User talk:Koavf

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Koavf, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here.

Please take a glance at our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). Most questions and discussions about the community are in the Scriptorium.

The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for deletion[edit]

If you use {{delete}}, you have to make an entry on the deletions page, as I did here. If you think that it should be a speedy deletion, use {{sdelete}}.--Longfellow (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat of above request[edit]

Hi, adding {{delete}} means that you need to log a proposal at Proposed deletions explaining why there's a problem. If however you mean that the article/category/page meets one of the speedy deletion criteria, then please use {{sdelete|reason}}. It makes it easier to understand what you mean. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already use HotCat from Commons[edit]

Just so that you are aware, we already utilise the HotCat from Commons in our gadgets, and directly so it updates. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Good to know. Thanks. I didn't know where it was localized, etc.--I just looked in Special:Preferences and if the gadget wasn't there, I imported it from Commons. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is there, along with a few others (though it does need a tidy), and we look to steal use others' gadgets wherever possible. If you do have any suggestions for better sorting or explaining our gadgets, then that feedback would be most welcome. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh I don't see it at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets... As you can tell from my contribs, talk, page, etc. I'm not that accustomed to how things work on, but I've always wanted to be a productive member here: it's a really great idea and resource. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third from top. I have just prepended it with HotCat, as presumably the label may attract those specifically looking for it. Re partipication, if we know your poison, then surely someone can suggest a work. An easier place to start is Wikisource:Proofread of the Month where we usually take a work from scratch through to completion (if we can). As it is active, it is a great way to see how others edit, and see where they have good shortcuts. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Added. I've always thought it bizarre that there aren't vast digital archives that have been imported here: legal documents, patents, public domain literature, etc. It seems like there must be databases upon databases out there to be scripted over to here--is there something obvious that I'm missing? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose that we have is to look to bring verifiable text. In earlier days, lots of texts have come gutenberg, verified by them, though still not perfect, and without images. They can still come over, but numbers alone isn't the focus of many. We have been bringing works in what we believe is a more structured means and we are looking to a more validated format. Image to Commons, then proofread and validated from the image. We have also looked to do other sorts of works, DNB, PSM, often which can be used in support of WP articles; extracting quality images, store at Commons, display in the works, but to also have available across WMF. There is plenty more there, it probably is more quietly appearing.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I may be dense, but it seems like (e.g.) several governments will have reliably proofread texts stored electronically that could be ported over here with relative easy and automation. At the very least, you could store them in some tracking category like, Category:Texts ported from the State of Alabama which need proofreading and readers could still find these texts useful. Again, I guess I'm just so ignorant that I'm asking bad questions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I was more focusing my comments on older works, those that are not currently online / readily available. Some consider that those works that you identified that are permanently online, then sometimes there is less value on importing them, especially with the variety of licences that can apply to them. Usually we can just as readily link to them from pages, we don't require the works to be housed locally to be part of the library, one could build an Author (person) page with offsite links, or a Portal (organisational authors) page to the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Library I suppose I still need to read up on what Wikisource's actual scope is, because I had a different impression about what it actually could or should do. If I understand you correctly, I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed, honestly. (Although please don't take that as a slight against the hard work that I'm sure you and several other contributors put into this project.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource:What Wikisource includes and Wikisource:For Wikipedians. I am not talking what we may, could or should be. I am talking where I see where we are as an evolved volunteer library that has limited resources, so more where we are in the journey. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

multiple blank lines[edit]

You don't need to use <br> over and over to create multiple blank lines. Just use multiple returns to insert blank lines directly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Thanks. As you can see from my contribs, I'm getting the hang of ProofRead. Much appreciated! —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in diambiguation situations[edit]


In light of some of your moves in the Author namespace, I ask you to please follow existing guidlines (#5) and refrain from using anything other than a plain old dash when it comes to an Author's basepage title that has any form of "date" in it. example...

  • John Smith (1878-1956) - OK for core, target, mainpage that holds content
  • John Smith (1878–1956) - NOT OK for core, target, mainpage that holds content. OK as a redirect to the main page however

..... thanks -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Honour Guard Award
For your outstanding and very welcome work on Original Stories from Real Life. --John Carter (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that this is the first time that I know of that any sort of attempt to do something in the honor of an editor who has, for whatever reason, left the project, and it is very very encouraging to see someone willing to spend the effort to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when the chaptering gets done, it might be worth while asking if a memorial template can be placed in a comparatively prominent place somewhere on the index page, index talk page, and/or on one or more of the relevant wikipedia talk pages. Considering I am blocked from editing in wikipedia till pretty much the end of the month, I have a feeling that if anything at wikipedia itself is to be done you are probably the man to do it. John Carter (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, don't ask me why, the final page isn't allowing me to validate it, I think because I made some changes to it. Maybe we can get someone else to do it? John Carter (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why this change?[edit]

If you are really sure then restore; but without explanation I will remain mystified... AuFCL (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AuFCL: Wow, that was weird. You are right and I am wrong--somehow, I saw that as being up one level higher in the hierarchy than it should have been. Sorry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well; just glad the insanity wasn't mine—this time at least! AuFCL (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving author pages[edit]

