Hello, PseudoSkull, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Koavf: Nice to see you're active here too! Thanks. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes. You were first answered by User:EncycloPetey who is very active. He is a competent admin here who can answer all your questions. Additionally, I have found User:billinghurst to be very helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:Boys' Life Mar 1, 1911.djvuEdit

hi, nice work - hope you don’t mind if i transcluded your first article onto the page scans. needs an image inserted. hope you will agree that it is a better using the OCR layer rather than typing all of it, and using the header template to link articles together. might want to move from your user space to article space. cheers. Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New TextsEdit

The "Episode "Piggy Bank Robbery" of The Adventures of Paddy the Pelican" should not be listed in New Texts until all pages have been proofread. Right now one of the pages is marked as "problematic", so it cannot be considered ready to be listed as a new text.

I have corrected the author link for the BSA film. When the "author" is a company or corporation rather than an individual, then we use a Portal page, such as we have at Portal:Stratemeyer Syndicate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, it's not the first TV episode here. Our usual format for video clips is .ogv and a search there finds a few others. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dotted pageEdit

I have moved that out of template namespace. We already have enough issues with the existing dotted leading templates without having more issues in more of the same templates. There is no requirement to replicate dot leaders in tables, we are not a facsimile site. Some of us would profess that there are many reasons why we wouldn't want to use dot leaders due to their template bloat, etc. and consider that they have little upside. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Balmer copyrightsEdit

I looked in to the copyright status of the “copyrighted” works you listed, if you are interested in working on them sooner. “The Man Higher Up” and “The Eleventh Hour” were first published in 1909 in the collection The Achievements of Luther Trant (which may be found here, and at other places); “The Hammering Man” has already been created (from Amazing Stories vol. 1 no. 12, which was not copyrighted); and That Royle Girl is copyrighted for the full term (which expires in a few years). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Yes, I believe they were indeed later printings. I know that “The Man Higher Up,” at least, was reprinted in 1926 (in some issue of Amazing Stories, I believe). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]


"nnd" in all lower-case on PAGE pages is exclusively a misreading of "and" it seems, if you look at this; would be a decent scheduled task every X months. And learneil is learned in every instance according to a Google search of Wikisource. And pattem is consistently pattern. Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:New textsEdit

Please input the entries (1) yourself (not with the bot) and (2) not as a minor edit. It’s fine to use the bot to input pages (since you proofread the work yourself separately), but you should be the one to add the entry to “New texts.” Good job proofreading (both the books and the films, since we don’t have many films here). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

(The reason edits are being marked as minor, except when pages are created, is because that's all pywikibot will apparently allow bot edits to be marked as. I'm sure that's changeable within pywikibot's source code, though.) But okay, will add the new texts myself from now on. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If you’re interested in proofreading (perennially perhaps) some films, there are plenty which have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Category:Silent films videos on Commons has almost 1,500, although, of course, not all of those will be actual films.) You can start a WikiProject for that (although I realise as I am writing this that you were already thinking of doing that). I would be happy to join; more films would certainly be a valuable addition. (Also, I changed {{smaller}} to {{fine block}} on this and the following page; when text changes size for a lengthy period of time, one should use the “block” form of the template.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Sure, I will start that WikiProject page soon, glad there is interest here in it! It's also worth noting that there are also a handful of 1925 films going into the public domain in less than a month, freed from the chains of their pointless 94-year-old copyrights.
Since I now see that what I for all this time thought was "smaller" sized text is actually "fine", then I am going to have quite a lot of pages of my old work to fix. Since some of it should be done by means of Template:fine block and others with just Template:fine, I am going to need a few days to script up this automated cleanup process. But I hope that this doesn't have to be done with Template:fine block/s and -/e, because that is even more complicated to automate. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The starting and ending templates are only needed when text crosses a page—if that helps. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Use CCE publications?Edit

I seem to recall that there was a Copyright Office publication which listed a number of "Early" motion pictures. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

c:File:Motion Pictures 1912 to 1939 (IA Motionpict19121939librrich0010).pdf which would cover the period you were looking at up to 1926 :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: Thank you for notifying me of the existence of this. As that copyright publication itself is in the public domain, a transcription of it on Wikisource is probably due, as it would be a pretty useful general resource. But dang, it is quite a large text. I should probably add this project itself to the back-burner of my new film WikiProject.
Anyway, I've been going through director filmographies on Wikipedia to find which ones are lost and found, etc. I'm trying to put together a pretty good list of found films for us here at Wikisource to have exclusively. Having to look for films this old to watch and wade through the huge amount of films listed on Wikipedia or Commons, with more than half of them unavailable to the general public entirely, can be pretty annoying, and also sad to be reminded of. I hope Wikisource's film coverage will become that one saving grace where viewers don't have to deal with this agonizing ordeal I've been dealing with for years. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Index:Motion Pictures 1912 to 1939 (IA Motionpict19121939librrich0010).djvu if you wanted to aid the transcription effort. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Film list suggestions and commentEdit

I would recommend (if you haven’t already) to create a template in your personal namespace that you could subst: that would include the header template and all of the letter subheadings. I would also recommend to include the file for those already uploaded (probably using {{commons link}}). Also, files created outside of the United States, in the public domain there (due to age), but not so in their country of publication can be uploaded to Wikisource (with {{Do not move to Commons}}), and proofread as normal (e. g., this film). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I was wanting to make a template like that, but to be honest, I'm not that good with MediaWiki coding. My template idea would link to both Commons and Wikipedia, and would look like this:

