User talk:Billinghurst/2014

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion.

08:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tech/News/Subscribers/Users&oldid=6888520 —>

08:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=6968243 —>

09:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7065556 —>

10:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7102866 —>

Renaming of Tales of John Oliver Hobbes

Thanks so much for changing the file name. Could you tell me how you did it?Jason Boyd (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jason Boyd: At Commons and at English Wikisource I am an administrator at both and have advanced rights to do such things. Files at Commons are harder and when they are tied to a file here and need administrator intervention, and it is usually easiest to get it done from here, a request at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard would suffice, usually with a nice subject line to clear the right attention. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

09:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7227365 —>

I know what you did in the . . . .

Thanks for all your behind (and in front of) the scene help, and guidance.— Ineuw talk 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

08:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7321633 —>


TUSC token d91ad562a2ec917955d6510fb2e7bdc6

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


thanks...

...for opposing my global ban. I dare say I was very much impressed by your actions – I had changed my estimation of you after you blocked me at Meta, but maybe I was wrong. Your actions in this sad case were very considerate, kind and (I think) upstanding. I'll try not to disappoint. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mate, I try to play fair, not pre-judge, and try very hard to remember that while there is a sum of parts with the WMF community, each community is still self-managing and able to develop its own character. This community has some examples of people with reputations from other sites proving to be valuable community members, such communities can be trusted to make wise decisions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7416737 —>

Thank you

Thank you for your help at Author:Rick Alan Ross, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

08:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7492018 —>

10:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Odder@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7584862 —>

Vale Ig2000

billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

09:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Odder@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7697675 —>

Shakspeare

Wondering why you disagree with the making of a redirect to the poem, Shakspeare (alt. spelling); I realize that there is already a redirect by the name of Shakespeare (Arnold) for the same purpose (and to the same version/link), but the spelling of the indexed poem is still "Shakspeare" in the text, and I felt it deserved representation in case someone used the search bar for that particular spelling of the name/poem. Further thoughts? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The alternative is appended with the name of the author. People going to enWS typing "Shakspeare" are not expecting to be directed to that page, and we are better to have them hit the search results and to see Author:William Shakespeare. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
How about adding a Shakspeare (Arnold) redirect to the mix? Unnecessary? I have seen the spelling both ways in Arnold's collections. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
If it is a work known as "Shakspeare" the the disambiguation by the addition of (Arnold) would be fine, the thing is it likely that people will type it when looking. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

09:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Odder@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7775184 —>

This would seem to be a copyvio - The author was still alive in 1990, and the original is listed as a 1946 publication by Hodder and Stoughton in the UK. The scans have been flagged for deletion at Commons on the basis that whilst the edition might be OK the work isn't. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved the file here. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian Biographical Dictionary

You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, Billinghurst. You have new messages at GreyHead's talk page.
Message added 20:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OTRS check

Response at Talk:Second address to Houses of the Oireachtas by Mary Robinson Jeepday (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Your daily dose of spam

Ask and ye shall receive. This one doesn't have an external link (yet), though... User:Vern4641skksmreClockery Fairfeld [t·c] 17:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thx. Lucky whn my day has less than 50. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Dose #2. User talk:Gaga121Clockery Fairfeld [t] 15:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Nevermind, Prosody has already taken care of it. Thanks,—Clockery Fairfeld [t] 04:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

07:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Odder@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7817010 —>

The Fate of Fenella

Hi, how come this page hasn't been validated yet? —Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't sweat these things, they get done. It (is|was)n't going anywhere, the remainder of the work still stands before us. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
How about this one? —Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Goodness, which bit of the previous comment didn't make sense. Don't panic, all will be well. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
@Lo Ximiendo: all done — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops

Very sorry for the revert—slip of the tongue finger! Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I expand the original images?

I would like to validate these pages but the print on the original page is too small to read. How do I expand it? Using "Ctrl+" expands print in the editing window, not the original text image. Cheers! Shir-El too 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Shir-El too: In your toolbar (vector or monobook) there are buttons to +/- the image size. If you have your toolbar turned off, then you should turn it on in your Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. My toolbar was activated. Haven't a clue what "vector or monobook" are, but I found a way to work by opening two windows, one for the edit and one for the image.
Now another problem: am validating "St. Oswald and the Church of Worcester" and on page 26, line 7 there is this "...vocabulo aet Breodune ...". The last proofreader left it as "at." I think it should be "et" unless there's a character for the Latin joined "a+e". {Will copy this note into the comments as well.} Cheers! Shir-El too 09:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Eurika! Someone used "æ" later on and I'm copying it! Cheers!
@Shir-El too: No need to copy-paste it, it's there on the toolbar—go to Special Characters, and look in the last few rows of the Latin tab. Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 10:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
the Latin æt = years and the last proofreader was clearly some ninkampoop! It is one of my works ;-) And if you are using windows hold down altkey and while typing on num keypad 0230, then release and voila! The ae ligature is a regular show in 19thC works, and is a useful shortcut, as well as é (alt-0233). — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7911081 —>


formatting Q

Why isn't {{Right|And}} working here? ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be pushing up against the noinclude tag; and pushing in a line return fixes the issue. Don't know why it has popped up as an issue at this time … at least there is a solution. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here, is it considered acceptable to simply type "For", instead of "Eor"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And another question: here you used {{block center}}, but if I do the same in the next page, a break (line) that shouldn't be there interrupts/divides the verses. [You can see the problem here (Ctrl+F "Muse's charms").] How to fix it? ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

{{block center/s}} which is explained on the same page. There are numbers of opening and closing templates where we need to wrap around a page break. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=7991807 —>

ref inside ref

How to make the second ref appear here, after "everlasting course"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Inelegant, though it works. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Please revert if too ugly; but I've taken the liberty of further editing the page to demonstrate an "old-fashioned" approach to nesting references. I believe {{#tag:ref}} used in this fashion co-exists O.K. with <ref>s on adjacent pages. Regrettably only the very innermost reference may use an actual <ref>-</ref> pair, but multiple "wrapping" citation layers are acceptable. AuFCL (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL: seems to work well, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Bill, I'm not sure why you made a duplicate of the note /315 here, so I've now removed it, but please do restore it if necessary. (I'm also curious to know, why in the same page [/318], the break starting at "Here poetry..." doesn't appear.) Thx ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe ask before you remove. It was added due to the {{note}} being a hack, and it was the way to get the text to show in the transclusion. If the nested <ref> is working for you, then it is superfluous. In your refs, you are going to need to put in either <br/> or <p> to get your formatting. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Best practice

Minor question, but what is the best practice?

