User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2022

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Revdel and protection

Unless the material in question contains personal information or grossly offensive stuff (including insults etc.) we usually do not revdel spam and vandalism edits. Revdel should generally be used as little as possible, and only when there is specific need, in order to preserve the open nature of the project. Too many hidden revisions tends to erode the confidence of the community in administrators (they should be able to check the actions we take with the tools as much as possible), and it prevents, for example, researchers from studying things like the types of spam, how wiki communities react to it, how fast, etc.

Similarly, WS:AN and WS:ADMIN should generally be open to all, since even new or anonymous users may need to ask for help from the admins or participate in admin confirmation votes. Semi-protecting it for a few hours or days to slow down an ongoing vandal is fine, but the period should be kept as short as possible.

Keep in mind that even with the general light touch and institutionalised humility for admins (no special authority, confirmations every year, etc.) on enWS, there are still some contributors that view admins as a clique, kabal, and in-group that do things in secret, use the tools to lord it over normal contributors, and generally behave like petty local dictators. Unless there's a compelling need, we need to keep things out in the open and accessible to all. Xover (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: The revdels: Admittedly I picked up the habit from an admin on Wiktionary who has a habit of revdelling everything that is even remotely vandalism. Granted it's not a very popular behavior anywhere. Noted, I will be far more cautious on revdels than I have been as of late. However, I am only split on the issue of revdelling spam that contains promotional links and such: I'd prefer that such links get no attention at all, as the intention for putting them on a wiki is for someone to click them. I also am concerned that some of those links are likely to contain viruses (after all, they wanted to get their product out by spamming a random wiki so that isn't indicative of those marketers being morally decent). If community consensus is against me hiding promotional material then so be it, but my personal opinion is that it should not be shown in any way. WS:ADMIN protection: That was a mistake in judgment on my part, my apologies. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Stuff in non-current revisions of a page are not visible to search engines etc., so it's not really a problem in practice. Trust me, I understand the urge to completely nuke these, but in the grand scheme it matters very little. We don't actually get very much of it, or all that often, and we usually revert it within minutes. It does no real harm sitting in the old revisions. Xover (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

wiktionary?

I seem to remember reading that you were active at wikt. If not, just disregard the following....

wikt:hic Rhodus, hic salta came up in ggle when I was searching for which fable the phrase comes from. I finally found it, in the Perry list, at en.wiki. All via google. I rarely search for phrases at dictionaries and I never thought once even to try. It is from The Boasting Traveler, d:Q19080201. Maybe you could work which fable into the definition there? Or not. Mostly I am here to blow up!!

I read The Last Man. I hated that book so much. I couldn't wait for that last man to die. The more quickly everyone in that book could have died, would have greatly improved it. A short story of it would still have been bad. I am not typically like this, but all while reading this book I kept thinking, "forcrissakes die already!" I would like to vote repeatedly for its deletion, but they would all be super emotional voting. So, I do that here. KILL IT!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

My revision on User talk:Inductiveload

Hi, I'm wondering why you undid my message on Inductiveload's talk page. Languageseeker (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: That was completely accidental! I was on my phone looking through my watchlist, looked away, looked back and someone's edit was reverted. This happens too often, to the point where I think I need the rollback button disabled on mobile. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all! Happens to the best of us. Languageseeker (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Emma

When you moved this work, you did not leave a redirect, and so broke all of these links [1]. The link on the author's page was only fixed today [2] Note that there is no naming convention that requires use of the author's name, so the redirect was not required. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: All known examples of misdirections have been fixed. Apologies for the confusion it caused. In the future, I will have a more automated way of dealing with these so that it catches all the misdirected links.

I interpreted the title of Emma (1816) as problematic because the year is used as a disambiguator for versions, while the author name is for general disambiguation. So the title Emma (1816) would indicate that there are no other works at Wikisource called Emma except by Austen, and that the Austen work has other versions. This is not the case, though. And the Emma general disambiguation page already existed with other items disambiguated by author. Ideally if there were multiple versions of Emma being hosted, we'd have a title like Emma (Austen, 1816).

