User talk:Zhaladshar

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Due to moving I will be largely unavailable for the next week or so.

Archive: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

Do you mind if we look to replace Template:Sisterlinks with the more flexible Template:Plain sister? It is the template that sits underlying in {{header}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all. It's a clunky template and reminiscent of olden times. I'd much rather have the sleeker {{plain sister}}.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, done, and nominated for retirement. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Will adjust pages accordingly…JamAKiska (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

citations and bot requests[edit]

I noticed that you have an interest in academic works, as do I (mostly Renaissance and Medieval works). I've mentioned to a few folks on IRC the possibility of developing a citation mechanism for Wikisource that allows for easy citation to the original text without having to go into the pagespace, etc. and would like your thoughts. One idea would be some sort of tool that creates a citation on demand, another would be an annotation of sorts, equivalent to the sort used for legal citations in several electronic research systems (Westlaw, NEXIS/LEXIS, etc) where each page has a line at top of the page "Cite this page as: 21 Foo 37-43 (1927 Bar)". The latter would probably be technically easier to implement but more time consuming as it would require adding text to every page (normally more than one per WS page due to the transclusion of multiple pages of the original onto a single WS page) and would probably need to list at least two different methods of citation. A solution may be available to us in the way page numbers are shown on transcluded text but such a solution would not be something that could be implemented soon as development is at a standstill. Thoughts?

Additionally, when you get to it, Spangineer's Bot and my (DougBot) are awaiting flagging, and maybe EnBot, I can't tell if that one is in a holding pattern or is good to go. I know you aren't around much, I just thought I'd mention it since I'm here and since there have been several requests lately, including my own.  ;-)

Thanks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 09:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please see my comment at: User talk:ZSBot#Status? when you get a chance.--Doug.(talk contribs) 21:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename user Alexandre.mbm to AlexandreMBM please[edit]


I don't see pages for local requests for change of names in this wiki. Rename Alexandre.mbm (sulutil) to AlexandreMBM (sulutil) please.

Reason: AlexandreMBM is my SUL account and I want to continue Steward requests/SUL requests#Alexandre.mbm.

Confirmation link:

Thank you.

Alexandre.mbm (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS.: I am posting copy of this message in User talk:BirgitteSB (the crat other).

I just tried renaming the user. The account AlexandreMBM is already created on this wiki. I just want to know if that is yours or if you need me to usurp the account. If I don't hear confirmation soon, I'll likely go ahead with the usurpation.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspended this my intention. Please do not do anything. Please wait for the new contact. Please do not delete this topic in his talk page. I am preparing a page to explain a special procedure combined with the user fr33kman. But I'm out of time to continue it today. The job requires concentration and continued on my part. AlexandreMBM (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amandla Festival Speeches?[edit]

Hi Zhaladshar

I am interested in the content which used to be saved here: Amandla Festival Speeches for educational and research purposes. The speeches seem to be found nowhere else than here... Since you have deleted the page in 2006 you might be able to retrieve the content with the speeches. Would it be possible to send me the content (the speeches) via e-mail? My address is enclosed in this link. Thank you very much in advance for your assistance! Greetings, David. -- 16:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text added by an IP address in June 2006 and was deleted as being a copyright violation in August of the same year, and there is no indication of its source. Copyright law would seem to restrict the ability of Wikisource to resurrect and provide the text to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. The source is quite easy to determine: If you search on YouTube for Bob Marley's performance at the Amandla Festival, you will find his short speeches during the last two songs "Zimbabwe" and "Wake Up And Live". My inquiry now is to receive the former content of the above-mentioned article for educational/research purposes. With this in mind, isn't it possible to send me the content personally? Thank you for your assistance! David -- 13:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm, no. You have the right to make a copy for your educational and research purposes, we would have the right for ours. We do not have the right to make a copy for you, in fact that would be a breach of copyright. As I said, there is no evidence with the work of what was the source, you can presume all that you wish on what you suspect is the source, I can only tell you what information is there. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't distribute the content legally, as it's copyrighted. However, if you really want the content, you can transcribe it yourself from the Amandla concert using the recordings on YouTube.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has your gmail account been hacked?[edit]