[[Author:Katharine Lee Bates|{{sc|Katharine Lee Bates}}]] or {{sc|[[Author:Katharine Lee Bates|Katharine Lee Bates]]}}? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I always try to keep the formatting outside where possible, it keeps it simpler, and allows for reuse (IMNSHO), and if there is any bot work to do, it makes matching easier.
Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Outside enables use of the pipe trick too. {{sc|[[Author:Katharine Lee Bates|]]}}. Moondyne (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8035796 —>

07:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8148011 —>

08:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Odder@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8208259 —>

07:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8310093 —>

07:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8395187 —>

06:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8480468 —>

07:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Odder@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8566819 —>

08:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Odder@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8639104 —>

Ineuw's {{center| vs Billinghurst's {{center|

Billinghurst,

In Ineuw's work on Mexico he uses {{c| but when you worked on it you changed those to {<nowik/>{center| Why? What is the difference or do you also use macros to make these changes? Most Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just part of a formatting and cleanup script. No fuss, the first is just a redirect to the second.

As a note, leaving open {{ is problematic, always wrap them in nowiki, or utilise &#123;&#123; to produce {{ — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

08:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Odder@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8697767 —>

You placed a dated soft redirect template on this page after moving it. Are you sure we shouldn't want a permanent redirect here? It seems it would a useful redirect since the author was published under this callout. Not a very strong opinion on my part, but I was just wondering if you had thought much about it. —BirgitteSB 03:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Donebillinghurst sDrewth 03:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

07:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Odder@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8811353 —>

07:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8856535 —>

{{SIC}}

Hi. I happened to notice you'd changed this template (but did not notice your edits to its /doc until after I'd already had a go at it.)

Oops. Please verify the result is still as you expect. Apologies if I've tripped you up. AuFCL (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All looks fine. You did a holistic job, I just looked/hacked at the examples. Thanks for your updates. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles

Hello Billinghurst,

We are putting together a proposal about the automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles, and since you are an active Wikisourceror, we'd appreciate yourcomments on the Scriptorium. For convenience, I'm copying our proposal here:

The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise.
We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page).
Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:
  • (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
  • (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
  • (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
  • (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.
These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles.
In order to move forward with this, we need
  • General community approval
  • Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
  • Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

Maximilianklein (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=8965841 —>

User_talk:William_Maury_Morris_II#Mahele_Book.2C_Hawaii_State_Archives

Can you see User_talk:William_Maury_Morris_II#Mahele_Book.2C_Hawaii_State_Archives?—KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No.

OK, per the style guide you are correct :)

With that in mind I'm suitably trouted, and would apprecaite you matching the work to the style guide, It needs validating anyway :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing from this - also posted here, Wikisource:Scriptorium#Index:Wind_in_the_Willows.djvu, Not happy, and feeling rather incompetent. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Riders of the Purple Sage

While I appreciate your efforts to validate this work, you are introducing errors and inconsistencies on each page. Please do not do this. —EncycloPetey (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Would you like to be specific rather than just give me a spray? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(1) Template calls are currently consistent throughout this work; you made them inconsistent by substitution of different template calls. (2) You have merged paragraphs that were and should remain separate. (3) You have altered the ellipses. The author's use of spacing is deliberate in this novel, and is used to convey natural speech and dialect, so altering it changes the tone and character of the work as well as introducing another inconsistency. (4) You have italicized the page number of one page, even though none of the page numbers are italicized. The apparent italics is the result of a repeated scanning error in the DjVu in which the bottom edges of pages have skewed orthography.
And all of this in just the three most recent page validation for this work. Earlier validation of yours on this work that I came across included: (5) Missing quotation marks or other punctuation. (6) Random character insertion in place of punctuation. (7) Incorrect paragraph breaks. I am struck by the inattention to spacing and punctuation, and the lack of care and consistency in "validating" works. —EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(1) These are the same templates, in fact these are the templates rather than the redirects, it makes zero change to the transcluded output, and presents an understandable template name to those not familiar to our shorthand. This has been discussed previously in Scriptorium and has been an accepted practice. 2) If paragraphs merged, then the output was merged prior and I seemingly did miss it. 3) Ellipses are meant to be displayed as ellipses (per style guide), so when they are left as separated periods they can line wrap, especially when these works are read on small screen devices. 4) Yes I did italicise, and I was noting that as I went back a few pages to note. They had been bolded, and that doesn't seem right either. Either way, they don't transclude to the main ns.

