Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2024

Special:Contributions/Im_the_simplest_person

The following discussion is closed:

Globally locked.

VOA and XWA, I already reverted many of their edits. MathXplore (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Globally locked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for The Tale of Peter Rabbit (1916)

{{Header}} has an illustrator parameter now, so I would like to replace | override_author = [[Author:Beatrix Potter|Beatrix Potter]], illustrated by [[Author:Virginia Albert|Virginia Albert]] with |illustrator = Virginia Albert. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  This section was archived on a request by: —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request for Template:Progress bar

This section was archived on a request by: —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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
|total={{{total|}}}
|validated={{{validated|}}}
|proofread={{{proofread|}}}
|not_proofread={{{not proofread|}}}
|problematic={{{problematic|}}}
|notext={{{notext|}}}
|height={{{height|}}}
|width={{{width|}}}
}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 08:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@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) Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Inductiveload Awesome, thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 21:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated edit request:

<templatestyles src="Progress bar/styles.css" />
<includeonly>{{#invoke:Progress bar|progress_bar}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 09:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inductiveload, does the above code look good to you? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Still interested in this. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: You might want to consider something like: <includeonly>{{#invoke:Progress bar|progress_bar|_ts=<templatestyles src="Progress bar/styles.css" />}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>. Although you can have Lua code call extension tags directly, I have found it is often better to pass them as an argument to the #invoke when possible (it also helps limit the Scribunto expansion depth). —Uzume (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uzume: Interesting. Can you expand a bit on why you find that better? Expansion depth and other optimisation concerns seem fairly irrelevant for this use case, and at first blush that seems like a more complicated and fragile approach. But it definitely wouldn't be the first time I've missed the germane point. :)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: I've completely missed this request, sorry. For stuff like this please do feel free to ping me directly (including on my talk page), and to nag me periodically if I do not respond. I am personally very motivated to enable technical contributors to work efficiently even if they lack +sysop (more technical hands make my work load lighter) so far from minding such requests and nagging I actually appreciate it. Especially if I am being lame about responding. Xover (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Xover: Well, I agree that expansion depth might not be much of an issue for this problem set (at least today: things have a way of ending up doing things they were not originally intended/designed for), but I believe passing extension tags as strip markers in an argument to #invoke gives better flexibility. I suppose one could use frame:getTitle() as a basename for stylesheet and then use frame:extensionTag() (or similar) to accomplish a similar end. —Uzume (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

But why not just invoke templatestyles in the template layer? Or if you need it in Lua for some reason (which I don't quite see here, but does happen when you need logic to decide which stylesheet to apply), why not just pass a page name, relative or absolute? Xover (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Xover: Those are certainly valid options but those tend be more fragile (since they are separate from the module invocation) and do not provide the flexibility or control of my suggestion (which does invoke templatestyles in the template layer and then passes it to the Scribunto module). It was only a suggestion for consideration—one often overlooked. My suggestion also allows the module to decide when and where (and even if) to place the templatestyles argument while freeing it from having to consider the templatestyles page location (which if otherwise handled in the module would need to either be passed, hardcoded or calculated, e.g., from frame:getTitle() or something). —Uzume (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uzume: I am not convinced of this approach, but that may simply be because I am not seeing the use case or the limitations of the alternatives. I'll keep it in mind while I am tooling around so hopefully the lightbulb will suddenly come on at some point. :) Thanks for the info / suggestion / discussion in any case. `preciated. Xover (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Xover: I don't have a strong opinion on whether to put the templatestyles in the module as opposed to the template layer, but could you make the basic edit to use the module?

<templatestyles src="Progress bar/styles.css" /><includeonly>{{#invoke:Progress bar|progress_bar}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: Could you take a look at the test cases in Template:Progress bar/testcases first? There are some differences in output that I am not sure are deliberate, and some of the failure modes with bad input appear distinctly worse. You may also want to think about whether the current tests exercise all parts of Module:Progress bar and whether additional tests could be constructed to improve coverage.

On the behaviour with garbage input: right now the module passes the garbage on to its underlying modules and libraries, and when they predictably blow up the module just falls flat. It would be better to detect as many of these bad inputs as reasonably possible and terminate in a controlled fashion with a useful message to the user invoking it. Xover (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Xover: Thank you for this feedback! I've added some error messages. The different order of the bars is intentional; I made it match the order of the page status menu. The width parameter is also an intentional addition. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: Done Xover (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for Template:Biblecontents

I've edited {{biblecontents}} to use {{flatlist}}. My code is in {{biblecontents/sandbox}} and the test cases look good, so I'd appreciate these changes being propagated to the main template. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Done

This section was archived on a request by: —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Does Spring Come, Even to Stolen Fields?

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Does_Spring_Come,_Even_to_Stolen_Fields&action=edit

The poetry needs lines spaced like the Korean original. Ah, p.s. some grammatic issues.

Thx

I originally made the page and made a few errors on the poetry. The lines aren't spaced well enough. Yet, when I tried to space it to edit it, the bot made me unable to act. It's supposed to be like so:

Part of the contribution collapsed

[ header and maintenance templates removed to avoid categorizing archives etc. --Xover (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC) ]

Does Spring Come, Even to Stolen Fields^[1]

(Written by : Yi Sanghwa, translated by: Jang Seokmin)

Stranger’s land for now—Does spring come even to stolen fields?

With my whole body in sunlight I bathe

Where the blue heavens meet the green fields

Walk dreamily through the paddy’s parted hair-like ways.

O skies and fields whose lips are pursed

In my heart it feels as if I didn’t come alone

Have you dragged Has someone called you

Choked I am, Oh do say a word.

As whispers in my ears, the breeze

Don’t stand a step, flapping cloth-hems

A skylark like a lady over the fence

smiling welcome behind the clouds, she

O, barley fields thankfully well grown

by the soft rain of last night

you washed your hair linen-like, mine as fresh also.

I shall go pantingly even when alone

the kind trickles that embrace the dry paddies

sing the song soothing nursing babies and dances away alone.

Butterfly, Swallows, rush me not

Dandelions, violets I shall also greet

T’is the fields the one castor-oiled^[2] plucks, hence its everything I desire to see

Have me grasp a plow

this soft soil like fat breasts

I would like to step until my ankle aches and even have a good sweat

Like a child on river banks

O my soul that reaches limits not knowing its ranks

What do you seek Where have you gone How silly, answer me

My whole body smells of grass

between the blend of green joy and green sorrow

I limp away the day, maybe the Spirit of Spring possessed

But now—for fields are stolen, now may spring be also.

Ah, p.s. some grammatic issues

Thx

1. Korean original: https://ko.wikisource.org/wiki/%EB%B9%BC%EC%95%97%EA%B8%B4_%EB%93%A4%EC%97%90%EB%8F%84_%EB%B4%84%EC%9D%80_%EC%98%A4%EB%8A%94%EA%B0%80
2. In the traditional Korean hair style, castor oil was put on the hair. In this poem, "the one castor oiled" likely refers to a traditional Korean person. Thus "the field the one castor oiled plucks" refers to the Korean territory.

