Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, 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 | Open proxies
Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 2,157,295
No. of articles = 620,692
No. of files = 20,264
No. of edits = 6,870,698

No. of pages in Main = 365,961
No. of pages in Page: = 1,458,318
No. validated in Page: = 314,121
No. proofread in Page: = 438,628
No. not proofread in Page: = 561,454
No. problematic in Page: = 26,040
No. of validated works = 2,516
No. of proofread only works = 1,302
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 154,836
% transcluded pages in Main = 42.31
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 2,808,558
No. of active users = 297
No. of group:autopatrolled = 439
No. in group:sysop = 33
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 21

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

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Page (un)protection requests[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)

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)

Question regarding possible use of wikisource for nonproductive purposes[edit]

I don't know exactly what policies or guidelines here, if any, relate to this matter. So, maybe, there may not be anything here to address. I dunno, but I believe that as per the history of this user User:Ret.Prof here of over 3500 edits, I don't know that I see a single edit outside of user space. On that basis, I think that, maybe, similar to the concerns I have now raised at wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ret.Prof and WP:NOTBLOG, maybe there might be grounds for questioning this editor's presence here as well. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that our policies in this situation are a bit vague. To provide additional context, all of this user's edits have been made towards "reconstructing" a hypothetical palimpsest of the New Testament gospel message. This is predicated on the assumption that at least three of the gospel books (Matthew, Mark, Luke) all derive from a common original text. However, there are no copies nor mention of such a text in any early records. Further, the "reconstruction" being made in his user space is an English version, so it is based entirely on English translations, and cannot reconstruct any hypothetical early document, which necessarily would have been written in Koine Greek. So, the edits being made are towards an original work that could never be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
They also seem to be, more or less, in line with a lot of his earlier edits over at wikipedia along the same lines. Some of those edits involved fraudulent misrepresentation of sourcing to support the same contention there. He has stated more or less from the beginning that he as an individual has a personal belief in the matter of w:Papias supporting some more Jewish version of Christianity, and that version being more or less the "true" one. Also, the fact that his sanction there, at least in part because of the fraudulent misrepresentation of sourcing, can I think raise serious questions regarding whether any transcription he might do here would necessarily be trustworthy. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Original contributions has allowed flexibility in the user namespace for personal writing. It is not disruptive. and I have let it be in that space, be it fact, fiction or opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Still as a sign of good faith I will try to address the concerns that John raised. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Foreign language words turning up in odd places[edit]

I'm not sure if it's just me, or if it's happening to others, but I'm getting foreign words turning up in various places in the UI. e.g. The "Unprotect" tab on WS:PotM is in Persian characters; and the heading for the language list on RC is in Finnish. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything. What is listed in is what you should see on the labels. If you need to see a message name ... ?uselang=qqx at the end of a standard url. 11:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete backlog[edit]

This morning (my time), I find that Category:Speedy deletion requests has 86 entries. It is rare for it to have more than one or two. In all of the cases I checked, ShakespeareFan00 is both the nominator and the original creator, so it seems they could all be legitimately speedied as "G7 — Author's Request". However when this many similar requests all appear at once, and all related, it does make me wonder if there is something going on — some discussion somewhere — that an admin ought to be aware of before actioning this... or is it just a commendable burst of activity? Hesperian 01:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

All the Speedy Deletions are Templates. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I deleted a few, but not all. Most are no longer being used: they were created to assist with formatting a particular work (or works) and have now been subst'ed, as the work is complete / the templates are not needed. However, I noticed a few templates are still in use, and so the page using them appears as a speedy deletion as well. Those will need to be taken care of before clearing the speedies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hesperian: you may wish to reference the discussion at the base of my user talk page for some of the background as was made aware to me, and the links. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The above templates have been deleted. A what Links Here was done for every page and none linked to Mainspace pages --kathleen wright5 (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, but a couple of them linked to the Page namespace, and the Pages had not been transcluded. Was this checked? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I've now rechecked the above templates with all namespaces. There's just one with other links Template:Td -- This links to namespaces that can't be seen by the general public. These are: Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2014 and User talk:Beeswaxcandle/Archive4 --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Pune Law College Editathon[edit]

