Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:Protection requests)
Latest comment: 16 days ago by ShakespeareFan00 in topic Mass work on rh
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard

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

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

No. of pages = 4,324,028
No. of articles = 1,046,191
No. of files = 16,398
No. of edits = 14,214,945


No. of pages in Main = 604,455
No. of pages in Page: = 3,236,973
No. validated in Page: = 642,313
No. proofread in Page: = 1,245,718
No. not proofread in Page: = 1,057,313
No. problematic in Page: = 44,563
No. of validated works = 6,422
No. of proofread only works = 6,260
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 395,102
% transcluded pages in Main = 65.36
Σ pages in Main


No. of users = 3,127,076
No. of active users = 415
No. of group:autopatrolled = 501
No. in group:sysop = 23
No. in group:bureaucrat = 2
No. in group:bot = 17


Checkuser requests[edit]

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

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Page (un)protection requests[edit]

Template:Nowrap[edit]

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)Reply

Module:Ordinal[edit]

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)Reply

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

Unprotect Catholic Hymns (1860) and subpages[edit]

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

Done. Please let me know when to push it back up again. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Beeswaxcandle: Thank you! I'm done editing the main page, but could you also unprotect the subpages? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 02:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Doing… Xover (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Done (that went faster than I thought) Xover (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I'm done with my edits now. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 21:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Other[edit]

Interface administrators[edit]

Hi. Please see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Unisfu5m161hs4zl. I do not remember if this was already discussed and how it is going to be addressed. Comments and suggestions welcome.  Comment As far as I am concerned I would trust any admin who feels skilled and confident enough to tackle such edits.— Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

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


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

Option A - Assign right on demand when needed

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

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

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

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

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

Option D would make the most sense for us. For anyone to get themselves to the point that we trust them with the admin tools just so that they can mess around in the interface, they would be playing a very long game. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Beeswaxcandle, Option D, although I would also be fine with the right only going to admins who express an interest. BD2412 T 23:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is so rare I disagree with Beeswaxcandle but this must be one of those times. The whole point of this change is to prevent the ignorant from accidentally screwing up - insulting as the implications undoubtedly are! As such under the new regime trust is no longer enough; perhaps somebody ought to draw up some kind of eligibility examination…? 114.73.248.245 23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
That hasn't been an issue for us yet, and accidental changes are easily reversed. If we had more users it would be more of a problem, but as it stands this kind of distinction is more cumbersome than helpful in my opinion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
As much as I like the idea of making all existing admin interface admin, IA were separated from regular adminship specifically to reduce attack surface(from hackers), and it was pretty dangerous if the access fell into the wrong hand, I'd rather propose having existing admin request right from bureaucrat and could be granted at the bureaucrat's discretion, and should be automatically removed if no action after two month.Viztor (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  •  Comment we discussed it when the rights were split, and it was agreed that it could be assigned on a needs basis. That has been done at least once for me with the temporary assignation of the IA rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Note that WMF Legal requires 2FA to be enabled for users who are to be assigned this right, so bureaucrats will have to verify this before doing so. MediaWiki's 2FA implementation is also sufficiently finicky that one may not want to enable it without proper consideration. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
    What's wrong with the 2FA implementation? I haven't had any issues with it at all. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Ah, sorry, I should have been more clear. I am going on hearsay, mostly from admins on enwp (a crotchety bunch if ever there was one), and my own assessment of the documentation at meta. The main complaints are that the implementation in general is a little bit primitive (as is to be expected since WMF rolled their own instead of federating with one of the big providers), and that there is no way to regain access to your account if something goes wrong with the 2FA stuff (if your phone is stolen etc.) unless you happen to know one of the developers personally. None of these are in themselves showstoppers, and many people are using it entirely without issue. The phrasing sufficiently finicky that one may not want to enable it without proper consideration was not intended to discourage use, but merely to suggest that it is worthwhile actually giving it a little thought before requesting it be turned on. --Xover (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, gotcha. As it happens, Wikimedia 2FA does include emergency access codes for use when your phone is unavailable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Formal requirements related to 2FA[edit]