Hello. The page is not protected, just an edit filter disallowed some unusual formatting. How poetry should be formatted see Help:Poetry. However, what we need to solve first is the licence and author of the translation, see Talk:Does Spring Come, Even to Stolen Fields. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Nowrap

Would an administrator consider protecting {{nowrap}}? Based on its "what links here," it is transcluded in thousands of pages. Thanks. Three Sixty (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unprotect Mein Kampf

We have a version now and another translation will enter the public domain in 2029, so this page will be good for listing the different translations. The page will probably have to be protected, but I think the autoconfirmed/confirmed protection should do fine. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Done; We'll see what happens. Past protection was set at admin level because it was more than just IPs adding copyrighted content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• EncycloPetey: I’ve created it now, thanks for changing the protection level. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unprotect Catholic Hymns (1860) and subpages

I would like to update the section authors and categorization of this work. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know when to push it back up again. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Thank you! I'm done editing the main page, but could you also unprotect the subpages? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Didn't think of that. The subpages were protected using a bot, and I don't operate one. Too many for me to do manually. Someone else, @Billinghurst, @Xover, @Mpaa:, will need to do that for you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Doing… Xover (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Done (that went faster than I thought) Xover (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm done with my edits now. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

And "slightly" belatedly I have now restored the protection. Xover (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Module:Ordinal

I would like to see Module:Ordinal unprotected. It was apparently protected on 2021-04-01 with the summary of "Protected "Module:Ordinal": High traffic page or template: used in article link ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))" (See 11147682). Perhaps that was true but the current Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Ordinal shows quite a different story. I am not against its protections but it clearly does not qualify as "High traffic" and full protection does not seem appropriate. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Uzume: What's your reason for wanting it unprotected? Xover (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Xover: I believe I stated it and it is more of an anti-reason. The reason of "high traffic" does not apply for enforcing it to be protected. The WMF has a history of open collaboration (including allowing unlogged in users to participate). I realize some things need some protections but should we not try to also maintain the reverse? I am not looking specifically for "unprotected" as per se, but what is the reason for keeping it so only administrators can edit and move/rename? The answer to that question is my reasoning for wanting its protections to be lowered (not specifically removed). —Uzume (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Uzume: Apologies for dropping the ball on this one (please do feel free to nag me when I'm being lame about responding).

The reason for full protection here is that Module:Ordinal is lazy-loaded by Module:WikidataIB, so even though it has a low transclusion count it still has potential to break a whole lot of pages (it is also probably unnecessary in practice and could be deleted). It also demonstrates a different problem: people randomly cut&paste-importing random code from random places. In this case it was someone cut&pasting a handful of modules from Commons (to satisfy the deps of the first module they imported) where our dep chain is imported from enWP (Commons code is generally not suitable for use on monolingual projects, or any non-Commons projects for that matter since they've invented the wheel several times over in a way unique to that project).

I spend so much time trying to clean up clean up stuff like this that if I thought I would be able to explain the problem to the community at large (non-technical contributors) I would propose limiting any edits in the Module: namespace to a special group (template-editors or whatever), by technical or policy means. It's not the little tweaks here and there that's the problem; it's the lack of understanding of the whole system, how it hangs together, and, thus, where it is safe to make changes. Xover (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Xover: If only we had something like template-editor (which I do have at English Wikipedia) in Special:ListGroupRights... —Uzume (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Uzume: If there's a real need for it we can certainly explore establishing a template-editors system so that non-admin contributors who know what they're doing can edit templates and modules that otherwise need to be protected. But we don't have the process framework to manage that well, and there are potential controversial issues around it, so I'm not convinced it's a good idea. In the mean time I'm happy to unprotect stuff ad hoc when you need to edit something that's protected. Hit me up on my talk, or post here if I'm being lame about responding. Do, please, explain what you intend to do; they're protected for a reason so some gatekeeping is still needed. Xover (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson edits

Could knowledgeable admins please verify that these changes to Modules and Templates do not negatively impact any of the altered items? They were made by a new editor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Just dropping in that they have over 15,000 edits at Wikipedia, with a good amount of coding knowledge, and have been active there since 2007, so not unreasonable to think the edits might be fine, although I don't know if they're out of line to edit important modules etc. as a new WS contributor. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson: Thanks for trying to help out, but please don't start making cosmetic changes around our technical spaces willy nilly. At best they're pointless and just create noise in watchlists, and in some of the cases in your recent changes they create actual problems and extra work for other contributors. If you want to help out here there are better places to start than in Template:/Module: namespaces until you've acclimatised here. Xover (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandal—User:Here is my hero at home

Extremely obvious vandalism, this user should be blocked. SpikeShroom (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@SpikeShroom: Thanks for the heads up. Done Xover (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandal

Bagaina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Cross-wiki abuse report

39.50.199.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) -- USSR-Slav (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Done Blocked 1 week and edits undone or deleted. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:F427:B400:89C:7271:2B91:828E

2001:8003:F427:B400:89C:7271:2B91:828E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) - They'd left talk page comments that suggested NOTHERE to me, and which should ideally be considered for oversight ( I'd already reverted thm.).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Related User:2001:8003:F427:B400:349D:59FE:8C69:8C57, and User:Fa_hgot_244. Suspecting an LTA account hopping.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Please import commons:Template:PD-FLGov

I'm not sure whether a straight import is permissible or whether there is customization that would need to happen, but as far as I can tell there's no template on Wikisource that would cover e.g. Constitution of the State of Florida (1968), making it impossible to comply with WS:Copyright policy for that page, at least without jumping through some kind of hoops. -Pete (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Some customization would need to happen, since Commons uses Autotranslate for license templates and therefore uses a more complicated structure than we do. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• CalendulaAsteraceae: For this case, PD-EdictGov would apply; the Constitution is an “edict of government,” so Florida doesn’t have any control over it in the first instance (and that control is necessary for PD-FLGov to apply). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the mis-ping: in response to Pete’s request. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you TE(æ)A,ea. I had apparently misread this years ago, and misunderstood "Organization of American States" as..."American states." Very pleased to know I was wrong. (Still, many works of the State of Florida are not "edicts," so it seems important to have some version specific to Florida.) -Pete (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Before importing this template I'd want a nice thorough discussion of the relevant copyright issues, and with a specific text or texts as the use case. The template's text has several red flags for me and I am not at all certain everything it says is valid.

Oh, and we wouldn't Special:Import Commons' templates because they use a huge baroque and home-grown internationalization system that makes sense nowhere but on Commons (and barely even there). If the text of the template is clear and free of controversy etc., knocking out a new license template based on our own system should not be a huge endeavour. Xover (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. -Pete (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Twitter whitelist

Could someone fix the Twitter reference here? It’s t​.co (with a space) on the page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Done

Incidentally, at some point we (we as in the community) should probably have a discussion of whether or not we want to have these kinds of extlinks be live, or to just give them as text. All browsers make it easy to visit a text link (select+right click), and live links creates the need to maintain an extensive whitelist (that editors have to jump through hoops to get updated), leaves us open to certain kinds of manipulation, tanks our search engine rankings (we look like a link farm), and makes us link to some things we would otherwise not permit to be linked. The status quo works reasonably well right now, but long-term and as the number of such links grow it's certainly not ideal. Other alternative approaches may also exist, like getting a special group for trusted contributors that are allowed to add such links (as live links)—ala. filemovers on Commons—but blanket forbid it for everyone else. Xover (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

For now, perhaps we could add the sboverride (bypassing spam blocklist) right to the autopatrolled group. I can't imagine a scenario where an autopatrolled user would be linkspamming. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Contribs! 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

IRC spam

I've noticed some spam in the IRC channel recently. Does anyone know how the IRC is moderated? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser notice

Hi. Per the local CheckUser policy on this wiki, I will note that I have performed a check on a cross-wiki spam account on this wiki, Special:CentralAuth/Berlin2305, as I was not able to check it on loginwiki. EPIC (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@EPIC: Thanks. Xover (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson Poems

Re [1], [2] and many others, why were all of these pages moved to incorrect titling? (the "Cleanup title" edit summary is meaningless). The spaces between em dashes are intentional, as is obvious in the poem text, and are a consistent part of Dickinson's style. Was there even a discussion to permit this? Aza24 (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WS:MOS: "Whichever dash is used, it should not be flanked by spaces". This is standard practice on enWS and is not considered controversial.

