User talk:Jaredscribe

Welcome

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

• Help pages, especially for proofreading
• Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy
• Wikisource:For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Monthly Challenge
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current Wikisource projects.

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

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

• Wikisource:Scriptorium; or
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Isagoge (Owen)

This is a secondhand transcription, which is no longer accepted under WS:WWI. If backed by a scan of the published text, it can be salvaged, but as a secondhand scan, it does not meet Wikisource criteria for a new text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

OK @EncycloPetey, yes it was secondhand from project Gutenberg. Thanks for making me aware of the policy on that, which I hadn't read. I see you put a Proposed Deletion. I suppose the redlink can remain on other pages, so that others will know that this text is needed. If I get the djvu scan at a later date, I can re-create it.

I only added two and formatted one of the seventeen chapters anyway.

This is a critically important text in the western intellectual history, and should be added to the wikisource library. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

As I say: If a scan of the source publication can be found, and a DjVu file (preferred, but a PDF can sometimes work) uploaded to Commons, then it can save this text. Once an Index page is set up for a scan, people often find their way to working on transcription. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The work is available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b286823 . If needed, I can help with downloading and creating the index page to be proofread. You can proofread the whole book, but if you proofread just the Porphyry part, it is fine as well. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Jan.Kamenicek! Sorry I've been offline for a few months; anything you can do would be appreciated. The rest of the book already on wikisource, and well annotated here: Organon_(Owen)

Jaredscribe (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like @MarkLSteadman has just linked the DjVu file which was already uploaded to wikisource. Thanks!

Jaredscribe (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Naftali Bennett

I can find nothing that would indicate we can host his plan; to be hosted here, it needs to be in public domain, or released under a compatible license, or be the law or edict of a national government. The plan does not seem to fall under any of those options. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Noted, understood, and agreed. Please forgive me having overlooked this.

For works that are still under copyright, like this one, is it permissible to link to the place where it is published or available for sale? In this case: [1]

Author:Naftali Bennett

Thanks, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Author:Pseudo-Augustine

Based on what you've posted, this might work better as a Portal page instead of an Author. We typically use Portals for works attributed to one name that are actually multiple people. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, Thanks. I found it here: Portal:Works misattributed to Augustine of Hippo. Might it helpful to provide a redirect, so that search succeeds? C.f. [2]

Collegial regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not make the move, but we do not use redirects between namespaces, and delete such redirects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Author pages

The purpose of Author pages are to list works by the author that are hosted here, or can be hosted here, sometimes with links to where scans can be obtained. They should not be filled with links pointing off-site to Wikipedia articles about those works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that that is the goal and end state. But on the observation that wikisource is not finished, and on the principle that something is better than nothing, I did link to the work's wikipedia page hoping that would motivate and empower a collaborator to locate a source and post a link to where scans can be obtained. I assume you're referring to Portal:Works_misattributed_to_Augustine_of_Hippo where I listed Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae C.f. w:Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae.

Its seems in my humble opinion that this practice is the best alignment with the scholastic mission of wikisource, but if community consensus is against it, I would submit.

Kind regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I just added a link to the latin version. Perhaps someone will initiate a wikisource collaborative translation.

s:la:De altercatione Ecclesiae et Synagogae (ed. Migne) Jaredscribe (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Author:David ibn Merwan al-Mukkamas

Are you aware of any translations into English of his works ? -- Beardo (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware. I suspect that none exist. I intend to work on some open-content translations in the coming decade.

Please contribute, if you can. If not, encourage your trilingual Arabic-Hebrew-English colleagues to help with this very important work, a work which our overlords at w:WP:CHOPSY have neglected to accomplish, and apparently failed to even investigate.

Kind regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Sorry, I don't think that I can help you. Good luck. -- Beardo (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Library of Congress, Portals, and Cross-namespace redirects

Please do not create cross-namespace redirects. They are not allowed.

Also, shortcuts are used in the Wikisource Template and Portal namespaces, not in the Mainspace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting WS:LOC: that was a beginners mistake, before I knew that shortcuts existed in other namespaces. I've now made P:LOC instead.

