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 damaged farm building is unstable
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.

George Smith by John Collier.jpg

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


Dictionary of National Biography Project
Work: Dictionary of National Biography



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: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), 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.

Pages to delete[edit]

Hello, I changed chapter titles from Roman numerals to Arabic for the 20 done chapters of A History of the University of Pennsylvania from Its Foundation to A. D. 1770. The links have been fixed on all the pages and I would appreciate it if you could please delete:

Thank you, The Haz talk 00:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! The Haz talk 02:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Indian constitution and copyright law[edit]

There are two sets for both: one set are scans, the other is Wikisource creation of latest updated version. Template:Constitution of India and Portal:Copyright law/Copyright law of India show the scans: originals as well as amendments. Constitution of India and Indian Copyright Law are Wikisource creations, i.e., not digital re-creations of published documents, but in-house creations based on multiple documents. I am aware of your stand that these in-house creations are not in scope here. But these documents are important, at least the copyright law, for cross-wiki purposes. The copyright document is of critical importance for Indic language Wikisources, where PD-India documents can be hosted even if not PD-US. In Commons, c:Template:PD-India-Gov refers to this document (the template can hardly refer to the 1957 document, that being long outdated). If one of these in-house creations is out-of-scope, then the other is too. So in that case, both should be deleted; else, the matter may be re-considered whether these two parallel sets for both documents can be accommodated side-by-side. With regards, Hrishikes (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: we don't do living documents, they are just too hard to maintain, and become stale at some point and do not represent a document at a point of time (it gets ugly). Also with legislation, the regulating authorities generally do a better job of maintaining it, so we can reference their living documents as required. As such we try to show a document at its point of time/publication, so we can have multiple documents of the legislation of the copyright of India through time, and that is how we disambiguate. So we can have a current form of a document, if it has been produced in the format. This is a better discussion for WS:S than here on a back-block user talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I have not asked you to keep hosting them. I have said that the fate should be same for both of these "living" documents; either both should be kept, or else, both should be deleted. As for govt. maintenance, they are doing a poor job. The copyright act document being maintained by the Indian copyright office here is not updated with the 2012 amendment; the Wikisource creation here is possibly the one and only latest updated version of Indian copyright act available on the net. Hrishikes (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-30[edit]

03:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-31[edit]

15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Death year check[edit]

Can you do a death year check on Author:Harihar Das? He was living in England, so probably died there. His biography in his posthumously published Norris embassy work (starting page link given in description part of author page) gives the death year with a query. With thanks, Hrishikes (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. But now what is to be taken as final? Your sources give the range as 1895-1950. I did get 1895-?1952 in my earlier searches (1, 2), but the biography in his own posthumous book is very detailed and gives birth data as:

DOB: November 2, 1892
Place: Sidhipasa, Jessore district, Bengal
Father's name: J. C. Das, lawyer

It details his visit to England as:

Went to England in July 1919, joined the Faculty of Arts, Univ. Coll., London, attended course for two years at School of Librarianship. Simultaneously, was on the staff of India Office Library on voluntary basis. Was elected fellow of Royal Historical Society in 1920, and after high acclaim (Yeats, Princess Victoria, others) of the Toru Dutt bio, was made a fellow of Royal Society of Literature. In 1921, he got admitted in New College, Oxford, and got B. Litt. in 1923. Then he went on to publish articles in plenty of journals as well as Encyclopædia Britannica, the details of which are given in the bio.

