# User talk:Billinghurst

(Redirected from User talk:SDrewthbot)
Two silk worms had a race. They ended up in a tie.
 This user has alternate accounts named SDrewthbot & SDrewth.
 billinghurst (talk page)

IRC cloak request: I confirm that my freenode nick is sDrewth
Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.

 Wikisource has a number of active Wikiprojects that could use your help in tackling these large additions to our library. Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library Project Work: Portal:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

## Note to self (export)

(pastes from conversation)

• mw:API:Parsing wikitext
• //en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_%28d.1124%29_%28DNB00%29&action=render
• then it uses the ws-noexport class to tidy the html from unneeded stuff; it was easier to use html as output, epub are html in zip file, and it exists many tool to convert html to other format

billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(notes)

• When building Tables of contents and Lists of Illustrations, the title components need to be included within the table |+ ... as otherwise they page break after the title before table, d'oh!
• epubreader (reasonable in browser app for FF)

## Obliterating previous claim(s) to authorities.

Please consider using {{authority control|\$1}} instead of {{authority control}} when replacing a pre-existing set of imports/additions to this template. It does not interfere in anyway with any data "collection" or rendering and the like, but actually helps matters by proving some sense of an "anchor" for robot/gadget/crawl utilization.

Think of this as the last {{{ }}} in a string of {{{ | {{{ | {{{ | }}} | }}} }}} 's but with no " | " in the last one & the resulting behavior it causes. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk)

That is an unnecessary level of complication. If it needs it, then code it. Trying to and needing to explain its use in that way seems nonsensical. Let us keep it simple.— billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleting the pre-existing, human applied info is driving the need for this so-called complication, not I, so please reconsider taking that approach. The amount of "work" needed to accomplish the same effect code-wise & on-the fly is a galactic waste of time and energy. The next incarnation will soon be upon us (see Module:WikidataF ) and "we" are already throwing away huge amounts of localized research just for the sake of what only appears to be 2nd phase progress.

Just tell me where/which script/toolbar you are loading this parameter-less template from and I will modify it for you. Nice and simple. It will most likely be obsolete in a week or two to boot! -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What is your issue today? Obliterating, deleting, complication ... can you please move away from the rhetorical to any specific issues and problems that are caused by my editing. From what I am seeing the pages that I leave have more or the same data and links, ie. no loss of functionality. All the data and more is now in Wikidata, and it gets there by a human. Nothing is thrown away. Your statements about localised links doesn't address the issue of link loss when pages are moved, deleted relocated at the other wikis, so that is a specious argument. This is all about making things as simple as possible, and with minimal maintenance. Ideally we should be completely removing the visible aspects of the sister links which can be managed by WD, and data pull. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You've changed the point to somehow make this "my issue" because of "my words" when you are the one actually removing stuff that you claim won't matter either-way, nor make any difference at-the-end-of-the-day, so I kind of know where continuing any of this is going to go already (nowhere fast). I give up. retract my request(s) Delete away.

One thing I must insist you try the next time you need to expand or move an Author: page however; plz locate the 'Wikisource: #######' entry in the existing AuthCont template bar and copy down the URL linkage & number-string within it before you "actually" move anything. Of course, verify the link actually works while you are at it. Finally, check the same URL link and associated-ID aspects after you make your move(s). Before & after should be exactly the same & clicking on it should take you to the same page too. Nobody had to amend or detect anything to accomplish that. Would that have been simple enough for you?

Try to have a good day there anyway Mr. Lost-Links. :) George Orwell III (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

## Ineuw's {{c| vs Billinghurst's {{center|

Billinghurst,

In Ineuw's work on Mexico he uses {{c| but when you worked on it you changed those to {<nowik/>{center| Why? What is the difference or do you also use macros to make these changes? Most Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just part of a formatting and cleanup script. No fuss, the first is just a redirect to the second.

As a note, leaving open {{ is problematic, always wrap them in nowiki, or utilise &#123;&#123; to produce {{ — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-23

08:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

## Author:C. Hayavando Rao

You placed a dated soft redirect template on this page after moving it. Are you sure we shouldn't want a permanent redirect here? It seems it would a useful redirect since the author was published under this callout. Not a very strong opinion on my part, but I was just wondering if you had thought much about it. --BirgitteSB 03:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Donebillinghurst sDrewth 03:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-24

07:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Billinghurst. You have new messages at Bennylin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

## Tech News: 2014-25

07:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

## {{SIC}}

Hi. I happened to notice you'd changed this template (but did not notice your edits to its /doc until after I'd already had a go at it.)

