Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:AN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard

This is a discussion page for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikisource. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. This is also the place to report vandalism or request an administrator's help.

  • Please make your comments concise. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.
  • This is not the place for general discussion. For that, see the community discussion page.
  • Administrators please use template {{closed}} to identify completed discussions that can be archived
Report abuse of editing privileges: Admin noticeboard
Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 3,968,293
No. of articles = 983,367
No. of files = 18,758
No. of edits = 12,954,688

No. of pages in Main = 569,326
No. of pages in Page: = 2,939,626
No. validated in Page: = 581,561
No. proofread in Page: = 1,051,617
No. not proofread in Page: = 1,050,375
No. problematic in Page: = 39,458
No. of validated works = 5,858
No. of proofread only works = 4,972
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 361,890
% transcluded pages in Main = 63.56
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 3,065,202
No. of active users = 418
No. of group:autopatrolled = 488
No. in group:sysop = 22
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 16

Checkuser requests[edit]

  • Wikisource:checkuser policy
  • At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to be undertaken by stewards
    • it would be expected that requests on authentic users would be discussed on this wiki prior to progressing to stewards
    • requests by administrators for identification and blocking of IP ranges to manage spambots and longer term nuisance-only editing can be progressed directly to the stewards
    • requests for checkuser

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Page (un)protection requests[edit]


Interface administrators[edit]

Hi. Please see I do not remember if this was already discussed and how it is going to be addressed. Comments and suggestions welcome. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As far as I am concerned I would trust any admin who feels skilled and confident enough to tackle such edits.— Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can handle the technical aspects of it. However, it can take me a while to get around to tasks that take longer than a few minutes, so I don't want to create a false expectation of being able to handle time sensitive matters on my own. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should decide how to address the fact that EnWS has no m:interface administrators. I see basically the following options. Please add/amend as you feel appropriate.

Option A - Assign right on demand when needed

Option B - Assign right permanently to willing Admins, to be reviewed in the confirmation process

As I said above, I am for the simplest one.— Mpaa (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Option C - Assign right permanently to selected Admins, after approval process, to be reviewed in the confirmation process

Option C sounds like you're being volunteered (based on the lack of the word 'willing'). ;) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Option D - assign the rights to all the admins, who have already been vetted for community approval, and then whoever has the ability and desire can make use of it as they will and as needed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Option D would make the most sense for us. For anyone to get themselves to the point that we trust them with the admin tools just so that they can mess around in the interface, they would be playing a very long game. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Beeswaxcandle, Option D, although I would also be fine with the right only going to admins who express an interest. BD2412 T 23:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is so rare I disagree with Beeswaxcandle but this must be one of those times. The whole point of this change is to prevent the ignorant from accidentally screwing up - insulting as the implications undoubtedly are! As such under the new regime trust is no longer enough; perhaps somebody ought to draw up some kind of eligibility examination…? 23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That hasn't been an issue for us yet, and accidental changes are easily reversed. If we had more users it would be more of a problem, but as it stands this kind of distinction is more cumbersome than helpful in my opinion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As much as I like the idea of making all existing admin interface admin, IA were separated from regular adminship specifically to reduce attack surface(from hackers), and it was pretty dangerous if the access fell into the wrong hand, I'd rather propose having existing admin request right from bureaucrat and could be granted at the bureaucrat's discretion, and should be automatically removed if no action after two month.Viztor (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment we discussed it when the rights were split, and it was agreed that it could be assigned on a needs basis. That has been done at least once for me with the temporary assignation of the IA rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note that WMF Legal requires 2FA to be enabled for users who are to be assigned this right, so bureaucrats will have to verify this before doing so. MediaWiki's 2FA implementation is also sufficiently finicky that one may not want to enable it without proper consideration. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What's wrong with the 2FA implementation? I haven't had any issues with it at all. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, sorry, I should have been more clear. I am going on hearsay, mostly from admins on enwp (a crotchety bunch if ever there was one), and my own assessment of the documentation at meta. The main complaints are that the implementation in general is a little bit primitive (as is to be expected since WMF rolled their own instead of federating with one of the big providers), and that there is no way to regain access to your account if something goes wrong with the 2FA stuff (if your phone is stolen etc.) unless you happen to know one of the developers personally. None of these are in themselves showstoppers, and many people are using it entirely without issue. The phrasing sufficiently finicky that one may not want to enable it without proper consideration was not intended to discourage use, but merely to suggest that it is worthwhile actually giving it a little thought before requesting it be turned on. --Xover (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, gotcha. As it happens, Wikimedia 2FA does include emergency access codes for use when your phone is unavailable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formal requirements related to 2FA[edit]

Picking up this again…

I finally got so annoyed by our inability to fix even simple stuff stuff that requires Interface Admin permissions that I hopped over to meta to figure out what the actual requirements are (versus the should stuff). As it turns out, the 2FA stuff is (surprise surprise) as half-baked as most such Papal bulls from the WMF: 2FA is required for intadmin, but there is no way for bureaucrats to actually check whether an account has that enabled. The result of this is that even on enwp (where they take this stuff really seriously) they do not actually try to verify that 2FA is enabled before they hand the permission out: they check that the user is in the right group so that they can turn on 2FA, remind the person in question of the requirement, but otherwise take it on faith (trust). There's a request in for the technical capability to verify 2FA (and I think Danny is even working on it), but it seems mostly everyone's waiting for 2FA to be enforced by the software.

Meanwhile, anyone with existing advanced permissions (i.e. +sysop) have the capability to enable 2FA, and anyone with a particular reason (e.g. that they need it to get Interface Administrator permission) can apply to be a "2FA Tester" and thus gain the ability to turn it on.

The net result is that our bureaucrats (ping Hesperian and Mpaa) can assign this permission so long as we somehow somewhere make at least a token effort to make sure those getting the bit have 2FA enabled. Whether that's an addition to, or footnote on, Wikisource:Adminship, or the bureaucrats asking/reminding the user when it comes up, or… whatever… I have no particular opinion on. Since the previous community discussions have been actively adverse to regulating this stuff in detail, and absent objections, I think "Whatever Hesperian and Mpaa agree on" is a reasonable enough summary of consensus.

I still think we should have an actual policy for Interface Administrators (or section on it in Wikisource:Adminship) and some facility for permanently assigning the permission (ala. +sysop; but intadmin tasks are not one-and-done like +sysop tasks, they often require iterative changes over time and need to fit into a overall architecture), but so long as there is no appetite for that, something that we can point to and say "That's how we handle the 2FA requirement" if the WMF should ever come asking. --Xover (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question Question Is there anything further that the community thinks we need to discuss? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just added Special:Diff/11740077 as a quickrestatement of meta:Interface administrators, which is already linked from the top of Wikisource:Interface administrators. Basically "you should be using 2FA". If there are more formal ways to check in future, then we can update the information. FWIW, I have it on, which is a little annoying when I accidentally fat-finger the logout button, but otherwise seems unproblematic. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should? "Required" is my understanding. There was a heated phabricator ticket about the WMF moving to have the allocation undertaken by stewards following their checking for 2FA being in place, rather than local 'crats. The counter argument was that local crats snould be able to check status and apply the rights. The ticket is stalled as a rethink is seemingly in play. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a paraphrase of what I wrote, but I changed the text there to "required" since it's not just an expectation. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request move[edit]

