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.


Thought it better to just ask in person. Can I make changes like bolding or italicising text of the work which hasn't been bolded in the source? I tried finding a policy about it, but I can't seem to find one. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: From the Wikisource:Style guide: "Text formatting should mimic the original document to show the work as presented". Wikisource's primary goal is to be as faithful to the source material as possible. So, no, we don't add italics or bold when the original didn't have it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I read that, but I didn't understand the other part which seems to give conflicting info: Basic formatting is desirable, but attempts to exactly reproduce an original may be cumbersome and inaccessible. The aim is to give an authentic digital transcription of the content, not an imitation of a printed page; to produce a type facsimile rather than a photographic facsimile. Basic formatting to retain includes italic, bold, Small Caps, relative font size, and footnotes[1] (see the editing help page). That is why I thought it better to ask because it appeared to me that you can make some changes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32: It's not conflicting info. It simply acknowledges that there are times where we cannot reproduce the original exactly, such as when the original in printed in columns, or an image (and caption) is printed sideways, or other points that we do not attempt to reproduce exactly because we are in electronic format instead of a physical one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh okay. Anyway, I got just one other thing to ask of you. I created Author:Kim Jong-un but the Wikidata page is locked except for autoconfirmed editors. Can you please edit and add link to the site page there? I've only made one edit there. Thanks for all your help. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32: The license for Kim Jong-un looks wrong. It's unlikely that a US license would be the primary one for works he produces. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually I've only sourced all his works or press statements from White House website. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't place the license on Author pages based solely on the works we have thus far, but as general a license as we can for all potential works we might host here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll try checking up North Korean laws then in a minute. Thanks again. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, take a look at Author:Ernest Miller Hemingway; it's not the best model, but it shows an approach for situations where more than one license may apply. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Per Section 12 (Exclusion) government material is excluded from copyright unless intended for commercial purposes. However, there is no licence template regarding North Korean government's copyright policy on Wikisource. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
We may want to create a template then. Perhaps post in the Scriptorium, if you need assistance. I don't usually work with those templates, and am unfamiliar with the way they're coded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll create one myself. I need to sleep now so I'll come back in a few hours and create it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Collected works of Ambrose Bierce, Volume 2[edit]

You sent me a message (which I can't fathom how to respond to - clicking talk takes me to a page which doesn't feature the message) concerning the above and its indexing.

I started proofreading this as a random selection. It already had an index page and a table of contents so I've worked with what was already there. Having looked at the 'header' guidance, it looks like whoever set it up originally didn't do it in accordance with that guidance (e.g. the naming convention isn't right). I can't see how to rename things and I can't make the 'Next' and 'Previous' links work.

Can you offer any advice - or better still fix it for me?

@Chrisguise: I can do a little which should help. Then see if you can duplicate what I've done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It looks as though @Billinghurst: has already started doing some of the work. I'll let him continue, showing what it should look like, and you should be able to continue from there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.)[edit]

Hello, I'm adding NIMH's books on wikisource: why do you remove the autor's page? NIMH is the books' autor, there is no copyright since these are US government publications. What's the problem?

Copyright status of work by the U.S. government

--Ascax (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ascax: Two issues: (1) The page you created consisted only of a short description, which looked like a Wikipedia stub article instead of an Author page (we get a lot of those), (2) Government organizations get Portal: pages here; the Author namespace is reserved for individual human authors. So if you are planning to add texts released by the NIMH, you'd want to set up a Portal page like Portal:United Nations or Portal:Supreme Court of the United States; the actual layout of the Portal namespace is more flexible than the Author namespace, so feel free to develop whatever page layout works best for your needs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, thank you, I find the portals: Portal:National Institutes of Health and Portal:United States Department of Commerce. --Ascax (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Why'd you revert my edits on the Coverdale Bible Page 29?[edit]

I transcribed the footnote, & corrected a few words of OCR, why'd you revert it? 18:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The change was difficult to read, and looked like an annotation, rather than the material from the page itself. Another editor has already pointed out my mistake to me and returned your edit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
By the way, it was me both on the IP address & reverting. I logged in to revert & edit because I thought it would just get reverted again if I did it logged out. The commentary was in an HTML comment, which I think is kosher for wikisource. It's mainly for any future editor that may be trying to verify the text, that's all. Definitely having it show up when presented would violate some policies, but I think it would be helpful to anyone attempting to verify it, as it's only visible when editing. JustinCB (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi thanks for your help, sorry I should have asked you before creating redirects. I've redirected Author:Narendra Damodardas Modi to Author:Narendra Modi. I didn't know the former existed, but once I found out I redirected because the latter is more common name. I hope in this case of Modi there is no problem, since the redirect isn't in mainspace. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting within the Author namespace is fine, and is done especially in cases where an Author is known (or published) under more than one name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And Providence/Province their guide (Milton)[edit]

