User talk:Mahir256

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Mahir256, 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:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} 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

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 IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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! — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Just a heads up, you had the right idea with that section of small text going across The Atlantic Monthly vol. 20 pages 7 and 8, but unfortunately this is one of those places where the way Mediawiki works is unintuitive. To get it work right, you have to close the smaller template at the end of the page and start the next page with a new smaller template (ignore what I did to it, it was a paranoid precaution against an even weirder problem with HTML and the proofread page system which isn't necessary for smaller).

Also wanted to say I'm hugely impressed with the things you're doing for periodicals. Prosody (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I wonder if even signaling that there's more things we could add to the collection will entice users to expand Wikisource more: there are already All the Year Round, Scientific American, and the American Journal of Sociology with extant scans on the servers, but the OCR/proofreading for those isn't even close to what has been achieved with Popular Science Monthly and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Mahir256 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a difficult point. We can make as much of an infrastructure as we care to, but at the end of the day there are only going to be so many people proofreading. Prosody (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi there,

I notice that when you create pages in the Page namespace, you tag them as "proofread". Why is that? Some kind of pride ? I wish you would stop, and let the proofreading be done on at least a second pass, either by you, or preferably by someone else. --Jerome Charles Potts (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are not aware of how page statuses work, 'proofread' means having been proofread by at least one contributor, while 'validated' refers to more than one person having proofread and rechecked it. While I haven't been active on this site since around February, I've proofread almost all of the pages I've created to the best of my ability; it saves a lot of edits in the process to just fix as much of the formatting that the OCR software can't set on the fly, and it is up to another contributor to make sure that I haven't messed up anything and to clear it as finished with or validated. I don't mark pages 'proofread' out of pride, I do so entirely in good faith. Mahir256 (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

external scans[edit]

Please do not load pages with links to external scans for the sake of adding links. Links to such scans are always meant to be temporary, until a copy of the work is hosted at Wikisource. You have been adding external links for works that we already host here, which is not only unnecessary, but distracting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, you are not checking the quality of any of the scans you have linked, and sometimes are linking to multiple scans of the same work, or to poor scans with missing content. This is also not helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I am deeply sorry for having caused such trouble which in some way or other is affecting the quality of the site.
With respect to the first part of your message, I am not in any way suggesting that the links remain there permanently, but that those who wish to take up transcribing the works can find the source directly without having to search for it themselves, at which point the links can be safely removed (which is the purpose of {{ext scan link}}, no?). I don't doubt that I accidentally added an external scan link or two to something hosted here, but is it worth removing all of the links I added for that author/work?
With respect to the second part of your message, I will take more time, then, to check the quality of the IA scans, both in terms of completeness and readability, and I will stop adding redundant links for those works which are not divided into volumes. Mahir256 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a regular pattern I have noticed over recent days, and no an issue of just one or two pages. This is why I bring the matter to your attention. Wiktionary is not meant to be a link farm, and external links to scans are intended to provide the means for improving Wikisource by allowing an editor to find a starting point for adding a source. When the link is to an inferior quality scan, or even to the wrong scan (as some of your were) then what most often happens is that the next editor assumes you did the work of checking the scan quality and value, and proceeds to upload that scan without checking to see that it is correct. I have seen this happen over and over. So there is a responsibility in providing such links to ensure that they link to what they claim, and that the quality is good.
In the case of Greek drama, the situation is that many, many scans out there are very bad, incomplete, damaged, or the wrong edition. This is one reason I have deliberately not linked to many external scans of such works. I am working myself to collect volumes for scanning, and am seeking a local library or university that will assist in the creation of quality scans for these works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Oh, okay, I understand now. I shouldn't be interfering in your area of expertise, and do not intend to any further with respect to adding more scan links, but surely at least some of the links were valid and merited being kept? If you find issues with other sets of scans to which I link elsewhere, please feel free to undo them as needed. (Both my recent changes and this list could highlight such issues.) Mahir256 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
No, that's my point. I've seen this same pattern of dumping links of dubious or bad quality on multiple pages, not just the area where I have the most expertise. Your response indicates that you either did not read, did not understand, or disagreed with my previous comment, but I cannot tell which. If you are going to add external links for the purpose of encouraging editors to add those works (as you state), then it becomes your responsibility to check that those copies are good so that the time and effort of others is not wasted. It is not the responsibility of other volunteers to spend the time checking them for you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Okay, then, perhaps I did misunderstand what you were trying to say. I will promptly cease adding links and will undo my changes in the interest of preventing other editors from being deceived with respect to the links' quality. Perhaps I will go back and re-add them having properly vetted their quality. Mahir256 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


Fair enough although since someone else had marked them as proofread in spite of not putting in the footnotes I assumed that it didn't matter. Error begets error I suppose. Sioraf (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)