Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 4,560,701
No. of articles = 1,085,631
No. of files = 16,517
No. of edits = 14,892,949

---

No. of pages in Main = 636,010
No. of pages in Page: = 3,426,083
No. validated in Page: = 677,991
No. proofread in Page: = 1,375,416
No. not proofread in Page: = 1,061,159
No. problematic in Page: = 47,842
No. of validated works = 6,799
No. of proofread only works = 7,093
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 425,679
% transcluded pages in Main = 66.93
Σ pages in Main

---

No. of users = 3,157,808
No. of active users = 459
No. of group:autopatrolled = 504
No. in group:sysop = 22
No. in group:bureaucrat = 2
No. in group:bot = 17

Statistics
User preference statistics
Special:Statistics

Checkuser requests

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

Bureaucrat requests

• To request a global rename, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I don't know why nobody followed up on this issue back in February. Possibly it's because it's a somewhat technical issue and we're a little short on technically-minded admins. In any case: apologies for dropping the ball on this one! Could you retest the issue you originally saw to verify it still behaves the way you observed then? I suspect there may have been intervening changes.

@Samwilson: Using the Download button to download a PDF on the page TE(æ)A,ea. links above gives me a PDF with all the auxtoc pages but none of the actual chapters. Can you tell what's going on there? Xover (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: Now, both options are broken. I suspect your removal of the hidden ToC is to blame. Having reverted that change, the issue is reversed: the “download” button gets only the list of books, while the sidebar gets the whole book. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea., @Xover: I would've said that the sidebar links and the button are the same links, but they're not it seems:

  • Button: https://ws-export.wmcloud.org/?format=epub&lang=en&page=The_Wings_of_the_Dove_(New_York%3A_Charles_Scribner%27s_Sons%2C_1902)
  • Sidebar: https://ws-export.wmcloud.org/?format=epub&lang=en&page=The_Wings_of_the_Dove_%28New_York%3A_Charles_Scribner%27s_Sons%2C_1902%29

  And indeed, the output differs. It's also different from the CLI tool's output with an unencoded title. I'll have a look at fixing this. Sam Wilson 07:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Studies in constitutional law Fr-En-US (1891).pdf

The original upload of this file had many pages removed, for some reason (separate from the two missing pages, which have been added). The following pages need to be moved:

• /2–/12 up 5
• /13–/15 up 6
• /16 up 7
• /17–/65 up 8
• /66 up 9
• /67–/149 up 10
• /150 up 11
• /151–/185 up 12
• /186 up 13
• /187–/192 up 14
• /193 up 19

The large swath of pages marked “Problematic” is, I believe, owing to the confused state of the pages. I’ll look over them after the move to see if they need to be changed in any respect. In addition, /31 and /32 can be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Done Xover (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: Thank you. For those pages, delete /158, /159, /161, /196, and /197, and move /163–/195 up two. They can then all be marked as proofread. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet accounts

Based on their editing style, I believe that ALPHATMINJO (talk • contribs) and Natella1995 (talk • contribs) are the same person using undisclosed sockpuppet accounts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Change to proofreading colors

If you go to proofread a page, the colors of the buttons have changed (they’re now so washed out as to be unreadable). This is being discussion here, as well, but I thought it important enough to bring to the attention of administrators. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding your voice, explaining the problem, in the Scriptorium is probably more useful. That is the discussion that was linked from the Phabricator ticket, so that is where developers will look to see what the issue is, how it has impacted the community, and what (if anything) to do about it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed block for User:C. A. Russell

Proposed block for User:C. A. Russell:

• Making changes contrary to policy and without discussion
• Then reverting others, accusing them of doing the very same thing: [1]; [2]
• Reverting admin edits that align with established policy: [3], then claiming that such policy-aligned edits are a "substantial change being introduced needs proposal/discussion"

This editor's pattern of editing and interaction seems deliberately confrontational. The user was previously blocked for uncivil comments, and upon return resumed the same problematic editing from before the block. We still have no explanation of the no Gricing allowed edit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Please stop—please stop the obstructionist/adversarial edits, and please stop the misleading, heavyhanded, uncharitable mischaracterizations about the history and intentions of someone you're in a conflict with.

Please do reach for arguments that hold up under scrutiny because of their merits rather than because A is saying it, and A is an admin, etc.

We had and continue to have two templates/categories for pages where we a way to locate the material from which a given transcription was created:

• Category:Texts without a source (populated by template:no source) for "works which do not have a declared source"
• Category:Texts without a scan (populated by template:no scan) for works without "a scanned copy of the edition from which it was transcribed"

Your unilateral changes to this template back in August are substantial. If we are to take your comments in the original discussion that precipitated my proposal for an interaction ban between the two of us at face value, then this change amounts to a change in the prescription for how the templates are used, and renders the distinction between these categories null. If we take instead your newest comments at face value, then we still end up with people almost certainly misunderstanding the prescription and tagging Category:Texts without a source/{{no source}} things that should be tagged Category:Texts without a scan/{{no scan}}.

If you want to change the text of the template, then please, by all means make clear what your reasons are, stick to the same argument, and let folks weigh the argument on its merits and weigh in after you propose the change first on the template talk page. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything you've just said applies to you. Your edits and comments suggest that you intend to make rules for others, without following them yourself. This is part of what "deliberately confrontational" means. It also covers your repeated refusal to answer direct questions, such as: What does "no Gricing allowed" mean? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Based on the blocking policy, the only justification for a block would be excessive reverts and as both parties to this dispute are engaged in this I do not support a block at this time. In respect of the underlying issue, this is not the venue for the discussion on the differences between no scan and no source. Come up with a concrete proposal for how the two should look and be distinguished and put it in the Proposals section of the Scriptorium. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate: I'm not trying to adjudicate this here. That's why I said multiple times to discuss it on the template talk page. And to be excruciatingly clear: *I* am not proposing a change—the changes are User:EncycloPetey's. I'm advocating *against* the change, precisely *because* it has not been proposed and broadly accepted. User:Jan.Kamenicek, I think you need to comment here, given your involvement (belated—why?—and why without restoring the correct revision that existed prior to the edit warring?) C. A. Russell (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Things which are already policy do not need to be proposed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth; if you really believe that, then why have you opened this discussion with a complaint that I made a change1 without discussion?

