User talk:George Orwell III

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
George Orwell III (talk page)

(Archives index, Last archive) Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.


Licences and author images overlay[edit]

Author:Thomas Birch there is a problem that the copyright tag overlays the image of the author. (Firefox, monobook, logged in) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem exists with Firefox, but it's OK with Chrome and IE. In Firefox, the problem is not limited to this author. Problem also exists in Author:Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay. It seems that, if the works list is short enough, and the image hangs lower than the works list, the copyright tag will overlay the image. Hrishikes (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, Hrishikes:, What about now? So its only the author image that gets overdrawn when the listing is too short? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Appears corrected. Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that is back to how it was previously. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please help Ko.Wikisource regarding using Proofreadpage index template[edit]

Hello, Sorry to bother you. I am from Ko.Wikisource. I am trying to use Proofreadpage index template there. But it doesn't work. Please see this page - ko:색인:殺人書秘話 박문 제1집, 1938.10, 12-13 (2 pages).pdf. How I can see this index page well? Please check this ko:미디어위키:Proofreadpage index template is correct or not comparing MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template which is changed lastly by you. Thank you in advance.HappyMidnight (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My Korean is VERY rusty but I think that the namespace like "Index" is missing??? — Ineuw talk 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There is, 색인 for Index and 페이지 for Page. I know this because I have submitted the patch to localize them. — revimsg 06:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It probably not-so-much missing as mis-assigned and the paglist tag is therefore somehow affected & not working. The ko.WS uses the new default namespace numbering assignment for Index: , ns-252, while we are grandfathered-in with ns-106. I'm betting that nuance makes using our setup as a template for ko.WS problematic to put it mildly.

Also, I'd take a look at anything in the MediaWiki namespace labeled starting with the term proofreadpage and make sure you have the KO equivalent. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Local community wishs to change the variable's name used on Extension (already have modified the variables but not extensions' translation), as such it does not appears. I have reverted your test edit. — revimsg 06:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell, Thank you all for your concern and work. Fortunately some admin of Ko.WS has attended to this issue and they are trying to fix it. Anyway, your help also will be needed to fix it. I think we'd better talk at Ko.Ws. HappyMidnight (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

headertemplate class[edit]

Still on The Lesson of the Master, The Marriages, The Pupil, Brooksmith, The Solution, Sir Edmund Orme (New York & London: Macmillan & Co., 1892)/The Lesson of the Master:

Whenever I need to introduce content that does not exist in the work proper, such as introducing a TOC to a work that has none, I always mark that content up as class "headertemplate", so that it looks like the header and footer — thus clearly indicating to the reader that it is Wikisource content not book content.

Previously "headertemplate" class could only be applied to a table, not to a div, so I have always wrapped such content in a table in order to apply the desired class. I confess to embarrassment in telling you this.

Previously "headertemplate" class caused tables to be 100% wide, as desired. Your recent changes have broken this, and it looks awful.

However, your recent changes have also rendered it possible to do what I would have preferred to do all along: to use a div instead of a table.

After much reflection, I have come to the conclusion that you are going to have to roll back everything you have done for the last fortnight so that my ridiculous and embarrassing table hack continues to work they way it did before.

... or I could just go back through all my works and improve them by replacing all those tables with divs. Sanity check: is it safe to do so now? Are things stable enough that I can change all these tables to divs, and not wake up tomorrow morning and discover they all need to be changed again? -- Hesperian 01:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hesperian: What you might not be aware of is that nearly all the class definitions found in any given .css, including common.css, normally in operation under Desktop View for en.WS do not automatically transfer to Mobile Mode, so I've been rewriting everything with as much inline .css styling as possible -- freeing up the definition selectors in the various .css as I go -- with the ultimate intent to consolidate and reintegrate class driven styling afterwards to insure they are picked up by both Desktop View as well Mobile Mode.

If something stopped rendering properly here on Desktop view as a result of one of these break-outs-to-all-inline-styling and the deprecation of the corresponding .css class driven styling having taken place, that means the object in question would have never rendered properly (if it rendered at all) under Mobile Mode long before any of the changes made during the past week or two. I've restored the table.headertemplate class just so your works render as intended and as before I started messing with things (if there any other instances like this one that you know of - please let me know). You can move to using DIVs if you wish at this stage of operation 're-write' but keep in mind you should not rely on the current .css definitions for all your styling needs - apply inline styling instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you realise I was joking when I demanded you put everything back. Thanks for fixing my styling issue; I will still move all my legacy tables over to divs, but I won't be in such a hurry now. What I want is for my boxes to look like whatever the header and footer boxes look like, so classes are better than inline styling in my case. Hesperian 02:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
--> Looks pretty abominable to me if left that way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ugh! ... replacing my table with <div class="headertemplate">, which worked only a couple of hours ago, no longer does. Hesperian 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hesperian, use <div class="subheadertemplate"> for things like your faux ToC from now on. It was never a "header" in the true sense to begin with - just something that mirrored the header template's styling to help differentiate it from original content with non-original content. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Jolly good, thank you; and thank you for taking this mess on in the first place. Hesperian 04:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Class style doesn't render in mobile mode, though it still looks heaps better than the travesty it was before. Hesperian 04:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Hesperian: Didn't I just explain in the above that hardly any of the current Desktop View class .css definitions carry over to Mobile Mode and to add the equivalent inline styling whenever possible until a [re]consolidation of .css attributes and their values that work under both modes into a unified .css file can take place? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. My bad. Sorry. Hesperian 05:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

deleted Talk pages[edit]

