Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 4,401,136
No. of articles = 1,063,704
No. of files = 16,215
No. of edits = 14,431,769

---

No. of pages in Main = 617,208
No. of pages in Page: = 3,296,208
No. validated in Page: = 651,819
No. proofread in Page: = 1,281,952
No. not proofread in Page: = 1,064,897
No. problematic in Page: = 45,553
No. of validated works = 6,496
No. of proofread only works = 6,507
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 407,707
% transcluded pages in Main = 66.06
Σ pages in Main

---

No. of users = 3,138,534
No. of active users = 382
No. of group:autopatrolled = 501
No. in group:sysop = 23
No. in group:bureaucrat = 2
No. in group:bot = 17

Statistics
User preference statistics
Special:Statistics

Checkuser requests

• Wikisource:checkuser policy
• At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to be undertaken by stewards
  • it would be expected that requests on authentic users would be discussed on this wiki prior to progressing to stewards
  • requests by administrators for identification and blocking of IP ranges to manage spambots and longer term nuisance-only editing can be progressed directly to the stewards
  • requests for checkuser

Bureaucrat requests

• To request a global rename, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

Other

Category:External links on protected pages & Category:Templates used in Mediawiki namespace

We have a bit of a maintenance issue in that external links in protected templates and mediawiki: ns are being missed when we are updating links. To assist, I have created the above parent tracking category to label such pages. We obviously cannot use it on Mediawiki: pages, so will have to be content with putting it on the corresponding talk page. I am working through creating subcats for each WMF tool that I find as they are more likely need to be what is changed, and will do some checks. I will note that as some of these pages use conditional code or includeonly so may be a little tricky to find by searching. [Reminder to not unnecessarily hide things to just avoid visual errors in non-display namespaces or ugly display code.] I am hoping that this will also allow us to check these a little more easily as we have suffered some link rot. I think that we may also need to put some checking categories on these so we can at least check these yearly, though haven't got that far and welcome people's thoughts.

I have also identified that we have had some templates transcluded to the mediawiki: ns that have not been protected. Can I express that any such templates need to be fully protected. If you are using a template within another template, then all subsidiary templates also need to be protected. Noting that it often it can be safest to simply use html span and div code and embedded css.

On that note, if we are protecting templates, it is better practice to use separate {{documentation}} so the docs can readily updated without someone asking for editing of protected templates. This is not pointing fingers, as some of these are old static pages that don't readily get traffic, and reflect older generation practices.

I welcome any suggestions/feedback here, and any help perusing of the template: and mediawiki: namespaces for targets. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems we already have Category:MediaWiki namespace templates, I will transition to that and update categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Time to review protected pages

Hi all,

Special:ProtectedTitles (pages that do not exist and are protected from creation) and Special:ProtectedPages (pages that exist but have protection applied to limit changes or moves) have amassed quite a lot of cruft that seem unlikely to still be in need of protection. In other words, it's about time we go through those lists and remove protection settings for pages that no longer need it.

For example, we have create protection for a bunch of pages with "naughty" titles that were spammed by a vandal years ago, but that are now very unlikely to be targeted. These should have their protection removed so they do not show up on that list (where they might give people ideas). Contrariwise, I Have a Dream is create protected because it is a copyvio that keeps getting added and so it still needs protection.

Each entry on those lists need that sort of assessment, and the goal is to have as few protected pages as possible (but not less than necessary). Main rule of thumb is: if the protection was the result of a problem several years ago, and has not been recurring or ongoing, then the protection is probably not now needed.

I will probably start going through the lists at some point, but this should definitely be a task that all admins help out with as their time and inclination allows. Xover (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Re ProtectedTitles, I don't think that we should waste much time looking through the list, it is works we shouldn't have and vandal only pages that we will never have. If it is getting cruft that would expire, we would be better off having some rigour on the duration we use, and if we don't feel that the current dropdown is sufficient, then we can add to mewdiawiki:protect-expiry-options, otherwise I just typically just type a date YYYY-MM-D which works perfectly for me.

Re ProtectedPages, I would think that the only pages we would wish to review are those that are fully protected in the main namespace, why would we want to review others elsewhere? To what benefit? They are not system source users.

