This user is an administrator and checkuser.
This user has a bot.
Email this user.

User talk:Billinghurst

From Wikisource
(Redirected from User talk:SDrewthbot)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Da mihi basium"
System-users.svg This user has alternate accounts named SDrewthbot & SDrewth.
billinghurst (talk page)

(Archives index, Last archive) IRC cloak request: I confirm that my freenode nick is sDrewth
Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.

Scale of justice 2.svg

Wikisource has a number of active Wikiprojects that could use
your help in tackling these large additions to our library.

Law Project
Work: Wikisource:WikiProject Law

TO DO — DNB footer initials[edit]

Improve Template:header to handle arbitrary number of categories[edit]

I posted on the talk page here Template_talk:Header#Change_to_Support_More_than_10_Categories and you can see this change to the template in action here Template:Header/sandbox/sample and here Template:Header-wpoa/sandbox/example.

Edits to Template:Header are currently restricted, but I think this change would be a general improvement for any document with more than 10 categories added via the header template. Let me know if you think this change can be accepted.

-- Mattsenate (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Commented there. We probably have numbers of similar improvements elsewhere that we need to find and resolve in a similar manner. [Us non-coders!] — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Ping. I added a tiny bit and posted again on the thread here. Does not seem like there is any issue with giving this a whirl, do you think we should request any more feedback? -- Mattsenate (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Month seems long enough for comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I'm curious about commons:Special:Diff/132346934. Which of the provisions does this satisfy? It's not a photograph or an artistic work, so I presume it was commercially published? I'm not familiar with UK copyright law -- seeking to build my understanding. -Pete (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a work that is covered by crown copyright which is now expired for the work ...
A work is Crown copyright if it was:
  • created or published at any date before 1 June 1957 by or under the direction or control of the Crown

Therefore it applies to many records held in The National Archives, such as letters and reports by Crown servants, census returns, records of service in the armed forces, records created by the law courts, transportation records, war diaries and Cabinet minutes.

Copyright and its related works section 7,

... and that is the only licence available for that work. If you can find something more applicable, then go for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-41[edit]

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Question concerning headers[edit]

Hallo Billinghurst, is there a difference in the syntax of the following two types of headers?

Type 1: {{RunningHeader|84|{{smaller|PORTRAITS OF PLACES.}}|{{x-smaller|[III.}}}}

Type 2: {{rh|84|{{smaller|PORTRAITS OF PLACES.}}|{{x-smaller|[III.}}}}

I ask because you changed the header on page 84 of Henry James' "Portraits of Places" from type 2 to type 1.

Kind regards from Germany, --ABrocke (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No difference systematically, the second is a redirect to the first, and is part of my standard maintenance scripts. The former is just explanatory jargon for newbies. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-42[edit]

08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

new texts[edit]

Any reason you cut 'New texts' down to six texts from seven?[26] Hesperian 01:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempted balance on the front page. I had earlier bumped it up from 6 to 7, and it often been that way on the count, and seems dependent on the length of the featured text. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, we have a front page now? Nice. :-) Hesperian 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You…insufferable…peacemaker, you![edit]

Regarding this GOIII has a point, the code in Base.js is rather tortured and kind of odd. However at the same time it is somewhat unreasonable to expect a new user to "know" which is the more fundamental syntax: ## or <section… Isn't there a case for both coexisting at an equal level, rather than the current either/or dichotomy?

Oh, two strikes:

  1. Assuming a sane world;
  2. Assuming the whole situation did not arise through a bodgy unreviewed patch.

AuFCL (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not commenting on the code, I was commenting on the history of why it came about (baby bath water). If we looked at it now, we would just have a section <section name="bert">bert bert bert bert</section> as we no longer look to do the complicated exclusion components ... (yaddada). But what the heck, we can criticise all day, I am just really thankful for the tool that was built, and love every time we make it easier/better/... ThomasV built it on his lonesome, and it was a great improvement on what we had, and for which he had no support, and often no code releases into the Extension by WMF, so instead some things were pushed through by javascript so they could happen. Long tortuous history. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Picking up on that, and completely agree (sadly partly on both sides.) And my (I really should have appended 'apparently') "unreviewed" comment remains in force. Be nice if that can be addressed—maybe even to the satisfaction of all parties concerned (as if.)

I hope you are aware you were not meant to take the 'insufferable' as meant too unkindly, umm, you just figure it out. AuFCL (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Perfection is nice, though rarely the reality. Volunteerism should always be appreciated (see previous statement)

I was mortified (of course), for at least a whole picosecond. Not the worst thing that I have been called around WMF wikis, even in the past few days, and I knew that there was jest within. Such is the joys of of a profile. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The process to attain perfection's easy to describe; somewhat harder to utilise in practice:
  1. Start by setting all dials and controls to infinity.
  2. Go for it!
  3. If anything breaks, back off a quarter turn, make good and resume at step 2.
  4. Verify result (may have to resume at step 3.) Declare success!

Warning: the above procedure might take significant unexpected resources. Femtosecond turnarounds may be considered to be anomalies. AuFCL (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Femtosecond turnarounds? Sounds like an out-there cuckolding experience. I don't think that I will given permission to come out to play. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Check template:tooltip[edit]

To check if this is working Page:National Life and Character.djvu/89 away from this PC.

Broken for me in Firefox 36.0a1 on Windows 7. Hesperian 05:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It was a note to self (Ff32.0.3 and Chr 38.0.2125), however, Ff 36 ? Face-surprise.svg that is bleeding edge. Living dangerously?!?
I know, but I was feeling helpful. Yep, otherwise known as Firefox Nightly. And yes, living dangerously — it is pretty stable in-and-of-itself, but it constantly breaks extensions, and I rely heavily on extensions. I'm regularly having to go safe mode, wipe my profile, etc. It's all good fun. Hesperian 05:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:SIC still works and is based on tooltip, so will need to explore the differences in implementation.
Guys? Now? I am having a déjà vu moment here, as I am sure I gave this guidance to somebody (else) quite recently. This is a known and documented issue with tooltip—see second bullet point. AuFCL (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have added that to the template. Thx. No point in having a tooltip that doesn't tip, which would be a tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Good try. However for me on standard FF 32.0.3 the apostrophes now appear in the pop-up (that is with the &quot; method applied.) Reverting to unprotected double-quotes breaks the pop-up again as before. On second thoughts I won't give you heartburn as to creative misuses still open to this solution. AuFCL (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Happy for you to leave all your notes and thoughts on the template's talk page for whomever is clever enough to have a better working solution. I am so outcome driven. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Enough playing. I shall give some thought to a better solution; but in my opinion right this instant the last version of {{tooltip}} (i.e. special:permalink/4584926, with associated special:permalink/4895644) constitutes a superior starting point. AuFCL (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Applied exercise in cracking nut with excessive force. Don't care if you misunderstand that. YP. AuFCL (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43[edit]

13:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Some questions[edit]

Hi, happy to see you here. I have some question doing Korea-related work here:

  1. Relocation of the Capital City - There is official case number for this (we usually call the case by number) should I move it? or current name is better?
  2. Copyright Act of South Korea is outdated, any template to mark as such?

— revimsg 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

For question 2., you can write that it's out of date in Talk:Copyright Act of South Korea in the notes section of the {{textinfo}} template. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Re 1. Will the addition of a redirect suffice? Or we can move it and leave a redirect. We are pretty open to both, though do like clear, descriptive titles for the obvious reason of search engine results and we like distinctive titles as specificity is also good. We are generous with redirects as works can have many variations of title.
Re 2. As said in 1, we should move it to something has a year that reflects its descriptive title. If just moving, we would have a redirect at existing page. If you are bringing the new act, then the existing page will become a disambiguation page. As a note, Wikisource pages are not outdated as the represent a publication at the time of the publication. We are not an authoritative repository for the law today, though hopefully we can offer an accurate copy of a document as it was published at its time of publication. The notes section of the work can have something that says that the legislation was active between xxxx and yyyy, then add <edition = yes and put in more descriptive and pertinent notes, which could include off-site links to reference or verify. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
1. Ok, I found some conventions at Category:Supreme Court of Korea decisions has "Case Number+Summary". I think this is a good idea.
2. I wanted to say "This law is no longer effective, because this law has been revised, revoked, or country has been fallen." or such. — revimsg 03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay to 1). To 2), it should be specific. "This legislation was revoked in XXXX, and superseded by [[new legislation]]. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-44[edit]

05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies, from the papers of Thomas Jefferson[edit]

Billinghurst, Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies, from the papers of Thomas Jefferson has 2 spaces before each sentence. You validated one of them with 2 spaces but you also proofread another and used one space. My understanding is that there are to be one extra space between sentences. Which should it be? 2 spaces is the easiest because all pages have it but that is not the rule as I understand the situation. Which shall it be? Kindest regards and Ta-Ta for now... —Maury (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Consecutive spaces in html are concatenated, so one space or seven spaces = one space. In short, I probably didn't fuss over it or tried to be perfect, and removed in passing where it was obvious. It is not something to which I particularly paid specific attention, and it is not mentioned in our style.

With regard to the practice of single versus double spaces between sentences, it is an old typewriter set width font issue, where it was a (typing) practice to put the extra space. With the transition to both justified typography, and to proportional fonts, it stopped being a standard practice, and I think that my touch-typing practice is now to do singles, and I would have to look at my own history to even see what I do, as I couldn't even tell you what is my norm. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Structured Data Bee, vol. 1, issue 1[edit]

Greetings, thank you for signing up for the Structured Data newsletter and its first edition. With this newsletter, the Structured data team plans on keeping you informed of technical progress, events, and communications to talk about the project, and continued information on how you can participate. This newsletter will be sent approximately every two weeks, and future editions will be translatable prior to publication. If you're new to Wikidata and want more information about how it works in relation to Wikimedia Commons, you can read an introduction to Wikidata for Commons being drafted.

Tech and design[edit]

  • The software development for this process is still in the planning phases. The idea is to have some functional prototyping done for experimentation and feedback by the end of the year.
  • The initial roadmap for development has been posted on Commons. The roadmap is a rough outline and is open to iterations as the team learns where and when to focus its energies.
  • There is a page set up for design ideas about what structured data could potentially look like.
  • There are forthcoming requests for comment about the particulars of technical architecture on Keep an eye on the commons:Commons:Structured data/Get involved page for notification of when the RfCs are posted.

Events and chats[edit]

  • There was a week-long meeting between the Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team, the Wikidata team, and community members, held in Berlin, Germany, at the office of Wikimedia Deutchland on October 6-10. You can read an overview of the event in on this page on Commons. There are also plenty of pictures available on Wikimedia Commons.
  • If you would like to read more detail about what was discussed, there are etherpads of notes taken for each day of the event.
  • The second IRC office hour (logs) was held on October 16, and the first (logs) on September 3.

Getting involved[edit]

  • You've signed up for the newsletter. That's a great first step!
  • While working prototypes are being developed, there is a drive to make all files contain machine-readable data on Wikimedia projects.
  • A hub has been launched to facilitate communication and documentation for this work.
  • There is a frequently-asked questions page that is finishing drafting and will need translated. Keep an eye out for when it is ready if you are interested in translating.
  • There will be active organization of the Get involved page as community participation is further organized. There will be work groups, similar to specific Wikiprojects, dedicated to particular aspects of structured data like licensing presentation, design, API performance, and even helping out with this newsletter and other community communications.

There will be much more information and activities around the proposal to develop structured data on Wikimedia Commons. This project is a major undertaking and an important step as the chief provider, repository, and curator of media for Wikimedia projects.

Thank you for your participation in such an extensive project, let me know if you're interested in participating in this newsletter. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Tech News: 2014-45[edit]

17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively randomly have a selected that requires validation. [internal error][edit]

Got "internal error" Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The bot is erroring. :-( I will see if I can find someone with the keys to restart it. Thanks for the notification. (dratted thing was working yesterday or the day before) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@William Maury Morris II: it is back, though I have been told that it was due to database query issues, and it may not be fully effective while that load is present on toollabs. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 12:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Somebody will work it out now that someone is alerted.

Meanwhile, in the following, "November is validation month (again)", I think (again) looks bad. When I saw that one word, I thought "boring!" = once again and yet I often do validations throughout the year. I get to read many new works by doing so as I have done today on Henry VIII and company. I don't believe again is needed. It just seems counter-productive to me emotionally. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comedy of (mis)edits at Author:Killingworth William Hedges[edit]

I think I have restored your edit state as it ought to have ended up before you reverted (well, you get the idea: how to mess up an edit session group without actually having an edit conflict at any point in time.)

In amongst the mess above I want to draw one lesson: if the wikidata= parameter is never actually needed any more; then why is it still supported in the template? Please consider either deprecating or removing it altogether. 05:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The parameters need to remain as they provide the links, they do need to be struck from the template's instructions, which I have done. Thanks. We are still in the process of cleansing them after spending the time adding them. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Is it blocked at pt.wikipedia? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

w:pt:Special:BlockListbillinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It was blocked indefinitely by a local admin. Too bad. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe politely ask m:User talk:Teles. Indefinite blocks on IP addresses are bad practice.— billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-46[edit]

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-47[edit]

18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-48[edit]

19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)