Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
← Community page Administrators' noticeboard Archives (current) →
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 | Open proxies
Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 2,026,952
No. of articles = 587,535
No. of files = 18,014
No. of edits = 6,496,103

No. of pages in Main = 344,210
No. of pages in Page: = 1,360,684
No. validated in Page: = 274,618
No. proofread in Page: = 395,709
No. not proofread in Page: = 556,883
No. problematic in Page: = 24,591
No. of validated works = 2,151
No. of proofread only works = 1,198
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 131,965
% transcluded pages in Main = 38.34
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 2,788,603
No. of active users = 271
No. of group:autopatrolled = 428
No. in group:sysop = 33
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 27

Statistics
User preference statistics
Special:Statistics


Checkuser requests[edit]

  • Wikisource:checkuser policy
  • At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to 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 proggress directly of stewards
    • requests for checkuser

m:Special:PermanentLink/15753091#Tikeem pees at Oracle Arena@enwikisource[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: actioned by steward
I have placed a request for Checkuser to stewardson the account "Tikeem pees at Oracle Arena" and others that have vandalised in a similar manner in the past week. I have asked for the checking steward to take local action if they are unable to take global action as preventative measures, otherwise to let us know if such actions will need to be locally undertaken by admins by other means. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Page (un)protection requests[edit]

Other[edit]

Resource Loader issue needs outside guidance[edit]

The more I read up on this RL change and the subsequent actions needed (or taken?), the more I get the feeling some of my approach to site wide & gadget .js/.css organization over the months is going to behind this week's latest problems. If that winds up to be the case, then I'm truly, truly sorry for that. Let me try to document those steps and the reasoning behind them in hopes someone (@Krinkle:) can made sense of our current state and put us on the right path post RL change(s).

Originally, we not only had a ridiculous amount of scripting and .css definitions in our primary site-wide MediaWiki files to begin with but also called a number of stand-alone .js/.css files within those primary MediaWiki files called unnecessarily in addition to calls to various sub-scripts on top of any User: selected gadgets being called -- some of which eventually became default loaded per concensus, etc..

A simple depiction of the key files mentioned minus any Gadgets basically went like this...

Over several months with help of other folks, I began to consolidate and/or eliminate as much scripting calls as I could -- creating optional Gadgets whenever possible -- and tried much the same for the .css class definitions. The rationale behind doing this can be found in several places, most importantly: Wikipedia. The premise to keep the MediaWiki site-wide files "lean" goes like this....

 /**
 * Keep code in MediaWiki:Common.js to a minimum as it is unconditionally
 * loaded for all users on every wiki page. If possible create a gadget that is
 * enabled by default instead of adding it here (since gadgets are fully
 * optimized ResourceLoader modules with possibility to add dependencies etc.)
 *
 * Since Common.js isn't a gadget, there is no place to declare its
 * dependencies, so we have to lazy load them with mw.loader.using on demand and
 * then execute the rest in the callback. In most cases these dependencies will
 * be loaded (or loading) already and the callback will not be delayed. In case a
 * dependency hasn't arrived yet it'll make sure those are loaded before this.
 */

The result of that effort as it stands today can be depicted basically like this....

The predominant change in order to move towards the previously cited rationale & approach is that the bulk of the scripting and class definitions now reside in the default-enabled Site gadget files, MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.js & MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css. And by no means is the current state the desired final approach; its been a work in progress as time allowed over several months.

Obviously, now with the recent change to Gadgets and ResourceLoader, either the existing rationale or my attempts (or both) are no longer in harmony -- if they ever were. In my view, we need someone like Krinkle (or maybe the collective minds of Wikitech-l?) to take the time and attention needed to come in here and straighten all this out -- one way or the other. My gut tells me THAT will resolve the reported loss of one thing or another post-RL change(s). Again, if I'm right about my actions exacerbating problems for other, I apologize and take full responsibility. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes in addition to yours that hopefully make things work a bit more like you intended. I'm happy to provide further guidance but that probably works better for a more specific need or question. Perhaps bring it up on Wikitech-l or on IRC so we I can help you move forward with any unresolved issues. Krinkle (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

PDF generation issues; do we (temporarily) amend link?[edit]