Run a light eyeball down the list … sure, though the best system approach is not hitting these things too hard with protection in the first place. If we think that the information about how to appeal or address a blocked page is insufficient, then let us look at the default messages, and how we can improve them. The list of default and adapted messages is at https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllMessages&offset=Protect&limit=100 — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to hide offensive titles from the public view unless any other comments.--Jusjih (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried to hide an offensively named deleted template from the deletion and protection logs, but removing it from Special:ProtectedTitles requires unprotecting it. Revert my acts if desired.--Jusjih (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jusjih: If there are log files that need oversight, then talk to a steward and get them to oversight, it won't be a matter for us with admin rights. Otherwise, it seems you are trying to have your pie and to eat it too. The pages are not existing, so there is not reason to hide them; they won't get indexed and shouldn't be searchable. Every time you do something you are creating logs, so these become overt in the logs. The listing at ProtectedTitles is system generated to show what we have blocked from being created, and as such is a list, and I doubt that it is especially indexed by bots. It seems that this is a solution in search of a problem. I am not seeing a general problem that needs fixing, especially from Joe Public's point of view. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Then ProtectedTitles may need a new function from very privileged users to hide offensive things. I abstain from this topic.--Jusjih (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It exists, it is called suppression (ws:Suppressors), rights explained at special:ListGroupRights, and for us we either need to elect two, or we utilise stewards in the absence of us having elected suppressors, per m:Oversight policy. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Download button vs. download sidebar

I’m reporting this here because I think an administrator needs to fix a page. The download features in the sidebar don’t do the same thing as the “download” button which floats to the right of the title; see, e.g., here, where the “Download” button gets the whole book, and the download sidebar features only get a list of the books. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Error on the Main Page

There is some error notification on the main page, saying: "Lua error in Module:PotM at line 18: Couldn't find a month in the past or present to start from." -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the offending bit of code, at Module:PotM:

-- skip any months in the future
for k, month_data in pairs(data) do
	if now["year"] >= month_data["year"] and now["month"] >= month_data["month"] then
		return k
	end
end
-- this should never happen unless all the data is removed
error("Couldn't find a month in the past or present to start from")

Just for quick reference. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek @PseudoSkull I rolled over the current text manually in Module:PotM/data, so that the error message is no longer displayed. Not sure why the error occurred though. Hope that was okay. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Bleh. That code is broken in at least two different ways. I'll see about fixing it, but it's going to be a bit tricky (mainly to test without too much noise in production) so it might take a while. Meanwhile it can break at any time due to Scribunto updates (but probably won't), and the only way to avoid this year rollover problem is to get ahead of it with data for january before the end of the year.

For those interested, the problems with the current code are: 1) It's relying on Lua returning the data from Module:PotM/data in the order it is specified in the page. That's incorrect; Lua pairs() order is explicitly undefined, depends on the implementation, and can change at any time. If it ever changes this code will start displaying a seemingly random month on the front page. 2) It's trying to do numeric comparisons on date data, and as many programmers have discovered the hard way over the years, dates are not numbers. Even in the best case, when data for January 2024 was missing, the above code would have shown January of 2023 instead of December 2023. But as it happens we don't have a single entry in this page for January of any year, so the condition that the month of the entry be less than or equal to the month number of the current month (January, month 1) cannot be satisfied.

The fix is to 1) sort the data before iterating over it, and 2) use actual date math to compare the dates (so that December of 2023 is considered less than or equal to January of 2024). Xover (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I made a fix to select either this month or the nearest month in the past. Mpaa (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I am still seeing this error on the main page, so if it was believed that this error was fixed on the 1st, unfortunately it has returned. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Different issue. See WS:S#Template:Index progress bar error message. Xover (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Informing you about the Mental Health Resource Center and inviting any comments you may have

Hello all! I work in the Community Resilience and Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Mental Health Resource Center is a group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community.