Furthermore, dashes didn't appear in published editions of Dickinson's poems until the 1950s, and do not appear in any of the published scans that we are able to host for copyright reasons. What is more, scholarly opinion on the punctuation in Dickinson's works is far from unanimous (with some experts arguing that they are custom markings rather than standard dashes), and none of the research I have read on the subject has addressed the spaces themselves, which appear to have been a stylistic preference on the part of editor Thomas H. Johnson (or by his publisher). —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Fancy punctuation, with or without any amount of whitespace, should not be replicated in the wikipage name in any case: its purpose is primarily navigation, and it needs to be easy and unambiguous to type. Adherence to some arbitrary stylistic standard can be hashed out in the title field. Xover (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both! In the future, a more detailed edit summary could have avoided this. Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandal—User:Logan Sesto

I reverted their vandalism but the user should be blocked. SpikeShroom (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Done SnowyCinema (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Spammer

Please block abortion pill spammer User:حبوب اجهاض سايتوتك (0599287172) دبي الرياض. Already blocked on Commons. Latest edits are to Wikisource talk:Community portal. —RP88 14:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

move request

index:First Woman issue 1 Dreams to Reality.pdf ==> index:First Woman issue 1 Dream to Reality.pdf

The scan already has the right name on Commons thanks to c:user:Sikander. Arlo Barnes (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Done Note that move requests should usually be posted to the relevant section of the Wikisource:Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Mistake in the link in MediaWiki:Gadget-watchlist-notice

Hi. I’m not sure if this is the good place to post my message. I found a mistake in MediaWiki:Gadget-watchlist-notice. The link should be "w:Wikipedia:Watchlist notices" and not just "Wikipedia:Watchlist notices". Otherwise, it links to the main namespace of Wikipedia. Cheers, Lepticed7 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It is, and thanks; fixed now. Xover (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Links in module messages

The messages at the top of module pages have a few problems. One of them (I think when there is no documentation) links to w:Lua, which is a disambiguation page, and should maybe link to mw:Extension:Scribunto. The standard documentation message, on the other hand, links to w:Template documentation (which does not exist) instead of w:wikipedia:Template documentation. Could someone please correct these links? (sorry if this is the wrong place to ask). Alien333 (what I did — why I did it wrong) 10:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alien333: Erm. Could you link to a page where you're seeing this? Xover (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

For the template documentation one, look at any module page with a doc subpage (example Module:Ppoem). Where it says "The above documentation is transcluded from", etc, the documentation is linked to w:template documentation.

For the lua one, it's for modules without doc subpages (Example: Module:Cl-act/test). In the "You might want to create a documentation page for this Scribunto module", "scribunto module" is linked to w:lua Alien333 (what I did — why I did it wrong) 12:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alien333: Better now? Xover (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No, as far as I can see, the messages still link to the wrong pages. I don't know where the text for these messages is actually located. Alien333 (what I did — why I did it wrong) 12:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Xover Sorry, it's good now, I hadn't noticed the change because I got mixed up with wikipedia and the wikipedia ns. Thanks! Alien333 (what I did — why I did it wrong) 13:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Please move: Romance and Reality

This needs to be moved to Romance and Reality (Landon) for disambig purposes, and it has many subpages that need to be moved without redirect. Merci! —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Doing… Xover (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Done Xover (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Mass work on rh

@ShakespeareFan00, please stop doing mass work on rh. I have already asked you and you said you were not going to. If you don't, I am going to block you. Mpaa (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Stopped. Time to do something else ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser notice

Hi, I'm EPIC, a Wikimedia Steward - as per your local CheckUser policy I am noting that, in conjunction with me performing spambot checks on several wikis, I performed multiple local checks for spambot IPs/spambot accounts captured in Special:Log/spamblacklist between 6 April and 7 June. The only IPs/accounts I did not check were those that were obvious false positives; if you need more information on exactly which of the accounts and IPs within that time period I checked, feel free to ask and I will be more specific (it was a lot of accounts and IPs so that's why I only specified the time period), and feel free to ask any further questions if needed. EPIC (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Spam filter re: recent activity on Scriptorium

There's an IP editor who's been flooding the page with irrelevant edits about "daily numbers" and such, sometimes getting in 50+ before an admin catches them. Is there a spam filter rule we can use to slow them down? Arcorann (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There is one, but it did not catch them. I adjusted the filter yesterday shortly after the attack, so we will see. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Derailment of Amtrak Passenger Train 188 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania May 12, 2015.dvju.djvu

The misnamed index (.dvju.djvu) messes up the pages: the parent index is thought to be the correct one (.djvu). The file has been moved, so the index and the pages need to be fixed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Doing… Xover (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Done Xover (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Accidentally got flagged for spam/vandalism.

I'm new to Wikisource and have just started editing. I've been going through 'The Heart of Jainism' (Margaret Stevenson, 1915) and fixing up formatting and generally trying to make the pages consistent with one another. I guess I've made too many edits too quickly, and have been flagged for spam and/or vandalism. I was specifically trying to edit page 10, fixing up some italics and the small capitalisation of b.c. when I was flagged. A message told me to go here, thus I have. Is there a cool down period before I can go back to editing, or is this something I'll need to clear up with an admin? MinerB40 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Done It was not because of too many edits, you can make as many and as quickly as you want. It was a different problem, now solved. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply. It is very much appreciated. MinerB40 (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Captcha problems

As a new user, I have been encountering several captchas on this website, which are nearly impossible to deal with. I don't know if this is due to the recent Microsoft-related tech incident, or not, but these captchas just don't work.

When I tried to post a topic here using the 'add topic' function, the captchas would never accept the correct input. I tried this using 4 different browsers. Only when I manually edited the source code of this page would the captchas work. Thanks for reading. LoopyBreeze (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@LoopyBreeze: Yeah, sorry about that. The captchas will go away in a couple of days; they're there for new accounts to deter spam bots and such. After 10 edits and 4 days (IIRC) your account will get the "autoconfirmed" flag and no longer be subject to these captchas. Xover (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice of steward CU

Hi, per the CheckUser policy on this wiki I am noting that I performed a check here on a spambot account, JannieBreeden64 (talk • contribs) (see abuse log entries for reference). Feel free to ask in case you have any further questions. Thanks, EPIC (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to rename page misspelling "magainze" to "magazine"

The page Index:The Vegetarian, a monthly magainze published to advocate wholesome living (IA vegetarianmonthl00unse 2).pdf has a misspelling. Please change "magainze" to "magazine". I have already edited the page text to make the correction and links to the correct spelling are now red. Thank you, SchreiberBike (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a little bit complicated, so it will take me a few moments. I will have to rename the scan, move the Index, and all of the pages so far Proofread. Once that's done, I will post again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything should now be set up at Index:The Vegetarian, a monthly magazine published to advocate wholesome living (IA vegetarianmonthl00unse 2).pdf. Also, I notice that you're using {{smaller}} around {{rh}} in the headers of the pages. That's incorrect syntax: you cannot wrap the running header inside a font-size template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

(Specifically, this is because {{running header}} is a div-based template, and {{smaller}} is a span-based template.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:A Home in a Prairie Town.pdf change

Index:A Home in a Prairie Town.pdf cannot be edited (cf, <https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Index:A_Home_in_a_Prairie_Town.pdf&action=edit>; I get [c4092d02-aaf0-4097-9820-cda81746d42c] 2024-08-02 16:57:50: Fatal exception of type "LogicException").

This is a redirect. It either needs to be deleted or made to point to Index:A Home in a Prairie Town.jpeg instead.  -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Not sure why that redirect existed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban: C. A. Russell ↔ EncycloPetey

The following discussion is closed:

The proposal for an interaction ban found no support from anyone commenting. The block enacted after the thread was opened was examined by multiple community members (both admins and non-admins) and while some different perspectives were expressed, none disagreed directly with the block or expressed criticism of the blocking admin.

I'd like to propose a brief (hopefully temporary) interaction ban between User:C. A. Russell and User:EncycloPetey.

Loosely patterned after the same concept as it exists on Wikipedia; refer to w:WP:IBAN. (NB: This does not require deep familiarity with Wikipedia's policies nor is it a call for deep familiarization; consider the previous link non-normative.) In fact, the word "ban" is probably too strong here.

If both parties can voluntarily agree to this, then we need not go into the details. If not, though, we can get down to exactly what is being proposed, what it means to abide by it, what enforcement looks like, etc., but hopefully that won't be necessary. (If it is necessary, then I guess it's necessary.)