In view of such exhaustive bio, should we consider 1895 or 1892 as birth year? I do not have specific knowledge about the reliability of the sources, I am just asking for your opinion. And should we now show 1950 as the death year in author page? I'll go along with your opinion. With regards, Hrishikes (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The point of death would seem accurate, ie. he is dead, not long dead, all known. Years of birth can always be approximate depending on the information that the person lodging the death knows. So I would be happy with what you stated. I also see a shipping record for a family (H. M. Das mother, 41 and children from 18 to 4 — 3 girls, 2 boys)

Name: Mr. H Das
Arrival Date: 9 Sep 1895
Birth Date: abt 1891
Age: 4
Gender: Male
Ethnicity/ Nationality: Dutch
Place of Origin: Holland, Netherlands
Port of Departure: Rotterdam
Port of Arrival: New York, New York
Ship Name: Amsterdam

which looks aligned, though nothing confirmed. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-32[edit]

15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

hws template[edit]

Is there a reason for which pages in Index:Admiral Phillip.djvu are placing the beginning portion of hyphenated words in the footer rather than using {{hws}} (for example here)? BD2412 T 16:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no value in {{hws}}, so I don't use it (page displays as printed, and there is no need to know what is the full word). {{hwe}} is required to display the pages correctly.
I was not aware of that - I've never seen one used without the other. So the beginning of the word is in the footnote so it shows up on the index page but not in the final display? BD2412 T 02:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It's better to be consistent and include it in the body. There are situations where placing {{hws}} in the footer may not display properly, such as when the word appears in a multi-page table. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: {{hws}} shows the partial $1, and has a hover of the whole word $2 in page namespace, and is completely concealed when transcluded. {{hwe}} shows does the same in page namespace, though the $2 function handles the display when transcluded. So the end result is the same by putting it inside the footer <noinclude> section for showing in page namespace.
@EncycloPetey: I don't use the "hws" template at all, let alone put it in the footer. It is only a display attribute, and one that pretty well came about due to the difficulties in using the footer section in the early days, which was resolved by this template hide approach (it was a little more complicated discussion, but that is the nutshell). The improvement of the interface by ThomasV took place but the practice of both templates continued, AND it is easier to explain that way to newbies, BUT it is not a requirement of a transcription. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Template or not, putting the first part of a hyphenated word in the footer can lead to display problems under certain conditions, such as I mentioned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
How? Where? What? That is going to need an example to be believed that we have a real issue

A <noinclude> versus an #if statement "non-display" should be making no difference, and if it is not to show in a transclusion, it isn't to show in either case. So, if you are telling me that putting it into the footer is displaying it in a transclusion, then we have a very weird situation. If you are saying that it needs to be formatted around a close of a table inside the footer, then that is no different from any other table closure, so is just about appropriate coding, and not the use of the template or not. Further, it would only be a namespace issue in itself. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In any case, Admiral Phillip is done. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Marvellous, thanks to all who contributed. smileybillinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

image tracking categories[edit]

Apropos the addition of image tracking categories to author template, why not do the same with birth year and death year? To begin with we could 1)track authors that have death (birth) date on wikidata but not here; 2)track authors that have different death (birth) date on wikidata; 3)track authors that have death (birth) date here but not on wikidata. Bot then can import/export dates for categories 1) and 3) and humans could clean up category 2). Let me know what you think. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

I totally agree (and I am not finished yet, just a slow learner), and it was to be a proof of concept, get it functioning and not scare the sheep with my radical thoughts; and with the recent @T.seppelt: proposal for a bot to do authority control, I see an opportunity to work with him to automate much of our headers data into a productive transfer of data into Wikidata, and the opportunity to look at much in the way of our local data to some more powerful (meta)data components with works and authors. Especially if we can look to utilise local facilities to build the data, and then have a bot grab it and populate WD (and reference).

P.S. What was the bad tooth for? if I may ask :) Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

The mischievous smiley? A congrats! :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Firm of Gridlestone/Girdlestone

Thank you for checking out some of my proofreading efforts for this project. Also greatly appreciate comments left on my talk page for things I'm not supposed to be doing or should be doing differently. As a complete newbie to the site and lack of documentation on help:proofreading pages as to what to add/remove to "match the scan" as best as can be done, this advice helps. I realize not everything can be or should be documented. Learning as I go. I did leave some thoughts on the discussion page for this project for clarification. Humbug26 (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

On author images from Wikidata[edit]