Re any earlier aspects, not something that I remember, and probably picked up through RC. I cannot comment more specifically than that about some historical edit, sight unseen. In relation to proofreading, this is meant to be a collaborative effort, and where someone may have weaknesses I thought that we looked to provide good guidance. So putting on your good graces, and providing helpful feedback should always be well-considered. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(1) You are actually going to argue that making an internally consistent work inconsistent is accepted practice? I don't buy that argument, nor the hand-waving that "it has been discussed somewhere at some point." (2) I don't understand your reply here. The two paragraphs were separate prior to your edit, until you merged them in your edit. (3) The style guide says that "Ellipses should be entered as actual characters, with spacing to reflect the source document." (emphasis added). You did not preserve the spacing, so you did not follow the style guide to which you have referred. You collapsed the spacing with your edit, and (as I pointed out) this has the effect of changing the character of the work. The style guide points out that spacing within ellipses should be preserved, and does so for a very good reason.
I have provided feedback that you specifically and directly asked for. Chastising someone for responding to a direct request from you for specifics is disingenuous. —EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(1) Truly that is your argument? A change from a redirect of a template to the template itself is inconsistent? It is not a different template call. You argue for inconsequential matters; and if I did the entire work does your argument still hold. 2) I was talking output, and I admitted my oversight. 3) You haven't replaced it with the character, you have three periods, and you should not criticise the replacement as being erroneous (which you did), though arguing for a style is legitimate.
Let us see. 1) Revert. 2) First message. 3) Second message. I was not chastising you for responding, it was your aggressive approach. If that is how you treat all of our users, then heaven help us. If that is saved up for me, truly special. You are in a collaborative community, please tone down the aggression, and treat people with respect. None of us is perfect, as much as we like to be, but to note that helpful feedback is always appreciated. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect sequence: 1) Corrected edit. 2) 1st message. 3) Revert. 4) 2nd message. 5) 3rd message. You claim that you "admitted [your] oversight", but you haven't actually done that. It would help if you took responsibility for the errors you've made, rather than denying them, pawning them off into the passive voice, and resorting to ad hominem. "Collaborative" means "working together," and this is only possible when "together" is part of the meaning intended. I get the impression that you intend to do things your way regardless of what another editor, the style guide, or the community would do, appeals to the deity notwithstanding. Thus, any perceived aggression in my comments is entirely the result of unwarranted defensiveness.
The replacement of ". . ." with "..." is erroneous, per the style guide, as cited. Your change violates the style guide; therefore it is an error.
Validation is a process of correcting the errors and inconsistencies remaining in a work, not of wholesale change to one's personal style. If the changes were truly inconsequential, as you say, then there would be no reason to implement them, nor any reason to argue them. —EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute, EncycloPetey, I looked at one of Billinghurst's earlier edits, and you are not presenting the whole picture. On Page:Riders of the Purple Sage.djvu/186, the person before him had done some poor proofreading, and Billinghurst gave that person a hand. He corrected 24 errors and missed a spot on the 25th. Is that what you meant when you said Billinghurst inserted extraneous characters? If so, give the guy a break! ResScholar (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@ResidentScholar: Please let it go. There is no point in arguing here. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

06:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9041196 —>

Query re: File:Secrets of Crewe House frontispiece.png

Hello. Thanks for fixing this up. My initial attempt was an outright guess as you probably realised.

However, I am still confused by your change comment "{{do not move to Commons}} needs explicit parameter, it doesn't take positional", especially as your version generates a Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{"., which I am almost certain is a result of {{PD/1923|expiry=1972}} not accepting a named expiry. Are you quite sure this component should not be {{PD/1923|1972}} as I believe I originally expressed it?

Oh, and for my own curiosity, just what does == {{int:filedesc}} == do please, as I cannot fathom it out at this time of night… (Today was a bit of a personal canine of the female variety analogy.) AuFCL (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind/got it/fixed. Short summary: we are both idiots.

Still curious what that int:filedesc is doing, though. AuFCL (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Urk. Page is still sitting there on one of the tabs, and I haven't got back to it; too many distractions here tonight. It provides the word "Summary" [Mediawiki:Filedesc], like [Mediawiki:License-header] provides the word "Licensing". Basically means if someone visits us in another language, it will pull a language context definition. If the question why add it? Expected practice for Commons, and in 2043 (and duh I need to fix), when it migrates, it won't need changes (presuming that the format is the same in 2042, and that the sites will be there ... of course they will be. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lace, Its Origin and History: missing image

Thanks for pointing this out, I have uploaded the vagrant image.—Keith Edkins (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9111282 —>

I've attempted to transcribe a chapter of this, However I typically use smaller block over blockquote, so I'd appreciate a guidance note on whether I need to change stuff over. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I am using blockquote, as large reams of smaller text are hard to read in Firefox. You can change it or I can when I get to it. Doesn't worry me which. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

File needs moving from Commons

Hi, in a hurry last night to give the PotM crew another book to work on I uploaded File:Great Speeches of the War.djvu to Commons. It's only during the night that I've realised I should have uploaded it here with a "do not move". Can you please do your magic to move it here? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved, and working on the fixes on our side. Can I ask why you don't use {{book}} in preference to {{information}}? For Commons uploads, if you utilise toollabs:ia-upload it will present that template and do the uploads easily. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I usually swap to {{book}}, but only after uploading via the Upload Wizard. Next time I'm pulling an IA file, I'll have a look at this tool. P.S. Thanks for moving the file. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I had to have a guess at the year that it could be copied to Commons. I have worked on Churchill's PMA + 15, which equals 2050. Once the work is completed, and have all the dates of death, we will need to go back and relabel. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9188755 —>

And the Tor check entry?

in {{Anontools/ipv6}} might be nice. unsigned comment by + (talk) .

yeah /me blames these stupid refreshes and data loss that take place when preview. They weren't protected, and could have done them fwiw. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. However, regarding your last point: And just how many people would have swallowed their hearts if I'd done so? How about protecting a few things chained from MediaWiki: space like the sign on the outside of the box hints? unsigned comment by This Snippy act—sheesh! Why is the bar so low? (talk) .
We never have an issue with IPs making good edits, especially where a good edit summary is ued, and such usually you will sail through our patrol process. You will need to be more specific about MW/template pages about which you are concerned, I am not good at guessing. I don't presume that they are my templates as I believe that I have been particular about doing such. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

indent

I only want to indent the line starting with "Thus" here, not the others. How to fix it? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

With poetry, you can just use some &emsp;es or use {{gap}} — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Inactive external wikilinks

I agree with you on this, and have added language here to our draft policy on Wikilinks. Please adjust or re-craft the text if it does not seem to clearly convey its meaning. —EncycloPetey (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Is(/was) [MediaWiki:Cite references link accessibility label] protected unusually?

Hello.

Not sure you will know the answer to this (and it is in the line of pure curiosity—I really don't need to know but nevertheless…):

  • after your initial edit of the above message I could not view the message source (reject: no permission, both logged in and not). However
  • after @George Orwell III: made a further edit the contents and history are viewable (to both my pleb. login and when logged out.)