In cases where a video file is not uploaded, or there is no Commons category, those should be delisted from the template. Perhaps if there is even no Wikipedia article on top of everything else, it should just link to the Wikisource page and that's it. Also the Commons category, Wikipedia article, etc. may have different names than the entry would at Wikisource so the template would have to allow users to change the names accordingly. @TE(æ)A,ea.: So I'm not quite sure how to make a template like this, and I think the template should be in the main template space as a WikiProject itself is not located in my user space, but in the Wikisource project space. By the way, I don't wish to suggest that those WikiProject subpages are to be edited only by me; others can contribute to the lists as well if they please. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I'll convert them soon. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completed filmsEdit

  • I have another question: Where should completed films be listed? I see that you have removed films from the “uploaded to Commons” list, but I don’t see a place for completed films to go. I have completed two (small) films, but they wouldn’t be added to the “uploaded” list, because they have already been proofread. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: We really should be adding them to Portal:Film, but I haven't been doing that lately because I forgot. Portal:Film is a bit messy right now and probably should eventually, if not now, be separated into separate portals such as Portal:Mystery film, Portal:Cartoons, or Portal:Educational film, as an example of a way to give a directory of what people want based on the film genre, as we do with books. It will be more important later as we will have such an abundance of films that a page listing all of them would be way too long for a single page. As a matter of fact, I'll go ahead and start doing that right now, since it needs done. And thank you for adding those films, by the way. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done Please add any new films to the Portal:Film subportals or, if it does not fit well in any existing categories, add it to Portal:Film#Unsorted. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank for for setting this up. I have reclassified it and its subportals as TR (instead of ZA). The ZA classification is used by the Library of Congress for works that do not sit on the shelves with its books (photos, films, and digital copies). But all items hosted on Wikisource are digital copies, so most items that would be classified there in the LoC would not be placed there on Wikisource. The more suitable location for Wikisource purposes is TR (Photography). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot job for youEdit

Happy new year! Fancy running your bot over Index:The Great Gatsby - Fitzgerald - 1925.djvu and doing the running headers? There aren't any chapter names in the header. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will do, I am fetching the chapters' page numbers now. My thanks to you ultimately for starting the proofreading of this book. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: It's running, will be finished in a few hours. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done PseudoSkull (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Your bot edits are adding the "noinclude" tag to the end of every page, which will cause tag errors. [1] --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey: I apologize for this, I have stopped the bot for now. @Inductiveload: Is there a particular reason for the references tags in the footers? I don't see any reference links in the pages I've reviewed. If you want, I could add </references> to all the footers except chapter beginning pages, or where they appear I could tell the bot to leave them as they are. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The references tags are an artefact of the way Phe-bot works. They are not needed and can be removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Then I will continue running it. I have added a new feature to the bot that would stop itself if it were ever to find something new in the footer template (besides \n<references />, and ask me from there if it wants to continue. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1925 film upload requestsEdit

  • I was going to add these to the list, which hasn’t been created yet, but I thought it would be easier to ask you directly. Would you mind uploading some of the big-name films listed at 1925 in film? The Alice Comedies and some of the other series also look interesting. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Will do. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: I cannot upload many of these, because FFMPEG has never been able to install for me (trust me, I've spent countless hours trying) on my only working computer. I have quite unfortunately been having to ask another user on Commons to do a lot of these jobs for me because of that situation. I don't want to keep piling up their talk page with my wishlist. The only thing I can do is strip music with youtube-dl and convert to webm (only works with videos on YouTube itself). PseudoSkull (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Despite my sureness that it won't work, I'm trying a new crazy workaround method I thought of. *rolleyes* PseudoSkull (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyways, quite a few are done. More 1925 films are sure to be added soon. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I filled up the Main Page with Bobby BumpsEdit

I've always wanted to do that tbh. I even screenshotted it. Hopefully that's not against the rules, or else this is gonna be worse'n a sure 'nuff funeral. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big ParadeEdit

I’m tempted to start proofreading this film, but wanted to ask you in case you had already started work. I’ve wanted to transcribe more films, but I’ve been fighting the fight over on Commons for the past few days, and just started transcribing “The 1776 Report” (since it has a Wikipedia article)—somehow unsurprisingly, it’s quite dull. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Ah yes, that's quite an important one. Feel free to start transcribing it if you'd like.
But I'd advise for films as long as this one to do it in a draft space, since the ProofreadPage extension is currently broken for film. It's just easier that way IMO, especially since during the initial proofreading process you may have to add (or rarely remove) elements from the transcription.
I have created a community space for drafts now—see Wikisource:WikiProject Film/Drafts (shortcut WS:WPFD). I have already created a space for you ahead of time at which to proofread it, source text from here. The text should be formatted like it was on this page, for example, with timestamps before each element, and with all the timestamps and elements separated out by ----. If a page is to be marked as problematic, type " p" after the timestamp of that element.
If you work on and finish the film's proofread in this draft space, let me know and I can run the bot through it. It will create the Index page, all the individual Page pages, and transclude the film automatically because it's a pain in the ass to do manually. Hopefully one day ProofreadPages will be fixed for film, and maybe given extra conveniences for films specifically. But for now, this is the best way IMO. Have fun! PseudoSkull (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • PseudoSkull: My work for this was unfortunately deleted, so I will not continue working on it. I would like to proofread some more movies in the future, but I will likely not be able to do so for a week or so hence. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The BargainEdit

Hello, I'm editing a draft for The Bargain; I've to clean it up, but before I have a few questions.

  • At 05:50, there is a form with a very tiny text, unreadable. What is the best practice in such a case?
  • At 22:33, there is a poster with a picture. Is it recommended to insert the picture?
  • When a same letter or scene is seen several times, is it necessary to have a page for each occurrence? e.g. several shots if a building…
  • On every boards, there is line with a 'Part' number. Is it necessary to keep this line?

