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
There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
System-users.svg 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.

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]

billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania[edit]

Note to self and anyone else interested.

Category:Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania should it be a portal too? If yes, we really need a means to autopopulate (minor) portals so we do not have do lots of work in that space.

If it is not, we need to look to adapt {{authority control}} so it can be utilised with arbitrary access to WD so AC can be filled on such a page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Move template data to WD[edit]

Category:Pages using authority control with parameters has pages with {{authority control}} data that should be housed on the WD page of the item. Look to set to utilise PLbot to move the data to WD, save some queries on its use and set up tracking. Need to be a good lad and set up fully-fledged maintenance pages. Oh for more time! — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC) import[edit]

import work so we can migrate text French Constitution of 1848 — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

To review[edit]

billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


Run bot through Index:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu and others in series IIIIIIIVVVIVII

to extract text layers. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

header WP links and the use of main subject at WD[edit]

have a check to see that where we have (encyclopaedic) pages in main namespace that link wikipedia = through header, that these items at wikidata may or may not have "main subject" wikilink. Can or should we be pulling that link via WD to manage deleted and moved items, and also be prepared for any item that has a future wp link. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Random" Lint "fixes" in Page: namespace[edit]

Firstly, ALL of the edits I refer to below were made in good faith.

I said elsewhere I had concerns about un-cordinated fixes in respect of Page: and Index namespace and the formatting in them getting out of step, across a work (and it's transclusion).

That's partly why I'd moved to looking at Author: Portal: and Help: namespace pages on the grounds that there should be less context to consider.

I appreciate other contributors are also attempting fixes in Page: namespace, Special:Contributions/JustinCB being some examples.

However in places, a slower more considered analysis would have shown that a wider context needed to be considered in making repairs. The most recent examples with this particular users "fixes" were the replacement of {{smaller}} with {{smaller block}} or multiple {{smaller}} entries within the context of a page.. (example being: Page:Women of distinction.djvu/246 )

I left a somewhat terse comment here but: User_talk:JustinCB#Page:Women_of_distinction.djvu/246 you and others have told me in the past told me to slow down, and now I find myself telling someone else to slow down. (sigh).

Because of concerns about 'random' fixes, I'd in respect of Page: fixes more recently been trying to find works I'd actually assisted in proofreading/validating on the grounds that I'd be more likely to recall how (or why) I'd used a particular formatting, That maybe a slower approach, but it's probably better than 'blind' fixes made within the context of a single page. (Aside: This may also be why a bot approach may be unsuited to many of the fixes needed for parser migration.). It's a shame there isn't an easy way at present to 'filter' Special:LintErrors output by prefix. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, pick the low hanging fruit, to make the list shorter. I have been looking at the works, and we can probably bot in batches per work, once we know what is there, it just needs to be judicious and deliberate. Rushing and blindly botting is not going to be as useful or as effective. In the end, better to do nothing than to foul up the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, I've now got 100 or so works I helped with to re-check, given that these are from when I was new here, and re-checking the proofreading/validation seemed reasonable.. Would make sense to check them for Linter derived concerns when the relevant tools support Page: namespace (Known issue so not overly concerned in flagging it to the developers.).. What would be useful though is if Special:LintErrors/X pages had a prefix: filter, like some other pages, so that the results can be trimmed down to a specfic group of pages.. Worth raising a Phabricator ticket for that feature? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Linter error reporting was not designed for WS where we do long collective and/or joined works, so suggestions to them on how it could work better for collective works is a reasonable suggestion for phabricator improvement. Their thinking is pages in isolation, whereas we are working on 1) transcluding multiple pages, 2) multiple collective pages with the same error. That they don't know our sites intimately is not their fault, and we should always politely suggest efficiency improvements. Even if they allow for working on something based on PrefixIndex / subpages would be advantageous. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of which is there a page to start noting particular conditions to look for?
{{anchor+|[[File:example.svg|100px|center]]}} being one example I can think of straightaway, I've also seen images floated inside a {{float right}}, which whilst it works... probably shouldn't given HTML5 sturcturing conventions..... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I am unaware of a page, though consider something like Wikisource:Maintenance/Linter errorsbillinghurst sDrewth 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
(On Prefix filter for linter) -, your opinions appreciated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2018-01[edit]

00:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of smaller/larger &c. block[edit]

Can you please explain when (and perhaps why) "smaller/larger block" should be used/not used as opposed to merely "smaller" or "larger" in certain cases? Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Background (and it may be known)

  • span =< p =< div
  • spans are directly joinable (on a page and between pages); to join split divs we bridge with /s and /e templates, otherwise we get a new p
  • template:smaller is span (only usable up to a p in length), template:smaller_block is div (usable p and beyond)
but we decided that smaller block has a lessened line height (awareness that a span cannot have a line height, only p and div), so if we have a long length smaller span (multiple lines within the parent p) the mix of span and div templates is crap (technical description)
at this stage we haven't gone to div templates with span equivalent line-height
when we randomly fix pages within a work, as you know there may be or will be similar templating to fix, or in use that doesn't need fixing, however, can change the look. Let me know what I have missed or overly abbreviated, or needs extending. Some of it may need some examples, so we can go and play in the sandbox to demonstrate if that helps. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain. It is late here (too late to build sand castles). I will wrap my head around the above in the morning and get back with you if I need a visual. Have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Nope. I'm hopeless. So, what I am not understanding is if you use smaller/larger with multiple lines of text, what is crap (exactly/technically) if it renders? (this is where I am dim) I understand on a purely aesthetic level where multiple lines of poetry are concerned, for example, but not on a technical level for things such as were changed here. If it is too late for you to get into this, later will be fine... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me try it as a narrative. [This is one of those situations where the little steps need to be understood, and watching eyes and face understand is so much easier so one can adopt the right style.]

Background: (known points though worth stating up front) www is html in its presentation; mediawiki is not html, so it has a renderer to output in html. Current renderer is to html4, mediawiki needing to move to html5 renderer; upgrade is occurring by WMF across wikis, and they are doing stepwise as wikis get their errors under control (see the wikitech announcements in WS:S)

Current mediawiki renderer is able to interpret our misuse of span/p/div (hierarchy described above) and currently fixes our miscoding and renders things how it thinks we are wanting; so with your cited example where we (mis)write our templates to

<span (format code)><p></p>

the current renderer gently and quietly sighs, and codes it to

<p><span (format code)></span></p>
<p><span (format code)></span></p>

The recently introduced linter error system is now providing the audible sigh, and saying "here, here, and ... here" are miscoded. WMF is providing the advanced warning that the new renderer (for up to html5) isn't so tolerant or amenable.

I am guessing that if we coded as per the first example that it will say something like "yeah nah", take this

<p><span (format code)></span></p>

so only get the span format code in the first <p>.

So back to the cited example, the edit where we converted to the block templates does

<div (format code)><p></p>

so the format code is sitting outside the paragraphs. [Noting that while enWS could write paragraph level coded templates, we don't as divs can be paragraphs]

This div coding still allows us to insert span code inside the paragraphs, eg. float templates, and still allows us to determine whether the p or span code inherits or doesn't inherit the code of their parent tag. [html also insert divs inside other divs for coding; save that for another day]

Outside the apparent weirdness of html, and css. The important thing to remember is that the hierarchy of the tags, and that they have to be nested to work reliably. This is no different to how word processing apps work, or the visual editor of mediawiki, it just manages the nesting and coding for you (is more idiot-proof).

How did I go? Apologies for length of response. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
No—no apologies! Thank you. Can I backtrack a second? When you stated "smaller is span (only usable up to a p in length)", my brain translates that to mean "TITLE" (below) is one p, and "Subtitle" is another p (do I have that wrong?), and therefore the following formatting shouldn't work (although it currently renders as desired). Are you saying in your latest illustration that while it works currently (due to the current renderer's conversion), it will not work in the future? I think that is where my confusion lies.


Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That is correct, the current renderer does a good job of fixing miscoding (not perfect). The best current example of "fail" is with use of ''' (which is span) with an end of line (EOL). Similarly author links with a EOL split fail. If you look at a page's source, you will see that the rendered has put in two spans inside the paragraphs and coded properly. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Ok. So my next duh question is, how can I discern between which templates are spans and which are divs? What is {{center}}, for example? [And as an aside, why do you personally change {{c}} to {{center}} when you come across them? BTW, I do now as well, following your example, but I never knew why] Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your time, and patience. Don't need an answer now, as I am calling it a night soon. Have a good one, and thanks! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Anything inline, or in the flow of a paragraph, is span. If a template affects the whole paragraph or more, then it is div, a block. So center has to be div, as you cannot centre a couple of words within a sentence, you have to do the block.

