Wikisource

Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2020-03

< Wikisource:Scriptorium‎ | Archives
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Copyright and deletion discussions needing community input in March 2020

The following copyright discussions and proposed deletion discussions have been open for more than 14 days, and with more than 14 days since the last comments, without a clear consensus having emerged. This is typically (but not always) because the issue is not clear cut or revolves around either interpretation of policy, personal preference within the scope afforded by policy, or other judgement calls (possibly in the face of imperfect information). In order to resolve these discussions it would be valuable with wider input from the community.

Copyright discussions require some understanding of copyright and our copyright policy, but often the sticking points are not intricate questions of law so one need not be an intellectual property lawyer to provide valuable input (most actual copyright questions are clear cut, so it's usually not these that linger). For other discussions it is simply the low number of participants that makes determining a consensus challenging, and so any further input on the matter would be helpful. In some cases, even "I have no opinion on this matter" would be helpful in that it tells us that this is a question the community is comfortable letting the generally low number of participants in such discussions decide.


Copyright discussions (WS:CV)


Proposed deletions (WS:PD)


Note that while these are discussions that have lingered the longest without resolution, all discussions on these pages would benefit from wider input. Even if you just agree with everyone else on an obvious case, noting your agreement documents and makes obvious that fact in a way the absence of comments does not. The same reasoning applies for noting your dissent even if everyone else has voted otherwise: it is good to document that a decision was not unanimous.

In short, I encourage everyone to participate in these two venues! --Xover (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica

Those of you who work on EB content might enjoy: High Performance Computing meets Encyclopaedia Britannica. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-10

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • Readers who were not logged in briefly saw the interface in a language decided by their browser. It should normally be in the language of the wiki. This happened for a short period of time last week. This was because of a bug. [1]

Changes later this week

  • If you forget your password you can ask for a new one to be sent to your email address. You need to know your email address or your username. You will now be able to choose that you need to enter both your email address and your username. This will be a preference. This is to get fewer password reset emails someone else asked for. [2]
  • When you asked for a new password you could see if the username didn't exist on Special:PasswordReset. Now the page will show the username you entered and tell you an email has been sent if the username exists. This is for better security. [3]
  • On Special:WhatLinksHere you can see what other pages link to a page. You can see if the link is from a redirect. You can now see which section the redirect links to. [4]
  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 3 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 4 March. It will be on all wikis from 5 March (calendar).

Future changes

  • The developers are working on a new interface to solve edit conflicts on talk pages. You can give feedback. [5]
  • There is a vote on the creation of a new user group called abuse filter manager. The vote runs from March 1 to March 31 on Meta.
  •   wgMFSpecialCaseMainPage was used for the mobile site. It was deprecated in 2017. It will stop working in April. Wikis should see if they use it. If they do they should fix it. You can read more and ask for help. This affects 183 wikis. There is a list. [6]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

00:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{hws}} and {{hwe}} in a mandatory {{multicol}} situation

Hi All,

In the Treaties & Conventions pages of US Statutes at Large Vol. 33 (and I would assume in many other volumes of the same work), bilingual treaties are presented in two columns, with each English paragraph carefully typeset alongside its matching block of text in the other language. Of course, just so it wouldn't be easy to edit in Wikisource 116 years later, treaties are generally preceded on page 1 by a single column English preamble and finished on the last page by single column English proclamation/enactment language - or, if there are protocols or amendments, the last page can be double/single/double/single. You get the point... (and to any Brits out there who may be adherents of George Bernard Shaw, sorry - it would appear that we do in fact speak the same language - US/British treaties get a single column!) This appears to me to be a situation which mandates the use of {{multicol}} - however much buttock-curdling crumpet toasting @Cygnis insignis: may threaten me with ;-) - because the typesetting structure itself here conveys real meaning.

My problem is with {{hws}} and {{hwe}} in this context. I know they're no longer needed in ordinary situations, but (unless my tests were inaccurate) they are needed in a {{multicol}} scenario. However, when I use them, I get a rogue carriage return. If you look at numbered paragraph 8 of Article II in the sandbox, you will see the unwanted <CR> between "to wrongfully and" and "willfully". The source {{hws|will|willfully}} and {{hwe|fully|willfully}} can be found here and here.

