User talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2014

January featured text
EncycloPetey, could you please protect The Corsair (Byron, 1814) and its subpages, and edit Template:Featured text/January with the following? You can change the wording if needed. Thanks in advance, Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll change the wording on the 1st, but we don't normally do anything special with protection. The past several featured works were not protected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Although someone should check the "Grab a Download" to see whether it works. I don't use them, and so don't know whether it's correctly set up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 The Corsair is an 1814 tale in verse by George Gordon Byron.

It is about a corsair named Conrad, who is rejected by society due to his actions when young and later fights against humanity (excluding women). The tale is divided into cantos, like The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri.

January 2014 is the bicentennial of the publication of this work.

" the glad waters of the dark blue sea,

"Our thoughts as boundless, and our souls as free,

"Far as the breeze can bear, the billows foam,

"Survey our empire and behold our home!

"These are our realms, no limits to their sway—

"Our flag the sceptre all who meet obey.

"Ours the wild life in tumult still to range

"From toil to rest, and joy in every change.

"Oh, who can tell? not thou, luxurious slave!

"Whose soul would sicken o'er the heaving wave;

"Not thou, vain lord of wantonness and ease!

"Whom slumber soothes not—pleasure cannot please—

"Oh, who can tell, save he whose heart hath tried,

"And danc’d in triumph o'er the waters wide,

"The exulting sense—the pulse's maddening play,

"That thrills the wanderer of that trackless way?
 * (Read on...)

watchpage
"I agree with EncycloPetey's request/suggestion above.." —Maury (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Image width
Thanks, will remember in future.--Keith Edkins (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource meetup at Wikimania 2014
Wikimania 2014 will be held in London this August and it will be a great opportunity to discuss how to use the recently created Wikisource Community User Group to coordinate and to better promote Wikisource. We would like to invite the participants of each Wikisource language community to showcase the projects has been working in the past year and, of course, learn from each other experiences. See you there? Sign up in the meeting page. &mdash;''The preceding MassMessage was sent by Micru to the members of the Wikisource Community User Group according to this delivery list (sorry the duplication if you already received the message through the ws mailing list).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for help with first upload
Hey, thanks for following behind me and cleaning up the mess. What should I stop and do right now to take the best next steps? Kjtobo (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Spellcheck on Firefox
I don't know if it's the same on your Firefox, but on Firefox 29.0.1 for Mac you go to Preferences then Advanced then click on General tab and uncheck 'Check my spelling as I type'. Images are OK on the above Firefox for Mac using Mavericks 10.9.3 --kathleen wright5 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. Images are fine on Safari 7.0.4 for Mac using Mavericks 10.9.3--kathleen wright5 (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I haven't had any images problems on FireFox, just irritation from the edit window. I can't even get a full line of regular text to display and don't know yet how to adjust the font size for editing (or if that's possible). --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to your guidance, I found out how to adjust the font size, but it unfortunately is all-or-nothing. The display text AND the edit window text are both controlled from the same location. So I have to either read everything smaller, or continually adjust as I work. :P --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Russian School of Painting
Pics are a beauty!!! Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I'm so glad that you're doing this book. We need more art books, and one on pre-Soviet Russian painting is a great choice. I've just added the last image, and will format the Table of Contents tomorrow or Saturday. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The book turned out to be even better than I expected. Benois (at least in translation) seem to have some caustic wit, some of his characterizations are quite funny: "'All four would be unthinkable without their great master, but no one of them reached his height; the first three because of lack of talent, the fourth, because of purely external circumstances'" And thanks a lot for your work on ToC. Captain Nemo (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Yes, I'm loving the book. Too many art books in English are as dry as winter leaves. Give me some caustic opinion, and my interest goes way up. I think this is a really good shot at an upcoming Featured Text. We need more selections that aren't fiction anyway, but this would be a great choice for its visual and academic content as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Inspired by your idea, I've added color pictures to this one. Thanks for the help with Great Russia - it's an interesting propaganda piece overall, but I working on it mainly because of its Chapter XV. Captain Nemo (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Restored Template:Author/doc
Seems that you deleted the documentation[//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=EncycloPetey&page=Template%3AAuthor%2Fdoc&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=], rather than reverted the edit. I have restored the file. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Swift