Hi Zhaladshar, I just received spam mail from your gmail account. Received headers check out, so no faked sender (unless someone managed a DNS spoofing or tricking the gmail server). Chances are that your account has been taken over by spammers. For reference, here is one of the headers with a timestamp: Received: from (EHLO [] by (mx014) with SMTP; 10 Jun 2011 21:22:56 +0200.--GrafZahl (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea what happened; I just got an email from myself. I'm trying to figure out what happened, as I didn't click on anything (wasn't even on the account when they all sent out). Sorry for the problem. I've changed my password, but I don't know if that will help much. Looks like something hijacked, though.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

urget request.[edit]

please contact me privately. Matanya (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reply, sending full details in few seconds. Matanya (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename request[edit]

Hello, Zhaladshar, I have been trying to find out where to ask to change my user name on this project and have found your talk page. Could you please rename my account from Moonraker2 to Moonraker? I have made the same change on several projects, including enwiki where my main account is. Please see here. Regards, Moonraker2 (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks. Moonraker (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

missing bureaucrat noticeboard on this wiki[edit]

Hi. You are listed as a bureaucrat on this wiki, but so is at least one other person. To contact a bureaucrat, in order to usurp accounts and similar, users have to send duplicate messages, rather than post at a single place. Please create a bureaucrat noticeboard of some sort and list it at meta:Index of pages where renaming can be requested. If it already exists, please list it there! Thank you. --Joy-temporary (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard and see the 'crat section. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bing bong. While it has been archived, would you be so kind to review this, especially in light of the fact that this bot is taking over many of the tasks previously undertaken by ThomasBot. Thanks for the consideration. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, it has been managed. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading open-access papers systematically[edit]

Hi there, I saw that you had signed up at Wikisource:WikiProject Academic Papers, so I thought I'd ask your opinion on scaling up the import of open-access materials, as discussed at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Scaling_up_the_import_of_open-access_sources. Thanks and cheers, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case you want to comment[edit]

Apparently one user is reading your lack of comment (over the past 1.5 days - ZOMG) as reason to oppose my proposal at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Authorize_Crats_to_promote_for_all_sysop_rights. If you feel like commenting. . .

  • also your page has said that you'd be moving and out of the loop for a few weeks for over one year. ;)--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you add a source and license to File:Jacobs - The Toll-House, 01.gif/ Jeepday (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly, after five and a half years, I have no idea what the source is. I have no knowledge of when that illustration was made.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bummer Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#File:Jacobs_-_The_Toll-House.2C_01.gif. Jeepday (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aristotle work proofreading[edit]

Hi, similar question; was the Posterior Analytics you contributed a proofread work? I was wanting to give it a sign. ResScholar (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. I got it from a previously proofread source. It really should be backed by scans now, but it was proofread. Of course, I can't remember where I got it anymore, so it's hard to source (another reason why it should be converted to DJVU).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. I am surprised that you disagreed with my category of Ecomomics and the others you've changed. :-). Thanks for the corrections. Could you tell me how I can find incorrect or empty categories? — Ineuw talk 06:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truth be told, all I do is patrol Special:WantedCategories. I look for anything that's easily categorized, misspelled, etc. and figure out where they should go. It's a safe bet if a category is incorrect then it doesn't exist, so that's a good Special: page to browse to find them.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will soon be re-requesting from JIRA a new list of all PSM article titles of the main namespace and their categories. Do you happen to know if a non-existent category of an article would show up on this list as well? Just curious.— Ineuw talk 04:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Thanks for bringing this Special page to my attention. I honestly didn't connect it in context of errors and looked at it only perfunctorily. Now, I am going through it with increased attention and cleaning up the mess I left behind. Must have already corrected a dozen of my own. In addition, when I see non-existent categories placed by others, and I know that something very similar exists, can I make the change and assign an existing category? Also, Is there a way for me to remove an item from this list when I corrected all its links? Sorry for the many questions?— Ineuw talk 04:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PPS: I've gone through and corrected many articles. I would say all, but that would be a bit presumptuous. Thanks again.— Ineuw talk 07:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any non-existent category should show up on that list, so if you're getting a bona fide category that has no content it should be on there.
And my thought is, yes, if you see a category that is similar to one that does exist, make the change. It's not great to have redundancy for categorization, so I do that quite routinely.
And, no, the system will refresh itself every now and then and that's the only way I know of to make it update. Maybe the action=purge would work, but there is still considerable delay between you doing that and the system refreshing.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I received a JIRA extract of categories assigned to the articles and I found dozens of errors. This was easier because I could run an offline spell check. I corrected everything until the next batch of categorizations. Thanks again.— Ineuw talk 04:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of Shrimad Bhagavad Gita with Hindi translation[edit]