I think it must be coming from the trailing {{multicol-section}} at the end of all but the last page in the sandbox selection of pages (one whole treaty with Brazil). In the Page: namespace, I have put all the {{multicol}} and {{multicol-end}} template calls (where possible) in the headers and footers (just as I learned to do with {{sidenotes begin}} and {{sidenotes end}}), and it certainly seems to work neatly, with only 2 columns behaving themselves well throughout in the sandbox example. However, this has required - according to my experience - a {{multicol-section}} template call at the end of the body of each page to avoid having dozens of columns across when we finally transclude. Any ideas as to how I might solve this would be gratefully accepted! Thanks CharlesSpencer (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This is going to be tricky because that you need is this:
{{multicol-section}}
Page 1, Col 1
Page 2, Col 1
{{multicol-break}}
Page 1, Col 2
Page 2, Col 2
{{multicol-end/-section}}
but what you have (due to the sequentialism of the transclusion) is:
{{multicol-section}}
Page 1, Col 1
{{multicol-break}}
Page 2, Col 2
<!-- page break, maybe {{Multicol-section}} -->
Page 2, Col 1
{{multicol-break}}
Page 2, Col 2
{{multicol-end/-section}}
Perhaps a way to do this correctly might be to use LST to manually transclude the paragraphs into the multicol in the main namespace, so that the end result is the first example. Fiddly, though. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The {{multicol}} family of templates builds a fairly simple HTML table. In particular, {{multicol-section}} starts a new row of the table. Thus you see that "to wrongfully and" is in one row, but then "willfully" is in the row below it, because {{multicol-section}} is placed between the two phrases. When I use {{multicol}} in multi-page scenarios, I only place {{multicol-section}} between paragraphs. This does sometimes require some large chunks of text to be placed on different pages (using <noinclude> and <includeonly>), but that is necessary in order to make it actually work properly. Essentially, you would use {{hwe}}-style logic for the whole paragraph, instead of just the single word. See, for example, the page break at the end of Page:Manualofprayersf00cath.djvu/617. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@CharlesSpencer: Why are we transcribing the other language here? That would be transcribed at the relevant wiki that handles that language. They would be joined together by the interwiki tool and use of anchors. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:My experience is that formatting templates of other language wikisources are incompatible with en.ws environment and so what you suggest never worked with me. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I did say "anchors" not formatting. mw:Extension:DoubleWiki / mul:Wikisource:DoubleWiki Extension is/was simply to allow side by side and alignment, and I was meaning no more than that. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I am sorry, but I have not understood your point and the mul:Wikisource:DoubleWiki Extension is unfortunately written in a very unfriendly language so it has not helped me to understand either. Can you link some example where I can see how it works? Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The extension does side by side, just as this work does side by side. So for this work we have the English language work, and the other language at the respective wiki, and the extension can show them side by side. It is not the task for English Wikisource to be transcribing multi-language works, if they need to be done then that has been the role that mulWS has fulfilled. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: That is what I understood too, but what I did not is what needs to be done so that the texts were shown side by side. Let’s say that I transcribe an English part here and another part written in a foreign language to another ws. How do I achieve that readers can see the two parts diplayed side by side? Is there any work where it has already been applied so that I can have a look? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Anything with a language interwiki used to automatically have it. There should be a double-headed arrow for the side-by-side. Not my area of expertise otherwise as the works I don't have interwikis. Hmm, maybe that got fouled up with WD, cannot say that I know. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Now I understand, but I can see here several problems:
  • Looking for example at From the Earth to the Moon, there are several interwikis, but no double-headed arrows, so it looks it does not work anymore.
  • Supposing it is just a bug which can be fixed, I do not know how much the double-headed arrow on the page was prominent or hardly visible, but I suppose that this feature is unknown to many (most) readers as it was unknown to me. I have never noticed the double-headed arrow anywhere.
  • Even if it were fixed, relying on external tools is no good, we never know when they stop working again and Wikimedia cares very little about technical problems of wikisources. So it is imo much better to have the whole work under our roof. It would be different if a broken tool were always fixed quickly (or even fixed at all), but that is just a vain dream. Unfortunately, the more external tools Mediawiki has, the worse is their maintenance.
  • According to your description it worked for pages connected by interwiki through Wikidata. However, subpages with indvidual chapters are never connected in this way, so I suppose it wouldn’t work for them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
With regards to the missing double-headed arrows, they do require a bit of site javascript but there is no requirement for the interwiki to come from wikidata. Most wikisources get them by transcluding oldwikisource:MediaWiki:DoubleWiki.js from common.js or using an equivalent, local copy-paste version. English wikisource used to have equivalent code but it seems to have been removed in this edit for some reason. I haven't done a thorough search, so it may been moved to a gadget or something back then but it does seem to be disabled now. Either way, I am relatively sure it is not something you can blame the developers for. Peter Alberti (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
In response to your query about hws/hwe, if they are problematic then don't use them, maybe just use glorified <noinclude></noinclude><includeonly></includeonly> so just use those judiciously. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-11

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a new search word called articletopic. You can use it to search for articles on a specific topic. It is available on the Arabic, Czech, English and Vietnamese Wikipedias. It will come to more Wikipedias soon. [7][8][9]

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 March. It will be on all wikis from 12 March (calendar).

