User talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2019

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

wikidata problems

I just made a "The Red Fairy Book" for all versions.

Things are well, except for the oclc number. When I looked at the oclc page, there were 10s of versions listed but wd is complaining that it should only be on a version. wikidata:Q60301612.

Recommendations?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Finding an OCLC work identifier is difficult to do. Nearly all OCLC identifiers are for specific editions. So, I would recommend omitting the OCLC.
However, @Jasonanaggie: has sometimes had success in tracking down a work identfier, so I have pinged him on this conversation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
That oclc number that I put on the main data lists the oclc for the scan which is different and points to the ia scan, the hathitrust version, and another. What a pain. I am just going to remove it. The work id was already there. I moved it over. No complaints from wd.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
This one is a strange one, I found two different OCLC control numbers, each cross-referencing the other, 3209972 and 681881017. However if I had to pick one, I would go with the latter because it specifically references the actual scan location at archive.org. Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening

And that poem has 16 ...

Actually, I had misremembered "Rubaiyat stanzas" for "sonnet". Thanks for the correction. Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The Prophet pages

Why are you marking pages (e.g. Page:Kahlil Gibran - The Prophet (1926 edition, Knopf).pdf/21) which do not have text as "Proofread" rather than "No text"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: "No text" should not be read literally; it is a shorthand and really means "no content". If there is any content, such as an image, them that page should be proofread. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks again. And thanks for the validating you've done--very helpful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Another Biology Page

Since the grass index got finished i made another one prior if you can vailidate it as well. Descriptions of two new rodents of the genus Phenacomys Chiraq Bears (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, when I have time. I wanted to get the first one done quickly because (a) it's from 1923 and therefore newly in public domain, and (b) showcases an area where it would be nice to attract more contributors. I've also listed the Hitchcock article among the "New" texts on the main page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, im jumping on the 1923 hype train so ill be grinding too Chiraq Bears (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Page:Virgil (Collins).djvu/191

Had only done OCR cleanup here and subsequently, as I wanted someone else to check I had found all the typos, and do the style formatting.

There was one page I hadn't done because of the complexity of poem formatting in a reference. Thanks for transcluding though..

Any chance of proofreading it, Thanks in advance.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I plan to finish the work tomorrow if not today. It depends on the time I have available. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana.djvu

RE: Chase translation

If that is the ideal solution, I will proofread the book scans then, from time to time. First I'll read the Help Pages to do it properly. Also thanks for the welcome :). -- Genesis Bustamante (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I see, I'll remove the transliterations then. Can an annotated version have transliterations next to the greek text? If yes, must one create a copy of the entire source, or something like that? -- Genesis Bustamante (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:

Thank you. I have added the source.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

reversal

Thanks for your reversal. It seems I accidentally edited some previous diff of that page. --Ninovolador (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes

If you are keen on retaining this , then perhaps YOU can figure out where and why the various templates building it randomly 'leak' whitespace where there shouldn't be any.. such as :

Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes/Chronological Table/Edw4 before I made repairs to the underlying pages..

I've now put in a lot of time trying to figure out where it's leaking whitespace , and get a consistent and repeatable behaviour, but there always seems to be some pedantically specific interaction I can't determine that prevents this. If you actually want to to retain this, provide a REPEATABLE and PREDICTABLE behaviour, otherwise do not waste my or your time, on something that should be redone manually because of trying to push the markup beyond what it was originally designed to do. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

More examples of a whitespace leak prior to repairs...

and so on. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, time to take a 'calm-down' remedy. I must have been really upset when I wrote the above. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Current projects

Thanks for the welcome. I looked and looked, but didn't see a link to unfinished projects, though I see a convenient list on your user page. Is there a place to look to find such a list? DonFB (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Constitution of the Free State of Bavaria

I was unaware of the proper template to use. The text was originally not sourced, and I proofread the file, which now needs to be transcluded in the place of the existing text. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

The coco palm by Dahlgren

I apologize for my mistakes, I'm new and a little confused. My understanding is that the text itself has been scanned in its entirety so I would like to know exactly how the image pages supposed to be processed, and if the case is that the images are considered "text", then is the transcription itself never going to be marked done? Again, I'm very new, and I apologize for my completionist OCD, but I hope you can help me by elaborating a little further. NickSenju (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Sonnets