The idea is that neither should go out of their way to interact with the other. Indeed, each should be willing to go a little out of their way to avoid interacting with each other; in the event that a run-in is organic and by happenstance (as opposed to deliberate), the second on the scene should consider hanging back. Check back in a week or a month or three, and work on something else in the meantime. Wikisource is a big space; there's no shortage of work that needs doing, and that will still be the case at the end of the period. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia. I can understand why you want to avoid going into details, as my warning for your uncivil discourse triggered your attempt to avoid the reprimand. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you began screaming at me yesterday, then began reverting my clarification edits, then deleted all our conversation. You refused to answer simple questions about a text you worked on. But you have today switched to uncivil discourse, for which you were warned, and are now requesting that the warning administrator be banned from reprimanding you. Based on today's interactions, I discovered why you are suddenly very active here when I checked your Talk page on Wikipedia. You were recently banned altogether from that site, which I understand can be upsetting, but please do not bring that pattern of behavior here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I had this typed up but thought it unnecessary to include:

Note that this is not a proposal for anyone to be able to unilaterally do whatever they want and suffer no consequences. One of these users is an administrator. Administrators are responsible for the well-being of the project (as are other non-admins). Again: this is not a proposal that anyone be allowed to run amok unchecked.

I guess I was wrong?

This proposal was not motivated by "warning for [my] uncivil discourse"; I wrote it before that happened. (I would observe that it is uncharitable and borderline uncivil itself to make that claim)

There's also a lot of charged language (and misleading claims) in the response here. ("Screaming" for example?)

I'd like the input of other folks.

Bringing up the disposition a few Wikipedians arrived at (in a conflict that involved the bad behavior of an administrator at that project) is a clear attempt to w:poison the well—and I would also observe that it's a bit odd to start out by pointing out that this is not Wikipedia and then also try gesture towards Wikipedians' wisdom on the proper position/disposition of a given issue and/or contributor.

As I said before: Wikisource is a big space. There's a lot to work on. There will still be a lot to work on tomorrow, and the day after that (and next week, and next month, and...). The best thing for the project is for everyone to try to do their best to get along, and failing that, be cool, try to hang back and steer clear of one another in the event of conflicts and work positively towards the project goals rather than spending hours mired bickering and personal animus. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@C. A. Russell: You may want to try to listen to what EncycloPetey is trying to tell you, rather than running to AN to request an interaction ban without even specifying a reason. You are new to this project so the wiser course would be to try to learn from more experienced contributors. Xover (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

then began reverting my clarification edits

This is a separate matter that needs looking into (probably best in a discussion over at Template talk:No source/doc), but it's worth addressing specifically, because it's (a) misleading about the sequence of events, and (b) misleading about the nature of the edit—which constitutes a significant change to template usage.

Let's direct interested folks to Template talk:No_source/doc (because, again, it is worthwhile) and keep the discussion here focused instead of overbroad in scope. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

When a second administrator stepped in, you deleted their comments, and chastised them in the edit summary. We are now beyond the point where we can assume good faith. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That, too, is inaccurate/misleading. Keep in mind, too, that this discussion occurred on my user talk page—I didn't delete their comments from an open discussion from e.g. a template talk page.

I cleaned up comments you wrote, too, once that thread of discussion wrapped up.

Again: it's my user talk page, not e.g. an Administrator's Noticeboard comment from someone that I maliciously excluded from the discussion. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

A unilateral decision to end a conversation, by deleting it from a page, does not mean that discussion wrapped up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm baffled trying to figure out what your actual position is here. What are you saying, concretely? That I should not have removed those comments from my talk page? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Please explain what you intended when you removed the second administrator's comment, with an edit summary of "no Gricing allowed". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Insofar as I can see, such a ban is not contemplated by our rules, and thus this proposal is out of place. C. A. Russell: Do you have some more concrete basis for your proposal? If not, you should propose a formal change to our rules which would allow for interaction bans, and then follow the rules established in that proposal to seek such a ban. Without such a system in place, ad hoc proposals like this could go on without sufficient safeguards. You do have the right to remove comments from your User talk:, but the record of those comments still exists, and your characterization thereof need not be accepted. Your proposed change to the documentation for the template should be discussed, either at Template talk:No source or at some other forum where more comments could be heard. From an overview of your edit comments and your comments here and on your User talk:, you need to “cool down” (in your words) and listen to what EncycloPetey has been saying. If there’s some rule or practice you don’t understand, articulate your issue and speak politely. It’s a matter of mutual respect and civility. For the record, and contrary to your claim, we do not care about any discipline you may have received on any other project; I myself and at least one other very active editor have been repeatedly banned (often without discussion, as Wikipedia is wont to do), but that has not in any manner effected my ability to participate in discussions or actual work here. Finally, what is “Gricing”? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  The proposed ban ("ban") was, like I said, something that I was sort of hoping parties would voluntarily agree to—like normal adults who you can find operating in the world by setting aside their differences every day. If we can't agree to abide by it, then although it's not the outcome that I sought, it's certainly not outside the range of outcomes contemplated going into this.

  To be clear about something: the "change to the documentation for the template" you referred to is not "your" (i.e. my) change. It's a change that User:EncycloPetey introduced. His revert of an edit by me is not a revert to the status quo. It's a revert of a revert that I performed—in response to a significant change to the prescribed usage without proposal (or even any informal discussion) (but that was nevertheless described in User:EncycloPetey's edit summary as merely "clarify"). The confusion over this (that it's a change that I'm proposing, that is) suggests that the facts are not being given adequate attention in order to keep them straight before weighing in with comments and recommendations.

  My remarks about Wikipedia were a direct response to User:EncycloPetey's initial response here. It wasn't a non-sequitur; I didn't introduce it into the discussion. That response was either an attempt to present my Wikipedia ban as a factor to be taken into consideration by others (which would have the effect of poisoning the well), or it was itself a non-sequitur. So I'm left wondering what "For the record, and contrary to your claim, we do not care about any discipline you may have received on any other project" could mean in light of that...

  Lastly, I don't know what your caution that "your characterization thereof [of some comments, or 'the record of those comments'] need not be accepted" even refers to. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is an example of an uncivil discussion: implying that the other person is not a "normal adult". You have been blocked for the next week, since you were already warned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  • EncycloPetey: While I understand your characterization, I think it gives an appearance of impropriety for the user in question, who has at least engaged in discussion, to be banned by the administrator about whom he raised a complaint. We’re already on the administrators’ noticeboard, and I don’t want to canvass one who I believe would agree with me, but could you have another administrator agree to the ban? I’ll also ask Xover, who I know to have been involved in anti-vandalism and banning in the past, for a third opinion. I don’t doubt your judgment, but I hope you understand my point of view. (In light of the ban, I will not respond to that user’s above comment insofar as it was directed at my statement.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

    My impression is that the user has engaged in the appearance of discussion, but entirely in bad faith. The user was warned about civility, then not 15 minutes later, posted here. My offer to help with the Public Libraries document was met with repeated refusal to answer the basic question of how I could help, or even why the pages of the scan were marked Problematic. My direct question about why Xover's comment was removed with an admonishment was ignored. Xover has interacted with this user twice, with the first interaction comment deleted by the user with the cryptic admonition (as described above), and the second time Xover was again ignored. The only other person engaged with was you: the first time the user declined to have any help, and the second time (here) responded with snark. If the user had responded to one of my comments that way, I might have requested another admin to step in to take action, but it was not an uncivil response to me, and the user had been warned, and the user has above acknowledged the warning. All that, coupled with the fact that Xover is the only other admin I've seen active here today, I chose to go ahead. Uncivil comments, refusals to answer questions, and deleting others' comments are not evidence of a good faith attempt to engage in discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

    Tricky situation. I very much understand TE(æ)A,ea.'s concern here. Blocking the user yourself in these circumstances is somewhat problematic in principle, and especially when the first block is as long as a week. Even as an uninvolved admin I would have given the user more rope before using the tools, and would have started with a significantly shorter block (for this, maybe as low as hours, or a single day; just enough to give them time to reflect and cool off). You may want to consider amending the block to be shorter (maybe even unblock and call it time served, by the time you read this).