 * Thank both of you, EncycloPetey and Hesperian! Wikisource has actually saved my sanity. I was laid off from my job after 23 years, and found only part-time jobs that I enjoyed doing. I was quite bored with video games, and one can only search the Internet for so long. Fortunately, I was searching on Wikipedia one day, and found the sister sites -- something I did not know existed. I was intrigued by the Random Transcription site, and when I clicked, I found Swift -- first try! My favorite professor in college was a Swift expert, so I believe it was a sign. But don't worry that I'll leave when I'm done with the Swift work -- I've already found a Twain book to transcribe, and will search for more of my favorites when that's done. Susanarb (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Index:The Tragic Drama of the Greeks (1896).djvu
I can't help you with Ancient Greek but according to the Administrator list at Administrators, User:Zyephyrus might be able to help you. Not all the pages have Greek footnotes and I've done one already, it just needs to be Validated. (Page 9) --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed that and am validating it now. I also have an Ancient Greek specialist friend on Wiktionary, who might be persuaded to assist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a ancient greek-to-fix template on en.wikisource? On fr.wikisource we use a template grec to put the page into a category indicating that there is some ancient greek to fix in the page. Do we have the same on en.ws? --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's greek missing. I keep a semi-regular eye on the linked category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference here is that I'm putting in the Greek as I go, so it's not actually missing. It just needs to be proofread on every single page. This will prevent some people from proofreading/validating, because they're intimidated by the Greek. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Antarctic Flora
Hello EncycloPetey,

I have thanked you here (and asked a question). --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles
Hello EncycloPetey,

We are putting together a proposal about the automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles, and since you are an active Wikisourceror, we'd appreciate yourcomments on the Scriptorium. For convenience, I'm copying our proposal here:
 * The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise.
 * We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page).
 * Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:
 * (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
 * (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
 * (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
 * (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.
 * These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles.
 * In order to move forward with this, we need
 * General community approval
 * Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
 * Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

Maximilianklein (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As you might notice from the name of this page and my signature, I am not Billinghurst. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I fixed that. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured text update
Thanks for your helpful participation at Featured_text_candidates.

I believe your concerns have been addressed -- helped out and went through and proofread the text.

Perhaps you could reevaluate your position on the text as a candidate for Featured text?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Cirt: Please read the FT requirements again. One proofread is not sufficient for a text to qualify; a candidate must be "completely proofread by multiple editors". The text still doesn't not meet the requirements for featured candidacy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, will keep that in mind, hopefully we'll get some other proofreaders soon. -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling all too well. There are two really nice works I've worked on recently, but each must have another editor proofread before they're eligible for consideration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh? Which ones? Perhaps I could help out? -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The one I'd most like to see go up is Benois' The Russian School of Painting, which Captain Nemo and I worked to proofread. We don't have nearly enough good books on painting here, and Russian painting is often overlooked anyway. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Policy
Can you give a brief rational with your two oppose votes at Scriptorium & Scriptorium? Jeepday (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief? No. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief or lengthy, as you please, or as necessary.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That page is a potential policy page, written as a draft, without even a thorough discussion of the proposed direction and implications of its consequences. Some of the statements that would be policy are very badly written, with unintended consequences, and other points are ridiculously extreme. A full discussion is needed, and one that I expect would take weeks, if not months, to work through. If such a discussion begins, I'll participate, but right now it's a vote that's happening, and I've voted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I opened a Request for comment about this and, of course, I would appreciate your input. You're a great fellow and you're able to notice what others overlook.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The request is poorly structured. You've assumed that all we need to do is revise each individual current section. That assumes that the overall approach and structure of the page is acceptable. It is not. The initial review and commentary should look for and address the big picture issues, regardless of page section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. It has to be written from scratch. Changed the page accordingly.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A Short History of Astronomy (1898) has too many templates to transclude
Gday. Would you please look to simplify the template load in A Short History of Astronomy (1898), it exceeds the limit for transclusions and therefore numbers of pages are not showing. It is usually that way with the abundance of cascading templates used in tables of contents. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic (10th ed.)/Volume 1


 * The Ferdinand and Isabella page USED TO transclude; that it doesn't do so now is a result of more MW changes. I'll make the necessary changes when I next work on that very lengthy work.