Regrettably I cannot report what the state was prior to either of your edits. Did one or the other of you happen to change page protection please? Or did you make your original change in some kind of stewardship guise.

I repeat I really do not need to know this, but remain curious and hopeful you might be at least able to point me in the right direction. AuFCL (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The text is a Mediawiki: ns page, so you wouldn't be able to edit it unless you are an administrator (Edit the user interface (editinterface)). That is just the page itself, the history and talk page should not be impacted. As I created the file, it was just the default text from Mediawiki via Translatewiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Umm. Yes (& no.) Yes I agree your response is the official one. That said, No, it actually ain't normally true (or if it supposed to be, it broke a long, long time ago. My personal experience with MW is ~8 years now.)

I probably did not make myself clear. What I should have said is that normally non-privileged account access attempts are presented with the option of "View source" (whereas fully authorised ones get "Edit".) What had me intrigued was that both the above page and (for example) [MediaWiki:Cite references link many accessibility label] both presented me with "View source", but the latter actually responded to such action (as well as to "History" examination) yet the former aborted with the "No Permission" error message.

As you've probably guessed it was your post here which prompted my initial interest. AuFCL (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The file that you point to was done as a redirect to its pair, so all I can guess is that a redirect in MW: ns confuses the view aspect. Dunno. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
<shrug/> Good a guess as any. Thanks for trying. Not worth pursuing further. AuFCL (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
When a message, summary, label or similar found in the default set(s) has not been "overridden" locally, landing on such a page is the same as creating it (e.g. edit mode is automatically run; in any other namespace, the blurb about 'no such article exists. Would you like to search for it? Would you like to create it? Would you....' usually comes up instead.)

Since you don't have the bit to create articles in that namespace, Wiki thinks you are in violation per your User rights and thus the 'no permission' bang comes up for you. Once a page has been created in the MW namespace (i.e. the default is overidden locally), landing on that page is the same as landing on any highly protected page (view source only, no moving & the like.)

I'm not sure this holds for pages once created and since deleted [:MediaWiki:Sun] or your ability to at least see the default regardless of the faux-creation thing [:MediaWiki:Sun/qqx] or [:MediaWiki:Sun/qqq] however. Compound these nuances with what I come to believe as pretty much a fact around here - that there are more regulars set to EN-GB than straight EN so not everyone "sees" the same message, summary, label & similar on any given page at any given moment - the MediaWiki namespace really needs some attention to achieve some sort of "uniformity" at this point. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent answer. That is exactly what I was looking for (I told you I didn't really need to know) and it makes logical sense. Thanks to you both. Oh and in answer to the last, pages once created and later deleted retain that magical "viewable by plebians" state. I have checked/verified this. AuFCL (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

07:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9249622 —>

Thumbnails on wikisource

Thank you for your pointer at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Vector_skin:_Thumbnail_style_update. I expect I shall get into trouble expressing this opinion but anyone making serious use of thumbnails on content pages in this project ought to be eligible for selection to be shot (at) as a warning to the others. Until something sensible comes along "|frameless" should be the default choice. Now let the games begin. AuFCL (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun before you accuse me of being pissy next time please be so kind as to have a quick read of mw:Talk:Thumbnail_style_update before hitting send. I absolutely give up. I simply cannot compete with this; I have not laughed so hard reading a technical treatise since the BoFH chronicles. AuFCL (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Place, community, culture and expectations. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Billinghurst, I am glad you visited the page in the subj. I have to note, though, that the intricate special characters are easier to copy from where they are on the original page. This was the reason I left the refs in their original position (so that it is easy to type in special chars and then put refs where they belong). There are other things that are not as easy for me, like references that extend to next pages, these Sacred Books have plenty of them (specifically, half or more of vol 21 "problematic" pages). Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the page was popping up as having broken references, when I was doing that maintenance. I presume that you know about <ref name=…> and <ref follow=…> for continuing references. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, now I get why it attracted attention. Thanks for reminding how to make cont refs, this part is not something I use often, so I am forgetting. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, Billinghurst. You have new messages at Gleyshon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

08:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9324164 —>

Hello Billinghurst, thanks for improving a page in the subj book. I have a question: the Introduction in it (with page numbers ) precedes the Table of Contents, does not figure in the latter, and takes some 40 pages. How do I manage it at all, so that to make it accessible? Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tar-ba-gan: We would generally take liberties. Transclude the ToC onto the root page and put the remainder of the long text as a (the first) subpage. Reality of the web and usefulness. The page numbers will have gaps, but that is what it is. You can always add a note to the talk page of your action. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

block exemption

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

@DanielTom: Donebillinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9386866 —>

Kinsey works

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)

07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9476617 —>

Great to meet you

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)

07:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9555600 —>

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! Donebillinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillom@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9629615 —>

While you're offering, though

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

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

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.

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 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

WS:News/2014-09#Improvements requested for the English WikisourceErasmo 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)

07:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9672068 —>

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)

Bilingual Swedish-Latin book on spiders

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 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)

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9775177 —>

Thanks for the welcome

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?

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"

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: {{RunningHeader| → {{RunningHeader|, {{hyphenated word start| → {{hyphenated word start|, {{hyphenated word end| → {{hyphenated word end|, {{subst:oe}} → {{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

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

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)

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9861597 —>

Undeletion and transfer here

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)

Dates?

Hi, for the St Andrews book I've found dates of death for all the authors except these three. When you have time could you see what you can find in your resources? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Thomas Ross Mills (b.1869)
    (parking) can find birth in Berwick, Northumberland, and census records up to 1901, and in St Andrews at the time. Nothing afterwards. There are deaths for "Thomas R Mills" of the age that correspond to year of birth, however, nothing definitive. First check of newspapers shows nothing evident, will need to try variations, and look to Scottish papers, and their record sets.
  • Robert Norrie (Asst. Lecturer Univ Coll Dundee)
    Born 1878, Dundee, Angus (Forfar). Census records to 1911 (single holidaying with mother in England). Son of William and Ann(e) (?Findlay). Family tree info gives year of birth only.
  • William Smith Denham (Ass. to Dept. Chemistry St Andrews)
    Born 1878/9, Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland, can find census records to 1901. No evident death, need to separately try Scottish sources.
    Died 1964. Obituary. The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Jun 09, 1964; pg. 15; Issue 56033. Director of Research, British Silk Research Association (1921-34), aged 85, 1 June 1964, Sutton, Surrey.