We have all kinds of problems at Wikisource having to do with inconsistent styling in work transclusion, and I've noted quite a lot of examples of this in my user subpages. And inconsistent titling/disambiguation is one of my main concerns with that. I think that if policy would discourage editors from trying to make title disambiguation consistent, we should fix that at the Scriptorium so that there are hard rules surrounding that issue. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We do not have (and shouldn't) standard ways to name titles for disambiguation. There are so many edge-cases: works by the same author and title in the same year; editions of the same work in the same year by the same publisher; works that need to be disambiguated by translator. Any attempt to codify the naming of works here would produce a document so convoluted as to rival the US tax code. A title like Emma (1816) merely indicates that the work is titled Emma and was published or printed in 1816. It implies nothing else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I disagree that it would have to rival the US tax code, because while there are a few convoluted exceptions, the formula I proposed isn't that complicated and should still be in effect, while the edge cases could be worked with in some other reasonable manner. Hopefully you'd agree that having some formula is better than none. I still maintain that to have a consistent representation of how works are searched is preferable. But however our opinions may differ, as much as I hate to do so, I'll keep away from moving others' works around unless there is (or is made) a clear consensus to do so, in the future, where I had erroneously thought previously that the consensus on this issue was clear-cut. My bad. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

For works that do not share titles, and are short, and whose author's names are short, and do not require other information, your method works. But we have Midsummer Night's Dream (1918) Yale, and do you really want to force that to expand to Midsummer Night's Dream (Shakespeare, 1918) Yale? And should Moby-Dick (1851) US edition have to expand to Moby-Dick (Melville, 1851) US edition? There are many such cases where including the author's name adds no useful information and where other information is required for disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another point to consider: If we ever do add another edition of Emma, then we will need a disambiguation page. The logical place for the disambiguation page would be at Emma (Austen), but that location is now occupied by an edition that would have to be moved (again) to make room for the disambiguation page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Moby-Dick — Again, edge cases can be dealt with in other ways where it makes sense, but I think generally the author should be at the root of the disambiguations. I am on the edge about even having encyclopedia articles in disambiguation pages at all, but no comment on that right now.
2. Emma (Austen) having more versions — Right, and I expect that that will be the case. Since it's a very popular novel, it probably has reprints by all sorts of companies with interesting differentiations in styling or typography. Also, I would always expect that anything could be disambiguated further in the future and have no problem with works being moved because of it (which is another reason I think the naming process should be more consistent, that it'd make this process easier). But it shouldn't be considered the end of the world. Consider that there are almost certainly other works called Fidelia or Delight (probably poems) which I haven't found yet, and then those will need to be made into disambiguation pages with the works moved... PseudoSkull (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Three Men in a Boat

Hello, Is there a particular reason why you chose to re-title this work as 'Three Men in a Boat (sourced)'. Surely the default assumption should be that all works are sourced and should be marked 'unsourced' only if they are not. Or do you plan to rename every sourced work in this fashion? Chrisguise (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chrisguise: Complicated, but I moved it to fix a capitalization issue in the word "In". It would have just been moved to "Three Men in a Boat" when the discussion was over. I didn't like the title either, but didn't know a better temporary title offhand. I have moved it to Three Men in a Boat (1889) because there appears to also be an 1890 reprint published by a different company in New York, at least. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

And also, I have decided to go far more easy on moving works, because what I once thought were fairly standardized disambiguation/titling practices are apparently not standardized at all, unfortunately. I will only move works in the future if there is consensus to do so that is far more clear. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The Home Front

Hi. May I have your help? In The Home Front I can't catch what Grandpa says at 03:57. And if you have any feedback, it'll be welcome. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@M-le-mot-dit: Unfortunately, I can't quite hear it either, but I think the beginning of it says "Shut 'em off" or "Shut 'em up". PseudoSkull (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull:. Thanks, I'll listen again. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Regulations on the Administration of Movies

• I will apply for a requested move. The page ought to be called Regulations on the Administration of Movies (2001) because there are two versions of 1996 and 2001. --Beta Lohman※Office box 07:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Beta Lohman: Done. A versions page was also created for when the 1996 version is transcribed. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikisources...

