User talk:EncycloPetey

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
EncycloPetey


Thank you EncycloPetey[edit]

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

And this is why we don't have nice things[edit]

I was in the process of cleaning up the steaming pile at Author:Mao Zedong but, fine, if you're just going to run around reverting and deleting everything without rhyme or reason, you're welcome to it.

Things you should have realized:

  • Our translations come from specific volumes of exercepted works and should be grouped by those titles, with section links between one another, while having redirects from their specific heading.
  • Each of those excerpted works will have two dates, the first the original date of Chinese composition and the second the date of the English translation.
  • Each of those excerpted works should be grouped into appropriate categories of Mao's works (Speeches by ..., Poems by ..., etc.) so that people can, e.g., find all of his poems in English translation without having to click through the descriptions of every volume of excerpted works or scroll through the ridiculous list his page currently consists of.
  • Just having that single insanely long, unsorted, cluster of those exercepts on his author page makes as little sense and is as little helpful as if you took all the individual quotes from the Little Red Book, created separate pages for each, and listed them all on his author page as works excerpted in translation.

Now, that said, your running around reverting and undoing the work I was starting saved me about a week of effort. Maybe months if I would've bothered to help elsewhere. So, y'know, thanks for establishing how unwelcome it was and you're welcome to it.Mr Spear (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Spear: Works should have a single date. If the date of publication is wrong, then correct it. But a single work should never have multiple publication dates.
If you believe the Author page can be better organized, then organize it. But Wikisource has agreed that we do not categorize works by Author; such categories will be deleted according to community consensus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Right aligned or not[edit]

Hi, I see you reverted my validation edit on Pamphlets from tolstoy, you said the text isn't aligned to the right on the original edition, though I see the scan showing otherwise, could you elaborate on why you say it isn't aligned on the right? Thanks for your kind response

Please take a closer look. It is not right aligned. Both sets of text are on the right side of the page, but the top line does not end in the same location as the bottom one. Instead both line start at the same location on the left of the line, but end in different locations on the right end of the line. Thus, the text is not right-aligned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Monro, George (DNB00)[edit]

Hi, not sure if you are the right person to ask about this, but seen as you have helped on Monro, George (DNB00), I will ask. I am looking for a source which states something along the lines of the following. The said George Monro upon winning the Battle of Stirling in 1648 proclaimed that he had avenged the death of his ancestor and namesake George Munro of Foulis who was killed in battle in 1452 fighting against the Clan Mackenzie, and that at the battle of 1648 there had been Mackenzies and Mackenzie commanders on the other side. This info I found on a website many years ago that has long since disappeared and was looking for reference to it in a published book somewhere, but have thus far found nothing regarding the Mackenzies. Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Billinghurst is your best bet here for locating information about individuals. I can track down references, and am good in certain subjects, but not with biographical data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That person[edit]

He's going back and forth between en-wiki and this place, which is why it's a good idea to semi-protect my talk page here; I am not active on this wiki. I just blocked one on en-wiki and placed a rangeblock. Please revdelete that racist stuff. It's just a troll who can't get a date, but the words are painful to others nonetheless. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Bryant works vs. individual poems[edit]

Hi. I was moving things around because those poems were listed under a publication yet, they are showing as being published in other publications.

I have no problem if you want to work through this instead of me, but I really don't want to persist in putting individual publications where a larger work is being cited.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I've concluded it's a waste of time explaining things to you. Please follow established formats for Author pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Okidokie, but it will take more than the few minutes you gave me to make that page (as it exists right now) follow those established formats.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Based on your past edits, and repeated failure to heed advice given from the community, you will never follow established formats. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: Excuse the necromancy, but I felt like I needed to toss my hat in since I couldn't find any record of anyone explaining to Rabo any reasons why not to split "individual works" from "works" while I suppose I have at least one I could give. Well, prose published collectively in books don't necessarily relate to each other, so minus a few exceptions all pieces of prose or poetry would qualify as "individual". I believe you only intend to separate texts published in periodicals, so perhaps try to "In periodicals" as a subsection. Even if a bit redundant making long author pages even longer, further sectioning should still help make such pages more navigable. 2600:1700:8680:E900:45BE:5CE:7151:FE6A 08:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
On a debate team, both sides need to be debated, regardless of the whole or the majority of the teams feelings on the matter. Perhaps this is just a left-over from the edit war environment that the regular wikis "enjoyed" but, I have learned a lot from what I consider to be the Petey of the day and sometimes the knowledge was shared in a kindly way. I have no complaints. Thank you for investigating this claim. I just leave Petey's mess on my work alone.
There are some authors here that have clever, handy and beautiful indexes like Author:Ralph_Waldo_Emerson/Index_of_Titles. Very helpful with the poets. A multitude of works can be a real drag at wikidata which, the last time I checked did not accept Wikilink#section formats, however.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Categories reverted[edit]

