User talk:Billinghurst

From Wikisource
(Redirected from User talk:SDrewthbot)
Jump to: navigation, search
A lot of money is tainted: 'Taint yours, and 'taint mine.
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



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)

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)
I was poking around a bit for help on how to do an OCR (especially for Latin/ Swedish) for Wikisource but did not find any. Do you or Zyephyrus or anyone here have some pointers? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen:Must be too obvious … under the "Proofreading tools" button on the toolbar (traditional or advanced) there is a big button labelled "OCR". Press it and it OCRs. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Note en passant: Make sure Preferences/Gadgets/Editing tools for Page: namespace/Disable OCR button Button Button ocr.png in Page: namespace checkbox is unticked. AuFCL (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Haven't been in the Page namespace much, so it was not obvious to me. Found it now on the English and Swedish Wikisources, but not on the Latin one (I checked for gadgets to be set in the preferences). Anyway, since the Swedish alphabet contains the Latin one, it would seem possible to just do the OCR on the Swedish Wikisource and then transfer to the Latin one. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It is there in both, I did check prior to stating, maybe just push the page again. The OCR tool is loaded through "Mediawiki:Common.js", and gadgets are just there to offer to turn off the button in the toolbar. I think that it is on for all WS wikis, though you can always load it through your m:Special:MyPage/global.js see mw:Extension:GlobalCssJsbillinghurst sDrewth 23:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The OCR button is hidden in the Proofread tools group, when you expand it other groups disappear: can you find that too? --Zyephyrus (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, found it now, thanks - seems the icon simply hadn't loaded. Is the OCR customized to the respective language version? Results for neither Latin nor Swedish are very promising for this book. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Phe: are you able to provide better feedback on Daniel's question? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Lang is customized depending on the site the ocr request come. en.ws --> ocr in English etc. except for la.ws where the ocr use Italian as lang as there is no latin package. Actually the lang can't be chosen on a per book basis. — Phe 11:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Phe: @Daniel Mietchen: I'm guessing that the Swedish package is based on 20:th and 21:st century Swedish texts. That is not really suitable for an antiqua text from the 18:th century which is very different in many instances, long-s, different 'ä' and 'ö' types etc. That makes it hard to get a good OCR anyway but besides that isn't the facsimile that good. The text from the opposite side has bleeded through the page which makes for a lot of artifacts on the page that disrupts the OCRing.--Thurs (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been known to save a page image (as jpg) try one of the external OCR sites for a comparison. Sometimes those sites do better than we do. Sometimes if the work has not been through Internet Archive it is worth putting it through their derivation processes. Sometimes IA's derivation process does a crap job, and asking them to rederive a work can bring different results. Sometimes, it all is a bit too hard for whichever process. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:02, 9 September 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)

Author:Grace Granville[edit]

Did you notice the discrepancy in birth dates? On here it still says ca. 1667. I'm not sure which one is correct, although 1654 seems the right one. The editor possibly used this source. --Azertus (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it, and that is what led me to remove it at WD from what I had added from enWP, which was unsourced. I am going to leave it vague here, just hadn't got there yet, and who knows which is correct. Family history data shows both years, and my quick check of references doesn't show anything definitive. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-37[edit]

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

Hello Billinghurst, thanks very much for the warm welcome and guidance. I'm very new to wikis so apologies for the elementary errors. Thanks too for the response to the help request. As mentioned I'm part of a wider group of sociologists who have been working on transcripts of military incidents - we will produce other modified transcripts (we usually work on them for around a year each) but the one mentioned is our most developed. In terms of contributing to discussions on transcripts, how is it best to do that? You can see the way we have done it here.Michaelmair (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Michaelmair: We were all new at wikis at one point, so we try to do guidance, and hopefully teach, rather than complain. Politely slap us, if we stray or forget that.
We see WS as the source/library, such as "here is the original text that passed contemporary peer review at the time of publication", rather than as the encyclopaedia, or place of analysis. Such that the body of a text is meant to be that source, headers of works can provide some neutral context, scene setting and linkage (even to talk pages). Talk pages themselves can provide further context, and links to pertinent off-site analysis. So with that background, if you are talking about correcting errors in transcriptions, then fix them, and add pertinent comment to the source (as I said before). If discussions for new transcripts, then where you were is a good start place (we try to keep help simple), and we can direct from there, of course noting Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. If you meant discussions to analysis of the transcript, if it is a published work and in the public domain, then it is ours, otherwise is not our bailiwick, and may be more relevant for our sister sites wikinews or wikibooks and then we link between them to discuss source <-> news <-> annotation/book; and of course Wikipedia for encyclopaedic review.
Does that answer your questions? Or have I missed your point? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A compromise?[edit]

