Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

=Checkuser requests=
 * 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= =Page (un)protection requests=
 * To request a global rename, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

Does Spring Come, Even to Stolen Fields?
https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Does_Spring_Come,_Even_to_Stolen_Fields&action=edit

The poetry needs lines spaced like the Korean original. Ah, p.s. some grammatic issues.

Thx

I originally made the page and made a few errors on the poetry. The lines aren't spaced well enough. Yet, when I tried to space it to edit it, the bot made me unable to act. It's supposed to be like so:

Does Spring Come, Even to Stolen Fields

(Written by : Yi Sanghwa, translated by: Jang Seokmin)

Stranger’s land for now—Does spring come even to stolen fields?

With my whole body in sunlight I bathe

Where the blue heavens meet the green fields

Walk dreamily through the paddy’s parted hair-like ways.

O skies and fields whose lips are pursed

In my heart it feels as if I didn’t come alone

Have you dragged Has someone called you

Choked I am, Oh do say a word.

As whispers in my ears, the breeze

Don’t stand a step, flapping cloth-hems

A skylark like a lady over the fence

smiling welcome behind the clouds, she

O, barley fields thankfully well grown

by the soft rain of last night

you washed your hair linen-like, mine as fresh also.

I shall go pantingly even when alone

the kind trickles that embrace the dry paddies

sing the song soothing nursing babies and dances away alone.

Butterfly, Swallows, rush me not

Dandelions, violets I shall also greet

T’is the fields the one castor-oiled plucks, hence its everything I desire to see

Have me grasp a plow

this soft soil like fat breasts

I would like to step until my ankle aches and even have a good sweat

Like a child on river banks

O my soul that reaches limits not knowing its ranks

What do you seek Where have you gone How silly, answer me

My whole body smells of grass

between the blend of green joy and green sorrow

I limp away the day, maybe the Spirit of Spring possessed

But now—for fields are stolen, now may spring be also.

Ah, p.s. some grammatic issues

Thx

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Please list WHICH pages are wrong and by how many pages they need to be moved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)


 * 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.)

(There may be others)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Could you take another look at this? Looks like your table is really close. -Pete (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to get back to proofreading this. 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; 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)

Corrected table:


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Index Migration
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)

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)

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

Migration of pages due to updated source file.

 * @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)
 * @Xover, You closed the DR, Can we know handle the page realignment request? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

Mass import from Wikibooks
Does anyone have any better way before I use Special:Import to import many pages per b:Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion? 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)


 * @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)
 * Seeing your objection, I told Wikibooks about our talks here.--Jusjih (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , is not it possible to use https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis 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)
 * @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)
 * , 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)

Time to review protected pages
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)


 * 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 &hellip; 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 https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllMessages&offset=Protect&limit=100 — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to hide offensive titles from the public view unless any other comments.--Jusjih (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Oversight policy. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Download button vs. download sidebar
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)

Corruption on uploading new versions
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Monthly Challenge
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)


 * @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)
 * 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 Community collaboration/Monthly Challenge/Administration. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 21:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

Special:Contributions/50.73.82.117
Vandalism. Please revdel. I'll update again if I see more from this IP. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked PseudoSkull (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Request to rename
I forgot to insert the ".pdf" for this journal on wikisource. Index:On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species. I would like to link it to this file  on Wikimedia Commons. Much appreciated. Thanks! Cerevisae (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2023‎ (UTC)


 * @Cerevisae: ✅. PS. We strongly prefer adding the whole issue of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History rather than cutting out just the one article. You don't have to proofread more than the article you're interested in yourself, but then we preserve the original context it was published in and make it easy for others to proofread the rest. Xover (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks for your information!Cerevisae (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have found the whole journal here. Will upload at a later time to replace this index. Sorry for the inconveniences. Xover, maybe you can delete this Index:On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species.pdf first. Cerevisae (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cerevisae: Index:The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, vol. 16ss (1855).djvu.
 * Please check that it suits your purpose before I delete the old index. Xover (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the index. Thanks for your help! Cerevisae (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Migrate Your Tool From The Grid With Toolforge Build Service
@Ankry, @Billinghurst, @Inductiveload, @Samwilson, @Xover FYI, I have migrated: tools.wikisource-bot@tools-sgebastion-10:~$ toolforge-jobs list Job name:         Job type:              Status: - -   pywikibot-archive  schedule: 58 22 * * *  Last schedule time: 2023-10-31T22:58:00Z pywikibot-touch   schedule: 10 23 * * *  Running for 40s

