text:
User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2021

Prometheus Unbound
Coincidence that we were both looking at this at the same time. I've been hoping someone would take on completion of the play for quite some time. Glad to see it was finished. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So am I, but it is not me to be credited for it, it was Chrisguise who finished it :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. :) --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin
Hi Jan,

I've closed your nomination as successful, and granted you the bit. Thanks for taking on the extra responsibility, and please speak up if you need support or advice.

If you wish you may add any language or extra access data to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Administrators#Current_administrators.

Cheers, Hesperian 06:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for both closing the nomination and for the offer of support. I will be learning step by step and will definitely ask whenever I will not be certain about anything. Thanks again.--Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Oh … you are already an admin, I had this brilliantly concise proposal to make you one. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the community was so kind to lend me the rights, but thanks very much for expressing your trust anyway, I do appreciate it :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

my SVG project
Some background. I uploaded a few field guides, first because the images were beautiful, second because they were useful where I live, and third because I wanted them for my device. I expanded beyond the one author to include guides for weather, stars, etc. Another person (not the uploader listed, btw) took over these star images which I was glad for, because those images are very uninteresting to renovate. Several people contributed. Since that time, that project manager has disappeared from wikimedia projects -- but it was that person who suggested that these images were better as SVG. I agreed.

I know next to nothing about making SVG. So, I took the 50 images from the book and requested an artist. I got a volunteer for this! A well-behaved Swede, and these Northern hemisphere images work for Europe as well as USA, as does the content of the book. My problems with this book globally have been about hemispheres and seasons.

About "correct", correct behavior and professionalism made this mess. Innovative means making good changes, traditional means the way things are always done. Innovation can lead to isolation on a few pricey devices. Tradition can lead to dogma, where "we just do things this way but can't remember the reason.

Two movies:

Innovation: the old 1960s Star Trek on bluray. You can flip between renovated old footage of the ship and new a cgized ship. I confess, I watched the rennovated version. Pricey bluray player and screen required.

Tradition: Back to the Future. The mad-scientist made a complicated contraption that would open a can of food and empty it into the dish for his pet. The pet moved away, but the machine kept working, making a toxic pile of unconsummed food. The machine had been clever and accomplished its task elegantly while the pet was there.

Feel free to question my tastes for what is beautiful whenever it occurs to you on my talk page. Good innovation and good traditions (and good phraseology) can only come from less stifled chats away from public forum, at least it is true for me.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining the background, I have never had any doubts about your good will. In fact we both agree with many things and I also have nothing against your innovations. They only need to be saved separately as an annotated version, and then everything will be in accordance with WS policy. I can help with it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Anthologia Palatina
Hello, thanks for writing me. The Anthologia is a very interesting book, but is huge and obscure. I do not think I will be able to add more sections regularly, I was thinking that maybe everyone interested could add his/her snippet when needed. Let me know if this approach is acceptable. --FabioDiNinno (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

interwiki communication
That both wikis were "doing the right thing" according to the available guidelines. I thought that my example for the need of wikisource guidelines at the commons was as good as it was innocent.

Another helpful thing there would be guidelines for the differences in license use. I like the Berne agreement and we (the U.S.) have Gutenberg for fuzzy copyright.

But, on a personal note, some warning that you were going to exercise your enabledness and a deadline so I could download the project as it was would have been "community minded" and "nice" and not "mean spirited and abusive", don't you think?

Burying a problem without fixing it doesn't keep the "fun" in dysfunctional.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 * the version you wanted already exists.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Hello. As for the guidelines, I have unfortunately not seen any so far that would forbid black and white images in Commons or any other guideliness that would be an obstacle for placing the images we need to Commons. If you know of any, let me know please. In such a case the needed pictures can be hosted directly at Wikisource, but I do not think it will be necessary.There is no need for Wikisource guidelines as there already are good ones, see WS:Annotations and Help:Annotating.Wikisource guidelines can be in a specific case overruled by community decision if other contributors come to the conclusion that some rule should not apply to that case. So I started a discussion on the topic, but no overruling took place there.Despite the fact that you were warned that these annotated images are against our rules on the 10 February, I have noticed today that you kept changing the images afterwards too, e. g. on 15th or 23rd February and so changed all the remaining pictures without any support for such an action. So that is why I have decided to revert it.The version you have linked above is a different edition. What you were trying to "improve" was the 1911 edition, while the link above goes to a 2007 edition. If the other edition is free, it can definitely be added here as well and you will have my full support. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I had a detailed look at the Gutenberg link and I can see that the 2007 edition is just a reprint of our (1911) edition, so it would probably not make any sense to add it here. However, if you want to make a new version with the coloured images, you can start an annotated version according to the guidelines linked above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I seem to remember a good deal mentioned about your "tastes" in that discussion. My problem is that I requested an art project for a wikimedia foundation project from an artist at a wikimedia foundation project and this is what happened from that.  Everybody followed the existing guidelines. The hours of good faith work and the clear example of the communication problem apparently does not suit the "taste in images" you expressed.

 * When this happens again, which it will for several technical and scientific work here, and new books -- will you keep burying the problem and be so heartless to this and other contributing artists?

 * Artists will need to guess or magically understand the needs of wikisource, do sourcerers need to guess the needs at commons? Because that should be addressed also.

 * The gutenberg version was provided to help fill your personal non-SVG tastes, which you have completely expressed now.

 * SVG is the best format for simple line-drawings and maps and graphs, it is not the best for engravings or most color images. There needs to be guidelines at the commons, there needs to be patience and tolerance until that happens. This time, it is required from you if you are like me and not so good at the writing of such things. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 * It is not about forbiding, it is about guidelines that artists follow.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with my tastes, I am arguing only with WS rules. Before I mentioned my tastes only in reaction to you mentioning yours, and the intention was to show that tastes in fact do not matter.You still talk about some guidelines of Commons, but I do not understand why we should care about them. This is Wikisource. It is absolutely OK if artists in Commons follow some guidelines of theirs. They can create the pictures. They can upload them to Commons. However these pictures do not belong to Wikisource. You cannot take a 1911 edition of a work and replace all pictures there by images drawn in 2021 and still convince the readers that it is the 1911 edition in the book’s title page, as happened with A Field Book of the Stars. If we were doing this, we would be lying to our readers and Wikisource rules do not allow it.As for "When this happens again…" I am afraid it must not happen again unless such an action is approved by Wikisource community. If the problem is created again, I will definitely not bury it, but I will fix it the same way I did now.Artists do not need to guess the needs of Wikisource, because we usually do not need any artists here. We need original pictures and not new ones. Having a picture in the .svg instead of .jpg format can be useful, but for this we need just somebody technically skilled, we do not need an artist.I absolutely do not understand the sentence "It is not about forbidding, it is about guidelines that artists follow." Either the guidelines forbid something or allow it. If they do not forbid what we need, it can be done the way we need it.I have no non-svg tastes and I have never expressed anything like that, so please do not put into my mouth what I have not said. I agree that svg is a good format for simple line drawings, but that does not mean that the original black and white drawings have to be coloured, the lines changed, position of text labels changed, and other information that was not in the original picture added and so on. This has absolutely nothing to do with the svg. I do not care very much if the picture is in the .jpg or .svg format as far as it is still absolutely the same picture as it was in the original book.In addition to what I have written above I will point out some more rules:
 * WS:What Wikisource includes talks about published illustrations or photographs from the book itself, not about new unpublished illustrations.
 * WS:Image guidelines talks about "an image used to display part of a document: a diagram, illustration, photograph and other content of an original work ", again not about a new version of the picture which is different from the original work.
 * I think I have already explained everything and I am willing to continue discussing the matter only if you come with some arguments based on Wikisource rules, not on any irrelevant guidelines of artists. Thanks for understanding. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. You have claimed that English is not your first language.

The pages that you deleted were at a crossing of wikifoundation project paths. Please verify that you understand this statement.

I have stated in many varieties that the guidelines for contributing artists at the commons were followed, quite precisely. Please verify that you understand this.

You stated that the images were not forbidden at the commons, which makes me think you do not understand what I have been saying. Please verify or clarify this.

In your attempt to close this discussion, you stated that you don't care if artists want to contribute, and you personally don't want them to contribute. Please verify and/or clarify this.