Thanks in advance for your help. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @M-le-mot-dit:. The rules about film aren't really set in stone, but here are some guidelines I have in regards to these issues:
  1. Normally when text is illegible, we replace where the text would normally go with Template:illegible and the page would have to be marked as problematic. But generally don't do this, unless there is illegible text for an in-scene text crucial to the plot, that the film-makers wanted you to read in full, such as a letter. If it's illegible, try your best to pretend it doesn't exist in your transcription; i.e. just skip transcribing that part.
  2. I can't recall a time when images were ever placed inside film transcriptions here. There's not really a rule against it though, and it doesn't hurt anything IMO. So add it if you want to.
  3. If some in-scene text repeatedly is shown throughout a certain scene, such as building text, please don't include it repeatedly as that clutters up the page. There is only a need to include in-scene text once. Although, if there is some crucial in-scene text that repeats 30 minutes later or something in another scene, you can repeat that.
  4. What you're doing now with the parts, labelling them in only one intertitle per "part," seems fine, since there are no intertitles specifically separating out the parts. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks; I'll let you know when my corrections are complete. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, @PseudoSkull:. The proofread of the draft The Bargain is terminated, I expect there is no error in formatting data. When you are free, you can run your bot. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@M-le-mot-dit: Alright, thanks for the hard work, I will do that this afternoon or tonight. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for job. It's very time saving! Just a few pages to correct (missing end of text, e.g. the 1st one). Also the process for portal and category (portal = [[Category:Western film/Drama film]]), but it was quickly fixed. Regards, M-le-mot-dit (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@M-le-mot-dit: Agh, not that bug again! Not sure why that portals/categories mixup happened yet again, but I will work to fix it for next time. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


We have this template that we encourage for webm files. Its use allows us to more easily find where we have such files in place, and allows for us to better manage conditions around these files. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then innovation is probably necessary—those are regular film entries, the only difference being that there is no transcribable text for those films. We might want to modify Template:Film to do the same thing as Template:watch for consistency's sake. Also, due to the way Template:film works, films themselves are normally kept in the Notes section of a Header template, but your usage has deviated from that, so do you suggest we should modify our system so that all film videos are placed outside of the header template? PseudoSkull (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ugh, don't know why that template was created. They should be merged, we don't need two (I would prefer WATCH as old template and pairs with {{listen}}). Can you work out the features that you wish to have and note on one of the template talk pages and ping me when you know what is truly need. Maybe consider pinging the community at WS:S pointing to wherever you are thinking we should be and getting their feedback. It is not an area of interest to me, so will do what is needed. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alice in Wonderland (1903 film)Edit

video is back, recovered from Commons, and locally uploaded. Would you please check the file description and the like. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: It's on my personal to-do list to go through all of the older film entries and fix them up, update them, and even re-validate them, as even some of the validated ones have transcription issues. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

White Fawn's DevotionEdit

Hi, a draft page is ready to be processed for a short film: White Fawn's Devotion. Thanks in advance. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@M-le-mot-dit: Done. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PseudoSkull:: Thanks, that's perfect. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Sinking of the LusitaniaEdit

Hello, another film draft is ready to be processed: The Sinking of the Lusitania. Regards, --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@M-le-mot-dit: Done. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well done. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same to you, thanks for helping with coverage of McCay's films. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The RegenerationEdit

Hello, I've finished the draft of The Regeneration. There are some "problematic" frames (00:59, 09:59, 10:28) where some name are truncated, but not really useful for the action. Let me know if I need to remove them. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@M-le-mot-dit: Done. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, while we are looking for the Lost World, here is another Dinosaur story: Gertie the Dinosaur. If was wondering if the title was not Gertie, but I've adopted the name in the Wikipedia article. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@M-le-mot-dit: Gertie seems to be the proper title and not Gertie the Dinosaur. See, for example, this page of the Motion Pictures, 1912-1939 copyright catalog. There is no entry for "GERTIE THE DINOSAUR", but it does list "GERTIE (1914)" as being by Winsor McCay, which it confusingly lists as an unpublished work. I'm not sure why the film has been popularly called Gertie the Dinosaur if all this evidence points to the proper title being Gertie—perhaps it was called that later to distinguish it from the other films with the name Gertie in the title, or to make clear for marketing purposes that the Gertie character is a dinosaur character. The copyright records aforementioned list 4 other Gertie films that existed between 1915 and 1916 as well, interestingly enough, and actually, all of those were listed as published works, while the main film Gertie was listed as unpublished. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wanted to see if any contemporary sources such as film magazines used the title Gertie the Dinosaur when referring to the film, but as even more evidence of my argument, a search through Google Books of works before 1920 containing "Gertie the Dinosaur" came up with no results. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@M-le-mot-dit: Is the draft ready, or do you need more time? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the content is ready; will you rename it Gertie? It's the name we see in the cartoon itself as well as on the original poster. I wonder why most of the references call it with a longer title. I've also found Gertie, the bashful dinosaur in Cartoons Magazine #10 (1916). --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@M-le-mot-dit: I know, and this is why I have brought up a move discussion at the English Wikipedia talk page for the article about this film. Unfortunately I don't think I will get much support there for my case. They don't want the original title that was actually used at the time, but the "popular" title today that was made up by some cooks in the 90s. But anyway, thanks for doing this film, and we'll use the real title here—I'll get the bot running. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done PseudoSkull (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Iron HorseEdit

Hello, I think I've finish with the draft of The Iron Horse. Please verify the publisher, if other films by the Fox Films use another company name. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will start the bot when I get home, thanks for the hard work yet again! PseudoSkull (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Call of the WildEdit

Thanks for adding the detail. I suspected he was the director but I see on the Wikipedia page that he was both director and wrote the screenplay.

