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

User talk:Billinghurst

From Wikisource
(Redirected from User talk:SDrewthbot)
Jump to: navigation, search

Je suis Charlie inversée.jpg
A rule of grammar: double negatives are a no-no.
System-users.svg This user has alternate accounts named SDrewthbot & SDrewth.
billinghurst (talk page)

(Archives index, Last archive) IRC cloak request: I confirm that my freenode nick is sDrewth
Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.

1911 Britannica logo.png

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

Encyclopædia Britannica Project
Work: Encyclopædia Britannica

TO DO — DNB footer initials[edit]

Support request with team editing experiment project[edit]

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

Tech News: 2015-51[edit]

17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi and thanks for the wellcome. I have a question about editing. I tried to limit the entry about Francesco Crispi to Crispi alone, but some other topics are included as well. How do you deal with that? Any tips? - DonCalo (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@DonCalo: we reproduce that article as it was published in the EB1911, we don't amend it. We are not the encyclopaedia that is WP's task, we are the library. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I think DonCalo meant eliminating other EB 1911 entries from the Mainspace page, which I have attempted to do with sectioning. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed that was what I meant, but your attempt did not really work. Thanks for the effort anyway, but apparently something else is needed. - DonCalo (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@DonCalo: I am not seeing the other biographical entries on the same page anymore. Are you still? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Not anymore, many thanks. - DonCalo (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-39[edit]

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking for thoughts on what to do with a page[edit]

Hi, Page:Bills of Mortality.pdf/4 is very large page that was included in this tract as an example of one of the Bills. My ponder is whether to bring it in as a facsimile, or to reproduce it (or even both). I'm concerned that it will go somewhere close to the template limit as even the border should be reproduced—skulls and cross-bones and all. Do you have any thoughts or ideas? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Hmm. How about add the page as an image within the work, as it is an example to be viewed. Then we can look to separately reproduce that Bill as its own work, and we can link both ways. That won't hold up the production of the original, and provides the value of the text later. Re the iterative issue of borders, I am sure that someone can help us do that part of decoration at some point, to me the decoration is nice, but the text is king. (Thanks for asking). — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Just a quick, hopefully non-obtrusive, "Thank you!" for all the help and guidance over the past few months. I really appreciated it! Hope to catch you on #wikisource some of these days. Tromaster (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-40[edit]

21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes/The Resident Patient[edit]

Hi. My edition is based on The Resident Patient (The Strand Magazine) and The Resident Patient (The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes). Sapun (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sapun: At enWS each presented work is transcribed based on a specific edition — which is why we require the source detail for a work. We do know that there are variations between editions, especially whether it is US vs UK published. So I am not doubting that the version you are checking is different, I am just not certain that it replicates the version/edition that we have. Unfortunately, this work is a Gutenberg copy, and it doesn't present the original publishing details, so we simply don't know, and in the end I simply don't want to get into a fight about inconsequential changes.
As a result of such matters (in our history), this is why this community now prefers to have image-supported transcribing to avoid this type of discussion. It is also why we will maintain multiple versions of work as we can demonstrate that a work can morph through time and space. Such is life. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

Thanks for the follow-up pages moves on Author:William Whitaker – I couldn't remember the standard practice, so I followed the first example I found, which apparently led me astray. One question though – have we settled on using a plain hyphen in the date ranges in titles? I would have thought that in author pages, as well as in DNB entries and the like, that an ndash would be more appropriate. Spangineer (háblame) 16:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We decided on the hyphen as it was on the keyboard, rather than an en dash. Long ago for DNB, and it followed through with our KISS style guide and then WS:Naming conventionsbillinghurst sDrewth 17:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough; thanks. Spangineer (háblame) 17:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

title change[edit]

Hello Billinghurst. I want to add "tr. Fawkes" to the title "The Argonautics of Apollonius Rhodius" here, but moving the Index page does not seem to be sufficient. Would I also have to move all the pages associated to it that I've already created? One more thing: when I reverted the (Index) page move, all the created pages (up to 35) lost their yellow/proofread color... Oops? ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Index: name needs to be the same as the name of the File that it's linked to. The title of the Mainspace: page can be different to that of the Index, and that's where you can include the disambiguator. Refresh your cache to have the colour come back. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Beeswaxcandle. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
We would generally not move File:, Index: and Page: ns pages once we have started a transcription. Those names are not authoritative, they are indicative only. It is why we try to get the filename right prior to starting transcription. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, understood. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Is a block warranted?[edit]

Hi, I'm inclined to block Nrgullapalli. S/he's been validating a huge number of pages over the past 24 hours or so and the only page on which a change was made was an erroneous extra character. You, Hesperian and I have all tried explaining what's expected. They acknowledge, but it seems to make no difference to what they are doing. Anything they've touched needs re-doing. I'm checking in with you as this is potentially a controversial block. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: we probably need to have specific examples of fail to progress to a block, though I am not against a short term block until they pay attention. We should alos bring to the attention of all admins. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-41[edit]

20:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Truce Pact between Bolivia and Chile[edit]

Hi Billinghurst,

please, be so kind and add the license and the source to Truce Pact between Bolivia and Chile. I didn't found such register in the header and I added it to the main text. thanks in advance, --Keysanger (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Help - vandalism (fraudulent article created, etc) here at Wikisource...[edit]

I am not all that familiar with WS but am a longtime editor at WP. I've posted a notice at WS' Admins Noticeboard but wanted to get as many eyes on this as possible. There are some meat or sockpuppets that have recently popped-up on a WP article: "Presidency of Thomas Jefferson". They have created a fraudulent WS article Thomas Jefferson's Third Inaugural Address and their associated vandalism has extended to at least 2 other WS articles: editing history. Help! Shearonink (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-42[edit]

16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Status key[edit]

Hi. This is a stupid question! I don't know whether should I put the status key to yellow when I first create a page and read all of the text and arrange it or I should leave it for another user? --Yoosef Pooranvary (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoosef Pooranvary: If you have checked all the text on a page, and fixed all the problems, then mark it yellow (proofread). A second person checking the page will later mark it green (validated). However, if you have just formatted the text, without checking the spelling, spacing, and punctuation against the original, then you can leave it pink (not proofread). --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you --Yoosef Pooranvary (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Yoosef Pooranvary: Help:Page status should explain this, if it is short on detail then please let us know, or make some clarifying edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
At first I realized maybe the approval process of a text includes 3 users at least. Someone saves the first version and two other users review it... I think the help is alright but maybe adding a sentence about this issue might help other newbies.--Yoosef Pooranvary (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)