Ignoring that—where is the policy that says things that belong to Category:Texts without a scan should be tagged template:no source rather than template:no scan? C. A. Russell (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your first statement, see the initial posting: you made a change contrary to policy without discussion; the change I made is in accordance with policy. Regarding your second statement, I have made no edit or change about how things should be tagged or categorized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The entire basis for your introducing that change was in an edit conflict where you were trying to justify the use of template:no source on a page that had a source. Your rationale was that it needed a scan. We have template:no scan.

It may be the case that the statement exhorting people to add a scan of the source document ("a scanned copy of the source document is preferred") is not against policy, but that's certainly not how you were wielding the fact that the template says (because you changed it to say so) in the dispute where you brought it up.

You're prevaricating. C. A. Russell (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"[A] scanned copy of the source document is preferred" certainly doesn't contradict policy. Would it be okay to add it any random template, then? Or every template? They're words that don't contradict policy. This is the argument you are making.

We're talking about template:no source. The question is not whether there is any statement that contradicts policy. The question is whether it has anything to do with what the template is about. The template is for things "do not have a declared source". template:no source is not template:no scan. C. A. Russell (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Further developments: This user made a change to the Wikisource:Index which I reverted as irrelevant. The user restored the edit [4], so I asked them to please provide context, so readers would know why the link is there. The user chose to delete my request instead of engaging in discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@C. A. Russell: Well, I do not really like the way you ask me for a comment, but I will answer... Although I noticed the edit warring after it seemingly had ceased, I decided to protect the page to prevent its renewal. If you want to do there any changes and if the community approves them, the page can be unprotected any time. I protected the page including the addition that "a scanned copy of the source document is preferred" because this addition just mirrors the current practice that has been widely accepted by established users in Wikisource. If you do not agree with this practice, you can challenge it somewhere and try to convince the community to change it.

As for the above mentioned revert: To me the added link also does not seem much relevant to the contents of the page, but it is especcially your confrontational style that includes the deletion of the admin's request for comment and also the very uncivil summary to your revert ("if it were irrelevant, I wouldn't have added it") which is not acceptable. Please, abandon this confrontational style. If you continue in this way, you may be blocked without another warning. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you please stop doing this?: "If you want to do there any changes and if the community approves them". There have been multiple utterances on ANI with that shape—responses that completely abandon w:Grice's maxim of relevance. This is the second time I've counted it occurring in this discussion alone.

Imagine if I walked in on you and your partner in a domestic dispute and your partner was striking you. You, trying to get them to stop, seek help. My response, apropos of nothing that's actually happening? To address you, advising you (*you*, not your partner) that "if you want to beat your partner, you either need to do it in some jurisdiction where that's okay, or suffer the consequences for doing it here." C. A. Russell (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Jan.Kamenicek: I am not introducing or attempting to introduce any changes to the template. Please, please, please actually pay attention to what you're acting on and what you are saying and to whom. User:EncycloPetey *is* introducing changes; I am not. Your responses make no sense.

THIS IS THE PAGE AS IT EXISTED: 2021 January 22 revision by User:Inductiveload

THIS IS THE CHANGE YOU ARE PROTECTING: a change by EncycloPetey (introduced for the sole purpose of winning an argument about the misuse of template:no source on a page that had a source, but no scan)

THESE ARE THE CHANGES BETWEEN MY REVISION AND THE REVISION BY User:Inductiveload: "No difference"

Given that the entire basis of my position is that User:EncycloPetey has introduced changes without discussion, and that these changes violate the previous prescribed use of template:no source vs template: no scan, it is *so* obnoxious and frustrating to receive "advice" about *my* (non-existent) desires to make changes—and the approval that changes need before they will be allowed to stick. That is the exact opposite of what has actually happened. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything has already been explained quite clearly, it seems to me that you do not want to understand. I suggest you focus on adding content and learn from what more experienced editors tell you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What, exactly, is clear about your and other editors'—who seem not to have actually reviewed the facts that they're commenting on—advising me (perversely) that changes to the template need to be proposed and discussed before they are accepted—when the fact is that I am neither interested in proposing nor attempting to add anything to the template?

The facts: there are additions—not mine—that have been inserted, without any proposal or discussion. I am opposed to them.

But at least two of you have fallen over yourselves dropping non-sequiturs directed at/about me concerning changes I'm purported to be insisting on seeing made to the template.

The fact is, again, that I am not, and it does no use to advise me to propose/discussion additions that I am not making and do not seek to make. C. A. Russell (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's also fairly obnoxious that I've been repeatedly roped into time-wasting interactions by the other party in this series of disputes, bringing to a standstill the work that I *was* doing outside of this, only to then to be admonished by you to "focus on adding content".

