User talk:EncycloPetey

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thank you EncycloPetey[edit]

Thank you i am very new at this. Just trying.


I see that you have done significant contributions in wikitonary. I am not able to understand how to edit those pages, can you help me with a sample page? If feasible a guide to how to edit in wikitonary. Thanks Cyarenkatnikh (talk)


You have new messages
Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at Cherkash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Meqabyan/Ethiopian Maccabees[edit]

Yes, I am the translator. I have various reasons for permitting its partial public use.

Meqabyan/Ethiopian Maccabees[edit]

I'd be glad to provide that, but I have little to no knowledge of how wikipedia operates.

Constitution of Qatar[edit]

There you go ->

Specifics please[edit]

Regarding this. Could you specify (on talk) the issues you're seeing so the IP editor has a chance of actually fixing them?

I really don't think the IP editor is being resistant or is trying to avoid following our policies and practices. From all appearances they were just so focussed on the technical musical notation stuff that 1) the problems elsewhere simply didn't register, and, because of that, 2) really didn't understand what you meant when you brought those problems up (they seem to have thought you were attacking their work on the actual musical notes, which I don't think you were particularly concerned about in this instance?). Or put another way, it looks to me like what you're perceiving as antagonism and recalcitrance on their part is really exasperation with what they perceive as hostility and antagonism on your part. But from where I am sitting it looks like a pretty literal example of two people talking past each other!

I'm hoping that if you shift focus to the positive angle (what you want them to do to resolve the concerns), instead of the negative angle (what they did wrong previously), we can still turn this around to a collaborative and collegial way to resolve the issues. It wouldn't hurt to throw in a couple of "I'm sorry if this came across as …, I just meant …" in order to give them too a chance reassess their approach. --Xover (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I checked the notes as well, but the notes looked fine. The time signature, composer, lyricist, title, dynamics, etc. were all missing. This isn't a scan-backed copy, so removing the image leaves a further proofreader without access to the image in order to make comparison. This is different from the English Hymnal or the Army and Navy Hymnal where the IP has been proofreading within a scan.
Procedurally, the issue was sent to WS:AN, and should therefore be resolved and closed by an admin. Until the proofreading has been completed, some indication needs to remain in place to permit proofreading. If the IP isn't seeing the differences, that's fine; someone else can do it later. It was the IP who told us we're not working to any deadline here. Wikisource has always indicated its sources and provided proofread status for scan-backed works. Our procedures for doing so on works not backed by a scan is more higgledy-piggledy, but we still want a second person to validate, yes? How would you indicate the location of the source image and invite proofreading? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not certain I've picked up on what your concern(s?) is. Given there was a ton of (textual) stuff missing when this issue first came up, I had assumed that those things were your main concerns. But am I then correct in thinking that the various specific issues now appear to have been addressed since then? That would jive with my assessment when I looked at the page earlier today (but I turn into a blithering idiot at the first hint anything musical, so I don't necessarily trust my own assessment there). But if there are still specific issues, those were the ones I was asking you to enumerate so they can be fixed.
In any case, provided I've understood correctly, your main concern now is the replacement of an image with Lilypond markup in a non-scan-backed work? i.e. something that would be an issue in any work that is not scan-backed? That wasn't an aspect I'd considered. My immediate thought is that including the image as a thumbnail alongside the Lilypond score, or possibly even on the talk page (ala the {{textinfo}} templates), would be sufficient. I am personally of the opinion that we should require scan-backing for all works, or at least for all newly added works, but so long as we accept non-scan-backed works at all, we will have to live with some compromises. But I may not have thought that through sufficiently. Maybe this is the sort of case where we need to tag the Lilypond in some way to make clear it hasn't necessarily been validated? The current message says does not match the source… maybe that should be changed to "may not match" or something? I.e. something that points at the issue of principle (using Lilypond on non-scan-backed works) rather than suggesting whoever wrote the Lilypond code has done shoddy work? --Xover (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There are still specific differences in the text, but the main concern has always been the replacement of the source image with a Lilypond copy that does not match the source image. If this were a scan-backed work, then this issue wouldn't exist. Since the matter is now at WS:AN, I'm open to suggestions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. We don't have any guidance for this situation anywhere, do we? Now that you explain it I see the issue, but since I'm in the "mandatory scan-backing for everything" camp, the finer points of how to deal with issues like this on non-scan-backed works are probably beyond me. Maybe we need to ask the community (WS:S) for a principle on how to deal with these? Beeswax would probably have some good thoughts on it, and possibly some others who work on scores.
For the bit that's at AN… I really don't think the IP picked up on this particular concern. Heck, I didn't even pick up on it until you explained it here. In which case, it's scant wonder they were getting frustrated and misreading your messages as some kind of attack on them. … Hmm. … If you agree that asking the community is the way to for the Lilypond issue, what do you think about just closing the AN thread referencing that as the path forward? The content issues aren't really a matter for the admins to decide, and the behaviour stuff never really rose to the level of needing admin intervention. Since nobody much else seems to be chiming in at AN, I think I'm sufficiently uninvolved to be able to make such a close. --Xover (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
That sounds feasible. At the least we might get a variety of ideas. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I've closed the thread at AN. Do you want to open the thread at WS:S or do you want me to do it? You can probably articulate the issue much better than me, but I can do it (and you can correct any mistakes) if you're concerned about antagonising the IP again. --Xover (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
PS. I suggest just leaving off the warning message on that particular work for now (rather than reverting the IP yet again). There's no particular hurry to have it there, and after a community discussion it will hopefully be clear what the proper course is. --Xover (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
If you can open the thread, that would be helpful. For the past few days, I'm only able to be on for a few minutes at a time mostly, because RL is keeping me busy. Otherwise, I'll open the thread in a day or two. But a neutral voice launching the discussion is also welcome. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
done. --Xover (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail[edit]

Hello EncycloPetey,

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

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Hippolytus 2. and like subpages[edit]

Wondering whether the use of header and the author detail here is the right way to populate the fields in the subpages. I can see why we would use that detail in the root page Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology but not the subpages. What value are you seeing in the subpages? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The DGRBM formatting was a mess when I began editing. Even the article naming and Index pages are in need of a total overhaul, since the original creator of the system numbered within headwords, and not just according to the original. That is, where a name had subheadings under the entry, those were numbered as separate articles by the person who originally set everything up. I have been correcting those as and when I create articles, but must of that has yet to be corrected. So there is a lot of cleanup to be done, and many things that could be done better. I'm open to any suggestions for improvement if someone is also willing to undertake the Sisyphean task of making it happen. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, hear that. After moving all the DNB pages, and updating, I have truly found that having a customised, while based on {{header}}, has worked well for subsequent processing. Plus after getting as far as I have with TIWW I have reflected that I would have been better to have leveraged a customised header, especially if I want to have useful fields to grab for WD. I will put it on the list. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. This is an important reference work, so having better template resources would be a Good Thing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The Great Gatsby questions[edit]

I am proofreading and validating pages from The Great Gatsby scanned file (the images). Should the punctuation and spelling be altered, based off the scanned images? Windywendi (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Windywendi: Yes, the text and punctuation should match the images of the scan. The text current in the pages was pulled from and outside source, and needs to be corrected to match the scans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Thanks, the suggestion has been followed. By the way, while proofreading, is it recommended that the row splittings (which are equivalent to spaces in the depicted text) be situated where the original scanned text splits between rows, so as to reduce the work load of the validator? Windywendi (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
No, if you're proofreading, go ahead and collapse the line breaks into complete paragraphs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)