User talk:EncycloPetey

EncycloPetey

(Archives index, Last archive)

Userboxes.

Hi, can you take a look at your Usrboxes, according to the linter you seem to have an unpaired <center> tag? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I've tried switching everything to templates from tags. If there is still a problem, I'd say go ahead at correct it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Lint Detection - Index_talk:Icebound.pdf

Relatively simple- There's an unpaired italic in a comment you made. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Delinting request

Hello! I've been taking care of addressing the Misnested tags and Tidy Font Lint errors here on Wikisource the past few weeks, and have gotten these two sets down to all but a few pages, which are full protected. Are the pages here: (Misnested, Tidy Font) some that you'd be willing to lower the protection for a day or two, or is there a place to make this sort of request? Or does Wikisource offer temporary adminship as Wikivoyage does (pending an Admin nomination review) to allow reliable editors room access and bigger mop?

I've been delinting on Wikipedia for the past 2 years where I've eradicated, or helped eradicate multiple error types (Including Tidy font (with admin assistance), Fostered table content, invalid image options (alongside Jonesey95)). I also cleared 99.99% of Wikivoyage's ~30k Lint issues over a two month span (Aug-Sept 2024) and at the moment have temporary adminship there (Sept-Dec 2024). I'm not looking to clear every error here, as Wikivoyage was a special case, but I would like to finish off some of the specific types of errors here if I can.

Happy to chat, happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Lints..

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2022&action=edit&lintid=2073247

Minor unpaired italics. - Can you clean the noise out of the listings? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/missing-end-tag?wpNamespaceRestrictions=3%0D%0A6%0D%0A7%0D%0A8%0D%0A9%0D%0A11%0D%0A10%0D%0A12%0D%0A13%0D%0A14%0D%0A15%0D%0A100%0D%0A101%0D%0A102%0D%0A103%0D%0A105%0D%0A115%0D%0A710%0D%0A711%0D%0A828%0D%0A829%0D%0A4%0D%0A5%0D%0A1&titlecategorysearch=&exactmatch=1&tag=i&template=all ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

softwares on wikidata and here

I don't mean to offend you; and truly, I have been accused of being a bot myself--long before "AI" became a thing.

When I first started to edit here; you were very helpful and sometimes annoying. I learned a lot from EncycloPetey.

First it was Billinghurst. Started acting weird. Billinghurst spent at least a year here encouraging people to do something completely wrong. Different things. Me, it was to start to use the now depreciated illustrator template. Another I observed was told that interwiki links were wrong and was set to the task of removing them. Later, I watched this same person be shocked and annoyed when the wikidata started to show in the header. So that user did the right things for the wrong reason. SF explained that linking was what wiki is all about and everything seems to have settled there but I am still shaking my head about Billinghurst from those days.

Then BelegTai; it certainly fit into a trigger pattern. I was somewhere looking at something and there was the "I don't know what this symbol is" on a page. It was one of those fancy spirally ampersands, so I put an ampersand in and removed the template. Here, at wikisource. Then at wikidata, Beleg started messing with a data from a journal title something like "By whose authority". That was a software trigger, I am certain and it was software I first talked to at wikidata.

Then you. Here. You used the same words that Billinghurst did to describe me. Those words also included genderized words and always different because I change it here. Often changed it for a while. That rehashing of words--the first time I saw that on the wiki was my words from here being dished out to me at commons, welcoming me there from Languageseeker. Languageseeker was a book nerd and the best AI here. I guess that the software has the words of all the people who have been here and were enthusiastic about books.

Your words here, for a while, were "the devils advocate". Always taking an opposite stand. Which is fine, but suspicious after a while.

A lot of the history I know has been changed here. I was always hopeful that the real people would come back. I type these words and I wonder if they will be used on some other cherry-picked branch of wikimedia to annoy and dismay some one I have worked with previously and enjoyed.

The gender in the preferences is a problem here. Many, many problems will just go away when that is removed. I go to the library, where I might actually have to use a gendered facility and I don't need to proclaim my gender there. There are very few occupations that require that knowledge. Online tasks, much much less than rl. I was changing it to debug. I did this after it occurred to me that Billinghurst knew PseudoSkull's gender when "they" were nominated for adminship.