If I'm going to propose anything here, it would be that at least two of you voluntarily de-admin and focus exclusively on adding content yourselves, or at the very least allow others to do the same unmolested without raising charges that their attempts to focus on adding content is proof of their "not listening". C. A. Russell (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Another issue: self revert with comment "remove relevant link—folks landing on Wikipedia:Index because they're looking for information about the Index pages described at Help:Namespaces can and should go jump off a cliff" --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As this happened shortly before the last warning and there has not been any new incident since, I am inclined to include it into that warning without blocking at this moment. But the user is walking on thin ice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

SpikeShroom changing style without discussion

User:SpikeShroom has begun a major style change across Divine Comedy (Longfellow 1867) without discussion, and has asserted a right to "change its style in other ways as I see fit". In the past this ha been considered bad form and unacceptable. I am asking other administrators to explain the problems with this attitude and approach. I have let SpikeShroom know this is a problem, but they have refused to undo their changes and (and I say) asserted a right to make any desired changes to the work, despite a clearly established style. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

After thinking about it for awhile, I have decided to revert all my edits (except the CSS style file, which I can't delete). I am happy to discuss ways I can help you complete this transcription.

—SpikeShroom (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The way of discussion by SpikeShroom should have been better, what I also really dislike is: The reason I'm doing this without preliminary discussion is because I do not need permission to begin editing works. At the same time I acknowledge the change of the tone in the contribution above. As for the changing of the style: When there are more equally accepted options how to do various formatting, it is usually really inappropriate when a contributor changes the style applied by somebody else just because of their personal preference. Generally I agree that such undiscussed changes should usually be reverted, but in this particular case it is also worth noting that the work was abandoned years ago. It is highly desirable that somebody finishes it and having a contributor willing to continue the work, I suggest being tolerant to them applying a different approach in the rest of the book and making the already proofread parts consistent with it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: the work itself was completed, all of the Inferno and its Notes were proofread. Only some of the appendices containing additional separate works, bound in the same volume and consisting of about 50 pages, had not been done. These are separate works, by other authors than Dante, which Longfellow included in the Appendices so that the reader would not have to amass a library of volumes to access the documents and poems he referred to in the Notes. They are not part of the same poem, most are in prose, and many are excerpts quoted from much longer works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The work is Divine Comedy, not Inferno, I understand and sympathize if that someone is willing to proofread 2/3 volumes they have a strong case for updating the first volume to match the other two for consistency. I am not sure there is a perfect flow here, and if the contributor has been here for 4 years, 8k edits they probably are motivated to do the work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of steward CU

Hello there, as per the local CU policy I just wanted to let you know that I performed a local check on a spambot (LawerenceCorley (talk • contribs)) here at enwikisource. This was the only check performed here by me, no other accounts or IPs other than the associated ones were checked. Thanks, EPIC (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I am informing you that I checked the account Dahyang8484 (talk • contribs), which I locked for cross-wiki abuse. No other account has been checked or showed up on the checks I performed. For transparency, I've sent detailed information to checkuser-l. Best regards, Elton (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Per above, I also wanted to note that I just performed a local check on a spambot (IsabelleTemple (talk • contribs)). As the account was not registered on loginwiki (due to job queue issues), the check needed to be performed here. As in the case above, no other accounts or IPs were checked. EPIC (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting again for transparency that I performed a local check on a cross-wiki spam account (Ballala (talk • contribs)), since I couldn't do a check on loginwiki. No other accounts or IPs were checked except the related IP. EPIC (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, there. As per the local CU policy, I just wanted to note that I checked a spambot account (Helena0792 (talk • contribs)) locally. No other accounts or IP addresses other than the associated ones were checked. Regards, RadiX∞ 04:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion on the "Hitler's Testament" talk page was removed

I tried to ask the admin why on their talk page but I got an error saying my post is "disallowed". Toadguy64 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Can you explain why this user's comment was removed? It was in regards to changing a link target? It is true that by WS:ANN the current link is the correct one, but the comment was about our copy and improving its quality. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Toadguy64: (with edit conflict) Hello, it was me who deleted the message as a part of general clean-up of Talk:My Political Testament where various out-of scope discussions piled up. By mistake I thought that your contribution was one of those non-sensical texts, which was a misunderstanding for which I apologize. After checking the Abuse log for what you then tried to write on my talk page and what was disallowed by the Abuse Filter (which is probably oversensitive to some combinations of words including "Nazi" etc. on talk pages), I understood your point better. If you want to change the external link inside the text from w:Aryan to w:Aryan race, you can do it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Now I can see that EncycloPetey considers the original link better. I have no opinion on this, both seem quite possible to me. I generally prefer avoiding external links inside Wikisource texts and using them only very exceptionally, but I know that some others advocate adding such links, and so I just try to tolerate them. BTW, I returned the above discussed contribution to the talk page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Jan.Kamenicek, please pay attention to what you're acting on and what you are saying to whom—contra: what's actually going on—(especially if it involves removing people's comments from public discussions) so that this doesn't continue happening.-- C. A. Russell (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit requests

Can somebody who understands the problems better have a look at the requests that have gathered at Category:Wikisource protected edit requests, please? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Index:Van Cise exhibits to the Commision on Industrial Relations regarding Colorado coal miner's strike.djvu move

The file has been renamed, so the Index: and Page:s need to be moved. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Admin consent required for planned edits..

Outside of Page namespace the largest bulk of "Missing Tags" appear to be (misuse) of P in talk page comments. The planned edits are to replace these stray P tags (with {{pbr}} or {{prbi}} as appropriate. However as this is a massive set of edits, Consent by at least 3 active admins is required. Please vote below. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I remain perfectly happy to revert any non-content namespaces edits, made in the scope of trying to bring the Linter reported errors under control. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support as an admin—if the technology is sound, I don't see why not. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, why not, though lint errors in talk pages are not a priority and probably not really necessary to be bothered about. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Move pages

Could someone move Page:Citizenship (Amendment) Act on Gazette of India.pdf/1 to Page:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 on Gazette of India.pdf/1 and Page:Citizenship (Amendment) Act on Gazette of India.pdf/2 to Page:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 on Gazette of India.pdf/2. I might have messed something up. —unsigned comment by ToxicPea (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2024.

Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Crossposting my edit request from last week on Scriptorium here since only an admin could grant it and haven't gotten any response over there. Apologies if this is seen as being too pushy, I just haven't gotten any sort of reply yet and figured this might be an acceptable next step for being seen/getting a response.

My request is the following: I've been addressing specific priority syntax errors here on Wikisource, and have dropped two error types down to near zero. The Tidy Font Bug (78 remain), and Misnested tags (42 remain). 77 and 41 of these are on Full protected pages, and I wondered if I could have access to these Tidy font and these misnested pages for a brief time to address these issues. I have 2 years of experience on Wikipedia with handling these (and other) tracked syntax errors in an respectful and knowledgeable manner, and currently have a temporary adminship (Sept-Dec) on Wikivoyage, where I addressed 99.99% of their 30k syntax errors in 5k edits (Aug-Sept). I am happy to discuss or answer any questions admin may have. Thanks, and hope you have a great day. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zinnober9: Such rights can be granted only by bureaucrats, i. e. Beeswaxcandle or BD2412. If you need temporary admin rights, I suspect that a formal request at Wikisource:Administrators#Nominations for adminship will be needed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zinnober9: It's a relatively small number of edits. I can make them. Is it just a matter of, for example, changing:

<font style="color: #000000; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold">[[User:Zhaladshar|Zhaladshar]]</font> ^{<font style="color: #FF0000; font-size: small; text-decoration: none">[[User talk:Zhaladshar|(Talk)]]</font>}

to

[[User:Zhaladshar|<font style="color: #000000; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold">Zhaladshar</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Zhaladshar|<font style="color: #FF0000; font-size: small; text-decoration: none">(Talk)</font>]]}

throughout the page? BD2412 T 14:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 The ones triggering the counts on Special:LintErrors/tidy-font-bug are mostly? all? Spangineer's signature, with recommended change:

<font color="brown">[[User talk:Spangineer|(háblame)]]</font>

to

[[User talk:Spangineer|<span style="color:brown">(háblame)</span>]].

Zhaladshar's signature is an oddity in that it is written in a Tidy font way (color stated outside the link), but for some odd reason isn't reporting as a Tidy font (it should be, but it's only reporting as obsolete tags used). I would still fully recommend adjusting Zhaladshar's signature however. Your suggested change would clear the Tidy font aspect of it, but I would swap it to this instead:

[[User:Zhaladshar|<span style="color: #000000; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold">Zhaladshar</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Zhaladshar|<span style="color: #FF0000; font-size: small; text-decoration: none">(Talk)</span>]]}

to fix both the unreported Tidy font issues and the reported obsoletes in one go.

For the two pages with multiple misnested errors, Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2007 and Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2008

If you'd change </sup>''''' to '''</sup> that'll clear all those up. It's with the

^{'''''[[Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week|Collaboration of the Week]]:'' [[Author:XXXXXX]]}''''' posts, and there's an extra italics, and the remaining bold is misnested with the sup closer. There isn't anything else on those two pages with </sup>''''', so that's a safe X to Y find and replace.

I'm happy for you to take care of those Tidy fonts and misnested errors for me, I'm also happy to go through a temporary admin nomination process here since I've done that before on Wikivoyage, and there will be some other full protected pages of interest later on as I get the Obsoletes reduced (I'm seeing 725 obsolete errors on 75 full protected pages at this moment with 2500 unprotected that I can handle now). Your call, I'm the guest here. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I will give it a shot now. BD2412 T 19:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So, how can I tell whether that has worked? BD2412 T 20:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 Looks great, thank you so much! You can tell by the Page information (link in the tools section of the sidebar) it tells what Lint errors remain (if any) on a specific page in the Lint section towards the bottom. this has a few and this has no tracked Lint issues (of any type) remaining. In this case though, where the error type is almost eliminated from the site, it's easier to look at the list of just that one error type in particular: Special:LintErrors/tidy-font-bug. Got two pages remaining for you and that'll finish these off*.

For the single Tidy Font on Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2007 change <i><font color="#9966FF">[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i>

to

[[User:BirgitteSB|<span style="color:#9966FF">Birgitte</span>]]<span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small">SB</span>

and for the four on Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-03, change

<b><font color="000000">[[User:Adrian|A]]</font></b><font color="#646060">drian</font><b> <font color="#000000">[[User_Talk:Adrian|L]]</font></b><font color="#646060">amo </font><b><font color="#F660AB">·· </font></b>

to

<b>[[User:Adrian|<span style="color:#000000">A</span>]]</b><span style="color:#646060">drian</span><b> [[User_Talk:Adrian|<span style="color:#000000">L</span>]]</b><span style="color:#646060">amo </span><b><span style="color:#F660AB">·· </span></b>

*The other single Tidy font case (Spangineer's signature) on LlywelynII's (unprotected) talk page is a different story. I've been reverted once and the user has refused and reverted my attempt to discuss it despite clear explanation of what and why I had adjusted Spangineer's signature and the Obsolete tags in their own signature, so I've felt I'm not in a position to push it. My hope has been that another user or an admin might have better luck from the social perspective of fixing that Tidy Font. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also the LintHint tool you can use that reads that Lint info, and allows for checking a full page before publishing an edit. It gets added to your Common.js page and is a major tool I use in checking behind myself in editing. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there more protected pages that have errors to fix? BD2412 T 21:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm only interested in three pages at this moment. I'm going wait and assess what remains in the Obsoletes after the unprotected pages are depleted. My hope is that those full-protected pages with Obsolete tags will have only 4 or 5 repeating signatures and won't take much effort.

The three pages I'm interested in right now are the following. I made the full page changes in my sandbox for our convenience, so you can take the newer version of each sandbox diff and paste it to the original page for a full page or sectional replacement.