Billinghurst, in Template:Author getValue should be used instead of getRawValue to retrieve the image name from Wikidata, because "if values with preferred rank exist, then only they are returned" (from w:Module:Wikidata/doc). And yes (I tried it), with this particular property they are also returned as plain text.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Erasmo Barresi: Thanks, the doc said wikilink'd, which was not wanted, hence why I went with getRawValue. Probably need to get that documentation updated to be specific about how it wikilinks (presumably some sort of #ifexist). — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I just discovered the sortkey property, which can easily be used for the initials, like this: {{ucfirst:{{lc:{{padright:|2|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P1964|FETCH_WIKIDATA}} }} }} }}. I also tried the following to retrieve the item description: {{#invoke:Wikidata|ViewSomething|descriptions|en|value}}. Maybe we'll be able to start using {{author}} without parameters sooner than expected!--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Author template without parameters could be problematic. 1) We don't want variation; 2) Different naming rules; 3) Vandalism that we cannot control or notice; are among some. That said, I can see the time that we can lessen the load, utilise WD to assist in creation of author pages, AND allow for the customisation that users want, ie. we produce a minimum, but allow for users to have additional parameter through gadgets of extra fields they want to see. I see the scope for flexibility, and updatedness, and for tracking well where the data is in disagreement with that source. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I did not mean that parameters should be disallowed or deprecated, only that if all the necessary data is on Wikidata, one should be able to get a meaningful and functioning output just by typing {{author}}. However, the Author namespace is just the easy part, for the real challenge will be getting the main and Translation namespaces aligned. <going off-topic> Just to let you know, on the Italian Wikisource we had a new namespace set up for this a few months ago. It is called "Opera" (Italian for "Work"). The long-term plan is to have "Opera" pages connected to work items and main namespace pages connected to edition items. But this is just one way things can be arranged.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-33[edit]

14:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge County Geographies[edit]

Hi! I started a new article w:Cambridge County Geographies; the series is in public domain (at least a big chunk of them) but the source I used does not give the year of publication of the individual books of the series. I suppose they might be a worthy addition to Portal:Counties, if someone can figure out the dates of publication and start the transcription projects. So just a FYI. Best regards. Solomon7968 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Solomon7968: A quick look sees Buckinghmashire published in 1912, however, with the author dying in the 1950s, it probably is something that we would need to have the file kept locally rather than at Commons. If they are all the same era then we can probably host them. I have crafted a query that seems to get numbers of them. If you have the time and patience, you can build a portal page for the series and link to those at archive.org. You could look to something like Portal:Notes and Queries as a guide to how we have built one previously, and that will make it easier to organise to get them in when someone has the time. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I have created some of the author pages of the authors of the series for whom I can find information on viaf (as you instructed me some time ago) and noted absence of birthyear/deathyear or year of publication in the edit summaries. viaf doesn’t seems to exist/suffice for many of the other authors of the series. Perhaps you can find some more info elsewhere? Solomon7968 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

bot activity on Swedish Wikisource[edit]

Care to explain what you do? This kind of null-edits should be annonounced before start.--Thurs (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Thur: Damn, phabricator:T108799 I was hoping that as null edits that they would not be showing through (they shouldn't be for null edits). Can you just give it a bot right for the interim. We are fixing up a problem caused by proofread page. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I give you a flod/botflag for a week.--Thurs (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, You can proceed with the edits.--Thurs (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Thur: Thanks. it should only be needed for a several hours as I cycle through the Page: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies to any other wiki that has a slab of my edits in your recent changes. All those null edits are meant to have been null edits, and not show, seems I will need to add a pywikibot bug :-/ I have shoved flooder on all the major wikis, and will take them off in the (my) morning. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, it looks like we are seeing a slight interaction between mediawiki at the time of the pages being saved, and to how mediawiki is today. What is happening is that it is stripping the trailing space off pages that were on pages for some reason. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Somehow the floodflag doesnt seem to work. The edits is still showing up in Recent Changes.--Thurs (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Thur: yes, the fallbacks that I employed all were unsuccessful, and I am digging through that now. <sigh> — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

cleaning on plwikisource[edit]