Some research done above. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Julins Palmer

Actually it's no typo: see e.g. [601]. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is still the published word, so might be worth changing the message to be forthright. I have already created the redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

09:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=9901548 —>

Obliterating previous claim(s) to authorities.

<!— User:DoNotArchiveUntil 17:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC) —>

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)

Google Front pages/Watermarking

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/ShakespeareFan00&offset=&limit=500&target=ShakespeareFan00

A bit of blunt approach, but I couldn't think of a better way of flagging files that might require to be 'evacuated' before certain people at commons decided to go on a 'freedom' purge :(

No objections to reverts of course.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Google watermarking can just be ignored, if it becomes a major issue, we get someone to write a bot to replace the lead page with a blank one. It doesn't change the licensing of the work. Face the issue when it is an issue, and we can have the bitchfight at the time. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually @Phe:, how hard would it be to write a tool for toollabs that takes a file from Commons, removes and replaces the first page of a djvu/pdf, then puts the file back. Something similar to croptool and rotatebot. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be a great tool to have but it only addresses the Google disclaimer page part of the "situation". If the recent application of Template:Watermarking is anything to go by, I think Shakes is also worried about the watermark typically found at the bottom of every page. That's an entirely different matter to say the least. — George Orwell III (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Lots of files have watermarks, and it is just a template c:template:Watermark and that is advisory, not a criteria for deletion. I would rather we show how radical that they are becoming, and how much their ways are problematic for the broader community. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It was partly because the watermarking is a 'quality' issue , vs a licensing one that I wrote the template, I've also written {{front-sheet}} to flag works that have the front-page issue. I've also reviewed some of my recent Index status changes to make sure that what's in the relevant status categoy (File to Fix) are actually File with STRUCTURAL issues, which is why you should see a lot of Index pages in Recent changes.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
First, I'm pretty sure we're all clear by now that the best time and place to correct structural issues is before uploading the file in the first place. After that, the amount of labor already invested should help determine the next course of action for a structurally deficient source file.

There is not much to gain by "patching" a file uploaded 4 or 5 years ago that still only has the dozen or two pages originally created (e.g. a bunch of no-texts, the title page & maybe the ToC) out of the hundreds of the total-remaining done. Its frequently easier to find a replacement file (quality and/or edition permitting of course) or just patch the original source file first and re-derive that as the replacement instead. Folks can take on those kinds of tasks at their leisure.

At the same time, if there are hundreds of Pages already proofread of a source file and two or three dozen left to still "work out", it makes perfect sense to expend the effort to patch what we already know to be nearly vetted in full. The same goes for the old PoTM-turns-out-to-be-flawed-187-pages-into-transcription scenario.

The notion that uploading a bunch a stuff only to wind up "parking" them for months if not years will somehow entice new contributors before you can get them yourself in the interim has also proven to be load of made-up malarkey. A freshly derived file will more often than not require "less work" to bring to completion than an older file would because the process itself is constantly improving over that same period of time.

I'm fully in favor of such housekeeping & appreciate knowing of any file issues at a glance but even in the real world - sometimes a new replacement is far easier to maintain than trying to clean up something "old". — George Orwell III (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I will also note that in removing the front sheet, it might be "useful" if the layout could be patched for files we know (due to pagelist checking) have 'missing pages', The layout could be fixed temporarily by inserting a suitable "This page is missing in the source scans" page, something I've done myself on a few files after a suggestion by someone here.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
See my screed above re: placeholders & patching first but if a tool is developed to easily do some of the more minor placeholder-insertions/duplicate-deletions on the fly, I'm all for it too. — George Orwell III (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, keeping watermark/front page is required by CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licence "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" ([615]). emphasis mine. — Phe 18:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Rescanned works don't get to be relicensed by the scanner just by 'sweat of the brow' effort. I woukld agree with approach for their works that they author and they license, but not where they slap a front page to a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, we have probably the right in some country at least to remove the front-page, and I have little doubt watermark will need to be removed later. I really found this story idiotic, why the hell some commonist are making our work more difficult? there is nothing preventing to keep this except an internal policy of commons, perhaps it's time to use local repository as commons is less and less usable, it'll require less work rather to try to workaround commons policy. — Phe 00:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, though it means that a Wikisource'd translation will need to be double loaded. :-/ Otherwise I agree about the issue of Commonist-nitpickers and there losing the global picture. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the toolwriters who runs a croptool has said that he may be able to build a tool, and I have given some examples with which he can play. I asked for djvu and pdf. It might work really well in conjunction with the toollabs:bubbillinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10031378 —>

Improve Template:header to handle arbitrary number of categories

I posted on the talk page here Template_talk:Header#Change_to_Support_More_than_10_Categories and you can see this change to the template in action here Template:Header/sandbox/sample and here Template:Header-wpoa/sandbox/example.

Edits to Template:Header are currently restricted, but I think this change would be a general improvement for any document with more than 10 categories added via the header template. Let me know if you think this change can be accepted.

Mattsenate (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Commented there. We probably have numbers of similar improvements elsewhere that we need to find and resolve in a similar manner. [Us non-coders!] — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Ping. I added a tiny bit and posted again on the thread here. Does not seem like there is any issue with giving this a whirl, do you think we should request any more feedback? — Mattsenate (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Month seems long enough for comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Curious

Hi, I'm curious about commons:Special:Diff/132346934. Which of the provisions does this satisfy? It's not a photograph or an artistic work, so I presume it was commercially published? I'm not familiar with UK copyright law — seeking to build my understanding. -Pete (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a work that is covered by crown copyright which is now expired for the work ...
A work is Crown copyright if it was:
  • created or published at any date before 1 June 1957 by or under the direction or control of the Crown

Therefore it applies to many records held in The National Archives, such as letters and reports by Crown servants, census returns, records of service in the armed forces, records created by the law courts, transportation records, war diaries and Cabinet minutes.