Hello. Could you please move "Siamese Interim Administrative Charter Act, Buddhist Era 2475 (1932)" to "Translation:Act on Interim Charter for Public Administration of Siam, 2475 Buddhist Era" and change its namespace from "main" to "translation"? Thank you so much. --KhaoNiaoMaMuang (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done The above has been moved. Wikidata item needs to be moved. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kathleen.wright5: The WD items should be updated when you do the moves, or very quickly afterwards. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone is interested in working on this particular backlog, there are about 80+ works (mostly Thai legal documents) that need to be moved from Mainspace to Translation space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone can map out the required conversions from {{header}} to {{translation header}} then I can run through them. Just too busy to do all the thinking of the conversions. Would be wanting indications of which lines add/remove/change, to make the bot tasking easier. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: Most of them are obvious - title=<title>, author=<author>, etc. The interwiki link [[th:<pagetitle>]] gives you the values for language=th and original=<pagetitle>. If shortcut and/or year are omitted, they need to be added as blank parameters. Finally, any instance of override_translator = [[Wikisource:Translations|Wikisource]] needs to be removed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As administrators we need to make better use of our general means of announcements to our community, especially where we have either a significant proposal or have made a significant change to policy and templates, and want to capture all our users, and spasmodic users. We have all been pretty rubbish at that general comms in the past while and I think that we should at least think about what we want to better broadcast. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is just the banner that shows up above the watchlist correct? I think that's reasonable. Is there anywhere else we should be remembering to post such content - mailing lists, social media, etc? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, and it is persistent. As it is watchlist, only logged in users, and they can dismiss it once read. Wikisource-L, Twitter: @wikisource_en are possibles for some things. My reason for the watchlist is that it is our editors, and it is persistent, so very targeted, and low noise threshold. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh, I had utterly forgotten Wikisource-l existed! Twitter seems more like advertising/evangelism than operational notices (one fine day a New Texts bot can post there!). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Please don't post RfC or policy discussion notices to Twitter! Xover (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amen! And especially since low participation is a much bigger problem in our policy/rfc type discussions than excessive numbers of comments or discussions. The better attended a given discussion is the stronger any resulting consensus will be, and, if we do it right, the better it will reflect the position of the community as a whole. Xover (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Import help[edit]

Please import books listed at Wikisource:Requested_texts#Import_5_books_about_Malayalam_language. These books were written for English speakers to learn Malayalam words, and the definitions are all in English. Thank you. Vis M (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This doesn't require an administrator. Probably better requested at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help if you are looking at assistance in how to do these. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think only admins and importers can do interwiki-import while preserving page history. Special:Import gives permission error for me. Vis M (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, I misunderstood the request as you were referencing requested texts.
If you have those works at mlWS, why would we import them here? Is mlWS planing on deleting it? We can simply link to the work where it is now, if the work is within scope at mlWS. FWIW no one has import rights to bring works from mlWS to enWS, and from memory our 'crats cannot allocate the right. I think that we need to step right back and work out what it is that is needing to be done, and what is the appropriate place for the work, as it may be be situated at mulWS if it is not to be hosted at mlWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are books about Malayalam language written for English readers/audience. mlWS will not delete it, it is indeed with in its scope. I think enWS also can have it here as its target audience is English language readers. Vis M (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, adding my 2c here—from briefly skimming through the texts, a significant portion of the texts appears to be in Malayalam. The may be within the scope of enWS since it's written in English and uses Malayalam words with context. The other works are more dicey—a significant amount of text is in Malayalam, which might warrant it being hosted on mulWS as opposed to enWS. On the other hand, works such as Index:Tamil studies.djvu also have a significant amount of text in another language (Tamil, in this case) which I would've expected to have been hosted on mulWS instead.
Is there a formal guideline of sorts that gives an idea of how much non-English text in a work is alright for a work hosted on enWS? Off the top of my head I'd say texts which use non-English words and phrases sparingly could be hosted here, but I can't really think of anyplace this has actually been mentioned. WS:Language policy redirects to WS:Translations, which doesn't have any info regarding this. C. F. 23:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:Clockery Works that are literally half non-English (as in a side by side translation), and works such as a English-(non-English) dictionary seem to be considered 'obviously' in scope by the community here, so the bar where things start being problematic is pretty low. I think if the work is 'usable' to an English language reader, it's probably fine here. That being said, it would probably be easier to maintain just one place, and use an interwiki link. Jarnsax (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding is that multi-lingual works were in the aegis of mulWS, and that typically works were hosted at one wiki. There are some works that are side-be-side, English/another language, and those have split and are respectively imported using the series explained at Template:Iwpage. It was why I mentioned mulWS, in my initial response. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment One thing we probably want to eventually sort out is mainspace presentation and export of works using {{iwpage}}. Since the content is loaded by JS in the page namespace, it doesn't work on transclusion and it therefore won't work on export. Which is a big shame for things like Loeb Classical Library since that's kind of the whole point.
I don't have any immediate idea about how to deal with this (other than throwing up hands and doing it all at enWS!), but I have a sneaking suspicion we'll need at least some server support (either from MW, the export tool, or both). And we'll also likely need to figure out a One True Way to format side-by-side texts in a flexible, exportable and generally not-horrific way. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the general subject, we need clearer rules on this, and those rules shouldn't dissociate us from stuff like the Loeb Classical Library, which is the modern collection of Latin & Ancient Greek works in English. There's a lot of translated material only available in bilingual editions, and that needs to be clearly accessible from here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to hear from mulWS (@Zyephyrus, @Ankry, @VIGNERON: as some representatives) on the hosting of dual language works. We we can link to works easily, though it doesn't show up in our searches. I would also be happy to place {{interwiki redirect}}s at the titles (and we can work out WD later). I don't really want to duplicate works as 1) they are dynamic in our proofreading space, 2) they will typically have different templates, 3) duplication is unneeded. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are some examples:
For instance, this book: Latin text and English indications, useful on both. Do we place it on (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or this one, Ancient Greek and French, might be on and offer links to both and
I admired the work of VIGNERON on br.wikisource with the {{iwpage|fr}} template used to show the French text}}. All these bilingual or multilingual texts would be moved to Do you think this a good solution ? There would be one place and only one to keep these kinds of documents. Would it be convenient and appropriate for all of them? --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't really given this a lot of thought, so I may be way off base and end up completely changing my mind… But my immediate thought is that iff we're to delegate something to mulWS we should explicitly take it out of scope (as in not permitted by WS:WWI) for enWS. To say we permit something but it should mostly be done at mulWS seems unworkable; and having content here that is actually managed at mulWS is untenable (different policies, different practices, different culture; no visibility on watchlists, etc.).
I also generally agree with Prosfilaes' stance above, but reserve the right to modify that due to technical or practical realities.
I suspect that a really good solution to this would require software support so that a given Page:-namespace page can more easily exist at multiple projects at once. And I don't think that is likely to occur in any reasonable timeframe. Xover (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Links Template:iwpage/Special:WhatLinkshere/Template:iwpage (which is essentially the same at each wiki and s:br:Special:WhatLinkshere/Template:iwpagebillinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:External links on protected pages & Category:Templates used in Mediawiki namespace[edit]

We have a bit of a maintenance issue in that external links in protected templates and mediawiki: ns are being missed when we are updating links. To assist, I have created the above parent tracking category to label such pages. We obviously cannot use it on Mediawiki: pages, so will have to be content with putting it on the corresponding talk page. I am working through creating subcats for each WMF tool that I find as they are more likely need to be what is changed, and will do some checks. I will note that as some of these pages use conditional code or includeonly so may be a little tricky to find by searching. [Reminder to not unnecessarily hide things to just avoid visual errors in non-display namespaces or ugly display code.] I am hoping that this will also allow us to check these a little more easily as we have suffered some link rot. I think that we may also need to put some checking categories on these so we can at least check these yearly, though haven't got that far and welcome people's thoughts.

