User talk:Lx 121

— billinghurst  sDrewth  14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:header
Can I flag this template to you. Also worth reading the above link about "Wikisource for Wikipedians" — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

hey; thank-you for the tip, but i am not good @ such (template-y & coding) things. i mainly just find texts & bring them here, & do a bit of work on bibliographies. usually, i work @ wikilivres.ca on pd pma-50 stuff, but our site is down & we need to sort out what we're going to do next (official site owner has died, & we're having trouble getting it transferred, or etc.; & having significant reliability problems with the current hosting service).

i know a few mediawiki basics, but i just dont have the time, interest, or patience to fill my head with mastery of these skills; & the things i do focus on learning tend to be for wp/en, wmcommons, or inter/multi/cross-wiki.

i'm also rather short on time for this right now; usually i can just about manage 1 quick upload per day, & that's abt it for my wikiwork free time.

Lx 121 (talk)


 * The template header was used at wikilivres, and in this case the work needed title, author and year parameters, none of which are difficult. I have no expectation that you utilise difficult templates, I do have an expectation that you would try to learn the basic templates. On previous contributions of yours, I have done these for you, and what is required should be self-evident. If you are not prepared to make those basic efforts, to develop your skills to provide the basic quality of works, then maybe this is not the site for you. If you are bringing a work here, you need to provide the source, and a demonstration that the work is out of copyright or freely available; and that equivalent level is expected at all wikis for contributions. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * it's by hl mencken, it was published in 1917, there is a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE about it, which i linked it to. it's also in mencken's bibliography on his page here.


 * you guys have maybe ~100 sort-of active users, you get maybe ~100 non-trivial edits per day, & after all the years this project has operated, you have ~600,000 content pages, which means maybe 1/10th to 1/4 of that number in actual complete title-works.


 * tldr; this project is "moribund".


 * i'm willing to fill in some material here; i can probably find most of the pre-1923 mencken content that you don't have. then i can look for other authors.


 * once wikilivres.ca gets sorted, i can also provide links to pd pma-50 content there.


 * & i'm willing to spend some time doing biblios on the authors i'm uploading.


 * i find content, i upload it, i file it in the appropriate author, year, subject cats.


 * i like to do ~1 substantive upload each day.


 * what i'm not willing to do is futz around with templates that aren't useful to know how to use for anyplace but here, or to deal with other fiddly mediawiki cruft.  i am not interested in such things.  if it really matters that much to you, you can "make it all pretty";  or somebody else, with an undying love for such things, can do it.


 * if that's not useful to the project, then i can go do something else, someplace else; & you guys can just keep on being moribund until the wmf folds you up merges you into wmcommons, or whatever. i'll vote to support that move too, when it comes.


 * i don't need to be here; i am choosing to spend my time locating pd texts & copying them to this place; & right now, you guys don't have nearly enough editors who are choosing to be here.


 * either you want to attract more active users, or you don't. either you want to get more content, or you don't.  being pedantically fussy @ new users, about trivial details of formatting, isn't going to get this project either of those things.  nor is blocking them; especially when the person doing the blocking is involved in the dispute.


 * with all due respect, Lx 121 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

unblock request
unjustified block by personally involved editor; abuse of "disruptive" Lx 121 (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Notified the admins of your request for review. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The Challenge from Beyond
Is it your intention to use The Challenge from Beyond as a disambiguation page? If so, I suggest you use the disambiguation template for that purpose. The basic formatting would be as follows:


 * The Challenge from Beyond (Fantasy)
 * The Challenge from Beyond (Science Fiction)

As for your intro, it is unclear to me whether they are your words or that from the 1935 edition of Fantasy Magazine. No licensing info is required on the disambiguation page, only on the pages linked to. You should also give source information on the Talk page of the blue-linked works using the textinfo template. Then, in the notes section of the textinfo template, you can perhaps add your intro. To add, it is also good practice to add a Similar template above the standard header of the blue-linked work to alert readers to similarly-named works by the same title. Just some initial observations. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

yes re: dab, though it might need to be dabbed further to _(Fantasy Magazine), given the likelihood that the title has been used elsewhere; & the 2 stories are connected as outlined.

