Thank you EncycloPeteyEdit

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


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)


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

Tom JonesEdit

To resurrect an ancient topic, Hathi Trust now has a complete scan of the first edition of Tom Jones [1]. Would you have any interest in importing it and creating a scanned backed copy of this book? Languageseeker (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Not at this time. I have quite a few open projects at present. Also, looking at those scans, I would be facing poor quality OCR for much of the work. Many of the pages have both the text on the page and the text from the other side of the page showing through. Add to that the fact that 18th-century fonts are not read very well by most OCR tools. I do not relish the idea of embarking on six volumes of 18th-century OCR errors. Perhaps when I have finished some of my projects and have more time than I currently have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I added the scans so if you ever want to work on it, you can. Languageseeker (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Abusing permissionsEdit

This did not require rollback as it was not vandalism but actually the proper usage of an endash instead of the improper usage of a hyphen. Using your admin rights to then lock it from editing is just petty and childish. Why do you want an improper character in this template? How is this better for anyone? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss major changes to large and complex works or to widely used templates before making them. Your edits can have wide-ranging impacts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
That is not a "major change" and it does not have wide-ranging impacts. Please revert yourself and actually answer my questions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
You have made accusations and denials. That is not discussion. If you believe a change should be made across the entire Portal namespace, that is a major change. Please discuss such major changes before making them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
It is not a major change to replace incorrect hyphens with correct endashes. How is that a "major change"? Please revert yourself to use the proper character. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I have explained why it is a major change (see above). --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I have asked you "Why do you want an improper character in this template? How is this better for anyone?" Please answer. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Please explain why you think it is an improper character. Whose standard are you applying? There is nothing in Wikisource:Portal guidelines to support your assertion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hyphens are for hyphenating and en dashes are appropriate for separating running text. See w:Dash#En_dash and the many style guides it cites. See also the proper use of hyphens at w:Hyphen#Use_in_English, none of which are for spacing in running text. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
An absence of this particular situation from that article does not make its use incorrect. Pointing me to an article with handwaving is not a justification; it is avoid the responsibility of offering a justification by saying "it's somewhere in there". But I have looked anyway, and the section on the uses of the en-dash gives three uses, none of which apply here. It is not being used to connect symmetric items, it is not substituting for a hyphen in a compound, and it is not appearing in a sentence. Neither does it appear in a range of values. I see no evidence in the uses to explain why you think an en-dash is correct not why you think a hyphen is incorrect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
A hyphen is incorrect here as it is used to mark a break, as in "N – Nonsense", which is not a way that hyphens are used (i.e. "N - Nonsenes" is incorrect). Why would you think that a hyphen is the correct character to use here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Let the Scriptorium discussion work itself out at this point. You keep making assertions here that things are "correct" or "incorrect" without any support. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