Please have a look at the edits of Wikisource:Internship project at New Law College, Pune. The student group engaged on Index:Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.djvu are just playing with the proofreading mechanism and indiscriminately marking the pages as proofread and validated without actually proofreading the pages. I had reverted the status of some pages and messaged on the talk pages of some of them, but they are not listening. So, admins are requested to have a look. Hrishikes (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

For now, I doubt there is much worthwhile we could do. They seem to be making an effort, but have little or no experience with typesetting. Either some of them will improve with time, or we can run a bot later to mark the pages as either "unproofread" or whatever we decide. But as long as their practice is limited to one or a few documents, it isn't a crisis yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
From my looking at one work, the proofreading is fine. The formatting needs work. So I can see value on putting some indicators on the relevant "Index talk:" pages. Marking them as not proofread is a little harsh compared to giving some feedback on things that need attention. One I am working through and as it is not transcluded it is less of a hassle to have it there with the formatting in that state. We are just going to need to give some help. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Availability of user:wikisource-bot/patrol whitelist[edit]

A reminder for admins that where they wish to have the 'system' partially patrol a user's transcription work that they can add a user and their work to user:wikisource-bot/patrol whitelist. I use it where I know that a person is working well on a particular work, or in a particular namespace, though I am not necessarily comfortable that they have yet captured the essence of all namespaces. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI: User:ShakespeareFan00 blocked for one week[edit]

User:ShakespeareFan00 asked me to block them for a period of one week so that they can deal with some personal issues, including migraines. I warned them that this was not the best way to deal with these issues, but decided to do what they asked regardless. I want to make sure that it's known that this is all consensual and there is no drama involved, and has nothing to do with recent discussions about this user at WS:S. For reference, the discussion is at User talk:Beleg Tâl#In relation to my account here., and they also posted a notice on their user page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not a good practice. Users need to be responsible to manage their own editing, rather than asking to be forced. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not a great practice, but it is done from time to time. BD2412 T 02:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is not generally good practice, and that we are personally responsible for our own editing behavior; but I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge that as a community, situations may arise where individuals can extend support that is not necessarily technical. But perhaps the best support we can give in those situations is to encourage seeking outside help if necessary. Back in late 2011, I expressed the thought that perhaps I was developing an addiction with regard to my editing at WS. What was actually occurring was the gradual development of a mental health disorder characterized by manic symptoms &c. It may or may not have been evident to members of this community at the time, but my family was tracking, and got me the help I needed. We do not know everyone's unique situation. We're not really a "share the love" sort of community. But I am wearing reading glasses today as a result of a comment BWC made to me some years back that it might be beneficial for me to visit an optometrist due to some issues I had mentioned I was having at the time. Whether it is headaches, vision problems or seeming addictions, etc., there is ample help out there. We just need to be willing to seek it (and be encouraged to do so)—and not be afraid of or ashamed in doing so. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Block review requested[edit]