Could you, please, use a bot account for massive automated edits? I can set you bot flag on request. But I doubt you wish bot flag set to this account :) Ankry (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have set you the bot flag temporarily, as on svwikisource. Ankry (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Ankry: That was a noisy and ugly exercise in quietly tidying up. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Removed the bot flag already as it did not inflict edits visibility. I also tried to touch pages with the same command as you using a bot account, but my "touches" did not modify anything. Maybe you use another version or different user rights cause different bot behaviour? Ankry (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ankry: I have yet to find an explanation for the rights changes have not taken effect, there were numerous attempts by various means to get the rights in place locally and remotely. I halted the jobs, once I was able to work out how fine them and to pull them out of the grid (that is labs submission parlour). In analysis mode. <sigh> — billinghurst sDrewth 13:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Billinghurst, what does "Pywikibot touch edit" mean? Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It is meant to be a no change edit, checked phab:T108799 for why, and the fix applied. These edits are all meant to be applied locally, so I am not sure why they still showing. Trying to get them marked as bot while the run occurs. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-34[edit]

16:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

More Commons deletions of files we are using[edit]

Hi, is there some way of finding out what used to be in the PD-UN Commons category that has been deleted over the last few months. I know you've brought the Kosovo files across, but File:Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.djvu currently has orphaned pages. SFan00 has been finding several in his explorations as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: File now here. Re missing here, I would suggest looking at something like a search for either djvu and pdf in the deletion requests, or maybe search for PD-UN in the same search if too many. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Updated scripts[edit]

Hi Billinghurst. I edited your common.js to update you to the latest version of TemplateScript, which makes it easier to write custom scripts. For example, you had many lines like these in your scripts:

// Av -> w
context.$target.val(context.$target.val().replace(/Av(ill|ith)/g, 'w$1'));

// "U" -> "ll" when preceded by a lowercase letter
context.$target.val(context.$target.val().replace(/([a-z])U/g, '$1ll'));

The new version let you write this instead:

editor
   .replace(/Av(ill|ith)/g, 'w$1') // Av -> w
   .replace(/([a-z])U/g, '$1ll');  // "U" -> "ll" when preceded by a lowercase letter

The editor object is meant to help you forget the DOM — if you're using $('#wpTextbox1') or context.$target directly, your scripts will break on pages with editors like VisualEditor or CodeEditor. (Note that context.$target is deprecated and will be removed soon; if you really need it, you should use $('#wpTextbox1') instead.)

You can see m:TemplateScript for the latest documentation. Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 01:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-35[edit]

13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Shifting from Commons[edit]

Hi! Can you take some action for 1, 2, 3? Thanks, Hrishikes (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Yes check.svg Done You will find them at Special:RecentChanges in the FromCommons section (top right), please pop in, remove that categorisation, and make any amendments like licensing. Also add {{Do not move to Commons}} and look to use the expiry parameter. If you need a hand, please ping me again. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have edited file info for all three. Some points. File:Ancient History of the Deccan.djvu was published from Pondicherry in 1920, so French copyright is applicable (of which, I don't know the terms). I could not find the birth/death year of the translator, so data incomplete in fileinfo. File:The Music of India.djvu seems to have been simultaneously published from many places including New York. If so, it would be suitable for Commons. Can you please review the title page? Hrishikes (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
For specific copyright issues, it is better to drop questions and referrals to WS:CV. Re migration to Commons, I generally run an annual process for works known to come out of copyright. So for those works they should be formatted appropriately to be received at Commons, and tagged with {{move to Commons}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

More work for you:)[edit]

Hi, there! Something should also be done about all maintenance categories of type Category:Author pages not linking to Wikipedia, etc. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. I have removed negative categorisation, though we will wish to have a means to readily identify those cases, and we should be able to do it still via a similar means. Will think about that once I have the next batch running tonight. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

SDrewthbot is screwing up Copyright-until links[edit]