Hi Zhaladshar,
When we try to visit श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता हिन्दीभाषाऽऽनुवादसहिता page, wikisource says that VIGNERON has deleted this page and all its related sub-pages. After visiting his User Talk page ( it seems that he has deleted allot of similar Hindi & Sanskrit pages by mistake. Can you please restore (undelete) them? Following is the message that we get:

12:00, 19 November 2011 VIGNERON (Talk | contribs) deleted page श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता हिन्दीभाषाऽऽनुवादसहिता (Moved to the own language subdomain: content was: "श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता (Srimad Bhagawad Gita - With Hindi Translation)
सरल हिन्दी अनुवाद - पँकज चन्द गुप्ता क)

The original link to श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता हिन्दीभाषाऽऽनुवादसहिता page was available on श्रीमद्_भगवद्गीता_हिन्ही_मे_आसान_भाषा_में_आनुवाद page. Please undelete these important pages as they had a very concise and useful translation of Gita in Hindi. Thanks.


I'm not an administrator on that site anymore, so you will need to ask one with local privileges to do that.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename request[edit]

Hello. I request renaming my following accounts:

  • محمد الجداوي → Avocato
  • GedawyBot → AvocatoBot
  • Confirmation link: [1]
  • Reason: Privacy reasons

Please, unblock my bot. Thanks in advance.--M.Gedawy 07:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've renamed the accounts, but I haven't unblocked your bot. I don't know entirely know why it was blocked, so I won't override another admin's actions. If you want it unblocked, make a request for why you want to use it or talk to the blocking admin here.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot flag request[edit]

Hello. It has been brought to our attention a request to set a bot bit for HesperianBot on this Project today based on Wikisource:Scriptorium#HesperianBot. However and noting your recent editting I wonder if you could take care of it as local bureaucrat. Best regards. --Dferg (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