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Wikisourcerors by number of edits

Some statistics. Done by User:MZMcBride. --Ratte (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Are the lectures listed at Ian Courtenay Johnston in scope?

Are the lectures listed at Author:Ian Courtenay Johnston (for example On Hašek’s The Good Soldier Švejk) in our scope? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"provided the source is acknowledged and the text is not edited"—no derivatives are permitted, so not compatible with copyright policy —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Quality indicator at the top of edit view page

I am opening a batch of 20+ pages in edit view from THIS PAGE. Is it possible to indicate the page quality anywhere at the top of the window/page? — Ineuw (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The interface displays the page quality at the bottom for me, near the "Publish changes" button. Isn't that where it should be displayed? The page quality isn't displayed at the top anywhere else on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Jane Eyre (c. 1900 W. Nicholson & Sons edition): EPUB-version is empty

EPUB download is broken, it contains only a table of contents. --Ratte (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

EPUB is working, there is something about the work that it is not picking up the chapters. Someone will need to nut it out. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Could it be due to the {{listen}} in each chapter? Other pages produce a normal EPUB without it. Hope it will be fixed: this novel is in the top 100. --Ratte (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Remove it and try, and report back. If it is the problem then we will need to remove those components from the printed output. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I've removed it, but it didn't help. I don't know what to do. We can leave it like that ofc. Ratte (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Auxilliary TOC and TOC row 1-dot-1

I was adding links to individual chapters in the table of contents at Page:The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe Volume 3.djvu/18. There is one chapter which was not included in the origjal TOC, which I wanted to indicate somehow, and so I wrapped it into {{Auxiliary Table of Contents}} template. Although it usually works well, this time it did not and the wrapping is not visible. I suspect that the reason is that the template does not cooperate well with {{TOC row 1-dot-1}}. Is there anything that could be done about it? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

With cases like these we cheat. Consider just applying the style used in the template, and then adding it within the Page: ns as a <includeonly> statement. We would generally also "note" the addition. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-12

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  •   There is a new API module for changing the content model of existing pages. Use action=changecontentmodel to specify the new model. You can read the documentation on mediawiki.org. [11]

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 March. It will be on all wikis from 19 March (calendar).

Future changes

  • If you edit a page at the same time as someone else you can get an edit conflict. There is a new two-column interface to make it easier to solve this. It will soon be active by default on the German, Arabic, and Farsi Wikipedias. It will be on by default on more wikis within the next months. You will be able to opt out of the new interface. [12][13]
  • You can see a proposed design for replying to comments in an easier way.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem with IA-Upload?

I'm trying to upload a DJVU file from Archive.org and all links to IA-Upload e.g. IA-Upload seem to be giving me a 301 Permanently Moved message. Is the tool still available somewhere? GreyHead (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be working again now GreyHead (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

FAA Airplane Handbook

Some time ago, a tentative effort was made to convert the FAA Airplane Handbook into a wiki resource, which is located at v:Airplane Flying Handbook. I feel this project is better suited to Wikisource. This message goes out to anyone interested in completing it. Guywan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

you would need to get a stable pdf at commons [14] there is a 2004 edition at IA [15] the images will be a problem, is there a copyright statement? Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 11:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4: No idea. The project is abandoned and I was never involved in it (apart from recent formatting). Guywan (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
well you could start by uploading to commons from that IA edition, using IA uploader. https://tools.wmflabs.org/ia-upload/ but be ready for a deletion discussion there, and possible transfer to local wikisource version. they especially do not like jeppeson charts. cheers. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 21:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Customisation

It has come to my attention that we still do not have a help page covering Wikisource:Customisation (akin to w:Wikipedia:Customisation). This would be a really useful page to have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Index:Atlas of skin diseases

There is a problem occurred when uploading through IA Upload tool: Index:Atlas of skin diseases.djvu; the scan pages and OCR are not matching. Please help in solving the problem.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The Voyage of Italy by Richard Lassels.

Not sure what is needed? see the request below. [16] Rococo1700 (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


The source file should be corrected before proofreading. Else, all the pages will be off by one when the file is corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are not able to correct the file yourself, you can make a request at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Repairs (and moves). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-13

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • Some development will be slower than planned. This is because of the current pandemic. You can see the new deployment guidelines. This is to avoid risks when some persons could be unavailable.
  • There was a problem when adding interwiki links. The tool you use to add interwiki links could suggest the wrong project to link to. This has now been fixed. [17][18]

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 March. It will be on all wikis from 26 March (calendar).

Future changes

  • There is a project to make editing easier for newcomers. The developers are trying to understand what initiatives different Wikipedias have to welcome newcomers. They also want to know which templates are often used for maintenance activities. You can help this project by checking if your wiki's pages are listed on Wikidata.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

section tags

does anyone know why section tags i.e. <section begin= "c1"/> changing to ## and breaking. for example [19] it is a problem, preventing editing of pages. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 21:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We've had some editors in the past have this problem, but others could not replicate the problem at their end. It usually seems to depend upon a combination of the browser and personal settings, but (if I recall) we could not determine exactly the cause the last time this issue came up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thank you - it apparently was "easy LST" gadget, the editing settings are opaque. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 00:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of Authority Control Policies.