Picking up this again…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Import help[edit]

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

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

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

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

 Comment Links Template:iwpage/Special:WhatLinkshere/Template:iwpage (which is essentially the same at each wiki and s:br:Special:WhatLinkshere/Template:iwpagebillinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(There may be others)

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

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

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

Corrected table:

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

Index Migration[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass import from Wikibooks[edit]

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

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

Time to review protected pages[edit]

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

Re ProtectedTitles, I don't think that we should waste much time looking through the list, it is works we shouldn't have and vandal only pages that we will never have. If it is getting cruft that would expire, we would be better off having some rigour on the duration we use, and if we don't feel that the current dropdown is sufficient, then we can add to mewdiawiki:protect-expiry-options, otherwise I just typically just type a date YYYY-MM-D which works perfectly for me.
Re ProtectedPages, I would think that the only pages we would wish to review are those that are fully protected in the main namespace, why would we want to review others elsewhere? To what benefit? They are not system source users.
Run a light eyeball down the list … sure, though the best system approach is not hitting these things too hard with protection in the first place. If we think that the information about how to appeal or address a blocked page is insufficient, then let us look at the default messages, and how we can improve them. The list of default and adapted messages is at https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllMessages&offset=Protect&limit=100billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I would like to hide offensive titles from the public view unless any other comments.--Jusjih (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I tried to hide an offensively named deleted template from the deletion and protection logs, but removing it from Special:ProtectedTitles requires unprotecting it. Revert my acts if desired.--Jusjih (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Jusjih: If there are log files that need oversight, then talk to a steward and get them to oversight, it won't be a matter for us with admin rights. Otherwise, it seems you are trying to have your pie and to eat it too. The pages are not existing, so there is not reason to hide them; they won't get indexed and shouldn't be searchable. Every time you do something you are creating logs, so these become overt in the logs. The listing at ProtectedTitles is system generated to show what we have blocked from being created, and as such is a list, and I doubt that it is especially indexed by bots. It seems that this is a solution in search of a problem. I am not seeing a general problem that needs fixing, especially from Joe Public's point of view. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Then ProtectedTitles may need a new function from very privileged users to hide offensive things. I abstain from this topic.--Jusjih (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
It exists, it is called suppression (ws:Suppressors), rights explained at special:ListGroupRights, and for us we either need to elect two, or we utilise stewards in the absence of us having elected suppressors, per m:Oversight policy. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Download button vs. download sidebar[edit]

I’m reporting this here because I think an administrator needs to fix a page. The download features in the sidebar don’t do the same thing as the “download” button which floats to the right of the title; see, e.g., here, where the “Download” button gets the whole book, and the download sidebar features only get a list of the books. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Corruption on uploading new versions[edit]

This is an old problem that has never been dealt with. I have fruitlessly sought help in the usual places. On uploading new versions of files, they are often corrupted by the inclusion of File:Fileicon-pdf.png and the pages become hidden. I have brought this matter up before and it was thought it was because my pdfs had been through a pdf editor. I am now reviewing some older files before I had an editor and the same problem is still arising. These are straight forward simple pdfs. The file in question is Amulet 1833.pdf in Category "Poems by Letitia Elizabeth Landon in gift books". The pages are still there but they are hidden. They have been fully validated and transcluded. I was only making a very minor amendment. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that I cannot revert to the previous version. That I did and the corruption was carried back into that version too.

Could someone please repair Amulet 1833.pdf? and could someone please look carefully into this uploading problem and find out what is going on? This is making my work for wikisource more and more impossible.