For disambiguation pages, we want enough information to unambiguously identify the work in question, usually the date, the kind of work (play, novel, film), and the author. However, for certain kinds of works (such as operas or silent films) the author is not as useful for identification of the work as the composer (for an opera) or the director (for a film). For example, there were two films called "War of the Worlds" in 2005. Identifying them by the authors of the scripts (Friedman & Koepp vs. Hines & Goforth) would not be as useful as saying one was directed by Spielberg and the other by Hines.

So, we could say the film was "directed by", but "by" would be just as accurate for Wikisource purposes since what we usually mean is that they were the author of the written portion. Your point is taken though. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incredibly busyEdit

Some of you may have noticed I haven't been producing film transcripts as rapidly as usual lately. That is because I have been unusually busy IRL. In about a month and change I won't be so on-and-off with the busyness and will be able to do more work on the film transcripts again. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


With works like Bobbie, General Manager we would do a things different

  • title = [[../]]
    as if we ever move pages then all these links automatically update
  • translator =
    actually isn't one of our mandatory header fields, feel free to cull it if not needed; added to the preload as we had a period when we had translations and was always been omitted
  • prev/next =
    to also note that with the magic piping of MW, you can just do a link like [[../Chapter 9/ note terminating forward slash, and it will display just that text
  • year =
    we would typically only put at the top level for a simple published work, especially novels, it isn't changing and we don't need to categorise or anything
  • commonscat =
    unusual to utilise that manually at all, leverage WD, and cannot remember a time when we have needed it at subpage level

Also noting that we would typically only categorise top level of a work, unless there is something different on the subpage that requires the differentiation. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum. From memory you are an AWB user, I have (slovenly) recorded some of my regex at User:SDrewthbot/Header. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The star in the windowEdit

Hello. The pages which you have tagged for deletion cannot be deleted because they are being transcluded to the main namespace. Let me know please after it is solved. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not bulk move Page: namespace pagesEdit

Hi. Please do bulk move Page: namespace pages. Please just ask an admin to do it at WS:AN. It creates way too much unnecessary work to have to go and do bulk deletions. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aborted. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: can I at least finish what I had started in this instance? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, please stop. We have better tools, we can move without redirects, and in bulk with subpages. I don't want to add another 100+ pp for no reason. Also, I don't see that the PDF file is functioning, I am not getting pages displayed. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: It shows up fine for me, but it does take a little longer than usual for each page to load for me. Languageseeker uploaded the file. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) Also, what is wrong with the DJVU file? I don't see anything problematic with the text or alignment. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Index:The_star_in_the_window_(1918).djvu_has_problematic_pages,_need_to_be_replaced. Tl;dr, there are 6 pages with repeat pages instead of the actual pages that should appear there. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Gentlemen Prefer BlondesEdit

In answer to your question, they are apostropheless (and the text otherwise contains eye-dialect spelling errors) because the author is writing in the persona of a carefree and rather simple-minded narrator. In other words, it is a literary device. BD2412 T 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just showing offEdit

Apologize, and no offense intended, by replacing the The Box-Car Children titles with magic words. This time I did it correctly, but it had to be done for the reason stated in this post's title. — Ineuw (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When one is in the middle of setting up an Index: page and someone comes an edits in the middle of it, and causes edit conflicts, and they have been asked previously not to do it, then I think that it is reasonable to remind that person. In your case, I think that you will remember that I was fixing up numbers of matters through the work; you reverted, so be it. Always happy to debate things and healthily disagree about policy and its implementation, I don't like sniping. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair 'nuff. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C of CompletenessEdit

  The Green C of Completeness
I hereby award you this Letter of Merit for completing all extant PD novels of Olive Higgins Prouty. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! :) PseudoSkull (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A CarolEdit

Noticing your search for Author info, the first item I see is Carol Johnson’s WWII illustrations. I have only seen spot illustrations in the work, maps and so on don't provide much of a visual clue, but I do now realise that the Carol being sought might be a he. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They turn up library catalogues as co-author on publications by the Georgia Conservancy, I assume it is the same person, you might contact the org directly or via FB. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The General (film)Edit

Hi. I wonder which file to choose for The General. File:The General (1926).webm is smaller and first seconds are missing (title board); File:Buster Keaton - The General (1926).webm is larger and complete but may be deleted because of the soundtrack. Do you know how to remove the audio track? M-le-mot-dit (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@M-le-mot-dit: It is indeed a problem that the second version contains a soundtrack since this is very likely still under copyright. The file won't need to be deleted, however; a new version with no audio will be uploaded and the revision with the audio will be hidden. So there is no need to worry about this. As for our transcription, I say the second version is better, since that seems like an original title card to me. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Mistakes" in Songs and SonnetsEdit

These are not "mistakes", but things that my bot will fix in the end. Leaving these there enables me to proofread faster. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@PseudoSkull: Thanks to InductiveLoad's comments and some use of IndexStyles - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Ruth_of_the_U.S.A._(IA_ruthofusa00balm).pdf/styles.css.

It uses less inline formatting:) Albiet the chapter headings are now done with plain-heading.

If you want to know please ask ( or ask InductiveLoad.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

coveting the turntable....Edit

Mostly, I do not want to offend anyone, but, I really would like to re-do your images for your turntable manual (which is so cool!). Just the grays to white and keeping the blacks black. It is just the thing, really, to fix my script with (which will do them automatically, in batch, with some prep).