• diff Dmitrismirnov for the changes on User:Dmitrismirnov (table tags, unclosed/stripped tags)
• diff Archive for the remaining errors on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-03 (fostered table errors, obsolete/unclosed/misnested tags) and
• diff Henry James for section Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2007#Author:Henry James (stripped s tags).

No rush, whenever it is convenient. Thank you so much! Zinnober9 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes.. See Special:LintErrors by going through each namespace in turn. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Adjacent discussion

@BD2412: A susbstantial proportion of the non Page namespace Missing tags are the use of P tags to put paragraph breaks in talk page comments. Converting these over to {{pbr}} would make a substantial impact. Other missing tags are possibly more complex to fix. In terms of Page namespace the vast majority of LintErrors are resulting from unpaired format. There are some Lint's on Mainspace, but those might be tricky to fix reliably. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to keep that separate from this discussion, if you don't mind too terribly, since the errors I've asked about are a much smaller, more manageable set at this moment. And also since you are already discussing the P tags a few sections above, I don't wish to duplicate conversations if that's ok. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean {{pbr}}? I'm not sure how adding vertical spacing fits this issue. — Alien  3
3 3 06:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Additional (Protected) Pages Non exhaustive (use S as each item resolved.)

• Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2006-09 - Missing tag in Heading (unclosed SPAN)
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-03 - Misnested code tags, and possibly a need to check table end tags?
• User:Dmitrismirnov Fostered content, and missing table field markers?
• Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2007 - Misnested tags (S used over multi-block content)
• Wikisource talk:Style guide/Archives/2006-06 - Stay or unpaired DIV closing tag
• Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2006 - Stray or upaired list tags?

Missing tags ((Most likely I,B or P)

• Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2008
• Wikisource talk:Style guide/Archives/2006-06
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-04
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-05
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-06
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-07
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-11
• Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2015
• Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2018
• Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-01
• Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-09
• Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-11
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-08
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-12-31
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-03
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-04
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-06
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-06
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-07

Obselete (typically FONT)

• Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2008
• Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2008
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2005-12
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-04
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-06
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-11
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-11
• Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2006
• Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2015
• Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2016
• Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2017
• Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2018
• Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-02
• Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-04
• Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-06
• Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-07
• Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-09
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-04
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-12-31
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-12-31
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-03
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-03
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-04
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-06
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-07
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-10

Index merge request

I’m putting this request here so that administrators can deal with the Page: moves. Index:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf has recently been created, which contains the entire issue of the periodical from which Index:The Eye of Argon.djvu has been excerpted. Could someone please move the pages from the .djvu to the .pdf, please? Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe @CalendulaAsteraceae:? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to do this move, but I notice that Index:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf is missing pages 49 and 50. Maybe take this to the scan lab first? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe at least put two blind pages if the right pages are temporarily not to find anywhere... Draco flavus (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Index:Hempstead's Reports.pdf

I’ve added the missing pages from this file. /259 and /260 need to be deleted. /1 needs to be deleted and all other pages moved down by 1. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Some registration problems mentioned in Scriptorium

Does anybody have any idea what the problem could be with some new accounts' registration, as asked at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#IP_Block_Exemption? The IP does not seem to be blocked either locally or globally. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Protection of User:Red link example

I have created User:Red link example (confirmation) for use in documentation and testing.

The account is already globally locked, so cannot be used for editing.

It is vital that the user and talk pages are not created. Can someone kindly protect them both, permanently, with an edit summary noting that they are "for use in documentation and testing"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning SHB3000

• SHB3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

Long-term abuse. XReport --Tanbiruzzaman (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Spam vandal

Vansh181105 (talk • contribs) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked Beeswaxcandle (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

V22 Discussions

Hi admins, just checking if it would be ok to start three separate discussions at the Scriptorium to try to get consensus on the best way for Vector 22 to handle a few specifics, to keep the discussions with the WMF web staff going and get their support implementing the outcomes. The main things seem to be:

• {{overfloat image}} (currently breaks when Standard and Large text sizes are selected)
• Text size options in appearance menu (what should the default be, etc.)
• Dark mode

I don't want to rush in if this isn't the best way to go about this. --Yodin^T 23:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Page:St. Nicholas (serial) (IA stnicholasserial1451dodg).pdf/228

This page seems to have been left behind when the related index was move. I think this should be moved to Page:Index to St. Nicholas- Volumes I-XLV, 1873–1918 (Wilson, 1920) (IA stnicholasserial1451dodg).pdf/228 -- Beardo (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove "abuse filter editor"

So I've not had the time/energy to contribute here for a while, and I don't know if or when I'll be back. Please can someone remove my "abuse filter editor" right, for security, please?

Thanks for the kind comments at my failed admin confirmation, and best wishes to the community here :) BethNaught (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spam report

98.15.215.82 (talk • contribs) seems to be mass spamming some nonsense messages all over the place. Qq1122qq (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Qq1122qq: Done SnowyCinema (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism report

User:69.18.14.67 continues making unconstructive edits despite many warnings. Quebecguy (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Blocked for one week. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Main page

Hi, the Main page is unprotected and being vandalised —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

(Note: reprotected by Soda and cascading readded by mein fact shouldn't be cascaded. Sorry to everyone.) — Alien  3
3 3 14:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Foreword

This page needs to be removed from protection to create a disambiguation page for two poems (by Service and Lockhart). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Protection settings changed, but it would also be good to leave a note that forewords, themselves, should generally not be included there. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning MrSuckerheretoSuckyour

• MrSuckerheretoSuckyour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

Vandalism XReport --Norbillian (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked and edits revdel'd. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Local copies of files

