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
"Da mihi basium"
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.

Scale of justice 2.svg

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

Law Project
Work: Wikisource:WikiProject Law

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: 2017-05[edit]

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


Are we deprecating the {{populate}} template? [5] --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. There was a work, and the purpose is to get rid of a listless section. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Index[edit]

Hello, Billinghurst. I have uploaded a File to Commons that has duplicate pages and missing pages. I created the Index here, but wish to delete it (as well as the File at Commons). No proofreading has been done. Is all that is required to delete an un-proofread Index is to perform the single deletion of the Index itself? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: presumably you are going to find alternate versions, if that is the case and the same book data applies, you can just upload a new file version at Commons, and then purge and regenerate the local index. If that is not the case and they do need deleting, you can just label at commons with {{delete}} and here {{sdelete}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I requested deletion of the bad file at Commons, and uploaded a new file. Can I not delete the Index here myself without requesting a speedy delete? If not, where do I place a {{sdelete}} tag on an Index in edit mode? Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. The ping did not work for some reason. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to update you, EncycloPetey is guiding me through this matter. Thanks for your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Messed up![edit]

Hello again. I've just realised that someone else has already started on another edition of the book I've been working on!

I started Index:Round the Yule Log.djvu (1881, 1st ed.), and transcluded the story I was working on at Peter Gynt, but then found this later edition republished under another title Index:Christmas Fireside Stories.djvu (1923) which is typeset exactly page-for-page, line-for-line (the only difference is that it actually corrects the one typo I noticed, which makes me want to use the later edition for the mainspace if at all possible).

Would you recommend I move the pages to the new title (only 5 pages: Page:Round the Yule Log.djvu/169 to 174), and delete the new index I made, or should I copy and paste to the new one, or start again on the 1923 edition from scratch? I'd be happy to double check my proofreading against the other edition to make sure it matches word for word.

Sorry for the hassle! --YodinT 13:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yodin: Umm .... We work on authoritative editions, and each edition is pertinent and usually different. So we wouldn't normally delete an index of a work. So you can choose whichever you wish to work upon, and the criteria is yours, though there can be guiding factors like English vs American spelling, art work, first edition, etc., It is neither right nor wrong for either edition, and we have scope for managing multiple editions of works, there are multiple examples of this. Each edition gets its own wikidata entry, so that isn't a hurdle. So whichever is your preference is my response. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Smith v. United States (508 U.S. 223)[edit]

Hi Billinghurst. I made the changes you suggested. Feel free to edit further. Thanks for the feedback. - Wesboson (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for your guidance. --V.narsikar (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I am bothering you. Please see this page now, which is finalised after proofreading. Should I proceed this way? After your nodding, I will continue.--V.narsikar (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@V.narsikar: Please excuse the delay in replying. Generally in our community we would utilise Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help, it allows for a broader commentary, and usually something more time-responsive. Personally, I look to simplify formatting, rather than more complex. I have had a hack at the page, though it is only in the context of the page. Sometimes one can only make a good assessment when you finally transclude the work. With that in mind I have found that you can add some complexity to the formatting then if you need to, and somewhat easily. Undoing a lot of complex formatting is a PITA. Another pointer to remember is that while we are starting on a page, we transclude to a work/chapter/... so we need to have that a way of thinking as we attack a page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-06[edit]

19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Need some help with sidenotes[edit]

I'm having an issue with "left sidenotes" being displayed on the right hand side of the page in the Main namespace. Can you help me out? See these two texts: The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1991 and The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1991. Ciridae (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. It is way to late for me to start fiddling with whatever f-up has gone on with the styles. @Samwilson: how is your css? GOIII has left us with a spaghetti pile of configurations that I find hard to unpick. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)~
I've managed it somehow. I'm using the "outside L" template for Left sidenotes and it works fine in Mainspace (and Pagespace). Ciridae (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ciridae: Okay, I knew that it would, but making that change would have needed explaining. The "outside" templates have all their css code internal, whereas "sidenotes" have had their css moved into our global styles (well that and other places), and as such have morphed into a more complex beast which does my head in! <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-07[edit]

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-02[edit]

09:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism question[edit]

Re: recent activity at Author:Abraham Lincoln: The anon user used two related ip addresses; if you were to block the user (I chose not to in this case), would you block both addresses, or is there another way of handling it? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Wonderful and the wonder of IP addresses. In this situation you can block them either individually or with a range statement (two adjacent numbers from an even number upwards). If they come back where the variation is in the last set of numbers then you would block the range There is logic and information about IP addresses and ranges (with which I will not bore you unless you ask), so feel able to block a for a short period, its likely impact on other users will be slim and will manage someone hopping around the range. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-08[edit]

19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)