    That being said, I would also start considering stepping in when the incivility was directed at a non-admin (admins have to have thick skin; nobody else should need that); and this user is so far not impressing me with their ability to work with others or willingness to engage in constructive discussions. The characterisation "has engaged in the appearance of discussion" seems apt. It was very likely that a block was coming here, eventually. I just wouldn't have acted so soon or started with that long a block.

    Pinging BD2412, CalendulaAsteraceae, Jan.Kamenicek, MarkLSteadman, and Mpaa as admins who've been active in the last 24 hours. Your input on this would be useful. (As would any others that want to chime in, of course, I'm just pinging the recently active admins.) Xover (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

    My takeaways from this discussion (having only a brief look over it): A. That there will be people who focus on reading written documents and policy statements over the comments of people, this comes across as "not listening." B. That in some situations that can be purposely disruptive to the community if they are looking to find idiosyncratic and obscure readings to promote strife (analogous to a work-to-rule strike). C. In general we are a bit loose with the term "source" in our policies and documentation between "specifying the edition / location" and "scan-backed." Currently WWSI states that scan-backing is "not currently a requirement" but "the preferred way" D. Such situations where a contributor insists on doing something allowed by policy but against general preferred practice can be tricky from for people who are insistent, it might be possible they come around to standard practice on their own opinion and are fine or they become stubborn and eventually get a block for clashing with people by going against practice. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

    I generally agree with @Xover's points here; might add a more detailed comment later when I've had time to figure out the wording. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

    While I personally would hesitate with blocking in this situation, I understand that not everybody has so much patience, as all of us have better things to do than talking to a brick wall, see here. The block did not have to be so long, so if the user shows good will to improve their cooperativity, it can be shortened. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

    I would not have instituted a block of that length personally, but I won't second-guess the decision of the admin who was directly confronted with the situation. We do need to maintain a certain baseline level of civility here. BD2412 T 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:A Statistical Account of Bengal Vol 16 GoogleBooksID v9UMAAAAIAAJ.pdf

I have added the missing pages to this index. In doing so, I also removed the Google Books leading page; because of this, the existing pages need to be moved back one, and the first page deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Since I had to manually move stuff anyway I shifted pages around to reuse (preserve history) the No Text pages etc. I think I've addressed the request, but please do check that I didn't misunderstand or mess anything up. Xover (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Indian Medicinal Plants (Plates Vol 4).djvu

I have added the missing plate, which is at /375 (with /376 added in as a blank back-of-plate). So, everything from /375 needs to be moved up two places. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Like the request below, I see nothing here that actually needs moving. Xover (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: Look, for example, at /381. (This was /379.) The page should be marked “problematic,” as it needs a plate, but is blank because the old /381 (now /383) was blank. That’s why everything needs to be moved up. The same logic applies to the index below. (The reason for this is because Plate 748 was a fold-out plate. The first scan, old /381 new /383, was the folded-up portion; the second scan, old /383 new /385, is it with the plate folded out.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: It's a bit slow, but I get there in the end. :) Done. Xover (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Indian Medicinal Plants (Plates Vol 5).djvu

I have added the missing plate, which is at /91 (with /92 added in as a blank back-of-plate). So, everything from /91 needs to be moved up two places. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I'm probably just being dumb again, but it looks like all Page: pages are aligned with the scan already. Could you check and/or explain further? Xover (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: The same applies to this section as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Done Xover (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Chronicle of the law officers of Ireland.djvu

I have replaced the page that was poorly scanned and at the same time removed the extraneous pages. /1 needs to be deleted; /2 to /12 moved down one; /13 and /14 deleted; and /15 to the end moved down two. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Done Xover (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Clarissa, Volume 2.pdf

I have added in the two missing pages and, in doing so, have also removed the null first page. So, please delete /1 and move all from /2 to the end down one. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Done Xover (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Error on the Main Page

There is some error notification on the main page, saying: "Lua error in Module:PotM at line 18: Couldn't find a month in the past or present to start from." -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the offending bit of code, at Module:PotM:

-- skip any months in the future
for k, month_data in pairs(data) do
	if now["year"] >= month_data["year"] and now["month"] >= month_data["month"] then
		return k
	end
end
-- this should never happen unless all the data is removed
error("Couldn't find a month in the past or present to start from")

Just for quick reference. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek @PseudoSkull I rolled over the current text manually in Module:PotM/data, so that the error message is no longer displayed. Not sure why the error occurred though. Hope that was okay. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Bleh. That code is broken in at least two different ways. I'll see about fixing it, but it's going to be a bit tricky (mainly to test without too much noise in production) so it might take a while. Meanwhile it can break at any time due to Scribunto updates (but probably won't), and the only way to avoid this year rollover problem is to get ahead of it with data for january before the end of the year.

For those interested, the problems with the current code are: 1) It's relying on Lua returning the data from Module:PotM/data in the order it is specified in the page. That's incorrect; Lua pairs() order is explicitly undefined, depends on the implementation, and can change at any time. If it ever changes this code will start displaying a seemingly random month on the front page. 2) It's trying to do numeric comparisons on date data, and as many programmers have discovered the hard way over the years, dates are not numbers. Even in the best case, when data for January 2024 was missing, the above code would have shown January of 2023 instead of December 2023. But as it happens we don't have a single entry in this page for January of any year, so the condition that the month of the entry be less than or equal to the month number of the current month (January, month 1) cannot be satisfied.

The fix is to 1) sort the data before iterating over it, and 2) use actual date math to compare the dates (so that December of 2023 is considered less than or equal to January of 2024). Xover (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I made a fix to select either this month or the nearest month in the past. Mpaa (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I am still seeing this error on the main page, so if it was believed that this error was fixed on the 1st, unfortunately it has returned. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Different issue. See WS:S#Template:Index progress bar error message. Xover (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Informing you about the Mental Health Resource Center and inviting any comments you may have

Hello all! I work in the Community Resilience and Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Mental Health Resource Center is a group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community.

The Mental Health Resource Center launched in August 2023. The goal is to review the comments and suggestions to improve the Mental Health Resource Center each quarter. As there have not been many comments yet, I’d like to invite you to provide comments and resource suggestions as you are able to do so on the Mental Health Resource Center talk page. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Thank you! Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for Module:ISO 639

I've streamlined this module a lot, moving the lookup tables into separate subpages and relying on mw.language.fetchLanguageNames when possible. Based on tests at {{ISO 639 name/sandbox}} and Template:ISO 639 name/testcases, everything seems to be in order. Could someadmin please merge my code from Module:ISO 639/sandbox to Module:ISO 639, and then protect Module:ISO 639/local and Module:ISO 639/overrides? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Going to go ahead and assume you've dealt with this since you have +sysop yourself now. Xover (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled & flood flags up for myself