The Mental Health Resource Center launched in August 2023. The goal is to review the comments and suggestions to improve the Mental Health Resource Center each quarter. As there have not been many comments yet, I’d like to invite you to provide comments and resource suggestions as you are able to do so on the Mental Health Resource Center talk page. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Thank you! Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for Module:ISO 639

I've streamlined this module a lot, moving the lookup tables into separate subpages and relying on mw.language.fetchLanguageNames when possible. Based on tests at {{ISO 639 name/sandbox}} and Template:ISO 639 name/testcases, everything seems to be in order. Could someadmin please merge my code from Module:ISO 639/sandbox to Module:ISO 639, and then protect Module:ISO 639/local and Module:ISO 639/overrides? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled & flood flags up for myself

Lately I've been working on A Chinese Biographical Dictionary, a book containing thousands of pages (source + mainspace). Part of my tasks are bulk actions, typically mass replacing and formatting (e.g. headers of every pages). They're carried out with the aid of JWB. While carrying out aforementioned tasks, RC might be easily flooded by my edits. As for mainspace pages, each entry should be on separate subpages (1,000+ to be created), which is inefficient to be patrolled one by one. That's why I'm requesting autopatrolled and flood flag here for myself. For flood flag, 1-2 weeks should be enough. -- U.T. 02:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. Does anyone? BD2412 T 02:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We generally don't mark pages as patrolled (maybe we should, but…) so autopatrolled is not an issue. For the flood flag that sounds like a good idea, but I'd like to see a more concrete example of the bigger things you're planning to do. I'm guessing there will be smaller ad hoc text replacements and such, which is fine. But the bigger tasks I would like to review to make sure we don't end up with a mess of hard-to-fix style guide deviations or similar. Either upfront if you have a plan, or step by step if you figure it out as you go along. I also note that Index:A Chinese Biographical Dictionary.djvu is nowhere near proofread yet, so I'd like to hear more about your plans for mainspace. Xover (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have clear plans for this book. Look at my edits during April 8 and 9, you can see that many edits have summary "via JWB", which explains why I'm requesting flood flag. These edits are mass header formatting I mentioned above. It haven't finished yet, as rest pages of this book needs the same process (which is too tedious to do it manually one-by-one), and I would resume it via JWB once I granted the flag. After then, I would proof these pages: almost all pages in this book contain Chinese characters, few people here on en.ws can deal with these texts. Meanwhile, I would update the index and transclude book pages into mainspace entries, as you see, part of which are currently usable. -- U.T. 07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Unite together: The accented-character-replacements and {{rh}} stuff is fine. The use of {{CBD article link}} in |next= and |prev= for {{header}} I am less enthused by. Our general practice is to put relative links in those parameters, and as plain wikilinks, which means that's what other contributors and some tools will be looking for. Using the template would appear to give no benefit there, but does add a needless level of complication. It's the kind of thing that makes sense when you're focussed on a single work, but not when you look at the whole picture. In this particular case I suppose it's easy to bot-convert to normal links after the fact if it turns out to be a problem (which makes it a lot less risky for this purpose). But that sort of thing is why I'm asking for nitpicky details on your otherwise excellent plan. Xover (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My main concern with granting the flood flag for an extended period of time (i.e. more than 1 hour) is that any edits outside the agreed parameters will not appear in RC and will therefore not have routine visibility short of wading through the logs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Well... I'm in a vastly different time zone than most of you. Unsure if I'm sleeping when you granted me flood flag for less than 1 hour. -- U.T. 02:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that you told me that what's fine enough (noncontroversial), I'd restrict my mass replacements into these scopes. I have no plans outside the scope of this book for now. BTW, do everybody here think this edit by me is good enough for mass replacing (In the case of this book, each subpage for dictionary entry actually contains one section)? -- U.T. 02:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with that. I'll put your flood flag up for 24 hours, and will check your edits manually at the end of it. BD2412 T 02:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- U.T. 02:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Also I noticed that some sidenotes are misplaced while working (appearing on the right whilst it should be on the left in the source). Shall I fix it with JWB as well? -- U.T. 03:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If you can do that, yes, go ahead with it. BD2412 T 03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you remind me about how autopatrolled works? I just toggled a "patrolled" on a web page I looked at, mindlessly, to get rid of it. Then I remembered that just leaving it alone doesn't "call in the scrutinizors" and toggling it does. So, I would like a brief refresher coarse here on its use here. Toggles mean one thing or the other and default doesn't always apply. Xover?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Users who have the autopatrolled right has all their edits automatically marked as "patrolled". For everyone else every edit is marked as "unpatrolled". That means that those who patrol pages can collaborate by marking an edit as "patrolled" when they have checked it so that other patrollers do not need to check it for a second time. The goal when using the system like that is that every single edit should be checked and marked as "patrolled". Autopatrolled is then a way to save the patrollers time by saying "this user's edits never need to be checked". But since enWS does not really use this system like that, it's not an issue for mass edits that are already flood-flagged (they don't show up on Recent Changes to begin with). We use autopatrolled status more for the normal intermittent edits, where the user is trusted not to mess stuff up. Xover (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The wikipedia article of the day is of Kurt Vonnegut. I saw him and heard him speak, on a campus, in 1984. He said about that year in books, that having gotten from 1948 to then, he knew that the big brother scheme is too expensive. Patrol is labor intensive. In order to surveil a person, in the real 1984, it would take a minimum of three trusted people for every one untrusted. How many of a users edits need to get toggled before they lose their (!)? And, is that what we are talking about? The exclamation mark that causes that newbie here toggle to appear?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The red exclamation mark tags any edit that has not been marked as "patrolled", either manually by someone tagging it or automatically by the user being in the Autopatrolled group, in the Recent Changes feed. And an admin will assign the Autopatrolled group to a user when they think that user can be trusted to not make a mess; for your typical new user case that happens when they recognise the username over a period of time and their edits exhibit familiarity with policy and practices on the project. But we're getting rather far afield from the topic of this thread (which is about a special case involving a high rate and volume of automated edits). Xover (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Move request