HesperianBot request at WS:Sbillinghurst sDrewth 14:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The "Horned Frog" is not a frog; it's a lizard. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't add Horned Frog to the category. I just put the category where it should belong with relation to other animals. If you want to correct it, feel free.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you are creating these categories. If the articles have been added to the wrong category, and you create a category based on this misinformation, then you only extend the problem. It is also counter to Wikisource norms to create a category with just one item in it, as you have been doing. Categories are for grouping, not just separating. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know every animal, so if I don't know a horned frog is not a frog, I can't fix it. I did not know a horned frog is not a frog.
I take the philosophy, that more will be added in the future, so why not get the skeleton already created? If there is a policy regarding this issue, I'll happily follow it. I admit, I might not know new policies. If it's not a policy, then I still want to get the skeleton created, because what is it really going to hurt?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What will it hurt? As I pointed out, many of these categories are wrong, so creating them now, without first fixing the categories, creates a lot of cleanup work for other people. I do not know whether the stricture on category size is a "policy", whatever that means (I assume you mean Wikipedia-style policy, but this is not wikipedia), but that is what I have been told by those here who are more experienced than I am. If you are not sure, then you should probably find out first whether it is a policy or norm, before you find that you have been violating it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like being contrary, and I don't want to be. But, if I don't know that the category is wrong, I can't fix it. I assume, as I'm sure many people do, that when a person adds a category, they know enough to know how to categorize it properly. I can't and won't double check everything in a category when I create it.
I've also been editing WS since 2004, and I've been at the English WS since it started. I wrote some of the policies for this Wikisource and have been involved in discussions for many others. I have been busy a lot lately, so haven't been around much, but I've never been told to do anything differently. I will of course follow editing policies, but again, I don't see anything wrong with creating a category filled with only one item, so I would need more reasoning on why it's a good guideline not to create those types of categories when in my mind it's a good idea.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why I'm letting you know that many of the categories are wrong. Ineuw very recently messed up the categories for many of the PSM articles on zoological topics, in order to create a database, and the problem has not yet been corrected. Ineuw is also one of the people who noted the 3-content-minimum guideline to me for creating categories. I have already had to delete/modify several of the categories you have been creating, and many of them are not correctly subcategorized, because (as you noted) you don't know much about the subject. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE: "I would need more reasoning on why it's a good guideline not to create those types of categories when in my mind it's a good idea." So, if in someone else's mind it's a good idea to delete all those categories and consolidate them, you would have no problem. Just so long as it's a good idea in their mind? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very little of the work you have just done is a product of my erroneous categorization. I went through the Special:WantedCategories page and took the ones that I knew would be easy to categorize and added the categories. I added Category:Mammals to those animals which are mammals. It's just a simple matter of hierarchy. If we want to navigate a category tree, one now could go from "Animals" --> "Mammals" --> "Camels". That's not a wrong categorization. You've fixed pages that someone else either categorized incorrectly, or made a category, which I added, a bit more fine-grained (like changed "Mammals" to "Carnivora"). I would like to know which of the categories I just created were wrong, though, since you think they are.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've misinterpreted what I said, but alright. How about Category:Shrew, as it should be plural? Is "Archerfish" one word, or should it be hyphenated as in the article title?
My point was that the original articles are miscategorized, so creating categories based on miscategorization creates problems. As, for example Category:Garfish, which includes 2 articles that are about the gar-pike, which is a completely different fish. So, Category:Garfish should be empty because we have no articles on the garfish.
As I said: Ineuw did all this redlinking of categories and such as part of an experiment to make a database. The categories have not been deliberately requested, and creation should hold off until the problems have been fixed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how it makes any problems. Whether it's a mis-categorization for a category that exists or not, it's still a mis-categorization and it will need to be fixed. What extra mess is made by having the category be blue or red? I'm not being sarcastic; I'm really curious.
Besides, while these categories might have been added to PSM articles, they aren't exclusive to PSM articles. They will be able to be added to other kinds of works that are somehow relevant, so it puts them in the hierarchy for a future purpose. So, when the pages are properly categorized, the backbone's already there for future use. Sure, some of the categories I just created might be empty until other zoological works are added (or any other relevant work, for that matter) but that's not hardly a big deal. I'm not creating these categories for the sake of PSM, but for the sake of fleshing out our category tree, and even if there's just one item in it, I see no value in leaving a category red until we get three items in it, or leaving it red until Ineuw fixes the PSM categorization.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I approach this from the opposite point of view. A red link to a category often implies either an incorrect categorization, or overcategorization, so we fix the category link rather than turn it blue. Just because there is a red link does not mean we need to rush to create a category.
I've already explained how it creates problems. It creates categories with incorrect names, or which will not have any actual content. Then, users searching for categories will get false positives, and be greatly dissapointed to find they've turned up an empty category. I've had this annoying problem at Commons often, where someone has created a 12-category hierarchical structure for only 2 files. I have to sift through multiple links just to find where the content is (if there is any). The other alternative is for someone knowledgeable on the subject to go through and have to delete all these categories, which creates more work and detracts from more productive work.
And if you would like more of an answer, then please begin by answering the Socratic question I put to you before. It was not purely rhetorical. It is polite to answer the questions of others before posing new ones of your own. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to delete them, fine. I really don't care. I don't think it's that big of a deal to have those categories around, especially since they fit into an existing hierarchy, but whatever. If you want to keep them red, I'm not going to fight you on it. I don't think it's overcategorization to put the Hawks category under the Birds category. I just wanted to clear the WantedCategories page; it's been something I tidy up for years when I can. I'll come back to it in a few months once the categorization for PSM has been fixed and we know for sure what categories are going to stay.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek character[edit]

