User talk:BirgitteSB

Award for participation

Proofread of the Month September 2009 Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey Proofread of the Month October 2009 Old-Time Recipes for Home Made Wines Cordials and Liqueurs Proofread of the Month November 2009 Special: Validation month Proofread of the Month December 2009 Handel Proofread of the Month bonus award February 2010 Mars Proofread of the Month May 2010 Crainquebille, Putois, Riquet and other profitable tales Proofread of the Month May 2010 Extra-curricular validation Proofread of the Month June 2010 Persia Proofread of the Month November 2010 Special: Validation month Proofread of the Month January 2011 The Harvard Classics Proofread of the Month June 2011 The Life of Michael Angelo Proofread of the Month March 2012 Sawdust and Spangles Proofread of the Month May 2012 Octavia Hill's work Proofread of the Month June 2012 Twilight Proofread of the Month July 2012 A Wayfarer in China Proofread of the Month August 2012 The Oak Proofread of the Month January 2013 Short works (8 completed) Wikisource's Tenth Anniversary Contest

Hi BirgitteSB and happy new year! WS:ADMIN#LarryGilbert appears ready to be closed. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! The ru-ws community decide to open a special discussion page for a foreigners, who don't understand Russian. We guess that a lack of foreign languages' knowledge is a considerable obstacle to our international collaboration. A primary (but not only) goals is a interwikis and identification of translations. Could you make an announcement at Wikisource:Scriptorium (or somewhere else) for a English-spoken contributors? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will be happy to make an announcement.--BirgitteSB 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Before blocking an editor for an issue as nebulous as disruption, it is really important an administrator first communicates the problem they see to the editor with a clear warning. It seems to me that you overlooked this in regards to Wild Wolf, but hope you can understand how this needs to be our best practice when issuing blocks. Please be sure to give clears warnings in the future.--BirgitteSB 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I fully agree with you and you are correct about that. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I made a comment mentioning (and thanking) you, at WS:AN. Please see [1]. Again, thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I just started a new sub thread there, but I did not direct the discussion on you. I think it would be good to clarify the issue before closing the thread.--BirgitteSB 01:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nod, okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I not found the place on this wiki, where i can write a request for a bot flag. Therefore i write it here.

I reqest a flag for SKbot. It based on my own class library and written on Object Pascal / Delphi. A code has a full unicode support. I plan use the bot for a various ad-hoc tasks, when complex algorithm needed and standalone bot is not effective. The test task is completed (see bot's contribution).

Personally i'm a professional DB programmer with 15 year experience. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You need to make the request at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard#Bots Wikisource:Scriptorium and gain consensus for the flag there. I am technically illiterate, so I really do rely on the consensus part. --BirgitteSB 01:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, i do it there. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you sum up the disscussion concerning Wikisource:Scriptorium#Please Bot flag request for SKbot? Already three weeks is passed... -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have asked everyone to clarify. Everyone seemed supportive of the bot flag, but they never clarified if they found your responses acceptable when they asked you for more information. I imagine that silence most likely means they found it acceptable but I will feel better if they are explicit.--BirgitteSB 14:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is now flagged.--BirgitteSB 02:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I always get Wikisource confused with Wikibooks. Meta or Wikibooks should work, but this is more appropriate for Meta. 71.198.176.22 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay they all have sdelete tags. Thanks! 71.198.176.22 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am Anshul. I am unable to complete my SUL partly because I have forgotten my password/email here. My account here has zero edits. Could you please rename it to "Anshul (old)"? I am making this request based on the discussion here. Thanks, --120.138.117.230 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC) (Anshul)Reply

This has now been done. Thanks!--BirgitteSB 03:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a ton! I have finally achieved my SUL! --Anshul (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am the editor that Anshul referred to above here, regarding unify global accounts, however I have still not had my account reset, as of yet to unify my Wikisource account. I have gone down the route of trying to get a new password sent, however my e-mail address will have also changed since then. Could you please work your 'Magic' with my account. Richard Harvey.

The rename is done. Hope that helps.--BirgitteSB 02:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, many Thanks. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! After a little discussion in the scriptorium, I would like to request a flag for User:BenchBot. Cheers, stephen (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay, I have been busier than I anticipated in meatspace. I see Z took care of it. --BirgitteSB 11:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, hope this finds you and yours well...

While going about the usual housekeeping I've come across a user, User:PopMusicBuff, who at initially wanted to delete both his user page along with it's talk page. I was leary of deleting both, given the user name's possible shenanigans regarding attempted contributions & since the talk page was tagged a few weeks earlier with the standard {{welcome}} banners, so I simply reverted the talk page back to that revision and deleted the user page as requested at that point.

