User talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2018

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Apology

I'm not interested in transcribing from scratch at the moment. I just wanted to clean up the copy as it is. The actual text seems to be good. Just the headings are confusing. They make sense as marginal notes, as in the Jowett original, but they don't make sense as section headings. Do you know of a way to convert them into something like marginal notes? RH Swearengin (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@RH Swearengin: Yes, but it would not be particularly quick either. My impression is that our sidenote templates only function properly if they are transcluded from another location, rather than being placed directly into a text. But you can have a look at {{Right sidenote}} and {{Left sidenote}} if you'd like to give it a go. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That did the trick. Thanks! RH Swearengin (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add the Stephanus pagination. So, if you could set up the scans of the original, I'll go through it for that purpose. RH Swearengin (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I have linked the scans at Author:Benjamin Jowett. Do you mean that you want to help with page-by-page transcription, or simply to insert the Stephanus pagination into the current copy-paste version? At some point, we prefer that the entire copy-paste goes away, to be replaced by a transcluded version. So, while working in the current copy-paste might achive a short-term goal faster, it would ultimately become wasted effort when that copy is replaced. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Why couldn't you use the non-sourced version instead of the OCR? That might've stopped some OCR errors that were still in The Man Who Knew Too Much when I read it(there was "Home Fisher" for "Horne Fisher", an extra apostrophe that was actually a splotch on the scan, and a space in a man's name). JustinCB (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Pain of Poor I had published earlier

Yes I had earlier published pain of poor in my blogs but I want to publish it here also. What can I do? Shaunak Chakraborty (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Blog publications generally do not meet the requirements for publication here on Wikisource. A self-publishing site might serve you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for unilaterally changing those templates, for change must be done by consensus about which way is best, and the best way might be this way or that way, but whatever way it is, it must be done with consent of the community, that is, consensus. Which way are the stocks(or is that only wikipedia)? JustinCB (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done some things like this in the past, but never to such a sensitive and (apperently) important template(see, for example, Template:Memcon header), so I should've known this wasn't right, but the more you learn... JustinCB (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. Wikisource:Versions was exactly what I was looking for. EikeFA (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Anchor and span

Was the <span>'s wrapping the text doing anything? It looked to me like the <span> was put in by someone who thought an anchor needs to wrap content, so a simple substitution of a correctly working {{anchor}} template for the broken <span> fixed it(unless I'm missing something major[again, quite possible]). JustinCB (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The anchor is for linking. The span was there to identify the original location of the text in the source material. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

O, OK, it wasn't really doing too great a job of that either, though(it started at some [at least to me] semi-random place towards the beginning of the page in the middle of a paragraph, or a word even, and stretched across several paragraphs[there is no tag in HTML that can start in the middle of a paragraph and span several paragraphs{or even one paragraph brake}]), and it was also used for linking. If you want to indicate what page something came from without displaying anything, I think HTML comments(<--comment-->) are pretty good at that. Wrapping something like those spans were doing brakes nesting in every kind of tag in HTML(you can put comments wherever you want without brakeing anything).

So, you didn't understand what you saw, made a decision without understanding, and changed it anyway? Next time try asking first. We have a Scriptorium for that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Unusual to see a recent work with roman numeral chapters

Hi. A little surprised to see the work My Bondage and My Freedom (1855) transcluded with roman numeral chapters. Is there a particular reason that we departed our expressed guidance for this work? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The guidance is one of those community norms that's never been formalized (that I've seen), and isn't absolute. On occasion (this one, for example) using Roman numerals made all the internal linking ten times simpler. I prefer Arabic numerals for most things, but there are occasional exceptions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

{{language characters}}

Hi, is there a reason for the revert? I did not mean to intrude on your User page of course, but as I said when you use this template your page gets categorized as problematic. χ_chi (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of what the template does. Commenting it out of my user page defeats the purpose of having it there, for quick reference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. Could you put it between nowiki tags then? χ_chi (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Petry of Vasyl Stus

Why have you deleted poetry of Vasyl Stus.?I didn't found any copyright of his poetry, poetry was created for 1974.In the web site of Ukranian poetry is also any copyrite.http://www.ukrlit.net/lib/stus/7h37n.html.Where have you found information about Stus copyright?You must proof .Translation from Ukrainian is mine.OksanaRad Ok.oksana (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource original translations. All original translations must first have the original present on the native Wikisource and be back by a scan: "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete". Adding random unsourced and unlicensed translations to random locations on Wikisource is not acceptable.

Also, since Vasyl Stus died in 1985, his poetry is still under copyright. We cannot host either his poetry of translations of it. International copyright law protects the copyright on works, even after the author has died, and for most cases, this extends for 70 years after the author's death. So we could not host the poetry of Vasyl Stus until 2055. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

linking an author in my page

Hi,

I am kind of new to wikisource. I created my page (Raktabeej) and tried to link lord Byron in my page but failed. Tried multiple times, but did not work. Can you please help me?