Esme Shepherd (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peter,
The problem is with the PDF files themselves, and they're causing MediaWiki (the software that implements this wiki) to choke when trying to extract things like page resolution and page count. This is not a general problem with PDF files because the vast majority of them work just fine. In other words, you need to look to whatever tools you are using to make these.
In addition, File:Amulet 1833.pdf appears to be yet another one of your self-compiled collections of things published in a variety of places, rather than a collection that has been previously published by a reputable publishing house (in practical effect they are your own self-published collections). Such arbitrary user-generated compilations are out of scope on English Wikisource and are very likely to be deleted whenever somebody gets around to going through your uploads looking to clean this up. Please stick to uploading previously published works as they were published. You don't have to actually proofread the entire original publication if it just contains one poem of interest, and we can absolutely host the poem on its own page as well as have Portal: pages for collecting them, but cutting out individual poems from disparate sources to make your own collection is not ok. Xover (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your attention. I would point out that these pdf files are in fact wholly from a single source and for years never gave the slightest problem and they are taken as they were published as you require. Not entire publications but only those pages of interest. If you want to see these original pages as they were published they can be found in File:The Amulet 1833.pdf They should also be visible in File:Amulet 1833.pdf but they have become hidden. I have been using this method since around 2016 when I received full approval for it. The pdfs are all put together in pages on my Mac and converted en bloc. Esme Shepherd (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Monthly Challenge[edit]

I noticed that the June monthly challenge page was not previously set up by anyone. I tried to help as it didn't even exist when I saw it. I would help with setting up the rest of it but I am not super profitient in HTML and I am unsure of what the upcoming month's works are. Usually, I just look at another similar example but I wasn't sure how to translate the code from May's monthly challenge to June's monthly challenge. Regardless, could someone fix that up? Seperation (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Inductiveload: Ping, since I saw you were active today. I can take a look, but I don't know how it works (so it'll be a bit time-consuming) and I don't know when I'll have the time for it. Xover (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Seperation, @Xover - I didn't see this message earlier, but I did do a quick import of the May data to June this morning: Module:Monthly Challenge/data/2023-06. There are instructions in the Edit notice when you go to edit the page, but tl;dr, delete the [2] section as "expired", increase [0] and [1] to [1] and [2] (as the works in those sections are now one month older) and then add the [0] section with any new works for this month. The stats bot should then pick up all the works on its next run (at most 2 hours, but I prodded it to go off a bit sooner) and update the relevant stats data. The MC page itself should update immediately: only the aggregate statistics need the bot, the list of which pages are in the MC and the individual progress bars just use Mediawiki. @MER-C has done a good job of coming though and filling in and tidying up after that - thank you!
In general, MC admin to start a month is described at Wikisource:Community collaboration/Monthly Challenge/Administration. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Someone needs to populate the page with about another 12 works - I've been adding some stuff but I think we need some more diversity to cater to wider interests. MER-C (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions/50.73.82.117[edit]

Vandalism. Please revdel. I'll update again if I see more from this IP. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Blocked PseudoSkull (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Request to rename[edit]

I forgot to insert the ".pdf" for this journal on wikisource. Index:On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species. I would like to link it to this file On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species.pdf on Wikimedia Commons. Much appreciated. Thanks! Cerevisae (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2023‎ (UTC)Reply

@Cerevisae: Done. PS. We strongly prefer adding the whole issue of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History rather than cutting out just the one article. You don't have to proofread more than the article you're interested in yourself, but then we preserve the original context it was published in and make it easy for others to proofread the rest. Xover (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Noted, thanks for your information!Cerevisae (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have found the whole journal here. Will upload at a later time to replace this index. Sorry for the inconveniences. Xover, maybe you can delete this Index:On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species.pdf first. Cerevisae (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Cerevisae: Index:The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, vol. 16ss (1855).djvu.
Please check that it suits your purpose before I delete the old index. Xover (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this is the index. Thanks for your help! Cerevisae (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Migrate Your Tool From The Grid With Toolforge Build Service[edit]

@Ankry, @Billinghurst, @Inductiveload, @Samwilson, @Xover FYI, I have migrated:

tools.wikisource-bot@tools-sgebastion-10:~$ toolforge-jobs list
Job name:          Job type:              Status:
-----------------  ---------------------  ----------------------------------------
pywikibot-archive  schedule: 58 22 * * *  Last schedule time: 2023-10-31T22:58:00Z
pywikibot-touch    schedule: 10 23 * * *  Running for 40s