ext scan linkEdit

This template does not belong in main namespace, and especially not on versions pages? Author ns or Portal ns only please. What value does it bring, what are you hoping to do with it? Similarly {{small scan link}} is superfluous. It is not the purpose main ns to link off to back and work areas. This is a similar discussion to the linking of those ugly periodical links. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The namespace limitation is not stated anywhere in the Template's documentation, and has never before been an issue that I am aware of. The small scan links are there where the works are being transcribed. The template will be removed when the work is complete, and thus the template's presence alerts the reader that the scan is still undergoing transcription and proofing. The templates have been in place since 2018, so their removal would be a substantive change. Until the issue is resolved, leave the status quo please. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
You can find a discussion here from 2015 that resulted in the listing of WorldCat, GoogleBooks, and Index links from a Versions page in the Main namespace. You raised no objections at that time. The page's links remain intact to this day. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Wikisource:Versions and Template:Versions That usage is your extension, not others, and is part of the issue that we have when others start smattering it all over the place. The purpose and design of template was specific to tidy up and simplify author ns, and allow for better use of volumes. This is our beautiful display space. We have always said that it was our display space. That the curatorial aspects and more free reign were the author and portal namespaces; not work space. Ext and small scan link make it work and commentary space. And please don't pull that it is not namespace restricted, we have not typically said that anywhere with any of our templates. The reasoned use, used to be enough. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Those are claims, but you've offered no support for them. I have provided a link to a 2015 discussion that resulted in a very different decision from what you are claiming. Are we to throw out the community decision? On what basis? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
No claims? I pointed you to the two community's pages that talk about versions. Please show me there where it is community practice what you are doing. You have pointed me to a discussion on that talk page and now you want to say that sets the consensus of the community for what you are proposing? That is hardly the place for a consensus for universal policy. And then to say that I didn't have comment is a ridiculous statement. Are you truly proposing that community consensus is determined on a random talk page? You would like for me to throw that at one time you that you didn't participate on a discussion on a random talk page and that discussion sets the community practice forever after? You are kidding right? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Further preliminary discussion Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2016-01#Can_a_version_page_have_only_one_blue-link_edition_entry? is hardly an endorsement for what you are proposing, especially in the form that the discussion took place. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I argued the other side in that discussion. But the decision made at that time overrules what I think about the matter. This also points out that the decision "on a random talk page" (as you say) was displayed prominently in the Scriptorium as well. So you cannot claim that the discussion or decision were obscure. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
At zero point have we had community consensus determined on a work's talk page, that is a specious position. Look at the subject line at WS:S and honestly tell me that you think that is a sustainable position that the community delegated ongoing community consensus to that discussion. You are kidding right? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
You are making claims that are unsupported. Let's start with the original claim: Where does it say that {{ext scan link}} does not belong in the main namespace. Where does it say that it is limited to the Author and Portal namespace? I answered your question about the value it brings, so please support your original claim.
You also stated that "It is not the purpose main ns to link off to back and work areas", but we have templates such as {{Incomplete}}, {{migrate to djvu}} and {{Transcluded OCR errors}} that do precisely that. This refutes your claim. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Where does it say that the template should be used in other namespaces. Go back to its purpose. Designed in 2010 to replace links in Author namespace. Where does Wikisource:Versions encourage its use, or request its use? The maintenance templates are clear exceptions as they can only be seen as true main ns templates, though I would love to be rid of them too, but they have met the purpose of the community since 2000s and are a lesser evil as the are on problematic purpose. So please tell me how and why on versions pages you see links to IA from the main ns comply with WS:Wikilinks. They do not add value to our site, they take people off-site. I will start that discussion at WS:S — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
So your argument is essence is that "Since it isn't explicitly allowed or promoted on Wikisource:X, then it isn't allowed." That would mean the template is not permitted in the Portal namespace either, since Wikisource:Portal guidelines does not says anything about the template. The template was created in March of 2010, and predates the creation of the Portal namespace. Nor do I see the template mentioned at Wikisource:Style_guide#Author_pages or Help:Author_pages, so (by your argument) the template can't be used in the Author namespace either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
That is a poor argument. I am saying that the version pages do not talk about that sort of linkage, especially not external. The author and portal namespaces are our curated spaces, not our presented works. The template was specifically created for its use in the author namespace as we were curating spaces to link to lists of works. The portal namespace was a discussed place for further curated works where we couldn't fit them in the author spaces, especially when we moved publishers and the link, it is a reasonable extension. The main namespace is for the presentation of works. Our disambiguation has always been clean and simple, and inch by inch they are getting more and more complex. They are no longer becoming the simpler pointer pages to our works, people are drifting them to becoming pseudo-stub articles and ultimate finding aids for works in multiple places. It is not their purpose, and this creep is becoming noise, and loud noise in the main namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
At this point the discussion should move to a community decision. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


I was looking into Vladis13 due to an unrelated (technical) request elsewhere, and noticed they were blocked here. Given what's visible in the contributions log, an indefinite block (or even a month, for that matter) and revoking talk page access seems a bit excessive… Is there more to this story that I'm missing? Xover (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor was transferring interwiki links from Wikisource projects to Wikidata and deleting them from their home Wikisource projects, then merging editions of the same work in different languages into single data items on Wikisource. Both billinghurst and I tried to explain why this should not be done, and it became a thing on Wikidata. The block here was to prevent further loss of data here since the user refused to accept guidance from multiple people on multiple sites. His edits on Wikidata as recently as this month show that he still does not fully understand the difference between a "work" and an "edition", sometimes putting editions on their own data items and sometimes on the data item for the work, and sometimes merging work and edition data items. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. I see. Handling issues arising from Wikidata is indeed hard, and will only get harder as time goes by. We're going to have to eventually figure out some process for that.
But in the mean time, blocking someone here for their actions on Wikidata is a little iffy. And blocking any good faith contributor—no matter how misguided or belligerent—for more than hours or a couple of days seems excessive. The goal of such blocks is to prevent immediate harm or defusing an immediate situation until a more robust decision process (i.e. a local or project-wide discussion) can be employed, and they should generally be escalating (i.e. start with a very short duration, slowly increase the length if the previous block failed to get the situation in a constructive track).
For good-faith contributors, a month-long block is a bit excessive to be imposed unilaterally by a single admin, and an indef block with revoked talk page access should definitely only be imposed by the community. Keep in mind that without access to edit their own talk page they can't even request an unblock without jumping through hoops: it's a "life without possibility of parole" sentence. That's way out of proportion to the crime, even if we were to include the actions at Wikidata, and definitely so when viewed only in relation to their contributions on this project. Xover (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, I am suggesting that you should unblock them. Indef is out of proportion to their actions, and an indef block should not be imposed unilaterally by a single admin for any nominally good-faith contributor. It is entirely possible they would have ended up there in the end, but then through continued and more serious disruptive behaviour and with the ban imposed by the community. Xover (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. Note that I have not been as active in recent months. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)