User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2013/February

re: User:PIFOA Award for Best Actor
See also: User:PIFOA Awards. Thanks! -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  23:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks.  Lost souls! — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Master of Finance
I could have sworn there was an ANI thread on this garbage, but I think you would be interested in a conversation I just had with Whitman on his talk page here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Say your bit and walk away' is my philosophy, revisit lightly, if urgent they will visit you. If the nail is bent, stop hammering, wherever the 'nail party'. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits and input in this case. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

DNB copy and paste
Hallo, while stub-sorting I came across Edmund Verney (soldier) and worked out eventually that it was a straight copy from the DNB at Wikisource. Isn't there a template which is usually added in these cases, to explain away the non-Wiki-style prose and save editors the trouble of checking for copyvio? I've seen it for Britannica stuff, and thought I'd see it on DNB stuff too.

As a wider issue, is it wise to just copy an article wholesale anyway, complete with obscure language such as "his portion invested in the aulnage was practically forfeited"? Would the reader not be better served by a brief article in clear modern prose, with a link to the ODNB for "Further reading"? (I expect there's a whole WikiProject or Noticeboard somewhere which has discussed this issue ad nauseam ...) Pam  D  08:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't a straight copy, though basically it is the text, and as such it was stated that it was a paste in the edit summary. If editors wish to check my source, good-o.  There may be some who have dedicated time to discussing it in the fashion that you state; I don't know, I haven't looked. Sometimes when juggling things across three wikis, a point of time text needs to be put in place, and then come back and edit.  My purpose was to get the article in place, and to have the letter linked, fix up the corresponding issue in Wikidata, link through Wikisource, and only then to get back to the text.  As I still haven't completed the wiki data aspects, through other interruptions, I still in the sequence. Also, there are some who are good at research, organisation, etc., but not as perfect with their prose. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful for the info to be in the article as well as the edit summary - normal readers don't look at article histories and deserve an explanation of the 19th-century style of the prose here, and it's helpful to other editors to see at a glimpse that.although not original, it isn't copyvio. I've found and added the DNB template, which seems to fit the bill.   Pam  D  09:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)