words are mine, short summary of same from wp article about 'cosmos' the serial novel (which i uploaded here previously); in the section about sequels. some kind of explanation is needed for the differentiation on here, for endusers; especially as many people (among those interested in such things) seem to be unaware that there were in fact 2 stories published for this "event".

i didn't upload the fantasy version, it was already here, so i can't help you on source except to say that it's "around" online. the lovecraft site has a copy of it, i believe.

am looking for the sci-fi version; which is apparently fabulously rare & certainly difficult to locate...

you are way over my head on the templates thing; i'm sorry. i can locate texts, drag them back here, & file them in appropriate cats, & try to make sure they are formatted legibly; & do rudimentary cross-links with wikipedia, or add relevant images.

Lx 121 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Further disambiguation is not necessary as long as the title has not been used here already. If and when it becomes necessary to disambiguate further, then it is relatively simple to make that "move" then. As far as templates are concerned, they are also rather simple to apply, and are standard practice. There's really nothing technical about them. If you take a look at "Dreyfus" in edit mode (main page and talk page), you will see how basic it is to apply the templates mentioned above. Locating texts and transcribing them here is fine and encouraged as long as they are PD and licensed properly (with links preferably to an original source text for license support and verifiability of content). Images are not added unless they are part of the original source. If an article on the work exists at Wikipedia, you would link to it in the WP section of the header template (see Pro Patria in edit mode). If you are unsure how to use a template, there are plenty of people to ask. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * respectfully disagree -- endusers & "outsiders" need to be able to FIND things on wikisource. if we are not doing that, we're failing the project's mission. it's not a walled garden full of "perfect things"; it's a library.


 * author-only is not sufficient disambiguation for somebody who is searching for material.


 * for example: somebody who is looking for 't.c.f.b.' (fantasy magazine, 1935) might not even know there were 2, how they were different, or which author(s) wrote which. Lx 121 (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Forgive my dimness, but is that not the purpose of the disambiguation page? User searches for 'TCFB', alights onto the disambig page, discovering there are two similar titles (along with their authors). We have Categories and Portals. We have the similar template to alert readers that there are similar works by the same title—if they happen to bypass the disambiguation page in their search. If you have any ideas on how disambiguation can be improved here, you can present your ideas to the community for discussion. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * An after-thought: Yes. WS is a library. And as such, it requires both maintenance and ingenuity to keep it from being a "fail", as you say. You can plant seeds in a "walled garden"—which you are doing here—but without maintenance, the flowers will become choked out by the weeds. Will you be part of the solution? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation by author(s), not by genre
We do not separate titles by genre, it simply doesn't work well enough at Wikisource. Please look to disambiguate by author(s), translator(s) and year(s) of publication, whichever is required. For reference see Naming conventions. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

yes, but end users need to be able to find the stuff; if we're not doing that, wikisource is fail. it's not a private garden; useability matters. Lx 121 (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources are required
To retain a work at English Wikisource, we need more than an assertion that a work is out of copyright. If you are copying the text from somewhere else, then please source it appropriately by recording that detail on the talk page of the work. We wish to clearly know that a work is out of copyright, and that it is a credible version of an edition of the work, and such reference is the means to do that. We have to be able to withstand a challenge of "that work is in copyright" and the information that you are currently providing is insufficient to rebut such a challenge. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * with all due respect, i refer you to my previous answer:


 * "it's by hl mencken (a famous american author), it was published in 1917, there is a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE about it (the essay), which i linked it to. it's also in mencken's bibliography on his page here"


 * i understand what you are saying, but common sense also applies here. Lx 121 (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Your facts above are no guarantee that the website a work is copied from is a faithful transcription of the original work you are citing—a "credible version." The text itself (not merely the work, but the words) needs to be verifiable. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding multiple authors to header
Little trickier, but not too much so. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you intend on seeing through the proofreading of this work? Ideally, since this work was available at Archive.org, we would have uploaded the DjVu file to Commons and transcluded it here instead of copying/pasting text. It gives the reader a quality product—which is the goal, in my opinion. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

replies in order:

ty for the header fix!