Quick question for you: are Shakespeare's Sonnets part of your Yale project? I've uploaded the scan that User:Dto was proofing our copy of the sonnets against, and it would probably be desirable to get a strategy for version disambig between our Harper edition and the Yale edition if you intend to add those. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Sonnets are included in the Yale Shakespeare, and that volume was published in 1923, so it did enter public domain this past January. I am considering work on this volume and another edition of Shakespeare's sonnets this summer. Doing it any sooner would be a task and a half, because each sonnet needs its own version page, its own data item, and a data item for each edition of each sonnet. I want to have a large block of time to dedicate to doing this, and may create a Portal as well, as I did for Pindar. The difference here being that "Shakespeare's Sonnets" is a well-defined and well-numbered set of poems, whereas Pindar's has numbering and inclusion issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. Since it's a standard list, and since there don't seem to be any versions pages for any of the sonnets as of yet, it will be easy to generate all the versions pages using a bot. We should be able to get a bot to handle the data items too. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
As for a portal: that's a good idea, but we can also leverage Sonnet#William Shakespeare for this purpose if we like. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You Tube

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:His_Excellency_Sukavich_Rangsitpol,Minister_of_Education_Thailand_(1995-1997)and_The_Effects/UNESCO_Records_1998

I do not know how to use you tube link in Wikisource as a reference,can you help? Thank you2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:5515:FB0:1666:66E9 09:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource generally does not link to YouTube. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia had many incorrect information about our Education Minister and had no link to his Wikisource page. Could you help ?

He was senator in 1987 and I only found sources in Thai language.Could you advise me what to do?2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:5515:FB0:1666:66E9 13:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The information should be added at Wikidata, not here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates

"Please do not rename heavily used templates without consensus."

There is no such mandate. Cite the harm done. Cite any disagreement.

Oh, it looks like I broke something without knowing. That's a good reason to undo. See Template talk:EB1911 Fine Print#Move. -A876 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Formatting Help

Hi, Please check this here, the footnote needs to be denoted with a star rather than a number and the line in the end before footnote which is skewed and not liner.--Abhinav619 (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource does not replicate that level of footnote detail. We use numbered footnotes, regardless of the symbol in the original text. Replicating a specific symbol is not practical, since most works will use a star for the first footnote on each page, and thus when a chapter is then transcluded, it means that there may be dozens of footnotes all represented by the same symbol. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay Thanks--Abhinav619 (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Weird edits by 89.210.185.186

As you were the initial responding Admin, I am bringing this to your attention. They probably should all be speedied, but the pattern is concerning to say the least (appears to be testing what they can get away with). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled status

Hi, I see you moved Levana Taylor out of autopatrolled a few weeks ago. Are you OK now with the idea of moving them back, or would rather we waited another month? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, moving back would probably be OK now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"More recent editions of this work may be copyrighted."

I notice you added this to the license tag for Shakespeare works. What would you say to adding it to the {{PD-old}} template itself? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to be a little more explicit in what you mean and what you are asking. I don't quite follow. Where are you seeing the added text? I don't see it in any of the Yale Shakespeare series.
You mean on the versions pages? The {{PD-old}} template may appear in any of several namespaces, and on any number of kinds of pages (versions, translations, editions). For some of these, that added verbiage would not apply.
We might add a "versions" toggle that displays the additional text, but it won't be appropriate in circumstances where it is added to a specific edition, which are the majority of usages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

RE: The Oldest English Epic

Hey, thanks for the informative message. The reason why I filled the TOC, was so that I could see all the pages on the EPUB book (the one you can download by clicking 'Download as EPUB'). If a page or subpage is not linked in the TOC, it will not appear on the resulting EPUB. That was my observation. Is there a discrete way of making Wikisource pack all the pages of a book? (pages as in 'wikisource' pages/links, not as in .djvu pages) If there is not, I will begin creating the Aux ToC. Thanks again. -- Genesis Bustamante (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, The Aux ToC will do that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Advice pls