Oops. Please verify the result is still as you expect. Apologies if I've tripped you up. AuFCL (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All looks fine. You did a holistic job, I just looked/hacked at the examples. Thanks for your updates. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

## Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles

Hello Billinghurst,

We are putting together a proposal about the automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles, and since you are an active Wikisourceror, we'd appreciate yourcomments on the Scriptorium. For convenience, I'm copying our proposal here:

The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise.
We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page).
Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:
• (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
• (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
• (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
• (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.
These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles.
In order to move forward with this, we need
• General community approval
• Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
• Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

Maximilianklein (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-26

07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

## User_talk:William_Maury_Morris_II#Mahele_Book.2C_Hawaii_State_Archives

Can you see User_talk:William_Maury_Morris_II#Mahele_Book.2C_Hawaii_State_Archives?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No.

## Index:Wind in the Willows.djvu

OK, per the style guide you are correct :)

With that in mind I'm suitably trouted, and would apprecaite you matching the work to the style guide, It needs validating anyway :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing from this - also posted here, Wikisource:Scriptorium#Index:Wind_in_the_Willows.djvu, Not happy, and feeling rather incompetent. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

## Riders of the Purple Sage

While I appreciate your efforts to validate this work, you are introducing errors and inconsistencies on each page. Please do not do this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Would you like to be specific rather than just give me a spray? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(1) Template calls are currently consistent throughout this work; you made them inconsistent by substitution of different template calls. (2) You have merged paragraphs that were and should remain separate. (3) You have altered the ellipses. The author's use of spacing is deliberate in this novel, and is used to convey natural speech and dialect, so altering it changes the tone and character of the work as well as introducing another inconsistency. (4) You have italicized the page number of one page, even though none of the page numbers are italicized. The apparent italics is the result of a repeated scanning error in the DjVu in which the bottom edges of pages have skewed orthography.
And all of this in just the three most recent page validation for this work. Earlier validation of yours on this work that I came across included: (5) Missing quotation marks or other punctuation. (6) Random character insertion in place of punctuation. (7) Incorrect paragraph breaks. I am struck by the inattention to spacing and punctuation, and the lack of care and consistency in "validating" works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(1) These are the same templates, in fact these are the templates rather than the redirects, it makes zero change to the transcluded output, and presents an understandable template name to those not familiar to our shorthand. This has been discussed previously in Scriptorium and has been an accepted practice. 2) If paragraphs merged, then the output was merged prior and I seemingly did miss it. 3) Ellipses are meant to be displayed as ellipses (per style guide), so when they are left as separated periods they can line wrap, especially when these works are read on small screen devices. 4) Yes I did italicise, and I was noting that as I went back a few pages to note. They had been bolded, and that doesn't seem right either. Either way, they don't transclude to the main ns.