You are moving author pages against the policy of naming. Please stop. This is not enWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Look at my contribs: I'm moving them all back now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I am not sure how you thought that it was a great idea in the first place to start moving so many pages? Did you think that we didn't know what we were doing? Stop to think to ask? One too many new year drinks bring on some bravery? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: I'll just chalk that up to you being wound up. Thanks and have a good new year. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: Nobody's perfect. Did you notice how you edited this author page when it had an ndash? I've since moved all of the ndash pages to hyphens (in spite of them being ungrammatical). If we work together, we can make things better--you don't need to talk down to me nor act put out when I was fixing my own mistakes and adding {{no works}} to several pages, making them demonstrably better. I'm sure you know that I'm on balance an asset to the WMF projects, including this one. So are you. Onwards and upwards? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Titles on pages are not about grammar, that is about style. Grammar would be how they are used within a work, and you will see that we use an endash within the display of the template. The reason for why are is in the archives, and you would need to go back about 8 to 9 years. I wasn't trying to talk down to you, but it was pretty hard to comprehend how or why an experienced editor would be doing it, and their missing key indicators, when they were doing it. Of course we can work together. It looks all cleared up. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Check my recent contributions, In a bold move I've "updated" as many as interwikis as I felt able to.

I've excluded some for technical reasons, associated Talk namespaces, User and Page namespace. The use of oldwikisource in Page namespace seems to be ALL in a single work though, and could probably be updated with AWB very quickly..

Currently mul and oldwikisource interwiki prefix link to the same thing ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Yes, s:mul: and s:OldWikisource: go to the same place. I could pull up the phab: tickets if you needed but I don't have them handy at the moment. Thanks for that--I think that we should really discourage the use of any non-ISO title and the sooner we switch them, the better. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: Special:Interwiki gives a local view and confirms Koavf's note above.

Categories for people[edit]

We no longer use categories for people on en-Wikisource to organize their works. Author pages fulfill this function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Thanks. Can you point me to a guideline? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, as many of our guidelines are unwritten or uncodified. But please point me to a category for any other President of the US or any other person. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Don't know any. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Categorization seems to be the closest we've come to stating a guideline on this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your block[edit]

User:Beeswaxcandle deleted that list, and explained why. Wikisource actively discourages the addition of material that is clearly not in PD. You have repeatedly recreated the list in various locations despite this fact, and in direct violation of what Wikisource is about. For this you have been blocked. Please do not encourage the addition of non-PD materials to Wikisource in future, or you will be blocked for a longer period. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: I in no way encouraged the addition of non-free material--I added a disclaimer to the page for just that reason. Many author pages include lists of material that we host and do not host (sometimes outbound linking to other sites that do); why is this one any different? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Also, I am in the middle of doing several edits which are inarguably within policy and helpful. Please unblock me so that I can continue. Blocking without any warning especially while I'm in the midst of doing something useful is pointless. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry that you do not understand how damaging it is to Wikisource to promote the addition of non-PD materials. I am sorry you do not understand why it is a bad idea to push over the actions of two different admins who explained the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: I understand the scope of Wikisource hosting material that is free or not (not sure why you are exclusively referring to PD as we host many types of material which are not in the US public domain). Again, there is evidently not policy on listing works by an author but either way, I'm not interested in fighting about this. Please unblock me so that I can continue working on other issues. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to fight the actions of two different admins, so claiming that you are not interested in fighting about this is disingenuous. You may continue working when the block expires. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: It's not disingenuous at all, Pete. I tried a different approach each time, hoping that would be amenable. It's not like I did the same thing over and over again just hoping no one would notice--I tried to do something that would be workable for everyone. Instead of having a discussion about it, you went to block me. If you were to unblock me, I would go about my business doing other things here than this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't like seeing trusted users blocked, especially without notice, it is a very high standard to set. I also don't like users gallivanting on their merry way without reference to the community, especially when they have been undone. Good communication, tolerance, and approaching consensus from the softer side are always important. Can we please remove the block. Can we please have community members discuss their actions prior to making them a rod for all our backs, or hoisting us on to our own petards. If it looks bleeding obvious, yet it isn't urgent, and hasn't been done, asking about it may take a little longer, but at a community of this intermediate size, with leading protagonists, asking, piloting, testing, asking, has been proved to be effective. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: Thanks. For what it's worth, I basically have work to do here daily. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jr / Sr[edit]

Re: "Jr is necessary as his father is notable as well". The issue on Wikisource is never just that of "notability", but whether or not the other person published anything. I do not know in this case whether it will make any difference, but just want to make the reasoning clear to you. The issues on Wikisource are not the same as those on Wikipedia.

