User talk:KINGDM76

Welcome to Wikisource

Hello, KINGDM76, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Help pages, especially for proofreading
• Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy
• Wikisource:For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Monthly Challenge
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current Wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

• Wikisource:Scriptorium; or
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! -- Beardo (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump's executive orders

It seems that that the standard naming is "Executive Order xxxxx" rather than the description. (see previous administrations).

In any event, when you create a page, please also add a link on Author:Donald John Trump/Executive orders#2025 -- Beardo (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes a numbered order is the standard naming, but a redirect from the descriptive name can and should be given for notable orders that are referenced or quoted on elsewhere here and on wikipedia.

For example, we have both Executive Order 14158 of January 20, 2025, Establishing and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency". So that when you see the name written somewhere, you can easily link it without having to remember the number or go look it up.

It appears as though 7th of February was the latest day that scans from the Federal Register have been digitized and linked Author:Donald John Trump/Executive orders#2025. It would be great to have the recent ones, as I'm working on the Portals under P:FED and would like to include them.

Also at Author:Donald_John_Trump/Presidential_memoranda, scans are available and existing documents can be replaced; for those that are annotated, annotations should be copied for moved to a second version labeled (annotated).

Thank you for your contribution to this effort. You may wish to join WS:USEO.

Collegial regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I also wanted to hop on this thread and say something about the EOs! Thanks for doing so much work to transcribe them here and make them available. Another way to help preserve them. <3 --SDudley (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! KINGDM76 (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Executive orders

Just want to tell you that I've noticed your efforts to put up the recent Trump executive orders on Wikisource and Wikimedia Commons and I very much appreciate it. Unfortunately, Wikisource does not have WikiLove, so I can't send a fancy box with a pretty gold plated star as a way to say thank you. At any rate, here is the next best thing:

Rae haz givn u Lolcat! Lolcatz promot teh Wiki(Source)Lovez and hoapfully thiz one tuk away ur sadz. Spredd teh Wiki(Source)Lovez by givin sumone else Lolcat, or if tey hav one, give a cheezburgr for teh Lolcat 2 snak on!

Cheers! Also, I've uploaded the three most recent ones to Commons. I've got 14288 covered. — rae^5e <talk> 15:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping me out with the EOs! I really appreciate it man KINGDM76 (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages

Hello, KINGDM76. You have new messages at Theki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, just notifying you that I replied to your message on my talk page but initially forgot to ping you. I'm not sure if you've read it yet, but we can continue the conversation here if you'd like. — rae^5e <talk> 14:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm already here, I figure I'll outline my rationale for handling the signature differently from the way you do:

What I meant on my talk page was that the same person will generally write the same signature, hence why Wikipedia includes it on the articles of certain people—it's an unchanging thing among virtually all individuals. Although, I assume the issue here is that the PNG signature is more accurate to what is actually on the page compared to the generalized SVG version. As much as I understand this reasoning, the unchanging nature of signatures leads me to feel that using the vector version for all the benefits it provides is much more reasonable. Signatures are effectively made to be vectorized, they're so simple that there really isn't any reason to compromise on poorly-scaling pixels rather than infinitely-scaling paths.

Of course, if it's not it being vectorized that you're opposed to, I could always try to trace the signature from the scan and convert it into an SVG...

As an addendum on the use of {{EOsignature}}: I want to stress that the output of that template is completely identical to what you have been inserting manually. I have taken additional steps to lighten the load of transcluding it; as I've said, you only need to input the date and the signature is automatically included for you. If you want to use the PNG, then you can always set the first positional parameter to it and it will work with no problem, as I'm sure you know. Or you could go into the source of the template and replace the signature included for Trump with the scanned PNG you use. The latter is an action I would be perfectly fine with and it works well as a good compromise until we can agree on how best this should work out.

One more thing: could you explain your reasoning for including the small text at the footer of the final page with the filing and billing information, etc.? I'm sure I've said this already, but I've been excluding it from the pages by the loose principle stated in Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading:

"[Do not include any] marks or additions—including handwriting, ex libris bookplates, library stamps, stains, scratches, watermarks, dirt, etc.—that are not part of the original book."

This is an arguable point of course...I always assumed it just was not relevant to the order itself like the volume and issue numbers are, seeing as it never appears outside of the non-transcluded footers on signature pages anyway. — rae^5e <talk> 14:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I only use the PNG image because it's the exact same as the one in the Federal Register PDF file and when I started out editing here a few months ago, I learned how to format the EO pages from looking at how other editors did it, and that's how they formatted it instead of using {{EOsignature}}. I only learned of the template from you so thanks for letting me know, I will use it from now on. But I think the signature being used should match the one in the scan instead of just being a general signature because, despite it not really making much of a difference, the PNG file is the way Trump writes his signature, so it is more accurate.

About the filing and billing information, I've always seen it be included, so I just started including it and never really thought much of it. I think it probably is relevant to the order because it contains the Federal Register document number, which documents are searchable by on federalregister.gov, and I don't think you can really call it a mark or an addition that is "not part of the original book" because it is a part of the document. That's my logic on why I include it. KINGDM76 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Also I just want to say that when you create a page, you should mark it as proofread, so another editor can mark it as validated and the scan is fully verified. The not proofread tag is usually for pages that have only been published with the text transcription tool. KINGDM76 (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@KINGDM76: Hi, sorry for the delay in responding. I tend to mark all my page creations as "not proofread" because although I work on formatting and organization, that's generally all I do on a page. I trust in the OCR to accurately represent the text of the page, but I allow other editors to take on that task and signify that it should be done—yes it sounds lazy, but I just have differing priorities lol. I had suspected this is questionable practice considering all other non-proofread pages I see appear to just be created as soon as the page content loaded, with no formatting or anything, just so that it can exist. However, I only recently realized that the default text that loads upon creating a page for a scan in WS is the actual embedded OCR, which on Federal Register pages should be accurate, so I'll start marking my edits as proofread initially because of this.

Also, I do understand your rationale for including the footer, and I won't impede on it; however, I wonder if it would be suitable to place that information as something that can be transcluded from {{EOfooter}} optionally? I'll probably be bold and go ahead and add it, but it makes sense to me for that template to contain extra parameters that takes care of inserting that in the noinclude footer for you.

In any case, thank you for the explanation and for your continued hard work, and I'm glad I can be of help. I very much understand your reasoning for the use of the rasterized signature, and I suspected that was the case; thank you for making the changes to the template in relation to that. Happy proofreading =) — rae^5e <talk> 12:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The template has been updated, see here for an example. If I got any details wrong, feel free to change it. I've also made some changes to {{EOGeneralProvisions}} as well. — rae^5e <talk> 13:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)