Thank you for your understanding, and it might help me to know what your first language is and what brings you to en.ws?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're coming across as pretty confrontational and discourteous here. Perhaps if you took a step back and tried to understand what Jan is saying, instead of arguing so emphatically for your point of view, communication would be easier. For example, Jan has been addressing the local policies on Wikisource and the ways in which your contributions on Wikisource have been problematic relative to these. You, on the other hand, have been mainly focusing on the local policies on Commons. If the point you are trying to make is that the policies on the two projects interact in a way that is not desirable, and that there is a need for new inter-project guidelines that explain the differences, then that is not coming across clearly. --Xover (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I won’t take this offendedly, we simply had a bad start and I understand that you feel disappointed that what you wanted to achieve is not possible. Meanwhile I have also received quite a nice message of yours at my talk page in Commons which I appreciated. I would also like to express my general respect to your work here. Unfortunately, the above discussed changes are really not possible, I am sorry. If you have any specific idea for some potential inter-project guidelines and what they should contain, feel free to sugest it e. g. at WS:Scriptorium. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked up the definition of "confrontational" and many of those definitions include the word "aggressive". I have no tools of aggression here or at any wmf project. So, by definition, the confrontation is the weight on the back of the administrator, the person with the tools or the privelege.

 * I was angry and took a day of productivity and very little interaction to cool off in, but it was truly in anger that I went to commons and reviewed Jan's uploads. Also it is when I cooled down.

 * and I took the commons side here with this project.  I have some understanding of how much time is spent making and uploading images.  Making good images even more so.  I have a software and a method that makes the best cleaned up engravings I have seen so far (when I have a computer, I build it for that software -- that my recent installations failed to boot but gave me a commandline, I don't know what to do about that or why).

 * So, this project was at a crossroads. I used to grow weary of en.w use of their little catch phrase "assume good faith".  Its use seemed to allow aggressors to win.  Assumptions in the world of science demand a proof before they are fact.

 * The project was there in good faith, the proof being that the artist accomplished the task following all of the available guidelines. Not having a computer, I requested the image work from the right place, meaning I made a friend, not used an existing friend. No aggression from me or the artist, here or there.

 * My edits were reverted, not Jans. SIC could have been changed to tooltip, but my guess is that Jan wanted me to feel punished rather than taught -- but, I haven't actually looked at the text beyond the watchlist. I have learned most things here from thoughtful or knowledgible edits to my works.

 * Asking the aggressor (the person hitting the revert button) to clarify their intentions is not aggressive as much as it is a good review for everyone. I am still angry, but not aggressive.  So, another word or call out the real confronter? --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry you feel it that way and if I can do anything to make you feel less distressed, I will do it if it is not against Wikisource rules. I did not want to "punish" anybody, I just wanted to put things right according to our rules as well as common sense. As I wrote above, you cannot have a book which says that it was created in 1911 in its title page, and change original 1911 pictures for "modern ones" from 2021. That would be falsifying history. I am sorry, but it is not possible in Wikisource.
 * If you wished to be taught, you should have read carefully everything I wrote on the topic in Scriptorium and you should also read what I have written here. Not only you did not disprove my points concerning WS rules, you did not even try to address them.
 * If you wished to be taught, why did you ignore warning that replacing the pictures is against WS rules and continued as if nobody told you anything? How can I discuss with somebody who does not listen and continues, ignoring all advice? I did my best to explain everything in detail, but you did not try to take anything from it.
 * As for the effort to make the pictures: nobody deleted the pictures and they are still available in Commons to anybody to whom they may be useful. Somebody may for example decide to create an updated edition of our book, using the old text and updated images from Commons. You can do it as well. It just cannot be done in Wikisource. I do not know much about Wikibooks, but it might be worth asking there.
 * If you disagree with Wikisource rules, you can also suggest their change. That is the last advice I can give. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The example of the problem was buried by a person who was saying "those images are not forbidden at commons" and who has so far not provided the clarification of reasoning I requested. This exchange is proof that words are failing.  The project, as it was, showed the problem between wikis.  That it was buried  before it was used to fix that big problem is a very very little problem that might be easily fixed once you provide the clarification I asked for.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am definitely not going to react to this . If you need some more clarification, you can try asking for it again but in a different way, although I am quite affraid I will not be able to explain it better than I did so many times before. However, if you tone down, I can try. I would also like to ask you to re-read what I wrote in the previous discussions here and at Scriptorium, because the reasons why the pictures cannot be replaced were given there repeatedly. It would help if you did not keep asking about things explained many times before. It would also help if you focused more on Wikisource rules and their relation to the usage of pictures in old works instead of focusing on my person. It is not evil me who does not want to allow you to do what you wanted. It is Wikisource rules. Above I suggested you can try to change them. Before you succeed in this, there is nothing to be done. If you have considered all this and still have any question, ask, I will answer.As for the alleged inter-wiki problem: There is absolutely no problem between Wikisource and Commons. Wikisource needs to have original images in the transcribed works. Commons enables to upload original images and also enables Wikisource to use them. No problem, everything is OK. If somebody told you that Wikisource has any problems with Commons or vice versa, they were not right. The only problem was created by your attempts to replace the original images. Commons does not require to replace original images in works hosted at Wikisource. No clash.Unfortunately, you do not try to understand the point, sometimes it seems you just want to offend me. I have to say that I have already experienced so much in so many wikiprojects that it is not so easy to upset me. However, if you really want an answer, do not address me as "a person", otherwise I will interpret it as a sign that you only seek controversy.Let me also ask you one question: After you were explained that replacing the pictures is not possible including the reasons why it is not possible, what exactly do you want to achieve now? If it is possible, I can try to suggest some way how you can achieve it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

On The Spiritual Battle translator
Hi. Wondering why we don't have active wikilinks and an author page for the translator, Charis Enns. Typically we would have such a page. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. I wanted to found the author page and I asked Charis Enns to direct me to some source which would tell us something more about her occupation and so on, but she expressed her wish not to have such a page here. I decided to comply with the wish as a courtesy to her cooperation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Share your feedback on the OCR improvements!
Hello! We (the team responsible for the Community Wishlist Survey) have launched the project for OCR improvements. With this project, we aim to improve the experience of using OCR tools on Wikisource. Please refer to our project page, which provides a full summary of the project and the main problem areas that we have identified.

We would love if you could answer the questions below. Your feedback is incredibly important to us and it will directly impact the choices we make. Thank you in advance, and we look forward to reading your feedback! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your edit at Wikisource-Statement of Mutual Understanding
Hello. I'm unclear on why you removed the external link I had just inserted at https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Statement_of_Mutual_Understanding_on_the_No_Gun_Ri_Investigations&diff=next&oldid=11025878.

Someone had inserted an "unlinked" tag atop this article, complaining nothing linked to it and so it was a candidate for deletion. This "Statement of Mutual Understanding" is an important document from the investigation of the No Gun Ri massacre. Hence, I placed a link to the Wikisource article within the No Gun Ri massacre article at WP, and inserted the reciprocal link to No Gun Ri massacre at this Wikisource article. Why now remove the link at Wikisource and subject an important document to deletion? Thank you. Cjhanley (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. External links are considered annotations which are not supported in transcriptions of original works in Wikisource. As for the template, adding the link to a Wikipedia article would not help anyway, as the template directly says:
 * Add links to this page from other pages (i. e. not links from this page to some other page)
 * Links from other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedia, do not count.
 * What is more, the link which you added was broken.
 * Although the template suggests a possibility of deletion of the work, current practice is different and the work definitely cannot be deleted for this sole reason. A more serious problem is that there is no source of where the text was taken from but this can be fixed. If the text is authentic and if it is not copyrighted, there is practically no danger of its deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the very clear explanation. Cjhanley (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

One for you
Saw this and thought of you and R.U.R.: https://blog.archive.org/2021/03/24/major-scifi-discovery-hiding-in-plain-sight-at-the-internet-archive :-D Inductiveload— talk/contribs 19:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . Well, what is surprising for me is not the fact that the word comes from 1920, but that the author of the article states that originally it was thought that it comes from 1923 :-) I can understand that the author did not know the date, but I cannot imagine that it was generally necessary to wait for such a "discovery" in the IA. Not only that Czech National Library offers the 1920 copy to borrow to anybody with the library card, but even English Wikipedia article gives the date of the play as 1920 (and in fact there are several more editions between 1920 and 1923).Maybe the author did not want to discuss the origin of the word as such, but only its first appearance in English language. The play was first translated into English in 1923 and so it is logical to assume that the word got into English on that year, while Caralee Adams "discovered" the word used in English text (Rossum’s Universal Robots) in the subtitle of the original 1920 Czech book. The reason is that the fictional company was a multinational company and so even in the Czech original it has got an English name. This is no surprise to anybody who knows the Czech original, but it can be surprising to other people. However, it is doubtful if this can be considered as the date of the entry of the word into English language. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

High res images
Apropos T279873, you might like User:Inductiveload/jump_to_file, which, amongst other things, allows you to load the (nearly) original high-res images from IA (or Hathi) directly into the ProofreadPage image pane.