Since then, another user attempted to point the talk page [2] to a different user page on Wikipedia, w:User:AGiorgio08, which was then edited again to cause a Double redirect loop pointing back to the talk page itself (see Special:DoubleRedirects). Upon further investigation, it turns out that the WP user w:User:PopMusicBuff secured a name change to w:User:AGiorgio08 on WP earlier this month. I get the feeling either the user did not know to ask for a rename on WS as well or would rather not have the new account name associated with the old account name's history or contributions.

My under-developed admin-instinct tells me that I should move the talk page to under the new user named account then possibly delete it (as per the original user's request) to preserve the fact (for WS records at least) that the user has changed the account name from PopMusicBuff to AGiorgio08 globally. I figure best to check with the expert first... Thanks. George Orwell III (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Given the lack of of substantial contributions on en.WS, I personally wouldn't worry about preserving the record. But since you are worried, I suggest you ask him why he wants the page deleted. The best way to develop your admin instinct is to try and figure what you think is going on with someone, and then step back from the assumptions you came up with and ask them about it non-judgmentally; hoping that you will find out your guesses were wrong. You can only improve your instinct when you figure out where it leads you wrong.--BirgitteSB 05:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your points well taken here. I also think that I'm being overly concerned more due to the activity over on WP [3] than anything done to/on WS. Never really saw an account in effect merged into an already existing account and then calling that "renamed". Nor have I come across edits moved to a "secure server" or whatever those June 2010 edits went to over on the WP log either. Truth is - I'd rather delete the remnants of the old WS User and be done with the whole thing since he/she did not really contribute here on WS anyway. George Orwell III (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of tweaking your User: -space's Poetry portal to free up the odd template:/portal: names that were being used sort of incorrectly. There is an effort to finally utilize the Portal: namespace on WS and some of those templates and their sub-pages were contrary to what is being attempted elsewhere was all.

I'll get around to making an actual "box portal skeleton" that one can just copy & paste that works properly rather than that myth folks have tried to import from wikipedia without much success on WS. Again - sorry for the intrusion. George Orwell III (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I take it from your statements that you do not realize that I have been connected to the Poetlister matter dating back a long time, helped in revealing much of his abuse, and have been providing information to the Stewards and local CUs of more problematic activity stemming from Poetlister's multiple accounts, including multiple emails from multiple names used at Wikisource and a new female identity that Poetlister was pretending to have in a repeat of the Taxwoman problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

No I did not. I imagine from John's statement that they didn't believe they had permission to share emails you had asked to keep confidential. Although perhaps I should have read between the lines of a few comments better, that was not explicitly shared with me. There was a similar email sent out to an admin after the discussion was underway at WS:ADMIN; that was the first I became aware that he was continuing such a pretense.--BirgitteSB 12:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi BirgitteSB and Zhaladshar. I think the adminship discussions are ready to be archived; do you agree with my doing so as follows? Angr unanimously confirmed, Durova & Zyephyrus retired, and Longfellow's nomination declined. —Pathoschild 19:17:13, 02 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read this that closely until now. I just took as a prod turn over the monthlies, which had slip my mind with other events. I archived the confirmed and left the other two until a steward acts on them. Longfellow's adminship had an edit today I believe of someone changed their support to oppose, but I already said I wouldn't close it once I started writing to convince others to Oppose. --BirgitteSB 20:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

RE:Edit I think you missed a key word in this edit. Should the word "publicly" have followed "taken part" in your statement? Jeepday (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I never saw them really discuss their actions at all. Their style is pretty much to talk about what they interested in going forward and letting their vagueness about the past allow the reader to assume they are in agreement with the readers disapproval. "Mistakes were made" sort of thing.--BirgitteSB 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, am juggling quite a bit this time of year…so timeliness may slip a wee bit…JamAKiska (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I mentioned to Zhaladshar on the 30th (here) that mine, Spangineer's and Eliyak's bot requests are pending at Scriptorium. In case, you're around sooner and could flag us, I thought I'd let you know as well. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will flag them shortly.--BirgitteSB 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm asking people who have commented to clarify their positions, but I understood the standard per WS:BOTS was lack of opposition, not affirmative support. Not trying to argue, just want to clarify, since I didn't actually see any actual opposition, the closest being Cyg's comment that the initial purpose could be accomplished with scripts and buttons.