Thanks for all the Emerson Talk page deletions; I wasn't sure if the 'history' should stay or not, but now I know to tag them in the future. BTW, in a previous post (in a bug ticket) you referred to me as a 'he'; I am a she for the record :) but no biggie! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This (alongside "Life is Pain" image no less)?: Thank you for vindicating my double-take at the time. AuFCL (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@AuFCL:: "Pain is weakness leaving the body." "No pain, no gain." Good philosophies—even when working with wikis! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Sorry 'bout that LJB.
Not a problem! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
As for preserving histories - when you move a page and leave a redirect behind, the redirect's history all goes to the new target upon the move and only logs the fact the redirect was created because of a move. So don't worry about preserving histories - its preserved automatically in a move more often than not.

The only time you need to be careful is when you're moving over an existing page (not sure if you even can without being an admin) or when you are moving things around in order to open-up/create a disambiguation page. You don't want the history associated with the DAB but the target in short. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I will read over the above a few times to try to digest what you are saying. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

disambiguation question[edit]

Can you please tell me your thoughts on the creation of a page such as this? I am mainly referring to the practice of using "various authors". I think it is practical, but am open to a better idea... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Boy I don't know <shrug>. My gut tells me that's one too many disambiguation (DAB) pages but they are indeed two different enough titles to warrant a distinction. I defer to Hesperian - he's always the one I look to for things like this; Best to ask him. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Asked. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

another question[edit]

First, thank you for your continued clean-up of titling, etc. I was wondering, however: I understand and agree somewhat with linking directly to the indexed source (like you did here)... But, what if in the future, someone decides to add Emerson's complete works to WS—creating more than one version of many poems. Should the link not then point to a general title (e.g., The Rhodora—unless the page specifically refers to a particular work/date) instead? In other words, if we left it linking to The Rhodora, said page could in the future become a versions page, which would be a desirable page to alight upon for general use as opposed to a "random" work. Am I explaining myself ok? Sorry if I'm not clear... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm of the mindset we should link to what exists today; not to what we might have one day. I realize now that my perspective on this might not exactly be the majority view. Anyway, its your baby so I'll stick to fixing dbl redirects and such and leave those instances alone from now on. Sorry for any extra work I might have caused you. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No biggie! Thanks for all your input & work, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing my css and js files. I didn't realize I put the JS into my CSS file. (It still got read as javascript anyway.) Also, I appreciate the note about the OCR button. I was actually a bit annoyed that it had disappeared and didn't know it was moved to Gadgets. The Haz talk 01:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Adobe Flash and Wikisource? The end of wit.[edit]

Does the Adobe Flash have any role in Wikisource editing, as in rendering the DjVu page display in the Page: namespace? The reason I am asking is because after 10 minutes or so of editing, when scrolling the original, the page rendering stops for about 10-15 seconds after each touch of the scroll bar, and I am unable to produce much work.

I stopped all services which interconnect with the Firefox browser and removed all addons that I suspected of interfering. But, I do know that Adobe Flash is an unending pain in my considerably sized butt. I also worked without a browser cache which didn't slow me down, but didn't alleviate the problem.

As I am writing this, I thought of some other strategies to try for test and get back to you. In the meanwhile, if you can think of something else that's related to the rendering of the image (perhaps a setting in the Preferences, like the Image size limit which is currently set at 1024x768 and the Thumbnails size it 220px. All the image size limits refer to a 4:3 screen ratio, while LCD\LED monitors are mostly 16:9. Would this have any effect? Also, I have 1GB of video memory which should be sufficient for DjVu rendering.— Ineuw talk 19:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I-man, nothing like Flash running anywhere on Wiki-ware as far as I know. I can empathize w/you re: Flash -- until MS went there "own" flash way , I resorted to [re]taking control over it's registry key in order to prevent its meddling myself. But its definitely not playing a role here.

I went 26 inch LED here at home no too long ago so its not hardware aspect ratio related. CSS3 does allow for setting "rules" based on viewport, etc. but -- as far as I know -- only 1 setting is in place for desktop view; their might be more "rules" set in Mobile mode but I doubt they would be set so drastic to cause what you're observing.

The only thing in User: prefs that have been reported lately to cause "trouble" are a.) anything enabled on the Beta page; b.) enabling Media Viewer; and c.) enabling Live Preview / setting preview before diffs.

Other than that, FF has been "adding/altering" all sorts of "settings" according to their users - check the Village Pump ~ Technical archives over on Wikipedia for the most extensive mentions of these "new" troublemakers.