Please tell me how you fixed it up like that! It's just so cool!! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Simplified explanation:
1. Download raw jp2 file from Internet Archive
2. Locate all pages for files containing images, put them in a separate folder, renaming them according to page number
3. Crop images, desaturate, adjust brightness and contrast, save to standard naming system as png
4. Locate previous version of file on Commons and rename to convention
5. Upload newly cleaned version of file, update file information to include all desired info
It's not a quick process, but I hope to have the work finished in the next week or so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Could you expand on what tools you use for step three? I think the best result I have ever gotten from uploading an image from a source text was this (and even then I am not too happy with the result). Are you using GIMP or a different setup? Thank you for that initial response though! It's incredibly valuable info here for me :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm using Preview, which is basic Apple software that came pre-installed on my Mac. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha! I've been using Microsoft Photos myself, and I am glad to have confirmation that I am not the only one using pre-installed software here. Thank you for your time. :) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Block

I believe that the block was entirely unnecessary. I do not frequently check my talk-page, and was editing normally at the time. I would like you to stop your repeated pattern of abuse against me, and allow me to edit without disruption on your part. My goal is only to improve the coverage of books on Wikisource, and not to cause general disruption. Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC).

You have made a habit of ignoring advice given to you, ignoring messages left on your Talk Page, and ignoring the Style Guide. If you truly wish not to cause disruption, then attend to these. Please pay attention as you are editing, rather than plowing over the work of others and breaking formatting. Do not call repairs to your damage "vandalism". --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I find no instances, excepting the differentiation between em-dashes and en-dashes, that involve complaints against my actions that I have not followed. This is due to a fault with my computer. As I have said, I do not usually check my talk-page, and as such, I usually respond to other users on their talk-pages. As for your request for “attention,” I would advise you of the same requirement; for, I was merely proofreading the pages you had not (in the past), which you reverted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC).

Wikisource:News (en): April 2019 edition

English Wikisource's monthly newsletter; Wikisource:News, which seeks to inform all about Wikimedia's multilingual Wikisource.
Read this issue of Wikisource:News · Discussion · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 23:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Noting that thus is one-off delivery to those listed at Wikisource Community User Group participants, and those wishing to receive further editions of the newsletter should subscribe as described in the above instructions.

Account creation on blocked IP address

Why is account creation blocked when IP addresses are blocked? Just interested to know. HutheMeow

Among other reasons, IP vandals will often create an account to continue vandalizing when the IP is blocked. Contributors who already have accounts will not be affected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Is account creation block on blocked IP address a given block parameter or done automatically? Just interested to know. HutheMeow

Constitution of Macedonia

I did not change the original 1991 text. I only added the four new amendments. If you want the original version, you should remove all the 32 amendments made after 1991. --Mike Rohsopht (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Constitution of (North) Macedonia was amended by appending amendments, they did not change the original text nor publish a consolidated version. Therefore I don't think it is necessary to create a new document. Because any new version will include the 1991 text.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Index:Women a Force for Change.pdf

The license in the work doesn't seem to be Creative Commons, can you review carefully? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The colophon / edition notice includes a statement that the work is copyright 2010, all rights reserved, which is not PD. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - I'd also moved Author:Maryam Rajavi to the correct namespace in good faith, but if the original creator of that page is now blocked, it should be an uncontroversial speedy, and have tagged accordingly.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I've already discussed the Author issue with the uploader who created the page. It's a living author with no hostable works, and the Author page was previously created as a link-farm pointing to purchasable copies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay can you speedy the Authour: page then? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

About "Ronald Reagan's Farewell address"

I watched the address video a few days ago, and edited the wikisource page since I believed it's missing some words. Why is it reverted? https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan%27s_Farewell_address&oldid=prev&diff=9230546 It's my first time to use user talk, let me know if I'm using it wrong. Mengsheng (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The source for this speech is the New York Times, so the text os the speech should match what the NY Times reported. If you are making your own transcription, then that is a new source (you and the video) and should be created on a separate page as a different edition of the speech. Wikisource always matches the reported sources, even when the reporting source contains mistakes. But Wikisource can also support more than one edition of a work, when those editions exist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The Spirit of Russia, volume 1, among the new texts

Although it is one volume of a two-volume work, I think it can be introduced separately. The volume is really large, many times larger than an average work featured among the new texts. The second volume, which is even larger, will be finished in about three or four weeks, after the first one disappears from the main page. The volumes are also quite different as for the topic: the first one is more about Russian history and philosophy in general, while the second one analyses individual Russian philosophers. By the way, in November 2018, Democracy in America, v1, was featured. Although the second volume of this work was published later than the first volume, while with The Spirit of Russia they were published at the same time, it is more or less a similar case. So would you agree if the first volume of the Spirit in Russia was featured separately? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Democracy in America should not have been listed. The underlying principle of New Texts is that the work must be complete. A "volume" is not the same as a "work". Futher, the length of the work is irrelevant; it may be as sort as a poem or scientific article, or as long as an eight-volume history. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, sounds like a big non-sense, really, but as you seem to be decided to defend this standpoint (despite the mentioned precedent of a different attitude which nobody opposed or reverted although many contributors could see it featured on the main page), be it as you wish. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: On the Bright Shore

Thanks for noticing that.

