User talk:Webbbbbbber~enwikisource

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

You'll find an (incomplete) index of our works listed at Wikisource:Works, although for very broad categories like poetry you may wish to look at the categories like Category:Poems instead.

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) 23:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unduly strong warnings

The warning that you have added to A Midsummer Night's Dream and to other pages says: "Doubt has been raised about the fidelity of the source document used as the basis of this text.". The warning is false, as the document has no source, and no doubt about the fidelity of non-existent entity--the lacking source--can properly be raised. IMHO, the warning should say: "This document is lacking source", or something of the sort. Don't you think? In any event, has your choice of the warning tag been made based on the prevailing community practice? --Dan Polansky 08:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you wrote on my talk page (putting it here to have it in one place):

Before I added {{fidelity}} tags to Shakespeare's plays (nearly all of which are unsourced) I consulted with senior editors here. After much discussion, I added the tags. If you know of a more appropriate template (that says "This document is lacking a source" or words to that effect) please let me know! I couldn't find one.

Thanks, I did not know that. I have now created {{no source}} to deal with the case. The template features no icon; the icon of {{fidelity}} is really strong, compared to no icon at {{copyvio}}, which is much more serious state of affairs IMHO. The template {{no license}} has a strong icon but stil much more acceptable, to me anyway, than the one of {{fidelity}}. However, I am a very junior editor here. --Dan Polansky 10:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! I too am a very junior editor, but I would tend to agree that {{no source}} is a less serious state of affairs than {{fidelity}}, and also requires a different effort ("no source" means that someone either needs to research the source, or provide a new one; whereas "fidelity" means that someone will need to proofread the document.) It still must be addressed, though; in the case of Shakespeare, due to extremely complex issues pertaining to textual transmission, it is very important to indicate the source. It is even possible that some sources may copyrighted, but I discovered that it isn't always easy to tell.

I'll start going through the plays and replace the {{Fidelity}} tags with {{no source}} tags where it is appropriate.

Webbbbbbber 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for notifying me on my talk page; I indeed do not watch your talk page. Now to the subject matter: you wrote on my talk page that the template {{no source}} seems to be work in progress. Well, I did not plan to extend it further. Importantly, it has a telling name and a telling text upon its creation; it can be extended to fit the needs of its users, by for instance providing a longer explanation or linking to a policy page. As it stands, it seems okay to me. I do not know what you specifically mean by "extremely complex issues pertaining to textual transmission" (neither do I know what you mean by "textual transmission") and how it establishes that "it is very important to indicate the source" (italics mine). I think you should better discuss this with some senior editor. --Dan Polansky 09:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You wrote:

Apologies for thinking your {{no source}} template was a work in progress. It just looks so different from the other templates: no cute little graphic; takes up the entire width of the page, rather than just the center; and the text is all squeezed over to a narrow column on the left rather than being centered within the box. However, these are stylistic choices, and if you're done with it, I'll start using it. Thanks!

BTW, I already talked with senior editor's about issues regarding textual transmission: the conclusion was that all we have to do cite the source, and let the editor of the source we use worry about all that. I've noticed that nobody seems to be forthcoming that info, so I may gradually start replacing the plays with PG editions. I should probably talk it over with a few people before embarking on that project!

I have now reformatted the template {{no source}} to match the appearance of {{new license required}}. Hope you like it better. --Dan Polansky 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you now please replace the {{fidelity}} with {{no source}} at each place where you have entered {{fidelity}} and where {{no source}} is more appropriate? I have already done that at several cases. --Dan Polansky 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Could you help me, please? I asked everyone. What does "raising" mean in this text:

SICINIUS.

   'Tis this slave,—
   Go whip him fore the people's eyes:—his raising;
   Nothing but his report. 

William Shakespeare "Coriolanus" Act IV, Scene 6. Igor Skoglund

Fidelity in Measure for Measure

You wrote:

If you look on the talk page, you will see that a user has complained that it's missing some dialogue. Do you think that a {{no source}} tag is still appropriate, or would you be inclined to use a {{fidelity}} tag in a case like this?

I think no source is the right tag. The {{fidelity}} is about the fidelity of the source document, not about the fidelity or proof-reading of the text in Wiksiource. You cannot question "the fidelity of the source document" when the term "source document" has only meaning, but no referent, that is, there is no source document. --Dan Polansky 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. Just wanted to make sure we were thinking along similar lines... Webbbbbbber 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Webbbbbbber. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Webbbbbbber~enwikisource that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

06:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)