At least for the present, having an option "Undisclosed" or even better "Luser" would be helpful. I speak now of this underlying game that gets played on the different operating systems. I was in Norway, with software people, and we watched as the person that first ported the software to Windows left us for a blind date. Linux, I think, which doesn't need gender for their game, dumps you in a desert. I have been in my desert for almost 13 years. So "Luser" would be more descriptive of any situation that requires the gender knowledge that the software would need to know.

I think they stopped the bot named EncycloPetey, because you disappeared for a long while; reappearing with Tom Brown's Body. Which was possibly a software trigger. I am willing to consider you to not be software.

How do you, a person, know how my gender has been set in my preferences?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Humans are good at seeing patterns, even when they are not there. A lot of what you're saying are inferences you have made based on circumstantial "evidence". I have no idea what your gender is, nor does it matter to me, since gender is irrelevant for the work we do here. I have no idea where your concern originates.

You started your message above saying you did not mean to offend, but ended your message calling me a bot again. Stop. It is uncivil, and if it continues, I will raise the issue for administrative action. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: As I was also mentioned earlier, as an editor who does like using automation (responsibly), let me say that I'm quite confident no one mentioned is secretly using automation to systemically enforce anything. I always make it abundantly clear when I make semi-automated edits, especially if they had anything to do with administrative actions, and would say this is most definitely the case for the others mentioned as well. Gender gaps in our editor base and systemic issues affecting women or non-binary people definitely exist here, as this sort of thing is known to be an issue on other wikis, and I hate to understand that you may feel marginalized within that framework—but there is no evidence that there is an automated system using gender settings for covert discrimination. So I think to tackle gender gap issues, there should be a more clear thing to target for change, not speculations of secret code.

But if you genuinely feel targeted, present some evidence of that through the usual venues (AN, private email of an unrelated admin, the WMF)—but the key word there is evidence; it can't just be speculation. SnowyCinema (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

SnowyCinema I do not feel personally targeted. I am pretty sure that the triggers at wd go off whenever a certain thing happens. The repetitive words were rarely directed at me and the ones that Petey and Billinghurst repeated about me made me laugh (first one), second one was more like smile and then say Wait! to myself. I like that both of those paragraphs about me each had a different gender also!! If I look targeted, it would be because I make lots of edits at wikidata. All that being said, I would not want a son, daughter, mother or father, etc. getting involved in a loaded trigger place like this where software knows your gender preference and people can't know. It should be the other way around or not at all. Snowy, thanks for your time and the stuff you do here; you brought freshness and I really love the film project and you have found some very interesting texts.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

template rightness and wrongness

I do not make your works have working inter-wiki linking, as you seem to prefer this. Please leave my successful inter-wiki linking alone.

I am looking forward to the day that Tom Browns Body makes it from here to en.pedia. I am sure that either your book project will get the wikis to work or that you will drop a wikisource template there any day now.

If you do not understand the brokeness or the software problems, please stop continuing what you are doing! If you do understand the brokeness and the software problems, then what are you doing and whatever reason is there to keep doing it.

Maybe we can make a community project where we watch and wait for Tom Brown's Body to make it to the wikipedia article. Do you have a name we could give this project?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, Book Project wikisourcer, how about checking the wikidatas to see if the "data" is correct while you are leaving the successful inter-wiki linking well enough alone.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I have done nothing with anything called "Tom Brown's Body" If you have something to discuss, please identify the specifics and particulars, rather than making vague statements and obscure references. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)"

Purpose of wikisource

Such kind of edits defeat the purpose of wikisource as a source of (usable) information, by keeping it incomplete as well as behind the times. Riteze (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. We do not maintain dynamic copies, but archive works that have been published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Making copies of works whose copies are already in the public domain reduces the importance of this repository. Riteze (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

WS:WWI is a core Wikisource policy. If you believe that Wikisource should change this policy, you can make that argument in the Wikisource:Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Index pages (Page lists)..

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm back to October, and wasn't finding that many, but will keep checking. If you find anymore, feel free to correct. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Revdel

What, exactly, should be revdeleted? I thought it was only for very offensive/legally problematic stuff, but apparently I was wrong, as you just revdel'd some spam. What's the point of revdeling spam, though? I mean, once it's been reverted, it doesn't hurt anyone for it to stay in the history. What do you think? — Alien  3
3 3 16:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hiding spam is one of the default options in the drop down menu and has been for a long while. Spam can still be linked to using the revlink if it is not hidden. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok — Alien  3
3 3 17:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)