Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

(Redirected from Wikisource:AN)
Administrators' noticeboard

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

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

No. of pages = 4,129,090
No. of articles = 1,012,982
No. of files = 16,373
No. of edits = 13,475,837

No. of pages in Main = 582,182
No. of pages in Page: = 3,075,866
No. validated in Page: = 608,662
No. proofread in Page: = 1,138,256
No. not proofread in Page: = 1,054,473
No. problematic in Page: = 42,448
No. of validated works = 6,043
No. of proofread only works = 5,757
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 375,068
% transcluded pages in Main = 64.42
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 3,094,937
No. of active users = 428
No. of group:autopatrolled = 495
No. in group:sysop = 22
No. in group:bureaucrat = 2
No. in group:bot = 16

Checkuser requests Edit

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

Bureaucrat requests Edit

Page (un)protection requests Edit

Other Edit

Interface administrators Edit

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

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

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

Option A - Assign right on demand when needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Formal requirements related to 2FA Edit

Picking up this again…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request move Edit

Hello. Could you please move "Siamese Interim Administrative Charter Act, Buddhist Era 2475 (1932)" to "Translation:Act on Interim Charter for Public Administration of Siam, 2475 Buddhist Era" and change its namespace from "main" to "translation"? Thank you so much. --KhaoNiaoMaMuang (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done The above has been moved. Wikidata item needs to be moved. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kathleen.wright5: The WD items should be updated when you do the moves, or very quickly afterwards. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone is interested in working on this particular backlog, there are about 80+ works (mostly Thai legal documents) that need to be moved from Mainspace to Translation space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone can map out the required conversions from {{header}} to {{translation header}} then I can run through them. Just too busy to do all the thinking of the conversions. Would be wanting indications of which lines add/remove/change, to make the bot tasking easier. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: Most of them are obvious - title=<title>, author=<author>, etc. The interwiki link [[th:<pagetitle>]] gives you the values for language=th and original=<pagetitle>. If shortcut and/or year are omitted, they need to be added as blank parameters. Finally, any instance of override_translator = [[Wikisource:Translations|Wikisource]] needs to be removed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Import help Edit

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

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

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

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

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

Category:External links on protected pages & Category:Templates used in Mediawiki namespace Edit

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

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

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

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

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

Please delete multiple pages in Index:History of Oregon Literature.djvu Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(There may be others)

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

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

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

Corrected table:

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

Protected edit request for Template:Progress bar Edit

I've created Module:Progress bar, which implements {{progress bar}} in Lua (and adds support for changing the width of the bar). I've tested this at Template:Sandbox and as far as I can tell everything works. Assuming there's nothing I've missed, I'd like for Template:Progress bar to be edited to this:

<templatestyles src="Progress bar/styles.css" />
<includeonly>{{#invoke:Progress bar|progress_bar
|not_proofread={{{not proofread|}}}

Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 08:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CalendulaAsteraceae FYI, I don't think you need to verbosely pass through all the parameters: you're using Module:Arguments which happily pulls the arguments out of the mw.getCurrentFrame().getParent(). All you should need is {{#invoke:Progress bar|progress_bar}} (I think) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload Awesome, thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 21:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated edit request:
<templatestyles src="Progress bar/styles.css" />
<includeonly>{{#invoke:Progress bar|progress_bar}}</includeonly><noinclude>
CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 09:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload, does the above code look good to you? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 06:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still interested in this. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 05:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index Migration Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Migration of pages due to updated source file. Edit

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

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

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

Mass import from Wikibooks Edit

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

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

Time to review protected pages Edit

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

Download button vs. download sidebar Edit

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

Corruption on uploading new versions Edit

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

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

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

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

Monthly Challenge Edit

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

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

New special page to fight spam Edit

Please help translate to your language

Hello, We are replacing most of the functionalities of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist with a new special page called Special:BlockedExternalDomains. In this special page, admins can simply add a domain and notes on the block (usually reasoning and/or link to a discussion) and the added domain would automatically be blocked to be linked in Wikis anymore (including its subdomains). Content of this list is stored in MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json. You can see w:fa:Special:BlockedExternalDomains as an example. Check the phabricator ticket for more information.