User talk:Lx 121billinghurst sDrewth 08:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Being that the block has already ended, perhaps what is being requested is a review of the block itself?—or a review of the actions that led up to the block? It appears that the User was blocked by Beeswaxcandle for "disruptive editing" (may I assume under the condition of "harrassment"?)—the 2-hr block occurring after (if I interpreted/converted the time stamps correctly) a couple sets of edit revisions between Lx 121 and Billinghurst took place, and after Lx 121 made what could be interpreted as an insulting remark in a comment as a result of the edits. Perhaps a warning would have been appropriate in this case, accompanied by an explanatory comment. Then, if the User continued to be "disruptive", a block could be applied. It is my opinion that Billinghurst's edits were "teaching" edits—that is how I would have taken them. But it is Lx 121's stated intention (on their User page) to merely find content to paste and leave the processing to others. That is less than helpful, in my opinion. Seeking licensed/sourced quality work is desired here. If the user feels the project itself to be "moribund" (re: User talk page), then why feel the need to contribute here at all? WS Users should, in my opinion, take on the project with the mindset of a monastic scribe. That sort of attention to detail is what keeps this sister relevant and aligned with its purpose. If WS be "moribund", better to die nobly than ignobly. Numbers of editors and works are second to a quality product. But I am getting off-topic. It is my opinion that a warning may have been appropriate. Then, if "insulting" comments &c. continued, further action could be taken. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looking through the user's history, it is good to see that they want to contribute, but if they refuse to follow site policies and standards they really are just making more work for the rest of us, and if they are edit warring with users who are fixing the problems with their uploads then I think a block for disruptive editing is justified. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- the mission of ws is to provide useful content to END-USERS.

& after ~14 years of operation, there are maybe 100 regularly-contributing editors here, if that. there are maybe 100 non-trivial edits per day (averaged, & counting sequential copywork as single edits). working from the raw page-count/pages per item, you have got well under 100,000 "completed works"; i'm not sure if there are even 25,000. & looking through the author-pages, ws does not even have BASIC COVERAGE of major english/anglophone authors.

& almost all of the outside traffic & links are from wp/en articles; nobody outside of wm is linking to here.

the tl;dr of all of this is that the project is "not doing well"

ws/en is a tiny operation, it is stagnant in terms of both community & work, & if things don't improve, it is going to go away; i'm sorry if you guys haven't realised that yet, but if you don't "get" the importance of actually getting content online for users, then you have already lost...

& the fact that one of the admins here is busily deleting page-useage data from discussion pages, speaks VOLUMES.

The wmf is not going to keep funding this place indefinitely to accomplish so little; we might as well just cross-link to the real gutenberg & save the money.

the way things stand right now, when the wmf eventually needs to make serious budget-cuts to balance their finances, ws/en is going to be on the shortlist to chop & merge.

in this case, "dying a noble death" is a fancy way of saying "it failed, & the whole project was a waste of time & money".

& i'm sorry if i seem impatient, but i don't care about the personalities & politics; i'm here for the work.

& yeah, if none of that penetrates, i can go elsewhere with all this useful content, from major authors, which hasn't made it on to the wiki in the last 14 years; & when the wmf does their next review, i'll post an honest critique of everything that has gone wrong with ws/en, with appropriate cites, & i'll vote for appropriate actions then & there.

i came here to chew gum & upload text, & i don't have any gum...