If you see something wrong in those jobs, you know why :-) (see toolforge-jobs show <job name> for command details).
If everything is OK, we can migrate the not-commented ones in crontab as well. Mpaa (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mpaa: Awesome. Thanks!
Did you have to change a lot to get them working on toolforge-jobs / k8s? I ask because all of phetools is still running on Grid Engine and I'm dreading the job of trying to migrate that gigantic mess of organically grown, interdependent code, custom databases, filesystem caches, custom job queue management, etc. all written in Python 2.x (and minimally adapted to function in a Python 3.x environment). Xover (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Xover For simple scripts it is easy, I followed this: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Pywikibot. For larger apps, I do not know (I would start here: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Quickstart#Build_and_host_your_first_tool).
Pinging @Inductiveload as he has done it before (https://github.com/inductiveload/paginator). Mpaa (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks.
Bless Phe for all they did for the Wikisource community, and it's a testament to their skill that the tools they built have mostly managed to keep chugging along since 2016 when Phe went inactive. But they've literally built a custom jobs management framework based on parsing Grid Engine's accounting file and tracking job state in a custom database. There are multiple shared caches between components and multiple forms of custom IPC between a myriad of interdependent moving parts. I very strongly suspect we can't realistically migrate any of it without essentially rearchitecting it, migrating to modern frameworks (abandoning the custom stuff), and splitting it up into more loosely coupled components with more clearly separated responsibilities. It doesn't help that a lot of the code is really obscure, completely undocumented, and contains numerous dead code paths, custom logic for single works Phe was interested in (one specific magazine bing transcribed on frWS), etc. Not to mention that I'm not a native Python speaker.
It's been on my todo list since the Grid Engine deprecation was announced, but I keep putting it off (it's scary, and I'm not sure I can find sufficient sustained time). Anyone that wants to volunteer to help out will be most welcome. But don't feel obligated to volunteer: I am trying to be clear that it's a pretty big commitment and a thankless task and I don't really expect anyone to be able to take it on, not trying to guilt-trip anyone. Xover (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Comment I have pretty well packed-in doing things on toolforge, things keep changing, and getting harder/more geeky/more stringent. Plus I don't have the patience, enough coding background nor time. [SSH is just problematic for me] I probably need to sit beside someone at a hackathon to re-learn to do things, but that isn't going to happen either. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pabitra Banerjee[edit]

Dear Wikisource administrators, I would like to alert that this entry is a xwiki spam target, please see the logs at w:simple:Pabitra Banerjee, m:Pabitra Banerjee, n:Pabitra Banerjee, and q:Pabitra Banerjee. Since there are 2 accounts (Special:Contributions/Barshaban, Special:Contributions/SexySonali) removing CSD tags from the page I would like to forward the deletion request to here. Please also note that these 2 accounts are confirmed by Simple English Wikipedia CheckUser (w:simple:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Pabitra_Banerjee_accounts). Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MathXplore: Page deleted and salted, and the three accounts involved have been indeffed (you missed Pabitra2204 that created the page initially). Thanks for the heads up! Xover (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Toolforge Grid Engine apocalypse is coming Feb. 14[edit]

Ok, according to email to maintainers, the hard deadline for the Grid Engine deprecation has been set to February 14, 2024 (just under 3 months from now). At that point Grid Engine will get shut down and all tools using it will fail.

This affects all of phetools (OCR, stats, Match & Split, etc.), and it affects all of Wikisource-bot that have not yet been migrated.

I took a quick peek now at Wikisource-bot and it looks like at least most of it has been migrated. The crontab has all jobs commented out, and qstat shows no jobs running on the Grid. As best I can tell that means what remains must be any interactive uses of pwb.py or similar where you use jsub instead of toolforge jobs. Listed maintainers for the Wikisource-bot toolforge tool are: Ankry, Billinghurst, Inductiveload, Mpaa, Samwilson, Xover. Could each of you double-check that the parts you use there are properly migrated, so we can update T320165 and get it off their tracker?

