User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2023

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2023, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Enough rope

You know that I don't play games or feed trolls, though I won't allow abuse, so I will wikt:give someone enough rope, and not be afraid to act when needed. I will answer a reasonable question and AGF with an answer that may sits okay in the space, even when I have suspicions.

Yes, I understand about ducks, trolls, etc. I understand about people who like to play, and they think that they are clever, and I know that I would rather be playing a gentle game of toss, than calling up a hard game of brandy. Trolls seek excitement, and I am happy to bore then to death. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Bible (King James)

Thank you for your help with the 1769 King James Bible page. There is so much to fix on that page, but I also don't want to come running in like a bull in a China shop and mess anything up. In particular, for almost the entire Bible, the Wikisource texting is showing much less features than the scanned text: (italic word formatting, pilcrows, marginal notes).

It also looks like the original Wikisource text did not actually originate with the scan, and like the scan is only available for part of the work. In particular, it appears that scans are missing for Lamentations through Malachi. I possess an exact photographic facsimile of the 1769 Oxford KJV, and if it is useful to the project I would be more than happy to share it.

For example, I've photographically scanned the book of Lamentations as it appears in the 1769 Oxford Text and placed it on archive.org at https://archive.org/details/kjv_1769_oxford_blayney_lamentations.

If the Wikisource people in charge of the project would find it useful, I would be happy to provide the other missing parts as well. MPlasky (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@MPlasky: It is quite possible that the originally entered text does not match this particular edition, as it was added by an unexperienced contributor 11 years ago, i.e. in the time when Wikisource policies were not so developed as they are now. If you have a better copy of this edition, it would be best to upload it to Commons as a whole and then create a new index page here in Wikisource. I can help with any phase of this process if needed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, my copy is not so much better as simply more complete. It looks like this project has a perfectly good copy -- that looks exactly like mine -- for Genesis through Jeremiah, but as far as I can tell the project is missing Lamentations through Malachi. First, I will need to get the remaining pages scanned, and then I will try to upload them to Commons. Thank you for the offer of help; I may need to get back to you on that. MPlasky (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have now uploaded the missing books of Lamentations through Malachi to Wikimedia: [1]. Does doing that automatically create an "index page", or is there some additional step I need to take? MPlasky (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@MPlasky:Well, we need to have one scan of the full edition. If the scan we have were simply lacking some pages, e.g. because they had been forgotten during the scanning process although the physical book contains them, we could simply add the missing pages to the scan and then update the index page. That is something that could be arranged easily. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be our case. May I ask which edition are the newly scanned pages from? Comparing the last page of our scan with the first page of the scanned missing pages, it seems that they do not come from one edition, and so we cannot combine them. In such a case the only thing to be done is to scan the whole book you have (as a different edition), upload the whole book to Commons, and create a brand-new index :-( Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The scan I have is from the folio-sized edition of the 1769 Oxford University edition of the KJV as edited by Benjamin Blayney. The edition I have has exactly the same title-page "Wright and Gill", "1769", etc. as the scan currently being used for Genesis through Jeremiah at Bible (King James).

It is true that there is a visible difference in where the pages start and stop. However, if you look at the beginning and end of each line in both scans, you will find that the lines start and stop at the exact same words throughout the text. So, for example, the Genesis-Jeremiah text has, in it's last four verses, lines ending in "seven, Je-, twelfth, the, Baby-, up, and, prison, set, kings, Babylon, garments, before, life, con-, Baby-, of, life". Likewise, in the text I have, those lines end in exactly the same collection: "seven, Je-, twelfth, the, Baby-, up, and, prison, set, kings, Babylon, garments, before, life, con-, Baby-, of, life".

The lines begin and end identically, and all the punctuation and so on lines up as well, including in places where Blayney made mistakes.

I think what we're dealing with here is that Blayney's text came out in 1769 in both quarto and folio sizes. I've got the folio size, which holds more lines per page. My best guess is that Wikisource's text is from the quarto-sized edition.

In any case, Bible (King James) currently has *two* sources, one a 1769 Blayney printing, and another 1772 printing for the New Testament. I'm a bit curious how a project winds up combining two different editions like this, and what the correct next steps are to fix it. If there's any possible way to do it, I would much rather work on continuing to improve Bible (King James) than on starting a separate and parallel project.

In the meantime, I'll get a full scan of my edition, from Genesis to Revelation, produced in case it might be of use.MPlasky (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@MPlasky:That is great, thanks. Full scan of a particular edition is what we need. Unfortunately, no scan of the full 1769 edition is to be found anywhere on the Internet.

As for differences between our scan and the scan of missing pages: Where the pages start and stop is only the most visible, but not the only difference. Some more differences can be found among the sidenotes, suggesting that they were scanned from different editions.

