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
Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses.
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.

Popular Science Monthly 1916 Ad.jpg

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

Popular Science Monthly Project
Work: Popular Science Monthly

TO DO — DNB footer initials[edit]

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: 2015-51[edit]

17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

May POTM award[edit]

Can you please insert it in the user page of Kathleen.wright5? I could not do it because the page is protected. Thanks, Hrishikes (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you please do the same for July too? Hrishikes (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done for Index:How to Keep Bees.djvubillinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[edit]

abusefilter for required

A bit late perhaps...[edit]

...but w.r.t. this, now seems a little less plausible doesn't it, or is that just my cynical precognition at work?

In other words "toljaso." (I do not really expect you to concede the point.) AuFCL (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of my comments, and my actions with individuals on-site. I will also continue to interact and seek improvement to our common goals. I will not fear that people, whom I have supported, change their approach or take negative actions, then going out of favour, though that will not be through lack of trying to induce improvement by direct means. I will always address issues to an individual when they arise, and if that comes to other actions at a later time, that is a decision for a later time. I will continue to endeavour to be supportive, polite and considerate of my fellow users and admins, and not be sniping, especially for the few for whom I have little or less patience where I just try to keep out of their way, and if I fume, it is silently online, and maybe verbally at the monitor.

I will also reflect that admin tools are for admin actions, and despite, you seeming sneer, these have still been used properly to the evidence presented to me, and that open question still sits open for demonstration whenever you see fit, or the next confirmation. My predominant factors for admin confirmation is judging the need for the tools and their ability to use them to the obligations, and I don't think that statement is unclear or in difference to my commentary over time in confirmations. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You earn Brownie points for responding—however you will (perhaps) forgive me for remaining true to my convictions.

P.S. Also congrat.s on finally moving on the B.T. issue. Same comment applies. AuFCL (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My expectations of you are known and I believe my approach to you would follow above model. I try to be true, and to be seen to be true, to my principles

With regards to administrators, any person is able to nominate someone as a candidate, and especially any administrator would/should be seen to be encouraging and bringing along potential candidates. That they don't is interesting, though not going to inhibit me proposing the next generation, and at some point my successors. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I frankly admit I find your remarks annoying both for the grain of truth they contain and for the bushel of unjust mindless incomprehension as well.

Well let me put you on warning that you might just reap commensurately as ye have sown. No; I still do not like you or your cronies but never say I am entirely unreceptive to suggestion.

I am going to assume you are sufficiently intelligent as to understand. Kindly don't prove my faith wrong. If I happen to have misread the intent of your barbs then—well: no sympathy. AuFCL (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Index:A History of Banking in the United States.djvu[edit]

If you think this is ready for Namespace, feel free to transclude it. It takes me HOURS to do transclusion. I'd rather be proofing!... :) Outlier59 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

note: The preface and book index are not listed in the table of contents. Outlier59 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Outlier59: Happy to transclude it as time allows. I haven't overly looked at the structure of the work, and will do so closer to the time. FWIW, adding a plain {{index transcluded}} template puts it into the "watch" queue to transclude, (advanced options into other categories), which will mean it will happen as a maintenance task, if no one gets to it promptly. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Outlier59 (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

SDrewthbot changes breaking page[edit]

Hi - I know this happened a while ago but, I thought I'd raise it. Some of the changes made by SDrewthbot on this page: broke the display of the caption. I have since fixed it, but changing:
{{em}}   to
<span style="display:inline-block; width:1em"> 
broke the caption displaying. Has this change been made to other pages and broken them? DivermanAU (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

On the off chance you don't know the cause: the substitution introduced an equals character within a template invokation, causing it to be parsed as a named parameter. It can be fixed by prepending with 1=, but I'm not seeing an easy way of preventing it from happening in the first place. Hesperian 03:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@DivermanAU, @Hesperian: Thanks, I will look at the specific scripts when I get the chance in front of that PC; and review (again) those templates that it picks up. I will presumably just write a particular rule to do {{em}} to , (or maybe skip it), before push whichever substituting rule. I will check back to see what else was running about that time. [/me mumbles about sledgehammers and cracking eggs using a template like that instead of &emsp; is just ugly and serious bloat especially in template intense pages. I can see that it is seriously abused in some places.] — billinghurst sDrewth 04:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Hesperian: it is sooooooo abused! Some templates had 12 uses. Some Page: ns pages have 20+ uses. I could understand its use if we had   =   as that may be easier to type, but some of the bloat we have in pages for its (mis|ab)use is phenomenal. I feel that anything but singular use should be replace. The proportional measures can all be replaced with {{gap}} as long as we add units of measure.