 * The History of Astronomy is not one of my works; you'll need to contact the person (Mike s) who has been working on it. I've just been helping with the images, mostly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have hacked at the problem template Template:Dotted TOC page listing/1 and removed the &amp;#160; and just using a normal space. So we now have

Post‐expand include size: 1174652/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 89764/2048000 bytes It is not a mw hack, it is the template. Would you please check that it still looks okay. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems to be working, but that's not a template that I know very well or that I use very often any more. You might ask for a community look-see so that the template experts have verify that it is indeed working as it should. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked User:Recitation-bot
Hi @EncycloPetey,

Posting this while at Wikimania 2014 in London at the moment, cheers! We from WikiProject Open Access are slowly, manually running our prospective bot on Wikisource, User:Recitation-bot editing only under the User: namespace to run trials for demonstration purposes and to ensure we improve and meet the standards of quality and performance of the EN:Wikisource community in order to potentially enter the Main: namespace. We received notice that User:Recitation-bot has been blocked. We'd like to address any concerns you or others may have about the functioning of this bot, in accordance with the bot policy at Bot. We are happy to follow-up with any on-going discussion on Scriptorium as well. Looking forward to hearing from you!

Thanks, Mattsenate (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That bot was not authorized to run here, and was blocked. You clearly are aware of the page stating bot requirements, but have not met those requirements. You must meet the requirements for running a bot and then receive authorisation in order to run a bot on Wikisource, regardless of what namespace the bot edits under. I'm not sure where you're having trouble with that, but you do not have authorisation and have not met the minimum requirements. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the thread on Scriptorium is that concerns were raised, but given further discussion, responses to such concerns from yourself and User:George Orwell III were not then rebutted by anyone raising concerns. The final comment on this thread opens up the opportunity for voicing explicit opposition, for which none are stated:
 * So, there is consensus or there's gonna be a vote (I'm not even sure I can vote here on en.source :-) Aubrey (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are un-addressed concerns, I am now respectfully requesting they be re-stated so we can address them directly.
 * Please see this message is sent in good faith, sent from Wikimedians who are genuinely interested in working within the vision and opportunities of Wikisource. The data we are discussing and believe could be valuable to import slowly and appropriately to wikisource clearly meets the guidelines for inclusion. Please help us determine how to improve this process and improve Wikisource.
 * Sincerely,
 * Mattsenate (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Responding to concerns is not the same as receiving authorisation. You must meet the requirements for running a bot and then receive authorisation in order to run that bot on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, except that the exact policy language indeed does make a direct link between responding to concerns and receiving authorisation:
 * If there is no opposition after at least three to four days, the bot may be run slowly without a bot flag to demonstrate the bot. The bot should stop immediately if there are complaints until those are resolved.
 * Seeing no sustained opposition given the responses (rebuttals) on the Scriptorium thread, as I mentioned above, four days passed before we ran the bot slowly in User: space (as User:Maximilianklein details below). Exact dates were (last rebuttal on thread) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC), then (first edit by bot) 00:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Seeing that you have blocked this user, we expect that you have some complaint that we would like to resolve. Is there some other policy that you are citing here that can help me understand this situation?
 * Thanks! - Mattsenate (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the cultural protocol on Wikisource, but on English Wikipedia, what normally happens is that, part of the approval process is that admins authorise a certain amout of test edits- normally about 100, to evaluate the bot's work and peformance. So far I see that recitationbot has made 58 page creations. Can you unblock and authorise 75 pages, and then we will voluntarily stop, so we can go back to the Scriptorium discussion with more concrete work to chat over? The reason for the ask of the extra 17 page creations, is that I've just implemented an improvement to our algorithm and want to test it out (that's why we're using Project space, so its clear this is testing). Maximilianklein (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Mattsenate, (1) Look up resolve and rebut. Notice that these two words have different meanings. So, your rebutting of objections, does not mean that the issues are resolved. Any further wiki-lawyering on your part will be ignored. Wiki-lawyering is not indulged on the smaller MW projects the way it is on Wikpedia. (2) You MUST HAVE AUTHORISATION TO RUN A BOT ON WIKISOURCE. You do not have that authorisation, nor can you give yourself that authorisation. Authorisation is something the community must give you, and it has not done so. I do not understand why this is so hard for you to grasp. If a simple thing like this is such a problem for you, then I can't see allowing you to run a bot here. Ever. Begging me to allow your bot will not resolve the basic issue that you do NOT have community authorisation for the bot.