The only way to truly know whether one of our templates is a div or span is to check the guts of the template, though I think that we need to start explicitly stating what type of template something may be inline or block, though some of the new descriptive bits for TemplateData does this. Don't worry, it took me a long time to learn, and only through imperatives, not desire. As I am only partially educated in html and css, my go to site is sDrewth 03:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks much. Will make note of all. :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. If we see a contributor formatting with {{center|{{larger| & the like, should we inform them of the issue? or will a bot eventually come along one day to make corrections? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
If it is a single line and in that order, then it is okay as it is a paragraph (fits the minm. div definition, and it fits the maxm. span definition, and we have <div><span></span></div>). If they had the span template outside, then that is incorrect. With regard to telling people, (slight waving of hands) it depends whether they are watching their edits or not. All about opportunity. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Aye, Cap'n (sloppy salute), makes sense. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Is {{sc}} a span or a div? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a span. You can tell by opening the code and seeing the "span" tag in the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There it is! So, would it then have the same issues as {{smaller}}, etc. when it wraps more than a single line? Would the following be a no-no:
{{block right|{{sc|Laura Stedman,<br />
George M. Gould.}}}}

Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Answered my own question. I didn't realize there was a small-caps block template. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: remember that span can cover up to a paragraph so you can do ...

{{block right|{{sc|Laura Stedman,<br />George M. Gould.}}}}
as it is the hard return that causes the break for the coding. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh! Another piece of my puzzle :) Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Block expiration time[edit]

Just curious for future reference: Why block 'indefinite' for User account (spambot/abused &c.) and '1 month' for IP address account? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Spambot accounts will always be spambots, so we don't want to see them again => infinite. IP addresses can be anyone, especially as they are often dynamically allocated. Blocking a dynamic IP address for a day will often be sufficient, however, they could be there for a week, a month is usually enough to know; if they come back after a month, then I will hit them for a year. (Spambots can often be an hijacked PC so thinking how long you are between router reboots, refreshes, etc. is what we are trying to cover.) It is less usual for us to have an editor on an IP, so randomly having someone blocked as a consequence of another block is pretty rare; even more so when the IP addresses are non-English speaking countries. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. More questions surface, but another time. Sorry for the interruption, but thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Not an issue. I have been doing spam and spambots for so long, I can neglect what is second nature to me is not obvious to others. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You are owed an apology...[edit]

I'll keep this short, but essentially I now consider I was being unreasonable to expect an overly-complex template to be supported. Therefore I think I need to offer an apology.

I would however like to offer my thanks for having the extraordinary patience to handle an 'exploding' contributor with the integrity and common sense that should be encouraged. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-05[edit]

17:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Bobbili Zamindari[edit]

Can you help me in completing the book : A Revised and Enlarged Account of the Bobbili Zemindari in a proper format. There are few pages to be proofread. Title page and Table of Contents to be looked into. Thanking you.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961: I have fixed the chapters and the transclusions, all pages are now contained. I have updated the lead page with its ToC. I will leave you to finish your proofreading. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much sir. Can we make subsections in the chapters.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: We can do lots of things, it is about the value, and whether it adds clarity and purpose. Sub-sections? to which chapter and what were you thinking. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Addendum to my part. I am not certain about the chapters with the same name, they being A Revised and Enlarged Account of the Bobbili Zemindari/Bobbili Zemindari/The Founder of The Samasthanam and A Revised and Enlarged Account of the Bobbili Zemindari/The Founder of The Samasthanam as I find that confusing. I would recommend working with Hrishikes (talkcontribs) to resolve that. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-06[edit]

20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-09[edit]

19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The Devil's Pool[edit]

