Open main menu

How to handle junk page creations?Edit

I was seeing a lot of junk page talk creations from an IP recently. Can you check the New Page feed, and block the IP concerned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00:   Done well spotted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent nuke and blockEdit

Thanks so much. I was wondering though, would you mind taking a look at my (infrequent) contributions and evaluating my chances of becoming an admin? I'd like to be able to help in such situations in the future. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Have a look over Wikisource:Restricted access policy and Wikisource:Adminship, and especially note Wikisource:Adminship#Nomination standards. Your work with scripts is impressive, your interest in fighting vandalism is commendable, and your contributions to validation are much appreciated. Your scripted modifications of page status might be seen as indicative of non-thorough proofreading, though the pages I checked were fine. If you confirmed your understanding of and commitment to the policies I linked, I'd probably support your nomination. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little confused why you marked all of the top-level mainspace pages that you created as nonstandard texts. Does this indicate that you are not confident in your ability to create texts that confirm to Wikisource standards? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
At the time, I was just starting to get acquainted with wikisource, and thought it would be helpful if someone else took a look --DannyS712 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha. Well, those pages look standard enough (or at least as standard as the other court judgements I've seen) so I've removed those tags :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Index:Dictionary of National Biography. Errata (1904).djvu‎‎Edit

The IP edits were reverted, but there seems to be a content loss somewhere, that I can't figure out as reverting back to an old KNOWN version didn't bring back the missing content. What's gone wrong, and how can it be fixed? unsigned comment by ShakespeareFan00 (talk) .

@ShakespeareFan00: I am confused, I see no content loss anywhere in that page's history, what exactly are you referring to? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The last KNOWN version (15 Feb 2011) is 1063 bytes, The revert to it is only 896 bytes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: After much head-scratching, I am now pretty certain that the changes to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template since February 2011 are the cause of the discrepancy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, underlying template changes and related empty fields. Wouldn't spend more time on it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


Do we even need the page? If we have nothing on it after 10 years, maybe it should be deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Maybe. The Elohist author and the Yahwist author are credited with contributing to the Pentateuch, which is a work that we host on Wikisource. So I think there's a good case for having author pages for them, even though their contributions are hypothetical (but then, so are the contributions of Moses). However, I see no need for empty portals dedicated to the documentary sources they are supposed to have written. I think the best solution is to replace the empty portals with non-empty author pages. What do you think? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
<shrug> We can do redirects of portal pages and bunch them under a common portal page for the subject. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: sure, works for me, though I don't think we have any other works on the subject to make a common portal page - maybe we should just redirect to Portal:Bible? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Not my area of speciality. Single item portals are bleh! Old Testament? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted redirectEdit

Hi. I agree with merging the various disambiguation pages as you have performed recently. However, I would like to ask you if it is possible to undelete the redirect Sonnet 110 (Kollár). The page was created quite a long time ago and such redirects should not be deleted, as it was well argued a short time ago. Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: The page was created in February 2019 which is very recent and not even remotely close to "quite a long time ago". There are no pages that link to it. There is also no reason to link to it in future, unlike the situation in the discussion you link to. It is literally just clutter. Why would you even want it to remain? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Also in my opinion Sonnet 110 is also a useless page and should just redirect to Sonnet (since the works are all listed there anyway, and the number is itself only further disambig, and the number attached to sonnets has nothing to do with the sonnets themselves and only to do with the edition they happen to be in). So Sonnet 110 (Kollár) is doubly useless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"...there's no way of knowing the various places, online and offline, where there might be incoming links." It was created more than 7 months ago, that is a long time ago, and so it is reasonable to keep the redirect. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
As for redirecting Sonnet 110 to Sonnet: I am not sure about its usefulness. Only people looking for something titled "Sonnet 110" are likely to come there. Why should they be redirected to Sonnet, which is overloaded with a large number of other links? What is more, looking for Sonnet 10 using e.g. CTRL+F they would find only Shakespeare. I suggest not to do it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Seven months is practically yesterday. Whatever, it's no longer deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright in KenyaEdit

I was looking at this: w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Unpublished_works. The unpublished letters, made in Kenya, date to 1941. {{Pd/1923}} Wouldn't they now be in the public domain? Evrik (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Evrik (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evrik: yes, but you still have to add the template on the work page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Evrik: You used a pre-1923 license tag, but the work wasn't published until 1941. You need to use a license tag that is valid for 1941 works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Beleg Tâl".