User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2024

File:Emil Filla, The Chess Players.jpg

Ahoj, dnes vypršela autorská práva, mohl bys to přenést na Commons? Já nemám oprávnění. Je tam už založena kategorie Paintings by Emil Filla. Díky, Gumruch (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gumruch: Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Older copy

The “older copy” is that PDF; a newer copy was released later, with fewer redactions. (The underlying file is the same, however.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: And do we have the newer copy? If so, can you provide a link, please?

Pinging also @VGPaleontologist: who created the index. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• The new copies are here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done. The index has been apparently abandoned anyway. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Data in tables

(Continued from Proposed deletions since this is sort of irrelevant to the works being discussed).

I was referring to us (as Wikisource) using mathematical proof as a source. Think of it like this... All the newbie editors who came from Wikipedia, made one edit called "The numbers of pi", with a list of a thousand decimal digits, and it got deleted.

In order to come up with something like what numbers contain pi, on their own that is, that newbie editor would have to rely on some logic, hypothetically. So when challenged, the newbie would say "But, the numbers of pi exist! They're real!" But my argument against them would be something like "Well, we know it because of math. It's not a document of any kind, so should be excluded as out of scope."

But, on the other hand, a document, like "The Numbers of Pi Up to a Million Numbers, by the US Department of Departmentation", with the text: "Here are the numbers of pi:" (continues for 100 pages). If we were transcribing that document, it'd be different, because we (as Wikisourcers) aren't citing math, but a print document that we can back with a scan.

The Pi Document is a hypothetical document that I (marginally) think should be kept in the circumstance of its existence. I don't think it's that useful, so I understand if it sounds a bit absurd, but I'd argue it to be kept out of principle.

On a more practical note, with a non-hypothetical example, there are loads of important historical documents containing weather data going back to the 1800s. It's often just in the form of purely numbers and data in thousands and thousands of pages of tables. These, in my opinion, would be great to have hosted online, since it can put those records directly in the hands of people looking for that very kind of obscure information. And we could source it with the original documents, putting to use our own authentic sourcing approach (scan-backing) to the weather data, that other sites that might list the same data simply wouldn't think to use.

But, unfortunately, the principle of "no raw data allowed" might lead to a deletion outcome of that very type of scan-backed weather data from a year like 1903, which I think would be sad. I would be impressed by an editor taking the time to transcribe those, and would be glad they did, and objectively think it would do some good for researchers. So for documents like that to be deleted based on this principle is worried about (and some editors have already expressed the sentiment that they should be excluded, in a recent discussion about such weather documentation).

So things like that are the worry I have with the slippery slope of table exclusion. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation of your opinion. I do understand what you mean and it is definitely a valid point of view, though I quite do not share it. For me the value of such "works" is just little, with a potential to flood Wikisource with countless standalone tables, lists etc. The downloaded PDFs are often not scans in the usual meaning of the word, they are files of purely electronic origin, made in some PDF creator of even in Word by a government employee within a few minutes, without any time to accompany them with any context, detailed analysis or whatever, as there are many more lists and tables of other raw data waiting in the queue to be "published" on the Internet. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf

There are a number of orphaned pages that were linked to the Index:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf which you deleted.

1. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/1
2. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/2
3. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/3
4. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/4
5. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/403
6. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/404
7. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/405
8. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/406
9. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/407
10. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/408
11. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/409
12. Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/410

Should I go through and mark each for speedy delete ? Or can you do that from this list ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks for notifying me! -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:numbered div

This template is being deprecated. A simple list like the one you reverted should be using {{*!/s}} with a CSS class setup in a pagestyle. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Well, if it is to be substituted, it has to be done in such a way it does not affect the outcome. BTW, I failed to find any official deprecating discussion besides Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2019#Template:numbered div family, whose result was "not deleted". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could reformat the relevant pages to use newer templates? I've tried to use CSS lists but cannot currently match the formatting in the page. You may have to abandon an exact match to the scan, in favour of a semantic match to the intent of the page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Adventures of America, 1857-1900: A Pictorial Record from Harper's Weekly

Thanks for deleting that page. There is the page Talk:Adventures of America, 1857-1900: A Pictorial Record from Harper's Weekly associated with that page, which should also go, shouldn't it ? -- Beardo (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Of course, I am sorry I have forgotten about it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Easter Island

When you speedied the "unknown" edition, you left behind a redlink on the Versions page. The Versions page now has one valid link, so the Versions page and its Wikidata item will also need attending to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, should not be so absent minded. Thanks for letting me know. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Ozymandias of Egypt

You deleted this item without closing the Deletion discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Did not notice it was nominated there. I deleted it because I found the proposal among the speedy deletion requests linked above the RC. I have closed the discussion now too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sic transit gloria mundi