Disclaimer: good for the eyes and soul, bad for the bandwidth cap (if you have one). Inductiveload— talk/contribs 07:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, that looks extremely interesting, I will definitely have a closer look at it, thanks very much! However, it probably solves only a part of the problem. Profreading the files at Wikisource is only one of the reasons why they are being uploaded to Commons, another one is to make them accessible to other Commons users, and so it would be good if other people not possessing the script could enjoy good quality scans too. Now they are accessible from the IA, but will they be there tomorrow?
 * BTW, after the image is loaded from the external source, will other WS contributors see it as well, or only those possessing your script? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Only you will see it, as it's loaded directly to your browser from the Internet Archive's servers.
 * Uploading the images direct from IA to Commons is possible, but it's a lot of data and a lot of individual files (= a lot of time spent uploading). Alternatively, the high-res files can be packaged into a PDF losslessly, but the PDF will be really big (in this case it's "only" about 90MB, but in longer or denser works, it can be 10x that, which is unfriendly for, say, mobile use of the file, like reading the PDF on a tablet). And whoever does the upload will have to download all the data from the IA, process it, and re-upload to Commons. I guess you could talk to commons:User:Fæ, since they probably have a better handle on that kind of thing.
 * A middle road is to regenerate the PDF (or DJVU) from the source images, but with less compression. Again, that's a lot of bandwidth and processing time.
 * We can even have "image-only" indexes which ready directly from the images, but they're a little tricky to set up (pending building more logic in the the extension) and have the downside that managing n image pages at Commons is much harder than a single PDF/DjVu and nearly always needs a bot to handle.
 * If the images existed on Commons, and there was a robust way to reference them from an Index (or File), there's no reason "Jump to File" couldn't pull from there. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 09:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have just added the script to my common.js and it is awesome! It is one of the gadgets that should definitely be available by default! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Czech and Slovak literature in English, second edition
In a quest to downsize my library, I am considering getting rid of this book. Thus I uploaded the HathiTrust scans to File:Czech and Slovak literature in English.djvu while I still had a copy I could compare to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, I will be happy to start working on it. I have had this book in my mind for a long time, only waiting until I add more works that the book deals about to Wikisource. I guess there are quite a lot of them now so I will go ahead :-) Thanks very much for uploading it! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Jan Zizka Film
Dobrý den,

jsem line producentem filmu Jan Žižka Petra Jákla. Všiml jsem si, že přispíváte na stránku AJ verze o Janu Žižkovi. Rádi bychom některé informace doplnit ve vztahu k připravovanému filmu. Jedná se především o zbojnická léta, mládí příbuzenstvo ve vztahu k připravovanému filmu. Chtěl bych vás poprosit o pomoc se přípravou obsahu a editací wikipedie. Rádi související náklady uhradíme. Prosím kontaktuje mne na čísle 00420 724809247.

Děkuji,

Viktor Krištof

PS: Omlouvám se za tuto formu, ale kontakt jsem nikde nenašel.

The da Vinci Barnstar

 * Thanks, I was happy to help :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

sloppiness
A good thing you were all there to help, correcting my appalling sloppiness, I hope there are not too many other examples of my overlooking so many obvious things. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That was just a trifle. Other people have to correct similar mistakes of mine too often and so I am happy when I have a chance to help somebody too :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

please help with creating a page list
Hello Jan, thank you for welcoming me to English wikisource. First time I import a text and don't know how to : Create a pagelist for the source file before commencing proofreading (to verify file is correct). As seen on :Index:Rambles in Germany and Italy in 1840, 1842, and 1843 - Volume 1.djvu. I have been participating to french wikisource for several years, proofreadinging and validating texts. --Stamlou (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC) Hello. I am every sorry, I am going to be offline for some time beginning now and have no time to answer, but I am sure that at WS:Scriptorium/Help or just WS:Scriptorium somebody will help you too. I do apologize. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have fixed up the file (added page list and replace the broken page #2) and added Volume 2 of the same book at Index:Rambles in Germany and Italy in 1840, 1842, and 1843 - Volume 2.djvu. Let me know if you need any more help! Inductiveload— talk/contribs 08:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help. I would like to know how to add page list, I have read instructions on this subject and did not understand instructions. --Stamlou (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

math problems
Those borderlines that you are collapsing are math problems. The line indicates that the number below them is a solution.

If there is a "rule" allowing you to remove those lines, perhaps you have a better way to show that there is math occuring below where the line used to be....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Also, I used xml because my first "text" symbols were drawing as "emoji" in some browsers.

 * Removing the math parts of the text for me would be like if someone collapsed all of your stanza's into paragraphs. I would never do that, but that is the feeling here.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 * First, thank you very much for adding these kinds of books! As for the collapsing: I did it because I did not consider it controversial at all. I did not think about the problem which you have now raised and I admit it is an interesting point. However, it is the way in which the author of the book decided to do it. If he was not afraid of confusing the readers, why should we? Imo, we should make the work as close to the way of the original author as possible. Besides that, non-collapsing the lines does not solve anything, look e. g. here to the bottom of the page. It is not collapsed (before I collapsed it) and it resembles two maths problems (2+17=14 39+55=44) much more than after collapsing. However, it is just my opinion and I am not going to fight for it, so if you feel really strong about it, you can revert the collapsing :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 * As for the symbols: here is what your version looked like in my browser and why I decided to replace the codes with symbols: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AsXFVO6ZT_AogQKyjpT1k2mNYpgw . --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Second thing first! Those -tards and their emoji.  I decided that I was going to "call" them by their xml name, leaving the unicode name to the emoji stylers.  They are not even emoji!!  That is for whoever styled them to look like emoji, not you.  It should not be difficult to paste them one way or the other.  To divide xml and unicode the way that I did makes sense.  My answer to everyone whose browser opts to style them is "fix your browser".  That being said, thank you for replacing them, but they are like that throughout the book and in several tables, one of which is 31 columns wide....

 * I have not looked at the first thing yet. Is there a tradition here for not discussing changes with the sole contributor to a book?  Because, it seems to be without couth.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Your changes were great, weird thing about tables here. Borders were not working (not collapsing) when I used table styles ts so I went back to straight css.  Then they started to do that with the css.  It seems wrong that an extra "command" needs to be made for wiki tables to work when comparing them to tables that have been pasted here from gutenberg.  So, more whining, but not directed at you, more at the multi-personality of the wiki interface.  Thank you and sorry I felt like killing you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Where no collapsing is needed: Handbook of Meteorology/Appendix--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If a character is showing up as emoji, you can use & #65038; after it; so ♈ (default) and ♈ (should definitely not be emoji).--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It works as intended on my computer (first one looks like a purple emoji, the other one like a symbol) but not on my mobile where both look like red emojis :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is for sure the point where the browser on the mobile needs to be fixed. I wonder if there is a way to tell them that this is happening? The UCC really should create Pictograms for these, that is a more universal fix, but if I understand this correctly, it is instructions to use text.  Here is a url that does not say much https://util.unicode.org/UnicodeJsps/character.jsp?a=FE0E and a pdf for the proposal https://unicode.org/L2/L2016/16361-vs-for-96-symbols.pdf (Roozbeh worked on gtk text handling. rtl was initially a pain...).  It is like "fix the bug, don't accommodate it."  Do you know the name of the mobile's browser?

