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

User talk:Billinghurst

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Je suis Charlie inversée.jpg
Cartoonist found dead in home. Details are sketchy.
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.

1911 Britannica logo.png

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

Encyclopædia Britannica Project
Work: Encyclopædia Britannica

TO DO — DNB footer initials[edit]

Tech News: 2015-18[edit]

15:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Support request with team editing experiment project[edit]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here:, I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

Tech News: 2015-19[edit]

15:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


With reference to this old discussion between us about copyright status of one author named Rev.Alfred Manwaring. After recent close look at the issue I realised that applicable law would be UK copyright act of 1842 or Indian copyright act 1847 and for that act the copyright is limited up to 7 years only after death of the author so logically book ought to be in public domain. So I have uploaded the same at commons and imported on en wikisource vide Index:Marathiproverbs00manwgoog.djvu since there are some refs to google books and all I request you to peer review the upload of this books to confirm that, it is in accordance with commons and wikisource.

Thanks and Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your welcome message. :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 17:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


I was wondering why would you remove a sophisticated way of userbox implementation, where one module allows for the definition of two different boxes and revert back to old code? — Ineuw talk 19:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ineuw: If you are going to talk to me about edit(s), then it would be worthwhile adding diff(s). I have no idea about what you are talking. Specificity beats generalities. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Please accept my sincere apologies. An explanation would only make me look worse. Let me blame the late night when I see things that aren't there. — Ineuw talk 08:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Kewl, which would explain my cluelessness for what I was doing late at night. No worries here. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-20[edit]

15:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

WMF Board election[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, I'm looking through the current vote totals for the WMF Board election, and there's all of one editor from the English Wikisource. Is there a way to send messages to the active editors here to have their voices heard? Ed [talk] [en] 08:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@The ed17: Typically editors are interested in doing work, reproducing works, and less so than in the politics. Wikisource:Scriptorium is the central place, and if you think that we should put something for regular edits, then drop a note to WS:AN and suggest something to be added to the announcement component of Special:Watchlist. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-21[edit]

15:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-22[edit]

16:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether CC-Zero is sometimes appropriate for old texts[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, I don't feel strongly about this, but here is why I put a CC-Zero tag rather than PD-Old on this text. The 1788 work is of course in the public domain, but to create a version on Wikisource I copied the text from a transcript on an academic site. That version is licenced as CC-Zero, which is why I can copy-and-paste into Wikisource. Part of the point of copying was to make corrections based on checking against other sources, and I'm happy for my edits to also be CC-Zero rather than CC-By-SA. Does this fly as a rationale, or is it only the status of the original publication that matters? Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: We publish works as they were in the edition of the publication, warts and all, and we try to produce to a specific version, rather than a conglomeration of editions. If they have a typo, our practice is to leave leave the typo (maybe with a {{SIC}}), if we have an American or an English edition we use the spelling in that edition. You might want to have a poke at Wikisource:Annotations for what we limit ourselves to with inclusions to a work.

For licensing, no one can legitimately republish an 18th century work with a different CC-zero licence as they are not the author(s) of the work. The work had an original copyright protection (or it didn't) and that expired and (at most) 50 years after the author's death would have been PD-old. To note that any minimal corrections to an original would be ineligible for copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. To clear up a misunderstanding, I mean "correction" as in correcting errors in an OCR or partial transcript to reconstruct a single published edition. Creating a specific version rather than a conglomeration of editions is exactly what I thought we were doing.
I'll use PD-old rather than CC-Zero in future. I wasn't sure how to mark typos, but now I know.
Academic projects clearly are creating transcripts with a new licence, whether CC-Zero or a more restrictive licence- one of the reasons Wikisource is such a valuable project. You articulate what I want the law to be as a matter of principle, and what the WMF position is, but is it as clear-cut in law as you suggest? Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)