Author:Henry IV (1425-1474)[edit]

What style is Author:Henry IV (1425-1474) conforming to? Every royal author I've tried looking up uses a form like "Henry IV of Castile", not "Henry IV (1425-1474)". --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-27[edit]

19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

{{Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature lkpl}}[edit]

Thanks. I'm changing the links I'd previously made to use it. Sorry my 'not-static' IP makes me hard to talk to. 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:B019:8FA1:91B8:8FA 16:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding using multicol on this work, my understanding is that all the 'rules' say about it is that it's 'not necessary'... that it's optional. I have no interest in warring about it, but I've done it to well over 100 pages now, as I have been proofing and transcluding them back into the articles, because it makes the text considerably easier to proofread. I don't, to be honest, really care if they are changed back (though the work should be consistent one way or the other) but if you are going to remove the multicol please don't just hit 'undo' and remove other edits (such as the missing spaces and extra line returns that I had also fixed on that page.
If it's 'really' a big deal that the pages not be in multicol, I guess I can stop doing it (though removing it from 100+ pages would be incredibly annoying) but it really does make proofreading the pages a hell of a lot easier, since otherwise I see about a dozen lines of text all on one line in the preview (which is what I'm checking the original text against, so that I also see the text rendered). 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:B019:8FA1:91B8:8FA 18:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@2602:304:CEEB:4D60:B019:8FA1:91B8:8FA: Re lkpl template, feel welcome to leave the old style rather than chase them, as I can bot them easily enough [not many IP addresses editing author pages, so generating a list is easy.] If you wish to do them, is okay too. Re multicol, do not feel that there is any need for you to go back and undo them, it isn't that much of an issue. The issue comes down to screen sizes, and that forcing a couple of columns can be problematic (it is an issue which we pondered long and hard way back when with the DNB). And not to worry, there was never an intention to undo or revert, it was all gently picked apart, and if it hadn't been so late I would have validated, rather than just patrolled the edits. And yes, communication by edit summary is less than ideal versus contact via talk page, and was going to try and catch you when you were actively editing. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I can easily enough just put it in columns while proofreading them (since I am comparing the page to the rendered text, since it mostly just needs tiddly stuff like spacing, fixing smallcaps, and linking articles) and then remove the markup before I hit save.... I was just (admittedly) a bit neurotic about getting into some war (and I should have known better, I know who you are, lol). 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:B019:8FA1:91B8:8FA 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It might, however, be a good idea to word the 'do not include' part of Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading that mentions multiple column text a bit more strongly, if it's actually preferred that text not be transcribed that way... it comes across as 'you don't have to bother', but other places stress making the transcribed work look like the original as much as possible. 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:B019:8FA1:91B8:8FA 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Plus I will add DCBL to Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionariesbillinghurst sDrewth 22:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
PS. We don't backwards convert {{PD-old}} to {{pd/1923}}. pd/1923 was set up as a convenience and to stop the incorrect attributions that were being made. Once we are 101 years past the year of death, it is better to not have to step through the convolution of templates, and progress straight to PD-old.
Fair enough, I'm used to the Commons practice of preferring to use the auto-calculating templates when the date is actually 'known'.... admittedly, template depth is never really an issue there. I've noticed, BTW, that you have been doing research on the author pages, and I appreciate that. FYI, even though 'this source' does not give a lot of info about identifying the contributors, I am being careful about the id when adding birth/death dates... I'm referring to a scan of "A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines", the multivolume work that this was abstracted from, which gives full names, and using biographical info to check that the stated 'professional title' matches what the person held when this work was published... for some, they have a wikipedia article, and I'm poking the connection into wikidata as well.
Ah yes, wikidifference. <shrug> (Of course they should all follow our process!?!). We do look to populate our author ns. with works and about, and I do love the (old) biographical works which we can attach. As a note, if you have reference material about authors, always feel welcome to drop it to the author's talk page. We have much research and external references there for safe keeping, especially where it is primary reference and cannot be poked on a WP-page. My primary research skills and tools are pretty good for UK/USA/Commonwealth sources, and yes I too am populating through to WD.
It's probably obvious, I'm not a noob... I have an account, with several hundred thousand global edits (and I'm not avoiding a ban). I've just been on 'vacation', and if I logged in people would start pinging me, lol. 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:B019:8FA1:91B8:8FA 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
We judge people on what they do here, not what they have done elsewhere — blocked or otherwise. So you can edit as an IP if you so choose, that is what it is, and we appreciate any improvements and additions that you make. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