 * Also, thanks for finding those two I missed....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Another url; all the problems (I think) https://unicode.org/Public/emoji/11.0/emoji-variation-sequences.txt --RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I use Chrome in my mobile, but in fact I do not bother about my personal browsing experience because adjusting only my personal browser does not solve anything. We should at least try to address the problem as generally as possible, because we cannot expect that all our readers would search some hidden possibilities of adjusting their browsers. They just need to see everything properly immediately after opening the work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I recommend a screenshot of the page, a screenshot of the page source and maybe that unicode link I provided, with the list of textified and emojified eh, dingbats... The browser should work for this.  Someone would be glad to know it there, I think.  https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95315

One Hundred Poems by Kabir (1915)
Hi Jan. The 1915 version printed in India does have the original Hindi poems as well, which in my opinion add a lot of value to the translations. Unfortunately, I cannot find a soft copy of the Indian edition anywhere on the web, but I do have a print copy. How do I use it to add the Hindi text? Can I scan and upload it? Thanks! I have done it here and here, and it works well. If you disagree, you can revert it.Besides that I also wrapped the poems using (or  and  when the poem spans across two pages) because there is a custom to have the poems in the center of a page in Wikisource. I also used to solve indentation.
 * Hello. If you have a different edition, you can scan it, upload it to Commons (if it is not subject of copyright, which probably is not), and then it can be transcribed here as another version. This is quite common that one work has several versions (editions) present in Wikisource, for an example see Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare). If you need any help, feel free to write me, or you can ask for more help at WS:Scriptorium/Help. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks!
 * Hi Jan, I had created the new project at One Hundred Poems of Kabir. I am trying to use the <poem> tag to format the poems. Screenshot 20210913-084736 Chrome.jpg The <poem> tag has to followed by </poem> on the same page, and when a poem spans across multiple pages I use the tag again. On the Desktop browser, it renders fine but on the mobile website, it adds new lines. I've tried following Help:Page breaks but nothing has worked. In the screenshot, the newlines after "go not there;" are unwanted and added by Wikisource on the mobile website only. Looking for your help on this. Thanks!
 * That is strange, but you are right, I have checked it with other poems as well. Looks like a bug in the poem extension. I have asked about it at Wikisource:Scriptorium. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I do not read Wikisource in the mobile view (I have even my mobile switched to desktop view) I have never noticed this problem. After I asked about it, I was told that it is a known issue and nothing can be done about it. So if you want to have the stanzas correct in the mobile view too, the poem tags cannot be used and the poem lines have to be divided by
 * BTW, do not forget to sign your comments at talk pages with four tildes ~, it will produce your username and the time. Alternatively, you can use the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png.
 * Last but not least I want to thank you for scanning the book and starting the transcription, its great! Hope you will enjoy the work here :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Jan, for your guidance, support, and for those modifications. I'm absolutely loving the work here! Wikilover407 (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

PS deletion
Please deletion all sub-pages of Page:Psychopathia sexualis, with especial reference to contrary sexual instinct- a medico-legal study (IA 39002086347433.med.yale.edu).pdf, as well as the index. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I deleted the index page and then had to leave the computer for a moment, but after I returned I forgot what I was about to do… Now it should be OK :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Thank you! TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Index:Picture Posters.djvu
Why are these pages being marked as “problematic”? It is standard to practice to include higher-quality images where the images in the original scan were only of a lower quality because of technological limitations (see, e.g., here). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Higher quality (as for resolution etc.) is OK, but changing pictures for their different versions is not. The most visible difference is colour. The original publication did not use coloured pictures, it used their black and white versions. If you change them for coloured, the impression of the reader changes.However, it is not only the colour which makes the pictures different. If you take e. g. the picture from this page and remove its colour on your computer, you will still not get the version from the book. The version in the book was obtained by different processes and we should keep it.Another difference is here: while the book does not have any text in the bottom left corner, our picture contains plenty of text there. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

subst: use of Template:Author link
Hi. When using al would you please substitute its use. Most especially note that its use is an issue on Template:New texts as it doesn't feed into the json page well. The reason for asking is that templating the author link makes disambiguation and the like difficult for most of the available tools. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. The main advantage of is that it makes links to author pages easier and quicker to type for me, because it is shorter and I also do not have to type colon (I have to keep switching between English and Czech keyboard layouts because of Czech diacritics when typing and colon is a different key in those keyboards which really drives me crazy as I always hit the wrong one :-) ). I am afraid that substituting the template removes this advantage. Would it help if I just did not use the template on Template:New texts? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely would help on "new texts". There are lots of ways to build a little means to do this. We have the author construct component in the CHARINSERT gadget "Wiki markup" drowdown. You can write stuff for keyboards or toolbars. If use TemplateScript gadget then we create a sidebar link to do this or you. Lots of options to not force us to run a bot through. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Save/load actions and the following pattern will achieve the "less typing" thing.
 * Or, if you don't want to replace existing al's, you can define and use whatever magic syntax you like (say :
 * There are also various typing expanders like AutoHotKey, AutoKey, etc., (as well as Xcompose on Linux if you want to go old-school!) Specifically, none of these actually end up saving the labour-saving code into the DB, it's done on your end and the Wikitext saved is "standard" and doesn't need further processing.
 * Inductiveload— talk/contribs 08:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . I see. I will go through these suggestions and definitely try some of them, especially those which do not require mouse work, although at the moment I am not sure I understand everything suggested :-) But I will try. Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Inductiveload— talk/contribs 08:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . I see. I will go through these suggestions and definitely try some of them, especially those which do not require mouse work, although at the moment I am not sure I understand everything suggested :-) But I will try. Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"symbols" at wikidata
My watchlist is kind of beautiful at wikidata today. Property 367 is "astronomical symbols" and all of the constellations are getting them, not just the zodiac. See Q8849 and Q10468 (Cancer, zodiac and Cepheus, not on the suns path). They are SVG so they will always look like that.

Not sure how to make them smaller though, (yet). Good night!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also it's okay to not understand keyboard regexp, maybe even good. just paste it and don't look too long at it. You might lose some of your humanity....  Sorry for peeking at not my business stuff here...
 * Hello. The symblol looks good. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

OCR language selection
As someone who actually uses non-English OCRing, would you mind outlining your thoughts on a useful UI for what you do? I'm planning on adding to the OCR implementation since there are clearly glaring UX issues that stem from the CommTech project running out of time for whatever reason.

The menu currently is like F34713328. What controls do you think would help you achieve what you want? A language selector, I guess, but what would you find to be a fluent UX? And do you normally select multiple languages, or one at a time?

The region selection is already on my list, but I'm blocked on that. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 22:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently I do not select multiple languages at all because it is too impractical. However, from time to time I come across an English language work which includes some Czech expressions, and so the possibility to add Czech (i.e. not to switch from English to Czech) directly in the page namespace would be helpful. It is not too often (in the last two months I was transcribing two or three works where I missed such a feature), but I guess I am not the only one who would use it..Solving the problem with columns would be even much more helpful. Originally I thought that the OCR tool would enable selecting the region directly in the page namespace and OCRing the text directly to the edit window on the left, then selecting another region and adding it to the previous text in the edit window etc. Now I am not sure whether my expectations were too naive or whether they are really possible to be put into practice. However, such a feature would make the work easier for really many contributors who transcribe various newspaper, journal or magazine articles. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jan.Kamenicek, @Inductiveload: Before CommTech took up the OCR wish I was experimenting with my own OCR tool (I still use it myself for various reasons), and for that tool I mocked up a (completely non-functional) UI for tweaking settings. If you temporarily add  to your common.js you'll get a "OCR settings" link in the left toolbar. Clicking it will pop up what I came up with as a first draft of UI for this. Not sure whether it's useful for anything, but figured I'd mention it since you were discussing the topic.Incidentally, I am toying with the idea of developing my own OCR tool further so I can have various hyper-specialised tweaks to its behaviour and UI that the main new CommTech tool will never support (catering to the few users who use the 2010 editor, for example). It's pretty buggy right now so I don't tend to mention it anywhere, but if anyone wants to play with it it's entirely functional and I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on it. I don't think its features will currently be of interest to anybody but myself, but… Xover (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, the OCR setting looks interesting and it can be a useful tool once it gets functional. I will try the OCR toy of yours too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as teaser: F34714318. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 14:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks absolutely great! You wrote that you are blocked on that. What exactly does it mean? Is there any way to help with, like expressing support to the idea anywhere…? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not really, everyone knows it's wanted. Basically the person who was working on it is MIA, so the question is if they're planning on finishing it, or if I can swoop in. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 15:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. However, that sounds like the old story we already had here many times: the tool looks great, but everything depends on one single person. That is what I expressly demanded not to happen in the 2020 wish when I asked for a tool fully integrated into Mediawiki environment and what the Wikimedia community confirmed by their votes. :-( I really cannot consider the result to be a fulfilled wish. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm totally with you, I'm only doing it because someone clearly has to. This will go into the extension, so at least it's not just (more) JS floating about locally. But fundamentally WS does have an incredibly low bus factor: only 1 user really maintains the whole thing and they are a volunteer. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 16:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Karel Capek, The Injured One
I'm not sure if you'd be interested in this, but the next featured text from Index:The Dial (Volume 75).djvu is Karel Čapek, The Injured One. Languageseeker (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, great. It has already been on my long list for a long time, so I will be happy to proofread it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

