EncycloPetey


Thank you EncycloPeteyEdit

Thank you i am very new at this. Just trying.

WikitionaryEdit

I see that you have done significant contributions in wikitonary. I am not able to understand how to edit those pages, can you help me with a sample page? If feasible a guide to how to edit in wikitonary. Thanks Cyarenkatnikh (talk)

TBEdit

Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at Cherkash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Meqabyan/Ethiopian MaccabeesEdit

Yes, I am the translator. I have various reasons for permitting its partial public use.

Meqabyan/Ethiopian MaccabeesEdit

I'd be glad to provide that, but I have little to no knowledge of how wikipedia operates.

Constitution of QatarEdit

There you go -> https://web.archive.org/web/20100730075612/http://www.law.yale.edu/rcw/rcw/jurisdictions/asw/quatar/qatar_constitution.pdf

This again? (Template:PD-anon-1923 edition)Edit

Am I delusional or didn't we already have this discussion last year? The mentioned community discussion hasn't really been active in at least a month, and is on whether to redirect these template pages, not which public domain cutoff date to use, which isn't really in dispute. At any rate, what's the logic in having the year be Jan 1 1924, of all things? It's not Jan 1 1923, which was the cutoff for the longest time; nor is it Jan 1 1925, which is the current correct date. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an open discussion, and 1925 is not the correct year for countries that require 95 years. Works published in 1925 may be 95 years or may be 94 years ago, depending on the date of publication, since we are currently in 2020.
Yes, and that is why the template says works must be published before January 1, 1925. This is actually a requirement in the US, where works enter the public domain at the beginning of the calendar year following their 95th publication anniversary. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
In any event, I would make a proposal before making changes to a template which is part of a contested issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but looking over the discussions from last month as well as last year, you seem to be literally the only person contesting this particular thing. If I am wrong by all means correct me. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
You can see two opposes in the current discussion to five supports. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Any light you can shed here? I fear my frustration may be getting the better of me. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please check the History of this template. Billinghurst, acting as admin, has been reverting premature changes as well while the discussion is still open. The current wording was in place the last time he reverted. Again, if you believe some change is warranted, please participate in the discussion in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

From my reckoning, the correct logic for this template should be as in User:Phillipedison1891/Sandbox/PD-anon-1923. Examples are here. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

overarching   Comment @Phillipedison1891: With regards to the reversion, changes to long-held and long-used templates should be through consensus of the community, not unilaterally by anyone, especially not someone from outside the community undertaking it following a conversation at Commons.—why I reverted. My understanding for copyright expiry is it is the new year turn over, 95 at the end of the year, PMD-70 at the start of the year following, so effectively the same strike of midnight 95+/70+. And as EP says WS:S is truly best that conversation, clarification, questions all take place at the section. No special requirements, it is a conversation, and your questions are likely held by others. It just needs attention and attraction from the zillion of other tasks, and it is not effectively holding up anything, it is just the name. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020Edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 107.190.33.254 01:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Specifics pleaseEdit

Regarding this. Could you specify (on talk) the issues you're seeing so the IP editor has a chance of actually fixing them?

I really don't think the IP editor is being resistant or is trying to avoid following our policies and practices. From all appearances they were just so focussed on the technical musical notation stuff that 1) the problems elsewhere simply didn't register, and, because of that, 2) really didn't understand what you meant when you brought those problems up (they seem to have thought you were attacking their work on the actual musical notes, which I don't think you were particularly concerned about in this instance?). Or put another way, it looks to me like what you're perceiving as antagonism and recalcitrance on their part is really exasperation with what they perceive as hostility and antagonism on your part. But from where I am sitting it looks like a pretty literal example of two people talking past each other!