I believe that only administrators can make local copies of files, so I’m making the request here. After some research, I have determined that E. Allen Ashwin (who translated File:An Examen of Witches.pdf and File:Compendium Maleficarum.djvu) died in 1961. Another library’s system identified Montague Summers as the latest-living author (he died in 1948), so I uploaded the files to Wikimedia Commons. However, as Ashwin died later, the files are still copyrighted in the United Kingdom (the country of origin) and so, per local Commons rules, the files cannot be hosted there. However, they are both in the public domain in the United States, so there is no copyright issue and the files can be hosted locally. Once local copies are made I will request deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Done for both. — Alien  3
3 3 20:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Shāntián Tàiláng

• Shāntián Tàiláng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

Importing his own disputes cross-wiki. Failed for a global block/lock request on Meta. Might continue his behavior of pinging others on wiki that were not blocked. Better to prevent it from happening before that actually happen. XReport --HingWahStreet (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe you better report after it happens or try to get clear consensus for global block, not reporting everywhere he is editing. Aqurs1 (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't act preëmptively on events that have not happened, nor in response to activities that occurred on other projects. With no evidence provided of any local issues, and no issues I can see in the user's local edit history since May of 2023, I do not see that any response is called for here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:New texts/item

The shift to module has changed display (compare this archive); the second-line text is now so small as to be hardly readable. The template is blocked from editing, or I would have reverted it myself. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I have changed the font-size from 83% to smaller, to conform with previous output. (and in general, when it's just one little issue there's no need to revert).

How wide of a difference were you seeing? Text made small with the small tag should be only a few pixels wider than text with an 83% font-size.

I checked the default browser style sheets, and the small tag has font-size:smaller on all browsers, except for IE, for which it's 0.83em or 10pt depending on versions.

Compare:

• Abcdef, small tag
• Abcdef, font-size:smaller
• Abcdef, 83%
• Abcdef, .83em
• Abcdef, 10pt

Given 10pt is the only one of the list which is significantly larger than the others, I assume you're on IE <= 7. — Alien  3
3 3 06:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks as though the vertical spacing may be the bigger issue. Everything is now vertically compressed, so that there is no padding above or below the second line. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

In this image, the first item is an output of the old template, and the second is the output of the module version (both uses inline styles):

I don't see a difference in spacing. (This does not have V22's huge paragraph breaks, but I have also tested with them and the spacing is the same. — Alien  3
3 3 17:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Whereas I see a considerable change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, you are right. Mea culpa, I got messed up between tabs when copypasting over. Thanks for noticing and for the screenshot.

This is due to the new version not p-wrapping like the old one did, now should be fixed. — Alien  3
3 3 17:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, this change with huge gaps between title line and author line is a retrograde step. I want to see a smaller gap there, while keeping the large gap between works in the list. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The hugeness of the gaps is due to V22 making p spacing very large (.5em 0 1em 0). We can override it back to normal paragraph spacing (.5em 0 .5em 0). done. @EncycloPetey: what do you think of this? — Alien  3
3 3 19:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The current spacing looks acceptable. It is more compact without looking compacted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Alien: Yes, it looks a lot better now. No, I don’t use Internet Explorer; on the various computers on which I edit I use Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome, and the issue was present on both. I would have taken a screenshot, but as you have already changed it there is nothing for me to show to you. Vertical spacing was an issue, but the text was also smaller. In your examples, the first two are small, but readable; the next two are very small, and difficult to read (probably what was implemented); and the last one is the size of other text. I would have reverted it because modules are unusable to most editors, as opposed to templates. If you had made the change within the template (and the template could be edited), I would have tried to make that change only; but with a module it’s best to throw the whole thing out. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 149.54.7.230

• 149.54.7.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

Vandalism XReport --Norbillian (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Done Nonsense page deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit requests

Hi, can someone please check the edit requests at Category:Wikisource protected edit requests? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

All Done I believe (except one old one which needs more discussion). — Alien  3
3 3 19:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Jaredscribe

Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) has shown much enthusiasm of late, but has been making many bad or questionable edits. I tried to provide guidance on their User:Talk page, which was met with arguments. I am hoping that advice from other Admins will help.

Some specific kinds of problems I'm seeing.:

1. Portal edits that confuse sections, content, and purpose of portals:
   • Portal:Federal Government of the United States/Legislative branch. See this edit, where links pertaining to the members and committees of Congress were replaced with "Republicans" and "Democrats" (which are US political parties, not a part of the US Congress). Links added to the Acts, Code, and Statutes, which are not part of Congress itself, but are federal Legislation, which is a separate section in the portal. This could be discussed, but Jaredscribe has cited this set of edits as an example of his best work [5].
   • Portal:United States Government Publishing Office See this edit, where external links are added as list items to the Portal.
   • Portal:United States Department of State See this edit, adding Wikipedia links and external links.
2. Excessive creation of Portal redirects, some incorrect.
   • Portal:Secretary of the Treasury. See this creation, which redirects a link on Portal:United States Department of Commerce crediting recipient in "by POTUS Donald Trump addressed to Commerce and Secretary of the Treasury", redirecting the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury.
   • Similarly Portal:Secretary of Commerce is redirected to Portal:United States Department of Commerce, miscrditting authorship on Portal:United States Department of the Treasury.
3. Misuse of the {{expand}} template:
   • See for example here. We had a discussion last July concluding that the template should not be used on Author pages because such lists are inherently open-ended. This situation is completely analogous, but the point is argued by Jaredscribe.
4. Repeated creation of cross-namespace redirects:
   • Portal space to Mainspace: P:LOCC
   • From Wikisource: to Portal: space Wikisource:LOC, Wikisource:EOP, Wikisource:DOGE, Wikisource:OMB
   • From Mainspace to Portal: space Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury

     note these last were created after I had alerted Jaredscribe to the fact the cross-namespace redirects are not allowed, but Jaredscribe denied this happened. Admins can look into the dates on the creation of the deleted redirects to confirm that were created afterwards, despite Jaredscribe's claim.

