User talk:Stbalbach~enwikisource

Headers

Hello, I'm wondering why you are replacing all the headers on The Annotated 'Travels with a Donkey in the Cévennes'.--Shanel 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "replacing" them, I'm reverting what someone did without consensus. -- Stbalbach 17:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "without consensus"? It's been well established that all pages in the main article namespace are to be standardized with the {{header}} template? We've been adding headers to all pages for the last four months or so.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy. This is an Annotation project. Annotation projects are naturally not going to be "standardized" and need leeway based on the needs of particular projects and the people working on those projects. I appreciate that some believe every page should look exactly the same (Wikipedia is often called the McDonald's of information for good reason) but I happen to think the header is ugly and not needed for this particular project. The way I designed it is classier and puts the emphasis on the text and annontations, and not on Wikisource and garish banners and colors. -- Stbalbach 17:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently special about annotation projects that should exempt them from looking any different than other pages. Both of the other annotation projects utilize the header. The header is used to link all the subpages with the parent page, and in the case texts which are split up among chapters, to link the chapters together as well. This is not to say you can't make the presentation look classy outside the header (indeed this has been done before).—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Annotation projects are indeed different from texts. They are original online compositions and not just simply archived texts. I believe there should be freedom and artistic license for individual annotation projects - there is no reason that every page on wikisource has to look exactly the same. Each annotation projects has a "Project page" which sets the guidelines for that particular project, including stylistic issues - in this way the participants in the project decide how to best structure the annotations and equally its style, as there is no single "right" way to do annotations. This has been discussed in the annotation talk page. -- Stbalbach 20:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus definately exists for the conversion of all main-space pages to the header-style format. Nearly every active contributor has participated in the conversion of over 20,000 pages in this manner. There are currently under 1,500 pages left without the header. These page including all annotations will be edited to conform to this style per consensus. If you cannot submit your own preferences to consensus opinion, perhaps you are not suited for participating in such collboratory project. I hope this is not the case. Please restore the headers--BirgitteSB 18:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

BirgitteSB, don't flame bait me - I've been a daily active user of Wikipedia and its sister projects since 2004, I don't need that kind of personal attack telling me to leave the project, what kind of bad attitude is that? Perhaps you should look more closely at who has a problem. If I was a newbie I'd be gone and never come back - maybe you "solve" other disagreements with that kind of aggressive bad attitude but not with me. This particular annotation project represents over 100 hours of work and was praised by a leading Stevenson scholar and discussed at a recent Stevenson conference. This is high-quality original scholarly content that Wikisource is fortunate to have - I had to re-write most of the Wikisource:Annotations guidelines just to even get it started. I'm frankly pissed that people who had zero contribution to it, or the annotation project side of Wikisource, decide how it looks, and do so with a heavy hand, with no discussion, based on an arbitrary reason. -- Stbalbach 20:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention to provoke you. My comments above are sincere and meant to be taken at face-value. If I seem aggresive to you, it is only because of high amount of confidence I have in the strength of community consenus on this issue. I am sorry that you are upset with the standardization project. However there is consensus for the standardization of the navigation of the website through the use of {header}. This includes any pages which you believe to belong to the annotation project. The {header} template has been widely discussed and worked on for many months without any objections after over 20,000 pages. It is incorrect to claim this is being done without discussion. If you dislike using {header} you do not have to add it. But it is unacceptable for you to revert the addition of others. There are no projects or pages at Wikisource which are exempt from the consensus reached by the wider community.

The development of {header} was documented by Pathoschild at User:Pathoschild/Projects/Standardised_header The original Scriptorium announcement of that of the development.[1] Which happened at [2] In the Scriptorium WS:STYLE is adopted including the use of {header}[3] Again in the Scriptorium some discussion of the conversion to {header}[4] Tweaking of {header} discussed in the Scriptorium[5] More discussion of converting pages to {header}[6] Development of "process header" for Wikisource name space is continued show of consensus for standardization[7] More tweaking of {header} on the Scriptorium[8] In June Xenophon (bot) was able to generate a list of links to pages that needed to be standardized with (header} They were split into several pages because of the large size of the original lists. User:Xenophon (bot)/Tasks/Headers/A-D; User:Xenophon (bot)/Tasks/Headers/E-O; User:Xenophon (bot)/Tasks/Headers/P-Z; User:Xenophon (bot)/Tasks/Headers/T. Perusing the history of those pages will show the large number of people (by Wikisource standards) who worked on converting over 20,000 pages to use {header}. The consensus is clear for standardizing the entire site in this manner including pages that you have worked on. If you have been unaware of all this discussion and ongoing work, I would strongly suggest that you regularly read the Scriptorium and to ask for clarification if anything is mentioned that you do not understand.

