User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2022

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2022, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Memory How to Develop, Train, and Use It

It needs to be validate. —unsigned comment by 175.176.33.211 (talk) .

@175.176.33.211: Thanks very much for all the work done! However, it is not possible to "validate" the individual pages yet, as they have not been marked as proofread. If you register, you will receive the right for marking the pages as proofread too. Only then somebody else may come and validate them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Cross-wiki abuse: w:Karna promotion socks

Hi. This is related to page The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 4/Lectures and Discourses/Thoughts on the Gita - I have reverted the latest socks. However, I am not aware of the content of page itself and thus can't verify if the current version is correct. You might want to consider further protections. Also see SPI case and ANI report on EN wiki. For any replies, please ping me. DaxServer (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Thanks for pointing it out. I have checked it and reverted it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for helping new users

I just wanted to leave a note thanking you for sorting out a couple of problems and helping our newest addition to the West Coast book project. If you felt so inclined you could add yourself to the project team at Wikisource:West Coast Task Force and make yourself available for technical support for our less-experienced editors (I'm pretty new to Wikisource myself!). But helping from afar is also appreciated. Many thanks. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Giantflightlessbirds: I am always glad seeing new people coming :-) Thanks for the invitation to your team, but I have quite a long list of things to do myself, so I will not join at the moment. However, feel free to ask for help any time it is needed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The Disobedient Kids

This is about the story, not the whole book....

I amended wikidata (and am more than willing to undo those changes) for The Disobedient Kids and other Czecho-Slovak fairy tales/The Disobedient Kids to add to The Wolf and the Seven Little Kids.

I would like to do things differently, but after you see what is there and how this works, and also after you give me "permission" to do this up differently.

I want to make the English a version of the Czech and put that there so the English names are there.

I "think" Grimm gets the credit, simply for having published first (1812/1846 I think). Even if the Italians maybe did this the very first (as in the Cinderella mess). But, I am more than happy to be corrected. I assumed much from the "retold by". I am so not interested in annoying Cz, more like getting all of the links in one place whenever possible.

Thanks for the time.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Hello. I think that the versions retold by Grimms and Němcová are not the same, as were probably not the same the "originals" they were retelling. Grimms collected German folk tales and Němcová collected Czech folk tales, and some of these had common roots. I was thinking about this problem for a long time before and it seems to me that the best solution for this (and also other similar cases) would be to have a version page of the folk tale which would be listing two version pages (or translation pages) of Grimms’ version and Němcová’s version. I know that some other people prefer having everything in one single version page, but this attitude is imo not good for cases where the versions of two "authors" differ and at the same time each of them has their own editions. It might be better to have some wider discussion first and to write its result to Wikisource:Versions to avoid potential reverts in the future. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It is, for me, first about linking to the wiki's. It is easy for the wiki sources to reach in and grab their wiki, but it is not so easy for (example) en.wiki or cz.wiki to shuffle through the versions and to find just theirs. But that is about putting it with Grimm. If you think not, then okay.

Making a separate version is not about Grimm or no, it is about the listing. Did you look at how it appears when sharing the cs original, which came from a different publication and also a different date?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian:I agree that linking to other wikis is important. Current en.wiki article deals only about the Grimms’ version, and so do others which I have checked like German and French, and so these should be linked to the Wikisource page containing the Grimms’ version, not the Němcová’s version.

At d:Q87890772 you have stated that Grimms are the authors of the Czech folk tale O neposlušných kůzlátkách which is not true. It is a folk tale of several versions, German version was retold by Grimms in their collections of German folk tales and Czech version was retold by Němcová in her collection of Czech folk tales. This WD item is linked to cs.ws page cs:Národní Báchorky a Powěsti/O neposlušných kozlatech which does not have Grimms as the authors, and the WD item has to be in agreement with this.

In The Wolf and the Seven Little Kids you linked to that item where you added some data and the result is that the version page says that Grimms are the authors of the Czech version and Němcová translated it together with William Howe Tolman and Václav Smetánka in Národní báchorky a powěsti (1848). This statement contains several apparent mistakes: 1) Němcová was not translating Grimms, she was retelling what she heard among Czech peasants. 2) Tolman and Smetánka had nothing to do with Národní báchorky a powěsti, they were even born long after this collection was published. They just translated some of the tales from Němcová’s collections into English and published their translations in The Disobedient Kids and other Czecho-Slovak fairy tales (1921). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so I removed most of what I did and made the new record for it. d:Q113560111 which is part of d:Q61951628 and an edition of d:Q87890772 and moved it to its own section at The Wolf and the Seven Little Kids and soon the Grimm will know nothing of the cs variation (I forgot to remove that before typing about everything here).