How can I go about getting this Dickinson poem restored? It was published in 1852, the first of her poems to ever be published (in the Springfield Daily Republican, see here for evidence). 57.140.16.57 15:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I found it republished in Letters of Emily Dickinson (1894) - a scan is available at the Library of Congress website. I'd be willing to transcribe it and add whatever templates/sources are necessary, but I'm not sure how to go about that. 57.140.16.57 17:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The poem was deleted based on the discussion at Wikisource:Copyright discussions#Emily Dickinson. It was OK to restore it, having the proof of its publication before 1929. To make sure it will not be deleted again, could you add the links to the poem's talk page too, please? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - what links should I be adding to the discussion pages? (I'm very familiar with enWP, but this is my first major go at editing Wikisource). 57.140.16.57 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The link(s) to the source(s). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. 57.140.16.57 13:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Czech publications

Have you considered recommending a Czech (or Slovak) work to the Monthly Challenge for September? Maybe something that is relatively simple to proofread, yet would be valuable for Wikisource to have, but which you do not have the time to do yourself, or which you have delayed because of more immediate concerns? Even suggesting one such work every two to three months in the MC would help make that collaboration broader in scope, and perhaps attract additional editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hm, interesting idea. Will try to find something suitable. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Author:Olga Svejkovská

Sorry, I didn't manage to wrap around my head that this was an author page, and therefore needed licenses for multiple works. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 19:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem :-) Keep up the good work! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource News

The latest edition of WS:News is out. Please enjoy. You are welcome to unsubscribe from these notifications by removing your name from this list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Port Chester Daily Item/1944/Lindauer Family Has Gathering In Region

When I changed the name of this article it wasn't changed at Wikidata Q125441654. Isn't it supposed to be replaced automatically by a bot at Wikidata? It was replaced properly at Wikisource. The problem was entries were split between "Port Chester Daily Item" and "Daily Item". RAN (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should have been replaced automatically, I have no idea why it did not happen. I have added the link to WD manually now. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, a nice warm welcome.

Just so you are aware, the edit you reverted on Template:New texts was literally recommended to me on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help, where I was told that I should list new contributions there. Yeah, you gave me a nice warm welcome by reverting and then proposing for deletion the very first thing I was told to do. I'm giving one more shot with a new post, but if I am wrong, go ahead and revert it and I'll just never use it again. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I am very sorry, do not take it personally, please. As I see it, it is not in our scope, but instead of deleting it straightaway I decided to ask the community to confirm it at WS:Proposed deletions. The practice is that works which are being discussed as problematic are never advertised on the main page until the discussion is closed. If the community decides the work is in our scope, it can be reintroduced to the main page again. I should have probably written you some more detailed explanation to your talk page, and I apologize for not having done so. I do hope it will not discourage you from further contributions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Linter errors.

See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/misc-tidy-replacement-issues

Your user page appears to have a swapped DIV and SPAN. This is often when a template like {{float right}} contains a template generating DIV based syntax. You may wish to consider using {{right}} or {{right block}} etc instead?
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm, unfortunately, each of the boxes behaves a bit differently which makes it difficult to align them one under the other. The only way that worked for me was putting them in a table. I have just tried to redesign it using the right block template, but it did not work. However, I have never seen this page displayed incorrectly on any device and in any browser, so the lint error probably is not a big problem. If you want, you can try to suggest a better design at User:Jan.Kamenicek/Sandbox, but it is probably not necessary. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The specfic issue that's showing up on the linter, is that you've put {{collapse top}} ..{{collapse bottom}} inside {{float left}} . {{float left}} only takes a SPAN parameter, soemthing that's also caught me out more than a few times:) Not a priority though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick sandbox on Expand Templates. {{left block}} seems to be the DIV version of {{float left.}}, but you already updated the page. Thanks :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have replaced the float left templates for block left, so I hope it is OK now. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Vector 2022

Hi @Jan.Kamenicek, since it's been more than a week with no reply from SGrabarczuk about their plans to switch to Vector 2022, I was thinking it may be worth writing to the WMF board directly, as I doubt they are aware of this issue. From what SGrabarczuk said, the technical team seem to be arguing that "due to legal reasons, we will have to enable" temporary accounts, which is supported only by Vector 2022, so I doubt we will be able to prevent this entirely. However, if we make the case to the board, I think they might consider getting the technical team to prioritise fixing the main issues, and perhaps extend the deadline until these fixes have been made, in contrast to their claim that they would "talk and may make some changes, most likely after the deployment". What do you think? (I would be happy to help draft something if you'd like?) --Yodin^T 12:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Meanwhile, somebody has answered there, though their answer was in fact just empty words without really addressing our concerns. I am not sure whether writing to the board would help anything because they are imo on the same wavelength, but it can be tried. However, I am not sure whether I could be diplomatic enough, so if you could draft it, I would appreciate it. Or maybe you can write it directly on your account if you want too. How do you think it is best to contact them? By email? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me such a long time to reply; if not too late (and I don't think it is) here's my current draft (just a start – please improve it as needed):

Dear WMF trustees, the English Wikisource community is very concerned by a recent annoucement from the Wikimedia Foundation Web team that the Vector 2022 skin will be deployed to our site next week (starting 25 November), despite the significant issues this would cause to many of our articles.