Copyright and its related works section 7, nationalarchives.gov.uk

... and that is the only licence available for that work. If you can find something more applicable, then go for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10092288 —>

Question concerning headers

Hallo Billinghurst, is there a difference in the syntax of the following two types of headers?

Type 1: {{RunningHeader|84|{{smaller|PORTRAITS OF PLACES.}}|{{x-smaller|[III.}}}}

Type 2: {{RunningHeader|84|{{smaller|PORTRAITS OF PLACES.}}|{{x-smaller|[III.}}}}

I ask because you changed the header on page 84 of Henry James' "Portraits of Places" from type 2 to type 1.

Kind regards from Germany, —ABrocke (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No difference systematically, the second is a redirect to the first, and is part of my standard maintenance scripts. The former is just explanatory jargon for newbies. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10159562 —>

new texts

Any reason you cut 'New texts' down to six texts from seven?[651] Hesperian 01:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempted balance on the front page. I had earlier bumped it up from 6 to 7, and it often been that way on the count, and seems dependent on the length of the featured text. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, we have a front page now? Nice. :-) Hesperian 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You…insufferable…peacemaker, you!

Regarding this GOIII has a point, the code in Base.js is rather tortured and kind of odd. However at the same time it is somewhat unreasonable to expect a new user to "know" which is the more fundamental syntax: ## or <section… Isn't there a case for both coexisting at an equal level, rather than the current either/or dichotomy?

Oh, two strikes:

  1. Assuming a sane world;
  2. Assuming the whole situation did not arise through a bodgy unreviewed patch.

AuFCL (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not commenting on the code, I was commenting on the history of why it came about (baby bath water). If we looked at it now, we would just have a section <section name="bert">bert bert bert bert</section> as we no longer look to do the complicated exclusion components ... (yaddada). But what the heck, we can criticise all day, I am just really thankful for the tool that was built, and love every time we make it easier/better/... ThomasV built it on his lonesome, and it was a great improvement on what we had, and for which he had no support, and often no code releases into the Extension by WMF, so instead some things were pushed through by javascript so they could happen. Long tortuous history. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Picking up on that, and completely agree (sadly partly on both sides.) And my (I really should have appended 'apparently') "unreviewed" comment remains in force. Be nice if that can be addressed—maybe even to the satisfaction of all parties concerned (as if.)

I hope you are aware you were not meant to take the 'insufferable' as meant too unkindly, umm, you just figure it out. AuFCL (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Perfection is nice, though rarely the reality. Volunteerism should always be appreciated (see previous statement)

I was mortified (of course), for at least a whole picosecond. Not the worst thing that I have been called around WMF wikis, even in the past few days, and I knew that there was jest within. Such is the joys of of a profile. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The process to attain perfection's easy to describe; somewhat harder to utilise in practice:
  1. Start by setting all dials and controls to infinity.
  2. Go for it!
  3. If anything breaks, back off a quarter turn, make good and resume at step 2.
  4. Verify result (may have to resume at step 3.) Declare success!

Warning: the above procedure might take significant unexpected resources. Femtosecond turnarounds may be considered to be anomalies. AuFCL (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Femtosecond turnarounds? Sounds like an out-there cuckolding experience. I don't think that I will given permission to come out to play. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

To check if this is working Page:National Life and Character.djvu/89 away from this PC.

Broken for me in Firefox 36.0a1 on Windows 7. Hesperian 05:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It was a note to self (Ff32.0.3 and Chr 38.0.2125), however, Ff 36 ? that is bleeding edge. Living dangerously?!?
I know, but I was feeling helpful. Yep, otherwise known as Firefox Nightly. And yes, living dangerously — it is pretty stable in-and-of-itself, but it constantly breaks extensions, and I rely heavily on extensions. I'm regularly having to go safe mode, wipe my profile, etc. It's all good fun. Hesperian 05:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:SIC still works and is based on tooltip, so will need to explore the differences in implementation.
Guys? Now? I am having a déjà vu moment here, as I am sure I gave this guidance to somebody (else) quite recently. This is a known and documented issue with tooltip—see second bullet point. AuFCL (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have added that to the template. Thx. No point in having a tooltip that doesn't tip, which would be a tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Good try. However for me on standard FF 32.0.3 the apostrophes now appear in the pop-up (that is with the &quot; method applied.) Reverting to unprotected double-quotes breaks the pop-up again as before. On second thoughts I won't give you heartburn as to creative misuses still open to this solution. AuFCL (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Happy for you to leave all your notes and thoughts on the template's talk page for whomever is clever enough to have a better working solution. I am so outcome driven. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Enough playing. I shall give some thought to a better solution; but in my opinion right this instant the last version of {{tooltip}} (i.e. special:permalink/4584926, with associated special:permalink/4895644) constitutes a superior starting point. AuFCL (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Done Applied exercise in cracking nut with excessive force. Don't care if you misunderstand that. YP. AuFCL (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

13:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10239738 —>

Some questions

Hi, happy to see you here. I have some question doing Korea-related work here:

  1. Relocation of the Capital City - There is official case number for this (we usually call the case by number) should I move it? or current name is better?
  2. Copyright Act of South Korea is outdated, any template to mark as such?

