User talk:Koavf

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Hello, Koavf, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here.

Please take a glance at our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). Most questions and discussions about the community are in the Scriptorium.

The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion[edit]

If you use {{delete}}, you have to make an entry on the deletions page, as I did here. If you think that it should be a speedy deletion, use {{sdelete}}.--Longfellow (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeat of above request[edit]

Hi, adding {{delete}} means that you need to log a proposal at Proposed deletions explaining why there's a problem. If however you mean that the article/category/page meets one of the speedy deletion criteria, then please use {{sdelete|reason}}. It makes it easier to understand what you mean. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We already use HotCat from Commons[edit]

Just so that you are aware, we already utilise the HotCat from Commons in our gadgets, and directly so it updates. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah Good to know. Thanks. I didn't know where it was localized, etc.--I just looked in Special:Preferences and if the gadget wasn't there, I imported it from Commons. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It is there, along with a few others (though it does need a tidy), and we look to steal use others' gadgets wherever possible. If you do have any suggestions for better sorting or explaining our gadgets, then that feedback would be most welcome. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Huh I don't see it at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets... As you can tell from my contribs, talk, page, etc. I'm not that accustomed to how things work on en.ws, but I've always wanted to be a productive member here: it's a really great idea and resource. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Third from top. I have just prepended it with HotCat, as presumably the label may attract those specifically looking for it. Re partipication, if we know your poison, then surely someone can suggest a work. An easier place to start is Wikisource:Proofread of the Month where we usually take a work from scratch through to completion (if we can). As it is active, it is a great way to see how others edit, and see where they have good shortcuts. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Added. I've always thought it bizarre that there aren't vast digital archives that have been imported here: legal documents, patents, public domain literature, etc. It seems like there must be databases upon databases out there to be scripted over to here--is there something obvious that I'm missing? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The purpose that we have is to look to bring verifiable text. In earlier days, lots of texts have come gutenberg, verified by them, though still not perfect, and without images. They can still come over, but numbers alone isn't the focus of many. We have been bringing works in what we believe is a more structured means and we are looking to a more validated format. Image to Commons, then proofread and validated from the image. We have also looked to do other sorts of works, DNB, PSM, often which can be used in support of WP articles; extracting quality images, store at Commons, display in the works, but to also have available across WMF. There is plenty more there, it probably is more quietly appearing.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources I may be dense, but it seems like (e.g.) several governments will have reliably proofread texts stored electronically that could be ported over here with relative easy and automation. At the very least, you could store them in some tracking category like, Category:Texts ported from the State of Alabama which need proofreading and readers could still find these texts useful. Again, I guess I'm just so ignorant that I'm asking bad questions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I was more focusing my comments on older works, those that are not currently online / readily available. Some consider that those works that you identified that are permanently online, then sometimes there is less value on importing them, especially with the variety of licences that can apply to them. Usually we can just as readily link to them from pages, we don't require the works to be housed locally to be part of the library, one could build an Author (person) page with offsite links, or a Portal (organisational authors) page to the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Library I suppose I still need to read up on what Wikisource's actual scope is, because I had a different impression about what it actually could or should do. If I understand you correctly, I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed, honestly. (Although please don't take that as a slight against the hard work that I'm sure you and several other contributors put into this project.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikisource:What Wikisource includes and Wikisource:For Wikipedians. I am not talking what we may, could or should be. I am talking where I see where we are as an evolved volunteer library that has limited resources, so more where we are in the journey. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

multiple blank lines[edit]

You don't need to use <br> over and over to create multiple blank lines. Just use multiple returns to insert blank lines directly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Thanks. As you can see from my contribs, I'm getting the hang of ProofRead. Much appreciated! —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dates in diambiguation situations[edit]

Hi,

In light of some of your moves in the Author namespace, I ask you to please follow existing guidlines (#5) and refrain from using anything other than a plain old dash when it comes to an Author's basepage title that has any form of "date" in it. example...