This would make fighting spam easier and safer without needing to know regex or accidentally breaking wikis while also addressing the need to have some notes next to each domain on why it’s blocked. It would also make the list of blocked domains searchable and would make editing Wikis in general faster by optimizing matching links added against the blocked list in every edit (see phab:T337431#8936498 for some measurements).

If you want to migrate your entries in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, there is a python script in phab:P49299 that would produce contents of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json for you automatically migrating off simple regex cases.

Note that this new feature doesn’t support regex (for complex cases) nor URL paths matching. Also it doesn’t support bypass by spam whitelist. For those, please either keep using MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or switch to an abuse filter if possible. And adding a link to the list might take up to five minutes to be fully in effect (due to server-side caching, this is already the case with the old system) and admins and bots automatically bypass the blocked list.

Let me know if you have any questions or encounter any issues. Happy editing. Amir (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

missing pages Edit

WRT Index:The history of medieval Europe.djvu, two pages appear to be missing: xvi and xvii. No idea how to deal with this and doubt I have the needed permissions anyway. And while I have an Admin's attention, I have a general question regarding the drop down menu in the editing window—the one with Insert, Wiki markup, etc. There is a User option available at the end that seems to imply we could determine what is available to us. Does this work? If so, how can I populate it with my tags of choice?

Thank you. snafu22q (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't help with the missing pages, but the User option is done through your common.js subpage. Have a look at mine (User:Beeswaxcandle/common.js). Line 9 is where I've got my special character set. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikisource:Scan Lab should be able to help with inserting the missing pages, uploading a new version of the file and then coordinating the bulk move of pages to adjust to the new file. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Question did this end up in scan lab? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just made the request. I remember looking at the ScanLab page and not quite knowing what to do when this was first posted. When I saw your question, I looked again at the page, and still wasn't sure what to do. But I did it anyway. You might want to check my work. ;)
snafu22q (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to close discussions (template changes) Edit

I got tired of fixing broken {{closed}} templates, so I've done some technical and doc cleanup there. The upshot is that there's now {{closed/s}} and {{closed/e}} variants of this template. Throw the first at the top with the usual params, and the latter at the bottom, and otherwise it should work as it always has.

{{closed/s|result=Deleted because of reasons.}}
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted because of reasons.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

You can also put the result in the first unnamed parameter: {{closed/s|Deleted because of reasons.}}

The upshot is that with the /s and /e versions there's no longer any need to escape |, =, and similar inside a closed section. The old single-temple version still exists and works as it always did for compatibility reasons, but the /s + /e variant is now definitely preferred.

NB! As always you still need to use {{section resolved}} to make the section eligible for archiving. {{closed}} just closes the discussion, and {{section resolved}} tells the archive bot it's eligible for archiving, so you need to use both. Xover (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disallowed edit of my user page Edit

Hi. I tried to add a link to a subpage of my Wikispecies user page containing my public PGP key, however that wasn't allowed due to "Continuing IP link spamming/vandalism". Please explain what I did wrong. Note that my Wikisource user page contains a link to Wikispecies official X account, since I'm the sole administrator of that X account. That link was in my Wikisource user page already prior to the above mentioned edit attempt (and still is), but I tried to change the layout of how it is presented. Also, the PGP subpage at Wikispecies contains a link to an external, official OpenPGP key server. Maybe that was the issue?