Hey, I've been thinking about our discussion about linking in archived scientific works and I think I've reached a compromise that will please both of us. Check out that example page again. If it looks the same as it did before bypass your cache (ctrl+F5 in Firefox or Chrome). Does this satisfy us both? Abyssal (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Abyssal: Personal opinion: there is more than I would link in a work if I was doing it. There are still words linked that I consider common words, and I believe anyone reading this technical work (the audience) would know those words (eg. cervical, suture, ...). That said, I (generally) would not unlink words if I came to validate the work. So if I came to the work now, my expectations would be … a consistency in linking style/approach, ie. not seeing the odd page in the work having the linking, AND how does a chapter look when it is transcluded to the main namespace? Is it a sea of links that swamp the work, or does it seem appropriate?
In the end, this is your effort, and you are the lead reproducer and at enWS have an approach that respects the lead contributor for a work. So I am not going to be (needlessly) critical and (hopefully) more provide an observer's reflective critique. Maybe you can get an outsider's view of what is the balance, and as a community that is probably the point of view needed, not managing my expectations. In the end that you read and consider my thoughts, and seek other opinion is all that I ask, and what you decide is okay if we are getting the consistency, and the overarching view. Thanks for asking. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you think the change to darker blue, less conspicuous links was an improvement, though? I was hoping to strike a balance between readability and integration with other Wikimedia content. Abyssal (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
No. It isn't our practice to change link colours to suit our needs to lessen the visual impact of overlinking, we have left links as the system defaults. Changing the colours doesn't change the basis of my issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. I modeled the change to dark blue links on Template:Wg. I didn't know that kind of thing was controversial. A philosophical question in response to your distaste for my use of links: what is the drawback of a link if it's not drawing attention to itself by being the default bright blue color? Abyssal (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
My philosophical point about links and templates has been addressed as a more general discussion at WS:S. I think that more general discussion is more useful for that component and becomes not my opinion alone, and I keep my responses here relevant to my opinion about the pages in question, that hopefully separates philosophy from specifics. I hope that is okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

" Where's the Beef ? aka short "cuts"[edit]

Recently your bot changed three SHSP pages and I am wondering why short cuts were substituted or removed. I looked at Template:RunningHeader and saw that the "shortcut" of the beef (rh) is okay to use rather than RunningHeader. I also saw the following was changed.

 SDrewthbot (Talk | contribs)
m (expand diacritical templates, replaced: {{rh| → {{RunningHeader|, {{hws| → {{hyphenated word start|, {{hwe| → {{hyphenated word end|, œ → {{subst:oe}} using AWB)

I need to know if the short "cuts" are still allowed. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, shortcuts are still allowed, what ever gave you the idea that they weren't. I was doing the expansions, and the others are just general maintenance in passing. Not certain what is your issue. Ideally we would subst all the shortcut templates to expand normally, but I have never bothered to go that route. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no issue now that I have read your statement about the above. However, rules and codes sometimes change fast on wikisource and your bot's changes sparked my question. Don't worry, be happy. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Shortcuts are easy to type, and that is their purpose, whereas the issue is that they are hard for newbies to comprehend, especially if they don't know what is a template in the first place. It is hard to find the right balance, however, if my bot is running through pages doing maintenance on a page, it replaces to the full. Though I don't send it through replacing just for the hell of it. As I said, ideally we would subst: expand on creation, but we haven't done it. That said, something like RunningHeader is easy to add to the header field on the Index: page, so we shouldn't need to overly use a shortcut. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

Can you take a look and respond at WS:PD please? Been trying to cleanup some items with missing files. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Like most of us, I look at WS:PD when the mood takes me. We are used to long conversations there. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

where[edit]

does it say that you have to use that ugly template (which policy)? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That template matches many of our other templates that accurately describe a work, its source, and year of publication (where known). Useful and pertinent information is what we looking to provide. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-38[edit]

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion and transfer here[edit]

Please see c:User talk:INeverCry#Request for temporary undeletion. At least he tried (although the re-deletion comment demonstrates low understanding of what I was after). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Transferred, will be in category in RC header. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)