I have also identified that we have had some templates transcluded to the mediawiki: ns that have not been protected. Can I express that any such templates need to be fully protected. If you are using a template within another template, then all subsidiary templates also need to be protected. Noting that it often it can be safest to simply use html span and div code and embedded css.

On that note, if we are protecting templates, it is better practice to use separate {{documentation}} so the docs can readily updated without someone asking for editing of protected templates. This is not pointing fingers, as some of these are old static pages that don't readily get traffic, and reflect older generation practices.

I welcome any suggestions/feedback here, and any help perusing of the template: and mediawiki: namespaces for targets. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems we already have Category:MediaWiki namespace templates, I will transition to that and update categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request for MediaWiki filter[edit]

I've been going through pages with defaultsort conflicts, and it occurred to me that this would be easier if there were a category analogous to Category:Authors with DefaultSort error. So I'd like to request that Category:Works with DefaultSort error be created and added to MediaWiki:Duplicate-defaultsort. Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 09:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CalendulaAsteraceae Yes check.svg Done . This is a good idea, because the current (anti-)pattern of explicit DEFAULTSORTs makes it impossible to do this automatically in the header template (i.e. strip of "A/The" if present). This cat gets us a small step closer to being able to strip most of them out as redundant. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CalendulaAsteraceae also I have added the defaultsort parameter to {{header}}.
The task now is to transition all the manual defaultsorts to either that parameter, or, for most(?) of them, do it by stripping A/An/The in the Lua function. I'm not sure the best way to move forward, but one way would be:
  • Temporarily hide the warning text in MediaWiki:Duplicate-defaultsort in mainspace (leave it enabled in other namespaces), but leave the category
  • Enable the auto-sorting (i.e. stripping of A/An/The) in Lua
  • All the mainspace pages with conflicting sort keys will then drop into the category, but won't spew big red errors
  • The category can be processed (probably with some kind of script, since most of the conflicts are likely "Foo, A" vs "Foo" and easy to handle
  • Once the category is empty, strip the rest of the DEFAULTSORTs, since if they're not throwing errors they must be redundant.
  • Now the pages are transitioned to the parameter, reinstate the warning text
This is not the only way to do it: you could also
  • Migrate all explicit DEFAULTSORTS in mainspace to the defaultsort parameter, then enable auto-sorting and then go back over all pages and remove redundant keys, or
  • Migrate all explicit DEFAULTSORTS in mainspace to the defaultsort parameter, but just delete any which will become redundant, then enable auto-sort. This will have short period when some pages will sort by their "A/An/The".
Anyway, let me know if you need any more edits to facilitate whichever method you prefer! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Simon Peter Hughes: You do a lot of work in this area. Do you have any input here?
@Inductiveload: Not sure whether it's relevant, but keep in mind that we have some bad habits involving not bothering with the full title in defaultsort so long as the string used will kinda sorta sort properly mostly. Also, the sortkey should include any article stripped at the end so that titles that differ only in the article will sort correctly among themselves. Also, we have a lot of garbage data in title fields that we probably don't want to throw unprocessed into the magic word. Hmm. And then there's the "Sort key" field in the Index: that could maybe be used for something here… Xover (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover putting the article at the end is indeed how Module:Auto sort does it, which is what I would suggest Module:header eventually could use. The current manual ones are done both with and without, e.g. A Dictionary of Music and Musicians, which is literally the first result for insource:DEFAULTSORT that begins with an article.
The least "exciting" way would be to continue to use the subpage name, rather than the title parameter, because that won't change too much. If we wanted to use the title parameter, or inhale from an index page (rather hard, since most header invocations do not know what the index is), that would be a next step.
The first steps will have to be removing the manual DEFAULTSORTs, since, because none of them have been set with noerror or noreplace, it's impossible to do anything at all until they are changed to template params (or bot through and add noerror/noreplace, which is yet another option for moving forward). There are 132k+ instances, so it's going to be pretty painful whatever happens (and that's why I have never bothered to address it myself). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: Now that Category:Works with DefaultSort error is clear and I've had a little time to think about it, I think your first proposed method for transitioning to auto-sorting sounds good! (Assuming you or someone can do the script part, because I sure can't.) And I'm happy to do stuff like manually resolving the trickier conflicts. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 05:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: Thank you! I don't particularly have a preference among the different ways of transitioning pages to use the defaultsort parameter. I do have an edit request, though—could you add | defaultsort = {{{defaultsort|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}} to the header in {{A catalogue of notable Middle Templars, with brief biographical notices}}? Pages in that work had been putting manual DEFAULTSORTs on each page, and I removed that from the preload. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 02:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, please don't do that. There is nothing wrong with individual defaultsort, and it was purposeful to not have it in the template. Having a hidden defaultsort can be problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please delete multiple pages in Index:History of Oregon Literature.djvu[edit]

I hope this request is not too much of a hassle. If it is, let me know, and I am willing to continue to deal with it manually. It's a rather painstaking one.

I proofread (and part-proofread) a number of pages of Index:History of Oregon Literature.djvu prior to realizing (thanks to ShakespeareFan00) how very incomplete the underlying scan was. I have now repaired the scan (manually inserting the missing pages), and I have moved all the pages I'm able to as a non-administrator. But the remaining pages that need to be moved need to overwrite pages that are now redirects or no-text pages, due to the previous page moves.

So, I am hoping that an administrator can can delete all pages starting with scan page 140 that are either:

  • Blank, i.e. without text, showing up with grey highlight on the index page, or
  • Redirects, showing up with no highlight on the index page.

I'll note, I will likely come back for a second round of this, after I've followed up this request with some more page moves.