Also, please note that the document you are using to justify all of these Author page moves is an "Essay", and has never been adopted as a Policy or as a Guideline by Wikisource. It is possible that some editors might take issue with certain moves to full names, although I have not seen any yet of that sort myself. Names like "T. S. Eliot" and "Virginia Woolf" in particular probably ought to have a discussion if they are to be moved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: What I mean as "notable" is not necessarily the sense of Wikipedia or Wikidata but yes, someone who may have produced a document/text/speech which could reasonably be reproduced here. You are mistaken about my justification: I am referring to the help documentation which says to not include titles and to include full names (except in instances of famous pseudonyms). Is there something I'm missing here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not mistaken. You have linked to Wikisource:Author names in some of your edit summaries as justification. That page is tagged as an "Essay". And as the Help page notes: sometimes a particular form of an author's name is used as if it were a pseudonym (T. S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf) and under those situations the better known pseudonym may be preferred. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your move of Author:Abraham ibn Ezra to Author:Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra is the only one I saw that would might be considered objectionable (I've moved it back). Medieval Europe did not have a fixed system of naming as we as used to having today. Rather, individuals had a given name, but were recorded with whatever description might be needed as circumstances called for it. So, for example, Leonardo da Vinci ("Leonardo, from Vinci") was usually enough to tell you which Leonardo someone was talking about, even though "da Vinci" was not actually part of his name. His "full name" was simply "Leonardo". When treating with names before about 1500, the issue is more often: "Which form of the name is used most often in modern scholarship?" than "What is the full name?" --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: For names in the form "de/du/d' [Place]" I've left them if the person's name is too simple but moved them if the name is otherwise complete. In the case of "Galileo Galilei" or "Leonardo da Vinci" the Italian custom would be important to leave to those appellations so we can understand who it is supposed to be--similar to royalty. Of course, Anglo-style names from recent centuries are a lot easier for me to parse. I skipped a lot of Arabic names, ancient Greek ones, etc. If you see anything else that seems off-track, let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Wait--that linked user essay gives examples like Author:James Matthew Barrie and doesn't call "J.M." a pseudonym. If anything, that is an example consistent with the help documentation... Not sure what you're suggesting here nor what these examples are supposed to mean. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the problem. Some choices (like J. M. Barrie) are equivocal. The linked user Essay gives examples both ways without settling on one choice over the other, and does not use the best examples to explain the options. That Essay should not be used as a guide to make decisions about pagenames because it is a drafted (and abandoned) Essay that was crafted mostly by a single individual, and is not a Guideline or Policy. Help pages are likewise NOT guidelines or policies. That's my point: You're making lots of page moves based on a few sentences in a Help page and an Essay. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Barring any guideline or policy (of which there are only a handful anyway), then we may as well have something consistent and something that matches what we tell new users, right? If in 15 years there hasn't actually been some traction on formalizing a single standard across the project, that's unfortunate but on the one hand, it certainly leaves no reason to not make them consistent and on the other, we do have something written somewhere that prefers full names. Additionally, pages are routinely moved or created by others at full names and a page move based on a full name has passed by the Scriptorium recently without objection. In principle, it seems pretty clear that this is what is generally the case for many high-profile pages anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I came across Tech and the Fake Market Tactic that you’ve added recently, but I’m not quite sure it complies to the guidelines for inclusion at Wikisource. I wanted to touch base with you before nominating it for deletion in case I’m missing something.

As far as I can tell it’s a self published article, Medium is a blogging platform where anybody can just post something. They do have magazines, which can offer curated content, but in this case "Humane Tech" seems to be a magazine ran by Anil Dash himself. Do you know if it was published anywhere else that has peer-review or editorial controls? Marjoleinkl (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marjoleinkl: Medium is something like a self-publishing platform but some sub-sections of the site have an editorial policy. I have seen it commented on in other sites which have some professional editorial standards (e.g. O'Reilly or BoingBoing) but it was neither originally published there nor has it been reproduced elsewhere as far as I can tall. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. It’s a really recent text, it might get picked up more later. Right now it is unfortunately in a subsection that was editorialized by Anil Dash himself, which means it would solely self published and makes me lean towards requesting deletion. I’ll give it a few more days to see if it pops up anywhere else. It’s an interesting read for sure Marjoleinkl (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

author pages for modern authors[edit]

For someone like Author:Alexandre J. M. E. Christoyannopoulos we would not normally create such an author page as the works won't be in the public domain or freely available. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: But his will be, as he's an anarchist and makes it a point to publish openly. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: making us guess that is not overt information — a note on talk page would have helped. If he has works available already, then feel free to link to them externally now, works are preferred though not required to be local. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: There are works linked on his page now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you do seemingly pointless editing, and without community consultation?[edit]

What is the purpose or benefit of italicising all the PSM subheadings? eg. [1] We haven't italicised any of the other works that have subdivisions. If you are looking to undertake a large scale change like that it really should be put before the community for discussion so we can look at author pages holistically, and we all decide what is best. This has been mentioned to you before about unilateral actions, so how about they stop. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: I saw something to fix, so I fixed it. The substantial majority of the headings were not italicized but some were—surely, it's not preferable for them to be inconsistent. I like well-formatted text and on an archival/library project, that's particularly important (e.g. look at all the myriad templates we have for formatting tables of contents!) I am not seeing what you're going for here: are you suggesting that periodicals shouldn't be italicized (i.e. that this is controversial somehow and I should have elicited feedback from others because this is too potentially inflammatorycontentious) or that you want more periodicals italicized (i.e. that it is a task that will require others' intervention as well, so mentioning it at the Scriptorium will ensure that it's done more uniformly)? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked thru your history... "We haven't italicised any of the other works that have subdivisions" literally the last page you edited before you came here was Author:William Samuel Lilly which had two such subdivisions... —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Style guide and quotation marks[edit]