Depending on how you feel, do you want to do a little bit more digging? ( I found some of my Wikivoyage content on a site called https://www.travelerandfree.com/en/Amusement_parks) which claims to be run by the same management team. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Subtitled film

Do you think that a subtitled film could be acceptable? I was thinking about The Battleship Potemkin (1925) with English subtitles.webm. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@M-le-mot-dit: Ah, yes, it will be. I found that subtitled version on YouTube and upon some research I discovered that this subtitled rerelease was created no later than the 1970s (given the styling of the film, I suspect 1940s-1960s), and since the translation had no copyright notice, it is a Template:PD-US-no-notice case (with the original Russian part just being PD-US-expired). In a subtitled film I would just transcribe the subtitles, and leave the original Russian text to the Russian Wikisource. In-scene text will probably be in Russian and can therefore be left out. But one thing I'm curious about is the title—the Wikipedia consensus is that the film is called Battleship Potemkin, but this version calls it The Battleship Potemkin. I think that therefore the page should be located at Battleship Potemkin (because I think consensus lies at that name), with a note in the header about the naming situation, maybe? It's an interesting film; this will be a valuable addition to Wikisource's collection. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Horror film

That 2010s to present content is incorrect. 2600:387:C:7137:0:0:0:4 20:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There was never a reason why they merge them. 2600:387:C:7137:0:0:0:4 20:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Pretty much the only reason I edit Wikipedia is to insert public-domain movie files and to link to Wikisource transcriptions. I stopped editing Wikipedia for most reasons other than that because of, to put it lightly, some issues I hold with their community. 2. You should not evade a block by asking other users to make edits for you on other platforms. I must say, that's pretty sketchy behavior. Are you sure you have nothing to hide? The block log says "Please log in or create an account to edit" because you are being affected by a range block (which I don't know the history behind). If you're not in any trouble at Wikipedia, please make an account and edit the page yourself. This is clearly something you care about, so be your own advocate. 3. Furthermore, what you're asking has nothing at all to do with Wikisource. I mostly deal with classic films, which can be transcribed on Wikisource, and I know virtually nothing about newer films, especially not ones from as recent as the 2010s. Modern movies just aren't my area of interest. I also don't know the history behind the drama of whatever happened with editing that page, and don't want to get involved as someone unknowledgeable about the subject. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to edit the horror film article while it's protected. 2600:387:C:7137:0:0:0:4 20:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Edit requests PseudoSkull (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons Media of the Day

Maybe you could consider sprinkling your movies in the Media of the Day for the Main page at commons. iirc, there was a bit of a template learning challenge (at least for me), but, you can pick the thumbnail, which is fun and also, well, the Media of the Day was/(and I am sure)is a challenge there. I am not sure how many movies you have here now, but one every one or two weeks there, spread out over a year would be great. And, April Fools there -- I enjoyed my year of putting MOD in place. There are worse activities around this wiki. So, this is just for your consideration....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I know that a user named Racconish puts a lot of films into Media of the Day. I was thinking actually of what it would be like if we had a film in Wikisource's Featured Texts. Some good candidates would be ones like Safety Last!, The Big Parade, or Night of the Living Dead, if they ever get validated. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Validation is not such an issue there. I was using Dutch newsreels and such, media where there are is no review process anywhere for them. commons:Template:Motd/2012-04 I put that newsreel there (on April 1). The thumbnail is some guy walking in a perfect model of the airport there. It was kind of lame compared to some of your reels, but there was only so much to work with!! I had viewed and catted many of the video then and was at that time, more familiar than anyone with what was available. They fight and bum-kiss for a place at Image of the Day, but not so much MOTD. It is a good thing for some smarty-pants who would like to slide into a fun job with little or no competition. At least, that was the reason I did it when I did. Back then, they yelled (wiki-yelling, which is weird in itself) at the one poor guy for putting too many of his insect/bug images in. In his defense, it kept coming up with no media for that day and he had plenty of bug movies. More than just old books there. Also, I love the old commercials!! The "crying Indian" and the "your brains on drugs" which worked better as an ad for 24hr restaurants than prevention -- if you could find good copies of this.... Those two movies are the bookends for childhood of the Dazed and Confused era. The children those public service announcements were aimed at were the first gen of children who everyone had a tv. Their parents remember getting their first but all of them were born into a home with one on. Okay, I am just spewing here now....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Raccoonish, heh. Not so funny, actually. Amazon books pushes Dean Koonz. Some people tried to make me think that a software trick (they had a search that would find eyes in an image in 2007, they put it then with the red-eye remover plug-in) was magic (spooky music magic). This kind of deceit, is fun for like 15 minutes, but the longer the deceit persists, the less and less and less funny it is. The facts here are facts, the opinions here are mine.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