  • John Smith (1878-1956) - OK for core, target, mainpage that holds content
  • John Smith (1878–1956) - NOT OK for core, target, mainpage that holds content. OK as a redirect to the main page however

..... thanks -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Original Stories from Real Life[edit]

Memorial Day commemorated in Luxembourg 100529-F-3074W-590.jpg The Honour Guard Award
For your outstanding and very welcome work on Original Stories from Real Life. --John Carter (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I want you to know that this is the first time that I know of that any sort of attempt to do something in the honor of an editor who has, for whatever reason, left the project, and it is very very encouraging to see someone willing to spend the effort to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, when the chaptering gets done, it might be worth while asking if a memorial template can be placed in a comparatively prominent place somewhere on the index page, index talk page, and/or on one or more of the relevant wikipedia talk pages. Considering I am blocked from editing in wikipedia till pretty much the end of the month, I have a feeling that if anything at wikipedia itself is to be done you are probably the man to do it. John Carter (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
For whatever reason, don't ask me why, the final page isn't allowing me to validate it, I think because I made some changes to it. Maybe we can get someone else to do it? John Carter (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

May I ask why this change?[edit]

If you are really sure then restore; but without explanation I will remain mystified... AuFCL (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@AuFCL: Wow, that was weird. You are right and I am wrong--somehow, I saw that as being up one level higher in the hierarchy than it should have been. Sorry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh well; just glad the insanity wasn't mine—this time at least! AuFCL (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop moving author pages[edit]

You are moving author pages against the policy of naming. Please stop. This is not enWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Look at my contribs: I'm moving them all back now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, though I am not sure how you thought that it was a great idea in the first place to start moving so many pages? Did you think that we didn't know what we were doing? Stop to think to ask? One too many new year drinks bring on some bravery? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I'll just chalk that up to you being wound up. Thanks and have a good new year. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Nobody's perfect. Did you notice how you edited this author page when it had an ndash? I've since moved all of the ndash pages to hyphens (in spite of them being ungrammatical). If we work together, we can make things better--you don't need to talk down to me nor act put out when I was fixing my own mistakes and adding {{no works}} to several pages, making them demonstrably better. I'm sure you know that I'm on balance an asset to the WMF projects, including this one. So are you. Onwards and upwards? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Titles on pages are not about grammar, that is about style. Grammar would be how they are used within a work, and you will see that we use an endash within the display of the template. The reason for why are is in the archives, and you would need to go back about 8 to 9 years. I wasn't trying to talk down to you, but it was pretty hard to comprehend how or why an experienced editor would be doing it, and their missing key indicators, when they were doing it. Of course we can work together. It looks all cleared up. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oldwikisource->Mul[edit]

Check my recent contributions, In a bold move I've "updated" as many as interwikis as I felt able to.

I've excluded some for technical reasons, associated Talk namespaces, User and Page namespace. The use of oldwikisource in Page namespace seems to be ALL in a single work though, and could probably be updated with AWB very quickly..

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns104=1&search=insource%3A%2Foldwikisource%2Fi&searchToken=69rsvrtej83wiexy2sn92xl49

Currently mul and oldwikisource interwiki prefix link to the same thing ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Yes, s:mul: and s:OldWikisource: go to the same place. I could pull up the phab: tickets if you needed but I don't have them handy at the moment. Thanks for that--I think that we should really discourage the use of any non-ISO title and the sooner we switch them, the better. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW: Special:Interwiki gives a local view and confirms Koavf's note above.

Categories for people[edit]

We no longer use categories for people on en-Wikisource to organize their works. Author pages fulfill this function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Thanks. Can you point me to a guideline? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably not, as many of our guidelines are unwritten or uncodified. But please point me to a category for any other President of the US or any other person. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Don't know any. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Help:Categorization seems to be the closest we've come to stating a guideline on this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your block[edit]

User:Beeswaxcandle deleted that list, and explained why. Wikisource actively discourages the addition of material that is clearly not in PD. You have repeatedly recreated the list in various locations despite this fact, and in direct violation of what Wikisource is about. For this you have been blocked. Please do not encourage the addition of non-PD materials to Wikisource in future, or you will be blocked for a longer period. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I in no way encouraged the addition of non-free material--I added a disclaimer to the page for just that reason. Many author pages include lists of material that we host and do not host (sometimes outbound linking to other sites that do); why is this one any different? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Also, I am in the middle of doing several edits which are inarguably within policy and helpful. Please unblock me so that I can continue. Blocking without any warning especially while I'm in the midst of doing something useful is pointless. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I sorry that you do not understand how damaging it is to Wikisource to promote the addition of non-PD materials. I am sorry you do not understand why it is a bad idea to push over the actions of two different admins who explained the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I understand the scope of Wikisource hosting material that is free or not (not sure why you are exclusively referring to PD as we host many types of material which are not in the US public domain). Again, there is evidently not policy on listing works by an author but either way, I'm not interested in fighting about this. Please unblock me so that I can continue working on other issues. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You chose to fight the actions of two different admins, so claiming that you are not interested in fighting about this is disingenuous. You may continue working when the block expires. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It's not disingenuous at all, Pete. I tried a different approach each time, hoping that would be amenable. It's not like I did the same thing over and over again just hoping no one would notice--I tried to do something that would be workable for everyone. Instead of having a discussion about it, you went to block me. If you were to unblock me, I would go about my business doing other things here than this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I don't like seeing trusted users blocked, especially without notice, it is a very high standard to set. I also don't like users gallivanting on their merry way without reference to the community, especially when they have been undone. Good communication, tolerance, and approaching consensus from the softer side are always important. Can we please remove the block. Can we please have community members discuss their actions prior to making them a rod for all our backs, or hoisting us on to our own petards. If it looks bleeding obvious, yet it isn't urgent, and hasn't been done, asking about it may take a little longer, but at a community of this intermediate size, with leading protagonists, asking, piloting, testing, asking, has been proved to be effective. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks. For what it's worth, I basically have work to do here daily. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Jr / Sr[edit]