Do you think we need to locally host File:Devils Pool (1895).djvu? The author and lead translator pose no issue, but the second translator died in 1960 (and was apparently only 18 at the time credited with assisting in translation). The book was simultaneously published in the UK and US, so it's not clear to me whether it's in PD in its "country of origin". --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It is Commons, let us just play safe. Yes check.svg moved it will need local updating. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted here and undeleted at Commons. As US translators the 1923 publication rules. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Duplicated posts in the Scriptorium[edit]

Hi. I won't touch the duplicated posts in the Scriptorium, but I know that it is because we had an simultaneous editing clash. I added some minor info to your Preferences comment and uploaded the image of what I see on the screen. — Ineuw talk 01:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Cratinus date of death[edit]

Whatever algorithm we're using, it's not working for Author:Cratinus. His date of death comes out as "?" instead of somewhere in the three year range WD has. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Not certain that our algorithm needed to cope with the variation at WD; amended the data there. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for the (re-)welcome message! (Though I'm curious how you noticed me - are you following Special:NewPages or something like that?) Thanks also for the correction on subpage titling/numbering - clearly there are some things I have forgotten in my (semi-)absence from WS. :) - Htonl (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Htonl: Way less romantic; category watch on Category:Works with non-existent author pages‎‎ one of those maintenance spaces that I try to jump on early, also good for seeing some weird and wonderfuls. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Authors with missing death dates -> Category:Authors without death dates[edit]

explore making this change. They are not missing if they are not dead, so we should cater for both scenarios without confusing things. Only would be missing of the person is alive 130 years after death. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2018-02[edit]

11:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-10[edit]

17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Pachelbel date of birth[edit]

We're not getting a value at all from WD for Author:Johann Pachelbel's date of birth. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I kind of made a hit-and-run change at WD setting rank; there is an "unknown value" statement that was likely a factor. I have to run, but if someone can perhaps double-check/merge info, etc. at WD? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that the only date we really have is a "latest possible date", so we need an "ante" that date, and I don't know how to set such a thing, or whether our templates will handle it successfully. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
d:Help:Ranking explains how to prefer values, and if you deprecate (which has been done here) also look at d:Help:Deprecation where you can justify your action. You could start with d:Help:Statements if you need step back. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
If we have something to query the statements that 1 Sep is not the correct date, then we can look to add other statements that are of lower ranking, and push a preferred, though here they would need to be factually supported, and there are references there that state 1 Sep as a birth date. I feel that conversation is better at the author talk page with pings, rather than a user talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Re:Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey[edit]

I don't understand why you reverted my edit. The previous table of contents was lacking the symbols between chapter titles and page number, which I replicated using {{Dotted TOC page listing}}. If it was possible to successfully incorporate the full typesetting of the source, why should that be neglected? Legofan94 (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The display artefacts of a table of contents are not a requirement and that is a long held principle. Where a person has taken to a format we have also generally allowed that formatting to stand unless it causes particular issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I was notified of this issue when Legofan94 came to us on the Wikimedia Discord. I am curious where this "long held principle" is described (a Wikisource guideline?), or if it has been discussed before. I am also curious if it applies to more detailed formatting. Other things I am curious about is potential screenreader issues and what your personal opinion is of Legofan's styling. We may want to move this to the relevant talk page, though. Maplestrip (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: That is a rather rich and pompous question, I wonder whether you even asked that in the reverse case.

With all due respect, go away. Please do not think that you can pop up in this community and think that you have the knowledge or ability to act as an arbitrator. We do manage grown-up conversations here. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the knowledge of this community to act as an arbitrator. I only have experience with Wikipedia and Commons, really. I did ask these questions to Legofan, but they didn't know of any such guidelines either. I am a bit worried that I may be affected by what Wikipedia calls canvassing, but I hope to be transparent about that. I've always had somewhat of an interest in Wikisource, so this may give me a better idea of how this community works. If you want somekind of arbitrator to get involved, I'd be happy to get that done, though I don't really know how that process works (there isn't a page called WS:Arbitration. Maybe WS:Scriptorium? I've never even really been in contact with such pages on Wikipedia, so I'm out of my element as far as arbitration is concerned). Maplestrip (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
If you don't know how this community works, then appearing on my user talk page in this manner is truly weird. No, I don't wish for you to be here to arbitrate, and you seem to have missed my intimation that this community has the maturity to manage its discussions and resolutions. I would also say that your approach to me has elements of naivety, and one where it is evident that you haven't done any research prior to contacting me. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I am approaching this from naivite, sure, hence why I asked which guidelines or former discussions are relevant to this issue. I didn't intend to attack you or any such thing, I was simply intrigued by the problem and would love to know more about how Wikisource deals with these stylization, page ownership, that kind of thing. It appears I picked the wrong "disagreement" to start out with. From you comments on maturity, I assume this kind of thing comes up a lot in the community and has a pretty complex history, huh? Maplestrip (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It is the end of Friday after a busy week, and in some ways you are asking me to regurgitate 10 years of history of development of style guide and operating practice, and you are asking about a page where dot leaders on a page were reverted on a work done by me in 2009. Add you are appear here when someone has addressed the matter to an outsider to the local community in a form of complaint about me reverting their edit. Yeah, an interesting way to start a conversation about how Wikisource works.