5. Inserting large sections of redlinks without scan links in Portal: space.
   • The largest single block of red links I found was at Portal:United States Department of the Treasury. [6] Other examples exist.
6. Importing Wikipedia content to Portal: space on Wikisource:
   • This edit explicitly imports encyclopedic content from Wikipedia.
7. Adding unformatted copydumps:
   • The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal

     Proposed for deletion by Alien333 for being "an OCR dump" [7]. Jaredscribe opposes the deletion. [8].

   • Imposing Maximum Pressure on the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Denying Iran All Paths to a Nuclear Weapon, and Countering Iran’s Malign Influence

     Proposed for deletion by me for being an "[u]nformatted copydump with no backing scan". Jaredscribe opposes [9] based on notability, legibility, and the fact that scans will eventually be available.

This is not an exhaustive list of issues, but does illustrate the kinds of problems I'm seeing. I would appreciate other Admins commenting, since my discussion with Jaredscribe directly was met with arguments. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

4. Most of these errors I quickly corrected once I learned how to do redirects. P:LOC, P:EOP, P:DOGE, P:OMB. I think he knows that by now, because I already informed him, and many of these have been linked in our prior discussion. Therefore bringing up this error now is unnecessary and strikes me as tendentious. I figured out this fix on my own, @EncycloPetey did not bother to teach me or link me to the policy or guideline or shortcuts or redirects, which he should have done. I'll respond to the other numbered charges against me, in individual comments, so that each can be analyzed in turn, and responded to individually. The Portals on USGov have been dilapidated and defunct for a long time, and my rapid changes and bold improvements may occasionally yield some honest mistakes that I or others may correct.

I will be happy if other good-faith editors work to improve them. And I will happy to receive any advice or correction based on Wikisource policies and guidelines. However, "because I said so" is not a valid justification for an administrative action, or for any editorial decision. It seemed that @EncycloPetey was unwilling or unable to make constructive contributions in this content area - although I'm sure he has expertise in others, which I will respect. However the Status Quo Ante was unacceptable, and required - and still requires - bold changes.

Jaredscribe (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

2. See Executive Order 14196 (2025) by President of the United States, A Plan for Establishing a United States Sovereign Wealth Fund addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce.

This raises a question on how to best annotate the documents. This is better discussed in the Scriptorium or the project page WS:USEO, rather than the Administrator's Noticeboard, because it concerns everyone and there does not exist a current guideline around this, as far as I or @EncycloPetey knows. He has not been able to cite any policy or guideline, in his "guidance" to me, and he is not contributing to the content area, so he wouldn't know. I've adoped the convention described in this RfC: Wikisource:Scriptorium#U.S._Federal_Departments,_Secretarys, and Annotations of Government documents

Jaredscribe (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

On P:TREASURY I recently added this [10] relevant links that provide important historical context. @EncycloPetey could have done that, or a dozen other contructive tasks, but instead he is wasting his own time, mine, and yours with this unnecessary fault-finding. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

1.1 On our talk page discussion I'd already invited him to discuss this content question with me here: Portal_talk:Federal Government of the United States#Recent Improvements to the Legislative_Branch. But instead of making constructive improvements, or civilly discussing my obviously good-faith and well-informed contributions on the Portal talk page, like he should have done and like I am now doing, he issued a warning and brought me here. That is disruptive and unnecessary. He also seems to misunderstand a basic fact about the Portal:United States Congress (which was linked from the P:FED portal until I came.) the United States Statutes at Large are the compiled Portal:Acts of the United States Congresses. Contrary to his claim, this highly notable Work and highly relevant Portal were not listed anywhere on the P:FED portal before I arrived, and the place where they belong is under the #Legislative branch. Wherefore does he complain? Answer on the talk page. Shouldn't he be thanking me for adding blue links, and removing defunct red ones - since redlinks are what he has complained on my talk page?

Regarding proposed redlink Categories Category:Republicans and Category:Democrats, they are no more red than the other category links he complains about my deleting: Category:Caucuses of the United States Congress · Category:Committees of the United States Congress. The difference is that these categories would be more useful and easily applied to the respective Author pages of the individual congresspeople than the redlink categories that @EncycloPetey is intent on retaining. This is despite his abhorrence of redlinks when I've added them on other Portals. His approach is incoherent, and the history will reflect that he has done nothing to improve that Portal since the day it was created, or any other Portal, AFAIK, in this content area.

Jaredscribe (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so he finds fault with me for putting the Statutes At Large under Congress, rather than under United States federal legislation, which doesn't exist yet here. He could have blueified that redlink, but instead chose to complain about my constructive contribution.

So I decided to replace the redlink, went and did some research, and quickly discovered a new portal that hadn't included: Portal:Federal law of the United States, and I put in the sub-heading replacing the redlink.

[11]

@EncycloPetey ought to thank me for that.

And then under the Judicial Branch I corrected this gross mistake: [12], and then added these important missing sub-Portals: [13]

Instead of doing the research and completing these important tasks, he is not only neglecting them and wasting his own time, he is wasting yours and mine and attempting to deter me and other competent contributors from doing the work. This is disruptive. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

3. He finds fault with my use of Template:Expand, and yes the point is argued by me, because there is no policy or guideline that says I shouldn't, there are good practical reasons why I should (Wikisource is not finished!), and because the template was clearly designed to be used on Portals, as I've demonstrated, yet @EncycloPetey refuses to concede the point, which is tendentious.