Re any earlier aspects, not something that I remember, and probably picked up through RC. I cannot comment more specifically than that about some historical edit, sight unseen. In relation to proofreading, this is meant to be a collaborative effort, and where someone may have weaknesses I thought that we looked to provide good guidance. So putting on your good graces, and providing helpful feedback should always be well-considered. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(1) You are actually going to argue that making an internally consistent work inconsistent is accepted practice? I don't buy that argument, nor the hand-waving that "it has been discussed somewhere at some point." (2) I don't understand your reply here. The two paragraphs were separate prior to your edit, until you merged them in your edit. (3) The style guide says that "Ellipses should be entered as actual characters, with spacing to reflect the source document." (emphasis added). You did not preserve the spacing, so you did not follow the style guide to which you have referred. You collapsed the spacing with your edit, and (as I pointed out) this has the effect of changing the character of the work. The style guide points out that spacing within ellipses should be preserved, and does so for a very good reason.
I have provided feedback that you specifically and directly asked for. Chastising someone for responding to a direct request from you for specifics is disingenuous. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(1) Truly that is your argument? A change from a redirect of a template to the template itself is inconsistent? It is not a different template call. You argue for inconsequential matters; and if I did the entire work does your argument still hold. 2) I was talking output, and I admitted my oversight. 3) You haven't replaced it with the character, you have three periods, and you should not criticise the replacement as being erroneous (which you did), though arguing for a style is legitimate.
Let us see. 1) Revert. 2) First message. 3) Second message. I was not chastising you for responding, it was your aggressive approach. If that is how you treat all of our users, then heaven help us. If that is saved up for me, truly special. You are in a collaborative community, please tone down the aggression, and treat people with respect. None of us is perfect, as much as we like to be, but to note that helpful feedback is always appreciated. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect sequence: 1) Corrected edit. 2) 1st message. 3) Revert. 4) 2nd message. 5) 3rd message. You claim that you "admitted [your] oversight", but you haven't actually done that. It would help if you took responsibility for the errors you've made, rather than denying them, pawning them off into the passive voice, and resorting to ad hominem. "Collaborative" means "working together," and this is only possible when "together" is part of the meaning intended. I get the impression that you intend to do things your way regardless of what another editor, the style guide, or the community would do, appeals to the deity notwithstanding. Thus, any perceived aggression in my comments is entirely the result of unwarranted defensiveness.
The replacement of ". . ." with "..." is erroneous, per the style guide, as cited. Your change violates the style guide; therefore it is an error.
Validation is a process of correcting the errors and inconsistencies remaining in a work, not of wholesale change to one's personal style. If the changes were truly inconsequential, as you say, then there would be no reason to implement them, nor any reason to argue them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute, EncycloPetey, I looked at one of Billinghurst's earlier edits, and you are not presenting the whole picture. On Page:Riders of the Purple Sage.djvu/186, the person before him had done some poor proofreading, and Billinghurst gave that person a hand. He corrected 24 errors and missed a spot on the 25th. Is that what you meant when you said Billinghurst inserted extraneous characters? If so, give the guy a break! ResScholar (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Please let it go. There is no point in arguing here. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-27

06:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

## Query re: File:Secrets of Crewe House frontispiece.png

Hello. Thanks for fixing this up. My initial attempt was an outright guess as you probably realised.

However, I am still confused by your change comment "{{do not move to Commons}} needs explicit parameter, it doesn't take positional", especially as your version generates a Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{"., which I am almost certain is a result of {{PD/1923|expiry=1972}} not accepting a named expiry. Are you quite sure this component should not be {{PD/1923|1972}} as I believe I originally expressed it?

Oh, and for my own curiosity, just what does == {{int:filedesc}} == do please, as I cannot fathom it out at this time of night… (Today was a bit of a personal canine of the female variety analogy.) AuFCL (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind/got it/fixed. Short summary: we are both idiots.

Still curious what that int:filedesc is doing, though. AuFCL (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Urk. Page is still sitting there on one of the tabs, and I haven't got back to it; too many distractions here tonight. It provides the word "Summary" Mediawiki:Filedesc, like Mediawiki:License-header provides the word "Licensing". Basically means if someone visits us in another language, it will pull a language context definition. If the question why add it? Expected practice for Commons, and in 2043 (and duh I need to fix), when it migrates, it won't need changes (presuming that the format is the same in 2042, and that the sites will be there ... of course they will be. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

## Lace, Its Origin and History: missing image

Thanks for pointing this out, I have uploaded the vagrant image.--Keith Edkins (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-28

07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

## Index:Notes_on_the_Anti-Corn_Law_Struggle.djvu

I've attempted to transcribe a chapter of this, However I typically use smaller block over blockquote, so I'd appreciate a guidance note on whether I need to change stuff over. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I am using blockquote, as large reams of smaller text are hard to read in Firefox. You can change it or I can when I get to it. Doesn't worry me which. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

## File needs moving from Commons

Hi, in a hurry last night to give the PotM crew another book to work on I uploaded File:Great Speeches of the War.djvu to Commons. It's only during the night that I've realised I should have uploaded it here with a "do not move". Can you please do your magic to move it here? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved, and working on the fixes on our side. Can I ask why you don't use {{book}} in preference to {{information}}? For Commons uploads, if you utilise toollabs:ia-upload it will present that template and do the uploads easily. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I usually swap to {{book}}, but only after uploading via the Upload Wizard. Next time I'm pulling an IA file, I'll have a look at this tool. P.S. Thanks for moving the file. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I had to have a guess at the year that it could be copied to Commons. I have worked on Churchill's PMA + 15, which equals 2050. Once the work is completed, and have all the dates of death, we will need to go back and relabel. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

