User talk:Peterbbishop

Obviously belated. Looks like we all missed your comments from last September. Oopsie. Your comments at Talk:The Gods of Pegāna reflect why we now much prefer our works to be backed by scans as is broadly our current practice. From what you are saying you have the http://www.archive.org/details/godsofpeganawith00dunsuoft version. Though I see three versions at http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22Gods%20of%20Pegana%22 though I have not compared each to the other.
 * The edition you reference above is the London edition. My edition is the Boston edition, at http://www.archive.org/details/godsofpegana00duns
 * It appears that most of the content for the Gods of Pegana was obtained from later Dover editions appearing later in the 20th century, rather than from processing these scanned versions.
 * I had not found these, I really appreciate your pointing them out to me.
 * --Peterbbishop (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I have a question, do you think that the work that we have is a truthful representation of the work, or should we be looking to get one of the earlier versions as a djvu file and working from those to get our edition. If we think thatt the version that we have is unreliable, then we should probably be labelling it. Billinghurst (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As an example of our current preference, the pages Help:Proofread and Help:DjVu files are the local information, and examples of the practice are Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day/Dean Stanley and Index:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu.

If you need extra info, welcome to drop a note here, or ask questions at the community's Scriptorium. Billinghurst (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)