If you see something wrong in those jobs, you know why :-) (see toolforge-jobs show for command details). If everything is OK, we can migrate the not-commented ones in crontab as well. Mpaa (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mpaa: Awesome. Thanks!Did you have to change a lot to get them working on toolforge-jobs / k8s? I ask because all of phetools is still running on Grid Engine and I'm dreading the job of trying to migrate that gigantic mess of organically grown, interdependent code, custom databases, filesystem caches, custom job queue management, etc. all written in Python 2.x (and minimally adapted to function in a Python 3.x environment). Xover (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xover For simple scripts it is easy, I followed this: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Pywikibot. For larger apps, I do not know (I would start here: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Quickstart#Build_and_host_your_first_tool).
 * Pinging @Inductiveload as he has done it before (https://github.com/inductiveload/paginator). Mpaa (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Bless for all they did for the Wikisource community, and it's a testament to their skill that the tools they built have mostly managed to keep chugging along since 2016 when Phe went inactive. But they've literally built a custom jobs management framework based on parsing Grid Engine's accounting file and tracking job state in a custom database. There are multiple shared caches between components and multiple forms of custom IPC between a myriad of interdependent moving parts. I very strongly suspect we can't realistically migrate any of it without essentially rearchitecting it, migrating to modern frameworks (abandoning the custom stuff), and splitting it up into more loosely coupled components with more clearly separated responsibilities. It doesn't help that a lot of the code is really obscure, completely undocumented, and contains numerous dead code paths, custom logic for single works Phe was interested in (one specific magazine bing transcribed on frWS), etc. Not to mention that I'm not a native Python speaker.It's been on my todo list since the Grid Engine deprecation was announced, but I keep putting it off (it's scary, and I'm not sure I can find sufficient sustained time). Anyone that wants to volunteer to help out will be most welcome. But don't feel obligated to volunteer: I am trying to be clear that it's a pretty big commitment and a thankless task and I don't really expect anyone to be able to take it on, not trying to guilt-trip anyone. Xover (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have pretty well packed-in doing things on toolforge, things keep changing, and getting harder/more geeky/more stringent. Plus I don't have the patience, enough coding background nor time. [SSH is just problematic for me] I probably need to sit beside someone at a hackathon to re-learn to do things, but that isn't going to happen either. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Pabitra Banerjee
Dear Wikisource administrators, I would like to alert that this entry is a xwiki spam target, please see the logs at Pabitra Banerjee, m:Pabitra Banerjee, n:Pabitra Banerjee, and q:Pabitra Banerjee. Since there are 2 accounts (Special:Contributions/Barshaban, Special:Contributions/SexySonali) removing CSD tags from the page I would like to forward the deletion request to here. Please also note that these 2 accounts are confirmed by Simple English Wikipedia CheckUser (w:simple:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser). Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @MathXplore: Page deleted and salted, and the three accounts involved have been indeffed (you missed Pabitra2204 that created the page initially). Thanks for the heads up! Xover (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Toolforge Grid Engine apocalypse is coming Feb. 14
Ok, according to email to maintainers, the hard deadline for the Grid Engine deprecation has been set to February 14, 2024 (just under 3 months from now). At that point Grid Engine will get shut down and all tools using it will fail.

This affects all of phetools (OCR, stats, Match & Split, etc.), and it affects all of Wikisource-bot that have not yet been migrated.

I took a quick peek now at Wikisource-bot and it looks like at least most of it has been migrated. The crontab has all jobs commented out, and  shows no jobs running on the Grid. As best I can tell that means what remains must be any interactive uses of  or similar where you use   instead of. Listed maintainers for the Wikisource-bot toolforge tool are:, , , , ,. Could each of you double-check that the parts you use there are properly migrated, so we can update T320165 and get it off their tracker?

Phetools is, I guess, my headache so I'll make a valiant effort to get stuff migrated by the deadline, but right now it looks very unlikely I'll have the hours in the day for this.

Everyone might also want to keep in mind that there may be other tools hosted on Toolforge that have not been migrated and which will then be affected. enWS migrated off the old transclusion checker last year(ish)—ours now runs as a local Gadget—but other language Wikisourcen may be affected by that. We have various links to BUB, Book2Scroll, etc. squirrelled away in various places and without more research than I have time for now it's hard to tell which of these have been migrated and which will fail on Feb. 14. Xover (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tpt: You may also want to be aware of this (frWS will be affected too). Xover (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Thanks for looking after this! ... It's been a decade or so since I've done any serious coding, but I might see if I can dig up some memories and lend a hand with the migration —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beleg Tâl: All help very very welcome! Do you have a developer account so I can add you to the project? The tracker task for Phetools is T319965 (we can make subtasks if needed), and feel free to use my talk page here as a dumping ground for anything that doesn't fit there. Xover (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