 * At this point you either "get it" or you don't. I won't be wasting any more of my time on this discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't mean to offend, since the beginning of this thread I was hoping to understand the state of affairs and what courses of action are available. I will re-open the discussion about this bot on Scriptorium and hope we can engage in a good-faith process in pursuit of clear community authorisation. Mattsenate (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have spoken with DM and his team about some of the next steps to progress, and have unblocked the bot. I will be working with the guys to make some of the improvements, and working through the required documentation. — billinghurst  sDrewth  18:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A Lady's Cruise
Sorry about that. Actually I think all mine were Arabic but this didn't match the ones you had already created. All romanised now.--Keith Edkins (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hasanaginica
Why do you change it to Asanaginica. It's wrong term, Hasanaginica means a wife of Hasan-aga, where Hasan is Muslim name, and aga is title. Name Asan doesn't exist at all in any religion or culture. Please revert your changes. --Munjanes (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence that the original English translation was published under that name, please provide the source for verification. We follow the original published sources, not personal or even cultural opinions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this evidence fine? --Munjanes (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's from a different and later publication. We don't retro-actively change published titles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is pro-christianic site, that's why you put Croatian as language of this ballad. --Munjanes (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not Wikipedia; this is Wikisource. We follow the published sources and reproduce them exactly as published. If a Muslim book is added to our collection, we reproduce it as published. If a Buddhist or Taoist book is added, we reproduce it as published. We do not change spellings from the ones that were published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A compromise?
Hey, I've been thinking about our discussion about linking in archived scientific works and I think I've reached a compromise that will please both of us. Check out that example page again. If it looks the same as it did before bypass your cache (ctrl+F5 in Firefox or Chrome). Does this satisfy us both? Abyssal (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It fails to address some key points that I raised. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. I was hoping that darkening the links would increase readability enough to remove the detrimental effects on readability from the extra links. A philosophical question in response to your distaste for my use of links: what is the drawback of a link if it's not drawing attention to itself by being the default bright blue color? Abyssal (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that. I still think there are far too many links, and some of the links are either unnecessary for someone reading the article, or else are so obscure in the method of linkage. It is not necessary for a single work to link to every possible article / entry in the Wikiverse. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please revisit featured text candidate by Adrianne Wadewitz
You helpfully pointed out that Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed needed multiple proofreaders.

It now has that, as some other editors were quite kind as to help out with proofreading.

Could you please revisit your position at Featured_text_candidates ?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Template:Indent/doc
Hello. I saw your update to the "See also" section of the above and thought I'd follow the link. Whilst I agree with the overall connection I felt it dropped the reader (presumably inexperienced) in a bit of a morass of unrelated discussion. Accordingly I have amended the link to more closely follow the theme. Of course if this is counter your intent please revert; it is merely a suggestion. Regards, AuFCL (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I quite agree. The more specific link is an improvement. Thanks! --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What is metadata?
I owe you payback for the quinine stamps anyway, but in response to your query, well&hellip;:. Enjoy! As regards your main-stream line of questioning, I am beginning to suspect the gadget either still does not work; or works in a fashion other than people hope for/expect it to. AuFCL (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ellipses in MOS
Hi, I was wanting to avoid the situation proposed in the third point in Index talk:The Confessions of a Well-Meaning Woman.djvu. The spacing in the statement, before and after my change, is solely about the spaces on either side of the … character. Please feel free to reword my version, but we need to be explicit about which form of the ellipsis we expect to see. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What we may need is a full style guide subpage exclusively for ellipses and things that look like (yet are not) ellipses. There are situations where we do want spaces in between the periods because the string of dots is not actually an ellipsis, but rather a narrative pause in dialogue. In such situations, compressing the dots into an ellipsis character changes the tempo, and thus the meaning, of the dialogue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)