I currently see two conflicting pieces of guidance between the authority control template documentation ({{Authority control}}) and the wikisource documentation (Wikisource:Authority control). 1st: The template documentation says for the placement on author pages: "Note: Add below copyright tags." while the WS documentation states: "It should be placed at the end of the page, before the license.". 2nd The template documentation references only "Authors" and "Texts" but the WS documentation says "The {{authority control}} template is used on author, portal and book pages." MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

At the end of the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

1902 Encyclopædia Britannica

I have found and uploaded to Commons PDFs of ten of the eleven volumes of the 10th edition (1902) of Encyclopædia Britannica. As you may know, these actually constitute supplementary volumes to the 9th (1889) edition.

The eleventh file, the index, will not upload; I've made several attempts. Can anyone assist, please?

Once the full set is available, I hope colleagues can make use of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  Done File:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 35 - Index.pdf It appears @Ratte beat me to it. I've added the 1902 EB category to it to match with the others. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for categorization. PS. It's a pity that no one is proofreading this wonderful encyclopedia... (even v.1 is all red). Should we nominate it for current collaboration? Ratte (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I cannot agree that it is a shame that it is not being transcribed. We have 9th and 11th eds. Lots more important things out there to transcribe than the 10th. It is very unlikely that we will do any encyclopaedias in our pumped collaborations, such works are too complex to wikilink, they are better as wikiprojects — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
How does having the 9th lessen the importance of the tenth, which is a supplement to it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Not what I said. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: is it possible to add an appropriate link to {{Highlights}}? Ratte (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
"We have 9th ... Lots more important things out there to transcribe than the 10th." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that most of the text in the 10th edition was carried over to the 11th edition with relatively few modifications.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Correct. EB1911 is based on 1) preceding editions of the EB, and 2) new additions. Looking at EB1911 comparisons with earlier additions, and some of the article constructs demonstrates this. We are not yet finished either the 9th or the 11th.

I am not judging 10th, I am just not rating it a shame that we don't have it in that regard, and we also have a stack of works at Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries which I would rate higher. Anyway, as I said, EB10/EB1902 belongs at Wikisource:WikiProjects as a project, like many of our compilations, they will typically outlast individuals so setting up the project has always been beneficial when there is clear design and reproduction components for multi-volume works. Please listen to our experiences in that regard. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Not so; as en.Wikipedia reports: "The 11th edition retained the high scholarship and eminent contributors that marked the 9th edition, but tempered that scholarship with shorter, simpler articles that were more intelligible to lay-readers. Thus, the 9th and 11th editions had 17,000 and 40,000 articles, respectively, although they were roughly equivalent in size." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
(just as a matter of wikisource history) 11th got pushed, to reference all the cut and pasted articles on wikipedia. less urgency for other encyclopedias, and people moved on to their interests, and cleaning up all the non-scan backed gutenberg imports. expand the project Wikisource:WikiProject Encyclopædia Britannica, tenth Edition, and i will support. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 15:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Ratte. How did you manage that, when i could not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome   If UploadWizard is out of service, use c:Special:Upload - Source URL. Also bigChunkedUpload should be added to common.js. Ratte (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a start: Index:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 25 - A-AUS.pdf. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph x London Daily Telegraph

It seems to me that London Daily Telegraph is identical with w:The Daily Telegraph. May I ask to confirm whether I am right? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The Daily Telegraph with no additional words for context is assumed to be the British daily published in London. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. So I moved it to the title without "London" as it does not seem to be a part of its official name, and interconnected them in Wikidata. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk quote inline

I have again been caught out by the fact that Template:Talk quote inline does not exist on this project; and repeat my request that it be imported from en.Wikipedia Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  Done though untested for usage and any missing components. @Pigsonthewing: generally if you want an admin to do something it is more noticeable on WS:AN. Here it has to be considered a little of pot luck. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Proofread at last

3,832 days ago today I started work on a chunk of Part 2 of Volume 33 of the US Statutes at Large. Today, thanks to a push from Covid-19 and a whole bunch of templates I wrote for the purpose, I have finally finished proofreading the Private Acts of the Second Session of the 58th Congress. While I have proofread 420 pages, only 4 have been validated, so if anybody felt like giving Validation a try, please do, but may I make a special request? Please, please, please read this template documentation first, and be aware that the vast majority of the almost 1,900 individual private acts are proofread through the use of these templates.