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Author:Isaac_Asimov&diff=5644664&oldid=5530243 has as an edit comment "removal of superfluous sister links in WD, removed: | wikipedia = Isaac Asimov (17) using AWB", but it's screwing up Copyright-until links where it links to Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will go back and play on _that_ baby after a regex change, so please excuse a bit of noise on that one. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Reviewed, and amended. I have also again reviewed the templates that look pertinent for the Author: namespace, and could not find any others that are likely to use a wikipedia parameter. I also ran my eye down the Authors-A done, and could not see any other extravagent replacements, so seems that it was one of one or one. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandboxes?[edit]

Two points:

  1. Thanks for cleaning up Index:Sandbox; but that concurrently raises:
  2. Why is Index: special? I was specifically testing an issue which may have been namespace specific and was formerly under the impression a sandbox in each possible namespace was normal in all mediawiki installations (obviously false.)

Shouldn't a redirect be left to Wikisource:Sandbox/Index as expecting a user to make the connection between Template: and Index: namespace unprompted is rather a long stretch? And how is one to "properly" test namespace stuff anyway? I'll do it exclusively off-site (and of course I am aware of the test wikis if that is your recommendation) if that is a requirement but it makes the collaboration model a bit farcical. AuFCL (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) We have traditionally done all sandboxes in the Wikisource: namespace. It has been existing practice and a decision prior to my arriving, though I understand it to be to keep all sandboxes out of presentation spaces. A redirect may be possible though not through the Mediawiki: namespace template that currently exists, and which I cannot do with my existing access, and had plans to look at tonight.

If you need to test namespace specific issues, then you should be able to use test2wiki: or the test wiki set up that replicates enWS (and for which I cannot remember the url, Tpt tests there). For me, I just interchange WS: namespace or user: ns for my testing, and change it when implemented. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I must be confusing local practice with observation made elsewhere. (It isn't as if the applications come up that often. Also I'd forgotten the no-cross-ns redirect rules.) Oh well thanks. AuFCL (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

┌──────┘
Incidentally I suppose I should report upon what I wanted to check in the first place if only for these reasons:

  1. it is a piece of ProofreadPage arcana which may actually be useful one day;
  2. I probably should record it somewhere outside of just the inside of my own head; and (deliciously):
  3. if I make you the new point of contact I can refer all future correspondence... (I think you probably get the point?)

Anyway, arising from comments made variously by yourself and Hrishikes in this discussion I thought it might be worthwhile investigating the level of internal integrity checking on the "Year" field of Index: pages (do you now see why testing in the WikiSource: ns might not necessarily be handled identically cf Index: in this instance?) with regards George Orwell III's list (see what a name dropper I am becoming?)

Specifically what is preventing fl./circa./etc. range/precision modifiers from being applied to works and whether or not the processing chain reacts sensibly if they should happen to have already been entered. Turns out under the current software release only an HTML check applied at point of initial data entry (trivially bypass-able) appears to be the only protection. That is not good but at least the subsequent processing appears to be robust once "bad" data is injected. In short it is a toss-up which is the correct way to go but the system as it stands straddles two incompatible design choices.

On second thoughts probably not such a good situation to advertise widely; though certainly not too damaging either? Ignorance is bliss and all that. AuFCL (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts in this space is that the amount of information at an index page will diminish in time as we get that data into Wikidata more readily. We will also be able to more readily identify data discrepancies as we start to shove data around and write means to crosscheck data. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a completely different kettle of fish. I largely agree but if (as somebody observed recently multiple times) LUA developers with a WikiSource bent are hard to come by then PHP ones to get this changed in ProofreadPage.php are near non-existent. I expect you'll have to live with oddities like this for a very long time. AuFCL (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-36[edit]