If this request is in any way unclear, please either ignore it entirely, or ask for clarification. Thank you for any assistance. -Pete (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peteforsyth: The time-consuming and hard (requires understanding of the specific work / the problem) part is picking out the pages to work on. If you give me a list of pages I can automate the delete or move itself. For deletes, either a flat list of pages, or make a temporary category and tag all the pages to be deleted with that category. For moves, a list of page name to move from and page name to move to, and whether or not you need to have redirects at the old name or not. With this input I can have a bot do the job in relatively short order. Xover (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
140 147 152 209 210 304
The full range of 309 to 330 (though a few do not exist)
437 438 445 446 447 502 569 570
range: 600 to 623
Does that do the trick? Thank you! -Pete (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peteforsyth: Well, not quite. The software here doesn't understand the concept of "pages in the book", it needs to get the list of wikipages to work on from somewhere. If all the pages are in a category it can look up all pages in that category and delete those, or the list can be manually constructed in this format:
List of wikipages
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/140
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/147
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/152
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/209
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/210
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/304
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/309
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/310
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/311
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/312
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/313
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/314
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/315
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/316
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/317
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/318
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/319
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/320
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/321
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/322
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/323
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/324
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/325
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/326
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/327
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/328
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/329
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/330
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/437
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/438
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/445
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/446
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/447
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/502
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/569
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/570
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/600
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/601
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/602
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/603
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/604
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/605
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/606
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/607
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/608
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/609
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/610
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/611
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/612
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/613
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/614
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/615
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/616
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/617
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/618
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/619
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/620
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/623
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/631
Always keep in mind that computers are dumb as bricks: a human always has to tell them what to do in excruciating detail. So in this case I had to translate your page number ranges into a flat list of wikipages. I made the assumption that the numbers were the physical page indexes. If instead you meant the logical page numbers (the ones printed in the book, and that you've mapped to physical page indexes in the <pagelist …> tag) then the list will have to mapped from the one to the other. (and to be clear, I need you to check that the list above is correct / what you want deleted before I push the button)--Xover (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, I tried to write down some instructions to make it easier to make mass action requests to admins here. Feedback on whether these are helpful and understandable would be appreciated. Xover (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks much. I've taken note of your instructions where I can find them next time, and I'll get you any feedback (but at first blush it seems plenty clear). For some reason, your bot seems to have missed this range (though it was in your list). Maybe it's just operating slowly, or maybe something went wrong:
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/600
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/601
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/602
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/603
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/604
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/605
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/606
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/607
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/608
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/609
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/610
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/611
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/612
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/613
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/614
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/615
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/616
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/617
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/618
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/619
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/620
Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/623
-Pete (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: Oh, wait. It looks like ShakespeareFan00 is working to address these problems, maybe in a different way, I'm not sure if what they're doing is aligned with this request or not. So, probably best not to take any further action until we've heard from them? -Pete (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: As best I can tell, the approach you're taking is going to require a bunch of my work to be redone, which is what I was hoping to avoid. For instance, by deleting the content instead of the page at Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/328, you have made it impossible to move the fully proofread page at Page:History of Oregon Literature.djvu/306 into its proper location. If I'm misunderstanding something, please let me know. But I was trying to approach this in a way that would not require any pages to be proofread a second time. I'd prefer if the final list of pages could be deleted. I'm fine with manually moving pages once the target pages have been deleted. -Pete (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please list WHICH pages are wrong and by how many pages they need to be moved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:: Unless you have done any new proofreading, I believe the most straightforward solution at this point would be if Xover could just run the bot on the initial list he put together (above), which appears to be entirely correct.

I have not requested that any pages be moved, because I can't think of a programmatic way to express that. I've already manually moved dozens of pages, and I'm happy to manually move dozens more. If you think it's better to move them in a programmatic way, I'll probably need some help formulating that request. The offset shifts many times, due to the presence of many illustrated plates and many pages having been omitted in the initially-uploaded scan. -Pete (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, never mind, now I see that you're moving pages as well as replacing content. I can't really tell what your vision is, so I'm not going to recommend any action here, don't want us all working at cross purposes. I'll probably just delete all these pages from my watchlist for a while until everything settles down, I don't think I can contribute usefully as it is now. (But I do need to scan those remaining 2 pages before the library book is due. I'll make that my last contribution for a while.) -Pete (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: Think, talk, then act; especially for a work someone else is actively working on. Please discuss with Peteforsyth and agree on a course of action before moving pages around.
There's no real advantage to moving pages programatically, vs. manually, but unless you want redirects it's often best to have an admin do it. And for any admin to do it in a reasonable time frame it needs to be automated. If you would prefer to move with redirects and then ask for deletion of the redirects afterwards that's fine too. Xover (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps someone can sit down and carefully document which page rages are incorrectly placed now? ( Where I'd replaced content, It was that I'd re OCR'ed a page, that had been a redirect, or previously been marked as a blank and now wasn't.)

These are some of the ranges that I think are in the wrong place (I've got no objections to my good faith efforts being overwritten during page moves.)

This table contains errors, I think I have corrected them in the version below. -Pete (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Old Page (Djvu) Offset needed.
301-308 +22
443-439 +22
448-460 +22
461-463 +6
557-599 +24

(There may be others)

The pagelist itself should now be correct and complete, however. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you both for your efforts. I've thought it through, and given what seems like a choice between "sit down and carefully document" vs. "just re-proofread the affected pages", I think I prefer the latter. Is it OK if we just stop the deletions, and stop any further moves unless the mover is certain that the source page is superior to the target?
And if so, can we move any further discussion/planning back to Index talk:History of Oregon Literature.djvu, since I don't think that approach will require any administrative intervention?
Appreciate both your efforts a great deal. I especially appreciate the guidance on how to approach this sort of thing, and I'll consult it in the future if I have a similar need. -Pete (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like a good plan. If you do end up needing any bulk actions please feel free to request them here. Xover (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xover, see above, I think it's only those ranges I identifed that are affected. For someone with admin level rights, a move should be straightforward.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for doing this, it looks pretty good. But:
433 should be +22 (and I'm guessing some of the pages following it should share that offset as well). And there seems to be a typo in the 2nd row of the table, "|443-436||+12" (note that the page sequence goes down not up), so I'm not sure what's intended there. I did spot-check the other rows (as in, checked one or two pages in each range) and they seemed good. Do note, if taking this approach it would be good to start with the last row of the table and work backward, as at least one or two of the pages will "overlap." -Pete (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: Could you take another look at this? Looks like your table is really close. -Pete (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to get back to proofreading this. @ShakespeareFan00: it seems like we were almost there, and if you're not up for double-checking your work here, I think after another review, I'm fairly confident that the second row should simply read "433-459" instead of "443-439". If so, it can easily be combined with the following row, as the ranges overlap. I've looked at enough of the pages to be reasonably sure that would take care of it; @Xover: could you move the pages as indicated in the (edited) version of the table below? If by chance a handful of errors result, I'll just take care of them by hand. -Pete (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corrected table:

Old Page (Djvu) Offset needed.
301-308 +22
433-460 +22
461-463 +6
557-599 +24
I am not touching this again until it's in a KNOWN state, and all the existing pages are re-aligned. This is why I try and check the pagelist before anything else is done. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: I have not asked you to touch it again, I've asked you to double-check your own work here on this discussion page. Your table above has some errors; as I understand it, you intended the table to address the problems you caused. You're welcome to not engage further, that's fine, and indeed your clear expression that you will not touch it is more useful than simply walking away from the discussion, because it allows me to know that your work on this will not again collide with mine. But please don't insinuate that I caused the problems with this one. I have been trying to communicate with you from the start.
I do appreciate your efforts to help with this -- very much. You have been extremely helpful with many of my transcription efforts, and I have learned many things from you. It is greatly appreciated. But please don't miss the fact that the lack of communication is the very thing that caused this particular work to be such a mess. -Pete (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry if I sounded too strong, and I certainly didn't mean to insinuate anything, if anything my strongly worded comment above was mostly aimed at myself. I'll have another look at your updated table. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging that, and I must confess I was also a little overwrought in my own message above. It's true that in my initial enthusiasm I transcribed a bunch of pages before checking for missing pages, as you've pointed out. I've never known that approach to backfire quite as spectacularly as it has in this instance. I regret that approach and I appreciate both of your efforts to help resolve it. I've been stressed about some totally unrelated stuff, and I think I was taking that out here without realizing it. Sorry. -Pete (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my revised request below, I made some further checks and listed every single page, because I wasn't sure of the ranges given earlier.
I've batched up the requests, and they should be done in the order presented, so as to as avoid 'moving' the wrong versions.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to transclude "The Queen Bee"[edit]