Hi. Please read the guidance on quotation marks in Wikisource:Style guide. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This is superfluous. We already have {{al}} (author link). Wikisource discourages the proliferation of superfluous templates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: I certainly have no objection to deleting any of them but if anything, why not {{a}} over {{al}}, since it's easier to type? Plus, since redirects are cheap, I don't really see the incentive to deleting any of them unless you think that something else will plausibly be named {{a}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Wait--what?! Why did you block me? What in the world? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before. DO NOT RECREATE COMMUNITY DELETED CONTENT. When it has been deleted again, and you have been asked not to create superfluous content, do not then recreate it again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Right--I didn't. Originally, I made a template, then I made a redirect. Is there some policy against that? What are you thinking? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Originally you made a template that did what a previously deleted template did. Then you created it again as a redirect to do exactly what the deleted content did. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: It looks like Petey just left. Can you please review this? This is outrageous to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The block may be outrageous, but so are the number of templates beginning with the letter A that equally qualify as those to which {{a}} could redirect, and thus should not be wholly dismissed in favor of this one. If you really want to use this for author links, just ask on the Scriptorium again and find some agreement first. Mahir256 (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256: Yeah, that's fine. There's no reason to block me under a false pretense that I recreated deleted content. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a false pretense. The template was deleted before, and when you created it, you would have seen a warning that you were recreating deleted content. Then after it was deleted and you were warned directly, you created the redirect to do exactly what had already been deleted twice before. In future, do not simply disregard such warnings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Well, that's BS as I didn't recreated anything deleted. Creating something else with the same name is not the same thing--I am ashamed for you for being so rude and aggressive instead of (e.g.) deleting the redirect and posting to my talk, which is a simple thing to do (e.g. the two other persons who did so). Why you think that is the correct choice is beyond me and I think you made a stupid and bad decision that was pointless. I feel bad for others you interact with if this is how you think you should be an admin when interacting with good faith users. You already drove me away from adding a lot of content in the first place form your first bad and unjustified block, so I don't know why you make it a point to try to be hostile to me since I add value to the project. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I wouldn't have blocked you, though you do undertake actions rather casually and without reference to the style guide and practice that you know well exists, then to repeat that action does send an interesting challenge. Creating a shortcut redirect for one letter based on your preference is not helpful; especially when we have so many templates for the character "a" and its variations. I hate some of our shortcut templates as they lack intuitiveness for new users {{rh}} {{hws}} {{hwe}} {{hi}} are painful. — billinghurst sDrewth
  •  Comment We also have to consider that many of the single-letter templates have different meanings on other projects. We do still get transwikied pages here, and for shorter template names, there is a higher likelihood that a template from one project will be interpreted quite differently here. There are usually good reasons behind deletions made by the community, and usually good reasons why we don't have more template redirects. It is always better to ask before making a change, rather than after. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


You've had this explained to you more than once. Do not force yourself into being blocked again. Start a discussion if you think the Wikisource Community should change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: What in the world are you doing? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undoing your tagging of Featured Works. If you don't understand I'm sorry we weren't clear:
I'm sorry if you're just not able to understand, but you will not be told again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Don't be an ass to me. Why should The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi or A Simplified Grammar of the Swedish Language be unsearchable? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment. And please stop pinging me. I'll consider it harassment if you continue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? See what I wrote above: you can stop being an ass and be a decent person instead. You lack simple judgement and even the most basic courtesy sometimes. How about you take a moment to either come up with a coherent response or just stop harassing me altogether if you can't be civil? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please go away now--you are being harassing and rude. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing category trees[edit]

Please do not mix the Author category trees with Subject category trees. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bot accounts for bot edits[edit]

Hi. Please don't flood RC with rapid edits. If you need to do such things, then please get a bot account, or organise with a bureaucrat to have a temporary assignation of a flood right. Thanks. Not certain why this conversation needs to occur with an experienced editor. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: What do you have in mind? >3 edits/min? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: Not sure if you saw the above. If you have a rough time estimate, that will let me know how to 1.) throttle or 2.) request the flood flag. I'm guessing something like three to six a minute. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Works about[edit]

House style is to complete this phrase in the section header for Author pages, usually with the person's surname as in "Works about Brown", rather than leaving the phrase uncompleted as "Works about". --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Nice. Very helpful. Is this documented and I missed it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Author pages#Works about the author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet[edit]

Are we recreating this from scratch, or undeleting the edit history?

Note: Technically there are still 7 hours to go until 2019 as far as the WM servers in San Francisco are concerned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: I can't undelete, so I am recreating. I have several scans to use (see Commons) and illustrations to add still. Was the previous version from a scan or raw text? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Raw text. As an admin, I can undelete. But the question is whether we should do so. If you're going to work from a scan in the immediate future, then there's little point in undeleting the copy-paste edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Agreed--I don't see any value in it since it (should be???) would be identical. I'm adding illustrations from the scans and will probably do a proper index of the 1926 Knopf edition. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having put the effort into the previously available works, I feel entitled to press you on this. Please create the content in the work space and transclude it when done. As with the earlier works, there is no shortage of shoddy versions of this elsewhere; we might as well do it properly. Doing this in the workspace (Page: and Index:) means you can do as little or as much as you like. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cygnis insignis: I can't understand you. Can you reword this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, try reading it again, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cygnis insignis: No thanks. It just seems like you're telling me to do what I'm already doing which seems like a waste. If you have new information, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We shall see. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cygnis insignis: Sure. Great talk. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just stumbled across this exchange while mining for technical details in talk pages, wanted to say I love it - warms the heart to know I'm not the only person who...gets frustrated by talkpage messages here (and I've only been here a couple weeks! Though I'm not particularly taking sides in this dispute - just saying it's an amusing read) Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peace.salam.shalom: Yeah, that's one way to put it. :/ Shalom/salaam/shlema yourself. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google to DjVu[edit]

Are you able to pull a Google Books (or Hathi Trust) PDF file and create a DjVu? There is one volume of The Yale Shakespeare that doesn't seem to exist on IA, but a reasonable copy created by Google exists on the Hathi Trust: [2]

If you have the capability to pull the PDF and generate a DjVu for Commons as File:Henry VI Part 2 (1923) Yale.djvu it would be greatly appreciated. It's not ideal, but I cannot find a better scan.