21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Bots are not capable of proofreading[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, Although I was optimistically assuming that my activities as described at Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bots_are_not_capable_of_proofreading do not rise to the level of administrative sanction, it just occurred to me that you might merely be waiting for me to respond on your talk page (as opposed to my bot's talk page). Anyhow, I assume if it was a big deal I would have heard something by now, so I'll assume that it's a small deal, fixable with minor sanctions and/or rework, as specified by yourself and others. I would like to resume work on the project with user Maury, and will do so on a "go slow" basis for the next couple of days just in case you're on a summer holiday or have one coming up that you're getting ready for. Anyhow, sorry if I've made any significant amount of extra work for you, I'm optimistic that with a little more fine-tuning my bot could be ready by the end of 2015 to make useful contributions to the project beyond the Southern Historical Society Papers (that particular series is not my passion, but I found a friendly and helpful collaborator in Maury, who would like to see the series completed, and I agreed to do what I could to further that goal in return for his advice on formatting and his help in validating the SHSP series pages). If you'd like to discuss any problems with my approach further, feel free to take that back to the noticeboard or my talk page. Questions about what I'm trying to get the bot to do are welcome on my talk page, and if there is a flag that needs to be set on my bot id, just let me know what I need to request and I'll do it (I believe the lack of a flag or the bot's name on a list may be one source of confusion). Until then, I'll assume that "no news means no sanctions" and continue my work with Maury, with a bit more caution. Thanks for any advice and sorry for any confusion I've created. Dictioneer (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dictioneer: Your page was specific, WS:AN was philosophical. We discuss slowly here, so while still an open discussion I think that the summarisation would be
  1. If you are manually reviewing each bot edit, then you can change the proofread status
  2. If you are not manually reviewing, then do the text edits, and not change the status
All other components the community can discuss through the bot approval process as dictated on Wikisource:Bots. Among other work on-wiki, I haven't been able to give it more time, and my hope that someone else may stand up and take ownership of this was not fulfilled. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I will add that while the discussion is ongoing, I will only change to proofread status under my dictioneer persona. I do have a review process for bot edits before uploading, but it is probably not up to the standard you suggest (the bot in certain circumstances will display a review list of 'similar' edits that are in doubt in a window that allows for cancelling/correcting the edits before they're applied en masse). Until the discussion has reached its logical conclusion, I'll play it safe. BTW, have I mentioned that "go slow" is good as far as I'm concerned? You folks are a good deal less reactive than over at WP, that's one of the reasons I like it here. I'll keep an eye on the philosophical discussion, and thanks again, Dictioneer (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a mistaken idea above. I do not care _for me_ to do the SHSP volumes. I stopped that long ago. The only help I gave was the basics of editing which I would have done on any single book or multiple volumes and I would probably still be making mistakes. AdamMorgan set up the volumes. I stepped in to help get them underway. I have done these volumes long ago, for a company, and sold the CDs. I have no desire to do them all over again. Dictioneer, I stepped in again validating for you because you asked for assistance. Your desire was about a "bot" and unusual words as I recall. You chose the SHSP volumes to do starting with a high numbered volume which wasn't what I would have chosen even if I had wanted to work on the SHSP volumes. I wanted the .pdf files placed on Wikisource because of their historical significance and that is all I ever wanted. I got caught up in working on them several times by others especially user: Hydel Dyl (sp?) asking me. I prefer the SHSPbot, wrongly named for other works, to work on the 9 volumes of the History of England vols.1-9 by author:John Cassell (& company). I love doing the illustrations in those volumes. The SHSP volumes have been a pain in several ways and for a long time for me. I just tried to help because I was asked to. I like helping and being helped -- the concept of "working together". I do not care about total 52 SHSP vols. other than they are in PD and others should know this nation's history and terrible in-fighting. Most people here do not care about working on the SHSP volumes about the American Civil War aka War Between the States". (N.B. Billinghurst, my name is not WM nor WMM.) Follow my signature - please. —Maury (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
[User:Hywel Dda] is the name that I was trying to recall above who was doing a lot of work on the SHSP including tables and he conversed with AdamBMorgan, Me, and others about some of it. —Maury (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Author identity[edit]

Wondering if you might be able to confirm whether "Evan Morgan" (2nd Lt., Welsh Guards) of the Soldier poets is the same fellow as w:Evan Morgan, 2nd Viscount Tredegar. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same person. Looking at the British Army WWI Medal Rolls Index Cards, 1914-1920 shows Morgan, (The Hon.) Evan Frederick, Welsh Guards, Lieut. ...billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)