DNB Edit

I see you are taking an interest in the DNB pages - you are very welcome. It's a big project, and known problems with the initial uploads are logged at Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Progress. Other project pages explain the methods of working. The misalignment you noted is one of the issues, and volumes are gradually being fixed up (in reverse order). Do drop by the main project Talk page, or leave me a note, if there are any specific things you'd like to discuss. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Directing questions Edit

You are better off asking for assistance in the Scriptorium.

User:Heyzeuss has not been active here for nearly three years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matthew Henry Edit

Welcome to The Exposition!

I see you have started working on Henry's Exposition, which is wonderful! I started this project as a convergience of my love for Wikipedia, old books, and the Bible. There are some references in Wikipedia to this work. Nevertheless, they link to sources that are completely outside any Wikimedia project, which pains me. At first I wanted to import pre-existing text into Wikisource. I found out immediately that that method was proscribed, not necessarily for copywrite concerns, but to keep the Wikisource text faithful to just one edition or another. I appreciated the logic of preserving certain editions and enthusiastically obtained a pdf of the 1828 edition from Internet Archive. I asked them for a machine OCR, which they happily provided. At some point I got the pdf converted to djvu in order to get the pages to load reliably. I was a bit disappoined to give up image quality, but I later realized that I was not throwing out the baby with the bathwater because I could still keep the hi-fi pdf as a resource. I created an author page, an index page, and a top namespace page. The index page was no trivial exercise because I had to identify and document each page and chapter in each volume.

Available editions of Henry's Exposition

The 1828 edition is not the earliest. Old Testament and Gospels/Acts sections were first published between 1706 and 1710. The remainder of the New Testament (Epistles and Revelation) were edited and completed from Henry's notes, in 1811, by a committee of nonconformist ministers. In any event, the 1828 edition is early enough for our purposes, and it may be the one that is the most set in stone before any modern abridgements would come and muddle things.

Wikisource Bibles

You will notice that there are other bibles available, but they are either incomplete proofreads or they are not transcluded at all. That is, they are not reliably attached to djvu copies of any certain editions. For example, there is no complete, transcluded version of the 1611 King James translation. How disappointing! I hope that someone will do it soon because that is one of, if not the the most, important works of Modern English. I wish I had the time.


It looks like you have figured out how to transclude pages, in spite of my slow response. Well done! For more information on the workflow used at Wikisource, see my user page.

Differentiating Bible text from commentary

I think my original solution to the issue of different typefaces was just to put space above and below the quotation blocks because they are identical in typeface and very close to each other in size. I am fine with just making them larger. The main commentary could be normal-sized for readability.


I must have been completely crazy for getting myself into this. It is obviously more than anybody could complete alone, but I felt optimistic that others would come along and pitch in here and there. I get distracted, i get sucked in so easily by projects like this. I entered an unintentional hiatus in order care for concerns like family and paying rent, but before I did, I wanted to reach my first goal, which was to get the project up and running so that anybody could jump in and start proofreading. That meant that I had to have the index page complete, the first pages of chapters laid out properly, and transclusion into the main namespace started. We benefit from this project personally just by working on it. I would say that it is more about the journey than the destination, but the objective is to have a complete resource that Wikipedia can link back to. Matthew Henry is just as relevant now as he was in his lifetime, and he has made the world a better, more bearable place to live. His commentary is indespenasible, not just as a resource, but as primary reading. Not only will others benefit from your contributions, but you will enjoy his commentary and personally gain from it! Heyzeuss (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to e-mail. Edit

Your welcome ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Protestant Rule of Faith (Charles Hodge) Edit

Hello there. Thanks for your message.

I uploaded the text in 2005. It's currently 2019. I actually have no memory of doing this back in 2005 but I obviously did. I can't remember what my source was, though a quick check of google shows a link to Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology, volume 1.

As for getting the author wrong - that wasn't me. My original upload did not include the author at all and a subsequent contributor added the name of AA Hodge instead. I'll change the wiki page.

As for someone making money out of selling it... the text is no longer under copyright so anyone has the right to bundle it together in a physical book and sell it if they so desire.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't suggesting you were responsible for what the print-on-demand publisher did, but merely that the fact that it had got up on Wikisource in this form had afforded the opportunity for a totally ignorant P-O-D publisher to reprint it in its form as found there with the wrong author and paragraphs omitted. I came across the printed book, was puzzled, and eventually realized that it had been reprinted from Wikisource. But yes, I do see now that the misattribution was not yours, as this piece was left unattributed on Wikisource for a year and a quarter. PeterR2 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. No worries. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links Edit

You are doing great job, I can see I have overlooked more than I thought… Just one minor thing about the links: I usually do not repeat links within a chapter (similarly to Wikipedia, which recommends to use a link only once per article), so it is imo not necessary to link eg. Matthew (Bible) with every occurence. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The letters of John Hus Edit

I have transcluded most of Index:The letters of John Hus.djvu and checked the links up to the page 150, so if you want, you can continue validating. It would be great if the work could be nominated for Featured Text afterwards :-) Thanks very much! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Two things I noticed:
1) In Page:The_letters_of_John_Hus.djvu/16 there is a link to Appendix B which is not working yet
2) In The_letters_of_John_Hus (the main Contents page) there is some wording "not individually listed". I can't see what has caused those words to appear. I did notice that that page does not have the page numbers clickable whereas the individual pages from Page:The_letters_of_John_Hus.djvu/19 onwards do. --PeterR2 (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for continuing with validation.
ad 1) Appendix B is the very last chapter of the book and has not been created yet. I am going to create it soon.
ad 2) That is the so called Auxilliary TOC. The original paper book did not have the Preface included in its table of contents. This is not a problem if you have a paper book, because you can see the preface in the beginning of the book, but it is a problem with Wikisource version of the book, because any subpage which is not included in the table of contents will probably not be found by readers. So I included the preface into the table of contents, but I used the template {{Auxiliary Table of Contents}} to indicate that it was not written in the original table of contents and included it only into the main namespace using the tags <includeonly></includeonly>. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appendix B created. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! With regard to "not individually listed", it's not important but I feel that this automated comment might be confusing for some non-technical readers. It can be replaced (or presumably removed) using the parameter "comment" in the Auxiliary Table of Contents template, but maybe it is needed for technical users using this book as data for something else? --PeterR2 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. I added the comment "(not included in the original table of contents)"; what do you think, does it sound better? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much better :-) --PeterR2 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Style question for bible refs Edit

It is difficult to see from indistinct printed copy sometimes what is the correct thing to do. I am confused whether, in Bible refs, chapter number and verse number should be combined or separated by a space.

If you would, could you peek at my fumbling at KJV Matthew, and maybe compare against the scan?

I'm trying to decide if "Luke 3. 23." is indeed that or rather "Luke 3.23."

I've looked around and for instance when they experimented with Genesis they would do "John 1. 1, 2." and "⁠Heb. 1. 10.", separating chapter and verse.

But occasionally I see echoes of our internal verse numbering, e.g. "Isaiah 7:14." So still uncertain. Shenme (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks excellent; spacing is great - absolutely no problem either way, but the way you have done it is nice and clear, and consistent with what the scanned page has. I agree with your references - have checked the ones with a question mark and agree with them and think you can remove question marks on this page. --PeterR2 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We sent you an e-mail Edit

Hello PeterR2,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]