I am trying to transclude "The Queen Bee" to the page Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/The Queen Bee, but it says my action may be harmful. 17:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annoyingly, your edit was caught in a global filter because it appeared like vandalism (non-logged-in users removing large amounts of contiguous text are a common signature of vandalism at most wikis). The good news is that you only need 10 edits to become an "established enough" editor for the filter to no longer apply. This is a global filter, so we can't change it immediately here. However, if we see lots of these hits, we should probably get the filter changed to allow edits if the wiki is a Wikisource and the edit contains "<pages". Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: IP editors never get autoconfirmed, so that won't help here. Xover (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@192.107: if you give us the details (Index: link and relevant pages) we can transclude it for you. Alternately, it is really recommended to register a user account (entirely free, and you don't even need to provide an email address if you don't want to). With a user account it's much easier to communicate, and after something like 10 edits you get extended permissions that exempt you from some spam filters, let you move pages, etc. Xover (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New index page broken?[edit]

Just created Index:The Private Life Of Helen Of Troy(1926) (IA dli.ernet.524076).pdf and there’s a big error message and size of 0. What’s going on? feydey (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

feydey I told the form that the page was pdf, and now it works.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. feydey (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request for Template:Progress bar[edit]

I've created Module:Progress bar, which implements {{progress bar}} in Lua (and adds support for changing the width of the bar). I've tested this at Template:Sandbox and as far as I can tell everything works. Assuming there's nothing I've missed, I'd like for Template:Progress bar to be edited to this:

<templatestyles src="Progress bar/styles.css" />
<includeonly>{{#invoke:Progress bar|progress_bar
|not_proofread={{{not proofread|}}}

Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 08:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CalendulaAsteraceae FYI, I don't think you need to verbosely pass through all the parameters: you're using Module:Arguments which happily pulls the arguments out of the mw.getCurrentFrame().getParent(). All you should need is {{#invoke:Progress bar|progress_bar}} (I think) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload Awesome, thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 21:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated edit request:
<templatestyles src="Progress bar/styles.css" />
<includeonly>{{#invoke:Progress bar|progress_bar}}</includeonly><noinclude>
CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 09:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload, does the above code look good to you? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 06:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still interested in this. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 05:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new DJVU scan was uploaded for Volume 2 (with some missing pages re-instated) as a Djvu (see: Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy), and so the pages here were migrated back from the PDF to the new scan, and any transclusions were updated.

Because I can't delete the generated redirects when migrating pages between scans, it will need an Admin to do this, and I am requesting this here.

Done, I have removed all pages in Vol.2 pdf.Mpaa (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had also migrated the relatively small number of pages for Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_20.pdf as well.

This leaves Volume 9 to be migrated across and Volume 1 carefully compared between the DJVU and PDF versions.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index Migration[edit]

Source:Index:The complete works of Count Tolstoy (IA completeworksofc01tols).pdf
Destination:Index:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 01.djvu
Page-ranges: 109-112 , 168, 187-188, 290, 544

Done, most of the pages were already existing, so no move was done for them. Mpaa (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source: Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc19tols).pdf Destination: Index:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 19.djvu Page-range: 93

Done. Mpaa (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which with the moves of Volume 2, 9 and 20 will allow removal of the PDF based Index for the entire set in favour of the DJVU versions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left to do: rm all pages in Page/Index ns relative to pdf versions.Mpaa (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Migration of pages due to updated source file.[edit]

Source oldid pp (if relevant) Destination
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/483 . . Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/11
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/484 Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/12
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/485 Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/13
Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/2 9861036 (TOC) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/14
Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/3 9861037 (pp001) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/15
Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/4 9861038 (pp002) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/16
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/5 (pp003) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/17
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/6 (pp004) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/18
Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/7 9861042 (pp005) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/19
Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/8 9861043 (pp006) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/20
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/9 (pp007) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/21
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/10 (pp 008) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/22
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/11 (pp 009) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/23
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/12 (pp 010) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/24
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/13 (pp 011) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/25
... ... (Same shift occcurs upto) ...
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/470 (pp468) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/482
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/471 (pp469) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/483
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/472 (pp470) page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/484
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/473 (pp471) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/485
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/474 (pp472) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/486
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/475 (pp473) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/487
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/476 (pp474) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/488
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/477 (pp475) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/489
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/478 (pp476) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/490
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/479 (pp477) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/491
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/480 (pp478) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/492
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/481 (pp479) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/493
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/482 (pp480) Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/494

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: We can deal with this once the deletion discussion is completed. Please don't make multiple requests about the same work in different venues. Xover (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover, You closed the DR, Can we know handle the page realignment request? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. But I'm feeling too depressed and frustrated at this nonsensical hoarding of bulk-created junk to want to put effort into putting lipstick on it, so somebody else is going to have to take care of this request. Xover (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for moving an Index page[edit]

Dear admin,

Could you please move Index:An introduction to Indonesian linguistics, being four essays.djvu to Index:An introduction to Indonesian linguistics, being four essays; Renward Brandstetter; 1916; London, Royal Asiatic Society.djvu and also its Page namespace to match its current file name? Thank you. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 08:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rachmat04There is no point in moving the index or pages in Page ns. What matters is the title of the work in Main ns. Mpaa (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understood. But, there's a downside if the index page and file name doesn't match. If we are on Page:An introduction to Indonesian linguistics, being four essays.djvu/17, we cannot navigate to previous and next page, and also if we click the ^ arrow, it points us to "Index:An introduction to Indonesian linguistics, being four essays; Renward Brandstetter; 1916; London, Royal Asiatic Society.djvu", which is not exist. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 14:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rachmat04: I think it would be easier to move the file back to the name corresponding to the index page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. In the history of the above page, please hide the two edits immediately before my edit. They contain a spam link being pushed across numerous wikis. Cheers. [24Cr][talk] 12:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a request at MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext#Protected edit request on 25 July 2022. Can somebody more competent have a look at it? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll follow up. Xover (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandbox protected[edit]

Recently, Sandbox has been under frequent attacks of a vandal and finally I decided to protect it and allow only autoconfirmed users for some time. I know that protecting Sandbox can be controversial, but I decided for this temporary step after looking at the page's history where there had been practically no non-vandal IP contributions. Today I have noticed that an IP contacted PseudoSkull on their talk page requesting unprotecting the page. Interestingly, this IP has been blocked in for vandalism today too, so it seems quite clear that the vandal just tries to remove the obstacle. For this reason I would like to ask other admins not to reflect similar requests. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatroller request Reboot01[edit]

I'm not exactly sure how to word this, but I'd like to be put in for autopatroller, I try my best to follow guidelines and community standards (And help with setting new ones) while I edit, and I even try to greet new users when I see them edit a work I watch or interact with them on the Discord. I also feel that'd it'd make my life a bit easier without seeing that little red exclamation point beside my edits whenever I look through my watched pages, heh. Reboot01 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reboot01: Done. (I think it might be useful to have something like Wiktionary's wikt:WT:Whitelist at Wikisource.) PseudoSkull (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request: merge Template:PD-US and Template:PD/US[edit]