Author:Augustus de Morgan -> Author:Augustus De Morgan (fix capitalisation). This matches the Wikipedia article and the capitalisation used in his writings. Arcorann (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

To add here, the page at the target needs to be deleted since it has page history, so I can't do it myself. Arcorann (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

User:LlywelynII

@LlywelynII: is repeatedly adding extraneous material the The Poems of William Dunbar (1834), specifically adding a Supplement volume published in 1865. The biggest problems with this issueis that (a) LlywelynII is adding an external link as part of the additions; and is adding this external link to a potential scan inside the Aux ToC for the work. (b) I have asked LlywelynII not to do this, but have been reverted several times. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

(a) User:EncycloPetey has ignored repeated attempts to talk about this on my talk page, edit summaries, and the talk page of the work. (b) He's now violated WP:3RR (1, 2, 3, 4), which I assume applies here as well, despite my attempts to talk and an edit summary warning. (c) There's associated edit warring on Author:David Laing, which I had been expanding, almost entirely related to E'Petey's distaste for the 1865 supplement to the work he's (helpfully!) been working on.

Kindly help him cool his jets, remind him to avoid entirely blanking content and to actually talk to people instead of smacking revert, and I'll add some notes on the actual issues in a second. — LlywelynII 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

User:LlywelynII has accused me of not discussing or responding, yet I have 1, 2, 3. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not an accusation. It's a description from my POV of what actually happened. They'll look into it.

My own read is that a "Nuh uh" reply to the points I made on the work's talk page followed by continued reverts (without commentary) falls under failure to discuss. — LlywelynII 16:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any points on that discussion page. You point out that the Supplement is weird and that the 1865 edition (which is a separate edition) has multiple volumes. Then you reverted the removal of the 1865 content from the existing 1834 edition, without ever explaining why you think the 1865 content must be shoehorned into the 1834 edition, or why you put an external link to an external scan for a volume from the 1865 edition into the auxiliary table of contents for the 1834 edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

With all patience and kindness, try rereading what I actually wrote. It does clearly explain why I think the 1865 content is part of "The Poems of William Dunbar" for several reasons. (Or wait: I'm about to note them again below for any admins who come through.) — LlywelynII 16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

On the merits, no, there's no dispute about the external scan link on the work page. I've already noted that E'Petey can certainly move it to a better location (the work's notes, talk page, etc.) so that it's available to readers but not violating any policy, if there is one. (None's been cited but sure it could exist.) My only concern is keeping the link available since there's no scanned version yet, like there is with the other two volumes. E'Petey's ignored that and continued entirely wp:blanking the well-formatted content from the work's supplement. Undoing that restores the external scan link, but I'm still open to moving it anywhere appropriate and still helpful to the wp:readers. (Notes on the Supplement itself in a sec, since that's the main actual disagreement.) — LlywelynII 16:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Since I've already addressed the issue of the external link in this reply, I clearly did not ignore the issue, as the link exists now on the Author page. But my reply recommending this approach was ignored. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It further needs to be available on the work's page or talk, not only the editor's page. It also isn't, e.g., on Author:William Dunbar's page, although I can fix that. Again, though, neither here nor there since no one has any issue with moving the external link out of the running text. The actual issue was the wholesale blanking of all the other content around it. — LlywelynII 17:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do the contents of one edition need to be present on the page for a different edition? I don't follow your reasoning --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