BTW, while making some simple fixes like this one my action became throtled with the "Action throtled" message. Any hint what can I do to be no longer hit with this problem. It is very annoying. And slowing done is not an option for me ;) Ankry (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: I've never gotten that message before, so I don't have advice for your situation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Any user script or gadget that uses the Mediawiki API is rate limited (throttled) to a certain number of edits per minute. If you're using something like AWB you can run into this limit. There is also a rate limit on the Google OCR function, but it would be much higher and probably counted globally rather than per user (or even per project). If someone is using some form of semi-automation to run a large number of pages through Google we might conceivably run into that limit. No manual editing that is done responsibly should ever be able to hit Mediawiki's rate limit for manual edits, so if it was there you saw the message it was probably a bug or server hiccup or something. --Xover (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: No, theese are fast GUI-based manual edits (that takes 2-4 seconds per one). Simple and repeatable, like page moves, adding page numbers, or creating pages that are prepared in advance offline. Ankry (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I often make such edits in plwikisource & commons, but I am admin there (if this does matter). Ankry (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I won't get into how responsible I think that rate of manual edits is (feel free to read between the lines ;D), but, yeah, at that rate you might be running into the rate limits. With the caveat that the specific limits are a bit under-documented, normal users are throttled at 8 moves per 60 seconds and 90 edits per 60 seconds. That's 1.5 edits per second, which is at least in the ballpark of your 2–4 edits per second (unlike any other typical editing that never gets even close to this rate). Admins by default have the noratelimit permission which removes these limits (it's configurable, so not all projects may necessarily give admins this flag, but it's very likely they have it). Technically speaking the permission can be assigned to other user groups (not individual users), and new user groups can be created if there is need. For example, there is a "Account Creators" group, used for people who help out with creating accounts for people at editathons and similar, that is exempt from rate limits. --Xover (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing my edits

Sorry I realised that I had to follow the original text for the Satire on Claudius by Seneca. I came back to undo my edits and I noticed you had undone the edits so thanks for that. I will create my User Page and log in next time.

Sluffs (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:Armistice_Day.djvu

Can you use the DJVU tools to clean up this? (and potentially if my calculations on dates are correct, re-instate certain missing portions in January 2020?) One item cannot be re-instated (and it should be obvious from the dates in the text which that is. (An Editorial from the New York Herald Tribune covered by the renewal for "v. 86. no. 29205-29234, Nov. 1-20, 1926 - R137852-137881" ) (That will have to wait until 2022) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I'm not sure which DjVu tools you mean. I haven't worked with altering DjVu files, and usually have to ask someone else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay sorry. If you can deal with the 'zombie pages' marked for speedy deletion though it would be appreicated :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Question on transcription project links

Hi, quick question - When is it appropriate, if ever, to remove the small transcription project links to Indexes on author pages? I've kept them around for books I've finished proofreading on the assumption that they still serve a purpose until they're validated but I wasn't sure. —Nizolan (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

They should definitely be removed if the work has been validated, but they can be removed once the original transcription / proofreading is done. I usually remove them after the proofreading is done and the work has been transcluded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Landmark Education suffers humiliating legal defeat in New Jersey Federal Court

This appears to have been blanked again... Was checking through Recent changes for lo-volume editors.

Naturally I also checked the Wayback machine to ensure it was a genuine article, [1], The concern I have is that there doesn't seem to be a creative commons style license on the release.