A second report of PDF generation issues has been received. There is another at WS:Scriptorium/Help. I haven't had time to play with the print output to see if we have generated the problem, or it is more underlying in the extension. If we cannot get an immediate solution, then maybe we should be looking to change the link to use wsexport tool, with a reconfigured link. Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ensuring transclusions of proofread and validated works[edit]

Has anyone thought of a systematic means to ensure that our proofread and validated works are actually transcluded? We have our checking tools that can be manually run, though I don't know that they are necessarily are being run when a work has been validated, or a work has been proofread. Either way, having it done manually is a tedious task, and I am wondering if people have ideas on how we can do this systematically. I have a sneaking feeling that there are works that are sneaking through 1) untranscluded, or 2) untranscluded completely.

Once we have this information, we may be able to use this to look to manage the population of data to WD for the works, which is another task that we need to address. If we cannot work on this, then I suggest that we look to do some phabricator tasks to determine out our requirements with our colleagues through the Wikisources. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I came across an untranscluded work this weekend, but for which the entire text had been proofread. But I think this is only the second time I've seen one of those. No ideas that I've had for checking transclusion by bot seem properly feasible to me. The best I can suggest is generating a list of Index files (on suitably sized pages) and use MotM to go through as many as possible.
What about checking, for a given Index, that each page in Page ns is linked to a page in Main ns whose title starts with the same prefix specified in Index Title? I think this should cover most cases. (I was just simplify, rule needs to exclude empty pages etc. but just to give the gist of it)— Mpaa (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, nice, though maybe we don't need to be so neat? As we are wanting an indicator to check a work, if we can even identify a number of pages in a work, that is enough to get us to investigate … so where index:PAGENAME is in Category:Index Validated or Category:Index Proofread but not in Category:Fully transcluded and a Page:PAGENAME/{d}+ of the index is in Category:Proofread or Category:Validated is not marked as transcluded, tag the Index: to be investigated. Once investigated it is resolved and marked as being fully transcluded. How complex is that as a query? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
A pywikibot script is not complex (it requires many API calls per index though). I should see if it is possible to solve this with one or two SQL queries on a given index. Maybe someone with more SQL experience can find a solution meanwhile.— Mpaa (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I (think) I might have found a solution based on two queries (Page:xxx/\d+ transcluded in Main ns) and (Page:xxx/\d+ in Cat:Pr, Val); and then compare the two sets of pages. Needs to run on tool-labs. I need to check this a bit more and then we might scan all the indexes as WS-bot and tag the suspects. Will elaborate more soon. I can post the skeleton of the code somewhere if someone is interested.— Mpaa (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I tested this a bit, it should be OK. There are cases where a validated page (e.g. a cover or and Adv) is not transcluded so this will give a fails (e.g. Page:A Christmas Carol.djvu/198). If this logic is good enough, I can port this into a pywikibot-like bot and then we run it over the Proofread/Validated Indexes. Can you specify a bit better how you would like to tag pass/fail and with which template?— Mpaa (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, I think I am good to go (made a few trials, see [1])— Mpaa (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, I am currently marking as "Fully Transcluded" Indexes where not trascluded pages are 'Without text' only. Later on, I will make a second round for more complex cases (BTW I have revised the queries above, as I found several other cases to be handled). In the next step, I will mark as "Fully Transcluded" also in case not transcluded pages are 'Not transcluded'/'Without text'.
Would be nice to have a gadget to quickly add Category:Not transcluded at the end of the footer, so manual checking with 'checker' will be a lot faster. After marking the pages, the bot can be run again to take care of the indexes.— Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It was a maintenance tasks started years ago, where I added things manually to Category:Fully transcluded, though I have now migrated that check to {{index validated date}} with the parameter transcluded=yes and have created a negative flag category. This will cover validated works, and I will look at proofread at some point, though we could just do a standalone template. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
To close the loop, I have also created {{index transcluded}} which if says YES, does as above, if you say no, or leave empty it populates Category:Transclusion check required. If it is useful, we can bot apply it, and also add it to the Index: template as a default. I will leave the community to ponder. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as WD, the little that I've worked on has proven to me that this is a very tricky thing that cannot be easily automated (if at all). Even for the small set of works I've dealt with, the amount of preparatory work is enormous. Much of it involved disambiguation (sometimes creating more than one disambig. page per title), matching the correct targets at both ends (if they even existed), setting meaningful descriptions (which isn't as straightforward as I expected), and creating version / edition / translation data items there. Pushing information on our works through to WD is going to be a very, very big project. As I say, the work I've been doing is taking much more effort than expected, and I'm dealing with only 44 plays and 4 authors (the entire corpus of surviving ancient Greek drama). I can't begin to imagine what it would be like to tackle a larger chunk of this stuff. We really need a way to (1) chunk the project suitably as smaller tasks, (2) decide what exactly we want to send over, and (3) ensure beforehand that our side doesn't include errors / inconsistencies, such as different dates on different pages of a work, or (worse) incorrect titles such I have come across several times while doing the Greek drama data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with you re the complexity, especially with no feedback loop. I think that we need a push tool (a gadget?) that allows the form entry of data from the Index: page with a feedback loop to what is in and WD, and/or what is not. Ideally I would like to have the data in WD first, then create a book template, like the creator tool, then create the Index page and continue to populate from the book template, or directly from WD. <shrug> I have been working my way through the works that I have done, and that is my labelling of {{wikidata edition}} so I know the works where I have more fully populated the edition's WD item.
In my limited data set (44 plays), I've come across (a) incorrect titles, (b) incorrect years of publication, (c) missing edition information, and all of that at our end. Now while it is true that wrong data is wrong data, I wouldn't want to be pushing all that information over to Wikidata without a means of ensuring that corrections in one place prompt a correction at the other project. We'd also need some mechanism for distinguishing original first editions of English-native works from all those wroks which are originally non-English and have been translated, or those works which exist here in a later edition than their first. Such works have a different data structure at Wikidata, where there is a central data item for the "original", and edition data items for all other editions, including translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Transclusion display change — right margin[edit]