I have, by eye, checked the {{USStatHeader}} of each of the 424 pages for a couple of things: missing "side" parameters (which causes the page number not to appear), and making sure that only the standard dash is used in the chapter numbers instead of any OCR-sourced hyphens, or en- or em-dashes. Equally, I hope I've caught all missing {{USStatPension}} "topchap=y" parameters (I told you you should read the template documentation first!) to prevent any unwanted 10em lines at the top of a given page in the Page: namespace. Other than this, because of the use of templates, validation should be super-quick and easy - names, dates, service details and amounts are almost all that varies from chapter to chapter...

Eventually, due to template limitations, we will almost certainly subst: all the templates to resolve down to the underlying text and tags, but only once we have copied the mass of (semi-)structured data to somewhere else first - so please don't use susbt: as part of your validation process. Thank you!

Oh, and if anybody who knows what they're doing would like to help with formatting the final, usable, output, that would be hugely appreciated (without solving the template overflow problem by subst:ing, of course!!). For instance, {{USStatHeader}} makes both the chapter numbers and the page number in the header into hotlinks to the same destination. Do we want someone's bot to solemnly create the 424 necessary new pages, named as per the "chapter" parameter of {{USStatHeader}}, transcluding only the contents of that page, or am I misunderstanding? Also, the templates automatically create section tags for each whole chapter in the form <section begin=chap720/><section end=chap720/>, plus additional tags for just the title of each chapter itself in the form <section begin=chap720title/><section end=chap720title/>, so named section transclusion should be quite simple to implement. CharlesSpencer (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-14

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 31 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 April. It will be on all wikis from 2 April (calendar).

Future changes

  • The video player will change to be simpler and more modern. The current beta feature will become the video player for everyone. The old player will be removed. [21]
  • There is a project to make templates easier to use. The next few weeks the developers will present ideas on the project page. You can watch that page if you are interested in giving feedback. [22]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology-ItsFirstCentury

Can I work on this file in here. The commons file is : File:The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology-ItsFirstCentury.djvu. According to the Archives source [23] it is in Public domain.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

USGov work, so should be ok. double check image copyright. missing 10 pages, it appears to be a scan without any blank pages. index here Index:The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology-ItsFirstCentury.djvu -- Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 14:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I have uploaded one of the many AFIP books of Atlas of Tumor Pathology. Index:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu But there was a problem of OCR and Scan page mismatch. Can someone help me in correcting the problem.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
you can go through, and use the google OCR button, which picks up the right text layer. (need to select it at preferences>gadgets>Development (in beta), and it gives you another OCR button on edit tool bar). try a couple, i may circle back and do a pass. cheers. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 21:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not certain that the work is PD-USGov. That it is published by the USGov, doesn't mean that it is the work of the US Gov, and the contractual terms with the authors are unclear, though it is not evident that they are employees of the USGov and have ceded their copyright. Though the terms of the author writing the work for the organisation may have been with the understanding that it was to be USGov. Who knows. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
what kind of proof would you want for certainty? it says "office of the surgeon general, US Army" you realize that the US Army has a history division that produces historical doorstops? i.e. Portal:US Army Lineage Series are you going to speculate that all those retired military authors are going to retain a copyright? doesn't seem to be remotely possible to me, but then i know some of those guys. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft in Warfare.

There appears to be two copies of Aircraft in Warfare in the system.

This copy is the most complete Index:Aircraft_in_Warfare_(1916).djvu

whereas this copy is set at Match and Split. Index:Aircraft_in_Warfare.pdf

Should this copy be removed as a duplicate?

Thanks Sp1nd01 (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

go ahead and redirect the pdf to the earlier version. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 13:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Please do NOT redirect it. We can move the pages over if they are the same edition, and having redirects is just "make work" If they are not the same edition, then we would permit both. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, same edition; we should delete Index:Aircraft in Warfare.pdf and all the pages at special:prefixindex/Page:Aircraft in Warfare.pdf/ as redundant. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I've submitted a proposed deletion request for the .pdf version. Sp1nd01 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
yeah, we have the larger problem of duplicated work, since searching / duplicate matching is so poor. we need a list of works wanted, works recently, works needing indexes. doesn't matter to me, but it would be a major turn-away to the unwary.Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 13:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

FYI, I have just created Category:COVID-19. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19: Lightening the load and preparing for the future imo is not in our scope. I suggest to move it from the main namespace somewhere to the Wikisource namespace. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Wikisource:SCOPE includes:

Documentary sources [...] characterized by one of two criteria:
  • They are official documents of the body producing them, or
  • They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events.