Hello. I am unsure about the second Greek character " ἱ " (as transcribed) on this page. I am not an expert in Greek, but when I zoom in on both the transcription text as well as on the original image, the characters look different. Thought I'd bring it to your attention, as I am in the process of validating the work. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I double-checked and the two iotas have the same diacritic. You have to zoom in really large, though, to see that they both are the same. I think either the refs extension is making the text super small or the polytonic template is, which is making it really difficult to double check.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for checking. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing username (Daniel Tomé --> DanielTom)[edit]

Hi. I am changing my username to "DanielTom" on all wikis, and I would very much appreciate it if you could do the same for me here too. Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests are better placed at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard, in the bureaucrat section. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Job done, thanks everyone. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 13:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisource User Group[edit]

Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

Global message delivery, 23:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Zhaladshar, I'm Aubrey from Italian Wikisource. I've written you a mail almost a month ago, regarding the possibility of becoming an administrator of wikisource-l mailing list. If you've read the message above, you probably know that we are pushing the creation of a Wikisource User Group and, generally, a broader and deeper coordination of Wikisource communities. I'd be very happy to help you in the administration capacity. Hope to hear from you soon. Cheers --Aubrey (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know what's weird? I never saw that email. Send me another, and I'll send you all the important information. I think another list admin would be great.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sent you another mail yesterday via Wikisource. I hope you got that one :-D --Aubrey (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did! I've added you as an admin on the list.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Package inserts[edit]

Hi Zhaladshar.

I'm an active contributor at the Turkish projects (primarily Turkish Wikipedia). A fellow contributor at Turkish Wikisource would like to add pages containing information copied from package inserts, which are essentially information leaflets "provided along with a prescription medication to provide additional information about that drug".

I am concerned that these texts may be copyrighted and potentially fall outside the scope of what constitutes "source works" at Wikisource.

I looked at discussion/archive pages to see if this issue had been raised here before but could not find anything relevant. Your comments would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Pinar (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think you're right. Unless the package inserts are made by a group who is ineligible for copyright (e.g., some governments) or the package inserts explicitly say no copyright is held for that insert, whoever wrote it would have a copyright on it. I can't see how we can get around copyright issues with this type of work.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving Your Files to Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Don't worry. He's watching your back. And yes, he's hosted on Commons.

Hello Zhaladshar!

First, thank you for your contributions to Wikisource. Any contributions are always very much appreciated. While searching around, I noticed that you have some files that you uploaded to Wikisource that would probably serve the community better if it was on Wikimedia Commons, a media file repository. You can view your files to see which ones I'm referring to. See the Image Guidelines for more information.

Why should you do this?

As an example, let's pretend you extracted a hard-to-find image from a book written in 1870. If you upload it to Wikisource, only Wikisource users can use it. What if a user from Japan is writing an article about a similar topic? If your file is on Wikisource, it's unlikely he'll find it, and if he's lucky enough to find it, he still won't be able to use it easily. However, if you uploaded it to Commons, it's much more likely he'll find it and be able to use it. (Files hosted on Commons are accessible from any sister project) The same goes for any PDF or DJVU files you upload as well.

Note: To "move" a page from Wikisource to Commons is simple, but somewhat confusing if you don't know how to. First, upload the file to Commons with the same file name as you did here. Add the same information, making sure you put in the correct license. I suggest adding the {{Wikisource image}} template to its Commons page. Then edit the file's page at Wikisource and add the template {{Now Commons}}. Soon an administrator will complete the "move" by deleting the Wikisource copy (as it's no longer needed). You don't need to change any tags on Wikisource as they'll automatically point to the new file. Awesome!