coördinated
Ok. "coördinated" is correct English. Something learned. Thank you. Never again will I fix typos on en-WP. --Castellanus (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we all keep learning. However, although it is correct English spelling, it does not matter very much in English Wikisource. What matters is how it is written in the original publication. So correcting typos is an enormously useful activity, but it should be preceded by checking original sources. That is very easy with Wikisource works that are scanbacked, but often quite difficult with works which are not, which is unfortunately also the case of The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. I do hope that my revert will not discourage you from further improvements of English Wikisource. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Castellanus fun fact: The New Yorker still uses diaereses to indicate separately-pronounced adjacent vowels like this. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I checked it (in H. P. Lovecraft: Collected Fiction Volume 2 (1926-1930): A Variorum Edition. Hippocampus Press 2016, ISBN 9781614981695). "coördinated" is a idiosyncratic spelling of HPL, used in the autograph manuscript of the text (which the Collected Fiction edition calls "essentially a rough draft"). The 1964 Arkham House edition (At the Mountains of Madness and Other Novels) has "co-ordinated". Also, the MS has has "coöperating", Arkham House has "co-operating" and the Collected Fiction edition has "cooperating". The WS text has "coördinated" in 2 places and "coöperating". However this may be, as you noted, the WS text is not scan-based, does not name a specific edition, so what was your revert based on? You did not give an edit comment and did not discuss your revert. I therefore do see reason to object to the way you handled this (and presumably other edits by new users). --Castellanus (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When I was checking it, I noticed that some editions use the diaereses and others not. Unfortunately, the contributor who had added the text to Wikisource, had not mentioned the edition, but I assumed that diaereses is not something they would just make up and that it must have been used in the edition they copied it from. However, the best solution in this situation (not only because of the diaereses) would be to find a copyright free scan and proofread the work again based on the scan. If you know of any, I will gladly help you with it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are some scans on IA, but I would rather just use the text of the Collected Fiction e-book. --Castellanus (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We usually prefer the original (first) edition of works if available. Scans are also preferred to direct copypasting as they allow other contributors to check the transcription very easily whenever needed. However, any specified copyright-free edition is better than the non-specified text we have now, so if you prefer to transcribe a text without scans, you can do it too. Can you give me a link to the text/scan that you would like to use? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the case of HPL I would rather not use first printings. The Case of Charles Dexter Ward for instance was first printed in a heavily abridged version in 1941 in Weird Tales. There is a 1943 Arkham House edition with text differing from the 1964 edition. I have the 1964 Arkham edition but am reluctant to scan it, I could get a scan of the paperback version (Ballantine 1971) quite easily. I think the best HPL edition at present is the 3 volume Collected Fiction at Hippocampus. I could send you that. Do you know how to convert e-book to wikitext? --Castellanus (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid there can be some copyright problems. Works published up to 1963 can be in the public domain if their copyright was not renewed, which seems to be the case of the early editions of The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. However, if the text of the 1964 edition differs from the previous editions, then I am afraid it is still copyrighted and so we cannot use neither the 1964 edition nor any other later edition based on it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Works are in the public domain if the author is more than 70 years dead. Changing spelling does not change this. --Castellanus (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This applies to many countries of the World including EU countries or the UK. English Wikisource follows the copyright laws of the United States.However, you are right that changing spelling does not make a new work, so it should not be a problem. When you wrote that the text differs, I thought that the changes are more significant. Collected Fiction contains other texts too and I am not able to say whether they are all copyright free or not and whether it would be OK to upload the scan/copy of the book–most probably it would not. So if you want to use this edition, the only choice would be just copying the plain text of the Lovecraft’s story here, which is the least preferred solution. If you can get a scan of an edition that contains no other text besides the Lovecraft’s story, I would suggest to go that way. Just be careful that there really is no other text, including e. g. a preface dated after 1963. Do you think you could upload the scans in the PDF format to Commons? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will do neither. I will not upload scans to commons and I will not replace complete texts here, because I do not want to have long discussions with self-appointed experts in copyright resp. philology. I changed two characters in one HPL text and see the resulting discussion. I can send you a scan or the e-books and you can do as you please with it. BTW: "When you wrote that the text differs, I thought that the changes are more significant." When changes were significant, the text would not any longer be authentic, or would it? BTW2: The 70-years-rule applies in the US as well. In the US, a work of an author that is not 70 years dead can be out of copyright, but not the other way round. Disney tries this, but has not yet succeeded. --Castellanus (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I stopped understanding you. I did not invite you to this discussion, I was only reacting to your posts on my talk page. You did not have to write me. I thought you want to help with replacing a non-specified edition with something better and the only reason why I have spent so much of my time with you here was trying to help you. I am not an expert on copyright, but it seems I know it slightly better than you do: there is really no 70-years rule for pre-1964 texts in the US. US copyright law is very complex. If interested, you can have a look e.g. at Help:Public domain. Do not send me any e-book, replacing one copy-paste with another would be useless. I have lots of other work to do and the only thing that can distract me from it is when somebody else needs help with improving Wikisource. Now I see that it is not your case, so let’s leave things as they are. Have a nice rest of the day. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2021


text:
User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2022

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Memory How to Develop, Train, and Use It
It needs to be validate.
 * Thanks very much for all the work done! However, it is not possible to "validate" the individual pages yet, as they have not been marked as proofread. If you register, you will receive the right for marking the pages as proofread too. Only then somebody else may come and validate them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Cross-wiki abuse: w:Karna promotion socks
Hi. This is related to page The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 4/Lectures and Discourses/Thoughts on the Gita - I have reverted the latest socks. However, I am not aware of the content of page itself and thus can't verify if the current version is correct. You might want to consider further protections. Also see SPI case and ANI report on EN wiki. For any replies, please ping me. DaxServer (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. I have checked it and reverted it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for helping new users
I just wanted to leave a note thanking you for sorting out a couple of problems and helping our newest addition to the West Coast book project. If you felt so inclined you could add yourself to the project team at West Coast Task Force and make yourself available for technical support for our less-experienced editors (I'm pretty new to Wikisource myself!). But helping from afar is also appreciated. Many thanks. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am always glad seeing new people coming :-) Thanks for the invitation to your team, but I have quite a long list of things to do myself, so I will not join at the moment. However, feel free to ask for help any time it is needed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The Disobedient Kids
This is about the story, not the whole book....

I amended wikidata (and am more than willing to undo those changes) for The Disobedient Kids and other Czecho-Slovak fairy tales/The Disobedient Kids to add to The Wolf and the Seven Little Kids.

I would like to do things differently, but after you see what is there and how this works, and also after you give me "permission" to do this up differently.

I want to make the English a version of the Czech and put that there so the English names are there.

I "think" Grimm gets the credit, simply for having published first (1812/1846 I think). Even if the Italians maybe did this the very first (as in the Cinderella mess). But, I am more than happy to be corrected. I assumed much from the "retold by". I am so not interested in annoying Cz, more like getting all of the links in one place whenever possible.

Thanks for the time.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. I think that the versions retold by Grimms and Němcová are not the same, as were probably not the same the "originals" they were retelling. Grimms collected German folk tales and Němcová collected Czech folk tales, and some of these had common roots. I was thinking about this problem for a long time before and it seems to me that the best solution for this (and also other similar cases) would be to have a version page of the folk tale which would be listing two version pages (or translation pages) of Grimms’ version and Němcová’s version. I know that some other people prefer having everything in one single version page, but this attitude is imo not good for cases where the versions of two "authors" differ and at the same time each of them has their own editions. It might be better to have some wider discussion first and to write its result to Versions to avoid potential reverts in the future. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 * It is, for me, first about linking to the wiki's. It is easy for the wiki sources to reach in and grab their wiki, but it is not so easy for (example)  en.wiki or cz.wiki to shuffle through the versions and to find just theirs.  But that is about putting it with Grimm.  If you think not, then okay.

 * Making a separate version is not about Grimm or no, it is about the listing. Did you look at how it appears when sharing the cs original, which came from a different publication and also a different date?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that linking to other wikis is important. Current en.wiki article deals only about the Grimms’ version, and so do others which I have checked like German and French, and so these should be linked to the Wikisource page containing the Grimms’ version, not the Němcová’s version.At Q87890772 you have stated that Grimms are the authors of the Czech folk tale O neposlušných kůzlátkách which is not true. It is a folk tale of several versions, German version was retold by Grimms in their collections of German folk tales and Czech version was retold by Němcová in her collection of Czech folk tales. This WD item is linked to cs.ws page Národní Báchorky a Powěsti/O neposlušných kozlatech which does not have Grimms as the authors, and the WD item has to be in agreement with this.In The Wolf and the Seven Little Kids you linked to that item where you added some data and the result is that the version page says that Grimms are the authors of the Czech version and Němcová translated it together with William Howe Tolman and Václav Smetánka in Národní báchorky a powěsti (1848). This statement contains several apparent mistakes: 1) Němcová was not translating Grimms, she was retelling what she heard among Czech peasants. 2) Tolman and Smetánka had nothing to do with Národní báchorky a powěsti, they were even born long after this collection was published. They just translated some of the tales from Němcová’s collections into English and published their translations in The Disobedient Kids and other Czecho-Slovak fairy tales (1921). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Okay, so I removed most of what I did and made the new record for it. Q113560111 which is part of Q61951628 and an edition of Q87890772 and moved it to its own section at The Wolf and the Seven Little Kids and soon the Grimm will know nothing of the cs variation (I forgot to remove that before typing about everything here).