Two problems that I can determine about me being here and typing this. Offending you because "redo". And, I would like to redo them as jpeg, simply for making it a smaller download.

I would be willing to share my (once it is working) script for the opportunity. It needs python though, which might be a show stopper. It is a little like magic on b&w images.

Even a double no from you does not take the cool out of the book!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RaboKarbakian: I'm always open to simple improvements being made to any of the images I upload. Please provide me the script if it's ever made. The transcription project is finished now, so please enjoy this rare manual for a turntable that I happened to stumble across among family belongings. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you are formatting this as a list (which makes it more complicated than it needs to be? Why not as simple paragpaphs with {{anchor}}? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tag nesting...Edit


You reverted, was it the lack of an edit summary?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: The <u> was targeting the {{uc|{{al|}}}} not the center template that was outside of it. What was the intended action? PseudoSkull (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What outer center tag? For all the other {{uc|{{al|...}}}} the Underline was applied only to that construction. The aim in moving it was to match what was already in the page, and to resolve an issue with mis-nested tags. Prior to my change you had 3 sets of closing brackets before the closing </u> in the relevant portion of the code, Not two. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

making moves and stuffEdit

If you think I should move Undine, okay. But Billinghurst told me not make large moves any more as admin have tools and such. I poked around and thought about what I need to do to enable an admin to move things easily, like a move template that would put the name of the chapter with the Chapter NN. Commons has a few move templates, I can get to them pretty quickly but here, not so much.

So, if you would like to show me how to initiate the move and make it easy for admin to accomplish it, I would be truly grateful!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin readyEdit

Hi. You know where we are as a community, what goes where and are communicative with the community about what you want to do, and participate across all of our namespaces.[2] I like how you are working where you disagree politely, and unafraid to speak up, and in the end act on consensus, not your opinion. So I see that you are ready for local adminship. Are you up for the hat? If yes, then I am happy to nominate you. Thanks for your consideration of the mop duties here. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: Thank you for the offer, and I will gladly accept the nomination. I feel that admin tools will be very useful to my endeavors on this project. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

heh. pages.Edit

I saw the recent edit to Undine. On the first page, I replace all of the Page with <pages and Billinghurst replace them back. I did what I did to keep (a or the, your choice) peace. Here is the conversation and a little mention that I don't really care about the tags, but I do about a or the peace. User_talk:Billinghurst#please_look_at_the_diff.

I thought that years ago he had been harrassing me to never use {{page but there you go. One admin, using that tag and me trying to remove it and being told I was wrong. Good luck with admin, if I read the changes correctly.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RaboKarbakian: I investigated it because I saw it failed to show the page number on the sidebar for the plate and the caption. So I replaced the template with the page tag for that reason. There are probably other reasons why this template is not preferred, and I believe it is consensus not to use it, although I don't know about any formal rules. The only acceptable use I know of is in film transcriptions, because there is unfortunately no alternative as of now for that specific type of work, due to a technical issue that hasn't been worked out yet. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main page shows how to show the pages with the {{page thing. something like #tag. You are having many of the same problems with this text that I did. Good luck with that! I got nowhere, but it looks great. (It does need page numbers, however....)--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi PseudoSkull,

You now have sysop privileges here on WS. If you know any other languages, could you add them to the admin table on WS:ADMINS? Thanks! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Order of the Mop. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opinions and ProjectsEdit

Hello. I agree wholeheartedly with your stated Wikisource opinions on your user page. I am also a person with decided opinions about certain WS topics. I posted links to some of them on the talk page of your new project to speed up proofreading. Enjoy! Laura1822 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Everyone can get heated and throw out ill considered statements. If they choose to retract them by removing the thread then that is usually sufficient. I am aware that there have been other, more problematic, unsubstantiated accusations made, but in this instance they were retracted and I would suggest deescalation is the better approach. Xover (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

before I rudely interrupted youEdit

… you were saying ~ Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered usersEdit


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)

Revdel and protectionEdit

Unless the material in question contains personal information or grossly offensive stuff (including insults etc.) we usually do not revdel 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.

Similarly, WS:AN and WS:ADMIN should generally be open to all, since even new or anonymous users may need to ask for help from the admins or participate in admin confirmation votes. Semi-protecting it for a few hours or days to slow down an ongoing vandal is fine, but the period should be kept as short as possible.

Keep in mind that even with the general light touch and institutionalised humility for admins (no special authority, confirmations every year, etc.) on enWS, there are still some contributors that view admins as a clique, kabal, and in-group that do things in secret, use the tools to lord it over normal contributors, and generally behave like petty local dictators. Unless there's a compelling need, we need to keep things out in the open and accessible to all. Xover (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xover: The revdels: Admittedly I picked up the habit from an admin on Wiktionary who has a habit of revdelling everything that is even remotely vandalism. Granted it's not a very popular behavior anywhere. Noted, I will be far more cautious on revdels than I have been as of late. However, I am only split on the issue of revdelling spam that contains promotional links and such: I'd prefer that such links get no attention at all, as the intention for putting them on a wiki is for someone to click them. I also am concerned that some of those links are likely to contain viruses (after all, they wanted to get their product out by spamming a random wiki so that isn't indicative of those marketers being morally decent). If community consensus is against me hiding promotional material then so be it, but my personal opinion is that it should not be shown in any way. WS:ADMIN protection: That was a mistake in judgment on my part, my apologies. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stuff in non-current revisions of a page are not visible to search engines etc., so it's not really a problem in practice. Trust me, I understand the urge to completely nuke these, but in the grand scheme it matters very little. We don't actually get very much of it, or all that often, and we usually revert it within minutes. It does no real harm sitting in the old revisions. Xover (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I seem to remember reading that you were active at wikt. If not, just disregard the following....

wikt:hic Rhodus, hic salta came up in ggle when I was searching for which fable the phrase comes from. I finally found it, in the Perry list, at en.wiki. All via google. I rarely search for phrases at dictionaries and I never thought once even to try. It is from The Boasting Traveler, d:Q19080201. Maybe you could work which fable into the definition there? Or not. Mostly I am here to blow up!!