I am looking at some transcluded chapters, eg. Chartism/Chapter 10 and I see that we now have an indented right margin (~90%???) and full formatting rather than left formatting (jagged right edge). Has someone made a local change or have we inherited something along the way? — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: do you know where this has occurred? I cannot see local change, and then working out where the formatting occurs is unknown to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps something similar with this left margin which was not on my user's page and appeared recently without my knowing how or why? I've had a similar surprise on the French wikisource too. --Zyephyrus (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
For whatsoever this is worth (probably not much) this "change" in the right margin is most definitely (Java)Script driven rather than a CSS change (load the page with javascript disabled: result renders fine without restriction on right margin.) I think I may have gotten to the bottom of this although I'll leave others to add the reasoning for why the changes were made:
  • MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css has specified a right-margin of 3em forever (well since at least May, 2015 which is as far back as I have checked)—per 
    body.ns-0 div#regionContainer {
	position: relative;
	display: block;
	box-sizing: border-box;
	margin-right: 3.00em;
	margin-left: 3.00em;
}
  • MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js has attempted to enable the above since forever but using buggy code which appears to have been "fixed" in this change on 1st January, 2016.
The net result is as observed, at least as far as English wikisource is concerned. AuFCL (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The issue for me is the header template now is wider than the body component, so when items are centred in both, there is no alignment it looks buggy to my eyes. Does that also explain the fully justified page formatting, rather than the left alignment? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Pardon. I understood the "okay with frown" part: I was only reporting the status quo as I observe it: with the expectation it might give the appropriate users the sensitive points at which further change might best be implemented should they (you?) so choose. However I completely fail to understand your comment and thus cannot help further. AuFCL (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

PotM administration[edit]

RL has become somewhat busy recently and doesn't look like reducing for at least the next couple of months (it's nothing to do with my health, for those who might panic about this, rather music, work and the enWS widow all need attention). This means that I'm unable to provide administration of the PotM and awards for a while. Could someone else please take over for a bit? I'm happy to answer questions and provide some guidance. Administration of PotM entails making the final decision on which work(s) has been selected for the month, putting the work into the PotM and Collaboration templates, maintaining WS:PotM, welcoming new contributors, and making the monthly participation awards. For this last, I've been keeping an offline list of participants in a Word document. None of the tasks require a sysop level of access, but they seem to fall more naturally to us because we tend to be higher contributors anyway.