If you cannot do this, then perhaps you know someone who might be able to do so? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Always happy to help. I can convert PDFs to DJVU, yes. I do not have a login for Hathi Trust, tho so I don't have access to the PDF original. Their site claims that I don't need to be part of a member institution to download public domain works but I'm not seeing how to do this... Can you help me figure out how to get the PDF in the first place? Are you familiar with their site? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Forget it. I got it from Google Books. It will be uploaded momentarily. I assume that you'll do the work at Commons like you did with the last upload but please let me know if you need more from me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Setting up all the bibliographic info is a snap for me, so I can certainly do that, as long as you provide the link to the file's source. The ultimate goal is to make a full set of The Yale Shakespeare available, once all the volumes are in public domain. Xover has been transcribing the history plays, and 2 Henry VI is the only one of those currently missing. Thanks again for taking on the task. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Thanks for all the work you do here. (koavf)TCM 23:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two more Yale Shakespeare volume in PD that do not have IA scans, but are available at Could you please process/convert/upload these to Commons? These two will be the last in the series (at least for 2019).

(external scan) -> File:Shakespeare's Sonnets (1923) Yale.djvu
(external scan) -> File:Romeo and Juliet (1917) Yale.djvu

As with previous volumes, I will happily take care of adding all the file data myself, if you can accomplish the uploads. Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Done. Can you please add categories as well? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Thanks again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Following up on my WP message—I've put up Index:Syrian Churches (Etheridge).djvu and made a start on his Gospel translation (beginning here). After uploading it I realised Barnes's Psalter only has a critical apparatus and no translation.

I also uploaded:

Transcribing the original and the public domain critical Syriac editions listed at, including Barnes's, on the multilingual WS might be a good longer-term project. —Nizolan (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Airships[edit]

Hi Koavf!! I just saw that you validated two pages from the My Airships. Could you help me with the following summaries/image list pages? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Erick Soares3: No, I can't--I don't have the time now. If you don't get anyone to help you for several days, you can try pinging me again but I don't want to commit to something and fail. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broken encoding of apostrophes in page titles[edit]

I found a workaround for phab:T178143, thought you'd like to know. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beleg Tâl: Thanks. I saw that you closed the ticket. Very helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You stand in danger of being short-term blocked for edit warring on Template:Index transcluded/doc. Please desist—particularly over such a minor matter. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeswaxcandle: Do you have any perspective on what to do to break the impasse and make that page more accessible? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My perspective is simply that at least there is a documentation page for the template. I see it as unlikely that a vision-impaired person would be accessing it. Effort would be better dedicated to those templates that have no documentation page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please indicate why this has been transcluded as one solid page rather than as chapters into subpages, as would be usual with such works. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: It wasn't that long of a work. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't unilaterally rename templates[edit]

Regarding this move. Please do not unilaterally rename templates like this without discussion. If you find the template's name inconvenient the correct approach is to create a redirect for it at a more convenient name. In this case, the intended usage (and what the docs use in examples to encourage users to use that) is the alias {{rvh}}. The base template was named as it was because there is a semantic difference between a hyphen and an em-dash: the former denotes a range where the latter denotes a disjoint or contrast. The template isn't for "recto to verso pages", it is for "recto vs. verso pages". --Xover (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover: Then the appropriate character would have been an ndash, not an emdash. But I left behind a redirect that someone else deleted. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I seem to have failed to communicate my point. Your position on typography and the capabilities of your keyboard are all fine arguments for a discussion, but not particularly germane here. Please do not rename templates without prior discussion, and even then there is usually no need to do so when a redirect can address the concern. Either use an existing alias (like {{rvh}}) or create a new one that suits. --Xover (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: Is there a policy on template naming that I have missed? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am aware of, no. --Xover (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: Thanks a lot for your input. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get a sense of déja vu? And the reasoning for this work to not be set into chapters? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: ? and no reason. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Team player. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 07:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: Man, I cannot understand you: can you please use your words and not be cryptic? I can't help you if you're not saying what you mean. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: ? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to {{header}} I made at the above page were made in accordance with the template documentation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy template[edit]

The speedy template is {{sdelete}} (and, no, nobody who works a lot on other projects remember that), and there's an alias at {{db}} (from the speedy reason codes at enWP) that might be easier to recall. For pages you created yourself, G7 (Author's request) is usually the best bet (no need for the admin to do a lot of thinking or assessing policy with that one), so just slap {{db|G7}} on there.