## block exemption

Can I have one on Wikisource? ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You can edit, so it doesn't seem like you need one. — billinghurst sDrewth
No, I often get blocked when saving changes, which is really annoying. (Do you want me to email you the details?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have grabbed them from a CU and I see that there are a few 'anon. only' blocks, though you seem to be getting through those. If you are getting global blocks on some different IP addresses, then please do email them to me, and if they are from similar services used for the others, then I will look to modify those to anon only blocks. I much prefer to look to reduce the blocks on spambots and actual real users before granting IPBE. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Donebillinghurst sDrewth 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Sent you another. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Done
Last is not blocked that I can see locally or globally. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Donebillinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-29

07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

## And the Tor check entry?

in {{Anontools/ipv6}} might be nice. unsigned comment by + (talk) .

yeah /me blames these stupid refreshes and data loss that take place when preview. They weren't protected, and could have done them fwiw. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. However, regarding your last point: And just how many people would have swallowed their hearts if I'd done so? How about protecting a few things chained from MediaWiki: space like the sign on the outside of the box hints? unsigned comment by This Snippy act—sheesh! Why is the bar so low? (talk) .
We never have an issue with IPs making good edits, especially where a good edit summary is ued, and such usually you will sail through our patrol process. You will need to be more specific about MW/template pages about which you are concerned, I am not good at guessing. I don't presume that they are my templates as I believe that I have been particular about doing such. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

## indent

I only want to indent the line starting with "Thus" here, not the others. How to fix it? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

With poetry, you can just use some &emsp;es or use {{gap}} — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, and have added language here to our draft policy on Wikilinks. Please adjust or re-craft the text if it does not seem to clearly convey its meaning. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

## Is(/was) MediaWiki:Cite references link accessibility label protected unusually?

Hello.

Not sure you will know the answer to this (and it is in the line of pure curiosity—I really don't need to know but nevertheless…):

• after your initial edit of the above message I could not view the message source (reject: no permission, both logged in and not). However
• after made a further edit the contents and history are viewable (to both my pleb. login and when logged out.)

Regrettably I cannot report what the state was prior to either of your edits. Did one or the other of you happen to change page protection please? Or did you make your original change in some kind of stewardship guise.I repeat I really do not need to know this, but remain curious and hopeful you might be at least able to point me in the right direction. AuFCL (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The text is a Mediawiki: ns page, so you wouldn't be able to edit it unless you are an administrator . That is just the page itself, the history and talk page should not be impacted. As I created the file, it was just the default text from Mediawiki via Translatewiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Umm. Yes (& no.) Yes I agree your response is the official one. That said, No, it actually ain't normally true (or if it supposed to be, it broke a long, long time ago. My personal experience with MW is ~8 years now.)

I probably did not make myself clear. What I should have said is that normally non-privileged account access attempts are presented with the option of "View source" (whereas fully authorised ones get "Edit".) What had me intrigued was that both the above page and (for example) MediaWiki:Cite references link many accessibility label both presented me with "View source", but the latter actually responded to such action (as well as to "History" examination) yet the former aborted with the "No Permission" error message.

As you've probably guessed it was your post here which prompted my initial interest. AuFCL (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The file that you point to was done as a redirect to its pair, so all I can guess is that a redirect in MW: ns confuses the view aspect. Dunno. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
<shrug/> Good a guess as any. Thanks for trying. Not worth pursuing further. AuFCL (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
When a message, summary, label or similar found in the default set(s) has not been "overridden" locally, landing on such a page is the same as creating it (e.g. edit mode is automatically run; in any other namespace, the blurb about 'no such article exists. Would you like to search for it? Would you like to create it? Would you....' usually comes up instead.)

Since you don't have the bit to create articles in that namespace, Wiki thinks you are in violation per your User rights and thus the 'no permission' bang comes up for you. Once a page has been created in the MW namespace (i.e. the default is overidden locally), landing on that page is the same as landing on any highly protected page (view source only, no moving & the like.)