Back in March, the Web Team made an announcement that Vector 2022 would be deployed here at the start of April. The community pointed out the many problems this would cause, and as a result the skin was not deployed at that time.

We heard nothing more from them until 6 November, when we were told that Vector 2022 would be deployed in three weeks’ time, despite no fixes having been made for any of the issues raised in March, and with the comment that if we raised any significant technical issues they would "talk and may make some changes, most likely after the deployment".

Again, many problems with this were highlighted, with no replies from the Web Team for more than a week, when we were told (15 November): "We’ll try to let you know next week on which fixes (if any) we’re planning on making and what the timeline for those fixes is. It’s possible that some of them might come after the deployment itself." We have heard nothing since then, and no progress seems to have been made – giving the strong impression that the problems have not been taken seriously.

We urge the board of trustees to review this, and request that you do whatever you can ensure the community’s concerns are addressed before the Vector 2022 skin is deployed, postponing the deployment of Vector 2022 (indefinitely if necessary), until all changes that would break live articles here are fixed.

According to the "Contacting the Board" section of Meta's Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees page, they have a noticeboard for things like this; there might be an email mailing list that could work instead? I would be happy to raise this with them myself if you think this is best, but was not sure how much impact it would have coming from a non-admin editor! Whatever you think is best. Either way, I was thinking of personally contacting each of the Community trustees individually, as I hope at least one of them will be willing to champion this! --Yodin^T 00:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That is just perfect, thanks very much for wording this.

I would not feel comfortable adding a text I did not actually write, so I would prefer if you added it. I do not think that members of the BoT distinguish among admins and non-admins – if they decide to take it seriously, it will be because of its contents and not because of the author of the wording. Besides, you may write that the contents of the request was discussed before sending. Thanks very much for all the effort! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC). – I am sorry, I forgot to ping you: @Yodin:. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Worth a go! I've posted it now here. 👍 --Yodin^T 22:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Side note, but may be worth informing the wider discussion about this of that post. I happened to be wandering around reading people's talk pages, but it would have been nice to know. — Alien  3
3 3 15:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

True. I will drop a note to Scriptorium. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

questions about wikimedia and administrators

My questions are about the code of conduct and missing admins here. Are they related? Would we know?

My thoughts, if this is related to that lately about how the people missing since last summer were at least enthusiastic about old books, etc. And when they disappeared, it left "people" who were not quite so enthusiastic about books as they were about being contrary in public discussions or outright wrong.

Good luck sorting through this, if you try....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, this is a bit confusing to me... As a non-native speaker I probably need if your message could be a bit more explicit. Yes, I have noticed that some prolific admins and contributors have not been contributing recently. In fact I contacted one of them by email and was assured that it is just because of the lack of time. What sort of connection with the code of conduct are you suggesting? I am also not sure who you mean by people not enthusiastic about books... --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Inductive and Hesperian. Code of conduct was last spring, iirc. Inductive dropped out in June, Hesperian in July. You shouldn't bother about the others and I won't either; sorry to bring that up.

Honestly, I am sorry to bother you. I was wondering if you had information that I did not have about policy elsewhere. Thanks for you time.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: In Inductiveload's case, I see no reason why a code of conduct would bother him so much as to leave without notice. The fact that he left suddenly in this way seems very strange, to many of us. I, at least, feel very strongly that whatever happened with him was personal and not due to wiki drama, and I would rather not speculate further than that here. SnowyCinema (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I also do not think there is any connection. However, the truth is that a lot of good contributors and admins have stopped contributing or are taking a long break at least... Should this trend continue, Wikisource is going to get into trouble... --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

something else

So, after a walk I thought that I should just delete my stupid thing about the new vector at scriptorum. And I did delete it.

And then I looked at my notifications, where you were being patient with me about that very thing I had just deleted. I am logging out now, so as to not make any more messes here today. Thank you and I am sorry.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing to apologize for. It happens to everybody from time to time, me included, that we write something too fast, so don't worry :-) -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Old transcriptions in User Space..

Can you look through -https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LintErrors/missing-end-tag&dir=prev&offset=1674811&exactmatch=1&tag=i&template=all&titlecategorysearch=&wpNamespaceRestrictions=829%0D%0A828%0D%0A711%0D%0A710%0D%0A115%0D%0A107%0D%0A106%0D%0A105%0D%0A103%0D%0A102%0D%0A101%0D%0A100%0D%0A15%0D%0A13%0D%0A14%0D%0A12%0D%0A11%0D%0A9%0D%0A8%0D%0A10%0D%0A7%0D%0A6%0D%0A1%0D%0A2 and comment. Quite a lot of these seem to be userspace transcription efforts that have been stalled or abandoned for some time. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)