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 harp which sounds too good to be true is probably a lyre
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.


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

New Student's Reference Work Project
Work: New Student's Reference Work

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)

Activity level[edit]

Due to unforseen and other reasons, my activity level at WS has dropped significantly. While I check in almost daily to oversee my Watchlist, my contributions have been insignificant. It is my intention to gradually chip away at projects on my "To do" list, but if this trend continues through next year, I will likely not seek continued adminship. Your vote of confidence in my nomination was very much appreciated, and it was/is still my desire to contribute to the maintenance of this site, but my own estimation of the role and expectations of an admin far surpasses my contribution in that capacity to date. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

<sad face> Hope that things are okay. Re adminship, there is no requisite admin activity level at enWS, it is solely to contribute (ie. not lost to the wind). The granting of the right is a statement by this community that we trust you to utilise the tools to enact the consensus point of view. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Things are going well, just a shifting of focus. Thanks for your words re adminship. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-36[edit]

17:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


It seems to me that this change did break RecentChanges interwiki as Special namespace does not seem to be supported by Wikidata. Maybe it is worth to restore the interwiki some way? Single interwiki to oldwikisource looks strange there. Ankry (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

missing page[edit]

What happens when the scan has a page missing? This is the only version available on IA, but it's missing the first page of the preface (/10). ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

For missing pages the community has been known to assist and hunt out those pages in other resources. Otherwise we have an incomplete work, and it will remain that way. It won't be the first or the last, and while it is imperfect it is not valueless. You then have to make the determination whether you wish to proceed with an imperfect work, or or not. With the work as is, I would recommend asking for someone to inset an extra (blank) page into the work, and then we reload it. Therefore if we ever get the missing page it becomes very easy to insert/replace it and have a complete work. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I see. Well, the scan on Google Books is complete. I'm thinking of taking that page from them, and add it to the IA DjVu file, while giving attribution to both sources. I'll look into it when I have more time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's easier for me to just upload the Google Books' version. I wasn't going to use IA's OCR text anyway. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@DanielTom: then reupload the image as an overwrite, update the description and source accordingly; then purge the file at Commons to ensure image and text layers are pushed through. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did it a few hours ago; seems to have worked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-37[edit]

18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-38[edit]

22:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Over/under editing layout[edit]

Could you be so kind and check your over/under editing layout. I switched to monobook to test it and the problem is the same. Perhaps you can notice it even though you are not familiar with it. The upper window is open to the actual page size and I can't even take a screenshot to upload an image of it, it's so large. Usually it's about 12-14 rows high. I tried working side buy side but it just doesn't work for me. — Ineuw talk 05:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

PS: stitched this image together from three parts. — Ineuw talk 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ineuw. It is broken as I reported a few days ago at WS:S. I am guessing that it is now full width and has lost its relationship to the under over window. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 08:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you please provide a link to your comments in regard to this issue? I've been searching WS:S history and can't find anything. — Ineuw talk 16:26, 23 September 2016 (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)