For reference, I'm an administrator, bureaucrat and interface admin at Wikispecies. My global account information for all of Wikimedia can be found here. Thanks beforehand. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Without more detailed information, I'm guessing this was caught by an automatic filter to restrict external linking associated with spamming, which we get a lot of. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Have you tried since the previous occasion that I noted on your talk page? I am not seeing it here, and it was related to the issue that I mentioned, which a fellow admin has resolved. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst, @EncycloPetey: Yes, I tried it again just a few minutes ago, and still gets the same error message: Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: Continuing IP link spamming/vandalism. The actual code that I'm trying to enter to my user page can be found here. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek: ^^^^ — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst, @EncycloPetey, @Jan.Kamenicek: Thank you all. Now everything works as expected, and without any errors. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file was originally uploaded in two parts, File:Urbiztondo Ordinance No. 14- 2022 (1).pdf and File:Urbiztondo Ordinance No. 14- 2022 (2).pdf. The first part was started here, and I would like those pages moved under the complete index. The second part was started at old Wikisource, and those pages need to be imported to here. Then, all of the old pages and indexes need to be deleted, and after that the files on Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Locally the Index/Page ns pages have been moved Index:Urbiztondo Ordinance No. 14- 2022 (1).pdf => Index:Urbiztondo Ordinance No. 14 (2022).pdf. We need to map the import regimen for mulWS to enWS, to get that done. (We could do it for xml though if there are not a lot of pages then it probably isn't worth the effort, and we can do Special:Import). The mapping is needed either way. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request deletion and move of duplicated pages Edit

I created a few pages without realising that the texts were already in the mainspace: The Scientific Monthly/Volume 3/November 1916/Eugenics is already posted at Eugenics and The Scientific Monthly/Volume 3/October 1916/The Development of Folk-tales and Myths is already posted at The development of folk-tales and myths. Could someone delete the duplicates and move the older pages to the newer ones? Arcorann (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arcorann: Nice catch. Texts on Wikisource should live within their containing works, so all these articles from TSM and similar should live on a subpage of the magazine. There can then be redirects or versions pages at the top-level name pointing to the subpage.
In any case, for this reason I've moved the original top-level pages over your duplicate transclusions, leaving a redirect in place at the old page name. Xover (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating Affidavit in Support of a Criminal Complaint and Arrest Warrant: James Gordon Meek Edit

This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. What to do? If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do by leaving a message at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard (you do not need to include all the content as that may set off the filter again: admins can see the attempted edit in the filter logs).

Tried to paste contents of - guessing since it's sexually graphic it tripped some precaution? Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Virginia Courtsesan: Your edit is being blocked by a global filter, and, yes, the content is the likely reason.
But why would you try to copy&paste the contents of a PDF file that is already on Commons into a wikipage here? Please see Help:Adding texts for information on how to properly add texts on English Wikisource. Xover (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the line "&!wiki_name contains "source" " because the troll against which the filter is directed is not active here. WikiBayer (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is another filter: the three Twitter hyper-links replaced with “<redacted>” need to be added to the filter and replaced. Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.:   Done Xover (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change of Index name and migration of pages Edit

For some reason, someone uploaded to IA a single chapter from 'Diary of a Pilgrimage' (1891) by Jerome K. Jerome. This has been imported into WS with the file named for the chapter title, transcribed, and has just appeared on the 'new texts' list as The New Utopia). I have started to fix this by replacing the file in WS with the complete work, which I found - same edition as the extract - at Hathi Trust (fortunately it was one of those with an option to download the complete work, rather than the usual one page at a time).

Although there does not appear to be anything that would prevent the index name being left as 'Index:The New Utopia text.pdf', it would look better if it were changed to reflect the title of the complete work. Consequently, could you please:

- Change the index title to Diary of a Pilgrimage (and Six Essays) - Jerome (1891).pdf [if considered necessary / appropriate]; and

- Move the existing 19 transcribed pages (i.e. Index:The New Utopia text.pdf/1 to Index:The New Utopia text.pdf/263, et. seq.)

or vice versa, as necessary.

Thanks Chrisguise (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mpaa: ^^^ — billinghurst sDrewth 10:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One point - it is not actually a chapter but a separate story in a collection. (It is one of the "six essays" mentioned.) I had looked on IA but only found a different edition of the collection. -- Beardo (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New non-admin account Edit

I just created a non-admin alt account to use when I don't have access to my 2FA device, thought I'd post an FYI here in case anyone cares to know 👍 Beleg Âlt (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]