PS. I am guessing, of course, that that's what you intended on the redirect left after the page move on Grant's memoirs, and not {{delete}}, so I'll go nuke it presently. If I misunderstood then apologies for the interruption; and please let me know if you want it undeleted. --Xover (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover: Excellent. Thanks! —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated editions[edit]

Annotated editions should have the name with (Annotated) added to the end, and not be subpages within another copy. ==EncycloPetey (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: I know that, that's how I named the page--I didn't move it. I recommend you post this on the talk page of the person who moved it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but posted here as well to ensure you were aware the conversation was happening. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Ah. That wasn't clear. I'm a big fan of {{ping}}, so adding me to the conversation that way would make it much easier and more intelligible. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisting your talkpage[edit]

Alright, first time I've ever watchlisted a talkpage but this one is therapeutic - I forget how I got here but I ended up reading nearly all of it. "OMG, stop being bold and trying things if you don't have forms filled out in triplicate authorizing you to do something!", &c. Anyways, it takes all types, and in the future I may become exasperated with you, or you with me, but in the meantime...keep adding works and plugging away on tidying up where you can :) Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peace.salam.shalom: Thanks for the encouragement. I always add new texts on Public Domain Day (i.e. January 1), so Wikisource is on my mind in winter. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source of New Yorker scan[edit]

Hi! Quick question: where did the New Yorker scan come from? I'd like to extract some images from the original scan, as the ones in the PDF are quite compressed. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inductiveload: Which one? Just issue 1, that I uploaded or the compilation of the rest of the year, which I have broken up into individual issues on Commons over the past couple of hours? —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I meant the first one, but knowing where they all come from would be good, I suppose. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found issue one somewhere on the Web; the other issues evidently came from a Google Books scan. I have reached out to the publication to try to get a hold of Erin Overbey but no one seems to care too much about helping get hi-quality scans. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, thanks anyway. Could you ping me if decent scans turn up? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inductiveload: 100%. One solution would probably be buying a subscription to their archives but I'm not going to do that. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When adding video, would you be so kind to wrap it in this template. And to note that we have template:listen for audio files. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: I've used {{listen}} (e.g. Optimism (Keller)) but not this one. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Cooper is not a federal government employee so we cannot include his works where he is co-author. These interview type works have been decisions through CV, and if you think my deletion is incorrect then please use WS:CV to have that undeletion discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sources and are they individual or subpages[edit]

Please would you add sources for these works special:prefixindex/American Rescue Plan Fact Sheet per WS requirements.

Do you consider them individual documents, or are they more subpages of a parent work? To me it is conceivable that they are subpages. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: "add sources for these works"? What? Look at American Rescue Plan Fact Sheet: it has a source. What doesn't have a source? This is a really confusing request to me. No, I don't consider them a single source only to the extent that they were all published with distinct URIs and none of them have ever been on one webpage or in one print document that I've seen. I could definitely see the contrary argument, tho. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, they weren't showing up as transcluded pages to me that has reset itself now. All good. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eeveryone maeks misstakes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cats <= plain sister template[edit]

If you are linking a cat to WD, the adding {{plain sister}} will pull in the interwikis. "plain sister" is the bit that does the work in the headers, though it is just hidden away. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Yale Shakespeare[edit]

Please Stop. and Discuss. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Why would you remove accessibility features and make the site more hostile to the blind? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any "accessibility features" in your edit, but I do see the removal of sections, which prevents section editing. I see the addition of complex tables to format temporary content. Please explain why this page must be organized in tables in a way that makes it hard to read for the sighted, hard to edit, and why this format must be used on this Portal and no others? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop: you're admitting your own ignorance about table semantics. If you don't know what a table caption is, you should ask or read about it before removing it. And captions should be used on all tables. Are you going to revert yourself? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of answering my message, you've issued a command and belittled my intelligence. That is not discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question and I didn't belittle your intelligence: I pointed out how you admit that you don't know what you're talking about. If you're ignorant, that's fine. Editing out of ignorance is not. If you want to learn more, see e.g. w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Proper_table_captions_and_summaries. Now please stop being rude and answer my questions. I suggest you revert yourself and stop abusing your user rights. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page you have directed me to is a Wikipedia style page. It does not explain accessibility, but states best practice according to Wikipedia's MoS. If you believe that Wikisource should adopt this Wikipedia policy, then please propose it. Wikipedia policies have no weight here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: No, you are incorrect: as that page explicitly states per WCAG guidelines: data tables need captions and this is a simple thing to do that provides high value for the blind. Did you read this page from the W3C or not? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How could I have read the page before you asked me to do so? I see nothing to support your assertion that captions must be used. Also, this is not a data table, but a layout table, and the page you have pointed me to says "If a table is used for layout, the caption element is not used." --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: It is not a layout table, it is a data table. And I directed you to the Wikipedia page which cites the WCAG. You had every chance to read the sources that make it explicitly clear that you should use table captions. You also seem to not know what a data table is, so please revert yourself. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policies have no bearing on Wikisource. I read the WCAG page you pointed me to, and it does not support your assertions. If there is a page that does support your assertions, please point to it and quote the portion that you believe supports your view. I have been unable to find such justification. You are again belittling my intelligence. Please desist, or I will have to raise the issue of your personal attacks. Such behavior is inappropriate. The list on the Portal is not a data table, and the tables themselves are purely temporary. As the works are verified the links are removed; and once an entire section has been completely (or almost completely) validated, the table formatting will be removed entirely. The tables exist solely for layout and are purely temporary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: I never said that Wikipedia policies are incumbent upon Wikisource: please re-read what I wrote. See the bottom of this page which gives a simple flow chart for deciding when to use table captions: since this is a data table (not a layout table as you claimed) it needs a caption. See also the other citations at the page where I already directed you: "Ensure table captions are provided explicitly". Accessibility Management Platform (AMP). San Francisco, California: SSB BART Group. 2015. "Best Practices" section. Retrieved 13 July 2015. GSA Schedule 70. Cites multiple standards besides WCAG, including: JIS X 8341-3: 2004 - Technical Standards Subpart 5; KWCAG; 47 CFR 14. Advanced Communication Services, §14.21 Performance Objectives; HHS HTML 508 Checklist; and US Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines 1193.41–43." Note also that you keep on reverting to a version of the page that lacks header identification information for the column and row scopes and that includes blank headers. Your allegation that it isn't a data table is plainly false. I am not claiming that you are unintelligent but that you are simply ignorant: you don't know what you're talking about. If you keep on asserting that it isn't a data table when that is exactly what it is, I would have to assume that you're either uninformed or at some point, if you keep on saying it once you know better, you are lying. In neither case do I think you are unintelligent. As this is a data table and not a layout table as you have falsely claimed, please revert yourself and stop making edits that make our site more difficult for blind users. If you don't understand the distinction between a data and layout table, then I suggest that you please stop asserting that one is the other. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read all pages that you pointed me to. If the information was actually on some other page I should have read, then I didn't see it. I read the pages you asked me to read. You assume that because I disagree with you that I must be ignorant, lying, etc. The flowchart step 1 on the WCAG page you keep referring to states: "determine whether the content has a relationship with other content in both its column and its row" (emphasis added). There are no vertical relationships in the table in question. Each row is independent of the others, without relation, so the table fails to qualify as a data table.
I also point out that in your second comment in this thread, you said "captions should be used on all tables", but this is flatly refuted by the very page you pointed me to, which says that captions should not be used on layout tables. If you would start by admitting you were in error, perhaps we could proceed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Data tables are distinguished from tables used for the layout of a page. These are data tables. See, e.g. this guide from MDN on how to use column and row scopes as well as captions for data tables (i.e. not tables that are incorrectly used for layout). Here is another very basic example of a data table: each row shows information "independent" of the other rows but they are arranged in a tabular fashion: this is a data table and is obviously not a layout table. Since layout tables shouldn't exist at all, then yes, I assumed that we would use proper semantics, best practices, and CSS for positioning elements, since that is its purpose. I suppose that if someone were incorrectly using a table for layout on Wikisource, then it shouldn't have a caption but it also shouldn't exist in the first place. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Non-breaking spaces[edit]