— revimsg 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

For question 2., you can write that it's out of date in Talk:Copyright Act of South Korea in the notes section of the {{textinfo}} template. —Rochefoucauld (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Re 1. Will the addition of a redirect suffice? Or we can move it and leave a redirect. We are pretty open to both, though do like clear, descriptive titles for the obvious reason of search engine results and we like distinctive titles as specificity is also good. We are generous with redirects as works can have many variations of title.
Re 2. As said in 1, we should move it to something has a year that reflects its descriptive title. If just moving, we would have a redirect at existing page. If you are bringing the new act, then the existing page will become a disambiguation page. As a note, Wikisource pages are not outdated as the represent a publication at the time of the publication. We are not an authoritative repository for the law today, though hopefully we can offer an accurate copy of a document as it was published at its time of publication. The notes section of the work can have something that says that the legislation was active between xxxx and yyyy, then add <edition = yes and put in more descriptive and pertinent notes, which could include off-site links to reference or verify. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
1. Ok, I found some conventions at Category:Supreme Court of Korea decisions has "Case Number+Summary". I think this is a good idea.
2. I wanted to say "This law is no longer effective, because this law has been revised, revoked, or country has been fallen." or such. — revimsg 03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay to 1). To 2), it should be specific. "This legislation was revoked in XXXX, and superseded by [[new legislation]]. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10322587 —>

Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies, from the papers of Thomas Jefferson

Billinghurst, Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies, from the papers of Thomas Jefferson has 2 spaces before each sentence. You validated one of them with 2 spaces but you also proofread another and used one space. My understanding is that there are to be one extra space between sentences. Which should it be? 2 spaces is the easiest because all pages have it but that is not the rule as I understand the situation. Which shall it be? Kindest regards and Ta-Ta for now... —Maury (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Consecutive spaces in html are concatenated, so one space or seven spaces = one space. In short, I probably didn't fuss over it or tried to be perfect, and removed in passing where it was obvious. It is not something to which I particularly paid specific attention, and it is not mentioned in our style.

With regard to the practice of single versus double spaces between sentences, it is an old typewriter set width font issue, where it was a (typing) practice to put the extra space. With the transition to both justified typography, and to proportional fonts, it stopped being a standard practice, and I think that my touch-typing practice is now to do singles, and I would have to look at my own history to even see what I do, as I couldn't even tell you what is my norm. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Structured Data Bee, vol. 1, issue 1

Greetings, thank you for signing up for the Structured Data newsletter and its first edition. With this newsletter, the Structured data team plans on keeping you informed of technical progress, events, and communications to talk about the project, and continued information on how you can participate. This newsletter will be sent approximately every two weeks, and future editions will be translatable prior to publication. If you're new to Wikidata and want more information about how it works in relation to Wikimedia Commons, you can read an introduction to Wikidata for Commons being drafted.

Tech and design

  • The software development for this process is still in the planning phases. The idea is to have some functional prototyping done for experimentation and feedback by the end of the year.
  • The initial roadmap for development has been posted on Commons. The roadmap is a rough outline and is open to iterations as the team learns where and when to focus its energies.
  • There is a page set up for design ideas about what structured data could potentially look like.
  • There are forthcoming requests for comment about the particulars of technical architecture on mediawiki.org. Keep an eye on the commons:Commons:Structured data/Get involved page for notification of when the RfCs are posted.

Events and chats

  • There was a week-long meeting between the Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team, the Wikidata team, and community members, held in Berlin, Germany, at the office of Wikimedia Deutchland on October 6-10. You can read an overview of the event in on this page on Commons. There are also plenty of pictures available on Wikimedia Commons.
  • If you would like to read more detail about what was discussed, there are etherpads of notes taken for each day of the event.
  • The second IRC office hour (logs) was held on October 16, and the first (logs) on September 3.

Getting involved

  • You've signed up for the newsletter. That's a great first step!
  • While working prototypes are being developed, there is a drive to make all files contain machine-readable data on Wikimedia projects.
  • A hub has been launched to facilitate communication and documentation for this work.
  • There is a frequently-asked questions page that is finishing drafting and will need translated. Keep an eye out for when it is ready if you are interested in translating.
  • There will be active organization of the Get involved page as community participation is further organized. There will be work groups, similar to specific Wikiprojects, dedicated to particular aspects of structured data like licensing presentation, design, API performance, and even helping out with this newsletter and other community communications.

There will be much more information and activities around the proposal to develop structured data on Wikimedia Commons. This project is a major undertaking and an important step as the chief provider, repository, and curator of media for Wikimedia projects.

Thank you for your participation in such an extensive project, let me know if you're interested in participating in this newsletter. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

—This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

<!— Message sent by User:Keegan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Structured_data_for_multimedia&oldid=10385691 —>

17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10353580 —>

Alternatively randomly have a selected that requires validation. [internal error]

Got "internal error" Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The bot is erroring. :-( I will see if I can find someone with the keys to restart it. Thanks for the notification. (dratted thing was working yesterday or the day before) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@William Maury Morris II: it is back, though I have been told that it was due to database query issues, and it may not be fully effective while that load is present on toollabs. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 12:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Somebody will work it out now that someone is alerted.

Meanwhile, in the following, "November is validation month (again)", I think (again) looks bad. When I saw that one word, I thought "boring!" = once again and yet I often do validations throughout the year. I get to read many new works by doing so as I have done today on Henry VIII and company. I don't believe again is needed. It just seems counter-productive to me emotionally. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comedy of (mis)edits at Author:Killingworth William Hedges

I think I have restored your edit state as it ought to have ended up before you reverted (well, you get the idea: how to mess up an edit session group without actually having an edit conflict at any point in time.)

In amongst the mess above I want to draw one lesson: if the wikidata= parameter is never actually needed any more; then why is it still supported in the template? Please consider either deprecating or removing it altogether. 121.216.15.218 05:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The parameters need to remain as they provide the links, they do need to be struck from the template's instructions, which I have done. Thanks. We are still in the process of cleansing them after spending the time adding them. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

IP

Is it blocked at pt.wikipedia? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

w:pt:Special:BlockListbillinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It was blocked indefinitely by a local admin. Too bad. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe politely ask m:User talk:Teles. Indefinite blocks on IP addresses are bad practice.— billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10462210 —>

18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10492864 —>

19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10592923 —>

Full names

Hi there, I need some help to figure out the full name of two biographers:

Solomon7968 (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Solomon7968: Boulger, Demetrius Charles, 1853-1928, and Innes, John James McLeod 1830-1907 ‎— billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh god, I spent ages on that. You are a great resource, thank you. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
http://viaf.org for those — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
And I spent ages on ODNB, Google Books... , will keep it in mind in future. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I will try to remember to do a page of source material for searching for authors, and section out extra sources to which I have access. There are already some sources added to my user page, but I can see value in making it more general, maybe something like Help:Identifying authors that links (back and forth) with Help:Author pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
A really good idea... and I think it would be particularly helpful for authors who mostly wrote for academic journals/newspapers/portions of one book under the editorship of another author (say DNB articles or example this case, I can’t find anything for the authors in VIAF.) Solomon7968 (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