I've created Module:PD-US, which allows {{PD-US}} and {{PD/US}} to be implemented in a much more streamlined way, and as the same template. Assuming the module really does work as well as I think it does, could {{PD/US}} be redirected to {{PD-US}}? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 04:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ehm. Can someone remind me of the difference between {{PD-US}} and {{PD/US}}? And why we need {{PD-old-99-US}}, {{PD-old-80-US}}, {{PD-old-75-US}}, {{PD-old-70-US}}, {{PD-old-60-US}}, {{PD-old-50-US}}, {{PD-old-30-US}}, {{PD-old-25-US}} (and probably more that I didn't find in a quick search)? And why we're reporting this in strict ten year increments (that looks like an artefact of the limitations of templates rather than anything else).
What I'm saying is, presuming Module:PD-US works as intended, doesn't this just drop-in replace that whole cluster of twisty little templates? Xover (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that set of templates is meant to replicate various copyright durations worldwide; there's no point in mentioning e.g. life+55 because there's no nation that uses that. We could probably simplify it; there's not many nations below life+50, and that virtually guarantees they won't care about foreign copyrights and we host few works from them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But we're not really describing jurisdictions, we're describing pma. terms as a concept and relating it to the time passed since this specific author's death. Why not just say "any country with a term longer than specific number of years since deathyear" (or however we phrase it)? Xover (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: Historically, {{PD-US}} didn't have a death-year parameter, and {{PD/US}} required one. (I've migrated {{PD-US}} to use the module, so it has a death-year parameter now.) I'm pretty sure {{PD-old-99-US}} and so forth are just an artefact of the setup for {{PD/US}}, since they're not supposed to be used directly.
The other purpose of the pma buckets is to put works into PD-old-[years]-US categories like Category:PD-old-70-US. Do these categories serve a useful purpose? Because if not, it would be straightforward to remove the bucketing and simplify the license text like you suggested. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 00:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose the buckets might have some use if we discover an issue that affects only a particular bracket, but I don't really see that as a likely scenario and tracking cats for such issues can be easily added when needed. So absent any other factors I'd be inclined to say we should just drop the bracketing and get rid of the helper templates. --Xover (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PD-US is for works where the author’s death date is not known or for e.g. collective works where that would be difficult to determine. PD/US is for works where date-of-death is known, and sorts them into useful categories. CalendulaAsteraceae: Does your new module replicate the above? That’s the difference in the templates, so far as I know. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea., yes, if you don't put a death-year parameter in, the module will just produce {{PD-US}}. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 01:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CalendulaAsteraceae: Also, it’s broken. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea. I am very sorry about that. I didn't realize that {{license}} automatically adds an Author- prefix to the beginning of categories in the author namespace. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 02:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A demonstration:

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1928.

This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1928.

The longest-living author of this work died in 1982, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 40 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.

CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 23:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata badges[edit]

Could the wikidata badge of the following pages be changed from not proofread to proofread or removed entirely.

GhostOrchid35 (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GhostOrchid35: Done (admin permissions not required). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 08:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass import from Wikibooks[edit]

Does anyone have any better way before I use Special:Import to import many pages per b:Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion#Developing_A_Universal_Religion? b:Special:MovePage/Developing_A_Universal_Religion says that there are 116 subpages and the corresponding talk page has 20 subpages.--Jusjih (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jusjih: I'm not aware of any better way than Special:Import.
However, that being said, is this really in scope for enWS? One thing is that the uploaded PDF is not previously published, but a modified edition made by the author for online distribution. But worse is that I find no trace of "Stephenson-Hockey Publishing" anywhere, except in connection with this book. Which means this is most likely an ad hoc vanity publisher, which doesn't actually count as previously published. And if the publisher was a real one, I'd question the author's public domain release, since that is not usually permitted under a standard publishing contract. I'd say this work, regardless of its relative merits, is probably out of scope on all Wikimedia projects (including Commons, whose scope policy would probably exclude it on roughly the same grounds as Wikibooks' does), and definitely on English Wikisource. Xover (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seeing your objection, I told Wikibooks about our talks here.--Jusjih (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jusjih, @Xover:, is not it possible to use to get a list of all pages with a certain prefix, then copy the list of Special:Export, get an xml dump with all the revision history and then import the xml dump to wikisource? I’m just suggesting a possible way to mass import, and not making any comments regarding this specific book, and if it’s in the scope of Wikisource. That’s not up to me to decide. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 09:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123: Sure. But the XML dumps are pretty scary and there are lots of gotchas so it's really more of a tool of last resort. Xover (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover:, I see. I suggested this because that’s how Middle English Wikipedia was moved to Incubator Plus. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 21:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to transclude this document, but it's saying that there is no such index. I think it's because the DJVU file has quotation marks in its name. Could someone please help me with this?

For reference, the index file is Index:A letter on "Uncle Tom's cabin" (1852).djvu.

Thanks, Lizardcreator (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lizardcreator The quotation marks can be escaped like so by replacing them with the HTML entity &quot;, but I'm not sure if this is the ideal solution. This index is especially tricky because it includes both " and ' in the title; if an index title only contains double quotes, it can be wrapped with single quotes: see the transclusion of "A Modern Hercules," The Tale of a Sculptress (1899). Shells-shells (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

User:Jan.Kamenicek: opened a copyvio discussion on an obviously public domain work.

User:Xover: continuously hides my contributions using {{copyvio}}. Interaccoonale (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Interaccoonale: I'm not sure I would call anything first published outside the US after 1926 an "obviously public domain work" (bear in mind that Wikisource operates under United States copyright law). That said, the rationale provided by @Prosfilaes at WS:CV#On the death of Comrade Kobayashi seems solid, so the work probably shouldn't be deleted unless a refutation is provided. It's probably best to simply let the copyvio process run its course. There are other issues with the work (it should probably be scan-backed and put in the Translation namespace, for example), but those can be addressed in due time.
On an unrelated note, I notice the justification "ignore all rules" given in a revert of yours. Until a very few minutes ago, I was under the impression that policies were generally established independently by each wiki, and I was not aware that IAR had ever been implemented here; however, I now find m:ignore all rules, which is evidently a global policy "mandatory for all projects". I don't know exactly how this was decided as I can't immediately find any m:requests for comment relating to it on Metawiki. I would be grateful if someone could point me to an RfC or equivalent community process establishing that policy globally.
P.S. Given that you've decided to use WS:AN as a venue... I wonder when the penny will drop? Shells-shells (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That IAR is mandatory policy is incoherent; it only works as a flexibility outside the policies. I'm going to ignore all rules by ignoring the policy IAR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shells-shells, the English Wikipedia's RFC process began in 2004, and IAR is from 2001, so you won't find any RFCs about it. They used a different process, mostly involving discussions on IRC and the main mailing list, back then. The w:en:WP:PROPOSAL process wasn't formalized until many years later.
The other thing to know is that Jimmy Wales uses "policy" in a way that's closer to the "unwritten British constitution" than to a recognized canon of official documents. In that model, the specific page and the bureaucratic process is unimportant; what matters is the idea being communicated. Consequently, if you make six copies of IAR, re-word them all in different ways (but to still accurately represent that community's actual views and practice), then all six versions are also and equally "policy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have known better: the tag at the top of the page was only added three months ago without any sort of consensus procedure, as far as I can tell. I can't find any lasting previous attempts to make it a global policy in the page history. The page was highly contentious until around 2009, after which very few edits occurred; I wonder why editing dropped off so sharply? Shells-shells (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said that wikisource operates under United States copyright law. Yes, and so does the Chinese Wikisource where exist a lot of works by Lu Xun published after 1927 (China's laws are not applied there, yeah?). Interaccoonale (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm glad you brought this up, as s:zh:聞小林同志之死 is indeed marked as PD for the same reason Prosfilaes gave. I have mentioned this at WS:CV. I think it's a good idea, if English Wikisource is to accept user translations of texts, to cross-reference their copyright statuses with other langauge Wikisources. Shells-shells (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea what rules the Chinese Wikisource works under, nor how careful they follow those rules.
Works under copyvio discussions are hidden under {{copyvio}}. As Shells-shells said, it's hard to say that works published after 1926 are "obviously public domain".--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works are hidden under {{copyvio}}, and discussions should last at least 2 weeks. Does it means that anyone can make any article invisible for at least 2 weeks without any threshold requirement? Interaccoonale (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two weeks for a work that should be available for decades is not that long of a time. And we wouldn't tolerate abuse via this rule; in practice this hasn't been an issue, but vandalism and harassment would be immediately reverted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP Address Unblock[edit]

