images yet undone. However, if you can do the polished final images then you go ahead and do them. Thus far I have done hundreds of polished and final images. Just leave me in peace to work. —Maury (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@William Maury Morris II:, while I don't know exactly what you're talking about, on the wikis I've worked on, there is usually a strong sentiment that pages to not belong to any individual user. My understanding of Wikisource is that it's intended as a resource for the general public...and I don't think having any individual "own" particular pages serves that interest. What do you mean by "my and some others project of England?" Are you claiming an entire section of Wikisource as off limits to newcomers? -Pete (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.^{[survey 1]} The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.^{[survey 2]} The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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.