As for the Library of Congress Classification I added a shortcut LOCC, because of its notability and dual nature as the basis for our P:P. This is worthy of an exception, IMHO, because we need it as a quick reference, and no one wants to have to type out Library of Congress Classification every time. And that link wasn't even included on our Portal:Library of Congress until just a few braincycles ago when I added it! We have alot of work to do ... Jaredscribe (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Shortcuts exist and work because the software has been trained to interpret certain abbreviations as tied to specific namespaces. Only Wikisource and Template have that feature built in. Portal redirects are artificially created pseudo-shortcuts, usually to help with governmental agency names. Shortcuts should not be used in other namespaces. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the education.

In that case, I suggest that we make a P:LOCC pseudo-shortcut, or else allow a WS:LOCC shortcut in this exceptional case.

Regardless that it is located in the mainspace, the Library of Congress Classification is the basis for our Portal:Portals, and it itself could be a Portal once links are added on the hundreds of subpages that lay out the classification and organization of all human knowledge.

Unlike most works in mainspace, it is a reference work. And unlike most reference (some of which probably do exist in mainspace), the LOCC is a reference to wikisource itself, and to many academic libraries in addition to the P:LOC.

Although not common practice to make a cross-namespace redirect or shortcut, this is a liminal case that, in my humble opinion, calls for an exceptional solution.

Collegial regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to improve this section which I just added, however you can:

Portal:Library_of_Congress#Classification Jaredscribe (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It sounds as though you do not understand the difference between a publication and a Portal. The Library of Congress Classification is a publication of the Library of Congress. It is not a creation of Wikisource; we merely have a digitized a copy. As a published text, it belongs in Mainspace. Portals are collections of resources assembled and organized by editors. A Publication cannot be a Portal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand the distinction, and accept the general rule against cross-namespace redirects. It sounds like you don't understand that the Library of Congress Classification is unique among all other publications in mainspace, insofar as it is the basis for our classification and organization of Portals. That is why there is a unique relationship that exists between this publication and between the Portal of all our Portals. This is an exceptional case. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I thanked you for your recent improvement to Portal:Library_of_Congress#Classification, and now that its at the top there, and now that I've added a new shortcut P:LOC, the classification will now be easier to find, and the proposed LOCC shortcut will not be so necessary. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Please do not create redirects from one namespace to another. Please do not import Wikipedia content. Wikisource does not permit cross-namespace redirects, and we do not host Wikipedia content. If you continue to create such redirects, and import Wikipedia content, you may face a block on your editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I have not made any cross namespace redirects since our discussion two days ago regarding the LOC, except through Portals where is the design. If I have done so by accident, please remove them and inform me where I made this mistake.

As far as importing Wikipedia content, I'm not sure what you're referring to: I haven't been doing that. Could you give an example?

In the last few days I've updated and made significant improvements to multiple Portals within the Portal:Federal Government of the United States. Many of them where dilapidated and so incomplete as to be practically defunct, and had been for many years, before I started improving and updating them.

I think you ought to acknowledging my many constructive and very significant contributions. There is still ALOT of work that needs to be done and documents that need to be added, and you and others could be helping me improve the Wikisource portals in this content area.

Jaredscribe (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You made the following cross-namespace redirects yesterday: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of Commerce. These were made after our previous conversation.

You imported Wikipedia content on Portal:United States National Security Council, where you added a red-linked table of member positions copied from Wikipedia.

Yes, you are adding lots of words; but what I see a lot of is adding lots of red links to Portals. Portals are for organizing Wikisource content. There are not project pages or to-do lists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I have also bluefied alot of redlinks, and I plan to keep blueifying more. WikiSource is not finished, and

redlinks are a feature of wiki technology that informs other editors that more work needs to be done. That is why they are widely used here on wikisource, on wikipedia, and on other wiki projects. They are a feature, not a bug. The appropriate response is not to complain about them, but to blueify them. Here's what our Wikisource:Red_link_guidelines say:

Sometimes it is useful in editing texts and other pages to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that a page should be created eventually. Red links show works and authors that could, and should, exist on Wikisource but are currently not present. A 2008 study relating to the sister project Wikipedia showed that red links helped that project grow

If you intend to enforce policy, and warn me about a possible block, then you are obliged to both quote the policy and understand it correctly.