which would seem to be easily satisfied by this document. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks to me that this is in scope per WS:WWI. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Also agree, but the work's title has "Covid" instead of "COVID", which is incorrect case. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It is failthful to the source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The source has no title, only a subject line, and uses "COVID-19" throughout the body of the letter. The subject line does not use a colon, but you have placed one in the title of the work. If "faithfulness" is the goal, then there should be square brackets in the title and no colon. The incorrect case in the title makes the letter look amateurish. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure your argument that the subject line of an email is not its title will make interesting reading. Feel free to move the page so that the title uses square brackets. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I also think the subject line of an email can be considered to be its title. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: But do you believe our local titles must follow the case used in the title of the source? If so, most of our books hosted should have titles in all caps, because that's how book titles are most often printed. I.e., we'd have THE TRAGEDIES OF EURIPIDES rather than The Tragedies of Euripides since that is how the title appears in the work. I disagree, we routinely standardize the case of our titles, regardless of what the source has. For acronyms like COVID, the standard in English is all-caps. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I just said that the subject line is de facto the title, nothing more. My opinion on capitalizing the decapitalized acronym in the title is following: The name of the page may differ from the title of the work if considered appropriate. One of the widely used customs (not only in Wikisource) is to decapitalize the titles. The reverse process, capitalizing what was not capitalized, is not that common even in cases when capital letters are more correct. So I think it is possible, but not necessary to deviate from the original title (or subject line). I guess the authors of the email did not use capital letters because of their carelessness when writing it. If the contributor who added the work thinks that it is worthwile to keep it in the name of the page, I have no problem accepting it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a very insignificant thing, and there are reasonable arguments in either direction. In the interest of minimizing unnecessary arguments, the original contributor's preference should be the deciding factor. -Pete (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: "original contributor's preference should be the deciding factor" I try to maintain some distance from any formulation of consensus, but you are comfortable with … what? 'I called shotgun!' CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: I was sure I had seen this principle referenced in WS:MOS or similar, but after more hunting than I care to contemplate, I have to concede I don't find it formally documented. (It is a formal practice on enwp, where, for instance, the choice to use British or American English for a given article is typically left to the earliest and/or most prolific author of the article. And I consider it a best practice in any large-scale collaborative endeavor, for many reasons.) Shotgun? Sure, it's comfy enough back here. But more to the point, if I start arguing with you about it, we'll both miss our flights...or we might even piss off the driver to the point he drives away to pick up another fare! -Pete (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
P.S. All that hunting did turn up a brief reference to this principle by Jayvdb in 2008, so at least I know I'm not the only one who imagines I see it where it does not formally exist! -Pete (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I have created Portal:Coronavirus disease 2019 for curated content as a complement to this category. I have placed it under Medicine/Pathology as a sibling to Portal:Malaria (AFAIK, our only other pathological disease-specific portal).
I think most of the WHO material which makes up the backbone of the primary documentation is not freely licenced, so I imagine, as usual, most material we can have will be US government documents and anything that counts as an "edict" from around the world. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Spam whitelist request

The following discussion is closed:

There is insufficient information to assess whether the exception should be implemented, and this thread now appears to have outlived its constructive potential, so I'm closing it. Without prejudice if anyone wants to open a new thread, but I strongly recommend that such includes the sort of information requested here (in essence: "What is it that you're trying to do that the blacklist prevents you from doing and which the exception would resolve?").

Please can someone whitelist:

https:// medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-coronavirus-response-people-first-8bd99ea6214b