I always remove non-breaking spaces because I can’t see the point of having them. What is the reason for their existence? --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathleen.wright5: They keep a phrase that should be on one line from wrapping around multiple lines. If you have:
"He was ranked No. 3
in the world competition"
that is better than
"He was ranked No.
3 in the world competition". —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated works at Wikibooks[edit]

Hi, I am quite excited to see your work at WB, b:Annotations_to_The_Autobiography_of_a_Catholic_Anarchist. I’m really interested in doing Annotated copies of WS books and have been trying to get an idea of how it might work. I’ve had a go with Economic Sophisms and it was imported to WB which proved to be a novel exercise for QuiteUnusual. I am not very tech minded and have been stalled by the challenge.

I would like to proofread The_Autobiography_of_a_Catholic_Anarchist. I am working on a Project Gutenberg Proofreading guide, do you mind if I proofread according to this standard? e.g. Page:The_Autobiography_of_a_Catholic_Anarchist.djvu/1

Have you any thoughts on alternative ways to format annotated texts? It would seem quite easy to link your notes to the original WS page scans? The other example I have found is Annotations to Ulysses which has the original text included. I hope you still have interest in this project, Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoeannl: I could not be more happy that you wrote me. As you can see from my edit history, I've recently been working on What_to_the_Slave_Is_the_Fourth_of_July?_(annotated) and that lead me to take a look at other annotated editions to see how they are done. We have very few here and in spite of that, there is no one way to do them. I have chosen a certain style on the work I just linked because I like a mix of inline links, citations, and annotations as being separate things that mean something different. E.g. I may include an inline link to Wiktionary for a word that is obscure, a reference for something that is cited (like a Bible passage or quoting Shakespeare), and an annotation for anything else that is unclear or could use some context.
I'm assuming that you've already seen Wikisource:Annotations but if not, I recommend it. For a unique way to do it, I'd recommend taking a look at Strivings of the Negro People and Strivings of the Negro People/Annotated. The nice thing about the way this is done is that there is just one text and it is transcluded into another page with new content in it. So there is no need to proofread twice or copy and paste changes to the original over and over again, etc. I would recommend you maybe consider this format because it could save you some time. If that method seems confusing or weird at first, let me know and I'd be happy to help you.
Real treat to hear from you and to see someone else interested in annotations and the work that I started years ago and have yet to finish. I'm happy for you to edit according to any standard that you think is appropriate: note that I've also added in an edit after yours to Page:The_Autobiography_of_a_Catholic_Anarchist.djvu/1: it's a collaborative effort. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring Index Files Deleted from Commons[edit]

As a more experienced user, and with reference to this help request, can you help with transferring the two files mentioned at that help request section from Commons to here under {{PD-EdictGov}}? It seems that Special:Upload don't work if the file exists on Commons (even if it is to be deleted), and time is quite tight: only 2 days are given for transferal.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@廣九直通車: It looks like they have been uploaded with new names. You can do two things: 1.) you can wait until the Commons files are deleted and then move the local copies to their old names or 2.) leave the files where they are but move all of the indices and pages so that their names are in sync. In the future, this can be resolved by using Special:Import, for users that have the proper user rights (which I don't here but I do have at s:mul:). Let me know if there's anything else you need and happy 2022! —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice. I was later found mislead by insufficient information provided on c:COM:Namibia, as it is found that Namibian copyright law did have provision that releases laws into their local public domain.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! All's well that ends well and I learned something about Namibian law in the process! —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-breaking dashes[edit]

What should be done with this?