From the Manger to the Cross request

Could you please use GemmaBot to get this film finished and out of the "On hold" section? Lizardcreator (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lizardcreator: I talked to @Jeromi Mikhael: about this privately, and he said he wants to go back and review the film transcription for formatting and in-scene text. He has been very busy lately so has not gotten a chance to work on it. Per his request, I want to hold off on doing anything with it for now. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

these

!"autoconfirmed" in user_groups
& user_editcount < 3

I wouldn't typically usually use the first, I have hardly ever found it handy plus it is pretty much overruled by the second for how we set autoconfirmed. See what I have done to /50 to keep it tight. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks. Do you think that the filter can be turned on again without harm? PseudoSkull (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Turned it on, and shortened the block way down. Easy enough to follow up to cull users who are playing up with less problems. Typically this an IP jumper, and has strings of prepared accounts, so they don't often come back. We can play with it anyway. Oh, and typically I would hide those filters, they read regex. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

AbuseFilter 50

This was set up to block all new users that used list wikimarkup, or that otherwise included an asterisk in an edit (in the diff). Several of the other patterns could also easily occur in innocent edits (e.g. a Google Books URL with a hexadecimal string, a book about a certain atrocity where the OCR just dropped a space between the two words, etc.). Recall that there's no special license in policy for blocks performed by way of the AbuseFilter vs. performed manually, so you need to be very sure about the triggers before you set a AF filter's action to block. Xover (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: Apologies, the abuse filter was an idea to stop a vandal that is constantly creating new accounts and performing similar edits each time. Next time I'll just ask the community for help before making any AbuseFilters because I don't have a whole lot of experience with them, and their syntax is also pretty unique. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to avoid them in general and especially with action=block. The syntax is really obscure and the risk of false positives too high. Xover (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Well yeah I agree. I just won't mess with it anymore. It's too risky. There's not much room to even learn because the best way to learn to code is through experience, and any failure with that will just lead to things like this. It's probably worth just manually blocking each instance of vandalism, if only to keep things like this from happening, so I'll just do that when I see it. I mean clearly the vandal is smart enough to change their game slightly when they see an AbuseFilter is onto them, so the filter was pretty effective, but no civilian fire can be acceptable. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Gremlins!

Thanks for the catch on {{-}}. Much appreciated!

But if you have time, since you know where it broke, could you have a stab at fixing it? I vaguely recall that templates don't work with double redirects, and that the first-letter capitalization counts as a redirect (i.e. "clear" vs. "Clear"), so it might be a very quick fix. No worries if you don't have the time, I'll get to it… eventually. :) Xover (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: I believe I've fixed it. I think that when "#REDIRECT " was typed, there may have been an abnormal symbol in there that looked the same but was slightly different than what was actually intended to be typed, like maybe it was a different type of space symbol for example... Maybe you switched keyboards? Because when I changed to a placeholder target via copy and paste, it tagged it as "New redirect", then when I switched to Template:Clear again manually, it said "Changed redirect target". PseudoSkull (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Aha! Yes, Apple, in their wisdom, when caps lock is on and you hit the space bar, insert a non-breaking space instead of a regular space character. And I'd turned on caps lock to type "REDIRECT" of course. Nice catch, and thanks for fixing my mess! Xover (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Page:The Great Train Robbery (1903).webm/2 -- looks wrong?

I don't think Page:The Great Train Robbery (1903).webm/2 is right. Could you check it? JesseW (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@JesseW: The text appears on the train, as some sort of numeric identification. But, it's not a very important bit of text to the plot. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, would it make sense to add some kind of comment to the transcript, pointing out where the text appears, then? JesseW (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Your input is requested at WS:PD#Daniel Deronda

Hi,

Your input is requested at WS:PD#Daniel Deronda. I'd appreciate it if you could indicate there whether the subsequent comment affects your !vote at all. Xover (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: Sorry, I moved away recently and have been very busy with work. I haven't had as much time for the wacky Internet. Hopefully that can change soon. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries. We all have IRL first and foremost to worry about. I just needed to have people clarify their positions in light of the late comment and figured you were unlikely to see it unless notified directly. And for future reference, I mean to imply no obligation by such prods: if you're busy IRL you're busy IRL and us internet people will just have to deal. :) Xover (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)