I'm yet to do the February awards, but should have time over the Easter break to do so. I have made no record of the March contributions to the Prime Minister's Wives, which started late. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: For me, the most important question is, how the monthly work is selected? Is there a pool of works from which you select? Is it based on interest of the community? — Ineuw talk 14:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Selecting is a simpler matter, and isn't at issue. We have a whole discussion page for that, and works are usually discussed well in advance. Beeswaxcandle is asking for someone to handle posting of awards to participants, which is a process he's mostly done himself. This happens after a PotM has concluded, and it requires keeping track of the PotM participants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
BWC's request was understood. I am concerned about the process of selection. The rest is administrative work and that doesn't worry me. — Ineuw talk 16:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Etiquette would be to start a separate thread on that topic, instead of holding that discussion here. BWC is seeking help on a particular issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Selection is based on assessing the suggestions and discussions at the PotM talk page. If there is no clear "winner", then I've selected the one that I think will appeal to the widest group of contributors. I've also tried to ensure a variety of topics, style and region of origin, based on the interests of our contributors. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Time out needed[edit]

  • Special:Contributions/104.235.93.208 - Re-creation of deleted material , I know because I asked for it to be speeded last time. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    Has been managed by another. I am wondering whether it is BambiFan101 of olden times, or there is another numbskull in that space of Disney disruptive editing. I have put out feelers to a CU at enWP for some intelligence.

    To block the ranges at enWS would be /14, a /15, a /16 (which equates to 7 /16s, which is big and not desirable), and presumably there are other ranges available to circumvent. If it continues we either just need to delete .. delete .. delete, or we would need to go use abuse filters based on keywords, and while that will have some effectiveness though would require us to think bigger in Disney keyword space. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

    Also, most of the additions are for titles and categories that will not likely exist here in the next hundred years because of copyright issues. I have therefore been protecting indefinitely most persistent recreations of these items against anyone who does not have authorization to patrol. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    Rejigged Special:AbuseFilter/28 to start to capture this rubbish. First draft.

Administrator Ineuw gives another user control of account[edit]

Through a phabricator ticket user Ineuw (talk • contribs) gave access to his account to another Wikimedia volunteer. This is a direct breach of wmf:Terms of Use and an unacceptable behaviour. Accounts with advanced rights should never be offered to anyone, and I believe that Ineuw should stand reprimanded for such actions. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Agreed. — Ineuw talk 17:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I am posting this in defiance of a directive not to do so. However it cannot be denied that Ineuw's basic issue was only solved by a violation of accepted procedure; whereas strict adherence to said procedure would have resulted in…what? Nothing? To me this speaks worlds about the shortcoming of "the system"; and nothing whatsoever for the benefits of "toeing the line."
The shame, therefore does not in any wise devolve upon Ineuw, without doubly rebounding upon the less-than-satisfactory performance of "the community." Hang your heads, collectively in shame! AuFCL (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Is "Page Tag Bot" legitimate?[edit]

I have not seen any announcement yet Page_Tag_Bot contributions have started appearing today—so far apparently tagging pages for category:Nonstandard texts with no clue given as to what is actually wrong with its chosen items.)

Apart from a vague statement of operations (which is at least better than the local equivalent version!) If it is in fact script-driven as change remarks suggest my personal position is that this script ought to be open to at the very least expert scrutiny (and the results reported upon publicly) before the bot is permitted to continue to run.