with all due respect,

Lx 121 (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lx 121: As you say, Wikisource is a small project. Because we are a small project, we have a large backlog of maintenance to work through. When you add works without basic header information, source, or license, you add a whole pile of work to our backlog. The fact that you are willing to add page-usage data but not basic licensing and attribution also speaks volumes. Edit-warring with the very people who are cleaning up the backlog that you created will result in you being blocked again. If you follow our policies there will be no such problem. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
1. the material i've added is all pd pre-1923, usa.
it is LINKED to the author's bibliography page
since your initial compliant, i have been careful to include a link to the source for each item.
1.b) technically & legally speaking, there is no "license" for public domain materials; what you mean is "tagging" the content with copyright info. & if there is an easy-to-use, handy-dandy shortcut to add the appropriate tag for that, when creating a new page, then i haven't found it yet.
either way, it shouldn't be hard for an "experienced editor" to figure out what to do, if a tag needs fixing.
2. this is a "tiny" project, that is going nowhere.
most of the "backlog" you mention is busy-work & bureaucracy.
it is not "hard" to post a page of clean-copy text, add cats for author, date, subject, & link it to the author's bibliography-page, & DONE.
even all your nifty templates (& mediawiki's lousy formatting) don't make it that much harder to do this.
3. i am not "edit warring" with anybody; NOR was i blocked for that reason. if you really want to get into the merits of the case, we can do so, but it is tangential to the main issues here.
4. i don't work here anymore; i am done.
all i wanted to do, was to create a decent collection of h.l. mencken works, so wikipedia users can actually find something useful when they click the link to get "here".
after 14 years of operation, you guys had one item by mencken, 1 link to an item @ another site, & a rudimentary list of about a dozen of the author's works.
now, we have a bibliography for this person that is at least semi-decent;
& we have (or HAD) six times as much content for mencken, as you had a couple of weeks ago.
until a particular user started deleting it...
until or unless this community figures out what it is doing here; how to accomplish the "mission" of the project, & whether the are actual community rules & procedures for deletion, etc.
instead of "free reign" for admins to vent/inflict their personal opinions; without sanction or reversal.
then i have no reason to work here; & doing so is a complete waste of my time.
i am not going to invest the time, effort, commitment; or as the buddhists say i shall avoid "attachment" to this wiki.
let me know how things turn out with that? Lx 121 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
That I personally do not care if you are not going to stay. Several people people tried to explain what's wrong with your contributions but you are still missing the point. Bad quality content (and you have clearly stated that you are not going to improve it) is the same as no content. Just make up your mind, you are becoming repetitive.— Mpaa (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Adding raw text to Wikisource doesn't help anything. Pasting unedited OCR text is not meaningfully adding content, and can drive users away by offering content that turns out to be useless.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

comment --

1. the items deleted were NOT "raw text", nor were they "ocr", they were CLEAN COPY (which means it was proofed & corrected) that only needed some formatting fixes, because mediawiki formatting is such crap.

2. the content was not "bad quality", nor did i state "i would not fix it" (& btw, i would like to point out that the whole point of having a wiki is to do collabourative work), & your statement "Bad quality content ... is the same as no content" is demonstrably false, is an attempt @ "false equivalency", is untrue in that having NO content is certainly worse as regards the actual purpose of wikisource, & as said abocve, at least twice by now, it was not "bad content".

3. doesn't matter, don't care, i am already GONE.

it is abundantly clear that no one is going to do anything to restore the deleted content, or address any of my complaints, or even give then due consideration, or fix anything. much less sanction the admin who has massively overstepped their bounds with these actions.

no one has even bothered to fix the blatant error that the deleting admin created in the mencken bibliography.

i am not saying that i will never set foot in your little "private domain" again. when i have something to do here that relates to wikipedia or whatever, i will come here, i will do it, & then i will leave.

but i am not spending any effort working on stuff here. it is not worth my time, & doing so would be a wasted effort; it has already been a deeply unpleasant & frustrating one.

tl,dr; i am done trying. i have better things to do with my time. i do not want to play in your private sandox that badly.

you guys are stuck in a rut so deep you can't even see it; membership/participation numbers are both tiny & stagnant, the amount of useful works produced over the last 14 years of operation is pitiful. you are failing the basic "mission" for which this project was created, you are not going to change until change is forced on you; & i honestly can't be bothered to fight those battles.

the wmf can fix this project whenever they get around to it; chop, merge, or a "hard reboot". whatever.

til then, you guys can just "sail on". without me.

if or when financial reality hits the wmf in the face, you should all be really worried.

let me know if any of you ever get your act together & fix the problems with this project? or fix some of then? or at least wake up & realise you've got some serious problems with how you are running this place, & at least want to try & fix them?

til then, goodbye.