As for two sources of the current transcription: I do not know much about the situation and I would have to do more research to find out, but if the book was published by one publisher in two volumes, one volume in 1769 and the succeeding one in 1772, then they can be put together as one edition of the Bible dated 1769–1772. Similarly, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is also considered one edition, although some volumes were published in 1910 and others in 1911. Otherwise combining two different editions together is a serious reason for deletion, because compilations are explicitely forbidden by Wikisource policy. An alternative for deletion is matching the transcription with one particular edition, preferably accompanied with its scanbacking. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what differences have you found in the sidenotes? I've seen some differences in placement of the sidenotes so far, but I haven't seen any in wording (yet). In any case, the issue of KJV "editions" after 1769 is very difficult, because almost all of the hundreds of printings since 1769 follow the 1769 text extremely closely -- for example, most of the KJV's printed by Cambridge today differ in something like thirty places (one every thirty pages) from the original 1769 text.

Some people are even under the mistaken impression that all post-1769 texts are identical. My guess is that the original source text used here was an electronic text that often gets mislabelled as 1769, and then multiple editions were pulled in once people tried to find a scanned source to judge the text by. MPlasky (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@MPlasky: E. g. Here we can see the note "See verse 29" (or 19???) at the top after the note "Before CHRIST 588", while here we do not see such a note at all. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's due to different material being on different pages. "See ver 29" is a note on verse 12 of the last chapter of Jeremiah, which ends up on the last page of Jeremiah in my scan, but in the second-to-last page of the older Wikisource scan. So that note winds up placed [a bit up the page](https://archive.org/details/screenshot-from-2023-03-04-13-57-50) in the other printing. The "BEFORE CHRIST" notes, which attempt to give dates for all the stories, are always at the tops of pages, so marginal notes have to be moved around them to keep the same sort of layout with the two different page-sizes. Boring trivia to some people, but I've always enjoyed the little differences as books get copied around! If Wikisource had enough volunteers, we could probably do over a thousand different editions of that one translation alone! MPlasky (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explanation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The Net of Faith—before you proofread

I ordered a copy of the original through ILL, and I can scan that copy of the original (vs. NonResistance’s digital copy), if you’re willing to wait a week or so. It seems that it should arrive soon. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Great! A copy of the original would definitely be much better, I can wait as long as needed :-) Thanks very much. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Good news: it just came in (about thirty minutes after your comment). Bad news (for me): it’s about 800 pages, so it may be a few weeks (unless I have a lot of spare time all of a sudden). Bad news (for you): the reverend’s “Czech typewriter suffered from a chronic indisposition” and thus he uses very unorthodox characters in representing the Czech. But you’ll Chelc̄icky̍ when I finish my scanning work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Never mind. 1) I can wait, 2) I will cope with the characters somehow. It should not be worse than the book I am currently working on (small example) :-D --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Constitution of India

Why do you tagged Constitution of India for deletion? KuldeepBurjBhalaike ^(Talk|Cont) 16:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kuldeepburjbhalaike: See Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Constitution of India. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

👍👍 KuldeepBurjBhalaike ^(Talk|Cont) 04:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Header line fixes...

I generally mark lint repairs as minor, so I don't flood recent changes.. But Thanks for noticing and doing them. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree, I should have marked them as minor. I did not because I wanted to have the work done quickly and as I was doing the repair manually, marking the edits as minor would make the advance twice slower. But you are right, next time I will do it that way. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The Confessions of Jean Jacques Rousseau

Hi, There are several editions by different publishers and translators with that name. That's why I suggested to add (Aldus). See also Index:The Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1896, vol. 1.djvu. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: I see. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is a list of major works by Rousseau: Author talk:Jean-Jacques Rousseau#By_Rousseau. Yann (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but as I wrote before, mere existence of editions is not a reason to disambiguate. However, as there are two indexes for two editions, that is a reason, and so I moved it once more. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Featured texts

Don't forget to mark FT locally. The star won't appear otherwise. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I thought it is enough when I mark it in WD, but I did not check it afterwards. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The article

Dropping this here since it's irrelevant to the FT discussion. As I wrote there I agree it should not have been featured in the first place just because of its nature.

But I have to say, while the criticisms levelled at it is fine, I think they are misplaced, because it was never written as a newspaper or magazine article, much less a journal article, so measuring it against those standards is not really fair. It's written as an opinion piece in a blog post, addressed at a specific audience, and as such it exceeds the expected standards by actually linking what's referenced. That articles on topics related to femininity are disproportionately deleted on enWP was well attested in the WMFs and third party research at the time, the same research that quantified the gender gap and identified it as an important source of systemic bias. Had Awadwit been writing this for an actual Wikipedia article, or for a journal, she would have definitely cited the claims (as well as phrased it much more neutrally) because she was very meticulous with citations (I know, I reviewed several of her articles). But this wasn't that kind of writing: it was a "call to arms" in the form of a blog post. Judged by those standards it's perfectly fine. Mischaracterising the dress episode was unfortunate, of course, but it's the kind of sloppyness that's par for the course in that context. Fair to criticise, of course, but not fundamentally invalidating as it would be in a different context.