If you have any questions or concerns, don't be afraid to ask.

The Haz talk 04:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor proofing The Hour of the Dragon...[edit]

Hello Zhaladashar! I hope you don't mind: I've started regularizing the hyphenation in this text and correcting minor typos.

Without seeing the original I've assumed "--" is used in place of the "..." I'm more familiar with, indicating a pause or an aside. I've also added a space before and after the -- to make it easier to follow; at present many words are inappropriately hyphenated throughout the text.

Thank you for uploading this book; this is my second reading. Cheers! Shir-El too 09:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's great! Please do. :)—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After reading another long Howard story it appears that the double hyphen is without a space before and after... which means I'll have to correct what I've done. Oh well... FYI. Cheers! Shir-El too 15:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC) On second thought - it's too much work!Reply[reply]

Infact, I'm not sure about the copyright of this work. It's source from here. I thought it's suitable for GFDL.--Tacitus (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, looking over the website, it appears as if this is solely published on a website. Wikisource only accepts works that have been previously published in hard copy form (e.g., books, magazines). This is so that we can avoid hosting people's own vanity publications. Reproducing a website itself (or the contents on one) is very similar. Even more unfortunate is that whoever originally compiled it for Gamespy retains some kind of copyright on it such that we can't reproduce it here. I haven't been able to see any kind of GFDL or CC-BY-SA license. If you know of one, please direct me to it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK I understood, I'm sorry about that.--Tacitus (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. We've all been in that situation. I've had a number of my earlier contributions deleted due to these issues. I hope you stay around Wikisource and find a project you like!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian School of Painting[edit]

You do know that all of the images in this work are located on Commons; that's where they display from. They are not located here on Wikisource. If you click on on of the images, it gives you a link to its information page on Commons. There's no need to add more links, so I'm not sure what sort of links you were thinking of. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Zhaladshar. I noticed you have an older version of TemplateScript in your vector.js. The newer version includes more flexible templates (including namespaces and insertion position), script support, and the functionality of the former 'regex menu framework' built in.

I took the liberty of updating it to the latest version; I hope you don't mind. I tested it to make sure the changes didn't introduce any problems, but let me know if anything goes wrong or you have any feedback. (It's very rare that I'll need to edit your script directly; let me know if you prefer that I don't maintain my scripts for you.) —Pathoschild 05:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm glad that you maintain it. My vector.js is always at the mercy of other people. I don't know JavaScript at all. Thank you for the update. :)—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome! Do you mind if I move your vector.js to common.js? That's the recommended page for JavaScript now. You won't notice any difference, but it means your JavaScript won't stop working next time they change the theme. —Pathoschild 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please do!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done! :) —Pathoschild 01:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users[edit]

Dear Zhaladshar,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template[edit]

Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:

Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated scripts[edit]

Hi Zhaladshar. I edited your common.js to update ajax sysop to the latest version, replace regex menu framework (which is obsolete and no longer maintained) with TemplateScript (which has all of its features), update deprecated functions, and make your scripts HTTPS-compatible. I also blanked User:Zhaladshar/monobook.js since it seems to have been replaced by User:Zhaladshar/common.js (feel free to revert if that's wrong). Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 21:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

was n't sure[edit]

Apologies, I was validating another work which had removed them, then got worried I had been doing that in text you were proofing. [2] I will try to hunt out any others. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin/crat status[edit]

Greetings! Your administrator and bureaucrat status are up for discussion at Wikisource:Administrators#Zhaladshar. Please indicate whether you intend to return to active participation in this project. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zhaladshar, your admin/crat rights have not be confirmed this year, due to long inactivity. I have requested removal of the rights. Whatever you're up to these days, I hope life is great, and maybe we'll see you again in the future. Hesperian 22:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]