Hi, I wrote to you, see Talk:Functional_Package_Management_with_Guix#Categories.--So9q (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the community discussion tip. I'll use the Scriptorium for future questions. - JBhistorian (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

About Template:Project[edit]

I created that intending to deprecate the current Template:Small scan link, since I don't have much familiarity with bots. I wanted to change the template so-as to include the title as a field treating the title as the default filename. 2600:1700:8680:E900:45BE:5CE:7151:FE6A 04:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That template is in full use. There is no need for deprecating the template. Default titles are a bad idea. Wikisource frowns on the needless proliferation of templates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean yes in full use, but the template doesn't seem maintained. Files generally shouldn't get differently named from the text's title, so changing the template's default behavior gives uploaders a reason to keep the names consistent. Beyond that, having the title accessible as separate data would probably enable adding some interesting features to the template. For example, I already programmed #ifexist to check if a page with that title exists (implying someone already created the text's main page namespace), removing the "(transcription project)" link while turning the title into a link automatically if that page does exist. I have yet to fully familiarize myself with wikidata, but I can imagine finding a trick to check as well as update wikidata with filename associated with the title. In addition to that, we could eventually deprecate the other scan link templates to merge them all into one which I believe could if programmed to do so then update as well as check wikidata associating all the related index pages, scan links, and versions.
2600:1700:8680:E900:45BE:5CE:7151:FE6A 17:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You've expressed a lot of unsupported opinions there without consulting the community on any of them, and many of your assertions are flatly false. If you think that a well-established and widely-used template should be changed in some way, then you need to start that discussion in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't make many assertions in there, per all the qualifying language I employed. To say a default behavior encourages consistent naming as well as cuts out a bit of typing, seems obvious to make. I don't know if templates can update wikidata, but that feature would help automate quite a bit across wiki'es, also seeming quite obvious albeit more challenging to make if not already existing. When kernel maintainers have a well-established widely-used feature getting in the way of progress they deprecate that feature. If templates can't update wikidata, then templates should still get programmed with the expectation one day they will. Likewise, deprecating the old template does not interfere or disrupt any editors who prefer that template by habit. Especially since I don't have much familiarity with these systems, I rather show not tell by boldly making the template I talk about. In open source software development, one calls that "forking". I literally can not imagine a single hypothetical argument against that new way of doing, aside from "we've done the old way long enough to make changing to the new way overwhelmingly difficult" which forms a mindset where modern laziness unjustly punishes future generations. If I go a year without updating my template's documentation or a week without responding to a talk page post, then sure clearly I no longer maintain that template, yet many almost totally junk templates exist if you go through the template categories. This template certainly did not deserve a speedy deletion, especially since I didn't even get a chance to finish typing the documentation before getting deleted. Where can I find the good faith? 2600:1700:8680:E900:45BE:5CE:7151:FE6A 18:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you're unaware of the assertions you made, and I'm sorry that you don't understand Wikisource common practices, but this is not the place to have a discussion about changing the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean, qualifying language should suggest I am making a guess and would happily accept the correct information. If I say "I can imagine I could find" then you should imagine how happy I'd feel for someone to explain to me how my imagination doesn't reflect reality, since that person would essentially save me from wasting lots of attention on a fruitless endeavor, just for example.
I couldn't agree more, so I don't believe we should discuss changing a template. Instead we should discuss the appropriate-ness in creating a fork of that template as a new template in the main namespace. Normally any discussions in about a template, should go on that template's talk page, but, since that template got deleted, I can only assume the talk page of the deleting editor would serve as the next most appropriate place to discuss that new template.
2605:A000:1238:A03F:F4E7:1B24:D13C:D526 08:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand how you "couldn't agree more", then proceed to disregard what I said but instead say the opposite. I will assume you meant the former: that you agree with me and thus the issue has been put to rest here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I meant what I propose and what you said I propose don't match. Creating a template that might one day de facto replace another by popularity, differs significantly from forcing a change on an old vital template. One would require unreasonably large scale consensus which many might dislike simply for having to memorize a new syntax, whereas the other simply allows the option for a new way with a very often shorter more robust syntax. I explained why I believe that, while you have yet to criticize that only assertion. I can't imagine how you can delete a page calling that page a "bad idea", reiterating that opinion in 5 separate replies without so much as even hinting about why. Rather answering my claim about a default behavior where one types the title into the template, then only if different enters a filename as a separate parameter seeming obviously more suitable for the wiki, by repeatedly ignoring any request for clarification implying I should talk to someone else by shewing me off your talk page, almost as-if to say "this template qualifies as so obviously "bad" anyone else could and would explain that to you on my behalf, but you are not worth my attention."
I hate to go meta or jump to making character judgements, but evidently you seemed to have done the exact same with how you handled Rabo. Honestly, I won't bother checking but I'll presume you have administrator status. I will say this bluntly, that doesn't give you the privilege to arbitrarily decide the direction the wiki goes in. The ability to block an IP or a user exists to prevent anyone from attempting to arbitrarily decide the direction the wiki goes in. If this devolved into some sort of threats relating to that, this would entail the third instance where an administrator or set of administrators decided they wanted to block me simply because they did not want to engage in dispute resolution with me, somehow considering themselves a special class of user above any need explain why they make their edits, why they revert others edits, or why they delete pages. Excuse me for saying so, but that's bullshit. Thank you for reading that in full, sincerely with Wikipedia:WP:LOVE.
2605:A000:1238:A03F:F4E7:1B24:D13C:D526 16:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you're going to say that you agree fully when you don't agree at all, then I have no way of knowing what you mean. And I'm sorry that you have continued to disregard my advice. If you are given advice, and choose to not act upon it, then I don't see what else I can do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
You seem to lack a great deal in conscientiousness. For example, did you even consider that deleting that pages might make hours of someone else's programming unrecoverable? I got lucky my browser cached the page.
Despite obviously knowing you would overwrite someone else, you made no attempt to first ask them: "why are you doing what you are doing?" You made no attempt to engage in conversation. You simply assumed you just knew better and they should quitely accept whatever you do, then you metaphorically turn your head when I give you the very respect I expected from you which you did not give me, as though still more respect than you have given me is not enough respect for you.
I mean this as clinically and inoffensively as this offensive statement can get intended, you have a very self-entitled tone.
You certainly do not act as though we deserve treatment as equals.
Did you even read my last post? I pretty clearly explained why I agree we shouldn't discuss changing a template and why we should instead discuss why you deleted mine.
2605:A000:1238:A03F:F4E7:1B24:D13C:D526 17:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I meant what I propose and what you said I propose don't match. Creating a template that might one day de facto replace another by popularity, differs significantly from forcing a change on an old vital template. One would require unreasonably large scale consensus which many might dislike simply for having to memorize a new syntax, whereas the other simply allows the option for a new way with a very often shorter more robust syntax. I explained why I believe that, while you have yet to criticize that only assertion. I can't imagine how you can delete a page calling that page a "bad idea", reiterating that opinion in 5 separate replies without so much as even hinting about why. Rather answering my claim about a default behavior where one types the title into the template, then only if different enters a filename as a separate parameter seeming obviously more suitable for the wiki, by repeatedly ignoring any request for clarification implying I should talk to someone else by shewing me off your talk page, almost as-if to say "this template qualifies as so obviously "bad" anyone else could and would explain that to you on my behalf, but you are not worth my attention."
I hate to go meta or jump to making character judgements, but evidently you seemed to have done the exact same with how you handled Rabo. Honestly, I won't bother checking but I'll presume you have administrator status. I will say this bluntly, that doesn't give you the privilege to arbitrarily decide the direction the wiki goes in. The ability to block an IP or a user exists to prevent anyone from attempting to arbitrarily decide the direction the wiki goes in. If this devolved into some sort of threats relating to that, this would entail the third instance where an administrator or set of administrators decided they wanted to block me simply because they did not want to engage in dispute resolution with me, somehow considering themselves a special class of user above any need explain why they make their edits, why they revert others edits, or why they delete pages. Excuse me for saying so, but that's bullshit. Thank you for reading that in full, sincerely with Wikipedia:WP:LOVE.
2605:A000:1238:A03F:F4E7:1B24:D13C:D526 16:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace[edit]