  • ill-judged

Valjean (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Great question! Try {{Nowrap|ill-judged}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Jobs Plan Fact Sheets without indices[edit]

Hi! I noticed that Category:Page transclusions that refer to missing Index pages contains a number of American Jobs Plan Fact Sheets from April 2021. It looks like you uploaded the files and created the pages in April, but you didn't create the corresponding indices. So, this message is a reminder, and a suggestion that you do that. (Also, I've made and proofread Index:American Jobs Plan State Fact Sheet FL.pdf, if you'd like to validate it.) Cheers! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 09:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CalendulaAsteraceae: Thanks. As you can see, at the time, I was uploading several videos and documents per day, spending hours on documenting the new administration and around day 100, I just got burnt out. I need to go back and fix up things, as well as restart the uploading and transcribing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Legit! I certainly have a number of slow-moving projects myself. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 18:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The missing indexes leaves these pages completely broken (it just throws a big red error message at our readers), so fixing these as a priority would be a good thing.
Xover (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative voice example in {{em text}}[edit]


I wanted to ask about the first example of when not to use the template. The example is confusing to me: In both sentences the speaker is stressing the italicized the word—in the first sentence to emphasize that something is atypical or important about that, and in the second sentence to highlight their uncertainty. I would use the {{em text}} template in both cases.

I think a better example of changing to alternative voice would be, for example, switching between formal and casual speech. Something like "Buy our toy kiddos, it's the coolest! This ad was brought to you by UltraCorp Inc."

Note that I'm not a native English speaker so I wanted to make sure before editing. Alnaling (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alnaling: Good point. I'll change it to make it clearer. Again, great work in these semantics. May I ask what your native tongue is? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I speak Polish natively. Alnaling (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dziękuję, friend. Great work. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unify {{b}} and {{bold}}?[edit]

Hi, I was recently a bit confused that {{b}} does not redirect to {{bold}}, unlike {{i}} that redirects to {{italic}}. I've looked at it and it seems that there aren't many uses of {{b}} (and the majority of them is a misuse for heading) so maybe it could be unified to be more consistent? And if we want to retain a template alias for triple quotes, it could be under a name that better conveys the "draws attention to" semantics (maybe brandish?). Alnaling (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can unify them, as b, strong, and a CSS text width of bold are not identical in meaning, even if they look the same. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to unify them in this sense. I've meant to change {{b}} to redirect to {{bold}} and move the existing code for {{b}} under a new, better name. Alnaling (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. I have used "[x] text" sometimes. E.g. {{em}} and {{em text}}. I am still hesitant to think that {{b}} should redirect to {{bold}}, but I can see your argument, for sure. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think matching HTML names makes sense for newer tags that have reasonable names like em or strong, but b is a terrible name, only kept for backward compatibility reasons. Maybe {{bhtml}} similar to {{qhtml}} would also make sense. Alnaling (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sometimes I do "[x]html" (note that I made {{qhtml}}). But I'm not sure that "B" is any worse than "I". It's good to have some short template names. I use {{C}} a lot. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Delinquency Testimony[edit]

FYI, once I get all the pages OCR'd and the formatting put in (lots of smallcaps, speaker's names), I plan on doing a run through the whole thing and adding the {{nop}}s with the script. Right now I only have the left hand pages created for most of it. Jarnsax (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's a real concern I can change the headers to use {{uc}} throughout, I just really wasn't worrying about it (it only really matters if someone cut-pastes the text, afaik, which seems unlikely since headers aren't transcluded). Jarnsax (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking closer at the type, I think those are Juvenile Delinquency (larger-asc) from the shape of the letters. Jarnsax (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do your thing. That edit was a one-off. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and thanks for the reply. I'm not actually reading (proofing) the thing, because it would be boring as hell, lol, just getting formatting it as something fairly mindless while listening to podcasts. Jarnsax (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata IP block[edit]

Hello, I am wondering whether it would be possible (and appropriate) for you to give my alt account User:Beleg Âlt "IP block exempt" status on Wikidata. When I am using my alt account, my Internet is usually routed via Azure, which is globally blocked as an open proxy. I hope that I am trustworthy enough to be permitted this access :) (I've already given my alt this status on enWS, but editing enWS without Wikidata access is rather limiting as I'm sure you are aware) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your name around many times, so I'm inclined to say yes, but I'm wondering a little why me and why make the request here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are the only Wikidata admin whose name I recognize as active on enWS, and because I will probably forget when I get home and am able to make the request on Wikidata directly (since enWS is the only project where I have IP block exempt status on this account) :) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for all you do. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! Can I trouble you for Global IP block exempt status on my main account User:Beleg Tâl also? Much obliged :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can do, but to be clear, the instructions on d:Special:UserRights/Beleg_Tâl include the line "If you intend to add IP block exemption to an account, please consider asking a CheckUser to verify the need." Are you okay with this, knowing that I would inform CUs, i.e. I'm willing to give you the right, but I will also post to d:Wikidata:Requests_for_checkuser. Let me know and I'll pull the trigger. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]