I did Tom Thumb d:Q571493 at least the Grimm variety, the way I learned to do things while working on Aesop here. I don't know if anyone has dissembled it yet. Leaving the record without a link and putting the link on what is an edition of (in the case of their only being one at the source wiki) is only a little messy and makes the links available. The Disobedient Kids was not really an example of that, however, not being from Grimm. Wikidata has some link serving limits....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, it is annoying and problematic to me that when I answer some notifications to talk pages, that it does remove the red notification to me, but other times, like this, it doesn't.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Thanks for these changes, that is much better. Although I would still prefer the way I described above, this attitude is also quite possible and I am not going to revert it. I will have a more detailed look later, but now it seems quite OK to me. The only flaw is technical on the side of the {{WD version}} template, which gives e.g. "…translated by William Howe Tolman, Václav Smetánka…" instead of correct English "…translated by William Howe Tolman and Václav Smetánka…" but that is to be addressed somewhere else. Thanks again. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the bad English. Cygnis had me move those out of my user space and into the public template space. I had wanted to make a new ones for translator and editor, and add editor to the existing WD's. "My bad" English.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Spam and revdel

Hi Jan,

Thanks for all the work you've put in patrolling recent changes and dealing with the spam and vandalism. Very much appreciated!

One bit of feedback though: I notice that you routinely revdel (hide) revision text, and often also edit summary, for garden-variety spam. Unless the material in question contains personal information or grossly offensive stuff (including insults etc.) we usually do not revdel mere spam and vandalism edits. Revdel should generally be used as little as possible, and only when there is specific need, in order to preserve the open nature of the project. Too many hidden revisions tends to erode the confidence of the community in administrators (they should be able to check the actions we take with the tools as much as possible), and it prevents, for example, researchers from studying things like the types of spam, how wiki communities react to it, how fast, etc. Especially the openness is important: experience from other projects show that whenever admins hide stuff it breeds suspicion in some parts of the community, and having the dumb spam (99% of it) visible in revision history does no harm. It's the LTAs with personal insults (I know you've been dealing with a couple of those lately), attempts at outing, etc. where we need to apply the strongest measures. Anything that we don't want our regular users to see or be exposed to, as a rule of thumb; anything else can just be reverted normally.

And, of course, for actually criminal stuff (links to illegal materials, threats of actual harm, personal information, libel, etc.) we hand it over to the WMF Office for suppression so that not even admins and 'crats can see it.

Anyways… All the work you've put in here has ben very much appreciated. I just wanted to drop a note about the revdel thing before the conspiratorially minded start muttering about "the admin cabal" and breaking out the tar and pitchforks. :) Xover (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I know all this. I will explain the reasons why I have been hiding a lot of specific edits recently by email. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: if you had a specific reason for it then I'm talking out of my backside and you should feel free to ignore me completely. :) Xover (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Eagle-eyes

Good catch on this. I'd been ignoring that discussion after it ballooned, planning to get back to it when I find one of those mythical "spare moments" I hear talk about, which was clearly not a good idea.

Incidentally, {{hidden}} is a bit wonky, so you may want to use {{cot}} and {{cob}} for similar needs in future.

This is the title-ish text of the collapsed box

And this is the content.

It works a bit better in most respects, and is less finicky with what goes inside it. Xover (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to remember these templates and use them next time, they look more user friendly :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

if there is vandalism in a place ...

then we can write filters to stop the garbage. Sometimes it is better that some vandalism is clearly visible and not in mainspace, then hidden away where it goes unnoticed. Protection often just shifts it, not stops it. So please don't feed the trolls. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Astounding Stories renewals

I am here to remind you that the Stanford renewals database only contains renewals of books and contributions to periodicals. Other types of works, such as plays and issues of periodicals, were renewed in a different series of CCE and are not indexed at Stanford. The renewal item to which you point me is for a story published in the May–August 1936 issues of Astounding Stories, not for those issues outright. For the three issues which I marked for deletion (including this one), the renewals are in the January–June 1963 periodicals volume, renewals section, first page, top of rightmost column. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

No need to remind anything, it is just enough if you give the speedy deletion rationale properly next time. This is much better, thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

undelete a file and rename it instead?

I tell you what, I burnt some candy I was making and have to scrub the pan for weeks maybe.... My messes are not just here! I should not have made Index:The Door Unbolted (1906).djvu because I am the one who changed the name, I think, when I moved it to commons.

If Index:The Door Unbolted (1906).djvu could be undeleted and have its name changed to Index:This Journey through the Pure Food Factories (1906).djvu, it would save me a few (like 20) minutes. If it takes you more than 20 minutes to undelete and rename, say no! Don't do it!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Done No problem, mistakes happen :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)