I was wondering if it would be possible to grant me an IP block exempt. I will be moving to a country that frequently blocks Wikipedia and I would like to continue contributing to this project. Languageseeker (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • So far as I know we don't have any specific process for granting the "IP block exempt" flag, but I have elsewhere linked Languageseeker to the relevant policies on other projects (they are pretty much the same: c:COM:IPBE, meta:WM:IPBE, etc.), and this request seems to be an obvious case for granting it. So if there are no objections forthcoming, I intend to tick the box on their account soon-ish. --Xover (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to support this at the appropriate time. Do we need a formal policy/process for this should there be similar needs in the future? Or, are we okay to simply log requests here on an ad hoc basis? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I would prefer to have explicit policy for all such things—so that I don't have to do everything based on my own judgement as an admin—but the process prescribed by such a policy could beneficially be no more than "Ask an admin, they'll give it to you if x, y, and z.". At other projects the main concern of the policies seems to be 1) making clear to those asking that there will be no leeway for funny business or abuse of this privilege, and 2) that it is a privilege, not a right, and it can be removed on admin discretion (unlike, say, a ban or even a block, which requires various levels of consensus). There's some other stuff might be worthwhile in a policy about it (effectively guidance for admin and applicant), but I don't think the process as such needs to be much more involved. enWP (IIRC) doesn't even process or log these at AN, it's in each admin's personal discretion and can be requested anywhere it's convenient. Xover (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes check.svg Done We don't need to have a formal local policy, m:IPBE explains this suitably and we default to global guidance in lieu of local policy. The granted right (special:listgrouprights) gives no special additional rights, it just returns an account to normal WHEN it is impacted by an IP block. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment we have managed without a formal policy for 14 years and we have had next to zero issues. We point to proxy guidance at Wikisource:IP block exemption; and typically the place where it is requested is in a user talk page {{unblock}} request. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I'll concede there's no pressing need for a (local) written policy on this particular issue. It's a general opinion that we should cover more things by explicit policy to manage user expectations, and to reduce the number of things an individual admin has to reason out de facto policy for on their own in the middle of a (possibly heated) situation. Xover (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License template migration edit requests[edit]

I've finished setting up the Lua modules to support license templates. The edits that need an admin are the following:

See also User:CalendulaAsteraceae/Staging for a categorization demo. Thanks! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 04:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CalendulaAsteraceae: {{PD-US-no-notice}} and {{PD-old-US}} is done. But before we redirect {{PD/US}} we need to do some work on the documentation for {{PD-US}} to cover both cases. Xover (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Xover! I've added the info from the documentation for {{PD/US}} to the documentation for {{PD-US}}. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 17:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CalendulaAsteraceae: Yes check.svg Done Xover (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @CalendulaAsteraceae, @Xover: Can we please get some documentation on the talk page for PD-US about the migration from PD/US as this change is significant from the long term instruction that we have provided. I would also encourage communication to all logged in users through the mediawiki:watchlist-details dialogue capability set up,--pointing to the anchored notes on talk page should be sufficient--and to leave that in place for several months at least. We should always have communication to the community about such changes rather than have them guessing.

Thinking that it may have impacts on some of our maintenance, though will consider that at a later time. It definitely changes the outputs of numbers of petscan queries that relied on that simple differentiation. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst, I've added a note at Template talk:PD-US#PD-US and PD/US merger. I'm happy for @Xover (or anyone else) to add anything I've missed!
How does the MediaWiki:Watchlist-details dialogue capability work? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 03:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's presumably MediaWiki:Watchlist-announcements, and it's a way to put a notice (arbitrary wikicode) on everyone's watchlist (some info on its talk page).
But that being said, I'm not sure I understand what the need for a watchlist notice is? So far as I know {{PD/US}} still works exactly like it always has, and can be used now just like before. That it is now a redirect to {{PD-US}} should be completely transparent for most users unless they go digging for some reason.
We may have (probably do have) a need for better guidance on which templates to use when, and to use one set of guidance consistently across the site, but I'm not actually sure that guidance changed meaningfully as a result of this mostly technical change. But perhaps having more instructions on a single template's /doc page makes it more pressing that those instructions are clear and concise to avoid confusing users? Xover (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ugh, wrong quick copy of message names, apologies. When we are changing a long term behaviour and instruction, we should always communicate, whether we have an override/fix/whatever in place. The reason being that the redirect is not effective in all cases, and we cannot predict all uses. Especially when it is a cheap and easy thing to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not aware of any use cases where that might plausibly cause problems, but I've added a general watchlist notice about the changes and linked to the talk page as a venue to report issues. Xover (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it necessary?[edit]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just a short off-topic comment. I am not able to judge how necessary these changes are and if they are necessary at all, but generally speaking, the more complex and complicated things are, the less people are able to maintain them. I remember nostalgically wiki times without lua modules, when all the templates were written in wiki code and easily accessible and simple. Now we are dependent on a very few techies (who I otherwise respect very much) who understand them. Licence templates seem a very simple thing to me, is it necessary to make the access to their editing so complicated? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's an apt question to ask, and sometimes the answer is "no". But in general the answer is "yes", although the reasons can vary a bit from case to case. One big reason is that your nostalgia is fooling you: a lot of templates are not so simple, and contain increasing amounts of outright programming logic, which raw templates are profoundly unsuited for (vs. a real programming language like Lua). And even the seemingly simple templates are not so simple because they exist in an increasingly complex technological context, and the lack of fine control inherent in templates (vs. Lua) causes more and more irresolvable problems. And the more complex this whole is the less safe and sustainable it will be for non-technical contributors to wade in and make changes regardless of whether it is implemented in raw templates or in a Lua module. Xover (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. I do want to note that I have left a number of simpler license templates, like {{PD-Pakistan}}, as-is. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 03:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forum with limited access[edit]