Phetools is, I guess, my headache so I'll make a valiant effort to get stuff migrated by the deadline, but right now it looks very unlikely I'll have the hours in the day for this.

Everyone might also want to keep in mind that there may be other tools hosted on Toolforge that have not been migrated and which will then be affected. enWS migrated off the old transclusion checker last year(ish)—ours now runs as a local Gadget—but other language Wikisourcen may be affected by that. We have various links to BUB, Book2Scroll, etc. squirrelled away in various places and without more research than I have time for now it's hard to tell which of these have been migrated and which will fail on Feb. 14. Xover (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tpt: You may also want to be aware of this (frWS will be affected too). Xover (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ouch. Thanks for looking after this! ... It's been a decade or so since I've done any serious coding, but I might see if I can dig up some memories and lend a hand with the migration —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Beleg Tâl: All help very very welcome! Do you have a developer account so I can add you to the project? The tracker task for Phetools is T319965 (we can make subtasks if needed), and feel free to use my talk page here as a dumping ground for anything that doesn't fit there. Xover (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

My message keeps being marked as spam[edit]

Hi, I wanted to post a question on Scriptorium, but it keeps being marked as spam – I was asked to contact admins here. I haven't edited Wikipedia for many years actually, never edited Wikisource, but all of my previous edits are perfectly legit so I've no idea why I keep getting this message. Thanks for the help! Amused (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Amused: Done. The filter has been adjusted, so it should not happen anymore. I am very sorry for the inconvenience. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Jan.Kamenicek: Děkuji :) Amused (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Amused: Proszę :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Edit request for Module:ISO 639[edit]

I've added ISO 639-5 codes in Module:ISO 639/sandbox; could these be added to the main template as well? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 02:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Vandal- and a clearly NOTHERE.[edit]

Special:Contributions/68.103.18.130 - Can an admin or oversighter check through these, and block accordingly? ThanksShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A68.103.18.130&type=block ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
and - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=68.103.18.130 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Blocked and pages deleted, etc. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions/Raffleshospital[edit]

The user is repeating spam at here, so this user should be blocked. MathXplore (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done, but the account was already globally locked, so my block was more a "just in case". PseudoSkull (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Error on the Main Page[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
I made a fix to select either this month or the nearest month in the past. Mpaa (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@Beleg Tâl: Different issue. See WS:S#Template:Index progress bar error message. Xover (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson edits[edit]

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)Reply

 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)Reply
@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)Reply

Vandal—User:Here is my hero at home[edit]

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

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

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

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)Reply

Vandal[edit]

Bagaina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)Justin (koavf)TCM 22:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Cross-wiki abuse report[edit]

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

Please import commons:Template:PD-FLGov[edit]

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)Reply

 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 (talkcontribs) 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
Makes sense. -Pete (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Twitter whitelist[edit]

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)Reply

@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)Reply
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)Reply

IRC spam[edit]

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)Reply

Edit request for Module:ISO 639[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 03:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

CheckUser notice[edit]

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)Reply

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

Emily Dickinson Poems[edit]

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)Reply

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

Vandal—User:Logan Sesto[edit]

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

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

Spammer[edit]

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)Reply

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

move request[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply

Mistake in the link in MediaWiki:Gadget-watchlist-notice[edit]

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)Reply

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

Links in module messages[edit]

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 didwhy I did it wrong) 10:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Alien333: Erm. Could you link to a page where you're seeing this? Xover (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
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 didwhy I did it wrong) 12:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Alien333: Better now? Xover (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
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 didwhy I did it wrong) 12:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@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 didwhy I did it wrong) 13:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please move: Romance and Reality[edit]

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)Reply

Doing… Xover (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Done Xover (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Autopatrolled & flood flags up for myself[edit]

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)Reply

I have no objection to this. Does anyone? BD2412 T 02:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Thanks for that. -- U.T. 02:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
If you can do that, yes, go ahead with it. BD2412 T 03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Mass work on rh[edit]

@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)Reply

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