My message keeps being marked as spam
Hi, I wanted to post a question on Scriptorium, but it keeps being marked as spam – I was asked to contact admins here. I haven't edited Wikipedia for many years actually, never edited Wikisource, but all of my previous edits are perfectly legit so I've no idea why I keep getting this message. Thanks for the help! Amused (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. The filter has been adjusted, so it should not happen anymore. I am very sorry for the inconvenience. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jan.Kamenicek: Děkuji :) Amused (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Proszę :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for Module:ISO 639
I've added ISO 639-5 codes in Module:ISO 639/sandbox; could these be added to the main template as well? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Vandal- and a clearly NOTHERE.
Special:Contributions/68.103.18.130 - Can an admin or oversighter check through these, and block accordingly? ThanksShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A68.103.18.130&type=block ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * and - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=68.103.18.130 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked and pages deleted, etc. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Raffleshospital
The user is repeating spam at here, so this user should be blocked. MathXplore (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, but the account was already globally locked, so my block was more a "just in case". PseudoSkull (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Error on the Main Page
There is some error notification on the main page, saying: "Lua error in Module:PotM at line 18: Couldn't find a month in the past or present to start from." -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the offending bit of code, at Module:PotM:


 * Just for quick reference. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jan.Kamenicek @PseudoSkull I rolled over the current text manually in Module:PotM/data, so that the error message is no longer displayed. Not sure why the error occurred though. Hope that was okay. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bleh. That code is broken in at least two different ways. I'll see about fixing it, but it's going to be a bit tricky (mainly to test without too much noise in production) so it might take a while. Meanwhile it can break at any time due to Scribunto updates (but probably won't), and the only way to avoid this year rollover problem is to get ahead of it with data for january before the end of the year.For those interested, the problems with the current code are: 1) It's relying on Lua returning the data from Module:PotM/data in the order it is specified in the page. That's incorrect; Lua  order is explicitly undefined, depends on the implementation, and can change at any time. If it ever changes this code will start displaying a seemingly random month on the front page. 2) It's trying to do numeric comparisons on date data, and as many programmers have discovered the hard way over the years, dates are not numbers. Even in the best case, when data for January 2024 was missing, the above code would have shown January of 2023 instead of December 2023. But as it happens we don't have a single entry in this page for January of any year, so the condition that the month of the entry be less than or equal to the month number of the current month (January, month 1) cannot be satisfied.The fix is to 1) sort the data before iterating over it, and 2) use actual date math to compare the dates (so that December of 2023 is considered less than or equal to January of 2024). Xover (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I made a fix to select either this month or the nearest month in the past. Mpaa (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am still seeing this error on the main page, so if it was believed that this error was fixed on the 1st, unfortunately it has returned. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beleg Tâl: Different issue. See WS:S#Template:Index progress bar error message. Xover (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson edits
Could knowledgeable admins please verify that these changes to Modules and Templates do not negatively impact any of the altered items? They were made by a new editor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just dropping in that they have over 15,000 edits at Wikipedia, with a good amount of coding knowledge, and have been active there since 2007, so not unreasonable to think the edits might be fine, although I don't know if they're out of line to edit important modules etc. as a new WS contributor. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson: Thanks for trying to help out, but please don't start making cosmetic changes around our technical spaces willy nilly. At best they're pointless and just create noise in watchlists, and in some of the cases in your recent changes they create actual problems and extra work for other contributors. If you want to help out here there are better places to start than in Template:/Module: namespaces until you've acclimatised here. Xover (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandal—User:Here is my hero at home
Extremely obvious vandalism, this user should be blocked. SpikeShroom (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @SpikeShroom: Thanks for the heads up. ✅ Xover (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Informing you about the Mental Health Resource Center and inviting any comments you may have
Hello all! I work in the Community Resilience and Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Mental Health Resource Center is a group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community.

The Mental Health Resource Center launched in August 2023. The goal is to review the comments and suggestions to improve the Mental Health Resource Center each quarter. As there have not been many comments yet, I’d like to invite you to provide comments and resource suggestions as you are able to do so on the Mental Health Resource Center talk page. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Thank you! Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandal
—Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Cross-wiki abuse report
-- USSR-Slav (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked 1 week and edits undone or deleted. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:F427:B400:89C:7271:2B91:828E
- They'd left talk page comments that suggested NOTHERE to me, and which should ideally be considered for oversight ( I'd already reverted thm.).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Related User:2001:8003:F427:B400:349D:59FE:8C69:8C57, and User:Fa_hgot_244. Suspecting an LTA account hopping.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