I'd appreciate an experienced contributor taking a look at this as I feel out of my depth. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's an article. An editor could challenge its inclusion by nominating it for deletion, if they feel it does not meet our inclusion criteria, but the content should not be blanked. We have an OTRS ticket that permits its inclusion, and in going through that process we usually check that a work meets inclusion criteria. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Might be worth mentioning the ticket number in the item then? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The ticket ID is given in the template, and the OTRS template is on the page. The problem lies with the template {{PermissionOTRS}}, which neither displays nor links the ID. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dead Man's Hate‎‎

Another blanking , (sigh) .ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Page:Cyrano de Bergerac.djvu/5

Do you have the linthint.js script installed? It's helped me in finding all manner of unclosed formatting. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Asking reason for blocking Harkawal Benipal

I want to ask you about why you blocked Harkawal Benipal. She is a Punjabi Wikisourcian and also edits on Punjabi Wikipedian from last few months. She told me about the block on English Wikisource. So, thats why I wrote on your talk page. --Talk 18:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This appears to have been a mistake then. The user's only contributions here were to add content beyond scope and set up a User page. I have unblocked her. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks buddy, I'll told her to make a user page and work only on newly uploaded books to proofread them. ;-) --Talk 04:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The question has to be why was this user blocked in the first place, and why infinitely? They are not a spambot, and never were (your block reasoning), and there is no conversation on their user talk page to discuss their edits.

There was commentary at your recent confirmation, and it seems to have lasted little time. We are not, and should not be, a punitive community. Please follow the protocols expected of administrators and align your actions with wikisource:block policy. If you believe that the block policy is incorrect, then suggest a rewrite and gain a consensus, otherwise please follow it and stop scaring off newbies with authoritarian processes, and have the decency to enter into an educative and helpful discourse with users. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Translation:Catullus 16

Erm... Is this actually the translation, because on first glance it looked very like a vandalism attempt? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

If it's the actual translation, then I will assume Wikisource is NOT Censored. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Also Translation:Catullus 21 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: It is the actual translation. See e.g. w:Catullus 16. --Xover (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Marking pages as Proofread...

I don't generally do this if what I've had to do is essentially clean up bad OCR, as even though something may match exactly whats in the scan, experience has taught me that it needs at least 2 passes to be 99% accurate with some scans. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no requirement to mark such pages as "proofread". Generally, I only mark when I've actively worked to match the scan for the entire page, but otherwise I do not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Sophocles (Collins).djvu?

Any idea why File:Sophocles (Collins).djvu was flagged "do not move to Commons" until 2019? From a cursory look it's been out of copyright for decades. --Xover (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it's a UK publication that contains extensive quotations from translations made by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, who died in 1948. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. Thank you! BTW, there's a |why= parameter on that template that can be used, at least for the non-obvious cases, to give others a hint about stuff like that. --Xover (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Module:Aligned table

You had previouly warned a user about making wholesale changes without at least trying to explain what was being attempted:-

Most suprised therefore to find this: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Aligned_table&oldid=9414404 which manged to remove functionality I actually used here. Page:Mrs_Beeton's_Book_of_Household_Management.djvu/633 so I didn't have to make a LOT of {{ts}} calls. This type of table should really be a table class though? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Author pages

Hi EncycloPetey,

not so long ago you added a note to Wikisource:Author names (which is an essay), about the preferred spelling of authors, where there is an author with exactly the same name. You state that date of birth and death in parentheses are preferable over other information. I have a couple of questions concerning that statement.

  • in the first place: it is rather uncommon on Wikimedia-projects, as far as I know. See for instance: d:Q559411: A William Smith. All Wikipedias use "(lexicographer)" as parenthesis. Only WS-EN has a different approach. Is this a policy on WS-EN? (See also: Paragraph of guideline on EN-WIKI, where it is stated that years of birth/death are not normally used as disambiguators.)
  • in the second place: you explicitly state to use a simple hyphen. Why?
  • could you provide some examples on WS-EN?
  • if so: would it be better to use a different example than the one chosen?

Thanks a lot in advance for you answer(s), --Dick Bos (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Dates are used as disambiguation by major libraries, and Wikisource (which is a essentially a library) has followed their lead rather than following Wikipedia. Another reason that Wikisource does not follow Wikipedia is that Wikipedia includes articles only for "notable" individuals. In contrast, Wikisource includes all authors. Not only does this mean that Wikisource will include many more people who share the same name, but that they are more likely to be a "writer", "novelist", "essayist", or other kind of author, and so parenthetical descriptions by occupation are less likely to distinguish between them.
Most of your questions are addressed on Help:Author pages. All of this was established by other users, and there have been multiple discussions. @Billinghurst: did a great deal to establish most of our current norms. The changes I made to the essay did not originate with me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dick Bos:Predominantly the reason to not use descriptors was 1) their inconsistency of term, and 2) that we found multiple instances of grandfather/father/son people with the same occupations, etc. We don't prohibit the use of the noun as a title, we just don't base the page there, it will be a redirect to our preferred means to disambiguate. Hyphens was a very early WS decision and has continued. Again, feel welcome to have a endash, as a redirect page to a hyphen page. Since Wikidata and VIAF have come along, it has been a blessing for matching/ — billinghurst sDrewth 15:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Published name