Sorry for suggesting Eliyak's bot was ready for flagging, I hadn't looked at how many edits he'd done and thought he'd made a run based on off project comments he'd made.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not personally technically inclined so whenever I am not entirely sure that people who are more knowledgeable approve of the bot script I prod for clarification. I have never been willing to flag bots I don't personally understand without some reassurance from others in the community. If WS:BOTS implies otherwise, it is a poor codification of my general practice regarding bot flags. I suppose Z might handle things differently, but I don't believe I have much altered my practices over the years.--BirgitteSB 19:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's fine; again, I wasn't trying to argue it, I'm really new to bots and our policy is not very detailed which has its positives and negatives. Thanks for taking care of it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've got a notice up at Scriptorium (Wikisource:Scriptorium#Interwiki-Bot) that I intend to run a interwiki language bot named User:Interwiki-Bot. It has been acknowledged by others that language link bots don't require formal approval so whenever you get to it I'd request a flag for this bot. It only does interwiki language links.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I made a couple inquires at the Scriptorium. I am instinctively uncomfortable with this, but open-minded.--BirgitteSB 19:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

I don't see pages for local requests for change of names in this wiki. Rename Alexandre.mbm (sulutil) to AlexandreMBM (sulutil) please.

Reason: AlexandreMBM is my SUL account and I want to continue Steward requests/SUL requests#Alexandre.mbm.

Confirmation link: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FSUL_requests&action=historysubmit&diff=2440684&oldid=2440589

Thank you.

Alexandre.mbm (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

PS.: I am posting copy of this message in User talk:Zhaladshar (the crat other).

it would be great if you could take a peek at Wikisource:Administrators Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Never mind. Zhaladshar has been. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

I'd like to know how to escalate an issue regarding copyright violation to somebody with some actual legal standing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wish I could offer you directions, but that simply isn't the kind of support the Foundation offers to volunteers. In other words, I have never succeeded in such a pursuit and resigned myself to the idea that such a thing is impossible years ago. I am sure you will try anyways, and I would not fault you for rejecting my analysis. It is quite the way of things.--BirgitteSB 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see. Well thank you for replying. If there is no way to seek or obtain actual legal advice, then the whole idea that participating in discussions related to legal matters such as copyright really is nothing more than academic on WS - or a popularity contest at worst.

I will refrain from entering into discussions where the actual law is not relevant or simply goes far above the layman's ability to read it and draw legitimate conclusions from it themselves. Thanks again for replying anyway. I believe, you are still wrong in the case of the Unabomber's work because he never lawfully waived his rights from the work which is what "placing in public domain" entails in the eyes of the law (among other deficiencies) nevertheless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

While I happen to believe my analysis correct, I have seen enough reversals and counter-reversals to have little confidence in any moment's conclusion. On the other hand, I have seen enough improvement to build my confidence in eventualism wrt copyright. We are always trending closer to the best possible understanding of copyright.--BirgitteSB 23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're a bureaucrat right? Can you change my username from Killer Magikarp to AddThreeAndFive? I recently changed to this name on my home wiki and am now trying to change all my accounts. Here's the proof. Thank you! Killer Magikarp (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done you may still have to officially unify under SUL after all renames are complete--BirgitteSB 13:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am considering changing my ID from Jeepday to my given name. I don't really have anything to hide on a personal level, so I imagine it would only be technical challenges. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on topic?

• Are there Technical challenges, SUL Jeepday SUL JeepdaySock?
• On a personal level what are your thoughts on using a given name for ID?
• Jeepday (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any technical challenges so long as you given name is equally available. Renames break SUL reservations, so you will have to rename first then unify. I don't have a strong opinion about handles personally. I don't use my given name, and the only problem it causes is a little awkwardness at introductions during meatspace meetings. If you plan on on seeking some official role in a chapter or WMF or some professional association with your volunteer work here, then it would probably be a good idea to rename. Otherwise I don't think there is much benefit.--BirgitteSB 12:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your thoughts. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Obelix is unified everywhere except here on en.wikisource. Can You help him by renaming the present unsuled account which has no edits here, that he can use the Obelix-username also here on enws? (His ask for help on sv.wikipedia.) He tells he was denied this some years ago, but I do not know exactly why. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes. /90.129.41.142 23:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done--BirgitteSB 16:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Obelix (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You are listed as a bureaucrat on this wiki, but so is at least one other person. To contact a bureaucrat, in order to usurp accounts and similar, users have to send duplicate messages, rather than post at a single place. Please create a bureaucrat noticeboard of some sort and list it at meta:Index of pages where renaming can be requested. If it already exists, please list it there! Thank you. --Joy-temporary (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is a section for this at the administrators noticeboard. I will add it to the meta index.--BirgitteSB 16:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I have created a redirect for Bureaucrats' noticebard to WS:AN#Bureaucrats. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good idea!--BirgitteSB 01:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please flag User:phe-bot per Wikisource:Scriptorium#phe-bot. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I didn't know the other crat was active, I've posted to Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#phe-bot, in case he gets to it first.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You were fine to ask here. I wasn't ignoring you because you hadn't filled out the proper for ;). I just didn't have time to figure out the weirdness of Phe-bot when I was online earlier today. I spent some more time looking into and still can't figure it out. Phe-bot has a bot flag, but there is no log entry. I go to the page for user rights and both bot and autopatoller are selected. I am stumped.--BirgitteSB 22:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• There wasn't anything weird going on, except I forgot how to interface with the logs.--BirgitteSB 23:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • It would have helped if I had checked before my second post above. User:Zhaladshar flagged the bot 4 minutes after I posted the first time but didn't mention it anywhere. Possibly User:Billinghurst contacted him through other methods as we were discussing the flag on IRC when I posted here. Thanks for the trouble.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'd like my account "White Cat" be renamed to "とある白い猫". Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 09:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