✅ --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Please import commons:Template:PD-FLGov
I'm not sure whether a straight import is permissible or whether there is customization that would need to happen, but as far as I can tell there's no template on Wikisource that would cover e.g. Constitution of the State of Florida (1968), making it impossible to comply with WS:Copyright policy for that page, at least without jumping through some kind of hoops. -Pete (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Some customization would need to happen, since Commons uses Autotranslate for license templates and therefore uses a more complicated structure than we do. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * CalendulaAsteraceae: For this case,  would apply; the Constitution is an “edict of government,” so Florida doesn’t have any control over it in the first instance (and that control is necessary for   to apply). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mis-ping: in response to Pete’s request. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you TE(æ)A,ea. I had apparently misread this years ago, and misunderstood "Organization of American States" as..."American states." Very pleased to know I was wrong. (Still, many works of the State of Florida are not "edicts," so it seems important to have some version specific to Florida.) -Pete (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Peteforsyth: Before importing this template I'd want a nice thorough discussion of the relevant copyright issues, and with a specific text or texts as the use case. The template's text has several red flags for me and I am not at all certain everything it says is valid.Oh, and we wouldn't Special:Import Commons' templates because they use a huge baroque and home-grown internationalization system that makes sense nowhere but on Commons (and barely even there). If the text of the template is clear and free of controversy etc., knocking out a new license template based on our own system should not be a huge endeavour. Xover (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. -Pete (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Twitter whitelist
Could someone fix the Twitter reference here? It’s t&#8203;.co (with a space) on the page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @TE(æ)A,ea.: ✅Incidentally, at some point we (we as in the community) should probably have a discussion of whether or not we want to have these kinds of extlinks be live, or to just give them as text. All browsers make it easy to visit a text link (select+right click), and live links creates the need to maintain an extensive whitelist (that editors have to jump through hoops to get updated), leaves us open to certain kinds of manipulation, tanks our search engine rankings (we look like a link farm), and makes us link to some things we would otherwise not permit to be linked. The status quo works reasonably well right now, but long-term and as the number of such links grow it's certainly not ideal. Other alternative approaches may also exist, like getting a special group for trusted contributors that are allowed to add such links (as live links)—ala. filemovers on Commons—but blanket forbid it for everyone else. Xover (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For now, perhaps we could add the  (bypassing spam blocklist) right to the autopatrolled group. I can't imagine a scenario where an autopatrolled user would be linkspamming. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Contribs! 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IRC spam
I've noticed some spam in the IRC channel recently. Does anyone know how the IRC is moderated? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for Module:ISO 639
I've streamlined this module a lot, moving the lookup tables into separate subpages and relying on  when possible. Based on tests at ISO 639 name/sandbox and Template:ISO 639 name/testcases, everything seems to be in order. Could someadmin please merge my code from Module:ISO 639/sandbox to Module:ISO 639, and then protect Module:ISO 639/local and Module:ISO 639/overrides? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser notice
Hi. Per the local CheckUser policy on this wiki, I will note that I have performed a check on a cross-wiki spam account on this wiki, Special:CentralAuth/Berlin2305, as I was not able to check it on loginwiki. EPIC (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @EPIC: Thanks. Xover (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson Poems
Re, and many others, why were all of these pages moved to incorrect titling? (the "Cleanup title" edit summary is meaningless). The spaces between em dashes are intentional, as is obvious in the poem text, and are a consistent part of Dickinson's style. Was there even a discussion to permit this? Aza24 (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Per WS:MOS: "Whichever dash is used, it should not be flanked by spaces". This is standard practice on enWS and is not considered controversial.
 * Furthermore, dashes didn't appear in published editions of Dickinson's poems until the 1950s, and do not appear in any of the published scans that we are able to host for copyright reasons. What is more, scholarly opinion on the punctuation in Dickinson's works is far from unanimous (with some experts arguing that they are custom markings rather than standard dashes), and none of the research I have read on the subject has addressed the spaces themselves, which appear to have been a stylistic preference on the part of editor Thomas H. Johnson (or by his publisher). —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fancy punctuation, with or without any amount of whitespace, should not be replicated in the wikipage name in any case: its purpose is primarily navigation, and it needs to be easy and unambiguous to type. Adherence to some arbitrary stylistic standard can be hashed out in the title field. Xover (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! In the future, a more detailed edit summary could have avoided this. Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Vandal—User:Logan Sesto
I reverted their vandalism but the user should be blocked. SpikeShroom (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ SnowyCinema (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Spammer
Please block abortion pill spammer User:حبوب اجهاض سايتوتك (0599287172) دبي الرياض. Already blocked on Commons. Latest edits are to Wikisource talk:Community portal. —RP88 14:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

move request
index:First Woman issue 1 Dreams to Reality.pdf ==> index:First Woman issue 1 Dream to Reality.pdf