(nods) I just want to get this done without getting sidetracked, and that would almost certainly happen if I logged in... I'll go back to being 'me' after this work is sorted. 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:542E:18DD:FF5F:EEAA 23:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
A couple of 'notes' about how I'm doing this, 'typographically'... I'm specifically using the 'figure dash' unicode character when appropriate (in the raw text, they are inconsistently either hyphens or hbar characters) and adding 'hair spaces' in certain spots (such as where there are italics followed by a parentheses close, an open bracket followed by smallcaps text, or a ' followed by a ") where 'web rendering' gives unreadable text... I don't know how often people on ws worry about such things, but they annoy me. Hopefully, that's 'acceptable' here. If people are using a non-unicode font, both of those should fallback to hyphens and normal spaces.
There is also a particular page (I don't remember which one, offhand) that had a name in Syriac Aramaic script... I marked it as 'image missing', and noted on the talk page that it's actually aramaic... I doubt most people have that font, so actually inserting it would probably not be helpful, lol. 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:B019:8FA1:91B8:8FA 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Another note... the 'titles' of the article pages appear to have been inherited from whatever source this was imported from, they are not the same as the actual articles in the work (which is not necessarily bad, they are ambiguous) but... in the 'next/previous' links, they are alphabetical by the page names, and that order matches neither that in the work itself, or in the 'index' pages (that match the work). I'm changing them so the next/previous order matches both the actual text and the indexes, but it might make sense at some point (and I can't do it as an IP, ofc) to rename the article pages so that they are closer to the work, and don't appear to be 'out of order'. As an example of what I mean, the 'article page' "Barsumas, Syrian archimandrite" precedes the page "Barsumas, Nestorian bp. of Nisibis"... not alphabetical, but in the work they are "Barsumas (the Eutychian)" followed by "Barsumas (the Nestorian)". It might be worth running through them and renaming. 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:B019:8FA1:91B8:8FA 01:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
We have gone away from hair spaces and the like, as we have found them inconsistent within a work, especially with justification, and difficult for users to proofread and inconsistent across and within works, so have a KISS focus as explained in Wikisource:Style guide. Typically we will use &emdash or like, and not go fancy. That said the most important thing is consistency within a work, though we do ask that consider that while you may be able to do something a
  • For languages, we do have {{language characters}} and specific language variants, and we mark the pages as problematic. We do have the extended webfonts/ULS character set here, so don't necessarily need to worry about user fonts. Suggest that you try it, and if the characters are in the set, we can replicate. Have a look at {{ULS}}.
  • {{illegible}} for the undecipherable bits
  • Move whatever needs moving, and we can leave the redirects, or subst: {{dated soft redirect}} if they should be temporary makes sense. You can mark pages to be moved with {{Move to subpage}}, not perfect but if you use the full page/subpage title, it will be seen and understood. I am now watching the tracking category. I doubt anyone (active) knows why they are as they are. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Where I have added hair spaces, it was not where the text was illegible in the original work, but specific spots where the rendering of the text by web browsers tends to be broken.... for instance, the text ?) (which is not a terrible case, since it's still readable, but illustrates it) is not uncommon in this work, and the characters collide unless you add a hair space, which gives ? ). '" is another example, also in this work quite a bit, where I've been adding hair spaces to give ' " so that it's readable. I'm not trying to use them to 'imitate' the original typography (which used a 'regular' space between ' and "), just to fix spots where typefaces change and browsers break it. As far as using the 'figure dash', whatever ocr was used on this originally seems to not have consistently transcribed them... they are 'visibly' figure dashes, but are various types of dashes (inconsistently) in the transcription.
I will hunt down that page with the aramaic script, and re-tag it with that template, but... the characters involved are not in the ULS fonts... it's pretty esoteric, being the alphabet of a language that's been dead for over a thousand years. I feel pretty confident in stating that nobody is going to have a font that supports it unless they have specifically hunted down and installed one... I know for a fact that Windows and Mac do not by default. If actually transcribed, it would probably be 'missing character' glyphs for nearly any reader.
It's Page:Dictionary_of_Christian_Biography_and_Literature_(1911).djvu/49 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:542E:18DD:FF5F:EEAA 23:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the {{move to subpage}}... I had hunted around for any kind of 'requested move' tagging, and had no luck. 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:542E:18DD:FF5F:EEAA 23:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

sent you an email[edit]

about an annoying IP block, but I see now that you are no longer a steward (?) so maybe you can't do anything about it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@DanielTom: I cannot remove a global block, so for that you will need to talk to a steward directly or use m:SRG. I have given you local IPBE so you should not be affected at enWS by IP blocks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't archive unaddressed items[edit]