See above and below. If it really helps to repeat it again, the bits that seem hardest for you are that The Poems of William Dunbar isn't "one edition" just because a single edition has been parked there so far. It's the namespace for the work as a whole, not a specific edition of it. Further, the supplement is a supplement specifically for that edition and is a later part of exactly the same edition of exactly the same work. The 1865 edition itself merged that content with its Volume I. — LlywelynII 17:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The 1865 edition is complicated, but it is a separate publication with different publication data from the 1834 edition. The fact that one volume was prepared with the 1834 edition in mind does not make it part of the earlier edition. Nor does it justify adding a contents listing to a page for the earlier edition. There is (and has long been) a note in the header that a supplement was prepared. If that supplement is ever transcribed here at Wikisource, that header note can become a link to the Supplement volume in the 1865 edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as the actual issue, which is that EncycloPetey feels they need to revert any content on The Poems of William Dunbar that isn't part of Laing's 18354 edition, (i) that's not how that namespace works. Like I explained on the talk page, if they moved it to The Poems of William Dunbar (1834), they'd have a mostly solid point but the general namespace covers the entire work with its later emendations, although sure they should be noted. (ii) The second 1865 edition of Laing's work was also a 2 volume work. It included the supplemental material in its Volume I. I didn't edit the Volume I to change anything about the 18354 edition. It's still there in its entirety, although the second edition can/should be noted at Author:David Laing since he did it and made some major changes. That information is another thing E'Petey's been removing during this. (iii) The "3rd volume" of the 1865 edition was a version of the supplement to be used by owners of the previous 18354 edition. In other words, it precisely is a later addition to the 18354 form of the work, to be used as an additional part of that edition. (iv) Even if it weren't a later part of the 18354 edition (and it very much is) and even if the namespace The Poems of William Dunbar should only be used for its 18354 edition and not any part of its 1865 edition (which it very much isn't), the actual solution there would've been to move the fully formatted treatment of the Supplement's contents to a new holding page and then linking over, not blanking everything in reverts. (v) Reverts on my end have been trying to avoid the blanking of valuable content, but sure I'll go back and undo anything necessary to avoid policy issues on my end.  — LlywelynII 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the page is currently for the 1834 edition, that is how that page works. If the 1865 supplement needs to be added, then a versions page needs to be created, and the work can be listed there. But the contents of an 1865 volume should not be added to the table of contents for an 1834 edition. Since you keep appealing to lack of policy, I will note that I have yet to see any evidence that policy advocates for this approach to mixing contents from two different editions on the same edition page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Not how namespaces work. It's the namespace for all forms of that title or the major work with that title. That'd be the complete version of Laing's work, not the first edition without his later supplement specifically for it. Again, yeah, that misunderstanding is the central issue and what someone with authority just needs to point out to you. Absolutely your work on the 1834 edition is still very much appreciated.

Edit: Wikisource:Style guide is the link you're asking for, although you're right that separate editions generally shouldn't be included on a single page and you'll probably continue to disagree that that supplement is a supplemental part of the 1834 edition. Again, if you feel very strongly on that point, the solution is having a dab page between the editions, moving yours to the 1834 section, and still not blanking formatted content. — LlywelynII 17:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It sounds as though you have a personal opinion at odds with current practice regarding editions. We have only the 1834 edition right now, and its mainspace location is The Poems of William Dunbar.

We do not have the 1865 edition; not even a single volume. No scans of the 1865 edition exist on Commons as far as I know, and no transcription has started anywhere on Wikisource. So there is no reason yet for a disambiguation page.

If we did have the 1865 edition, it would be placed on a separate page from the 1834 edition, and not on the same page with another edition. Just as we have not put the various editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica onto the same page, nor blended the contents of editions published in different years, we would not blend two different editions of other works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘

@LlywelynII: You're confused. The wikipage The Poems of William Dunbar is not a "namespace", it is a specific edition of this text (you may be thinking of a {{versions}} page). The enWP policies you cite have no bearing on enWS, and in any case, although they are clearly acting as a contributor in this case, EncycloPetey is an admin on enWS so it might be a good idea to assume they are well familiar with the policies and practices on the project.