Thanks! —unsigned comment by Raktabeej (talk) .

@Raktabeej: I have added the link you requested. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Textbooks...

If textbook writers published them as "Open Access" Wikibooks and Wikiversity would be able to be a richer site... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. Now I understand that the proofread version is not the final. I checked out https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Woman/Introduction and the archaic typography has been translated. Excellent! -Reedulot (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Collected Physical Papers

I would like to have this work featured in Nov, to coincide with the author's birth as well as death month, along with other works (by others) to celebrate WS anniv. This contains most of the important papers by this scientist, including those pertaining to the invention of the radio and the papers on plant research. I know you are more interested in classical literature, but can you manage some time (Nov is still far away) for going through and validating this science work? This is an important work, considered a classic, and would be very good as FT. Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

For something like this, I'd advertize in the Scriptorium. We have more than a few people who would love to help out. I can't promise assistance as I've already committed to four other works once I finish the Nágánanda. We've also not established yet whether there will be one or several works featured in November, so make sure to voice your desires and opinions at WS:FTC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The Man Who Laughs

How is the book? Are you "reading" it as you proofread? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am. It's an interesting story and a biting satire on European aristocracy (mostly French and British). I've previously watched the silent film adaptation starring Conrad Veidt (an extremely good film, now in PD), so I'm familiar with the basic story, though there are of course some differences from the original novel. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

One more interruption. Is the film available somewhere online? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The film is not on Commons, but there are multiple versions available on YouTube, each with its own original score to accompany the action. The one I prefer has Spanish subtitles added over the dialogue cards, but I think it has the best score. I'd link for you, but the spam filters are unhappy about that.

Also note that next April (2019) will mark the 150th anniversary of the novel's publication, and I've a mind to nominate it for Featured that month (if it's validated by then). We've never featured a work of French literature to my knowledge. But the history and influence of this novel are as interesting as the novel itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) Think I found the one to which you refer. Cued for tomorrow's viewing. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I read the end of the book after watching the film, suspecting there was more. If I decide to read the whole book, I will validate as I do so, unless someone comes along before me. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Youtube non-shortcut

Just have to use the non-shortcut youtube.com url to get them through. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Science (journal), etc advice

Birds as destroyers was just supposed to be quick. Hathi has a pdf which is actually a lot nicer. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100445086 Advice? Delete and start over?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Avicenna: Persian or arab?

Hi

I have yesterday rectified the text about the Avicenna. He was born in Buckara, the city where people speaks in Persian (although it is in Uzbekistan). His mother name is "Setareh" which is a Persian name (in the meaning of star). His father was from Balkh in Afghanistan, where people speak Persian Dari. He has a few Persian books and poems, although some of his books are too in arabic, similar to all other scientist of that era. there are no arabs in Bukhara or Balkh. Arabs have no Persian books. in the text, itself, the originality of his father is mentioned as a Persian. why you persist that he is a arab? is Wikisource a place for racism and national prejudice or a scientific encyclopedia? You can find more information in valid resources such as Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Avicenna

Wikisource is not an encyclopedia of any kind; it is a library. Our primary goal is to present published information as it appeared when it was published. We do not create original articles, and we do not modernize the works we present. If an article in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says a person was "Arabian", then we don't alter that. Your edit did not follow the content of the 1911 EB, and broke categorization, so I corrected the problem you created.

You are comparing the current EB online with the 1911 edition. We only host the 1911 edition, and do not editorialize. This is not about race or prejudice, but about being faithful to printed sources, as they appeared when they were printed. The article calls him an "Arabian philosopher", and so that is how the article is categorized.

You can see however that Author:Avicenna, which is Wikisource's coordinating page for all articles written by Avicenna or about Avicenna, has the author categorized as Persian. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User Talk:WMFOffice

I ask you as an Admin, ¿Why a WMF Role account needs a Welcome message? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Need isn't the issue. Please do not turn other users' talk pages into redirects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

undo deletion request

pls restore Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems, along with the history, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: I believe the page was originally deleted in 2013 (per this). The page was recreated yesterday by an ip address, I believe, who merely inserted 'nonsense', which is why EP re-deleted it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Policing Ineuw

I want you to stop policing and stalking me. Ten years ago, there was another user who stalked me and I did not tolerate it then and now, and the same goes for your f*****g contrarian attitude. Why don't you do something more productive and proofread something. — Ineuw talk 20:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Please keep your language civil and clean, or do not post it on my talk page. Thank you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

I’m finished with the Swift 19-volume set. Over the last 5 years (my anniversary was two days ago) I have touched each of the 8600 pages at least twice, and many of them several times, as I learned how to create legible text out of codes. While I learned a lot from the Wikisource Help pages, I couldn’t have completed the volumes without the help of Greek and Latin experts, someone who created a beautiful piece of sheet music (at the end of volume 16), and several (many?) persons who helped with columns and margins and other fancy page layouts. My biggest thanks, though, are reserved for Beeswaxcandle (talk), Hesperian, billinghurst sDrewth, —Maury (talk), and EncycloPetey (talk) – all of you have been incredible with your help and encouragement!