The scan already has the right name on Commons thanks to c:user:Sikander. Arlo Barnes (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Note that move requests should usually be posted to the relevant section of the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Mistake in the link in MediaWiki:Gadget-watchlist-notice
Hi. I’m not sure if this is the good place to post my message. I found a mistake in MediaWiki:Gadget-watchlist-notice. The link should be "w:Wikipedia:Watchlist notices" and not just "Wikipedia:Watchlist notices". Otherwise, it links to the main namespace of Wikipedia. Cheers, Lepticed7 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It is, and thanks; fixed now. Xover (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Links in module messages
The messages at the top of module pages have a few problems. One of them (I think when there is no documentation) links to Lua, which is a disambiguation page, and should maybe link to mw:Extension:Scribunto. The standard documentation message, on the other hand, links to w:Template documentation (which does not exist) instead of w:wikipedia:Template documentation. Could someone please correct these links? (sorry if this is the wrong place to ask). Alien333 (what I did — why I did it wrong) 10:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Alien333: Erm. Could you link to a page where you're seeing this? Xover (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For the template documentation one, look at any module page with a doc subpage (example Module:Ppoem). Where it says "The above documentation is transcluded from", etc, the documentation is linked to template documentation.
 * For the lua one, it's for modules without doc subpages (Example: Module:Cl-act/test). In the "You might want to create a documentation page for this Scribunto module", "scribunto module" is linked to lua Alien333 (what I did — why I did it wrong) 12:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alien333: Better now? Xover (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, as far as I can see, the messages still link to the wrong pages. I don't know where the text for these messages is actually located. Alien333 (what I did — why I did it wrong) 12:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Xover Sorry, it's good now, I hadn't noticed the change because I got mixed up with wikipedia and the wikipedia ns. Thanks! Alien333 (what I did — why I did it wrong) 13:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Please move: Romance and Reality
This needs to be moved to Romance and Reality (Landon) for disambig purposes, and it has many subpages that need to be moved without redirect. Merci! —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Xover (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Xover (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled & flood flags up for myself
Lately I've been working on A Chinese Biographical Dictionary, a book containing thousands of pages (source + mainspace). Part of my tasks are bulk actions, typically mass replacing and formatting (e.g. headers of every pages). They're carried out with the aid of JWB. While carrying out aforementioned tasks, RC might be easily flooded by my edits. As for mainspace pages, each entry should be on separate subpages (1,000+ to be created), which is inefficient to be patrolled one by one. That's why I'm requesting autopatrolled and flood flag here for myself. For flood flag, 1-2 weeks should be enough. -- U.T. 02:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this. Does anyone? BD2412  T 02:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We generally don't mark pages as patrolled (maybe we should, but…) so autopatrolled is not an issue. For the flood flag that sounds like a good idea, but I'd like to see a more concrete example of the bigger things you're planning to do. I'm guessing there will be smaller ad hoc text replacements and such, which is fine. But the bigger tasks I would like to review to make sure we don't end up with a mess of hard-to-fix style guide deviations or similar. Either upfront if you have a plan, or step by step if you figure it out as you go along. I also note that Index:A Chinese Biographical Dictionary.djvu is nowhere near proofread yet, so I'd like to hear more about your plans for mainspace. Xover (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have clear plans for this book. Look at my edits during April 8 and 9, you can see that many edits have summary "via JWB", which explains why I'm requesting flood flag. These edits are mass header formatting I mentioned above. It haven't finished yet, as rest pages of this book needs the same process (which is too tedious to do it manually one-by-one), and I would resume it via JWB once I granted the flag. After then, I would proof these pages: almost all pages in this book contain Chinese characters, few people here on en.ws can deal with these texts. Meanwhile, I would update the index and transclude book pages into mainspace entries, as you see, part of which are currently usable. -- U.T. 07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Unite together: The accented-character-replacements and rh stuff is fine. The use of CBD article link in next and prev for header I am less enthused by. Our general practice is to put relative links in those parameters, and as plain wikilinks, which means that's what other contributors and some tools will be looking for. Using the template would appear to give no benefit there, but does add a needless level of complication. It's the kind of thing that makes sense when you're focussed on a single work, but not when you look at the whole picture. In this particular case I suppose it's easy to bot-convert to normal links after the fact if it turns out to be a problem (which makes it a lot less risky for this purpose). But that sort of thing is why I'm asking for nitpicky details on your otherwise excellent plan. Xover (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My main concern with granting the flood flag for an extended period of time (i.e. more than 1 hour) is that any edits outside the agreed parameters will not appear in RC and will therefore not have routine visibility short of wading through the logs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well... I'm in a vastly different time zone than most of you. Unsure if I'm sleeping when you granted me flood flag for less than 1 hour. -- U.T. 02:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that you told me that what's fine enough (noncontroversial), I'd restrict my mass replacements into these scopes. I have no plans outside the scope of this book for now. BTW, do everybody here think this edit by me is good