Re: "Jr is necessary as his father is notable as well". The issue on Wikisource is never just that of "notability", but whether or not the other person published anything. I do not know in this case whether it will make any difference, but just want to make the reasoning clear to you. The issues on Wikisource are not the same as those on Wikipedia.

Also, please note that the document you are using to justify all of these Author page moves is an "Essay", and has never been adopted as a Policy or as a Guideline by Wikisource. It is possible that some editors might take issue with certain moves to full names, although I have not seen any yet of that sort myself. Names like "T. S. Eliot" and "Virginia Woolf" in particular probably ought to have a discussion if they are to be moved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: What I mean as "notable" is not necessarily the sense of Wikipedia or Wikidata but yes, someone who may have produced a document/text/speech which could reasonably be reproduced here. You are mistaken about my justification: I am referring to the help documentation which says to not include titles and to include full names (except in instances of famous pseudonyms). Is there something I'm missing here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not mistaken. You have linked to Wikisource:Author names in some of your edit summaries as justification. That page is tagged as an "Essay". And as the Help page notes: sometimes a particular form of an author's name is used as if it were a pseudonym (T. S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf) and under those situations the better known pseudonym may be preferred. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Your move of Author:Abraham ibn Ezra to Author:Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra is the only one I saw that would might be considered objectionable (I've moved it back). Medieval Europe did not have a fixed system of naming as we as used to having today. Rather, individuals had a given name, but were recorded with whatever description might be needed as circumstances called for it. So, for example, Leonardo da Vinci ("Leonardo, from Vinci") was usually enough to tell you which Leonardo someone was talking about, even though "da Vinci" was not actually part of his name. His "full name" was simply "Leonardo". When treating with names before about 1500, the issue is more often: "Which form of the name is used most often in modern scholarship?" than "What is the full name?" --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: For names in the form "de/du/d' [Place]" I've left them if the person's name is too simple but moved them if the name is otherwise complete. In the case of "Galileo Galilei" or "Leonardo da Vinci" the Italian custom would be important to leave to those appellations so we can understand who it is supposed to be--similar to royalty. Of course, Anglo-style names from recent centuries are a lot easier for me to parse. I skipped a lot of Arabic names, ancient Greek ones, etc. If you see anything else that seems off-track, let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Wait--that linked user essay gives examples like Author:James Matthew Barrie and doesn't call "J.M." a pseudonym. If anything, that is an example consistent with the help documentation... Not sure what you're suggesting here nor what these examples are supposed to mean. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
That's part of the problem. Some choices (like J. M. Barrie) are equivocal. The linked user Essay gives examples both ways without settling on one choice over the other, and does not use the best examples to explain the options. That Essay should not be used as a guide to make decisions about pagenames because it is a drafted (and abandoned) Essay that was crafted mostly by a single individual, and is not a Guideline or Policy. Help pages are likewise NOT guidelines or policies. That's my point: You're making lots of page moves based on a few sentences in a Help page and an Essay. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Barring any guideline or policy (of which there are only a handful anyway), then we may as well have something consistent and something that matches what we tell new users, right? If in 15 years there hasn't actually been some traction on formalizing a single standard across the project, that's unfortunate but on the one hand, it certainly leaves no reason to not make them consistent and on the other, we do have something written somewhere that prefers full names. Additionally, pages are routinely moved or created by others at full names and a page move based on a full name has passed by the Scriptorium recently without objection. In principle, it seems pretty clear that this is what is generally the case for many high-profile pages anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)