I’m not sure what I’ll tackle next. It may be something fun (are any of Mark Twain’s works waiting?) or other early 18th century works (I might as well continue to use the huge data base of links to people and works of the era). For today, though, I am sending Swift out to the future, hoping that people will once again remember him for more than Gulliver.
Susanarb (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment on Naming subpages

Thanks for the comment about naming subpages in Omniana. Omniana's not really made up of chapters or a logical sequence of sections; they're independent articles, a bit like the entries in [Brittanica] or [[1], so I took my lead from there and used the article names for section names. I really don't think that labelling a link to the article on Mirrors "Chapter 1" or "Section 1" would make much sense. --Philbarker (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Re

Hi, I don't think you'll get notified of my response on your comment on my page, so i'll post it there too.

Thanks for the insight about the <br>'s, I'll be sure to do that. Also maybe could you help me with some problem I have with the cover of a book I'm trying to add to wikisource, other people have been able to give it it's original style but I don't know how they did, for instance here Some Social Remedies it looks gorgeous and I don't know how to do it like they did for Letters on the Personal Christian Life. Nazmifr (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nazmifr: To see how the pretty one was done, you need to look at the page that actually has the encoded format: Page:Tolstoy - Pamphlets.djvu/232. The key element is the {{block center}} template with the width set at 380px. All the text placed within the template will be constrained to that width. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Section removal at Help page

Just wondering if you meant to remove the whole section? or just the "spammy" portion? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the whole section. This is perennial self-promoter who can't take a hint. I posted a reply on his latest talk page, but we'll get the same self-promotion from his next account. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Aah. Okay :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Special:ListGroupRights

You don't need to assign the role, you will see that the rights functionality resides with you as an administrator. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Could have fooled me yesterday. The system wasn't marking my edits as "patrolled". --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

I appreciate the welcome message EncycloPetey. OtisTyler (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

RE: Sources

Hey, new to adding content to wiki source, I’ve been adding the source text for Constantine’s letters in the notes section of the header. Which is typically been Life of Constantine by Eusebius, does that satisfy the requirement? Or is there another way it’s supposed to be done? JonathanBBlaze (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Things just got messy

and I may use your suggested formatting for "Azlea" after all. Could I ask a favor? Assuming your preferred layout is being applied, how would you format this page? Primarily where scene 2 begins, as well as with the dialogue of the Fisherman (which is not in poetry format) and how it is aligned with subsequent text. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I would format it the way you have, except that I would {{float right}} the stage directions, and would set a left margin div for the indented poetic lines. Of course, I would also use Layout2, which would adjust the margins to compensate for the extremes of width variation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide an example for a left margin div? Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Like this:

<div style="margin-left:2em; text-indent:1em">

It creates a 2em left margin and indents the first line of each paragraph by 1em. There is also a {{Left margin}} template, but I prefer to use the code directly because it's easier to tweak. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. And does it require an end-div? Also, how does one format over page breaks? Sorry, the questions just keep coming! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It needs either an {{div end}} or </div> to close it. But if the format runs over several pages, you can stick the close in the footer, and use formatting in the header/footer over the intervening pages, just like {{block center/s}} or other /s templates. I've been doing this in The Comedies of Aristophanes (Hickie 1853)/Clouds for example. The only odd bit is where a line breaks across pages, but you can see examples of how to handle that (if you need it) in the link I posted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Bolding

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)

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

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.)

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?

I transcribed the footnote, & corrected a few words of OCR, why'd you revert it? 152.26.88.67 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)

Redirect

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)

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

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)

unlinked

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

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)

Dropdown editing toolbar

I probably am saying this wrong, but my dropdown menu with language &c. text characters has disappeared in the last couple days or so. Do I need to adjust something in Preferences? Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the discussion happening in the Scriptorium. I'm not aware enough of the technology to be giving advice, but there are some suggestions in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Will take a look. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

And this is why we don't have nice things

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

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)

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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)

A Spectacular Feature: Samson and Delilah

The credits are wrong, Jerry Bails identified that it was drawn by Lee Ames, I even put the image in the Commons and I was wrong to credit the Bails. source:Grand Comic Database.Hyju (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hyju: Please note that on the work's talk page then. But I reverted because you also changed the title, and the new title was clearly wrong. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It's different from the cover, it's like they wrote in the Grand Comic Database. Hyju (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

We go by the printed cover here. If there is another title it's known under, then create a redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Translation header

@EncycloPetey: Thanks for the fix! I didn't like where I placed that note, but I wasn't quite sure if the header was an appropriate location. I'm still obviously familiarizing myself with style guides, but I've also seen quite a bit of variance across Wikisource. Anyway, thank you again! --Austinjalexander (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)