I protest the archiving of unaddressed outstanding WS:AN issues. If you are going to do this then at least have the decency to close them as inappropriate with some indication actual mindful cognition has taken place.

I have marked the useless modules as {{sdelete}} and will not embarrass you further (unless of course you really want me to—perhaps you are deliberately trying to be provocative?)

You may recall the apocryphal story of the engineer, the auditor and the pig and the unwisdom of indulging in a mud-wrestle with any of them for fear that they will enjoy the experience more than you. AuFCL (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to pick a fight. I archived what I thought was archiveable. Please feel welcome to return whatever you believe is not resolved or should not be archived. It is no issue to me at all. It would be useful if administrators, and users did close processes and I encourage you to address that issue to all administrators. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
From my perspective it is you who is attempting to provoke a response. I am frankly uninterested in competing against anybody who so spontaneously falls over their own feet.
In fact I thought I was doing you an active kindness in not retrieving the archive. You are inconsistent in your demands, which is probably why you are condemned to irrelevance. Just keep on searching for that replacement.
As the issue is now addressed there is nothing left to fight about—at least until your next calculated "mistake." AuFCL (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Vida's Art of Poetry[edit]

Hello Billinghurst. (Remember the "phabricator:T106516 problem" you told me about? I followed the instructions, and it was indeed easily fixed by simply adding 1 pixel of color to the images.) Okay, quick question: why is the header appearing twice in Vida's Art of Poetry? ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. May I add it to the "New Texts" list, or should I wait for it to be validated? ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, add away. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-28[edit]

15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton on Emails - 'I Opted for Convenience'[edit]


just to give you a heads up. The video file used as the source has been undeleted at Wikimedia Commons as a result of this discussion. Not sure if this also means that the Wikisource page can be restored to it's former glory. Natuur12 (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Natuur12: I previously listed it at Wikisource:Copyright discussions#Clinton on Emails - 'I Opted for Convenience' so please feel free to comment there. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! Will do. Natuur12 (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi Billinghurst. Thank you for your validations at The Rainbow. I noticed these corrections: removing a space from a blank line and removing a single line break. Given that you did these in quick succession this seems very eagle-eyed. Do you use some gadget or display option that could help me to spot these easy-to-miss errors myself when proofreading, or indeed validating other's works? Or do you just have a good method? BethNaught (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi BethNaught. Line breaks are pretty easy to spot from someone else's editing as we all have different page widths set. On that note I do have a number of script that I use to do quick editing and replacements. There is a bit of a history to it though you can see it in User:billinghurst/common.js and it utilises m:TemplateScriptbillinghurst sDrewth 03:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News/2016/29|Tech News: 2016-29]][edit]

12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Deprecated templates[edit]

@Kathleen.wright5: I've found some more templates that are no longer needed. This has also been posted at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions--kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply to "Template:New Texts"[edit]

Hi Billinghurst.

Thank you so much for your congrats and your help editing Costumes of the Canary Islands! If you allow me, I'm going to correct one thing tonight before to add it to Template:New texts; you can read what I need to correct here, maybe you can help me giving some advice.

Again, thank you! Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 23:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-30[edit]

19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


In case of this, you could have corrected the incoming links instead of declining the delete request, because the page-name in question is nothing but a typo. Hrishikes (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not, that would be editorialising, and I do not know how many other pages in the work may have similar. Either way it is a longstanding page, and one where we should retain the redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
So, in your view, long-standing mistakes should be retained because of their "longstanding-ness"? I am asking because it is always better to understand the policy properly. Hrishikes (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It is an existing link Special:WhatLinksHere/1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vidyasagar, Ismar Chandra, and so it in itself does not create a mistake, it shows what is there. Redirects are cheap (systemwise) and it is reasonable to retain it, and there is no value in deleting it. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)