 * I did Tom Thumb Q571493 at least the Grimm variety, the way I learned to do things while working on Aesop here. I don't know if anyone has dissembled it yet.  Leaving the record without a link and putting the link on what is an edition of (in the case of their only being one at the source wiki) is only a little messy and makes the links available.  The Disobedient Kids was not really an example of that, however, not being from Grimm.  Wikidata has some link serving limits....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Also, it is annoying and problematic to me that when I answer some notifications to talk pages, that it does remove the red notification to me, but other times, like this, it doesn't.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks for these changes, that is much better. Although I would still prefer the way I described above, this attitude is also quite possible and I am not going to revert it. I will have a more detailed look later, but now it seems quite OK to me. The only flaw is technical on the side of the template, which gives e.g. "…translated by William Howe Tolman, Václav Smetánka…" instead of correct English "…translated by William Howe Tolman  Václav Smetánka…" but that is to be addressed somewhere else. Thanks again. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I wrote the bad English. Cygnis had me move those out of my user space and into the public template space.  I had wanted to make a new ones for translator and editor, and add editor to the existing WD's.  "My bad" English.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Spam and revdel
Hi Jan,

Thanks for all the work you've put in patrolling recent changes and dealing with the spam and vandalism. Very much appreciated!One bit of feedback though: I notice that you routinely revdel (hide) revision text, and often also edit summary, for garden-variety spam. Unless the material in question contains personal information or grossly offensive stuff (including insults etc.) we usually do not revdel mere spam and vandalism edits. Revdel should generally be used as little as possible, and only when there is specific need, in order to preserve the open nature of the project. Too many hidden revisions tends to erode the confidence of the community in administrators (they should be able to check the actions we take with the tools as much as possible), and it prevents, for example, researchers from studying things like the types of spam, how wiki communities react to it, how fast, etc. Especially the openness is important: experience from other projects show that whenever admins hide stuff it breeds suspicion in some parts of the community, and having the dumb spam (99% of it) visible in revision history does no harm. It's the LTAs with personal insults (I know you've been dealing with a couple of those lately), attempts at outing, etc. where we need to apply the strongest measures. Anything that we don't want our regular users to see or be exposed to, as a rule of thumb; anything else can just be reverted normally.And, of course, for actually criminal stuff (links to illegal materials, threats of actual harm, personal information, libel, etc.) we hand it over to the WMF Office for suppression so that not even admins and 'crats can see it.Anyways… All the work you've put in here has ben very much appreciated. I just wanted to drop a note about the revdel thing before the conspiratorially minded start muttering about "the admin cabal" and breaking out the tar and pitchforks. :) Xover (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. Yes, I know all this. I will explain the reasons why I have been hiding a lot of specific edits recently by email. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way: if you had a specific reason for it then I'm talking out of my backside and you should feel free to ignore me completely. :) Xover (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Eagle-eyes
Good catch on this. I'd been ignoring that discussion after it ballooned, planning to get back to it when I find one of those mythical "spare moments" I hear talk about, which was clearly not a good idea.Incidentally, hidden is a bit wonky, so you may want to use cot and cob for similar needs in future.

And this is the content.

It works a bit better in most respects, and is less finicky with what goes inside it. Xover (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will try to remember these templates and use them next time, they look more user friendly :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

if there is vandalism in a place ...
then we can write filters to stop the garbage. Sometimes it is better that some vandalism is clearly visible and not in mainspace, then hidden away where it goes unnoticed. Protection often just shifts it, not stops it. So please don't feed the trolls. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Astounding Stories renewals
I am here to remind you that the Stanford renewals database only contains renewals of books and contributions to periodicals. Other types of works, such as plays and issues of periodicals, were renewed in a different series of CCE and are not indexed at Stanford. The renewal item to which you point me is for a story published in the May–August 1936 issues of Astounding Stories, not for those issues outright. For the three issues which I marked for deletion (including this one), the renewals are in the January–June 1963 periodicals volume, renewals section, first page, top of rightmost column. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to remind anything, it is just enough if you give the speedy deletion rationale properly next time. This is much better, thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

undelete a file and rename it instead?
I tell you what, I burnt some candy I was making and have to scrub the pan for weeks maybe.... My messes are not just here! I should not have made Index:The Door Unbolted (1906).djvu because I am the one who changed the name, I think, when I moved it to commons.

If Index:The Door Unbolted (1906).djvu could be undeleted and have its name changed to Index:This Journey through the Pure Food Factories (1906).djvu, it would save me a few (like 20) minutes. If it takes you more than 20 minutes to undelete and rename, say no! Don't do it!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problem, mistakes happen :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2022


text:
User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2023

Enough rope
You know that I don't play games or feed trolls, though I won't allow abuse, so I will give someone enough rope, and not be afraid to act when needed. I will answer a reasonable question and AGF with an answer that may sits okay in the space, even when I have suspicions. Yes, I understand about ducks, trolls, etc. I understand about people who like to play, and they think that they are clever, and I know that I would rather be playing a gentle game of toss, than calling up a hard game of brandy. Trolls seek excitement, and I am happy to bore then to death. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Bible (King James)
Thank you for your help with the 1769 King James Bible page. There is so much to fix on that page, but I also don't want to come running in like a bull in a China shop and mess anything up. In particular, for almost the entire Bible, the Wikisource texting is showing much less features than the scanned text: (italic word formatting, pilcrows, marginal notes).

It also looks like the original Wikisource text did not actually originate with the scan, and like the scan is only available for part of the work. In particular, it appears that scans are missing for Lamentations through Malachi. I possess an exact photographic facsimile of the 1769 Oxford KJV, and if it is useful to the project I would be more than happy to share it.

For example, I've photographically scanned the book of Lamentations as it appears in the 1769 Oxford Text and placed it on archive.org at https://archive.org/details/kjv_1769_oxford_blayney_lamentations.