Arguments get won by memes, more often than ethical depth. Somehow our relations seemed to have deteriorated into direct conflict. Please don't interpret my faulting you as claiming myself faultless. Normally, the one's self should decide the one's faults, but occasionally one's behaviors can destroy another's motivation. "All goes well that ends well", except, when this happens to I or someone else, they or I might have thrown away arms deciding they aren't meant for wiki'es or the world. I don't want to harm your motivation, either.

Would you accept my digital hug? *hug*

Also, would you have any objection to me finishing development of my template at User:Eaterjolly/Template:Project, so I can hold my head a little higher bearing what to show for my enthusiasm when I talk to the folks at WS:Scriptorium?

Eaterjolly (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read the message that Beleg Tal left on your talk page. Failure to abide by the set conditions will result in a block. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Please correct me if wrong, but as far as I know, no such condition got stated. Eaterjolly (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hello, Thanks for creating Author:Manilal Nabhubhai Dwivedi. I am Anant, active on English wikipedia. I am also active on Gujarati (my mother toung) wikisource. But, I am new here for English wikisource.

I don't know how to desgine title of page 1 of Index:The Advaita philosophy of Śaṅkara.pdf. Can you start the page 1, so I can go ahead. Thanks. -Gazal world (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gazal world: I have started the page, but I have not proofread the spelling or punctuation against the original. Nor have I joined line breaks. But I have formatted the page layout. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)