enough for mass replacing (In the case of this book, each subpage for dictionary entry actually contains one section)? -- U.T. 02:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that. I'll put your flood flag up for 24 hours, and will check your edits manually at the end of it. BD2412  T 02:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. -- U.T. 02:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also I noticed that some sidenotes are misplaced while working (appearing on the right whilst it should be on the left in the source). Shall I fix it with JWB as well? -- U.T. 03:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can do that, yes, go ahead with it. BD2412  T 03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you remind me about how autopatrolled works? I just toggled a "patrolled" on a web page I looked at, mindlessly, to get rid of it. Then I remembered that just leaving it alone doesn't "call in the scrutinizors" and toggling it does. So, I would like a brief refresher coarse here on its use here. Toggles mean one thing or the other and default doesn't always apply. Xover?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @RaboKarbakian: Users who have the  right has all their edits automatically marked as "patrolled". For everyone else every edit is marked as "unpatrolled". That means that those who patrol pages can collaborate by marking an edit as "patrolled" when they have checked it so that other patrollers do not need to check it for a second time. The goal when using the system like that is that every single edit should be checked and marked as "patrolled". Autopatrolled is then a way to save the patrollers time by saying "this user's edits never need to be checked". But since enWS does not really use this system like that, it's not an issue for mass edits that are already flood-flagged (they don't show up on Recent Changes to begin with). We use autopatrolled status more for the normal intermittent edits, where the user is trusted not to mess stuff up. Xover (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia article of the day is of Kurt Vonnegut. I saw him and heard him speak, on a campus, in 1984.  He said about that year in books, that having gotten from 1948 to then, he knew that the big brother scheme is too expensive.  Patrol is labor intensive.  In order to surveil a person, in the real 1984, it would take a minimum of three trusted people for every one untrusted.  How many of a users edits need to get toggled before they lose their (!)?  And, is that what we are talking about? The exclamation mark that causes that newbie here toggle to appear?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The red exclamation mark tags any edit that has not been marked as "patrolled", either manually by someone tagging it or automatically by the user being in the Autopatrolled group, in the Recent Changes feed. And an admin will assign the Autopatrolled group to a user when they think that user can be trusted to not make a mess; for your typical new user case that happens when they recognise the username over a period of time and their edits exhibit familiarity with policy and practices on the project. But we're getting rather far afield from the topic of this thread (which is about a special case involving a high rate and volume of automated edits). Xover (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Mass work on rh
@ShakespeareFan00, please stop doing mass work on rh. I have already asked you and you said you were not going to. If you don't, I am going to block you. Mpaa (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Stopped. Time to do something else ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Move request
Author:Augustus de Morgan -> Author:Augustus De Morgan (fix capitalisation). This matches the Wikipedia article and the capitalisation used in his writings. Arcorann (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * To add here, the page at the target needs to be deleted since it has page history, so I can't do it myself. Arcorann (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser notice
Hi, I'm EPIC, a Wikimedia Steward - as per your local CheckUser policy I am noting that, in conjunction with me performing spambot checks on several wikis, I performed multiple local checks for spambot IPs/spambot accounts captured in Special:Log/spamblacklist between 6 April and 7 June. The only IPs/accounts I did not check were those that were obvious false positives; if you need more information on exactly which of the accounts and IPs within that time period I checked, feel free to ask and I will be more specific (it was a lot of accounts and IPs so that's why I only specified the time period), and feel free to ask any further questions if needed. EPIC (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Spam filter re: recent activity on Scriptorium
There's an IP editor who's been flooding the page with irrelevant edits about "daily numbers" and such, sometimes getting in 50+ before an admin catches them. Is there a spam filter rule we can use to slow them down? Arcorann (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is one, but it did not catch them. I adjusted the filter yesterday shortly after the attack, so we will see. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Index:Derailment of Amtrak Passenger Train 188 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania May 12, 2015.dvju.djvu
The misnamed index (.dvju.djvu) messes up the pages: the parent index is thought to be the correct one (.djvu). The file has been moved, so the index and the pages need to be fixed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Xover (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Xover (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:LlywelynII
is repeatedly adding extraneous material the The Poems of William Dunbar (1834), specifically adding a Supplement volume published in 1865. The biggest problems with this issueis that (a) LlywelynII is adding an external link as part of the additions; and is adding this external link to a potential scan inside the Aux ToC for the work. (b) I have asked LlywelynII not to do this, but have been reverted several times. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (a) User:EncycloPetey has ignored repeated attempts to talk about this on my talk page, edit summaries, and the talk page of the work. (b) He's now violated WP:3RR (1, 2, 3, 4), which I assume applies here as well, despite my attempts to talk and an edit summary warning. (c) There's associated edit warring on Author:David Laing, which I had been expanding, almost entirely related to E'Petey's distaste for the 1865 supplement to the work he's (helpfully!) been working on.