As the original creator and wikifier of that 2002 speech, I want to know why this was determined to be a copyright violation, and who reported it as such. Quite frankly, I don't believe it. 75.60.18.245 02:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Check the archives of WS:CV — billinghurst sDrewth 03:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2011-08#Barack_Obama.27s_Iraq_Speech — billinghurst sDrewth 03:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello BirgitteSB. You have TemplateScript in your MonoBook JavaScript; I'm slowly replacing that version of TemplateScript with a revamped new version (which is compatible with the recent MediaWiki changes and fixes several issues). Are you still using MonoBook and TemplateScript? Shall I update the code to the latest version, and possibly move your scripts to User:BirgitteSB/common.js (which is used for all skins)? —Pathoschild 02:14:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No I am using vector. I suppose I should delete that page or would that break something?-BirgitteSB 00:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can safely delete User:BirgitteSB/monobook.js. I know TemplateScript works in Vector; shall I migrate you to the new version, or do you no longer need it? —Pathoschild 03:47:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. Almost four years later you just got another update! :) I also moved your monobook.js to common.js, so your scripts should work again. If you notice any problems or have questions, let me know and I'll help out. —Pathoschild 14:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

"We don't beat up people who make mistakes" (paraphrased) by Billinghurst when I recently asked him questions about validating, running headers, et cetera. The following was brought here from my talk page.—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 21:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just for the sake of the record here, we do need to alert people to mistakes and to be certain they understand the exact nature of what occurred so that it is not repeated in ignorance. And if Billinghurst says otherwise than I shall have to disagree with him. BirgitteSB 03:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, Billinghurst did not state that the way you are showing it. He is very mannerable himself. His was a reply to my questions that you perhaps have not seen on his talk page. I myself have been alerting an editor by corrections which is what caused me to ask Billinghurst the questions. You mention the necessity of alerting and I totally agree and I have been doing the same thing but the difference is I don't challenge a person I just make the corrections. I also would not use the word "ignorance" because it is an obvious inciteful word. I would use the word "mistake" and write in a different manner. You wrote above, "and to be certain they understand the exact nature of what occurred" but you did not do that when you came to my talk page. I openly stated that I was "confused" about your statements. Anyhow, I politely replied to you on my talk page and now consider this conversation to be done, over, finished. Again, kind regards as we both get back to work. —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 04:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not inciting you. There is no problem with my wording. It accurate and non-judgmental. I expected you would understand the nature of the mistake better than I did once pointed to it, when you did not I followed up until you at least admitted the problem's existence. I myself did not understand the exactly how you had come to make these errors, so I could hardly begin with such an explanation. I had suspected a buggy script, as it looked like a buggy sort of error, but I was not at all certain. I trusted that you would best understand your process for "running headers" and would be able troubleshoot it far better than I, and now Beeswaxcandle has shared the answer to the more confusing error. I promise that I was not purposefully refusing to explain the root of the issue to you. Please stop seeking so hard to have a problem with me. I don't wish know how you would have written my messages differently nor which words I have chosen which you believe should be off-limits. I politely gave you the chance to let this drop, and you have chosen to challenge me further with the above. Here is another chance to drop it.BirgitteSB 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I came across an odd formatting error an attributed it to your edit. I fixed this one but continued to the next page and found that it had an incorrect header. I am not sure you are using a glitchy script or were just being inattentive that day, but can you please review the pages you edited around that time period until you are confident you found all the ones that need further fixing.BirgitteSB 19:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