The issue of whether the 1865 supplemental volume should be considered as a part of the 1834 edition is one on which reasonable people can disagree, which means it would be entirely appropriate to bring that to the wider community at the Scriptorium for input (if interested contributors can't figure it out on the text's talk page). What is not reasonable is to edit-war to include redlinked references to an 1865 volume in a 1834 text. Once challenged (reverted) you should have pursued the issue through (polite, constructive) discussion rather than edit-warring. You yourself admit this 1865 volume is at best a stepchild, bibliographically speaking, so edit-warring rather than explaining the issue and asking for input on how to resolve it seems quite disproportionate.

PS. EP: While you were clearly acting as a contributor here, you are an admin and you could have been more diplomatic about this. Reaching for the talk page rather than the revert button would have set a better example (irrespective of who's right and wrong). Any incorrect changes can always be reverted later if necessary. --Xover (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The content on the page is currently a specific edition. The namespace covers all works by that title or the primary one. The 1865 edition had exactly the same title and, if anything, would be the primary form. Yes, that was part of the problem and the linked policies do cover the correct resolution: converting it to a versions page or handling the full main version, which would include the supplement. Of course, you're right that if there's not enough discussion at the talk page, it should be punted to the Scriptorium; there was edit warring, failure to talk, and escalation to this discussion instead. As far as edit warring and failing to talk, yep, sucks but was on the other end. That said, sure, they're an admin and this is apparently as good as I'll get, although you could've singled out entirely blanking content as particularly inappropriate, particularly for an admin.

Since this makes the second admin who couldn't care less that the content is missing, though, I'll just thank you for your time and drop it entirely. — LlywelynII 06:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: EP could certainly have done more to help defuse the situation, but it takes two to edit-war and you were the one making changes that turned out to be controversial and didn't stop when challenged. I don't know what "entirely blanking content" you're referring to, but if it is simply reverting the edits to The Poems of William Dunbar I don't consider the blanking aspect of that problematic at all. The content is easily available for retrieval from the revision history and at least nominally didn't belong there (without a prior discussion, I mean). Xover (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: This is probably not the right place to discuss the content of a page, I have added my opinion to Talk:The Poems of William Dunbar. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Content auto flagged as vandalism

Hi! I recently tried to make a content change at 9/11 Dispatcher transcript. One of the 9-1-1 employees in the Melissa Doi transcript is currently described as 'unidentified', but in the full call, at the 23:55 second mark, this person self-identifies as ACD 2252. I tried to change 'unidentified' to CRO ACD 2252, but a pink message informed me that this was automatically identified as vandalism.

This is a link to the full Melissa Doi call. In the first track, titled "Moussaoui trial calls", at the 22:50 mark you hear Dispatcher 8695 asking ACD for their ACD number. They identify as 2252. This is the same woman heard at the beginning of the call. LoopyBreeze (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

After giving it a second try, this edit was successful, however... LoopyBreeze (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note that our transcript is the one that was referenced in the New York Times. If there are errors, you can note them on the talk page, but Wikisource does not alter published documents. We present them according to what was provided. However, if you note a discrepancy between the source document text and our text, then we would correct to match the source text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: On what do you base the assertion that our text is from the New York Times? It's been a while since I looked but so far as I recall I concluded that Sherurcij had partly transcribed them directly from the audio recordings and partly cut&pasted from various random places on the web (including forum posts, blogs, newspaper articles, etc.). I don't recall ever finding a direct published source for any of these (except the NTSB cockpit voice recorder transcript, which is one exhibit from a larger report). Xover (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where or when I picked up that impression. Looking at the PDF we have, I'm unsure of its origin now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, @Xover: thanks for your responses. I fully understand what you're saying, and I would never edit textual content if I was aware that was directly sourced, in keeping with the same principle as "verifiability, not truth" on Wikipedia.

The thing is, there's no source in that article for the Melissa Doi transcript. I've poured over the Moussaoui trial documents, as well as the FOIA releases, looking specifically for a Doi transcript, and I've never found anything. I'm confident that a textual source for the full transcript doesn't exist, but given the sheer volume of 9/11 info, I can't rule out that I've missed something.

