User talk:2A02:A319:C03A:8E00:DCB0:7633:36BD:5435

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * Help pages
 * Style Guide
 * Inclusion policy
 * For Wikipedians

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. Creating an account on Wikisource has many of the same benefits as creating an account on Wikipedia. For one thing, if you continue to edit without a username, your IP address is used to publicly identify you.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question. Again, welcome!

-- Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Shakespeare
Hello,

I can see from your profile page that your education and experience is not in the field of literature or poetry. You have errors on your page (like a space before the sign "..."). Nonetheless, you have reverted my changes to a page about a poem erroneously assigned to Shakespeare. You have reverted even a TYPO in the title. Shall is written with "l", and not with "i" (Shail). You have removed my explanations and justifications, together with a valid, reliable reference. I feel disappointed that as a Wiki moderator you act in this careless manner.

Unlike yourself, I do have a university degree in languages, including courses in literature, plus a post-grad in creative writing. I am a poetry enthusiast and a poet myself. Nonetheless, as a plane engineer or IT specialist or whatever, you consider yourself to be more entitled to decide about matters that university researchers in the field of literature have already debated and decided upon. The poem "Shall I die or shall i fly" is not to be found in any official anthology of Shakespeare's oeuvre.

Search for it here, you will not find it: https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-advanced.php

Also, please DO READ the reference article I added to the Wiki page. Disclaimer: this will require more time than the 5 seconds it obviously took you to destroy my edit of the wiki page.

Sincerely,

B.Z.P.

Shall I die?
Ankry (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) controversy about authorship of this text is described below the header
 * 2) before you make controversial change you should discuss it with others
 * 3) anybody is anonymous in Wikimedia and nobody can rely on his/her real-life position here
 * 4) claiming that author's name is "erroneously ascribed to William Shakespeare by unreliable sources" is wrong and such technically wrong changes may be considered vandalisms

Hello, First of all, forgive me if I get some technicalities wrong, I'm not expert in html editing. I corrected a typo in the title. You reverted the correction. Since when do we write "shall" as "shail"? I added a valid reference, which you removed. For me, this is vandalism. I'm precisely discussing right now. Moreover, this poem's authorship has been already discussed by experts in literature. Their decision is clear: this is not a text by Shakespeare. I have added a reference, where this is discussed. Official anthology of Shakespeare's work does not include this text. If you disagree with some of my changes, make change in the pertinent areas, not by reverting ALL of my edits, including correct and valid ones. "erroneously ascribed to William Shakespeare by unreliable sources" - is an exact description of the situation. The unreliability of the sources attributing this poem to Shakespeare is precisely explained in the reference article that I have linked. If it's TLTR, I quote some important parts for you: ""the texts in the Rawlinson manuscript are in most cases are corrupt even by 17th-century standards. Whole lines are omitted, copied twice or thoroughly mangled. (...) The poor quality of the texts does not lend credibility to the manuscript's many dubious attributions. More authoritative in every respect than the Rawlinson volume is a contemporaneous manuscript miscellany owned by Yale's Beinecke Rare Book Library, in which a second, apparently less corrupt text of Shall I die? appears. The Yale miscellany was compiled by Tobias Alston in the late 1630's. He does not ascribe it to Shakespeare."

Welcome, and reply
Hello, B.Z. Pietak, and welcome to WikiSource!

I hope you do not mind that I am responding to your complaint that you posted on my talk page here.

You are correct, I am not—nor do I claim to be—an expert in literature or poetry. I am an engineer. I write and design software for the U.S. healthcare system, the U.S. military, and various industries in the private sector. While it's quite impressive that you were able to suss this out based on a typo I made on my user page in August 2016, it doesn't really matter. WikiSource is a site that anyone can edit so long as they follow the rules. That means that I can help transcribe and proofread sheet music and poetry, and you are welcome to do the same with any topic, regardless of your familiarity.

While your edit did fix a typo (thank you), it also vandalized the document in the following ways:


 * 1) The link to the author was broken. You will notice that it was displayed in red, which indicates that it is no longer pointing to a valid page. This is because there is no such author named "erroneously ascribed to William Shakespeare by unreliable sources".
 * 2) While you added a reference, you also removed an existing reference for another statement with no explanation. This is considered vandalism.
 * 3) While you claim to have added a referenced statement, it was not correctly formatted. It was but a bare URL to a New York Times article. It did not include correct attribution for the article name, author, publication date, nor the date it was accessed. (This last piece of information is critical for web URLs in case there are changes to the linked page.)

Finally, this is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where the articles will discuss ongoing controversies in depth with appropriate references. Here at WikiSource, our purview is the actual content. The one or two sentences in the notes of a work are not intended to be a treatise of any kind; that is what Wikipedia is for. The page already clearly says that the authorship is uncertain. There is no need to "pile on" as they say. The point is made.

I will be addressing these on the current revision of the page, where I see you have—once again—applied these same problematic changes. For the record I did spend much longer than the "five seconds" you accuse me of before reverting your changes. While your edit did fix a glaring issue (namely the typographical error in the title), I had to weigh the sum of the changes against this and I eventually determined that the edit did more harm than good. (Please see the numbered list I indicated previously for specifics.) I will, however, admit that I was remiss in not putting a welcome note on your page and explaining my changes. I apologize for this oversight, and have posted the welcome notice at the top of your talk page.

Please consider reading the welcome documentation, here: Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource. Also the Help documents: Help:Contents. You may wish to consider creating an account so that you can interact with other users in a more permanent fashion. (Anonymous users are identified using their I.P. address; these are commonly reassigned by internet service providers, so the I.P. address used to identify you today may not identify you tomorrow.)

Finally, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes ( ~ ), and to use the 'summary' field while editing in order to indicate what changes you are making and why.

Best, Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In terms of the authorship debate, I will direct your attention to the Wikipedia article on Shakespeare apocrypha. The original text of the note on the poem page, which you changed, was taken directly from that article. If you would care to pursue this topic further, might I suggest editing Wikipedia directly? That is the appropriate location for an in-depth treatment of the matter. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not come here and be abusive to people, we ask that you engage in a conversation in a civil manner. We are not vandals, and interested in feedback or commentary. If something is changed back, we generally have a valid reason, and usually it is that none of us are experts, and we are reproducing a work to a printed edition whenever it was, whichever the source. As we are producing to editions, we regularly have multiple and varying copies of a work depending on the source. So often we are undoing to a status quo. In this case, if you have another version of this work, then we would have that uploaded with its source material and they would both have equal value. We do not try to be the encyclopaedic article for a work, that is the job of Wikipedia which would contain all the reference material, and we host the literary work. Plus, it would be really helpful if you could create an account, as that adds an element of stability to communications, relying on a static IP address which is often quite problematic. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)