I read The Last Man. I hated that book so much. I couldn't wait for that last man to die. The more quickly everyone in that book could have died, would have greatly improved it. A short story of it would still have been bad. I am not typically like this, but all while reading this book I kept thinking, "forcrissakes die already!" I would like to vote repeatedly for its deletion, but they would all be super emotional voting. So, I do that here. KILL IT!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My revision on User talk:InductiveloadEdit

Hi, I'm wondering why you undid my message on Inductiveload's talk page. Languageseeker (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Languageseeker: That was completely accidental! I was on my phone looking through my watchlist, looked away, looked back and someone's edit was reverted. This happens too often, to the point where I think I need the rollback button disabled on mobile. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries at all! Happens to the best of us. Languageseeker (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When you moved this work, you did not leave a redirect, and so broke all of these links [3]. The link on the author's page was only fixed today [4] Note that there is no naming convention that requires use of the author's name, so the redirect was not required. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey: All known examples of misdirections have been fixed. Apologies for the confusion it caused. In the future, I will have a more automated way of dealing with these so that it catches all the misdirected links.
I interpreted the title of Emma (1816) as problematic because the year is used as a disambiguator for versions, while the author name is for general disambiguation. So the title Emma (1816) would indicate that there are no other works at Wikisource called Emma except by Austen, and that the Austen work has other versions. This is not the case, though. And the Emma general disambiguation page already existed with other items disambiguated by author. Ideally if there were multiple versions of Emma being hosted, we'd have a title like Emma (Austen, 1816).
We have all kinds of problems at Wikisource having to do with inconsistent styling in work transclusion, and I've noted quite a lot of examples of this in my user subpages. And inconsistent titling/disambiguation is one of my main concerns with that. I think that if policy would discourage editors from trying to make title disambiguation consistent, we should fix that at the Scriptorium so that there are hard rules surrounding that issue. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not have (and shouldn't) standard ways to name titles for disambiguation. There are so many edge-cases: works by the same author and title in the same year; editions of the same work in the same year by the same publisher; works that need to be disambiguated by translator. Any attempt to codify the naming of works here would produce a document so convoluted as to rival the US tax code. A title like Emma (1816) merely indicates that the work is titled Emma and was published or printed in 1816. It implies nothing else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: I disagree that it would have to rival the US tax code, because while there are a few convoluted exceptions, the formula I proposed isn't that complicated and should still be in effect, while the edge cases could be worked with in some other reasonable manner. Hopefully you'd agree that having some formula is better than none. I still maintain that to have a consistent representation of how works are searched is preferable. But however our opinions may differ, as much as I hate to do so, I'll keep away from moving others' works around unless there is (or is made) a clear consensus to do so, in the future, where I had erroneously thought previously that the consensus on this issue was clear-cut. My bad. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For works that do not share titles, and are short, and whose author's names are short, and do not require other information, your method works. But we have Midsummer Night's Dream (1918) Yale, and do you really want to force that to expand to Midsummer Night's Dream (Shakespeare, 1918) Yale? And should Moby-Dick (1851) US edition have to expand to Moby-Dick (Melville, 1851) US edition? There are many such cases where including the author's name adds no useful information and where other information is required for disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Another point to consider: If we ever do add another edition of Emma, then we will need a disambiguation page. The logical place for the disambiguation page would be at Emma (Austen), but that location is now occupied by an edition that would have to be moved (again) to make room for the disambiguation page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Moby-Dick — Again, edge cases can be dealt with in other ways where it makes sense, but I think generally the author should be at the root of the disambiguations. I am on the edge about even having encyclopedia articles in disambiguation pages at all, but no comment on that right now.
  2. Emma (Austen) having more versions — Right, and I expect that that will be the case. Since it's a very popular novel, it probably has reprints by all sorts of companies with interesting differentiations in styling or typography. Also, I would always expect that anything could be disambiguated further in the future and have no problem with works being moved because of it (which is another reason I think the naming process should be more consistent, that it'd make this process easier). But it shouldn't be considered the end of the world. Consider that there are almost certainly other works called Fidelia or Delight (probably poems) which I haven't found yet, and then those will need to be made into disambiguation pages with the works moved... PseudoSkull (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three Men in a BoatEdit

Hello, Is there a particular reason why you chose to re-title this work as 'Three Men in a Boat (sourced)'. Surely the default assumption should be that all works are sourced and should be marked 'unsourced' only if they are not. Or do you plan to rename every sourced work in this fashion? Chrisguise (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chrisguise: Complicated, but I moved it to fix a capitalization issue in the word "In". It would have just been moved to "Three Men in a Boat" when the discussion was over. I didn't like the title either, but didn't know a better temporary title offhand. I have moved it to Three Men in a Boat (1889) because there appears to also be an 1890 reprint published by a different company in New York, at least. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And also, I have decided to go far more easy on moving works, because what I once thought were fairly standardized disambiguation/titling practices are apparently not standardized at all, unfortunately. I will only move works in the future if there is consensus to do so that is far more clear. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Home FrontEdit