Similarly, saying every edit is political is an instance of failing to make your point effectively, rather than fundamentally invalid. You need to infer that she means 1) every non-trivial human edit, and 2) that what parts of which articles you edit and how you edit them, emphasise, etc. are shaped by who you are. In short, she's describing systemic bias and monoculture: if the vast majority of editors are white, male, technologically inclined, and of a narrow band of ages… then all the project's policies, priorities, practices, values, culture, and standards for interaction are going to reflect those of white technologically inclined men of a certain age. That "everything is political" is an entirely uncontroversial statement, it's just one that needs to be understood to imply "… in a certain sense". Awadewit failed to effectively make this point, which is a fair criticism of the blog, but, again, this is a blog post not a journal article.

What I'm saying is… I think the fault lies with us for featuring this blog post in the first place. No serious journal would have published this, and a newspaper editor would have asked for rewrites, but we made the choice to call it "featured" with the standards that that implies. And as such I think you're judging it by too high a standard relative to what it was written for. It's like judging a Ferrari on its ability to till a field or haul cargo: it's terrible at both, but those aren't really the right yardsticks to apply. Xover (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Xover: Maybe I am to narrowminded, but in my opinion the problems discussed should not happen in any serious text of an academic. Academics often complain how poorly people work with sources and interpret them, and then you come across a text by an academic which suffers the same problems. The fact that it is a blog post is not an excuse in my eyes. You also wrote your interpretation of what she meant as for the politics. Other people may interpret it differently, but academics should be able to express themselves clearly and unambiguously. Unlike common daily speech, once something is publically written, anybody can access it any time and cite from it, and so academics should express themselves precisely and with all responsibility. And the stronger statements are expressed, the stronger evidence is needed.

As for the deletion of articles related to feminity: it would have been absolutely OK, if she had written what you did, i. e. that they are being "disproportionately deleted on enWP", but she wrote that they are "actively deleted". Because every deletion is "active", you cannot delete anything "passively", a lot of people may interpret those words like: "many Wikipedians actively search for articles on feminity and delete them upon sight", which is something different than what is probably happening in reality, that a lot of editors are biased and so if such an article is poorly written, it has lower chance to survive common patrolling than poorly written article on a masculine topic.

She probably wanted, as you wrote, to "call to arms", but similar texts often have the opposite effect, serving the opponents as a proof that all those activists only exaggerate, misinterpret the situation or simply lie. Another effect is that while it may attract some sympathizers, other people may be discouraged. I quite often lead various courses of writing Wikipedia (usually as a part of the Czech Wikimedia project "Senior Citizens write Wikipedia") and I have to say that recently the number of women participants has been higher than the number of men. I strive to persuade them to keep contributing after the courses are finished, and I use arguments like underrepresentation of feminine topics etc., but articles which call to arms by phrases like "environment hostile towards female editors", "actively deleted articles on feminine topics", "every edit is political" do the opposite: they drive them away, because why should they spend their precious time among such a hostile wolf pack? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. The criticism is valid, and I agree that these are weaknesses of the blog post. I just think you judge it too harshly (against too high a standard) for what it is.

But you are right that advocacy in this area needs to be careful to avoid working against its own purposes. And that's a whole giant topic of its own, but your last point is a key one for me. The environment on e.g. English Wikipedia is downright toxic. I called it "locker-room" before, but that's not really the right analogy. It's… shaped by people with at least slightly autistic personalities, and is such that so long as you don't say any of the cuss words that Americans find objectionable no enforcement of behavioural guidelines kick in. You can act so hostile, so abrasive, so confrontational, just so long as you don't cuss and pretend to care about "objectivity". It's an environment that's perfectly designed to scare away not just women, but also anyone working in the humanities in general. Heck, I've got Internet-evolved thick skin developed over decades and I find it deeply wearying and sapping all the joy out of contributing there. How in the world does one address this without at the same time scaring away the very people it affects? Xover (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Closing an FT nom

There is a procedure listed at Wikisource:Featured text candidates when a nom is selected and closed. It looks as though you forgot to complete some of the steps. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

True, I was too hasty. Hope everything is OK now. I will take more care not to forget anything next time. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Welcome" image