That is not the form of a running header that I use. I suppose that was already there when I validated the work. I do not use any script for a running header nor for validation. I also did not place ## "Early Settlers" ## there. —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 22:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Page 32 before your edit. Page 32 after your edit with ##"Early Settlers"## added. Page 33 before your edit without a header. Page 33 after your edit with an incorrect header. If I am misattributing this to you, please explain who else might be responsible. I have gone over this again, and can only see that these are your edits. Please look again.BirgitteSB 18:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will certainly look but before I do I wish to make a statement and/or ask a question or two. I do not know you and have never communicated with you before now to the best of my knowledge. Your name is not even familiar to me and I have been here since about 2006. So, with that I ask, since you apparently found some mistakes that someone made why do you not do what I have been doing for others and correct the mistakes regardless of who made them? It is not highly important who you attribute any mistakes to. Simply correct what you find wrong. Isn't that the way WikiSource works? We're all "family" helping one another? You seem bent on annoying me as opposed to what I have have been doing for others and what I have just suggested mannerably. Please clarify your intentions about this. As stated, I will look now. Kind regards, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

---

—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the ## issue that you picked up in the above conversation is to do with the "new-style" sections. If an editor is using the new-style (i.e. hasn't turned a gadget on), then any old-style section tags get automatically converted to the new-style. If the new-style tags are not on a separate line, then they get parsed as a list, which is what happened in this case. When I look at the mainspace page that section hasn't been used for LST, so I don't think it will matter that it's been deleted. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

P.S. It's nice to see you around again. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do the "new-style" sections not work with LST? I am pretty sure that the text in question did use LST. It was one of the ones I set-up as an example. But maybe it was a plan I am remembering that never quite happened from when LST was in development. How are we preserving texts that do need LST if they are being automatically converted? Please feel free to point me to a discussion of this (if it exists), instead of re-typing it all just for me!BirgitteSB 22:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

It seems not to use LST. I though their might have been a stand-alone version with essay and not the biographical intro. But it looks like it was never done that way. I had thought to do so, but it looks like I never did. Maybe when I find more of the essays he bundled with the subscriptions it will be worthwhile to add a clean collection of them all.BirgitteSB 23:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they still work with LST. ThomasV thought that the old-style was confusing to newbies (see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-11#Easy_LST). However, I didn't like the new-style and so have turned it off (in the gadgets) and accordingly I know nothing more. I see that an IP has added the section marker back into that page. Maybe there's an off-site transclusion that got broken as I can't find it being used anywhere on enWS. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania - You are invited!

Are you a woman attending Wikimania 2012? If so, join us on Saturday, July 14, for the annual WikiWomen's Luncheon (fka WikiChix Lunch) This event is for any women attending Wikimania. Pick up your lunch, compliments of Wikimania, and join us at 1:30pm in the Grand Ballroom for a lively facilitated discussion hosted by Sue Gardner. We look forward to seeing you there. Please sign up here. SarahStierch (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

---

Hello. I request renaming my following accounts:

• محمد الجداوي → Avocato
• GedawyBot → AvocatoBot
• Confirmation link: [4]
• Reason: Privacy reasons

Please, unblock my bot. Thanks in advance.--M.Gedawy 07:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Here is the page where header template is : Mediawiki:Proofreadpage header template. Tpt (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can't figure it out. If it were not inside the notes parameter. . . I will try and find someone to explain this to.BirgitteSB 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Pardon... could it be that {{{portal}}} is just a pass-thru parameter, available in the standard header template(s), that calls the real template handling those little info-boxes normally found in the notes field - {{plain sister}}? Seems like it should still work but I'm no expert on 'transcluding a template to call a template that calls on a third template'. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You lost me at pass-thru. If you are doubting that I was even close to getting it to work; then I agree with you ;) BirgitteSB 02:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh I'm probably butchering the technical term(s) whatever they may be. In other words, when portal= in the header template, the template-code skips the call to Plain_sister completely. When portal=something template:header imports template:plain_sister and transfers that something-value to template:plain_sister as if it existed there all along. Add to that the fact MediaWiki:Proofreadpage_header_template is being used as if it were a template and not a system message to begin with and we get a template calling a 2nd template which is now calling a 3rd template (i.e. too many equal signs and |'s in all those templates for this to work like one would think it should). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Any ideas on Commonscat? I copied what was done for the portal but no go. I don't understand the theory of wiki text. I just copy-paste-tweak-break-teak-break-etc and learn by trial and error. That is how I have learned anything technical, but unfortunately it leaves me unable to discuss these topics very well.BirgitteSB 00:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

With this old diff you added "Ode of Pericles" to Author:Pericles. A google search for the term turns up nothing but us, suggesting that the ode doesn't exist. I'm thinking maybe you accidentally propagated some vandalism from Wikipedia or another Wikisource or something. I have deleted it. Feel free to reinstate if you can verify its existence. Hesperian 02:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what I was thinking about that six years ago. Your edit is fine with me.BirgitteSB 02:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tpt

I am trying to use this but I am having trouble with get the details right. Can you please show me on the userpage version.BirgitteSB (d) 16 juillet 2012 à 01:25 (UTC)

You have to add " Portal" to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage js attributes in order to show the portal box in header template. Tpt (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

commonscat.