Do you think that Index:Scott - Tales of my Landlord - 3rd series, vol. 1 - 1819.djvu should be published under its name and the time of publishing, rather than to whatever it became? We have the means with author pages, redirects, and use of wikidata to link to properly represent later name changes. I find it weird (+ other adjectives) that we have people fussing over bloody quote combinations, and other components of a publisher, however, we cannot remain true to a title of a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The Tales of My Landlord issue is a very messy one. The volumes, chapters, titles, etc do not match up well at all through the series, and even chapter numbers are inconsistent. That is, some volumes contain part of one work and the start or end of another, and individual works straddle multiple volumes. I think the page name is probably OK as it is, as long as full bibliographic disclosure is made in the notes on the principal page and both a redirect & contents page for the work (with links) exist.
That is, unless you forsee another edition of this work appearing anytime soon, I'd be inclined to leave it be for now.
Perhaps what we need is some kind of organized, interactive, tutorial event. We have lots of things (like page titles) that I would have thought straightforward and uniform that clearly aren't. Even things like method of transclusion, where newly added items are being transcluded with archaic markup. Or people neglecting authority control and licensing. Or user-created content included in works, sometimes without identifying it as such. A "best practices" review is probably needed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Typo in First Men in the Moon

Hello! The First Men in the Moon is a Featured Text and write protected. In the Template at the beginning is a typo, wiritten by instead of written by. Can you please fix it? Cheers, Ivla (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi EncycloPetey/Archives/2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikisource and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on 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.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The Floating City and The Blockade Runners - Jules Verne

Hello, I have removed the chapter titles from the Contents list you created for this work. It looks as if you have used the 'Collected Works', Volume 7 (1911) edited by Charles Horne as the source for your titles. However, although the Horne edition has 'The Floating City' containing 34 titled chapters, the version being transcribed is divided into 39 untitled ones, so the further down your listing one progresses, the more out of sync the titles you've used become with the content of the chapters. Chrisguise (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chrisguise: If you look at the edit history, the Contents were there before any edits I made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Apologies. I did look at the edit history but must have misread it.Chrisguise (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi EncycloPetey/Archives/2019,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi EncycloPetey/Archives/2019,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Flavoured and non-factual article about Landmark Education

Dear @Encyclopetey,

YOu reverted some proposed changes to an article about Landmark Education. Why did you do that?

The page as it was produced by Rick Ross, is very flavoured, and non-documented. It would be prudent to put the facts from the legal defeat in 2005 as it was, with all of its various terms and conditions - instead of a very flavoured piece with more or less emotional outbursts.

I therefore challenge this edition by Rick Ross, and request a formal discussion about the matter.

I should mention for the sake of good order, that I am one of the beneficiaries of their education. Indeed - some of the points being mentioned in the article by Rick Ross, I can recognize the same. However - there is very little "Cult" about it. I would say that the education by Landmark is more or less the same as typical management training in terms of mindset, integrity, commitment, etc. - therefore I find that Rick Ross's very emotional outbursts are misplaced in a fact-based environment as Wikisource.

If it is possible to have an article and then a discussion, that would indeed be appropriate. However - a strongly biased and flavoured article like the one of Rick Ross ought not to find place here.

Please advise.

Sincerely David Svarrer —unsigned comment by Davidsvarrer (talk) .