We try to encapsulate our information into the welcome message, particularly style guide, the page for Wikipedians, and about proofreading from page scans. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for coming in at an awkward moment. I didn't expect this to be quite as difficult a topic as it is. I didn't intend to come across as hostile or even really counteractive, so I'm sorry that this happened. I figured dot leaders on a page not edited since 2009 would have been a relatively low-tension topic, and I often find that user talk pages can be a good place to quickly learn about a project and how guidelines are practiced. I'm sorry I caused harm... I'll leave you alone. Maplestrip (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not so much an awkward moment, I was expressing that I am not feeling the most tolerant and I have you yapping away in an area in which you have no knowledge, and you are riding in on your hero pony. I would reflect to you that it would seem that you have little knowledge and experience with successful issue resolution. In a sociological sense, taking an interventionist approach where you have no credibility is doomed to failure. If you take a step back you can see that this approach fails in many places through the wikimedia sites. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
"Hero pony"? I accept that I apparently shouldn't have butted into this conversation, but I did so purely out of curiosity and I'm upset that you are of such strong belief that I had such ulterior motives. I'm sorry that you are not feeling the most tolerant, but that doesn't mean that you need to be so rude. I can't understand why you opted to go for personal attacks rather than to just discuss Wikisource page styling. I'm sure there is a concensus on Wikisource to use page styling as set up by the page creator, and I'm sure that your version of the page works better for screenreaders. All you had to do was just say so and I would have believed you (the latter was my assumption already). You keep saying I have no credibility on Wikisource, but I've never made any claims about Wikisource. I just asked a couple of questions.
I guess at this point I am just getting emotional. I have put a request for comment at WS:Scriptorium. I don't even know if it is for conflict resolution or for the improvement of the page we were originally talking about. I would simply like to attract the attention of an experienced editor who is more tolerant of newcomers. Maplestrip (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: With all due respect, you'll find few editors more experienced or tolerant of "newcomers". But the impression of you that I got from your initial post was not as one who comes as a curious newcomer, but as one establishing a line of questioning under the guise of curiosity. If you were merely being curious, your timing and placement was unfortunate and perhaps poorly chosen? In forums such as this, much often gets lost/misunderstood in translation and interpretation where personality enters in. I would consider that in this case—before emotion gets the upper hand. If it is improvement of library content that is truly the desired end, then my suggestion is to move on from here and address formatting questions at a more appropriate Talk page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, @Londonjackbooks:. I'm sorry for the disruption I have caused, Billinghurst. Maplestrip (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Arnold James[edit]

Looking for b/d dates for an Arnold James ("A. J."). Published "The Tryst" in The Muse &c. and according to a contact: "in a volume of 'Wheels,' the poetry collection edited by the Sitwells. That makes me wonder if he weren't English? There are four men with that first/last name combination listed on the Lives of the First World War/Imperial War Museum site, but very little information on any of them." Thanks whether yes or no. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. He was a soldier. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Without further detail that is going to be pretty hopeless task as there will be no confirmatory information, and the name is not uncommon. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I've been looking around with no luck. I'll create an author page anyway with known works, and any facts on author Talk page. Perhaps a miracle will occur. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-11[edit]

19:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Periods and sentences[edit]

I'm baffled by your current pattern of removing periods from the end of sentences. [69] Is this something you're doing on purpose, or is it an artefact of an automated tool you're using? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-12[edit]

15:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)