[Feel free to point me to a more suitable venue, if not here]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you truly believe that this is within scope? Do feel free to add the link directly to Katherine's author page, it doesn't need to be onwiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
What does scope have to do with linking to an eternal page? Who said I wanted to add it to Katherine's author page? Even so, how could I when it is clearly blacklisted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone able to whitelist this URL? Is there any reason we should not able able to link to it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a simple request; it's been open for over a week. Can someone action it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Andy, it's a problem not to be able to link to an item like this, and it's easily solved. @Billinghurst: appears to have misinterpreted the request as if it were a request to transcribe the work here on Wikisource, but that's not what's at issue. -Pete (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Tumbleweed... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hm, three-week waiting time is really extreme… May I also ask why it takes so long? Solving time of such easy problems should definitely be shorter. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Andy: Could you please explain where you want to use this link and for what purpose? I may just be dense but that's not clear to me from the above. There are limited legitimate uses for external links on enWS, and that goes yet more so for sources like Medium, so at least for my own part I'd want some details to base my call on. --Xover (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    • FFS. It's a post by the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, about the work of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is now almost four weeks since I asked for it to be whitelisted. Do you have a good reason why it should not be whitelisted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @Andy: Yes. We use extremely few external links on enWS, and most of these are to things like external scans at IA and similar. In particular, it is extremely rare that links to self-publication sites like Medium will be appropriate here. Hence why it is blacklisted to begin with; and why we would need to understand where you intend to use such a link and for what purpose (again, neither of those things is clear, at least to me, from the above request or ensuing discussion). --Xover (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
        • No. You - or someone - needs to unblock the page requsted, unless there is a good reason not to do so. You have not given such a reason, and neither has anyone else. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
          Well, I understand it as a request and so it should resemble a request more, not a command.
          Can you provide a link to the work or document or whatever where you want to use it? You admitted that the page should be unblocked "unless there is a good reason not to do so". To decide whether there is such a reason or not admins need more information. In my opinion, one of the legitimate uses of external links is when the work that we are transcribing uses the link.Is it such a case? If so, can you link to the document or scan that you want to transcribe? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
          • @Andy: The site is blacklisted, and without having the history behind that readily to hand, that means the default is that such links are not permitted on enWS. But no rule is without exceptions, so any reasonable request for an exception will at the very least be considered. However the burden is on the one requesting the exception to explain why it should be implemented; and so far you have not even provided the bare minimum explanation of on which wikipage you intend to use it nor how and what you need it for, much less why the particular case merits an exception. Under those circumstances the only possible outcome is that the request will be declined. It may ultimately be declined anyway, of course, but without an explanation it is certain it will be declined. --Xover (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
            • And still no good reason why the specific link discussed should be blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
              • @Andy: Let's just stipulate that you do not find the reasons provided to be good; but you have been provided with reasons. You now have two options: you can refuse to provide basic information and a rationale for this exception, or you can provide the information that has been requested. If you opt for the former I will close this request as declined. If you opt for the latter, I, and the rest of the community, will be able to assess and discuss the exception you want. In only one of these scenarios is there a chance it will be implemented, and which way we go is entirely up to you. --Xover (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
                • Let's not. You - nor anyone else - have given no reason whatsoever, much less a good reason, specific to the page under discussion why it cannot be linked to. This bureaucratic obstructionism is a disgrace. I, on the other hand, have already given a very good reason (in a comment to which you replied, so have presumably read) why it should not be blacklisted: it is a post by the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, about the work of the Wikimedia Foundation. And that is in addition to requests by two members of this community each of whom is in good standing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
                  • @Andy: I'm sorry you feel that way, I really am. But please try to see this from my perspective: despite multiple requests to do so, you are still refusing to provide completely basic information about the exception you want and which is necessary in order to assess it. From my perspective that's what comes across as "obstruction" (to borrow your term): you're asking for a change to be made, but are unwilling to explain why or for what purpose. And while you may not agree with the reasons, or think them good reasons, you have been given reasons. If you would like the link whitelisted then please explain why we should make an exception to the general rule (for medium.com) for this specific link. Since I have no idea what it is you want to do I have no idea whether the authorship or subject matter of the link is relevant. --Xover (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
                    • "unwilling to explain why" False: it is a post by the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, about the work of the Wikimedia Foundation is why. And this is not about my "feelings", so don't try to dismiss it as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
                      • Those are facts, but they are only facts, not arguments, and devoid of context. What is it that you are wishing to actually do that the blacklist is preventing you from doing? Are you planning to transcribe that post's content here? Do you want to post the link to WS:S to discuss its implications for enWS? Are you transcribing a different work that includes this link? Is the goal to use this link as a reference for something? Do you want to use the link for something in project-space (Wikisource: or Help: namespaces for example)? --Xover (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
                          • For what it's worth, if the goal is to keep feelings out of the discussion, I'd advise avoiding terms like "FFS," bolding the same factual statement three times, and emphasizing the amount of time ("four weeks") when addressing somebody who just entered the conversation for the first time, and who is perfectly capable of reading the date stamps of what came before. Feelings were on display, so commenting on them (in a way that, IMO, was perfectly friendly and reasonable) is totally fair game. -Pete (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I was initially supportive of taking Andy's request at face value, and I didn't see his response to Billinghurst's mistaken and confusing response as problematic. But I have to say, the response to Xover's polite, reasonable request for further information is a bit astonishing to me. Maybe tensions are running high -- I know they are in my circles, with COVID and all that -- but at this point I'd say, if pleasant discussion can't be achieved (and it probably still can), it's probably best to just deny the request and move on. -Pete (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    Agree, my feelings are very similar. Originally I supported it but I will probably think twice before I express my support next time. I have also removed the tq template from one of Andy’s contributions: I have no idea why he added it here but it caused the Scriptorium was categorized into a non-existent category "unwilling to explain why", which seemed like a very disruptive edit to me. Too much valuable time was spent in vain here, so I also suggest to close the request. If Andy later decides to answer the questions, he can write the request again. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    In most wikis {{Tq}} is a shortcut for {{Talk quote inline}} - thanks for assuming good faith. This has indeed been a time-sink; the link should have been whitelisted weeks ago; as it should now be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    I am sorry, now I see it was a mistake in the chosen template, so I apologize for the "disruptive edit". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