@Davidsvarrer: Please read our scope, it is in the welcome message that I left on your talk page. We are a library of published versions of work, we are not the harbingers of truth. The page that you amended was a published edition, and your changes are not in the original document, so reverted. The encyclopaedic article about Landmark Education, presuming that there is one, will be at English Wikipedia. As such, it is not there for editing beyond correction to the original publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do not silently block people

Please enter into a polite discussion with users where there is a possibility that they are here with good faith, rather than just block and move away. At least have the courtesy to explain to a user why you have blocked them from editing. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean like this User talk:65.78.3.65? What I'm doing is no different from what you're doing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
pet, billinghurst, reality check, you both are doing this all over hypocrites;
pet, you just reverted proper morphy paragraph in a vandalizing fashion; you said it has to be concise? but you are violating all rules; you can not say morphy is just american champion, he is the first american champion, he is 2nd world champion; he is distinguished chess player; so stop vandalizing; you made him just another chess player; he is a legend and you cant simply make something concise on a legend; one can be american chess legend but its only him and fischer who are world and american champions, duh !!!!!!!!!!!
The description is not there to explain a person's life story, but to identify nationality and field of interest. Details belong at Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment No, I am not talking about LTAs, nor dynamic IP addresses. I was talking about those here editing, likely in good faith. ^^^ where there is a possibility that they are here with good faith — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

So you were just commenting to me randomly then, or were you assuming that I was acting in bad faith? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Why are you being argumentative? Is it an unfair request? The response of "but you do it" without evidence, or without specifically saying something at the time that you disagree is unhelpful. If you are unsure which particular block to which I was referring then it was

20:53, 14 December 2019 EncycloPetey talk contribs block blocked Usedgwhy talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation disabled) (Removing content from pages) (unblock | change block)

and if I didn't give enough information, then my apologies, I thought that it was self-evident. Re the LTA, it is water off a duck's back, if they can find no value in their life, not my problem, I am not carrying their miserable baggage. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't/wasn't self-evident. You expect me to guess which user you think should be AGF, when clearly I didn't think so. Do not start a conversation that hinges upon mind-reading to understand what you're trying to say. I don't believe in mind-reading, and if you're trying to communicate something, either say it or don't bother. Don't expect the other person to just "know" what you're thinking. In this case Usedgwhy had already been blocked once by you (for vandalism), then performed the same vandalism on the same page. At what point were you going to say something to them about the vandalism? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear EncycloPetey - you are communicating to others in a very unfriendly, non helpful and dominating manner which to the best of my opinion is not called for. DavidSvarrer 17:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
With respect, David, your only contribution here has been to editorialize one document by striking out most of its content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
whats your problem encyclopetey, you think you simply scratch something out and problem is resolved and everybody can see scratches how you again wikicontradict yourself (wikipedos norm), this page is about blocking innocent users without warning and now you have to give me warning in order to block me otherwise you will put yourself on the stpo and more self contradict yourself and thank you for making paul morphy just another american chessmaster and the fact that he was 2nd unofficial world champion is chopped liver info: en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Author:Paul_Morphy&action=historyLupste (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Encyclopetey - I will just leave you to continue destroying any and all good relationships with people with your terrible ways of being. You have no clue to the human resources you are chasing away from contributing positively to WikiSource, WikiPedia and everywhere else. I pray that you will one day wake up and become human. I will not discuss with you - you are continuously in fights with people - continuously in a terrible mood - continuously disrespecting any normal and fair behaviour. Live well, be blessed. Davidsvarrer (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Re:Sonnets

What should I be looking for in Preferences and Gadgets?--kathleen wright5 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I've edited both in Safari and Firefox. After editing both show pagebreaks in reading mode.--kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm using the source editor.--kathleen wright5 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Split and shifted

Tot WS:S discussion, I have split the answers to hopefully allow for parts discussion. I hope how I did it suits. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sidenotes begin

It helps when protecting it, to make sure a correct version is protected. There's a stray </noinclude> lurking seemingly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I had assumed when you undid your edits, you had done so correctly, but apparently not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm too upset by your implication to comment further. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

WS:Recomendation for page Protection...

{{Div end}} is widely used, and a number of redirects point at it, so any change to it have the potential to affect a LOT of pages. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2019 (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 Munro 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. PetilliusQuintus (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: is much better at researching individual details about person's lives, but performing that sort of genealogical research typically falls outside of what we do at Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Versions page for The Two Noble Kinsmen

I am needing to list a translation (in this case, simplified for children) of The Two Noble Kinsmen. It is nice to have the non-complicated namespace available for Versions, but I would rather get instructions/warnings/etc. from you before I move it. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I had not yet completed the setup of versions pages for the tragedies of Shakespeare, nor for the plays not included in the First Folio. I should be able to do Two Noble Kinsmen today or tomorrow. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The word?

