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

Featured text candidatesEdit

In your comments you linked to Nominations. But what then is Category:Featured text candidates? Which is more trustworthy?

Drat, listed in the category, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave was apparently rejected?

Of all the mentioned candidates, which is most in need of review? The timing for A History of Japanese Literature seems a good reason, and I'm interested in their art, but 'haikai'? Is that singular for 'haiku'? No, more broad w:haikai. Yikes! For me bridging across centuries of English spellings is mind-bending ; dealing with trial spellings/transliterations of Japanese might twist too far! :-) Shenme (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Aside: how interested are you in linking obscurities to Wikipedia articles? That is, looking at page 360 of "A History of Japanese Literature (Aston)" we see reference to a famous novel "Hakkenden". w:Nansō Satomi Hakkenden! When correspondence is obvious, is linking desirable? (After 15 pages (pp 345-360) I've found no errors!) Shenme (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Linking to WP articles is not something I generally do except in headers. There are two schools of thought here about linking to WP. On the one hand, some editors link every word that has a WP article. On the other hand, editors believe in the sanctity of the text and abhor all "annotation" of texts. I fall in between, but more towards the sanctity of text end of things. It becomes distracting to read a text which is heavily linked, and reading on a mobile device becomes frustrating if every time you scroll to a new page, you run the risk of hitting a link. I will occasionally link to WP articles, or link particularly obscure words to Wiktionary. The only two places where I will do a lot of linking are (a) in a bibliography, where I link to Authors (locally, if I can) and works that are mentioned, and (b) in annotations that are present in the work, and which can be enhanced further by such linking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The FT nominations page is more trustworthy than the category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Float rightEdit

Is it a problem with this page or is there something I am missing? –MJLTalk 20:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The following line should pick up where the previous line left off. That is why a "Gap" (in ems) is used. Using {{float right}} causes two problems: (1) the next line will be waaaayy to the right, especially on wider screens (try using a wide screen and you'll see this problem straightaway), and (2) it will float the text beyond the line number. In the Yale Shakespeare series, only the stage directions should typically be floated to the right. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

My little experiment (residual errors)Edit

I know you've been looking over my edits at Index:A History of Japanese Literature (Aston).djvu, but I wanted to summarize.

I've reviewed about 145pp, finding about 12 errors of any worth. So, roughly, after a wonderful original scan and two stages of review, there were still errors at about one out of 12 pages. Many were just punctuation goofs, but the dropped word and the "fine" -> "line" were rewarding.

I was keeping track by chapter, thus:

   Book the First      p   1 - 13    11pp    1 error
   Book the Second     p  15 - 49    35pp    4 errors (w 1 in headers)
   Book the Third
       ch. 1   p  53 - 57             5pp    0 errors
       ch. 2   p  58 - 62             5pp    1 errors
       ch. 3   p  63 - 91            29pp    3 errors
       ch. 4   p  92 - 103           10pp    0 errors
       ch. 5   p 104 - 117           14pp    0 errors
   Book the Sixth  
       Ch. 8   p 345 - 380           36pp    4 errors

Again, I think the original scan being so good _must_ have greatly helped achieving this level of goodness. I think I'll stop for now. Shenme (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Validation and proofreading are always helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)