What a petty and shameful response to a perfectly reasonable - and long overdue for enactment - request Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

please white list this medium post.
furthermore, where is the broad consensus to blacklist medium. where is the history of spamming to justify such a draconian action? who added it to the blacklist? user:Billinghurst? [24] Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 09:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Why has this discussion been closed? I see no resolution to what should be a very simple matter of whitelisting a valid link that never should have been blacklisted. Gamaliel (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As I read it, "without prejudice" means literally anybody could state where they want to place the link, and as long as there's some kind of merit to it, have a pretty good chance of having it whitelisted. Rather than debate why it was closed, I'd suggest just reopening it by making such a statement. -Pete (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
That question is beyond pointless. Once the link is whitelisted, any editor can use it anywhere on Wikisource. And still no good reason has been given why a post by the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, about the work of the Wikimedia Foundation should remain spam-blacklisted has been given. This is beyond farce. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I figured commenting here was an attempt to reopen the discussion, no? Gamaliel (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: No, it was not, at least not the way of reopening that Pete has suggested. Similar enormous effort not to disclose one’s intentions always makes me suspicious. Reopening is easy but should not be done without bringing the desired information. I am leaving the discussion now as I have better work to do than persuading somebody to give us some information and Andy needs to be given more time to think about how collaboration works. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: What is the proper way of reopening the discussion in this particular forum? The spirit of collaboration would suggest that one assist others and not in just complaining they are not doing it correctly. Gamaliel (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll step aside too, since I'm not an admin and I don't really care one way or the other about the underlying issue (no matter how many times it's stated in bold). I do think that if somebody expressed a desire to just put the link on Maher's author page, as Billinghurst obliquely suggested back at the start, there's probably some admin who would be willing to whitelist for that purpose...but that's just a guess. (@Jan.Kamenicek: I think where you said "disclose" above that you meant the opposite -- you might want to double check.) -Pete (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I should not write in a hurry, corrected. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
very well, i object to the requirement to stating why an editor might want to link to medium, but to close that objection i want to quote the executive director of the wikimedia foundation, and provide a reference on my user page. now then, i expect an answer to my question why this was blacklisted. or i will draw the conclusion that the admins here intend to be unaccountable. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 17:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

@Gamaliel: This specific thread was closed because it was going nowhere and was no longer serving any constructive purpose. But as I indicated in the closing comment, that does not prevent anyone from opening a new request ("without prejudice" is lawyer-speak for "the issue can be brought again later"; my apologies for not being clear on that point). To do so you just start a new thread here on the Scriptorium explaining what link you want use, on what page, and for what purpose (the "What is it that you're trying to do that the blacklist prevents you from doing and which the exception would resolve?" bit from the closing comment). The blacklist is a rather blunt instrument so exceptions will certainly be needed from time to time, but in order for the community to assess requests for such exceptions some information and context is needed.

And since various comments (here and elsewhere) indicate that this does not actually go without saying, I'll also add that at that point it is the community, and not any individual administrator, that decides whether such an exception is merited or not. I closed this thread for reasons unrelated to the merits of the requested exception, and absolutely encourage anyone make a new request to whitelist that link if they have need of it.

@Slowking4: That is indeed a lucid explanation and a reasonable thing to request an exception for. Now please go open a new thread with that request. If you also want to discuss whether or not "medium.com" should be on the blacklist at all, or question how and why it was put there to begin with (both reasonable things to bring up for discussion), I would strongly urge you to raise them in separate threads. You'll do as you like, of course, but if you actually want a reasoned discussion it is a very bad idea to mix unrelated issues in a single discussion. Particularly if one or more of them are contentious issues, as your contributions to this thread (and elsewhere) seem to indicate you feel these are. --Xover (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

no, i made my objection well known, right here and now. i would strongly urge you to stop, evading a legitimate white list request. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 19:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
"some information and context is needed" And here it is: it is a post by the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, about the work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
"I closed this thread for reasons unrelated to the merits of the requested exception" Then the closure was doubly improper.
I also note that the closure template stated "This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I am afraid that the aggressive way of reopening the discussion makes the new start difficult and so it might really be better to go on in new threads and focus on what is essential, leaving emotions behind. Below Vigneron has started the thread #Why is Medium on blacklist? and I have started the thread #Spam whitelist request 2. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Not only is the post you cite not aggressive, but it is also not the post that reopened this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Promoting Wikisource during lockdown

Does anyone know of any good resources for campaigning to get new people on to Wikisource, and onboarding/ training them? It would be a good thing to push during lockdown, as other crowdsourced-transcription sites are doing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

the other campaigns have social media managers who use twitter to reach out to the public. send people to Wikisource:Proofread of the Month, and we can welcome them. however, wikicode is a barrier to entry. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 15:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

So if there is no such resource, who is interested in working on one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2020-03&oldid=14025739"