i'd rather move on to the next upload, tbh; did not realise what a mess the copy was, when i picked it. have spent hours on something i'd planned to spend ~20 mins on (>__<). fixed some of the worst of it, & filled in the only omission i could find (dramatis persons).

the .djvu text-copy is a worse mess than this was; i went with a c&p of the epub because that seemed to format the best on here. sorry i couldn't get the italics to show up. but you are welcome to try a different file format or copy/version of the text.

here's the full list of what is available:

https://archive.org/download/cu31924021480185

have uploaded the .pdf as a reference. it seems to be the only version available with optical views of the pages (plus the text "read in")

the corrections i have made thus far, are taken from the .pdf; except the dramatis persons list, which is from the bare txt, with some cleanup.

btw; this is nothing like the real heliogabalus  xD

Lx 121 (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

follow-up: had another look, & found a different, completely separate catalogue entry with a different source. found a .djvu with page-images (maybe a little over-cleaned), & uploaded it here, BUT the digitised text is still not clean copy. Lx 121 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Heliogabalus, a buffoonery in three acts (opticals of pages, but text is NOT clean copy).djvu


 * It might be more useful to place the above information/links on the Talk page for this work. That way, if someone interested in improving the project comes along, they will have the added information/research. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your copy and paste
I do not believe that your methodology of copying and pasting poor texts is suitable for the site. It does not comply with our guidance. What would be suitable is for the scans to be uploaded and then transcribed; information about how to do that is above. Thanks. I will be deleting the recent additions that are sub-standard. If you wish to contest their deletion, then please make your request to Proposed deletions. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

will do -- i am sorry that you do not seem to understand the value of providing useful content to end users. such as actually offering CONTENT for h.l. mencken, which is what i am working on now.

nor do you seem to understand how very close to moribund this project has become; perhaps you should review the site traffic data, & then compare it with the other wm projects.

if you do, you will see that NEARLY ALL your user traffic is being fed here by wikipedia; that your active editor base is maybe 100 ppl, & you get maybe 100 non-trivial edits per day, if that, on the entire wiki. & after 14 YEARS of operation you have probably got <100,000 completed works

the wmf is not funding this place to serve as a "private collection", nor it is meant as an imitation-"gutenberg"; it is a public library.

you seem to be completely intransigent & impenetrable to arguement, so i won't keep trying to convince you anymore; we can fight this out via community process.

but i do invite you to read carefully the wikisource "mission documents" before proceeding on this course of action

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource%3F

meanwhile, i shall continue to upload texts for mencken; when i got here, there was a only a rudimentary bibliography, with about a dozen items, of which exactly one was available on ws, & one was linked to google books.

now there is a decent, if not comp0rehensive bibliography of the authour, & a half dozen works.

by the time i am done, i should be able to get almost all of mencken's pre-1923 published works online here.

combined with the pma-50 texts i am working on for @ wikilivres canada, that will provide more mencken materials than can be found online, @ ANY other public resource.

respectfully,

Lx 121 (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Where would WP be without verifiability? Content here is not "useful" if it lacks quality. A quality product requires attention to detail, which takes time and, may I add, dedication. You seem more dedicated to assailing the contribution of our editors than to adding a quality product to the site. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * with all due respect, this is not an "epistemology class". IF or WHEN you have evidence that a given text is unreliable, THEN by all means PRESENT IT.


 * otherwise, if it's sourced, especially MULTIPLY sourced, & it's from a major/known author, AND we have wikipedia articles about same, AND bibliographies, etc.


 * etc.


 * etc.


 * then i really think it should be "ok" to provide USERS with that resource, as per the WS mission-statement.


 * & i'm sorry, but when you get half your work arbitrarily & UNILATERALLY deleted by an admin acting without discussion OR consensus, then you can send out nice comments praising that user's actions.


 * with all due respect, Lx 121 (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)