Nobody mentioned that one yesterday. Done and working.

Thank you for getting the portal to work! I know that you showed me all of this before. I wish I had thought to have you save in my sandbox instead of just previewing in DC. I still cannot seem to remember how to do everything you showed me worked. I know there a way to use / or something similar to get the navigation ->. I am sorry that I must keep asking you the same things again and again. I really appreciate the advice and want to pass it on to everyone else on en.WS. But I am afraid I am not very good. If you could go crazy in my sandbox and make the diferrent examples we like to use at en.WS, I think I could figure it out. I tried looking for examples at the fr.WS, but you all don't seem to use en.WS's favorite styles over here. Mostly I am stuck on the navigation ->, automatic commons box, and how to empty the notes of the default publication details. Feel free to make any subpages you like in my user space, and don't worry about explaining in English, unless you would like to for the other people at en.WS (I will understand examples much better than words when about technical topics). Besides all this, I hope your travels were pleasant and you enjoyed your time in the US. It really was a pleasure to meet you and the other Wikisourcerers!BirgitteSB (d) 16 juillet 2012 à 17:18 (UTC)

Not so strangely sleep makes something that was impossible to figure yesterday now obvious. The sister box has got to be the same issue as the portal was.BirgitteSB (d) 16 juillet 2012 à 17:32 (UTC)

For commonscat you have in MediaWiki:Proofreadpage header template | commonscat. = {{{commonscat}}} and not | commonscat = {{{commonscat}}}. I think that is the bug.

For navigation I have edited A_Wayfarer_in_China/Chapter_1 in order to have a demo of the table of content based navigation system. You can customize the navigation with "prev", "next" and "current" parameters of the navigation system. If you have time a good idea may be to wrote an help page about that. Tpt (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The bug is named iPad. Sometimes for quick edits I do not open up the app and Safari is a swarm of bugs on wikis. I will definately be writing help pages . . . But first I have to learn it well enough that I can edit without having my hand held. Thank you, thank you, thank you!BirgitteSB 17:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It may be a good idea to add these two fields to the index pages in order to don't have to set them for each chapters of a book. You have only to add to Mediawiki:Proofreadpage index attributes lines likes "parameter name in pages tag (without spaces)|Label of the field in index form". Tpt (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe anyone is using them on the chapter pages though. We just put the portal and commons box on the parent page. But there may br something that is used on the subpages as well, even though I am not recalling it right now.BirgitteSB 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• OK now my user page mock is set as <pages index="A Wayfarer in China.djvu" include="1,8,9,10,11,13-16,17,19-20,21" header=1 portal="China" commonscat="A Wayfarer in China" /> and it is the same result as <pages index="A Wayfarer in China.djvu" from=1 to=21 header=1 portal="China" commonscat="A Wayfarer in China" />. What if you allowed the input as <pages index="A Wayfarer in China.djvu" include="1|8|9|10|11|13-16|17|19-20|21" header=1 portal="China" commonscat="A Wayfarer in China" /> and that would produce {{page break|label=}} at the | intervals, so it would look more like the output at A Wayfarer in China. I know it would need to be written, but is that a terrible idea?BirgitteSB 23:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's not a bad idea but I have some objections :

• You are, I think, the only Wikisource to do add such separators.
• I don't know if adding features and features to "pages" tag is a good idea : most of Wikisource contributors doesn't know the half of the current features.
• We will need one more configuration pages (and there is already a lot of configuration pages).