Hi. May I have your help? In The Home Front I can't catch what Grandpa says at 03:57. And if you have any feedback, it'll be welcome. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@M-le-mot-dit: Unfortunately, I can't quite hear it either, but I think the beginning of it says "Shut 'em off" or "Shut 'em up". PseudoSkull (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PseudoSkull:. Thanks, I'll listen again. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regulations on the Administration of MoviesEdit

  • I will apply for a requested move. The page ought to be called Regulations on the Administration of Movies (2001) because there are two versions of 1996 and 2001. --Beta LohmanOffice box 07:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beta Lohman:   Done. A versions page was also created for when the 1996 version is transcribed. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Depending on how you feel, do you want to do a little bit more digging? ( I found some of my Wikivoyage content on a site called https://www.travelerandfree.com/en/Amusement_parks) which claims to be run by the same management team. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subtitled filmEdit

Do you think that a subtitled film could be acceptable? I was thinking about The Battleship Potemkin (1925) with English subtitles.webm. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@M-le-mot-dit: Ah, yes, it will be. I found that subtitled version on YouTube and upon some research I discovered that this subtitled rerelease was created no later than the 1970s (given the styling of the film, I suspect 1940s-1960s), and since the translation had no copyright notice, it is a Template:PD-US-no-notice case (with the original Russian part just being PD-US-expired). In a subtitled film I would just transcribe the subtitles, and leave the original Russian text to the Russian Wikisource. In-scene text will probably be in Russian and can therefore be left out. But one thing I'm curious about is the title—the Wikipedia consensus is that the film is called Battleship Potemkin, but this version calls it The Battleship Potemkin. I think that therefore the page should be located at Battleship Potemkin (because I think consensus lies at that name), with a note in the header about the naming situation, maybe? It's an interesting film; this will be a valuable addition to Wikisource's collection. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horror filmEdit

That 2010s to present content is incorrect. 2600:387:C:7137:0:0:0:4 20:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was never a reason why they merge them. 2600:387:C:7137:0:0:0:4 20:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Pretty much the only reason I edit Wikipedia is to insert public-domain movie files and to link to Wikisource transcriptions. I stopped editing Wikipedia for most reasons other than that because of, to put it lightly, some issues I hold with their community. 2. You should not evade a block by asking other users to make edits for you on other platforms. I must say, that's pretty sketchy behavior. Are you sure you have nothing to hide? The block log says "Please log in or create an account to edit" because you are being affected by a range block (which I don't know the history behind). If you're not in any trouble at Wikipedia, please make an account and edit the page yourself. This is clearly something you care about, so be your own advocate. 3. Furthermore, what you're asking has nothing at all to do with Wikisource. I mostly deal with classic films, which can be transcribed on Wikisource, and I know virtually nothing about newer films, especially not ones from as recent as the 2010s. Modern movies just aren't my area of interest. I also don't know the history behind the drama of whatever happened with editing that page, and don't want to get involved as someone unknowledgeable about the subject. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's hard to edit the horror film article while it's protected. 2600:387:C:7137:0:0:0:4 20:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

w:Wikipedia:Edit requests PseudoSkull (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons Media of the DayEdit

Maybe you could consider sprinkling your movies in the Media of the Day for the Main page at commons. iirc, there was a bit of a template learning challenge (at least for me), but, you can pick the thumbnail, which is fun and also, well, the Media of the Day was/(and I am sure)is a challenge there. I am not sure how many movies you have here now, but one every one or two weeks there, spread out over a year would be great. And, April Fools there -- I enjoyed my year of putting MOD in place. There are worse activities around this wiki. So, this is just for your consideration....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that a user named Racconish puts a lot of films into Media of the Day. I was thinking actually of what it would be like if we had a film in Wikisource's Featured Texts. Some good candidates would be ones like Safety Last!, The Big Parade, or Night of the Living Dead, if they ever get validated. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Validation is not such an issue there. I was using Dutch newsreels and such, media where there are is no review process anywhere for them. commons:Template:Motd/2012-04 I put that newsreel there (on April 1). The thumbnail is some guy walking in a perfect model of the airport there. It was kind of lame compared to some of your reels, but there was only so much to work with!! I had viewed and catted many of the video then and was at that time, more familiar than anyone with what was available. They fight and bum-kiss for a place at Image of the Day, but not so much MOTD. It is a good thing for some smarty-pants who would like to slide into a fun job with little or no competition. At least, that was the reason I did it when I did. Back then, they yelled (wiki-yelling, which is weird in itself) at the one poor guy for putting too many of his insect/bug images in. In his defense, it kept coming up with no media for that day and he had plenty of bug movies. More than just old books there. Also, I love the old commercials!! The "crying Indian" and the "your brains on drugs" which worked better as an ad for 24hr restaurants than prevention -- if you could find good copies of this.... Those two movies are the bookends for childhood of the Dazed and Confused era. The children those public service announcements were aimed at were the first gen of children who everyone had a tv. Their parents remember getting their first but all of them were born into a home with one on. Okay, I am just spewing here now....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Raccoonish, heh. Not so funny, actually. Amazon books pushes Dean Koonz. Some people tried to make me think that a software trick (they had a search that would find eyes in an image in 2007, they put it then with the red-eye remover plug-in) was magic (spooky music magic). This kind of deceit, is fun for like 15 minutes, but the longer the deceit persists, the less and less and less funny it is. The facts here are facts, the opinions here are mine.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the Manger to the Cross requestEdit

Could you please use GemmaBot to get this film finished and out of the "On hold" section? Lizardcreator (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lizardcreator: I talked to @Jeromi Mikhael: about this privately, and he said he wants to go back and review the film transcription for formatting and in-scene text. He has been very busy lately so has not gotten a chance to work on it. Per his request, I want to hold off on doing anything with it for now. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