 * Kindly help him cool his jets, remind him to avoid entirely ing content and to actually talk to people instead of smacking revert, and I'll add some notes on the actual issues in a second. — LlywelynII  16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:LlywelynII has accused me of not discussing or responding, yet I have 1, 2, 3. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not an accusation. It's a description from my POV of what actually happened. They'll look into it.


 * My own read is that a "Nuh uh" reply to the points I made on the work's talk page followed by continued reverts (without commentary) falls under failure to discuss. — LlywelynII  16:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see any points on that discussion page. You point out that the Supplement is weird and that the 1865 edition (which is a separate edition) has multiple volumes.  Then you reverted the removal of the 1865 content from the existing 1834 edition, without ever explaining why you think the 1865 content must be shoehorned into the 1834 edition, or why you put an external link to an external scan for a volume from the 1865 edition into the auxiliary table of contents for the 1834 edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * With all patience and kindness, try rereading what I actually wrote. It does clearly explain why I think the 1865 content is part of "The Poems of William Dunbar" for several reasons. (Or wait: I'm about to note them again below for any admins who come through.) — LlywelynII  16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * On the merits, no, there's no dispute about the external scan link on the work page. I've already noted that E'Petey can certainly move it to a better location (the work's notes, talk page, etc.) so that it's available to readers but not violating any policy, if there is one. (None's been cited but sure it could exist.) My only concern is keeping the link available since there's no scanned version yet, like there is with the other two volumes. E'Petey's ignored that and continued entirely ing the well-formatted content from the work's supplement. Undoing that restores the external scan link, but I'm still open to moving it anywhere appropriate and still helpful to the . (Notes on the Supplement itself in a sec, since that's the main actual disagreement.) — LlywelynII  16:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since I've already addressed the issue of the external link in this reply, I clearly did not ignore the issue, as the link exists now on the Author page. But my reply recommending this approach was ignored. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It further needs to be available on the work's page or talk, not only the editor's page. It also isn't, e.g., on Author:William Dunbar's page, although I can fix that. Again, though, neither here nor there since no one has any issue with moving the external link out of the running text. The actual issue was the wholesale blanking of all the other content around it. — LlywelynII  17:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do the contents of one edition need to be present on the page for a different edition? I don't follow your reasoning --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See above and below. If it really helps to repeat it again, the bits that seem hardest for you are that The Poems of William Dunbar isn't "one edition" just because a single edition has been parked there so far. It's the namespace for the work as a whole, not a specific edition of it. Further, the supplement is a supplement specifically for that edition and is a later part of exactly the same edition of exactly the same work. The 1865 edition itself merged that content with its Volume I. — LlywelynII  17:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The 1865 edition is complicated, but it is a separate publication with different publication data from the 1834 edition. The fact that one volume was prepared with the 1834 edition in mind does not make it part of the earlier edition.  Nor does it justify adding a contents listing to a page for the earlier edition.  There is (and has long been) a note in the header that a supplement was prepared.  If that supplement is ever transcribed here at Wikisource, that header note can become a link to the Supplement volume in the 1865 edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As far as the actual issue, which is that EncycloPetey feels they need to revert any content on The Poems of William Dunbar that isn't part of Laing's 183 5 4 edition, (i) that's not how that namespace works. Like I explained on the talk page, if they moved it to The Poems of William Dunbar (1834), they'd have a mostly solid point but the general namespace covers the entire work with its later emendations, although sure they should be noted. (ii) The second 1865 edition of Laing's work was also a 2 volume work. It included the supplemental material in its Volume I. I didn't edit the Volume I to change anything about the 183 5 4 edition. It's still there in its entirety, although the second edition can/should be noted at Author:David Laing since he did it and made some major changes. That information is another thing E'Petey's been removing during this. (iii) The "3rd volume" of the 1865 edition was a version of the supplement to be used by owners of the previous 183 5 4 edition. In other words, it precisely is a later addition to the 183 5 4 form of the work, to be used as an additional part of that edition. (iv) Even if it weren't a later part of the 183 5 4 edition (and it very much is) and even if the namespace The Poems of William Dunbar should only be used for its 183 5 4 edition and not any part of its 1865 edition (which it very much isn't), the actual solution there would've been to move the fully formatted treatment of the Supplement's contents to a new holding page and then linking over, not blanking everything in reverts. (v) Reverts on my end have been trying to avoid the blanking of valuable content, but sure I'll go back and undo anything necessary to avoid policy issues on my end. —  LlywelynII  17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the page is currently for the 1834 edition, that is how that page works. If the 1865 supplement needs to be added, then a versions page needs to be created, and the work can be listed there.  But the contents of an 1865 volume should not be added to the table of contents for an 1834 edition.  Since you keep appealing to lack of policy, I will note that I have yet to see any evidence that policy advocates for this approach to mixing contents from two different editions on the same edition page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not how namespaces work. It's the namespace for all forms of that title or the major work with that title. That'd be the complete version of Laing's work, not the first edition without his later supplement specifically for it. Again, yeah, that misunderstanding is the central issue and what someone with authority just needs to point out to you. Absolutely your work on the 1834 edition is still very much appreciated.