If the Wikisource people in charge of the project would find it useful, I would be happy to provide the other missing parts as well. MPlasky (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is quite possible that the originally entered text does not match this particular edition, as it was added by an unexperienced contributor 11 years ago, i.e. in the time when Wikisource policies were not so developed as they are now. If you have a better copy of this edition, it would be best to upload it to Commons as a whole and then create a new index page here in Wikisource. I can help with any phase of this process if needed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, my copy is not so much better as simply more complete. It looks like this project has a perfectly good copy -- that looks exactly like mine -- for Genesis through Jeremiah, but as far as I can tell the project is missing Lamentations through Malachi. First, I will need to get the remaining pages scanned, and then I will try to upload them to Commons. Thank you for the offer of help; I may need to get back to you on that. MPlasky (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now uploaded the missing books of Lamentations through Malachi to Wikimedia: . Does doing that automatically create an "index page", or is there some additional step I need to take? MPlasky (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, we need to have one scan of the full edition. If the scan we have were simply lacking some pages, e.g. because they had been forgotten during the scanning process although the physical book contains them, we could simply add the missing pages to the scan and then update the index page. That is something that could be arranged easily. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be our case. May I ask which edition are the newly scanned pages from? Comparing the last page of our scan with the first page of the scanned missing pages, it seems that they do not come from one edition, and so we cannot combine them. In such a case the only thing to be done is to scan the whole book you have (as a different edition), upload the whole book to Commons, and create a brand-new index :-( Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The scan I have is from the folio-sized edition of the 1769 Oxford University edition of the KJV as edited by Benjamin Blayney. The edition I have has exactly the same title-page "Wright and Gill", "1769", etc. as the scan currently being used for Genesis through Jeremiah at Bible (King James).
 * It is true that there is a visible difference in where the pages start and stop. However, if you look at the beginning and end of each line in both scans, you will find that the lines start and stop at the exact same words throughout the text. So, for example, the Genesis-Jeremiah text has, in it's last four verses, lines ending in "seven, Je-, twelfth, the, Baby-, up, and, prison, set, kings, Babylon, garments, before, life, con-, Baby-, of, life". Likewise, in the text I have, those lines end in exactly the same collection: "seven, Je-, twelfth, the, Baby-, up, and, prison, set, kings, Babylon, garments, before, life, con-, Baby-, of, life".
 * The lines begin and end identically, and all the punctuation and so on lines up as well, including in places where Blayney made mistakes.
 * I think what we're dealing with here is that Blayney's text came out in 1769 in both quarto and folio sizes. I've got the folio size, which holds more lines per page. My best guess is that Wikisource's text is from the quarto-sized edition.
 * In any case, Bible (King James) currently has *two* sources, one a 1769 Blayney printing, and another 1772 printing for the New Testament. I'm a bit curious how a project winds up combining two different editions like this, and what the correct next steps are to fix it. If there's any possible way to do it, I would much rather work on continuing to improve Bible (King James) than on starting a separate and parallel project.
 * In the meantime, I'll get a full scan of my edition, from Genesis to Revelation, produced in case it might be of use.MPlasky (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is great, thanks. Full scan of a particular edition is what we need. Unfortunately, no scan of the full 1769 edition is to be found anywhere on the Internet.
 * As for differences between our scan and the scan of missing pages: Where the pages start and stop is only the most visible, but not the only difference. Some more differences can be found among the sidenotes, suggesting that they were scanned from different editions.
 * As for two sources of the current transcription: I do not know much about the situation and I would have to do more research to find out, but if the book was published by one publisher in two volumes, one volume in 1769 and the succeeding one in 1772, then they can be put together as one edition of the Bible dated 1769–1772. Similarly, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is also considered one edition, although some volumes were published in 1910 and others in 1911. Otherwise combining two different editions together is a serious reason for deletion, because compilations are explicitely forbidden by Wikisource policy. An alternative for deletion is matching the transcription with one particular edition, preferably accompanied with its scanbacking. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, what differences have you found in the sidenotes? I've seen some differences in placement of the sidenotes so far, but I haven't seen any in wording (yet). In any case, the issue of KJV "editions" after 1769 is very difficult, because almost all of the hundreds of printings since 1769 follow the 1769 text extremely closely -- for example, most of the KJV's printed by Cambridge today differ in something like thirty places (one every thirty pages) from the original 1769 text.
 * Some people are even under the mistaken impression that all post-1769 texts are identical. My guess is that the original source text used here was an electronic text that often gets mislabelled as 1769, and then multiple editions were pulled in once people tried to find a scanned source to judge the text by. MPlasky (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * E. g. Here we can see the note "See verse 29" (or 19???) at the top after the note "Before CHRIST 588", while here we do not see such a note at all. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's due to different material being on different pages. "See ver 29" is a note on verse 12 of the last chapter of Jeremiah, which ends up on the last page of Jeremiah in my scan, but in the second-to-last page of the older Wikisource scan. So that note winds up placed [a bit up the page](https://archive.org/details/screenshot-from-2023-03-04-13-57-50) in the other printing. The "BEFORE CHRIST" notes, which attempt to give dates for all the stories, are always at the tops of pages, so marginal notes have to be moved around them to keep the same sort of layout with the two different page-sizes. Boring trivia to some people, but I've always enjoyed the little differences as books get copied around! If Wikisource had enough volunteers, we could probably do over a thousand different editions of that one translation alone! MPlasky (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for explanation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The Net of Faith—before you proofread
I ordered a copy of the original through ILL, and I can scan that copy of the original (vs. NonResistance’s digital copy), if you’re willing to wait a week or so. It seems that it should arrive soon. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Great! A copy of the original would definitely be much better, I can wait as long as needed :-) Thanks very much. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good news: it just came in (about thirty minutes after your comment). Bad news (for me): it’s about 800 pages, so it may be a few weeks (unless I have a lot of spare time all of a sudden). Bad news (for you): the reverend’s “Czech typewriter suffered from a chronic indisposition” and thus he uses very unorthodox characters in representing the Czech. But you’ll Chelc̄icky̍ when I finish my scanning work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind. 1) I can wait, 2) I will cope with the characters somehow. It should not be worse than the book I am currently working on (small example) :-D --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Constitution of India
Why do you tagged Constitution of India for deletion? KuldeepBurjBhalaike  (Talk 16:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See Proposed deletions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍👍 KuldeepBurjBhalaike  (Talk 04:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Header line fixes...
I generally mark lint repairs as minor, so I don't flood recent changes.. But Thanks for noticing and doing them. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, I should have marked them as minor. I did not because I wanted to have the work done quickly and as I was doing the repair manually, marking the edits as minor would make the advance twice slower. But you are right, next time I will do it that way. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The Confessions of Jean Jacques Rousseau
Hi, There are several editions by different publishers and translators with that name. That's why I suggested to add (Aldus). See also Index:The Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1896, vol. 1.djvu. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of major works by Rousseau: Author talk:Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Yann (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I wrote before, mere existence of editions is not a reason to disambiguate. However, as there are two indexes for two editions, that is a reason, and so I moved it once more. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Featured texts
Don't forget to mark FT locally. The star won't appear otherwise. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. I thought it is enough when I mark it in WD, but I did not check it afterwards. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The article
Dropping this here since it's irrelevant to the FT discussion. As I wrote there I agree it should not have been featured in the first place just because of its nature.But I have to say, while the criticisms levelled at it is fine, I think they are misplaced, because it was never written as a newspaper or magazine article, much less a journal article, so measuring it against those standards is not really fair. It's written as an opinion piece in a blog post, addressed at a specific audience, and as such it exceeds the expected standards by actually linking what's referenced. That articles on topics related to femininity are disproportionately deleted on enWP was well attested in the WMFs and third party research at the time, the same research that quantified the gender gap and identified it as an important source of systemic bias. Had Awadwit been writing this for an actual Wikipedia article, or for a journal, she would have definitely cited the claims (as well as phrased it much more neutrally) because she was very meticulous with citations (I know, I reviewed several of her articles). But this wasn't that kind of writing: it was a "call to arms" in the form of a blog post. Judged by those standards it's perfectly fine. Mischaracterising the dress episode was unfortunate, of course, but it's the kind of sloppyness that's par for the course in that context. Fair to criticise, of course, but not fundamentally invalidating as it would be in a different context.Similarly, saying every edit is political is an instance of failing to make your point effectively, rather than fundamentally invalid. You need to infer that she means 1) every non-trivial human edit, and 2) that what parts of which articles you edit and how you edit them, emphasise, etc. are shaped by who you are. In short, she's describing systemic bias and monoculture: if the vast majority of editors are white, male, technologically inclined, and of a narrow band of ages… then all the project's policies, priorities, practices, values, culture, and standards for interaction are going to reflect those of white technologically inclined men of a certain age. That "everything is political" is an entirely uncontroversial statement, it's just one that needs to be understood to imply "… in a certain sense". Awadewit failed to effectively make this point, which is a fair criticism of the blog, but, again, this is a blog post not a journal article.What I'm saying is… I think the fault lies with us for featuring this blog post in the first place. No serious journal would have published this, and a newspaper editor would have asked for rewrites, but we made the choice to call it "featured" with the standards that that implies. And as such I think you're judging it by too high a standard relative to what it was written for. It's like judging a Ferrari on its ability to till a field or haul cargo: it's terrible at both, but those aren't really the right yardsticks to apply. Xover (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am to narrowminded, but in my opinion the problems discussed should not happen in any serious text of an academic. Academics often complain how poorly people work with sources and interpret them, and then you come across a text by an academic which suffers the same problems. The fact that it is a blog post is not an excuse in my eyes. You also wrote your interpretation of what she meant as for the politics. Other people may interpret it differently, but academics should be able to express themselves clearly and unambiguously. Unlike common daily speech, once something is publically written, anybody can access it any time and cite from it, and so academics should express themselves precisely and with all responsibility. And the stronger statements are expressed, the stronger evidence is needed.As for the deletion of articles related to feminity: it would have been absolutely OK, if she had written what you did, i. e. that they are being "disproportionately deleted on enWP", but she wrote that they are "actively deleted". Because every deletion is "active", you cannot delete anything "passively", a lot of people may interpret those words like: "many Wikipedians actively search for articles on feminity and delete them upon sight", which is something different than what is probably happening in reality, that a lot of editors are biased and so if such an article is poorly written, it has lower chance to survive common patrolling than poorly written article on a masculine topic.She probably wanted, as you wrote, to "call to arms", but similar texts often have the opposite effect, serving the opponents as a proof that all those activists only exaggerate, misinterpret the situation or simply lie. Another effect is that while it may attract some sympathizers, other people may be discouraged. I quite often lead various courses of writing Wikipedia (usually as a part of the Czech Wikimedia project "Senior Citizens write Wikipedia") and I have to say that recently the number of women participants has been higher than the number of men. I strive to persuade them to keep contributing after the courses are finished, and I use arguments like underrepresentation of feminine topics etc., but articles which call to arms by phrases like "environment hostile towards female editors", "actively deleted articles on feminine topics", "every edit is political" do the opposite: they drive them away, because why should they spend their precious time among such a hostile wolf pack? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The criticism is valid, and I agree that these are weaknesses of the blog post. I just think you judge it too harshly (against too high a standard) for what it is.But you are right that advocacy in this area needs to be careful to avoid working against its own purposes. And that's a whole giant topic of its own, but your last point is a key one for me. The environment on e.g. English Wikipedia is downright toxic. I called it "locker-room" before, but that's not really the right analogy. It's… shaped by people with at least slightly autistic personalities, and is such that so long as you don't say any of the cuss words that Americans find objectionable no enforcement of behavioural guidelines kick in. You can act so hostile, so abrasive, so confrontational, just so long as you don't cuss and pretend to care about "objectivity". It's an environment that's perfectly designed to scare away not just women, but also anyone working in the humanities in general. Heck, I've got Internet-evolved thick skin developed over decades and I find it deeply wearying and sapping all the joy out of contributing there. How in the world does one address this without at the same time scaring away the very people it affects? Xover (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Closing an FT nom
There is a procedure listed at Featured text candidates when a nom is selected and closed. It looks as though you forgot to complete some of the steps. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * True, I was too hasty. Hope everything is OK now. I will take more care not to forget anything next time. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Welcome" image
@Jan.Kamenicek, Thanks for the welcome message you placed on my page in 2021. Is there a way to remove the image, but keep your welcome message? I do not want to delete your welcome message text. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have substituted the template with the plain text and links, and then removed the image. Is it OK like that? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's OK. Thank you for your prompt response. -- Ooligan (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