I'm hoping that if you shift focus to the positive angle (what you want them to do to resolve the concerns), instead of the negative angle (what they did wrong previously), we can still turn this around to a collaborative and collegial way to resolve the issues. It wouldn't hurt to throw in a couple of "I'm sorry if this came across as …, I just meant …" in order to give them too a chance reassess their approach. --Xover (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I checked the notes as well, but the notes looked fine. The time signature, composer, lyricist, title, dynamics, etc. were all missing. This isn't a scan-backed copy, so removing the image leaves a further proofreader without access to the image in order to make comparison. This is different from the English Hymnal or the Army and Navy Hymnal where the IP has been proofreading within a scan.
Procedurally, the issue was sent to WS:AN, and should therefore be resolved and closed by an admin. Until the proofreading has been completed, some indication needs to remain in place to permit proofreading. If the IP isn't seeing the differences, that's fine; someone else can do it later. It was the IP who told us we're not working to any deadline here. Wikisource has always indicated its sources and provided proofread status for scan-backed works. Our procedures for doing so on works not backed by a scan is more higgledy-piggledy, but we still want a second person to validate, yes? How would you indicate the location of the source image and invite proofreading? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not certain I've picked up on what your concern(s?) is. Given there was a ton of (textual) stuff missing when this issue first came up, I had assumed that those things were your main concerns. But am I then correct in thinking that the various specific issues now appear to have been addressed since then? That would jive with my assessment when I looked at the page earlier today (but I turn into a blithering idiot at the first hint anything musical, so I don't necessarily trust my own assessment there). But if there are still specific issues, those were the ones I was asking you to enumerate so they can be fixed.
In any case, provided I've understood correctly, your main concern now is the replacement of an image with Lilypond markup in a non-scan-backed work? i.e. something that would be an issue in any work that is not scan-backed? That wasn't an aspect I'd considered. My immediate thought is that including the image as a thumbnail alongside the Lilypond score, or possibly even on the talk page (ala the {{textinfo}} templates), would be sufficient. I am personally of the opinion that we should require scan-backing for all works, or at least for all newly added works, but so long as we accept non-scan-backed works at all, we will have to live with some compromises. But I may not have thought that through sufficiently. Maybe this is the sort of case where we need to tag the Lilypond in some way to make clear it hasn't necessarily been validated? The current message says does not match the source… maybe that should be changed to "may not match" or something? I.e. something that points at the issue of principle (using Lilypond on non-scan-backed works) rather than suggesting whoever wrote the Lilypond code has done shoddy work? --Xover (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There are still specific differences in the text, but the main concern has always been the replacement of the source image with a Lilypond copy that does not match the source image. If this were a scan-backed work, then this issue wouldn't exist. Since the matter is now at WS:AN, I'm open to suggestions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. We don't have any guidance for this situation anywhere, do we? Now that you explain it I see the issue, but since I'm in the "mandatory scan-backing for everything" camp, the finer points of how to deal with issues like this on non-scan-backed works are probably beyond me. Maybe we need to ask the community (WS:S) for a principle on how to deal with these? Beeswax would probably have some good thoughts on it, and possibly some others who work on scores.
For the bit that's at AN… I really don't think the IP picked up on this particular concern. Heck, I didn't even pick up on it until you explained it here. In which case, it's scant wonder they were getting frustrated and misreading your messages as some kind of attack on them. … Hmm. … If you agree that asking the community is the way to for the Lilypond issue, what do you think about just closing the AN thread referencing that as the path forward? The content issues aren't really a matter for the admins to decide, and the behaviour stuff never really rose to the level of needing admin intervention. Since nobody much else seems to be chiming in at AN, I think I'm sufficiently uninvolved to be able to make such a close. --Xover (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
That sounds feasible. At the least we might get a variety of ideas. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I've closed the thread at AN. Do you want to open the thread at WS:S or do you want me to do it? You can probably articulate the issue much better than me, but I can do it (and you can correct any mistakes) if you're concerned about antagonising the IP again. --Xover (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
PS. I suggest just leaving off the warning message on that particular work for now (rather than reverting the IP yet again). There's no particular hurry to have it there, and after a community discussion it will hopefully be clear what the proper course is. --Xover (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
If you can open the thread, that would be helpful. For the past few days, I'm only able to be on for a few minutes at a time mostly, because RL is keeping me busy. Otherwise, I'll open the thread in a day or two. But a neutral voice launching the discussion is also welcome. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
done. --Xover (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:EncycloPetey
en.m.wikisource.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-34
49302
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:NUFWNPIR4VGRPIZIEXHCMKBNGXRDKK7S
<urn:uuid:cb9599f7-bdd5-45be-bc59-9b329a06f109>
2020-08-09T18:08:54Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:2K4UJVI4NUQULUVK72SJCDM6GBI5XNAK
<urn:uuid:71e08525-89be-4c12-a717-0830b1dd43b0>
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:EncycloPetey
response
<urn:uuid:0235d910-7343-49ca-a18a-da5cea10b59f>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-34
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-167.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/