Lately I've been working on A Chinese Biographical Dictionary, a book containing thousands of pages (source + mainspace). Part of my tasks are bulk actions, typically mass replacing and formatting (e.g. headers of every pages). They're carried out with the aid of JWB. While carrying out aforementioned tasks, RC might be easily flooded by my edits. As for mainspace pages, each entry should be on separate subpages (1,000+ to be created), which is inefficient to be patrolled one by one. That's why I'm requesting autopatrolled and flood flag here for myself. For flood flag, 1-2 weeks should be enough. -- U.T. 02:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. Does anyone? BD2412 T 02:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We generally don't mark pages as patrolled (maybe we should, but…) so autopatrolled is not an issue. For the flood flag that sounds like a good idea, but I'd like to see a more concrete example of the bigger things you're planning to do. I'm guessing there will be smaller ad hoc text replacements and such, which is fine. But the bigger tasks I would like to review to make sure we don't end up with a mess of hard-to-fix style guide deviations or similar. Either upfront if you have a plan, or step by step if you figure it out as you go along. I also note that Index:A Chinese Biographical Dictionary.djvu is nowhere near proofread yet, so I'd like to hear more about your plans for mainspace. Xover (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have clear plans for this book. Look at my edits during April 8 and 9, you can see that many edits have summary "via JWB", which explains why I'm requesting flood flag. These edits are mass header formatting I mentioned above. It haven't finished yet, as rest pages of this book needs the same process (which is too tedious to do it manually one-by-one), and I would resume it via JWB once I granted the flag. After then, I would proof these pages: almost all pages in this book contain Chinese characters, few people here on en.ws can deal with these texts. Meanwhile, I would update the index and transclude book pages into mainspace entries, as you see, part of which are currently usable. -- U.T. 07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Unite together: The accented-character-replacements and {{rh}} stuff is fine. The use of {{CBD article link}} in |next= and |prev= for {{header}} I am less enthused by. Our general practice is to put relative links in those parameters, and as plain wikilinks, which means that's what other contributors and some tools will be looking for. Using the template would appear to give no benefit there, but does add a needless level of complication. It's the kind of thing that makes sense when you're focussed on a single work, but not when you look at the whole picture. In this particular case I suppose it's easy to bot-convert to normal links after the fact if it turns out to be a problem (which makes it a lot less risky for this purpose). But that sort of thing is why I'm asking for nitpicky details on your otherwise excellent plan. Xover (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My main concern with granting the flood flag for an extended period of time (i.e. more than 1 hour) is that any edits outside the agreed parameters will not appear in RC and will therefore not have routine visibility short of wading through the logs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Well... I'm in a vastly different time zone than most of you. Unsure if I'm sleeping when you granted me flood flag for less than 1 hour. -- U.T. 02:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that you told me that what's fine enough (noncontroversial), I'd restrict my mass replacements into these scopes. I have no plans outside the scope of this book for now. BTW, do everybody here think this edit by me is good enough for mass replacing (In the case of this book, each subpage for dictionary entry actually contains one section)? -- U.T. 02:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with that. I'll put your flood flag up for 24 hours, and will check your edits manually at the end of it. BD2412 T 02:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- U.T. 02:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Also I noticed that some sidenotes are misplaced while working (appearing on the right whilst it should be on the left in the source). Shall I fix it with JWB as well? -- U.T. 03:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If you can do that, yes, go ahead with it. BD2412 T 03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you remind me about how autopatrolled works? I just toggled a "patrolled" on a web page I looked at, mindlessly, to get rid of it. Then I remembered that just leaving it alone doesn't "call in the scrutinizors" and toggling it does. So, I would like a brief refresher coarse here on its use here. Toggles mean one thing or the other and default doesn't always apply. Xover?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Users who have the autopatrolled right has all their edits automatically marked as "patrolled". For everyone else every edit is marked as "unpatrolled". That means that those who patrol pages can collaborate by marking an edit as "patrolled" when they have checked it so that other patrollers do not need to check it for a second time. The goal when using the system like that is that every single edit should be checked and marked as "patrolled". Autopatrolled is then a way to save the patrollers time by saying "this user's edits never need to be checked". But since enWS does not really use this system like that, it's not an issue for mass edits that are already flood-flagged (they don't show up on Recent Changes to begin with). We use autopatrolled status more for the normal intermittent edits, where the user is trusted not to mess stuff up. Xover (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The wikipedia article of the day is of Kurt Vonnegut. I saw him and heard him speak, on a campus, in 1984. He said about that year in books, that having gotten from 1948 to then, he knew that the big brother scheme is too expensive. Patrol is labor intensive. In order to surveil a person, in the real 1984, it would take a minimum of three trusted people for every one untrusted. How many of a users edits need to get toggled before they lose their (!)? And, is that what we are talking about? The exclamation mark that causes that newbie here toggle to appear?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The red exclamation mark tags any edit that has not been marked as "patrolled", either manually by someone tagging it or automatically by the user being in the Autopatrolled group, in the Recent Changes feed. And an admin will assign the Autopatrolled group to a user when they think that user can be trusted to not make a mess; for your typical new user case that happens when they recognise the username over a period of time and their edits exhibit familiarity with policy and practices on the project. But we're getting rather far afield from the topic of this thread (which is about a special case involving a high rate and volume of automated edits). Xover (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Move request

Author:Augustus de Morgan -> Author:Augustus De Morgan (fix capitalisation). This matches the Wikipedia article and the capitalisation used in his writings. Arcorann (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

To add here, the page at the target needs to be deleted since it has page history, so I can't do it myself. Arcorann (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Arcorann: I believe we standardise the capitalisation of this kind of name part (the nomenclature escapes me atm), and I think the convention is to use lower-case. Please raise the issue on WS:S or similar before (re)requsting an admin to implement it, if still relevant. Xover (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User:LlywelynII

@LlywelynII: is repeatedly adding extraneous material the The Poems of William Dunbar (1834), specifically adding a Supplement volume published in 1865. The biggest problems with this issueis that (a) LlywelynII is adding an external link as part of the additions; and is adding this external link to a potential scan inside the Aux ToC for the work. (b) I have asked LlywelynII not to do this, but have been reverted several times. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

(a) User:EncycloPetey has ignored repeated attempts to talk about this on my talk page, edit summaries, and the talk page of the work. (b) He's now violated WP:3RR (1, 2, 3, 4), which I assume applies here as well, despite my attempts to talk and an edit summary warning. (c) There's associated edit warring on Author:David Laing, which I had been expanding, almost entirely related to E'Petey's distaste for the 1865 supplement to the work he's (helpfully!) been working on.

Kindly help him cool his jets, remind him to avoid entirely blanking content and to actually talk to people instead of smacking revert, and I'll add some notes on the actual issues in a second. — LlywelynII 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

User:LlywelynII has accused me of not discussing or responding, yet I have 1, 2, 3. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not an accusation. It's a description from my POV of what actually happened. They'll look into it.

My own read is that a "Nuh uh" reply to the points I made on the work's talk page followed by continued reverts (without commentary) falls under failure to discuss. — LlywelynII 16:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any points on that discussion page. You point out that the Supplement is weird and that the 1865 edition (which is a separate edition) has multiple volumes. Then you reverted the removal of the 1865 content from the existing 1834 edition, without ever explaining why you think the 1865 content must be shoehorned into the 1834 edition, or why you put an external link to an external scan for a volume from the 1865 edition into the auxiliary table of contents for the 1834 edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

With all patience and kindness, try rereading what I actually wrote. It does clearly explain why I think the 1865 content is part of "The Poems of William Dunbar" for several reasons. (Or wait: I'm about to note them again below for any admins who come through.) — LlywelynII 16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

On the merits, no, there's no dispute about the external scan link on the work page. I've already noted that E'Petey can certainly move it to a better location (the work's notes, talk page, etc.) so that it's available to readers but not violating any policy, if there is one. (None's been cited but sure it could exist.) My only concern is keeping the link available since there's no scanned version yet, like there is with the other two volumes. E'Petey's ignored that and continued entirely wp:blanking the well-formatted content from the work's supplement. Undoing that restores the external scan link, but I'm still open to moving it anywhere appropriate and still helpful to the wp:readers. (Notes on the Supplement itself in a sec, since that's the main actual disagreement.) — LlywelynII 16:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Since I've already addressed the issue of the external link in this reply, I clearly did not ignore the issue, as the link exists now on the Author page. But my reply recommending this approach was ignored. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It further needs to be available on the work's page or talk, not only the editor's page. It also isn't, e.g., on Author:William Dunbar's page, although I can fix that. Again, though, neither here nor there since no one has any issue with moving the external link out of the running text. The actual issue was the wholesale blanking of all the other content around it. — LlywelynII 17:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do the contents of one edition need to be present on the page for a different edition? I don't follow your reasoning --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