What I do lack is a forum with limited access where e.g. antivandal strategies could be discussed without the vandals being able to read them. It may be used to make e.g. abuse filter requests too. The access does not have to be limited to admins only, any trusted users might have it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please protect this page and block,,, and permanently (LTA). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for protecting, I have been recently discouraged by another admin from protecting pages against LTAs, which is why I have called for some space to make abuse filter requests above. These links to some external encyclopedias or sometimes pseudoencyclopedias repeat almost on a daily basis. Often the LTA(s?) escapes the filter by breaking the link (e.g. writing ency instead of --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Protection is a decent enough approach for stopping an ongoing and immediate situation, combined with liberal (but not permanent) blocks of the accounts and IPs involved. But for these LTAs it's a temporary and localised solution because they'll just reappear using new IPs and on a different page, so we need other strategies in addition to local blocks and page protection. And typically that's going to be something more or less automatic based on the content and other common characteristics of their editing. I agree it would be nice to have a specific forum designed for that, but absent that you can just use the existing less-public channels. You may also want to talk to the folks over on meta who do a lot of global patrolling and filtering since they have a lot of experience with this sort of thing. Xover (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IPs belong to open proxies and the LTA in question is hopping between them, so long-terms blocks are pointless; they'll just skip on to a new one. But I've blocked the used ones for a while just stop the ongoing annoyance. Xover (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to review protected pages[edit]

Hi all,

Special:ProtectedTitles (pages that do not exist and are protected from creation) and Special:ProtectedPages (pages that exist but have protection applied to limit changes or moves) have amassed quite a lot of cruft that seem unlikely to still be in need of protection. In other words, it's about time we go through those lists and remove protection settings for pages that no longer need it.

For example, we have create protection for a bunch of pages with "naughty" titles that were spammed by a vandal years ago, but that are now very unlikely to be targeted. These should have their protection removed so they do not show up on that list (where they might give people ideas). Contrariwise, I Have a Dream is create protected because it is a copyvio that keeps getting added and so it still needs protection.

Each entry on those lists need that sort of assessment, and the goal is to have as few protected pages as possible (but not less than necessary). Main rule of thumb is: if the protection was the result of a problem several years ago, and has not been recurring or ongoing, then the protection is probably not now needed.

I will probably start going through the lists at some point, but this should definitely be a task that all admins help out with as their time and inclination allows. Xover (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re ProtectedTitles, I don't think that we should waste much time looking through the list, it is works we shouldn't have and vandal only pages that we will never have. If it is getting cruft that would expire, we would be better off having some rigour on the duration we use, and if we don't feel that the current dropdown is sufficient, then we can add to mewdiawiki:protect-expiry-options, otherwise I just typically just type a date YYYY-MM-D which works perfectly for me.
Re ProtectedPages, I would think that the only pages we would wish to review are those that are fully protected in the main namespace, why would we want to review others elsewhere? To what benefit? They are not system source users.
Run a light eyeball down the list … sure, though the best system approach is not hitting these things too hard with protection in the first place. If we think that the information about how to appeal or address a blocked page is insufficient, then let us look at the default messages, and how we can improve them. The list of default and adapted messages is at sDrewth 04:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure about this speedy request. The author does not seem to have anything published in English. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW it doesn't look like anyone's working on a WS translation of the author's works either. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 00:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LTA and Stalin[edit]

This is just a heads-up to explain the large number of page protections I've been doing recently. A cross-wiki LTA has been persistently adding a phrase about Stalin in various languages (Chinese, Russian, English, and Latvian so far) to headers and talk pages of various mainspace pages related to Russia in some way. So far all have been from IP addresses. Each one has been different, IIRC. I haven't had time to check the ranges, so haven't done any blocks. Between Jan and myself we've been dealing with them, with Antandrus doing some reversions. There have been two hacking attempts on my account in close succession to reversions and page protections. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Access denied for WS-Export for users on a VPN[edit]

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a Administrator's issue or a higher tech issue, but I just found out that if you try to export a book while on a VPN, ws-export throws the error message Access denied. Seems that we shouldn't be banning people on VPNs from downloading books. Languageseeker (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Samwilson: This sounds like something which you might have insight on? Xover (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Languageseeker, @Xover: Unfortunately, this is likely because the VPN's IP address is (or falls within a block of IPs) used by bots. WS Export gets hammered by bots, and we block lots (by IP and user-agent) in order to maintain stability and only use resources for actual people. We can unblock specific IPs, so if anyone is finding themselves blocked they should send their IP to at (of course, only if they're happy sharing it; if not, I'm not sure there's much we can do). Sam Wilson 22:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


FYI, I have blocked User:Stellahk99, see User_talk:Stellahk99#Block. This is one of a group of new users who struggle to understand quality expectations. It is too much work to follow up what they are doing. Mpaa (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is with marking pages as proofread or validated that have very clear and obvious errors (probably without even actually proofreading them). This user clearly does not understand what it means to proofread, so their contributions should not be trusted. To go a little further, just from checking a few contributions from this user, I can still see a massive amount of these errors in their "proofread"/"validated" pages. In fact, I haven't found any pages that don't contain significant amounts of errors; it would be a miracle to find even one. So, a mass reversion may also be due. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PseudoSkull Several users have worked proofreading/validating each other on Index:What will he do with it.djvu and other works. From what I can see from their talk pages and contributions, some are following guidance, some are not. Even if we revert this single user's validations, we would probably fall back to Proofread pages with the same (poor) quality.
I am following up Index:What will he do with it.djvu, but this work is huge and not easy to fix (the text was probably copied by a different version, so it is full of those subtle punctuation and spelling variants).
BTW, the block will last one week. Mpaa (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm working through Index:Elizabeth's Pretenders.djvu and re-validating and then transcluding. Reverting them on this one would get rid of my work. It's not just this user. Also User:SM DENIS, User:Mugumejudith, User:Njuba, User:Kalyamagwa, User:Pine12k, User:Atyang344, and User:Fiktube are involved in the same behaviour. The group is also working on Index:What will he do with it.djvu & Index:Caroline Lockhart--The Fighting Shepherdess.djvu with similar behaviours. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good morning, Thank you message. Am sorry let me try to be keen and follow the guidance. Thank you Pine12k (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely it would be better to set the status to "not proofread" on every page touched by these users? That won't really help until someone (successfully) explains the situation to them, though. Or blocks the whole lot... 8582e (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatroller Request for Seperation[edit]

Hi, I would love to request autopatroller status, if possible. I've been consistently making edits for over 3 years. I haven't had any complaints about major mistakes during this time. I just think it will be helpful to reduce the number of pages needing to be patrolled. Thanks! Seperation (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Valuable ip contributor who seems to have tripped an automatic block filter. Can someone unblock him. Languageseeker (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just went to do so and the autoblock had already expired. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Please delete that page. A redirect was created where it shouldn't. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: Yes check.svg Done For the future reference, the speedy template is {{sdelete}} ({{sdelete|M2}} is "unneeded redirects", {{sdelete|G7}} is "author's request", the latter being the simple catchall when you're the only one that's edited the page). We generally process speedy deletion requests faster than we catch stuff at WS:AN (AN is pretty sleepy these days). Xover (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]