As a long time volunteer at Wikimedia projects, I am sure you are aware that you do not own anything that you work on, your work is open to being alterd by others. That all editors are expected to conform to community consensus. This discussion is not about the quality of your work, all pages are being coverted equally regardless of quality. And the inclusion of the {header} templates does not make the scholarly material any less useful. I am not telling you to leave the project, I am telling you to abide by consensus even if you disagree with it. Perhaps you should take sometime to cool down and take a fresh look at the issue tommorrow.--BirgitteSB 00:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been no discussion about style and annotation projects. Annotation projects are not the same as archival dumps of preexisting documents, they are unique and original works created by the editors. Per the Annotation guidelines, the editors who create the project have a project page where they work out the specific requirements for that project. If Wikisource as a community is unable to deal with this level of autonomy then I don't see how any real annotation will ever take off. Today it is the headers, tomorrow it will be something else. Annotation projects require special and flexible needs - they are unique works not unlike websites, requiring flexibility depending on what method of annotation is being used, the type of document being annotated, how the editors decide to lay it out, etc.. for example, with regards to headers, the ordering of pages may not be so simple as going from page 1, to page 2, etc.. nor would the editors of the annotation project design it to be read in that way, for example. Basically what your saying is, all annotation projects must be written and designed around a page header -- well, that's a serious limitation on what can be done in annotation projects and there has been no discussion about it. -- Stbalbach 15:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see annotation projects being at all different from original translations. This has always been my argument for why they belong here. I am not sure what kind of layout option you are describing that you believe will not work with this template. However {header} has parameters for previous and next which the editors of a project can lay out however they wish. It can even allow two choices for these parameters (See below). I think this template should be adaptable for anything you wish to do with annotations. If it is lacking a feature maybe someone can fix that. This is what all readers coming to this website will be accostomed to using for navigation. I really believe it is important to keep things consistant in that regard. I am also confident that the rest of the community feels this way. If you can explain to me what you want to do that the template will not allow, I will certainly do my best to find a solution. --BirgitteSB 17:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

←Elegie I (1633) ←Elegy I (1896)

Elegy II The Anagram by John Donne

Elegie III (1633)→ Elegy III (1896)→

The original 1633 version of the poem with the long s (ſ) and any ligeratures preserved. See also the 1896 edition or compare them side-by-side

You have been blocked from editing for two hours in accordance with Wikisource's blocking policy for excessive reverts. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to do so after the block expires. --Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the pages. There is consensus on Wikisource for the header. --Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 22:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Response:

1. This is not a standard copy of a document, it is an annotation project, a unique work, just like a Wikipedia article. Per the annotation guidelines, editors have the freedom to decide for themselves on a per-project basis style and layout concerns that fit that particular projects goals. If you want to discuss it on the project page I'm more than happy too, but I suspect you have never read the document or know anything about it and have no interest in its content.
2. The flat-color banner across the top is stylistically ugly - it takes away from the character of the work and makes it less appealing to read. As someone who is familiar with the work, its tone and style, this is important to me. I also want it to stand apart as an annotation project and not just a copy of an existing document, so that it looks different.
3. Functionally, there is nothing the banner does that can't or isn't achieved with the current more tasteful and less obtrusive layout.
4. Even if you must insist on a single template for every article, there should be freedom of choice on how these templates look. Even at Wikipedia just about everything has multiple versions available - it is never forced on an article and always decided on a per-article basis. Everything is a guideline. That doesn't appear to be the case at Wikisource for some reason.
5. Using a block in a dispute which you happen to be on one side of is not very ethical. The above discussion shows this was never resolved - blocking me is easy, but doesn't resolve the problem.

-- Stbalbach 22:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Question About Annotation

Hi, How does one start an annotation project? Say, I want to annotate a book that is already on Wikisource; then, how do I create another copy of it to annotate? Also, what if a book is not on Wikisource, but is available on line (public domain)? I mean, how does one get such book into Wikisource? Look forward to hearing from you. Sanjay Tiwari 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I agree with you that this dispute has never been resolved as I believe resolution would involve you agreeing (even if grudgingly) that {{header}} (or a namespace variation) has consensus for being on every page of Wikisource even those pages you would prefer to format differently. I am sorry to see you have been blocked because you have made good contributions to Wikisource. If my concern was only about the issue alone I would have modified the annotation in your absence, but I was hoping you would return and restore the {{header}} yourself after seeing it stand for so long throughout the project. I would like to resolve this dispute by a demonstration of whether or not there is consensus on this issue. Can you compose a brief statement, followed by a question I can put to the editor's at large which they may answer in two ways? If you could phrase this in a way that one outcome would result in your concession that consensus is for {tl|header}} being placed on annotations, I will promise to concede my position in event of the opposite outcome (this of course is only if the outcome is not "no consensus"). I cannot promise that everyone else will follow my example, but expect that they would since I imagine your question will be fairly asked. Please consider this for as long as you would like; the offer will remain open.--BirgitteSB 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I just look forward to finding a new home for my projects. Wikisource is very limiting and not attractive for annotation projects. Which is a shame as, technically, Wikisource has the features to do a lot of creating and interesting annotations projects, but there is no political support for it, everything has to be uniform and look the same. Which is strange considering annotations is one of the primary reasons Wikisource was created, serious annotators like myself are being driven away to more friendly platforms. I'm not sure how and why this situation came about, but something is fundamentally broken. I plan on writing a letter to the board, recount my experience here, tell of the annotations projects successes and failures, and hope that it might cause some sort of policy change. Currently there is no political support for anything but the most basic annotation work - the annotation guidelines are ignored by everyone including the admins and "editors at large". -- Stbalbach 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I find wikisource most suitable for "light annotation" which is something I just made up to describe what I tend to do. Not that I think it is unsuitable for real annotations, but just that I think real annotations push the features of Wikisource to their limits. I must say that any guidelines which are so widely ignored likely do not have consensus. Wikisource was created for a great number of reasons and some have had more success then others in practice.

There has never really been a definative conclusion about whether annotation projects belong here or at Wikibooks. Since you are searching for a new home, I would encourage you to take a look at Wikibooks and talk to people there about what they think of your goals and if they find them complamentary to thiers. I think if you are willing to work to make certain the annotations appear "educational", maybe adding some open-ended questions for discussion etc., then it would be even more likely to fit within the goals of Wikibooks. I think your work is really outstanding and I wish you success in it.--BirgitteSB 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Stbalbach. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Stbalbach~enwikisource that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

06:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)