See above and below. If it really helps to repeat it again, the bits that seem hardest for you are that The Poems of William Dunbar isn't "one edition" just because a single edition has been parked there so far. It's the namespace for the work as a whole, not a specific edition of it. Further, the supplement is a supplement specifically for that edition and is a later part of exactly the same edition of exactly the same work. The 1865 edition itself merged that content with its Volume I. — LlywelynII 17:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The 1865 edition is complicated, but it is a separate publication with different publication data from the 1834 edition. The fact that one volume was prepared with the 1834 edition in mind does not make it part of the earlier edition. Nor does it justify adding a contents listing to a page for the earlier edition. There is (and has long been) a note in the header that a supplement was prepared. If that supplement is ever transcribed here at Wikisource, that header note can become a link to the Supplement volume in the 1865 edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as the actual issue, which is that EncycloPetey feels they need to revert any content on The Poems of William Dunbar that isn't part of Laing's 18354 edition, (i) that's not how that namespace works. Like I explained on the talk page, if they moved it to The Poems of William Dunbar (1834), they'd have a mostly solid point but the general namespace covers the entire work with its later emendations, although sure they should be noted. (ii) The second 1865 edition of Laing's work was also a 2 volume work. It included the supplemental material in its Volume I. I didn't edit the Volume I to change anything about the 18354 edition. It's still there in its entirety, although the second edition can/should be noted at Author:David Laing since he did it and made some major changes. That information is another thing E'Petey's been removing during this. (iii) The "3rd volume" of the 1865 edition was a version of the supplement to be used by owners of the previous 18354 edition. In other words, it precisely is a later addition to the 18354 form of the work, to be used as an additional part of that edition. (iv) Even if it weren't a later part of the 18354 edition (and it very much is) and even if the namespace The Poems of William Dunbar should only be used for its 18354 edition and not any part of its 1865 edition (which it very much isn't), the actual solution there would've been to move the fully formatted treatment of the Supplement's contents to a new holding page and then linking over, not blanking everything in reverts. (v) Reverts on my end have been trying to avoid the blanking of valuable content, but sure I'll go back and undo anything necessary to avoid policy issues on my end.  — LlywelynII 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the page is currently for the 1834 edition, that is how that page works. If the 1865 supplement needs to be added, then a versions page needs to be created, and the work can be listed there. But the contents of an 1865 volume should not be added to the table of contents for an 1834 edition. Since you keep appealing to lack of policy, I will note that I have yet to see any evidence that policy advocates for this approach to mixing contents from two different editions on the same edition page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Not how namespaces work. It's the namespace for all forms of that title or the major work with that title. That'd be the complete version of Laing's work, not the first edition without his later supplement specifically for it. Again, yeah, that misunderstanding is the central issue and what someone with authority just needs to point out to you. Absolutely your work on the 1834 edition is still very much appreciated.

Edit: Wikisource:Style guide is the link you're asking for, although you're right that separate editions generally shouldn't be included on a single page and you'll probably continue to disagree that that supplement is a supplemental part of the 1834 edition. Again, if you feel very strongly on that point, the solution is having a dab page between the editions, moving yours to the 1834 section, and still not blanking formatted content. — LlywelynII 17:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It sounds as though you have a personal opinion at odds with current practice regarding editions. We have only the 1834 edition right now, and its mainspace location is The Poems of William Dunbar.

We do not have the 1865 edition; not even a single volume. No scans of the 1865 edition exist on Commons as far as I know, and no transcription has started anywhere on Wikisource. So there is no reason yet for a disambiguation page.

If we did have the 1865 edition, it would be placed on a separate page from the 1834 edition, and not on the same page with another edition. Just as we have not put the various editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica onto the same page, nor blended the contents of editions published in different years, we would not blend two different editions of other works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘

@LlywelynII: You're confused. The wikipage The Poems of William Dunbar is not a "namespace", it is a specific edition of this text (you may be thinking of a {{versions}} page). The enWP policies you cite have no bearing on enWS, and in any case, although they are clearly acting as a contributor in this case, EncycloPetey is an admin on enWS so it might be a good idea to assume they are well familiar with the policies and practices on the project.

The issue of whether the 1865 supplemental volume should be considered as a part of the 1834 edition is one on which reasonable people can disagree, which means it would be entirely appropriate to bring that to the wider community at the Scriptorium for input (if interested contributors can't figure it out on the text's talk page). What is not reasonable is to edit-war to include redlinked references to an 1865 volume in a 1834 text. Once challenged (reverted) you should have pursued the issue through (polite, constructive) discussion rather than edit-warring. You yourself admit this 1865 volume is at best a stepchild, bibliographically speaking, so edit-warring rather than explaining the issue and asking for input on how to resolve it seems quite disproportionate.

PS. EP: While you were clearly acting as a contributor here, you are an admin and you could have been more diplomatic about this. Reaching for the talk page rather than the revert button would have set a better example (irrespective of who's right and wrong). Any incorrect changes can always be reverted later if necessary. --Xover (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The content on the page is currently a specific edition. The namespace covers all works by that title or the primary one. The 1865 edition had exactly the same title and, if anything, would be the primary form. Yes, that was part of the problem and the linked policies do cover the correct resolution: converting it to a versions page or handling the full main version, which would include the supplement. Of course, you're right that if there's not enough discussion at the talk page, it should be punted to the Scriptorium; there was edit warring, failure to talk, and escalation to this discussion instead. As far as edit warring and failing to talk, yep, sucks but was on the other end. That said, sure, they're an admin and this is apparently as good as I'll get, although you could've singled out entirely blanking content as particularly inappropriate, particularly for an admin.

Since this makes the second admin who couldn't care less that the content is missing, though, I'll just thank you for your time and drop it entirely. — LlywelynII 06:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: EP could certainly have done more to help defuse the situation, but it takes two to edit-war and you were the one making changes that turned out to be controversial and didn't stop when challenged. I don't know what "entirely blanking content" you're referring to, but if it is simply reverting the edits to The Poems of William Dunbar I don't consider the blanking aspect of that problematic at all. The content is easily available for retrieval from the revision history and at least nominally didn't belong there (without a prior discussion, I mean). Xover (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: This is probably not the right place to discuss the content of a page, I have added my opinion to Talk:The Poems of William Dunbar. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Content auto flagged as vandalism

Hi! I recently tried to make a content change at 9/11 Dispatcher transcript. One of the 9-1-1 employees in the Melissa Doi transcript is currently described as 'unidentified', but in the full call, at the 23:55 second mark, this person self-identifies as ACD 2252. I tried to change 'unidentified' to CRO ACD 2252, but a pink message informed me that this was automatically identified as vandalism.

This is a link to the full Melissa Doi call. In the first track, titled "Moussaoui trial calls", at the 22:50 mark you hear Dispatcher 8695 asking ACD for their ACD number. They identify as 2252. This is the same woman heard at the beginning of the call. LoopyBreeze (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

After giving it a second try, this edit was successful, however... LoopyBreeze (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note that our transcript is the one that was referenced in the New York Times. If there are errors, you can note them on the talk page, but Wikisource does not alter published documents. We present them according to what was provided. However, if you note a discrepancy between the source document text and our text, then we would correct to match the source text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: On what do you base the assertion that our text is from the New York Times? It's been a while since I looked but so far as I recall I concluded that Sherurcij had partly transcribed them directly from the audio recordings and partly cut&pasted from various random places on the web (including forum posts, blogs, newspaper articles, etc.). I don't recall ever finding a direct published source for any of these (except the NTSB cockpit voice recorder transcript, which is one exhibit from a larger report). Xover (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where or when I picked up that impression. Looking at the PDF we have, I'm unsure of its origin now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, @Xover: thanks for your responses. I fully understand what you're saying, and I would never edit textual content if I was aware that was directly sourced, in keeping with the same principle as "verifiability, not truth" on Wikipedia.

The thing is, there's no source in that article for the Melissa Doi transcript. I've poured over the Moussaoui trial documents, as well as the FOIA releases, looking specifically for a Doi transcript, and I've never found anything. I'm confident that a textual source for the full transcript doesn't exist, but given the sheer volume of 9/11 info, I can't rule out that I've missed something.

The closest thing I've seen to a decent secondary source about the call is from Truth Worth Telling. But even this is not a transcript.