Look how many redlinks were on

Portal:Federal Government of the United States before I started a few days ago, and on

Portal:Federal Government of the United States/Legislative branch, and how I improved it. Have you even been contributing to this content area? Jaredscribe (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

First, those are Portal and Category links, not mainspace links. Second, problems on one page do not justify extending the problem to further pages. Help:portals: "Portals exist as a gateway to a subject area on Wikisource." They exist to help organize Wikisource content thematically, and assist users in finding that content. If you wish to collect lists of missing works that you think should be added, that is what Wikisource:Requested texts is for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The {{expand}} template is intended solely for works with limited, specific content. By community consensus, it should not be used on Author or Portal pages simply to invite open-ended contribution. It should be used only when there is a set and fixed content, such as adding missing articles to a newspaper, where there will be a conclusion as the last article is added, or to a list of items when that list has a fixed length. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Is the community consensus recorded on any of our help or policy pages? I don't see that mentioned at Template:Incomplete, or Template:Expand. Also nothing in Wikisource:Portal_guidelines indicates that those templates should not be used on Portals, as you claim. If it really is a consensus, as you say, I will comply, but the burden of proof is on you to publish this alleged "community consensus" on those Help and Guidelines, otherwise it is merely a private opinion of a few editors, and does not represent a Wikisource guideline.

Jaredscribe (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

We had a community discussion last year, so yes, it is recorded. Did you actually look at the Template's documentation? "...marks a work as incomplete. It generally means that some parts of the work are not available on Wikisource in any form, either as text content or page scans." Why then would this be placed on an Author or Portal page, which are not works? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank for sharing the link to the disscussion in the Scriptorium, however it regards Author pages, not Portals.

When the template is used on a Portal, it yields a mini box with this notice:

"This portal is incomplete. If you'd like to help expand it, see the help pages and the style guide, or leave a comment on the talk page."

Did you even see that before you deleted it and rebuked me? [3]

This clearly indicates the editors who designed the Template:Expand designed it to be flexible enough for use on Portals. And for good reason. As you see on the Portal:NATO page, we have nothing between the years of 1951 up until 12 February 2025, when I came and added the links for which you are now rebuking me.

It is obviously very incomplete, and needs as many contributors as possible to add the important historical documents that are missing from the cold war era, and from the dissolution of the USSR and expansion of NATO. Do you really think that material is of no historical interest, and is not worth adding to wikisource?

Jaredscribe (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It is intended for Portals containing set lists of work contents, not for Portals in general. The agreement in the discussion was that open-ended lists are not the intention, as per the rationale "Placing a template onto every Author page that is "incomplete" is therefore superfluous since all Author pages could be described as incomplete. Placing the template serves no useful function, nor provides any useful information." The Portals you added the template too are precisely analogous situations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikisource Portals are not link hubs to the internet. They are meant to organize the content hosted here on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Please read this: Wikisource:Red_link_guidelines#Portal_namespace

• Red links can be used to list works on a subject or from a publisher that could be added but that do not yet exist.
  • With portals, it is especially important to include external links to show that a scan exists and that the work could be added to Wikisource. Otherwise, portals could soon fill up with red links with no indication as to whether any of the linked works as plausible or possible for addition to the library.

The external links I've added are the documents in question, as they are hosted on government websites and are in the public domain. This is to show the linked work is a plausible addition to the library. In the coming days, I will probably add it, and if I fail to, someone else will. Wikisource encourages this. For example:

• Opening Remarks by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at Ukraine Defense Contact Group Feb. 12, 2025 by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Brussels, Belgium, defense.gov addressed to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group

Jaredscribe (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That is a 2011 essay on the subject by AdamBMorgan. It is not a policy nor an official guideline. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Not a policy or official guideline?? Wikisource:Portal_guidelines: "This page is a Wikisource guideline. It illustrates standards or conduct that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes."

Jaredscribe (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Correct, that is a 2011 essay on the subject by AdamBMorgan. It is not a policy nor an official guideline. If you look at the "discussion" where it was "promoted" to guideline status, only the proposer voted to promote it, then he promoted it. But if you are going to quote from that page, don't miss Wikisource:Red link guidelines#When not to create red links

• Portals are primarily navigational aids, intended to guide readers to works and pages that are already part of the Wikisource library. Red links can and should still be used to indicate missing items in the Wikisource collection but there should not be so many that they obscure the other wikilinks; a wall of red links may be off-putting to readers.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If you feel that the discussion where it was "promoted" was done in error, then the burden is on you to open a discussion in the Scriptorium to demote it back to essay. Wikisource cannot place the burden on contributors to somehow magically know your personal opinion that policy has changed from what is published.

