User talk:Dovi

From Wikisource

"Wikisource – The Free Library!"

My talk archives: Archive 1 (to April 2006) | Archive 2 (to March 2008)

Add a new comment

Contents 1 hebrew text 2 Frisian 3 Gesenius 4 CGJ 5 proofreadpage rtl 6 Mikraot Gedolot 7 typos in Aru"ch HaShulchan 8 Orach Chaim: Hanukkah stuff 9 a new day 10 Arukh haShulchan

[edit] hebrew text

Hi, could you add the Hebrew text at the top of Page:JPS1917-Torah.djvu/7. Thanks, --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Dovi (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frisian

I see you had a user page made at fy: Wikibooks. Do you understand Frisian? If not, do you mind if I put a babel box on your page saying so? (Please be so kind to answer at my fy: Wikibooks talk page; it may be a while before I come here again.) Aliter (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gesenius

Thanks for noticing and improving Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar!

1. Any contribution is good, but please take note of the comments at the main project page: Index:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu. In a word: I want to mark this book up semantically, for convenient future indexing and cross-referencing. Ambitious, i know, but quite possible. I am still building the templates for it, but they are already becoming stable.
2. Maybe you will have an idea about the technical problem that we have here: MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Hebrew cursor problem. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CGJ

I created a new template: {{CGJ}}. You may find it interesting. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] proofreadpage rtl

Hi Dovi,

I have finally fixed the proofreadpage extension for RTL languages; only the zoom was not working well. I believe the rest is ok.

In addition, you can choose to split the page horizontally during edition (like on de.ws) , if you set the following variable :

var proofreadpage_default_layout='horizontal';

this setting can be activated by single users, or for all users if it set in common.js

I hope you enjoy it!

ThomasV (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, thanks for your efforts!

I gave it a try at the only sample page we have for that, namely he:עמוד:Bavli Ber 02a.jpg. Before the magnification didn't work so well, but no clicking gives no magnification at all (?). Tried in both Firefox and Explorer.

In the meantime we've gotten rather lazy, incorporating pages images in this way: he:כלכלת השבת. That may be the simplest solution for some texts, but there others that proofreadpage is perfectly designed for, such as the "page" example above (a major text that is classically published with standardized pages). It is a great tool, and you deserve a lot of credit for it. Dovi (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the zoom except in edit mode (see scriptorium) ThomasV (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mikraot Gedolot

Gday. The work Mikraot Gedolot is currently moribund, greatly incomplete, and in need of headers, etc. I am wondering whether there are plans to continue the work or whether it is now no longer of priority/importance. Thx. billinghurst (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The Hebrew version is huge. The question is when someone will want to take up translation to English and do links; I suspect that here and there people will contribute, as they do to Mishnah. Dovi (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] typos in Aru"ch HaShulchan

Dear Dovi,

Great work you are doing -- thanx!

B"H, I go through bits and pieces of the printed Aruch HaShulchan, on a daily basis. When I see a typo, I note it to myself.

Today I saw one in a self-reference, and found the typo in Wikisource as well: Siman 69, Síf 11, the reference to Siman 105, should be to Siman 55. And might I add that I easily found the correct location, due to your hard work, so, thanx again.

And about the other scores of typos in the text version -- any suggestion?

HAGD,

Aharon (naiman@jct.ac.il)

Hi Aharon. First of all thanks for the correction, which I implemented.

Second of all, it is fantastic that you have been noting typos in the printed edition. It would be totally amazing if you could create a user page for yourself at Hebrew Wikisource (you would need to sign in) and make a list of all the errors that you have found on your user page, so that we can all make use of your work and fix the online text.

In general, since the printed text is our source, I think it is prudent that when we find an error we leave it in the wikitext version in parenthesis (), and add the correction in square brackets [] as is customary. I have made such corrections here and there as I edited the digital text. However, in the case of a reference with a link that is hard to do, and it is probably OK to simply change it as I just did.

Also, if you find mistakes, you can also correct them yourself directly. Others will check and verify your work.

Thanks! Dovi (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orach Chaim: Hanukkah stuff

Thanks for all of your work on the AH. Do you think that we could try to work on one particular group in Orach Chaim, and try to get that done, and have a more concentrated effort on something, such as one part of Orach Chaim? (I saw the new editions to Choshen Mishpat, which I also liked). Have a good shabbat. (Goldmanboys)

[edit] a new day

Hi Dovi, a message for when you return. With some sober reflection I can see how I could have done things better. It is not always possible to advance a view without offending some, but I should always make a greater to avoid it. I arrived at the introduction after attempting to make associated Help:pages more useful and felt that removing something that was an exception to a simple principle, that I recognise as controversial, was more helpful than a potential distraction to a new user. I now concede that you were correct with your comment, later in the piece, that I should challenge the 'policy' at that page. I believe that making firm policies at the early stages of the site's development lacked enough input and views to justify the term 'consensus', I still doubt whether we have enough regular users to create one now. I am surprised that there are so few regulars, though I know how difficult it is to find useful ways to contribute and imagine that barriers remain for new and ip user's contributions. It is the latter who may think it is appropriate to grab a translation from their shelf and add it here, detecting when this has occurred could be extremely difficult, so these users should be provided with clear guidelines on how they can easily get started and introduce themselves to the site. I am very appreciative of the early efforts to get the site up and running, because I love the place, you had a part in that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Arukh haShulchan

Dovi,

Thanks for your comments. I know you're referring to my edit summary here. I agree that it was thoughtless of me, and I do appreciate the efforts of people like Goldmanboys who give of their time for the public good. I actually thought better of the comment after I wrote it. I think I might be able to remove it with admin tools, but I'd rather let it be to remind myself to be less cranky and more thoughtful in the future.

As to the source text, you are of course right. Hebrew Wikisource has copies of many classic Jewish texts, and I should have realized they would have the Arukh haShulchan.

I appreciate your contributions here as well. I know you are a long-time contributor, and you have much good work to your name. That Mishneh Torah index is beautiful. (and well-sourced!)

As far as translation quality goes, I think it would be appropriate to make use of the text quality markers as has been done in the Mishnah project. Thus, an incomplete translation is "25%", a complete one is "50%", a reviewed one is "75%" and a doubly-reviewed one is "100%" Notes are nice, too.

I wish you continued good health and success in your work. --Eliyak T·C 03:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The possible lack in the percentage markers (25%, 50%, etc.) is that they really seem to deal with quantity, not quality: How much of the text exists? Or how much of it has been proofread (for English-language texts)?

It would seem that we need to mark quality and quantity separately: Even if a chapter has been fully translated, that may still be a very rough draft. The "Flagged revisions" extensions has a built-in rating system for three layers: Completeness (i.e. quantity), Accuracy (in Wikisource this might mean proofreading or validating a translation), and aesthetics (page formatting, illustrations, etc.). It would seem to me that we could create a fairly simple template tailored to translations that would facilitate ratings for at least the first two elements. What do you think? Dovi (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I still feel that the {{TextQuality}} markers are sufficient. Nevertheless, I have created {{translation}}, What do you think? --Eliyak T·C 14:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)