POTM award

Hello Billinghurst, last award was a surprize, while I cannot in full consciousness deny that I took part in some of the works, because I have been sweatshop kind of busy lately but still visited Wikisource, without fixed objectives. How do you find out about contributors participation and judge about their eligibility for awards? I would like to look into my contributions critically and try to organize my work better given your advice. Best regards and thanks for your many good works, Tar-ba-gan (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tar-ba-gan: PotM is a participation award where we celebrate any contribution to our goals, without qualification or quantification measures. November is validation month where we try to concentrate on finishing other people's contributions, and when I went through the works that we validated, your contributions were there.

If you are looking for how to track your contributions, then apart from just looking at your list, or at the "related changes" link from an Index page, you can always look to use the supercount tool at Toollabs: ("Edit count" link at the bottom of your contributions) and for a fuller analysis set up a configuration file m:Special:MyPage/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js (it just needs to be created, the content is irrelevant). Here is mine as an example 23:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! My work at the moment lack structure, thanks to having part-times in 6 different places that are quite away from each other. I did make edits to all works mentioned, but I feel like I have to remove 2 where I feel I did not do much.
I have 1 more question. I have been unable to find out anything about James Hutson, a missionary in Sichuan, China, around early 20th century (he had some similarly named colleagues in China too). It is only known that he wrote this book: Index:Chinese Life in the Tibetan Foothills.djvu and yes I tried VIAF (not for very long tho) and I generally am good at web search and author investigation, so this is tough and I have to ask for your help. TIA, Tar-ba-gan (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Found author, and have populated data. I will leave the Wikidata for you (just in case), though if you don't want to do that, then please let me know and I will get it done. For the birth details, I am relying on the family tree research as being correct; I didn't verify. There may be an obituary in The Times for 1929-01-08>+, if you have access to a resource with access, especially as it was a London death. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't have a clue! Sorry, these days won't be able to do anything much at all on the web, please add info as you wish (and I have but a very vague idea of access to The Times) Tar-ba-gan (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see anything in the Times for 1929. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10690267 —>

How to convert Bugzillas into Tasks

Saw your request on Phabricator to open a tracking project and thought you should know — all the existing bugzilla designations were imported into phabricator with a + offset of 2000 and the addition of a prefix; the letter T.

( 35925 + 2000 = 37925 ) ; prefix that result with ' T ' and you're on your way.

Plus any live bugzilla link should redirect itself to Phabricator by now too. — George Orwell III (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Firstly I would have needed to remember the dratted tracking number, which I didn't, and would never have going forward. It was suggested to me that for what we are doing across WS that a project was more amenable to our needs. <shrug> They can come up with whichever solution that they think best. smileybillinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

British author names

Hi, Are we supposed to retain words like "Sir", "Lord", "Marquis", "Marquess", "Earl" while creating author pages or we need to strip them off? Also is this peculiar to British authors? Solomon7968 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Also Viscount and Baron. Solomon7968 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Those are titles, and not part of the author's name. They might appear in the blurb summarizing the author's identity, but should not be part of the pagename in the Author: namespace. —EncycloPetey (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Peerages have been noted in the description, and there are some that have been placed into the first/last name fields, and not changed. With the honorific "Sir" there are many cases of it being used in the first name component and where this has happened, we enforce the use of the defaultsort parameter, reason being is that it is harder to separately note a knighthood in the description, and it is only display anyway. We did move the author pages (leaving redirects) to not have page names with titles, or honorifics, though I cannot say that we have done an audit recently to check whether more have been created. So in short, not to use titles or honorifics in page name, though, there has been use in author fields, and where used then make sure that defaultsort parameter is added. Do feel welcome to utilise redirects for titles where it is a commonly used and unique for a person, eg. Lord Byron, but not for Duke of Buckingham as there have been many of those.

It is one of those situations where we are rule-guided, so if you think that you have a good case create it and discuss it on WS:S. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. The Lord Byron=George Gordon Byron sums it up well, I have got some similar situation. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10720692 —>

Author page request

Hi! Can you please help with the death-year and authority control of Author:Kshitish Chandra Sen? I found the birth-year at this site, but am unable to find the death-year. Hrishikes (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Indian biographical resources are not something with which I am particularly knowledgeable, especially not later in the 20th century. Apologies as I don't think that I can be much help. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks still for digging out the resources on talk page, from which I have included the 1949 work in his translation list. Hrishikes (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: I have tracked this author upto 1964. He passed B.A. from Cambridge, was in the I.C.S. from 1913 to 1948, retired as judge of Bombay High Court, later headed India's Industrial Tribunal and West Bengal Police Commission and did a translation for Swami Vivekananda Centenary Committee in 1964. More is beyond me. Can you please review the position to see if more can be unearthed, to substitute the query mark at his death-year? Hrishikes (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: You are going to need someone with good research skills for Indian biographical information. The person sounds like they are notable, and as such would do with articles at enWP and the respective Indic language WPs. It would be more worthwhile consulting with those who specialise in modern Indian biographies. I have no clue about any .in biographical, and any newspaper obituary may be in English speaking Indian newspaper archives, or the local newspapers. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Apology - template deletion

I apologise for deleting all those templates, and to make amends I've been going through the Uncategorised Template list and putting templates from that into the appropriate category — where known. —kathleen wright5 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Apology isn't necessary, misunderstandings occur, and it was readily fixable, and they were not all bad deletions, and obviously we needed to do more to identify their use. Thanks for the work that you do. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Billinghurst,

thanks for your greetings. I am not every day in the en:wikisource, mostly in the en:wikipedia, so I will redirect my page here to en:wp. Thanks again and let me know if I can help you. —Keysanger (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

16:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10810062 —>

16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

<!— Message sent by User:Guillaume (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=10850939 —>