Lx 121 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph of A Short View of Gamalielese was:

IN the first sentence of th

e historic address from the east front of the Capitol, glowing there like a gem, was that piquant miscegenation of pronouns the one -he combination, for years a favorite of bad newspaper reporters and the inferior clergy. In the fourth sentence of the first message to Congress is illy , the passion of rural grammar teachers and professors of rhetoric in one

-building universities. We are, as they say, getting warm. The next great state paper
I can see where all (most?) of the errors could come from a cut and paste from a checked site, but that doesn't make it good quality, or Wikimedia's fault. It would be a good source to work from for his works, but rapidly pasting many works from the site without fixing them was problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI: started a straw poll at WS:S re-asking about that forums use for RFCs[edit]

Today I have put up a straw poll to the community reviewing our use of Scriptorium for complex discussions / RFCs. I have a feeling that the current approach needs confirmation to continue. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Inapropriate deletion procedures[edit]


i seem to be having a problem with one particular administrator who has decided to unilaterally delete legitimate content, without regard for community procedures, without proper notice, etc.

specifically, i have been working on filling up the bibliography for h.l. mencken, a major 20th century american author, for whom we have pitifully few items @ ws; or more specifically, before i started work on his stuff, WS had exactly one item for him.

for an author whose wp/en article page gets thousands of views per month.

& for whom dozens to hundreds of pre-1923 items exist.

i can't access differ for the content this admin has "disappeared",

but here are the differ for the author's biblio page

thus far, this editor has "disappeared" at least 3 sourced items for this author.

please help?

Lx 121 (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

additional -- i find that the user has also taken it upon himself to erase discussion pages

specifically, to "make disappear" useage graphs, among other things.

the deletion "rationale" provided is not supported by fact, reality, or ws policy.

Lx 121 (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you going on about? Billinghurst hasn't disappeared anything from the author page. In fact he did a useful cleanup job. The "Gamalielise" link he commented out was already linked to from the Columns section. His other changes a) added a link to an external scan for one work b) delinked a redlink, but left its entry and added an external scan to it, as well as other wikification and formatting. BethNaught (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
actually, no -- idk if you have access to deleted or "wiped" items, but if you examine the diffs carefully, you will find the following:
i. user inappropriately deleted the article *"A Short View of Gamalielese" The Nation, April 27, 1921 ; without discussion, or etc.; mis-use of csd
ii. user inappropriately deleted the article *"The American Language" (book review of American English by Gilbert M. Tucker) The Bookman, June, 1921 ; without discussion, or etc.; mis-use of csd
iii. user incorrectly altered the biblio to MIS-IDENTIFY this 2nd article as "about mencken", when all the information clearly stated that the article was a book review WRITTEN BY mencken.

==Works about Mencken==

+ * "The American Language", in The Bookman (9 June, 1921), book review by Gilbert M. Tucker (External scan)

iv. user inappropriately deleted the author's discussion page ; without discussion of this action, or etc.; mis-use of csd
@ wp/en these actions would fall somewhere in a venn diagram between "ownership", vandalism, & incompetence; & would invite discussion of at least a topic ban, if repeated.
Lx 121 (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
If you had communicated more clearly in the first place and linked to the deletion logs I might have understood you. In other news, I am experiencing déjà vu. BethNaught (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
i have just noticed that your link is inter-wiki; do you feel that this cited item somehow invalidates my complaint in this case, here? if so, please explain how? btw; i no longer choose to spend much of my time editing there anymore, either. but when i do, i like to do something useful Lx 121 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
also as re: "in other news", i do not see your usename anywhere in the cited discussion @ wp/en, so i do not see how your use of "deja vu" applies? unless you meant that you were experiencing a delusion of deja vu? Lx 121 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
i'm sorry, but please understand that i am more than slightly annoyed, & upset, to return here, after <24 hours, to find some user has gone on a "rampage" of unilateral deletions of my work; in what i think could fairly be called a series of "pointy" edits. Lx 121 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

additional -- user inappropriately deleted a .djvu scan that was in-use to proof copy of a play,_a_buffoonery_in_three_acts_(opticals_of_pages,_but_text_is_NOT_clean_copy).djvu&action=edit&redlink=1 Lx 121 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

-- user inappropriately & without discussion removed page-useage tool from a discussion page

-- user inappropriately & without discussion deleted author's discussion page; abuse of csd:

-- user inappropriately & without discussion deleted author's discussion page (another one); abuse of csd:

-- user inappropriately & without discussion deleted article's discussion page; abuse of csd:

-- user inappropriately & without discussion deleted (another) article's discussion page; abuse of csd:

--user inappropriately & without discussion deleted (yet another) article's discussion page; abuse of csd:,_Merritt,_Lovecraft,_Howard,_and_Long)&action=edit&redlink=1

--user inappropriately & without discussion removed page-useage tool from article's discussion page:

-- user inappropriately & without discussion deleted article's discussion page; abuse of csd:

--user inappropriately & without discussion deleted article's discussion page; abuse of csd:

& i think that's everything.

i'm not going to edit-war this.

IF this action is "how things are done" here; & IF this user's actions are supported by the community, i'm done here.

good-bye & good luck; see you @ the next wmf project-review.

Lx 121 (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

it's also worth mentioning:

this user left a comment on my talkpage, stating they intended to nominate my stuff for deletion; then they apparently just decided to go ahead & delete it unilaterally, instead. so much for "due process" & respecting community procedures. Lx 121 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

& another thing... -- has anyone noticed that this particular admin does a hell of a lot of unsupervised deletions?

i am not clear on how or why this user felt that an 1895 book by Sigmund Frued was "out of scope"?

Lx 121 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

especially when this particular title is a REDLINK on the author's bibliography-page


Lx 121 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

& the only title we had on the co-author's page? Lx 121 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the deleted "discussion pages" consisted of page view statistics, and had no discussion whatsoever. If you wish to monitor page view statistics, you can do that from your own user space. There is no need to create dozens of statistics pages to do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
because... -- actually having a tool on the discussion-page to show how much USEAGE an item is getting would be too useful?
clearly, the deleting admin thinks site-page useage imnformation should be buried DEEP; in places that are as inconvenient, obscure, & hard to find as possible.
insert [douglas adams>vogon bureacracy] references here.
& even if you agree with the deleting admin's position, that editor should have opened a discussion about whether the tool should be used, or not.
to go around 'deleting talk pages, & removing content from other talk pages unilaterally & WITHOUT DISCUSSION, is NOT a legitimate use of "csd".
nor is it respectful of other editors; nothing this particular user has done in this case has been "respectful" of other editors. this admin has acted as though ws/en was their private domain, with no accountability for their actions to anyone but themselves.
Lx 121 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that the "unsupervised" deletion of the Freud article resulted because it was uploaded here instead of at Commons. Wikisource does not house scans unless those scans are eligible here and not eligible to be hosted at Commons. If the source is OK to host at Commons, then it is "out of scope" for us to host it here. We also prefer that articles in journal be added as part of the journal, rather than having hundreds of individual journal pages uploaded individually. However, in this case, there may be more going on, since the 1895 item was written in German, and we do not host German texts. The copy in question was an English translation, and as such may run afoul of separate copyright issues. No publication information was given for the translation, nor was the English translator identified. The file was subsequently deleted for copyright violation by another administrator. So, in fact there are several administrators aware of what is going on, and not just one taking action. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
congratulations, the answer you have given me was worth of Franz Kafka xD!
one observation; how can a published text from 1895 possibly be a copyright violation in the usa? Lx 121 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
A publication from 1895 would not be a copyright violation in the USA, but a later translation into English of that work could be under copyright, depending on when the translation was published, and when the translator died, and whether or not a publisher or illustrator held copyright to material included. For a translation, it's not the date of publication of the original that matters—it's the date of publication for the translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Before further discussion about Freud goes on, let me point out that no book by Freud was deleted. All that was deleted was a black and white (not greyscale) image titled "Josef Breuer in 1897".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest that, since Lx 121 claims to have gone, we not give them cause to break their resolution by continuing this fruitless discussion? BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
If they're gone, they'll never read this. If they're reading this, they'll reply anyway. In any case, we were wasting time talking about a supposed Freud publication when that wasn't what was deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)