Can anybody throw some light upon this and/or determine whether the beast needs application of a tranquilliser dart before it does something really annoying? AuFCL (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've turned it off pending community consensus on the matter.[2] Hesperian 03:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Would I be right in thinking a discussion should take place in WS:S#Bot approval requests before the bot can proceed? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Correct as per Wikisource:Bots. It looks as though whomever owns it put it into action on three wikis without authorisation. Unkewl. Disrespectful. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
[Aside. The edit summary to my previous post is ambiguous and may be misconstrued. It related to the last question posed, not to the subject matter itself. Apologies for any confusion that it may cause — billinghurst sDrewth 22:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)]
I feel that this could be very useful, and therefore I support its use. Manually tagging new pages - especially when a bunch of new pages are created at once - can be annoying and can take a long time. BTW, isn't the bot requests page just for bots that require an official bot flag to run? —unsigned comment by 2601:183:100:87ae:a8e6:e239:c063:ba77 (talk) .
I'd be interested to hear more about how it could be useful. You've identified situations "when a bunch of new pages are created at once" but I'm not sure that happens very often here. You've said that bot tagging would help in such situations, but I'm not see how the bot has helped by applying this cleanup tag. What cleanup is required here? Hesperian 03:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I too would be interested to hear how it is more effective than our patrolling edits. Also to hear more detail than the bot's current statement of its task. The description may be right, however, it is not particularly sufficiently helpful or sufficiently informative to let it operate unhindered. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Proactive resignation request[edit]

Hello fellow contributors - old & new

Sorry for being "silent" for some time now. Unfortunately I've had quite a bit more to do in meat-space compared to previous years. I've come to realize that no matter how much wishful thinking on my part that I can return & contribute in at least a minor administrative capacity (if anything at all), it would be highly unlikely for several more months.

That said, I think it be wise to proactively suspend my admin rights asap. I would like then to re-apply for them at some later point at which I hope to return in full force. I can only check back here up until early Monday morning EST - otherwise I'll only be on e-mail from then on.

If this does turn out to be my last hoorah, I'd briefly like to thank "everybody" for the wonderful experience Wikisource has been - Keep Going!

Prost,

George Orwell III (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: one (1) standing order {{support}} from me for whenever you do reapply, however long it takes. AuFCL (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
)-: all the best, and hope to see you back in full regalia. Thanks for all that you have done over the ages. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Your contribution has been invaluable. Thank you for your part in making it such a great experience here for me as well. Your help and your patience have been much appreciated. Be well and happy, Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Lots of thanks for your having been here so helpful. I'll be very happy if you can come back. --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind help & support, and hope to see you back ASAP. — Ineuw talk 01:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of admin bit requested.[3] Enjoy your break George, you'll be missed. Hesperian 01:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Block request:Wikisource Addymin[edit]

User:Wikisource Addymin has an inappropriate username claiming adminship, claims the same on their user page and has vandalised Billinghurst's user page. Please block them (or at least do something). BethNaught (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, account is now globally locked. BethNaught (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons image of PSM deleted because of poor quality[edit]

This image was deleted from the Commons because of poor quality. If I had the opportunity, I would have gone back to Austria (circa 1915) and retaken the photo just to satisfy the quality requirements, even though Austria is not one of my favourite places to visit.

The interesting aspect of this request is, that when received two months ago, I requested on that page to leave the image alone because it's in the volume 88 of PSM. But, all traces of my request, and all entries relating to this image on my contributions list disappeared. I've gone through 24,000+ of my contributions and found no trace of the upload (November 30, 2012), nor my above July 2016 request on the deletions page.

Furthermore, I received another notice of a deletion request but the image was deleted before I had a chance to respond, and again, no trace of the image exists in my contributions.

Is this normal? How can I track down the missing information? I ask because I am very weary of the commons' instituting brutal German bureaucratic practices. — Ineuw talk 18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons has a policy against deleting files that are in use on other Wikimedia projects regardless of poor quality. As for the rest, I have no idea. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw:
  • I have undeleted File:PSM V88 D207 Two hundred ton block of salt in a mine in austria.png. In this situation you should simply have politely asked the deleting admin to restore the file. Note that deleted contributions cannot be seen by the user, though you can see the log of the upload at here.
  • For the second file, it is one that you moved to WP and it looks quite likely to be a copyright violation that should not have either been uploaded to enWP, nor transferred to Commons.
  • @Beleg Tâl: there is no evidence that the file was in use here (we track CommonsDelinker actions through special:abuselog) so that cannot be our argument or a criticism of the admin. I have commented that it is part of PSM project when I undeleted.
— billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks for the help. — Ineuw talk 00:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Abusive IP user (traced to Kansas City)[edit]

@Mpaa: This IP and this user and this user and this user (all likely the same person) have been consistently vandalizing my user page, my talk page, and this Robert Louis Stevenson novel. Mahir256 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=6451972"