!"autoconfirmed" in user_groups
& user_editcount < 3

I wouldn't typically usually use the first, I have hardly ever found it handy plus it is pretty much overruled by the second for how we set autoconfirmed. See what I have done to /50 to keep it tight. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: Thanks. Do you think that the filter can be turned on again without harm? PseudoSkull (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Turned it on, and shortened the block way down. Easy enough to follow up to cull users who are playing up with less problems. Typically this an IP jumper, and has strings of prepared accounts, so they don't often come back. We can play with it anyway. Oh, and typically I would hide those filters, they read regex. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AbuseFilter 50Edit

This was set up to block all new users that used list wikimarkup, or that otherwise included an asterisk in an edit (in the diff). Several of the other patterns could also easily occur in innocent edits (e.g. a Google Books URL with a hexadecimal string, a book about a certain atrocity where the OCR just dropped a space between the two words, etc.). Recall that there's no special license in policy for blocks performed by way of the AbuseFilter vs. performed manually, so you need to be very sure about the triggers before you set a AF filter's action to block. Xover (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xover: Apologies, the abuse filter was an idea to stop a vandal that is constantly creating new accounts and performing similar edits each time. Next time I'll just ask the community for help before making any AbuseFilters because I don't have a whole lot of experience with them, and their syntax is also pretty unique. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I tend to avoid them in general and especially with action=block. The syntax is really obscure and the risk of false positives too high. Xover (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well yeah I agree. I just won't mess with it anymore. It's too risky. There's not much room to even learn because the best way to learn to code is through experience, and any failure with that will just lead to things like this. It's probably worth just manually blocking each instance of vandalism, if only to keep things like this from happening, so I'll just do that when I see it. I mean clearly the vandal is smart enough to change their game slightly when they see an AbuseFilter is onto them, so the filter was pretty effective, but no civilian fire can be acceptable. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for the catch on {{-}}. Much appreciated!

But if you have time, since you know where it broke, could you have a stab at fixing it? I vaguely recall that templates don't work with double redirects, and that the first-letter capitalization counts as a redirect (i.e. "clear" vs. "Clear"), so it might be a very quick fix. No worries if you don't have the time, I'll get to it… eventually. :) Xover (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xover: I believe I've fixed it. I think that when "#REDIRECT " was typed, there may have been an abnormal symbol in there that looked the same but was slightly different than what was actually intended to be typed, like maybe it was a different type of space symbol for example... Maybe you switched keyboards? Because when I changed to a placeholder target via copy and paste, it tagged it as "New redirect", then when I switched to Template:Clear again manually, it said "Changed redirect target". PseudoSkull (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha! Yes, Apple, in their wisdom, when caps lock is on and you hit the space bar, insert a non-breaking space instead of a regular space character. And I'd turned on caps lock to type "REDIRECT" of course. Nice catch, and thanks for fixing my mess! Xover (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page:The Great Train Robbery (1903).webm/2 -- looks wrong?Edit

I don't think Page:The Great Train Robbery (1903).webm/2 is right. Could you check it? JesseW (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JesseW: The text appears on the train, as some sort of numeric identification. But, it's not a very important bit of text to the plot. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, would it make sense to add some kind of comment to the transcript, pointing out where the text appears, then? JesseW (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your input is requested at WS:PD#Daniel DerondaEdit


Your input is requested at WS:PD#Daniel Deronda. I'd appreciate it if you could indicate there whether the subsequent comment affects your !vote at all. Xover (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xover: Sorry, I moved away recently and have been very busy with work. I haven't had as much time for the wacky Internet. Hopefully that can change soon. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. We all have IRL first and foremost to worry about. I just needed to have people clarify their positions in light of the late comment and figured you were unlikely to see it unless notified directly. And for future reference, I mean to imply no obligation by such prods: if you're busy IRL you're busy IRL and us internet people will just have to deal. :) Xover (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Often the answer for youtube whitelist requests is to say use the full url, not the youtu.be shortcut. It is not difficult to legitimately work around the blocking components, it just needs a stop and a moment of thought. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: I did know that the shortcut could be converted, but thought using the shortcut, to stay true to what was done in the original work, was the answer. The spam whitelist also lists over a dozen other examples of youtu.be whitelisted links (for Index:Introductory Material to the Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.pdf), so I was following the example of what was already done in a similar work. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Introductory Material to the Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol/Endnotes PseudoSkull (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am well aware of what other people have done, and I am well aware of what I have said to those people at the same time. Following people's poor example is defensible, though necessarily desirable. With regard to "the look", this is a printed work, and does not actually require active hyperlinks, they are a nicety. Plus you can create active, functional links and still control the display to replicate the look of the work, as I explained at WS:AN. Fudging these things through administrative action in whitelist should be the last resort, and we are better off teaching people how to fish, than fish and feed. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author:Wilfred Ernest Lytton DayEdit

Not sure whether you are writing much at enWP, however, this bloke seems to have missed getting an article, yet seems suitably notable, especially with his early collections. I transcribed his obit. — billinghurst sDrewthbillinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: I appreciate you finding this guy and making an author page for him, but I don't edit much at enWP. Not a huge fan of that site and its deletion practices. I'd prefer to stay an enWS and other sisters. But I would support a WP article's creation, however. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty much the same re enWP. I will drop it over there with Ferguson, another FRPS, who is also missing. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't usurpEdit

Portal:Virgin Islands is the holistic, not the US territory, and reallocating unless there is a clear error is never a good idea. Better to start new portal specifically if it is needed. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]