@Jan.Kamenicek, Thanks for the welcome message you placed on my page in 2021. Is there a way to remove the image, but keep your welcome message? I do not want to delete your welcome message text. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan: I have substituted the template with the plain text and links, and then removed the image. Is it OK like that? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's OK. Thank you for your prompt response. -- Ooligan (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

AbuseFilter being too aggressive again

cf. Special:AbuseLog/162215. Rjjiii emailed me about this. I see nothing obvious in their edit that should trigger any spam filter, much less an auto-blocking one. Xover (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Another one

See this thread and the log. Xover (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

A Forest Story

Yes, the work is complete. The same is true of the other book which I scanned for you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add a redirect from [Category:Philosophical pessimists]

Please add a redirect from [Category:Philosophical_pessimists] to [Category:Philosophers of pessimism as authors] on Wikisource, since there are pages that refer to now non-existent former category page. Fantastiera (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean some external pages? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean these two (but failed to link properly): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Philosophical_pessimists and https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Philosophers_of_pessimism_as_authors But yes, there were pages from Wikipedia that linked to the former. I fixed one, but there might be others. Fantastiera (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, see Category:Philosophical pessimists. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Fantastiera (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Links from enWP can be bot-found and updated to the new target. No need to keep cat redirects around forever. Xover (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Fantastiera (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment deleted it. Noting that we need to differentiate between the categorisation of occupations per template:meta category as the difficulty that we were getting ourselves into. Accordingly, we have the subject matter which typically splits into (biographical) articles and the author pages (people), and we have typically separated those. So a redirect from that category to an ... as authors would be defeating our current setup. Whether we need "Category:Philosophers of pessimism" is a separate conversation. I deleted as I challenge the appropriateness gramatically in English of such an ambiguous category. Personally, I don't think that should create categories based on what someone did at enWP at some point in time, it should more align with our needs, and as Xover noted we can fix problems at other wikis. @Xover: I will challenge the statement about not keeping category redirects around forever, they are purposeful as they enhance findability, with HotCat they allow editors to find the alternate name and then have them dropped into the desire target category. Yes, some can be deleted, it all depends on the typeahead. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I agree. I meant: in cases where we for other reasons do not want the old category name, we don't have to keep it just because there may or may not be links to the old name on enWP. Whether we want to keep this specific category redirect (Category:Philosophical pessimists) or not I have no opinion on just now. Xover (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please consider bot archival

Hi. Your page is getting long and started to be somewhat unwieldy. Can I encourage you to look to use user:Wikisource-bot to automate archiving, and you can still have plenty visible and control of what does or does not archive. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I second the motion. :) Xover (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Will do :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/52

And the reason that I started here. It seems that sometime through the development you have separated the initial criteria (line 1-5) from subsequent parts. The next bracketed component (6-282) then leaves components like 286-289 and 291-294 as their own matches, which I don't believe is your intention. As I am unaware of where you were looking to match those components I am going to leave it with you, I don't have the time to work through an analysis. That is getting to be VERY VERY LONG and complex filter, and I wonder whether it is overly complex. I will note that what I needed to do elsewhere is split up the matches to smaller components, and put those to the top, then build the architecture for the matches to have something that enable some more fluid workability. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks for the observation. I think I have corrected now what you mention in the beginning. You are right with the rest as well. The filter has not been designed as a whole with an elaborated plan, but has been built step by step with new components being added or modified ad hoc whenever a new problem appeared. It definitely needs redesigning, which I will try to find some time for. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Auto-blocks

Filter 59 is completely broken. It will block anybody who edits a page in main, User:, either of their talk spaces, Template:, and File talk: that contain a wikitext heading starting with a number. You know, like "1920s" (or "1st campaign" or any number of other obvious examples). Perfectly innocuous and common, entirely to be expected on a talk page or a user page. And predictably enough it did block someone within five days of the change: 1, 2.

Let me speak extremely plainly: I do not think this filter should have been enabled with an automated block action, and with such over-broad triggers. Not everything can be handled by ever more convoluted filters, and the collateral damage is starting to mount up. Xover (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

My fault, I forgot to consider non-main namespaces. Have to be more careful, I am sorry. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations/Pagans

Thanks for deleting that. The page was created as spam. I changed it to something more sensible, but realise now that I should have put it for speedy delete. -- Beardo (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really a problem. Thank you for heads up! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Bartered Bride

I've now attempted to revert my changes, because you said something had broken. Perhaps you can look into why it's not rendering as desired?.

I would also STRONGLY suggest dropping the multi-column layout on the Page: versions as unworkable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

closing WS:PD

When closing a deletion, please be sure you also checked links to the deleted item. For the Index you deleted, it was still linked from the contents of all the other Index volumes. I've taken care of the links now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, my fault. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)