Here is a case on P:DOGE where I used the expand template to remind myself and others of work that remained to be done, and then removed the expand template once some elements were added in that section. [14] That is how expand can and should be used on Portals under development, and there is no policy or guideline that says otherwise. A discussion years ago in the Scriptorium is not known by or accessible to average editors, and it is not binding unless the changes are made in the relevant guideline pages, and he shouldn't fault me for not knowing about it. That discussion only applied to Author pages anyway, and published guidelines are of greater authority than obscure discussion or private administrative opinions.

Now on Portal:NATO, there is not a single document between the years of 1951 and 2025. What!? This is exactly why we need the expand template: Because WIKISOURCE IS NOT FINISHED.

So I added a section Cold War Era with an expand template, yet he reverted this. Why?!

As I already him on my talk page discussion, and I ask him again, now with all of the administrators present: Portal:NATO 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?

He apparently does think, incorrectly, that this material is of no historical interest and is not worth adding, because he reverted it [15]

Now I ask @EncycloPetey, to please obvert and restore my contribution, so that I and other researchers can get to work improving the Portal:NATO. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe: I'm not even going to try to penetrate this absurd wall of text. The central point you're missing is that when an administrator gives you guidance you had better listen. If you think they are mistaken on a specific issue you can try to discuss that with them, and if that does not lead to agreement you can raise that issue with the community at the Scriptorium. Administrators are by no means infallible, but they do have a mandate from the community that means your first instinct ought to be assuming they know what they're talking about. Especially when you are a relatively new contributor to Wikisource. Xover (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I always find it a bit unfortunate when a dedicated new user tries to work on various meta pages like portals before they get accustomed to our both written and customary rules. I agree that it is confusing for a newbie when the project has its written rules underdeveloped, which is unfortunately the case of most (all?) wikiprojects with a small community of contributors like en.ws. My advice is to focus on text proofreading which is the most important thing to learn at first, leaving other organizational stuff like portals etc. for later, when the user understands the local processes better, and to keep in mind that an admin's guidance is usually very useful. If the user feels strongly that the admin was not right in some specific case, the specific case can be brought to WS:Scriptorium to obtain an opinion of the community. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on proofreading. I decided to take it, and validated my first two documents, for a total of five pages. In the past when adding wikilinks to documents I'd been effectively proofreading them also but without pressing the button to change the page status. For the next month I'll focus on this primarily Help:Proofread, so as to get accustomed to the written rules and customary practices.

Jaredscribe (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

More edit requests

Hi, I made some more edit requests at Category:Wikisource protected edit requests if an admin could look through them that would be nice :) —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix: All Done. — Alien  3
3 3 16:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: Thank you! When you have the time could you also look through Template talk:Main page/styles.css please? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

User:TE(æ)A,ea.

TE(æ)A,ea. (talk • contribs) has chosen to violate policy and community practice:

1. They made the request for the page move of Renascence and other poems --> Renascence and Other Poems. [16]
2. I let them know that sentence case is explicitly allowed by policy, and opposed the move. [17]
3. They proceeded to make the move anyway [18]
4. They deleted their request and my reply [19]
5. 12 hours after the section and comments were restored [20], and after the user was notified of this discussion, they again deleted the section, with their comments and mine. [21] with the misleading edit summary "Adding response"

The problem is two-fold:

1. Making changes in violation of policy in WS:Style Guide after being explicitly reminded of policy that accepts and prefers sentence case.
2. Deleting conversations and the comments of other Users.

Since User:TE(æ)A,ea. has been at odds with me recent months, I am asking other admins to weigh in on these actions. I am not seeking a punitive response, but neither am I ruling it out, should another admin choose to do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Could you please explain this and this? Xover (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Xover: Sorry, I don’t check pings very often so I just now saw this discussion. EncycloPetey has banned me (wrongly) in the past, so I’m not surprised at this recent outburst. (In fact, it was because EncycloPetey disagreed with me about style in a collection of poetry, and he enforced his difference of opinion through banning me—what a coincidence.) The complaint refers to a collection of poetry which I found while adding poem-level redirection and disambiguation pages for another work. The collection’s sub-pages all used all-capitals, which is not in style, so I made a request for moving. He opposed the move, so I did it myself and removed the request (as it was already completed). Had I known that I would have been harassed over the move, I would have just made the move myself—in which case I would not be objected to as here. The edit summary is correct; I added a response to a comment made by Jaredscribe (another user on EncycloPetey’s bad side). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

   Comment Context of the previous "ban": They inserted smart quotes into texts, despite the fact that straight quotes were explicitly required at the time. Then they fought three admins to change policy in their favor while discussion was happening: [22]; [23]; [24]. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: As you should know well we do not remove talk page comments except in very narrow and exceptional circumstances, and especially not threads where others have already responded. Doing so as an anciliary change to a different edit and without mentioning it in the edit summary is deceptive. Doing it twice is not merely incrementally worse as it suggest that the deceptiveness of the edit was deliberate rather than incidental. I think you were right to open a community discussion in this case, but ignoring it when you did not get the response you wanted and unilaterally moving the page after it was clear that there was opposition to it is not acceptable behaviour.

  You may also want to reflect on the fact that you could have responded neutrally to this (explicitly neutrally worded) thread, but instead chose to lace your response with hostility and accusations against EncycloPetey. On a collaborative project attack is not the best defence. Xover (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Note: I have restored the thread in question. Please do not remove it again. Xover (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Center

This is another template whose output has changed; compare this with the current examples. The old version gives a paragraph-level gap between lines; the new version gives a break-level gap. This leads to really bad tightening of centered items with a number of individual lines (headings of court cases, in my instance). I can’t fix this because the page is protected. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Paragraph spacing

As there was no opposition in the discussion now archived in Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2025-01#Paragraph_spacing, may I ask somebody more skilled in this to make the proposed change? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Could e.g. @Alien333: make it? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

(I'm a bit busy IRL right now, so I don't have the time to properly get to it. next week probably) — Alien  3
3 3 16:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)