Here: Wikisource:Scriptorium#Portal_guidelines_proposed_as_actual_guidelines

To your other point, I agree with Wikisource:Red link guidelines#When not to create red links, but its point is "Do not create red links to works that will never be created". The redlinks I added are to recent government publications that are in public domain, and you should give this time to develop on Portals that are rapidly evolving. Unless your intention is to disrupt the project and deter people from contributing, which is effective result of your deletions, and of the warning/threat that you delivered a few comments below.

If you notice on Portal:Federal Government of the United States/Legislative branch I removed some redlinks, and added some blue links in a way the greatly improves the Portal, IMHO, and it seems to me that my editing has been more compliance with the guideline, than the Portal was before I arrived there. But if you want to keep pressing these charges against me, provide a link to the page differential of my alleged transgression.

Jaredscribe (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that these changes improve the portal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you really think that Portal:United States Congress does NOT belong Under "Legislative Branch"?

Please explain your reasoning for this decision at Portal_talk:Federal_Government_of_the_United_States. Is that why it was missing from the template for the last 20 years?

And of the blue links which I recently added:

Portal:Acts of the United States Congresses · Acts of the 119th United States Congress · United States Statutes at Large · United States Code · Portal:Law of the United States

Which ones do you dispute? Are they really less important than the many redlinks that you and other administrators have been presiding over for the last 20 years? Like these:

Caucuses of the United States Congress · Committees of the United States Congress · Employees of the United States Congress

If you really are against excessive redlinks, you should have deleted those on the P:FED page, and should now be supporting me in adding the relevant blue ones I added. Feel free to do any refinement, or suggest an improvement, if you see fit. This is, or is supposed to be a collaborative project after all.

But if you just wish to disrupt the project with deliberately misleading edits, and waste my time along with yours, feel free to revert my constructive contributions and then we'll take to the talk page: Portal_talk:Federal_Government_of_the_United_States.

Jaredscribe (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

RE: Do you really think that Portal:United States Congress does NOT belong Under "Legislative Branch" : I have no idea why you are asking that question. Please explain what part of my post led you to ask that question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Re: adding the blue links. Yes, you added blue links, but you added them in entirely the wrong section. That first section is about people and groups of people that compose or constitute the US Congress. Most of the blue links you added were for legislation, which is a separate section at the end of that Portal. So, yes, you made red links blue, but completely garbled the distinction between the separate sections set up in the Portal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

At this point, it feels as though you are arguing rules, and are not willing to listen to guidance. Further issues will lead to an admin discussion where the other admins can weigh in on your actions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems that @EncycloPetey is not willing to acknowledge the facts, or the published guidelines, and faulting me for failing to accept his arbitrary decree as a supposedly superior form of "guidance". Nor is he willing to give thanks or credit where it is due.

All other readers, librarians, and constructive contributors are invited to join me and say: User_talk:AdamBMorgan#Thank you for your valuable work on Portals.

Now if @EncycloPetey has an example of an error or transgression on my part, he should have already provided the links and the diffs. Therefore I invite any other administrators who may be reading this discussion to ignore his insinuations against me, until and unless he does, and instead look at the page history and record of my constructive contributions to our Portals, most recently to Portal:NATO and Portal:United States Department of Defense, but many others besides, including P:DOGE, P:NARA, Author:Tulsi Gabbard, and many others to which he has contributed nothing AFAIK but reversions and proposed deletions.

Jaredscribe (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You can see at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Jaredscribe. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You were politely asked to take it to discussion instead: Portal talk:Federal Government of the United States#Recent Improvements to the Legislative Branch.

Jaredscribe (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You state there that "I prefer that we do it here rather than on my talk page, because this opens it up to the community as a whole", but this shows that you are unaware the Wikisource prefers not to spread discussion over multiple separate pages. The community here prefers centralized discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Author pages

I refer you to Wikisource:Style guide#Author_pages, which is Wikisource policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)