Hello, In Paradise Lost(Milton) I saw a mistake, perhaps a problem of OCR or a mistake ("coquille" in french) in the original edition. Of course, one shall read "and Providence their guide" and not "and Province their guide". Why did you revert my correction? Regards. --JS Ivry (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@JS Ivry: That was not an OCR. If you look at the original printed text, it has "and Province their guide". Wikisource presents texts as they were published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Milton's Paradise Lost - Books XI and XII on 4th and 5th of September, 2018[edit]

Hello, the edits were more than a matter of modernization of spelling. In some cases, Wikisource contains a total misrepresentation of what Milton wrote. For example, in Book XII, Wikisource has "This having learnt, thou has attained the summer/Of wisdom; hope no higher, though all the Stairs/Thou Knesset by name...". In fact, "summer" should be "sum"; "Stairs", "stars" and "Knesset", "knew'st". And throughout, Wikipedia has "thin" instead of "their" and words like "voutsaft" instead of "vouchsafed. Compare this to Books I and II which are cleaner (modernized?).

None of the copy should be modernized at all. What happens in a copy on Wikipedia does not concern anyone here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


I am not certain of the meaning of the word "unlinked" as it is used here by the sourcerers. Do you have the local definition of this?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what it says. There are no links from any page on Wikisource to any of the subpages you have been creating. In other words, someone visiting our Flora Antarctica page will not be able to navigate to any of the subpages because you are not linking the parts of the work together with tables of contents or links from section to section in the header. Likwise, users cannot navigate from one section to the previous or the following section because you have failed to provide the links. Both Billinghurst and I have tried to explain this to you several times. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
So. The "follows" and "followed by" properties at wikidata have to be completely filled in and the change to the Header template or the re-authoring of a different template using these properties has to wait until a script or bot can mark the sections? Simply for the speed requirements....
WikidataPetey seems enthusiastic for wdata entries to be complete and usable but WikisourcererPetey has rules to prevent this? I am somewhat frustrated, but I think that these are good questions regardless of my confusion and how it seems that one Petey is not on the same page as the other.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, solving the problems that are naturally encountered with the Table of Contents, such as they are. Do you have a suggestion of how to deal with this particular toc?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Filling in the "follows" and "followed by" on Wikidata has no effect at all on linking at Wikisource and never has. Those properties sometimes mean that an item follows in the same work or can mean that the following work was the next published or that it was the next written, or followed in the same copy. Because it is applied inconsistently at Wikidata, none of that information about "follows" &c. is relevant for linking here.
The previous and following items in a work need to be linked here on Wikisource, not at Wikidata. Billlinghurst and I have told you this more than once. The links are a mandatory part of the header template for sections within a work. Without those links, a user can't move from one part of a work to another. There is no bot nor script that does this.
I have never said that you needed to fill in those properties, so your comment is misdirected. Your failure to understand does not mean that I have been inconsistent. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
And, your suggestion about how to manage that toc?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Until I know where the ToC is located, I can't look at it. It isn't transcluded anywhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't exist. I thought that one could be generated from wikidata the same way that the Author header works. The other rule you could have hit me with is not making sections and just leaving them there. I started pasting the first line as the title so a script can find it. There is nothing about this Flora that is not chaotic, wikidata will actually be somewhat orderly about it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
No, there is no way to generate a Table of Contents from the information at Wikidata. Most readers will not have scripts, so creating a work that requires using scripts to even find the sections is bad form. You need to put section links into the headers and generate a local ToC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Remark on contributions[edit]

I am always hesitant to languish praise on those I recognise as making outstanding contributions to wikimedia, partly because those people are rewarded with the satisfaction of achieving something worthwhile; users like Charles Mathews and the eternally useful DNB project come to mind as examples. I would do it more were I not concerned about the appearance of disingenousness, or creepy, and … well the phrase escapes me, but those who overtly say what they wish actually to hear from others. However, it seems helpful, or at least harmless, to point out that I rate your efforts in valuable content creation amongst my personal top eleven. I believe there are few who are qualified to make that judgement, experienced userswho know the history of the site and its community, I merely fancy myself as one of those. Sincerely, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)