But. if a lot of people are interested by this feature, ill will implement it into ProofreadPage. Open a bug in bugzilla for product "Mediawiki extensions", component "ProofreadPage". Tpt (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

What are the chances of reducing/eliminating some the div wrappers in dynamic layouts?
Everything should be taking place within

<div id="mw-content-text" lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">,

not between

<div id="contentSub"> and <div id='catlinks' class='catlinks'>

anymore. (~ wmf1.18) -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. You have to ask Mediawiki core developers. Tpt (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

@GO3 You could ask User:Amire80. But I would (hypocritically!) reccomend that you first file a bug on Bugzilla and then point it out to him and ask him to comment on it. So the conversation is not lost to their system and all the dev sorts are made happy. BirgitteSB 17:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Really? We can fix the above locally but editing MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js requires a bugzilla? No wonder we suck. :( I'll try that this weekend I guess. George Orwell III (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why are you taking my word for anything technical? ;) I am too ignorant on the subject to have any understanding of what the differences or non-differences between those two pages are, but I am too bold not to withhold my uninformed opinion when a question is asked on my talk page. Please don't trust me about technical details without additional verification! Maybe I should make that rider on my sig. :)BirgitteSB 22:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why are you responding to someone just as ignorant? (oh wait its your talk page). Still, I'm just as clueless as the next guy or gal but figure if I keep throwing darts in every direction I'm bound to git the target sooner or later. Prost! -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Exactly! I just worry when people start to follow my random darts against their own instincts. Too bad we don't have an easy way to declare the confidence intervals of our statements.BirgitteSB 03:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

My original sarcasm aside, was I in error when I asked tpt to look into this? I thought he was the original developer, ThomasV. My mistake if they are not one in the same.

So - all I need is an email account to open a bugzilla account to start the ball rolling towards Amire80? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I really didn't realize that was sarcasm, but thought you were good naturally teasing me. I apologize for not understanding you were still wanting more help about what to do. I truly wasn't trying to frustrate you. Where I live self-deprecating humor is pretty common and it is not a sarcastic thing but an "I hate to draw so much attention to myself but I feel I must talk about myself to clarify" thing. Tpt has picked up PP and ran with it but he did not originally develop it. He is a French volunteer also named Thomas but not ThomasV, who has been inactive for some time now. Amire80 is a WMF developer charged with "localization", but he has newly taken on maintaining PP as his secondary project. I know bug-worthy things should be filed and the devs want us to do more filing. I am not sure how to discriminate between what is a bug-worthy thing and what is a "sofixit" thing. I would ask Amir, or someone on IRC. Sorry I am not more useful here, I am not sure how to tell a bug from a in-house tweak.BirgitteSB 03:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

No need to apologize & I was being playful too (I didn't really mean "we suck" to be clear either). Ahhh... 2 different French Thomas' - no wonder I got mixed up! You've still been more helpful than your post would seem to give yourself credit for. I'll look into this over the weekend when I have more free time. Thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

quote:

Have you looked over the new patrolling feature I proposed us enabling at the Scriptorium? It does not interfere with the current method of patrolling so no one would be forced to switch if it were brought in. --BirgitteSB 01:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

end quote:

Whatever you do with the new patrolling feature I know it is for the betterment of Wikisource. Anything that removes time and work for editors on WS allows editors to apply that same time and work elsewhere on WS. We can use as much of that as we can get. --William Maury Morris II (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I filed a bug to ask for deployment. I am excited that it is tablet friendly. Patrolling is one of those tasks I would while out and waiting for other things. But it is so cluttered, I can't count on tapping the right link.--BirgitteSB 01:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Birgitte, I'm glad to see you are planning to work on the help files. They certainly have been in a mess which Adam and I have been attempting to do something about recently. He's added a whole new "Beginners" section which somewhat overlaps with the "quick guide" series and that needs to be sorted out. (There are other files marked "introductory".) Also I think the division of tasks between "Proofreading" and "Adding texts" isn't quite right. The new additions to pages and pagelist need to be documented. Chris55 (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

If you have the time (and the will), could you please look over the bugs/changes whitepaper I created before I try to get User:Amire80 to address any of it?

HERE. Thanks in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have real diffulties looking at code, it is so overwhelming nonsensical to me that my brain just wants to turn my eyes to skimming mode. I am sure there is a pattern in there that I could sort out, but I've avoided dedicating the time to it so far. I don't see any problems with ithe write-up, it seems very nicely put together. But I am little help past the superficial aspects.--BirgitteSB 17:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well then can I impose upon you to simply act as a go-between? I'm sort of out of my comfort zone as it is - it might be enough if you just point him to it and ask him to "go easy on me" in light of my virginity. ;Þ -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Amir is perfectly amiable but . . . maybe you should stay away from Bugzilla. I will approach Amir with you notes. I may not be able to read code, but I do have high tolerance for being out of my comfort zone. Especially when I have a task.--BirgitteSB 22:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this, are changes for Template:Pd/1996 also required? Jeepday (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are too polite! Thank you for alerting me, and let me know if you notice anything else I failed to update.--BirgitteSB 23:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is over my head to understand how it works (or does not work) but Template:Pd/1996 is still showing different words then Template:PD-1996. See Author:Edith Nesbit the template words don’t seem to be updated. Jeepday (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have purged all the templates involved and cleared my cache, and still no dice. I don't have a clue either--BirgitteSB 17:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Posted to Wikisource:Scriptorium#1996. Jeepday (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. I was mostly looking for someone to hand the entire project to since I don't have time to work on it myself currently (due to Wiki Loves Monuments and other projects). I found a couple people to take over on the wiki side, but am still waiting to hear back from the librarian on setting up an actual meeting. Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi BirgitteSB! I hope all is well. I wanted to stop by to share a new project with you that I am developing, called the WikiWomen's Collaborative. I would love your input about the project.