I'm not sure this holds for pages once created and since deleted MediaWiki:Sun or your ability to at least see the default regardless of the faux-creation thing MediaWiki:Sun/qqx or MediaWiki:Sun/qqq however. Compound these nuances with what I come to believe as pretty much a fact around here - that there are more regulars set to EN-GB than straight EN so not everyone "sees" the same message, summary, label & similar on any given page at any given moment - the MediaWiki namespace really needs some attention to achieve some sort of "uniformity" at this point. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Excellent answer. That is exactly what I was looking for (I told you I didn't really need to know) and it makes logical sense. Thanks to you both. Oh and in answer to the last, pages once created and later deleted retain that magical "viewable by plebians" state. I have checked/verified this. AuFCL (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-30

07:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

## Thumbnails on wikisource

Thank you for your pointer at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Vector_skin:_Thumbnail_style_update. I expect I shall get into trouble expressing this opinion but anyone making serious use of thumbnails on content pages in this project ought to be eligible for selection to be shot (at) as a warning to the others. Until something sensible comes along "|frameless" should be the default choice. Now let the games begin. AuFCL (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun before you accuse me of being pissy next time please be so kind as to have a quick read of mw:Talk:Thumbnail_style_update before hitting send. I absolutely give up. I simply cannot compete with this; I have not laughed so hard reading a technical treatise since the BoFH chronicles. AuFCL (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Place, community, culture and expectations. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

## Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 20.djvu/16

Hello Billinghurst, I am glad you visited the page in the subj. I have to note, though, that the intricate special characters are easier to copy from where they are on the original page. This was the reason I left the refs in their original position (so that it is easy to type in special chars and then put refs where they belong). There are other things that are not as easy for me, like references that extend to next pages, these Sacred Books have plenty of them (specifically, half or more of vol 21 "problematic" pages). Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the page was popping up as having broken references, when I was doing that maintenance. I presume that you know about <ref name=…> and <ref follow=…> for continuing references. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, now I get why it attracted attention. Thanks for reminding how to make cont refs, this part is not something I use often, so I am forgetting. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Billinghurst. You have new messages at Gleyshon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

## Tech News: 2014-31

08:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

## Mongolia, the Tangut country, and the solitudes of northern Tibet. Volume 1

Hello Billinghurst, thanks for improving a page in the subj book. I have a question: the Introduction in it (with page numbers ) precedes the Table of Contents, does not figure in the latter, and takes some 40 pages. How do I manage it at all, so that to make it accessible? Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We would generally take liberties. Transclude the ToC onto the root page and put the remainder of the long text as a (the first) subpage. Reality of the web and usefulness. The page numbers will have gaps, but that is what it is. You can always add a note to the talk page of your action. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

## Index:Literary Landmarks of Oxford.djvu

Firstly, You are going to scream at me :).

I've done a manual Match and Split, based on the chapters of the existing incomplete version, proofreading as I went.

I'm not going to start proofreading the other Chapters until you've reviewed.

More than happy to ask for a rollback or revert if there was an issue with histories :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Go play. My purpose was to move the images that we had to Commons, and it seemed worthwhile to place the work to Commons, as I needed the metadata. I have no particularly interest in the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Done, chapters assembled, as well, (images missing) This seems to have been the fastest one I've yet done. which means I've probably missed something. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

## Index:Q Horati Flacci Carminum librum quintum.djvu

Mostly latin, there also appears to be a page numbering discrepancy. ie page 10 in thwe Djvu is page 12, Can you do a recheck to make sure it's not missing pages? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, sorry cannot. No time. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: If it is missing any pages, it is front matter (cover, front endpapers, etc.). The rest of the content seems to be present and in order. You might consider revising pagination to read "1=3" instead of "10=12"; then the remaining pages will reflect correctly. Comparison with a third edition at Archive.org shows the same content pages (with different pagination), so I don't believe any content pages are missing... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
There is also the issue that portions are not English.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
You could do a side-by-side like Francesca of Rimini. The pages alternate between translations. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I could- but for the fact that the work isnt on Latin Wiklisource (yet).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-32

07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

## Kinsey works

I think that the {{Fine block}} makes the text look like closer to the original and better, especially, with small caps, so I think it would be better if You use it too when validating my pages. Nonexyst (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nonexyst: Not an issue, I was being consistent, while you were being reflective. I will let you fix up the validated pages, and I will do that on future edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-33

07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

## Bilingual Swedish-Latin book on spiders

Hi Billinghurst, as briefly mentioned at Wikimania, I would appreciate help with setting up File:Clerck 1757 Svenska Spindlar - Aranei Svecici.pdf for transcription, which I tried here and suggested here and here, all unsuccessfully so far. Thanks and cheers, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi . It looks like the framework may not be properly set at oldwikisource, definitely something not right in the background. Let me ping @Zyephyrus, Tpt: to see if they can help immediately, otherwise, I will have a look when I get home in a few days (tablet is less than ideal for that comparative work). — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Created here and here, but I have no text, it must be added. --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

## Great to meet you

Hey, although it was quick, it was great to meet you in person at Wikimania! Cheers, stephen (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was way too short a time. With numbers of people the time was too short, or where I was looking to follow up, and they were busy, or just not findable. Neat time we need to RFID chip everyone, and auto-diary booking like/dislike function. Then set up for the WM version of speed-dating. All just for me. billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-34

07:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This user has added his own author page and what looks like abstracts of his own works. I think you'd have a little better tact in handling this, so I'd toss it in your lap.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Gee thanks. A generous spirit! Donebillinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-35

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

## While you're offering, though

I could use some pointers (if you have them) on an easy way to format the EB9 pages so that this doesn't end up looking like this. I assume there is a way to do it since the transcluded pages automatically scoot the text over for the page links but would want something user friendly if possible to allow more editors to use it. — LlywelynII 12:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We transclude the text to the main ns: using sidenotes templates, and we may (or may not) force the display layer, which allows users to toggle through their preferred. More than that, has to wait until tomorrow. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

## An Apology

In relation to the deletions (At commons), It seems I was being over-bold, so you and the community here collectively are due an apology.

I'd also like your feedback on developing a 'process' guideline so that 'undercut' deletions are effectively considered disruptive here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to oputlaw 'undercut' deletions posted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I was asking for mindfulness, and in my post, I used intemperate expression, for that I apologise. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

## In relation to the dictionary

Commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Kaufmann_Visayan-English_Dictionary.djvu, based on your concerns about the other nominations I decided to see if this one was actually in the US CCE scans on Google. So far I've not found a mnetion of it under Kaufmann's name in the relevant places. (checked 1934/5) and relevant renewal records all of which came up blank so far. As noted at Commons, the version there had no front sheet to check the edition dates :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The works were not completed; so those that were not clear-cut keep, and had been deleted, I simply left alone. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear A.,

Highly amused to note the logical inconsistency betwixt and between:

(of course I must regard the problem as being entirely of your making (despite the fact I happen to entirely agree with regards #3.)) However regards overall inconsistency, I cannot resist noting until the matter is entirely resolved I must regard you as functionally insane and your opinions therefore of diminishing (well, none whatsoever) significance.

N.B. Whilst I am not unsympathetic to the exigencies of your rôle; and indeed I do not dispute your commentary; however you chose to make us on opposite sides regarding any (future?) issues; thus this post. Your basic issue is: either you choose to bury the hatchet or swallow your pride; either way remains your problem.

Even though I represent the party who cares the least in this particular matter, I nonetheless await your decision. This comment represents my last remaining shred of respect for you; so if you choose to reject it you might as well take the (similarly logical) response. AuFCL (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Post 1 contains the best advice. When I have snippy moments, it is reasonable to point out to me to reflect upon them, whether it is comfortable for me to have the mirror there is irrelevant. I will plead guilty to being a human being and making errors at times. Also being human, I believe that I do good. Hopefully others will decide that my good acts, well outweigh my lapses. If you are expecting perfection from me ... <shrug> When someone pushes a pressure point in a community, it is right for each us to point out to the user what they are doing, and I thank you for taking this time, on this occasion, and I agree that it is something that we should look to attain respectfully.

You are in control of you, and may decide what you please, that is your right. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

An impressive answer; and one which tends to restore at least some faith in you.

With regards perfection however, of course I expect it of you. If I am willing to donate time to a project so heavily reliant upon $\mathrm{\left\{\overset{OCR}{\underset{\overset{transcluding}{publishing}}{\overset{proofing}{validating}}}\right\}}$ cycles; each one of which carries a reasonable expectation of achieving a level of perfection which would render the following cycle unnecessary, just how stupid do you think I am?

So further speaking rhetorically this time, what do you suppose my realistic expectations of observing that perfection I might so reasonably expect might be?

Sometimes a little friction is essential for a process to even function at all. AuFCL (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

## Take a look at this

WS:News/2014-09#Improvements requested for the English Wikisource --Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)