 * Edit: Style guide is the link you're asking for, although you're right that separate editions generally shouldn't be included on a single page and you'll probably continue to disagree that that supplement is a supplemental part of the 1834 edition. Again, if you feel very strongly on that point, the solution is having a dab page between the editions, moving yours to the 1834 section, and still not blanking formatted content. — LlywelynII  17:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds as though you have a personal opinion at odds with current practice regarding editions. We have only the 1834 edition right now, and its mainspace location is The Poems of William Dunbar.
 * We do not have the 1865 edition; not even a single volume. No scans of the 1865 edition exist on Commons as far as I know, and no transcription has started anywhere on Wikisource.  So there is no reason yet for a disambiguation page.
 * If we did have the 1865 edition, it would be placed on a separate page from the 1834 edition, and not on the same page with another edition. Just as we have not put the various editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica onto the same page, nor blended the contents of editions published in different years, we would not blend two different editions of other works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You're confused. The wikipage The Poems of William Dunbar is not a "namespace", it is a specific edition of this text (you may be thinking of a versions page). The enWP policies you cite have no bearing on enWS, and in any case, although they are clearly acting as a contributor in this case, EncycloPetey is an admin on enWS so it might be a good idea to assume they are well familiar with the policies and practices on the project.The issue of whether the 1865 supplemental volume should be considered as a part of the 1834 edition is one on which reasonable people can disagree, which means it would be entirely appropriate to bring that to the wider community at the Scriptorium for input (if interested contributors can't figure it out on the text's talk page). What is not reasonable is to edit-war to include redlinked references to an 1865 volume in a 1834 text. Once challenged (reverted) you should have pursued the issue through (polite, constructive) discussion rather than edit-warring. You yourself admit this 1865 volume is at best a stepchild, bibliographically speaking, so edit-warring rather than explaining the issue and asking for input on how to resolve it seems quite disproportionate.PS. EP: While you were clearly acting as a contributor here, you are an admin and you could have been more diplomatic about this. Reaching for the talk page rather than the revert button would have set a better example (irrespective of who's right and wrong). Any incorrect changes can always be reverted later if necessary. --Xover (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The content on the page is currently a specific edition. The namespace covers all works by that title or the primary one. The 1865 edition had exactly the same title and, if anything, would be the primary form. Yes, that was part of the problem and the linked policies do cover the correct resolution: converting it to a versions page or handling the full main version, which would include the supplement. Of course, you're right that if there's not enough discussion at the talk page, it should be punted to the Scriptorium; there was edit warring, failure to talk, and escalation to this discussion instead. As far as edit warring and failing to talk, yep, sucks but was on the other end. That said, sure, they're an admin and this is apparently as good as I'll get, although you could've singled out entirely blanking content as particularly inappropriate, particularly for an admin.


 * Since this makes the second admin who couldn't care less that the content is missing, though, I'll just thank you for your time and drop it entirely. — LlywelynII  06:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @LlywelynII: EP could certainly have done more to help defuse the situation, but it takes two to edit-war and you were the one making changes that turned out to be controversial and didn't stop when challenged. I don't know what "entirely blanking content" you're referring to, but if it is simply reverting the edits to The Poems of William Dunbar I don't consider the blanking aspect of that problematic at all. The content is easily available for retrieval from the revision history and at least nominally didn't belong there (without a prior discussion, I mean). Xover (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is probably not the right place to discuss the content of a page, I have added my opinion to Talk:The Poems of William Dunbar. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Accidentally got flagged for spam/vandalism.
I'm new to Wikisource and have just started editing. I've been going through 'The Heart of Jainism' (Margaret Stevenson, 1915) and fixing up formatting and generally trying to make the pages consistent with one another. I guess I've made too many edits too quickly, and have been flagged for spam and/or vandalism. I was specifically trying to edit page 10, fixing up some italics and the small capitalisation of when I was flagged. A message told me to go here, thus I have. Is there a cool down period before I can go back to editing, or is this something I'll need to clear up with an admin? MinerB40 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ It was not because of too many edits, you can make as many and as quickly as you want. It was a different problem, now solved. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your speedy reply. It is very much appreciated. MinerB40 (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)