• You can find the project page here.
• On the talk page, you'll find a number of questions I'm seeking input on. I'm especially seeking thoughts about hosting the space off of Wikipedia (in the WordPress section). I hope you will join in on the conversation.
• Finally, this project will be developed with volunteers from around the world who want to engage and support bringing new women to Wikipedia. If you think you'd like to be involved in some capacity, that'd be awesome. We're still working on developing roles, but, you can learn more about volunteer opportunities here.

Thank you for the consideration and I hope you'll participate in developing this exciting new project to bring more women to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

p.s. we also are discussing calls to action for Wikimedia projects, and FloNight mentioned WikiSource. Perhaps you have some ideas! SarahStierch (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I was planning on reading the linked pages (I began on this) and responding to but eventually I forgot about it. This isn't an easy thing for me to respond to in that I do not have any automatic ideas. As of right now, I can't see getting involved in this. There are just too many wiki things I am wanting to do that I am not currently getting around to. Plus there are some local projects I really want to be involved in. This leaves me very reluctant to jump on another new project at this point. Good luck.--BirgitteSB 23:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's the end of "Help page month". We haven't made a huge amount of progress but a few things have been done. Does this at least look a bit better now? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is a real improvement. I feel bad that I have not been around to participate, but meatspace has been rather demanding lately.--BirgitteSB 22:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a follow up to your last comment at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Works_of_Author:Vladimir_Putin? Jeepday (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I give up looking for this email :( I did get a response, but it was not helpful. I am sorry I did not update COPYVIO right away.--BirgitteSB 02:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Birgitte. I have been adding/reworking Kipling's poetry, and have come across some questions along the way about certain Mainspace pages that are either unindexed—or, if they are indexed, they are not proofread. I'm not exactly sure how to phrase my question, so if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the background information (not too in depth) at Hesperian's Talk page (@ "Piggybacking"), it leads to my question to you. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

To add, I believe only four of the poems in question are ones created or edited by you: Delilah (Kipling), The Story of Uriah, A Code of Morals, and "Fuzzy-Wuzzy". The remaining poems are unindexed (not transcluded) and were created by Poetlister or various editors. If you'd like, you can make response at Hesperian's page (if that's alright with them) to keep the dialogue all together. Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think I've handled the issue okay... I have created versions pages for the above poems to represent what you have worked on as well as the indexed versions. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You commented about comparisons and comparative pages during the proposal for the Versions guideline. I thought I should tell you that I have included this in Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works. I started this page (which I think is the first RfC of its kind on Wikisource) to try to solve a problem that got very heated in the past (without resolution) and after some recent other discussions like the Versions proposal. I closed the initial proposal on Scriptorium as broadly in support of some derivative works in theory, but not about what kind of derivative works (comparisons, annotations, translations etc) were in scope; which is where the RfC comes in. If you would like to comment, please do. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you help me in adding the school song of New R. S. J. Public School I will be thankful to you.--Prathamprakash29 (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hope that you enjoyed your sabbatical, and that life finds you well. Nice to have you back. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I am quite well I and I have gotten quite a few meatspace things in order. I hope all has been well around here and also with you.BirgitteSB 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted most of the backlog redirects from this category. I left those I feel should be left for now, and those that have links that I don't know how to update. I've also left the Translation Soft redirects. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

That is great. I just asked the creator of the translation template about what intention was there. Maybe people had a different time frame in mind for those, but I personally don't see a need to keep them forever. And certainly not any need to keep them forever as soft redirect instead of a Mediawiki native redirect. If you see any that you think are needed redirects it would best to use the native feature for redirects which will count them properly on special pages (like orphaned pages).BirgitteSB 11:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at this you were involved and the argument is reasonable. Jeepday (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi BirgitteSB,

Your annual reconfirmation has been closed as unsuccessful, and I've requested removal of your admin and 'crat flags. It seems you've well and truly moved on, and may not even see this message; but in case you do, thank you on behalf of all of us for many years of collegial service.

Hesperian 03:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply