User talk:Billinghurst

From Wikisource
(Redirected from User talk:SDrewthbot)
Jump to: navigation, search
A pun can be made on any subject except a king, who isn't a subject.
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.

George Smith by John Collier.jpg

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


Dictionary of National Biography Project
Work: Dictionary of National Biography



Note to self (export)[edit]

(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!
  • asked Tpt about the attribution page, and how to edit, and to correct a typo
  • epubreader (reasonable in browser app for FF)

TO DO — DNB footer initials[edit]

Obliterating previous claim(s) to authorities.[edit]

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)

block exemption[edit]

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)
Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Sent you another. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
Last is not blocked that I can see locally or globally. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@DanielTom: Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Literary Landmarks of Oxford.djvu[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Kinsey works[edit]

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[edit]

07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Bilingual Swedish-Latin book on spiders[edit]

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 @Daniel Mietchen:. 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[edit]

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. smileybillinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-34[edit]

07:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Muhammadshahzadaslam[edit]

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! Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-35[edit]

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

While you're offering, though[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Inconsistency: entirely your problem.[edit]

Dear A.,

Highly amused to note the logical inconsistency betwixt and between:

  1. Special:Diff/4952863/4960472
  2. Special:Diff/5013994/5015247
  3. Special:Diff/5017986/5018180

(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)

Probability of perfection … highly improbable
Probability of community-acceptable behaviour for most of the time … highly probable
Probability of apology (when failure of acceptable behaviour for most of the time) … highly probable
Probability of causing friction through actions … between unlikely and likely
Probability of putting community's best interests forward … highly probable
Of course, if you stop watching talk-type pages the likelihood of your observations of any adverse interactions with people will decrease significantly (mine or anyone's). — billinghurst sDrewth 03:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Once more I appear to have failed to clearly state my case. You appear to be recommending to me that I suppress any desire to express an opinion for fear it may exacerbate controversy; if so I disagree fundamentally with and utterly reject that. I trust that this is merely a misapprehension on my part. On the other hand I applaud the short sharp laying down of the law to transgressors (not excluding myself) where such action (and determination to stick to the line) is assessed likely to settle the matter once and for all; preferably without ongoing malice.

Aren't we both really arguing the same side of the case? I certainly perceive that we are in concord over your actions, if not necessarily over your stated objectives prior to those actions.

I hope this issue is clear now and consider this my last word on the matter unless you should choose to disagree. AuFCL (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this[edit]

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

Thx. Edited, changes are suggested, but it is your call on how you go. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-36[edit]

07:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)