The closest thing I've seen to a decent secondary source about the call is from Truth Worth Telling. But even this is not a transcript.

Without an actual independent source, I'm unsure how to proceed. Does Wikisource allow for this kind of user-generated transcript? LoopyBreeze (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@LoopyBreeze: No, that's kinda the problem with our existing text there, and your comments illustrate why: transcribing raw audio recordings require judgement and detective work (can vs. Karen). Since these are raw first-responder recordings that have merely been released rather than actually published (by a reputable publisher, roughly along the lines of WP:RS) we cannot rely on "a reliable secondary source" to do that interpretation for us. Thus Wikisource contributors would be engaging in original research, and publishing novel results (i.e. it would fail WP:RS/WP:V and WP:NOR).

That being said, there is a significant (vocal) minority of the community that really wants us to host this kind of primary source material, and we have a lot of texts added when the project was new (before modern standards were established). Combined with project policy pages that are nowhere near as rigorous and with almost no bright-line rules it's very hard to give you a clear answer or a path forward. What I think you're wanting to do is strictly speaking in conflict with our policy, but it is entirely possible that if brought up for, say, a deletion discussion it would still be kept. Or put another way, there's a reason I haven't tried to clean up and get a resolution for our existing transcripts despite being problematic in several ways.

What advice I can give, though, is that what is unquestionably in scope is things like published NTSB reports that include transcripts as addendums (always provided the licensing is compatible obviously). Judgements from court cases that have been published by the courts (but not the briefs etc. from non-government attorneys, those are protected by copyright). Books, newspaper or journal articles, etc. Our coverage of 9/11 material would be vastly improved if we had a few actual published reports etc. instead of the existing mishmash of transcripts of the raw recordings. If you have any interest in this area, identifying key published sources would be a very good start. Xover (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed you're a new new user. For some reason I had you pegged as an existing user from Wikipedia that was just new to Wikisource. Apologies for the jargonitis in the above message. The abbreviations refer to core policies on Wikipedia (that we often refer to here by way of analogy). "WP:RS" refers to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "WP:V" to Wikipedia:Verifiability, and "WP:NOR" to Wikipedia:No original research. These are policies and guidelines for Wikipedia and are not directly applicable to Wikisource, but the principles they represent have analogues here. I thought I was being helpful when I referenced these above, but I realise now that I probably just complicated matters with dense site-specific jargon. Xover (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Index:Indian Medicinal Plants (Plates Vol 4).djvu

I have added the missing plate, which is at /375 (with /376 added in as a blank back-of-plate). So, everything from /375 needs to be moved up two places. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Like the request below, I see nothing here that actually needs moving. Xover (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: Look, for example, at /381. (This was /379.) The page should be marked “problematic,” as it needs a plate, but is blank because the old /381 (now /383) was blank. That’s why everything needs to be moved up. The same logic applies to the index below. (The reason for this is because Plate 748 was a fold-out plate. The first scan, old /381 new /383, was the folded-up portion; the second scan, old /383 new /385, is it with the plate folded out.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: It's a bit slow, but I get there in the end. :) Done. Xover (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Indian Medicinal Plants (Plates Vol 5).djvu

I have added the missing plate, which is at /91 (with /92 added in as a blank back-of-plate). So, everything from /91 needs to be moved up two places. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I'm probably just being dumb again, but it looks like all Page: pages are aligned with the scan already. Could you check and/or explain further? Xover (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: The same applies to this section as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Done Xover (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Chronicle of the law officers of Ireland.djvu

I have replaced the page that was poorly scanned and at the same time removed the extraneous pages. /1 needs to be deleted; /2 to /12 moved down one; /13 and /14 deleted; and /15 to the end moved down two. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Done Xover (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Clarissa, Volume 2.pdf

I have added in the two missing pages and, in doing so, have also removed the null first page. So, please delete /1 and move all from /2 to the end down one. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Done Xover (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Enrico Malatesta - Anarchy - James F. Morton - Is It All a Dream (1900).pdf

The placeholders were added in the wrong places, so some moving of pages (with suppression) needs to be done. /3 and /4 need to be deleted and /5 moved to /3. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)