Without an actual independent source, I'm unsure how to proceed. Does Wikisource allow for this kind of user-generated transcript? LoopyBreeze (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@LoopyBreeze: No, that's kinda the problem with our existing text there, and your comments illustrate why: transcribing raw audio recordings require judgement and detective work (can vs. Karen). Since these are raw first-responder recordings that have merely been released rather than actually published (by a reputable publisher, roughly along the lines of WP:RS) we cannot rely on "a reliable secondary source" to do that interpretation for us. Thus Wikisource contributors would be engaging in original research, and publishing novel results (i.e. it would fail WP:RS/WP:V and WP:NOR).

That being said, there is a significant (vocal) minority of the community that really wants us to host this kind of primary source material, and we have a lot of texts added when the project was new (before modern standards were established). Combined with project policy pages that are nowhere near as rigorous and with almost no bright-line rules it's very hard to give you a clear answer or a path forward. What I think you're wanting to do is strictly speaking in conflict with our policy, but it is entirely possible that if brought up for, say, a deletion discussion it would still be kept. Or put another way, there's a reason I haven't tried to clean up and get a resolution for our existing transcripts despite being problematic in several ways.

What advice I can give, though, is that what is unquestionably in scope is things like published NTSB reports that include transcripts as addendums (always provided the licensing is compatible obviously). Judgements from court cases that have been published by the courts (but not the briefs etc. from non-government attorneys, those are protected by copyright). Books, newspaper or journal articles, etc. Our coverage of 9/11 material would be vastly improved if we had a few actual published reports etc. instead of the existing mishmash of transcripts of the raw recordings. If you have any interest in this area, identifying key published sources would be a very good start. Xover (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed you're a new new user. For some reason I had you pegged as an existing user from Wikipedia that was just new to Wikisource. Apologies for the jargonitis in the above message. The abbreviations refer to core policies on Wikipedia (that we often refer to here by way of analogy). "WP:RS" refers to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "WP:V" to Wikipedia:Verifiability, and "WP:NOR" to Wikipedia:No original research. These are policies and guidelines for Wikipedia and are not directly applicable to Wikisource, but the principles they represent have analogues here. I thought I was being helpful when I referenced these above, but I realise now that I probably just complicated matters with dense site-specific jargon. Xover (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Enrico Malatesta - Anarchy - James F. Morton - Is It All a Dream (1900).pdf

The placeholders were added in the wrong places, so some moving of pages (with suppression) needs to be done. /3 and /4 need to be deleted and /5 moved to /3. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: It appears like MarkLSteadman has already performed the necessary changes. Could you please check and confirm this request has been addressed? Xover (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Literary Souvenir 1832.pdf

The placeholders for this index were not correct in some places, so some moving needs to happen. /1 needs to be deleted. /4–/8 need to be moved down one. /9–/13 (placeholders) need to be deleted. The pages from /14–/93 need to be moved down four. The remaining pages from /169–/375 need to be moved down five. Finally, the assorted placeholder pages—/55, /56, /123, /349, and /353—need to be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Done. Please check and confirm the results look ok. Xover (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

My Wikisource user and talk pages are defaced with personal attacks

My user page on wikisource.org has been defaced with a personal attack by an IP almost certainly of LTA user Andrew5 from the English Wikipedia. I am not versed in Wikisource as much as I am Wikipedia, and don't currently know the process for reporting this activity. I know this page is for en.wikisource, but I can't find the equivalent page there. If someone could point me towards there, or otherwise do the best of their abilities to get this attack removed, I would appreciate it. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@GeorgeMemulous: mulWS (Multilingual Wikisource) does not have a separate Administrators' Noticeboard so they use their Scriptorium (Village Pump) instead. I have posted a request for admin intervention there and pinged the most recently active admins on that project. I manually blanked your user page there, and requested the admins delete it and semi-protect both your user and user talk pages. You may want to chime in the thread. Xover (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@GeorgeMemulous: Koavf (who is an admin on mulWS) has handled this issue there. The vandalised pages seem to have been deleted and protection applied. Xover (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback by an admin

The following discussion is closed:

The underlying issue has been followed up at WS:S#Limiting use of Template:old style.

On the behavioural issue raised here, consensus was that use of the rollback function for anything other than clear vandalism is inappropriate.

Criticism was also raised that the issue was handled with multiple reverts at all, rather than other avenues of dispute resolution, since the point of contention is not one settleable by bright-line policy (nor, even, any extant written policy). The point is fair: no matter the bone of contention, reverting it can usually wait until after having pursued the matter through talk pages.

EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) has used rollback twice on edits that undo an established style on a work. Per Wikisource:Restricted access policy (emphasis in original): "The rollback feature automatically reverts the latest changes from a user to a particular page with the standardised edit summary "Reverted edits by $2 (talk) to last revision by $1". This tool exists primarily to simplify the reversion of malicious edits. Although it can theoretically be used to revert any change, it may be aggravating to the affected user if it is used to rollback a legitimate change which the administrator disagrees with. Administrators should avoid rolling back legitimate edits if at all possible, and the rollback feature should never be used in a reversion war." I would like another admin to please intervene to discourage this kind of behavior. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Diffs:

• https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Hawaii%27s_Story_by_Hawaii%27s_Queen.pdf/13&diff=prev&oldid=14450644
• https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Hawaii%27s_Story_by_Hawaii%27s_Queen.pdf/14&diff=prev&oldid=14450646

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not rollback an established style; I removed a superfluous style template which you added to my edits, and which change you made three times, despite opposition. I had communicated the issue to you on your Talk page, asking if I should start a discussion on the issue, and I have done so in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The style has been used in the table of contents along with other pages of that work for years. As noted above: "the rollback feature should never be used in a reversion war" and is typically used for "malicious" edits. Are you actually arguing that your use of rollback was appropriate with those two stipulations? "which change you made three times" What? Which three diffs? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I have yet to see any evidence of an "established style" advocating use of {{old style}}, as the primary contributor has been creating pages for the past month without use of the template, and the pages in question I created earlier today, without the use of the template either. The argument for "established style" appears to hinge upon the creation of 6 pages (of the ~450 pp. total) two years ago, after which the transcription was abandoned until last month. Of the three pages of the Table of Contents, only six lines on the third page were created at that time. The Index did not even have a pagelist until another editor and I added one. The editor who has taken up the abandoned project has not used the template in the ~300 pages created. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to ignore my questions, I'll bow out and leave it up to other admins to see if this is an appropriate use of rollback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I give Justin edge on nothing in this situation, but on one issue they are correct: rollback is intended to be used for straight up vandalism; for anything else use normal revert/undo. Over on the big sister they have this enshrined in policy (and enforce it like a bright-line rule), which is probably why Justin is so worked up over that part in particular. We don't have the same culture surrounding rollback on enWS, but the applicability is global (it is mirrored in various technical permissions etc.). Note that the only real difference between rollback and undo is that rollback uses a canned edit summary (technically speaking it is the exact same operation), so this is an issue that exists at a cultural level not a technical level. Xover (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that I find it aggravating when my legitimate edits are rolled back or reverted, and would encourage all users to refrain from using the rollback feature in this manner. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• This is clearly improper. The proper action would be a revert (one revert), followed by a discussion on the index talk. The use of old-style numbers is not controlled by any universal, project-wide policy, so it is generally the province of editors working on the index (decided through consensus on the index talk) to determine a work-level style (as to this issue, or any issue where there is no universal style). There is certainly not any established policy against using old-style numbers; in that case, rollback might be appropriate. In this instance, the rollback was used in clear contravention of our rollback policy—in service of an edit war to support the administrator’s (incorrect) interpretation of policy. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Sesame and Lillies - Ruskin (1895).djvu

The file has been moved; this should now be at Index:Sesame and Lilies - Ruskin (1895).djvu. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Select portions of Psalms and hymns.pdf

In this index, /1 needs to be deleted and all other pages moved down 1. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Done The first several pages were blank, so I moved only the pages with content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)