Instead of reverting my edit, you could collaborate and determine the "word" or the "correct heading" that is acceptable to you and put that into place.

I used the word that I did use for two reasons. I have no other word to use. The other reason being that anything that describes one language (in this case Middle English) into another language (in this case English) ie, from one dictionary to another, is a translation. I am unable, unwilling and not interested in arguing the second point but that does not resolve my first reason.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I wrote to you both here and on Wikidata, but you did not choose to respond. Richardson's story is listed on the disambiguation page because it is a different work with the same name. It is not a version of the play, so it does not get placed on the versions page for the play. This is all explained in our Help pages about versions. --17:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
But I would like to know if there exists an easier to understand version of the story, and surely I am not the only person. I was at a high school presentation of Macbeth. They did a great job, they had studied the story and knew it well, etc. etc. At one of the breaks, I was out having a smoke with some of the parents who were completely lost with the story, due to it being written in a different language and all. Also, the distance in time between learning it in school or not. And perhaps, the daily grind of their life which does not allow for the study and understanding of Elizabethan drama.
It is not a modernization of the story (like Clueless was and others) it is an easier to grasp version of it, which can be spurned by the real scholars but enjoyed by hobbyists.
It should have a place in that list.
And I did respond by not calling it or others a version or translation at wikidata, but an easy to understand rule or word to use would go very far towards your demand of my understanding and additionally demonstrate that you also have an understanding and not just a feeling for this.
Like that the same story is being told using words from a different dictionary, but that is an easy to follow rule which says I did the right thing.
Please share the feeling you have for this with a word or a rule, as if I am a moronic math major or some other sort of challenged bloke...--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
That's what the disambiguation page is for: Two Noble Kinsmen. That's where retellings, adaptations, or articles about the play go, but which happen to have the same title as the play, are listed. The page Two Noble Kinsmen (Shakespeare) is only for editions of the play itself; not for adaptations, retellings, or articles about the play, just for the text of the play. What you are doing is trying to make both pages list both kinds of links. That's not how versions pages work. The versions page lists versions of the actual work only; it is the disambiguation page that lists other things that share the same title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is confusing because there is the case of the same title being used for completely different poems. Where Two Noble Kinsmen would be for all different poems which have that same name. I suspect that there is not other poems with that same name but in the greater collection which is here, that is how the same name, different poem problem is handled.

Please reconsider separating these lists. Having spent sometime with poems and songs, what you are doing here seems dangerous/confusing in the grand scheme. But, I might be wrong. Having every mention of the same poem in a single list is what made sense to me after having sorted through a lot of these.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

But it's not the same work. The Richardson story was written by Richardson, not by Shakespeare and Fletcher, so it should not appear on a page that lists editions of Shakespeare and Fletcher's play. It's a matter of Wikisource policy, and not my decision. It's also a matter of common sense. I really don't understand why you want to duplicate the list. Isn't one such list enough? Why do we need two copies of the same list in two places? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that you are greatly confused about the policy. See Hymn. Let me quote the top of that page “This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.”.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Each of the poems mentioned on Hymn is to a different poem. I encountered that with a Lowell poem named Hymn. The other poems mentioned there are completely different poems. If one of them is a song which uses some of the words and the gist of the Lowell poem, it doesn't get a new page, it gets mentioned on the page that lists the Lowell poems. Lowell had the original words and ideas in his poem. Similarly, this short non-poetical, non-dramatic version of Two Noble Kinsmen is credited to the originator of the tale. It is credited in the beginning of the text to Shakespeare and for all intents and purposes it is still that story. As would commentaries about the work.
Your method (and wrong claim of policy) is confusing and poorly defined and the page I showed you (Hymn) shows the reason. See also The Raven. There are others, I just can't remember them 1.5 years later.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at Macbeth; it lists Shakespeare's play, as well as other works of the same title, including retellings and an opera, but also dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles that have the same name. Disambiguation pages are for listing works that have the same name. If what you are seeking is a way to group items of the same subject, then a Portal is the solution, as Billinghurst has already suggested to you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
In the Scriptorium discussion, I've made a proposal to segregate "same work" items to a new namespace. If this proposal is accepted, then the Versions pages would do just as you suggest. So my proposal is intended to address my concerns and support your idea. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2019&oldid=11481731"