AbuseFilter being too aggressive again
cf. Special:AbuseLog/162215. emailed me about this. I see nothing obvious in their edit that should trigger any spam filter, much less an auto-blocking one. Xover (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Another one
See this thread and the log. Xover (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

A Forest Story
Yes, the work is complete. The same is true of the other book which I scanned for you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add a redirect from [Category:Philosophical pessimists]
Please add a redirect from [Category:Philosophical_pessimists] to [Category:Philosophers of pessimism as authors] on Wikisource, since there are pages that refer to now non-existent former category page. Fantastiera (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Do you mean some external pages? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean these two (but failed to link properly): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Philosophical_pessimists and https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Philosophers_of_pessimism_as_authors But yes, there were pages from Wikipedia that linked to the former. I fixed one, but there might be others. Fantastiera (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, see Category:Philosophical pessimists. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fantastiera (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Links from enWP can be bot-found and updated to the new target. No need to keep cat redirects around forever. Xover (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. Fantastiera (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

deleted it. Noting that we need to differentiate between the categorisation of occupations per template:meta category as the difficulty that we were getting ourselves into. Accordingly, we have the subject matter which typically splits into (biographical) articles and the author pages (people), and we have typically separated those. So a redirect from that category to an ... as authors would be defeating our current setup. Whether we need "Category:Philosophers of pessimism" is a separate conversation. I deleted as I challenge the appropriateness gramatically in English of such an ambiguous category. Personally, I don't think that should create categories based on what someone did at enWP at some point in time, it should more align with our needs, and as Xover noted we can fix problems at other wikis. I will challenge the statement about not keeping category redirects around forever, they are purposeful as they enhance findability, with HotCat they allow editors to find the alternate name and then have them dropped into the desire target category. Yes, some can be deleted, it all depends on the typeahead. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 * @Billinghurst: I agree. I meant: in cases where we for other reasons do not want the old category name, we don't have to keep it just because there may or may not be links to the old name on enWP. Whether we want to keep this specific category redirect (Category:Philosophical pessimists) or not I have no opinion on just now. Xover (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please consider bot archival
Hi. Your page is getting long and started to be somewhat unwieldy. Can I encourage you to look to use user:Wikisource-bot to automate archiving, and you can still have plenty visible and control of what does or does not archive. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I second the motion. :) Xover (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/52
And the reason that I started here. It seems that sometime through the development you have separated the initial criteria (line 1-5) from subsequent parts. The next bracketed component (6-282) then leaves components like 286-289 and 291-294 as their own matches, which I don't believe is your intention. As I am unaware of where you were looking to match those components I am going to leave it with you, I don't have the time to work through an analysis. That is getting to be VERY VERY LONG and complex filter, and I wonder whether it is overly complex. I will note that what I needed to do elsewhere is split up the matches to smaller components, and put those to the top, then build the architecture for the matches to have something that enable some more fluid workability. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the observation. I think I have corrected now what you mention in the beginning. You are right with the rest as well. The filter has not been designed as a whole with an elaborated plan, but has been built step by step with new components being added or modified ad hoc whenever a new problem appeared. It definitely needs redesigning, which I will try to find some time for. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Auto-blocks
Filter 59 is completely broken. It will block anybody who edits a page in main, User:, either of their talk spaces, Template:, and File talk: that contain a wikitext heading starting with a number. You know, like "1920s" (or "1st campaign" or any number of other obvious examples). Perfectly innocuous and common, entirely to be expected on a talk page or a user page. And predictably enough it did block someone within five days of the change: 1, 2.Let me speak extremely plainly: I do not think this filter should have been enabled with an automated block action, and with such over-broad triggers. Not everything can be handled by ever more convoluted filters, and the collateral damage is starting to mount up. Xover (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My fault, I forgot to consider non-main namespaces. Have to be more careful, I am sorry. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations/Pagans
Thanks for deleting that. The page was created as spam. I changed it to something more sensible, but realise now that I should have put it for speedy delete. -- Beardo (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really a problem. Thank you for heads up! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Bartered Bride
I've now attempted to revert my changes, because you said something had broken. Perhaps you can look into why it's not rendering as desired?.

I would also STRONGLY suggest dropping the multi-column layout on the Page: versions as unworkable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

closing WS:PD
When closing a deletion, please be sure you also checked links to the deleted item. For the Index you deleted, it was still linked from the contents of all the other Index volumes. I've taken care of the links now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, my fault. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2023


text: Tales and Legends from the Land of the Tzar/Foma Berennekoff


text:
Page:Oscar Ameringer - Socialism for the Farmer (1912).djvu/24

In 1896 six foreign land companies owned twenty-six million acres-of this country, or enough to give 140,000 homesteads of 160 acres each. Cutting the homesteads down to eighty acres each, this land would support a farming population of 1,400,000 souls.

Some patriotic souls are bitterly opposed to alien ownership of land, but, to save my soul, I cannot see what difference it makes whether the rack-rent-ridden tenant pays his sweat-stained sheckels to the agent of my Lord Tweedledeedle in St. Louis or to Lawyer Skinnem at the nearest county seat.

If a boy puts a tack on my chair and I sit on it, I am not going to lick the boy because he is Dutch or Irish, but because he put the tack under me. It is not the nationality of the boy that hurts, but the tack, and so it is with landlordism.

The native land hog has been not less enterprising than the foreign breed, and it seems that our homemade trusts have dabbled considerably in the real estate business on the side.

Here are a few trust landlords:

Then there a number of thrifty and frugal individuals, who worked hard and saved still harder, until they acquired farms of such goodly proportions as that one of the late D. C. Murphy of New York, who left 4,000,000 acres of land behind; former United States Senator Farwell of Illinois, who owned 3,000,000; and Henry Miller of California, who to-day is the undisputed lord over 22,500 square miles.

Yes, this is the richest country on earth, and there is enough land for ten times the population we have, but it happens to belong to the fellow who farms the farmer instead of the farmer who farms the farm. There is plenty of air for everybody and some to spare, but if air could be bottled, frozen, packed or monopolized, some captain of industry would choke little meters down our throats and make us cough up a quarter for a day’s breathing. And he should not be blamed for it, either, because it is our duty to encourage brain, ability, foresightedness, enterprise and sagacity. Besides, a people who are willing to pay others for the use of God's earth should have no objection to putting up good money for God's air also.


text: Tales and Legends from the Land of the Tzar/The Blacksmith and the Devil


text: Tales and Legends from the Land of the Tzar/The Roguish Peasant