Let me know how you make out & if you have the time; can you look into the OCR button behavior on your various set-ups? I just don't have the proper test-bed to test for everything which, at times, cause the root of a problem erroneously point to the WMF code rather a bad browser setting or conflicting User: pref -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Will check out the OCR button. As for my problem - it can wait.
For whatever it's worth, my OCR button is missing (too?) these last few days. Ubuntu, Firefox -- can test on other OSs/browsers, but haven't yet. (And GOIII, no, I haven't forgotten our other business -- just taking a little longer than I meant to getting back to it.) -Pete (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Some Preliminary Questions:

  • What skin do you currently have in place?.-- The "default" is vector but you've been around long enough to know switching from one skin to another does not necessarily guarantee all the old settings seamlessly switch over to the new state so I have to ask.
  • Which editing toolbar do you use by default; Classic or WikiEditor?.-- In your user preference settings, editing tab....
  1. Show edit toolbar <-- only this one of the three listed here should be selected for Classic
  2. Enable enhanced editing toolbar <-- only this one of the three listed here should be selected for WikiEditor
  3. Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function <-- never select this; for now, these features are not ready for "prime time"
  • Is the OCR button gadget enabled in your User preferences as well?.--

George Orwell III (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't really know about those settings foibles, but I'll answer your questions as best I can. I have used Vector as long as I can remember. I believe I was active on Wikisource before Vector came out, so I would have had Monobook enabled up until switching to Vector. (I don't think I chose Vector myself, I think it was changed for me whenever the default switched.)
If you mean "WikEd" toolbar, no, I do not use that gadget on Wikisource.
I do not have the "enhanced" toolbar enabled.
I do have "enable wizards" selected. I did not ever turn that on on purpose, and don't recall seeing it before. Perhaps some default was changed recently..?
The OCR gadget was disabled in my preferences. However I did not turn this off myself. It was working a few days ago, and I have not visited my preferences screen since then. -Pete (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Some defaults were affected by recent changes to the core wmf code (e.g. updates) and thus - what was once believed to be a "default" site-wide setting now conflicts with some other "setting" so you now need to manually enable/disable some things for the time being (maybe forever?). Otherwise; sit and wait for developers to restore your "hands-off" state (good luck with that)

And the toolbar thing is kind of important (its not a gadget btw but a series of check boxes on your editing tab). I'd make sure only one of the three options I listed is enabled at a time (otherwise "hello more conflicts"). -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. But I'm a bit confused about "Classic" vs. "WikiEditor" though -- where is that choice? I thought you were talking about WikEd, which...was...a gadget, but I don't see it in the preferences anymore. (Perhaps it was never available on Wikisource? I used to use it on Wikipedia, and some of my students found it useful.) -Pete (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Peteforsyth: Which editing toolbar do you use by default; Classic or WikiEditor?.-- In your User preference settings, Editing tab, Editor section....
  1. Show edit toolbar <-- only this one of the three listed here should be selected for Classic
  2. Enable enhanced editing toolbar <-- only this one of the three listed here should be selected for WikiEditor
  3. Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function <-- never select this; for now, these features are not ready for "prime time"

George Orwell III (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And don't forget your changes might not go through right away thanks to caching variables by you or by the wiki servers -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Aha, so those checkboxes determine which toolbar I'm using? That wasn't clear before -- I understood them to be checkboxes I was supposed to match to which toolbar I had selected somewhere else. I think I'm with you now, I will experiment with both. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I tested both Firefox and Chromium in Linux and the results were that with the advanced toolbar OCR always shows up and works. With the legacy toolbar the icon was missing on the first edit in both browsers. Purging the page (I use the UTC clock purge) it shows up. Perhaps the editors with a problem should check their preferences that only one toolbar is selected. I will duplicate this post in the Scriptorium/Help as well.— Ineuw talk 17:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Thank You; I wish somebody would!!

Wet the bed for a mislabeled file... but nooooooooo... my fellow contributors might learn something - best not post about that. No sir-eee. Bunch of one way fart smellers all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Reached end of the road[edit]

The DjVu display in editing mode is still not resolved. Aside from the fact that I tried everything that I could think of, which includes my hardware, drivers, video and mouse drivers, are updated and Firefox is a fresh install without any "addons", my question is: Has the extension which manages the djvu page display & magnification been changed or updated recently with the current version of the wiki software? The reason I am asking is because the moment I place the pointer to scroll or click on the djvu image, the lower half of the image disappears for a few seconds, so that I can't scroll the page, making proofreading impossible. I tried Chrome/Chromium but that is not really an option. Could you tell if something was change. Many thanks.— Ineuw talk 20:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll look again later tonight when I get home but I don't believe anything along those lines have changed. The only difference css wise that I can think off is resize: vertical/horizontal/both is recognized by FF & Chrome, but not by IE or Opera -- that setting applies to WikiEditor in some places/instances. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I still can't find any core code related changes that would cause something like that but I'm not exactly done fact-finding either. In the interim, I went through both the vector and common .css & .js files of your's and started trimming stuff that I'm not familiar with followed by noting things that need your review. But before that -- has anything changed since my editing of your .css & .js files? -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you made changes because the Charinsert dropped below the textarea. I was proofreading using Firefox in Linux but there I have no access to some tools. Now I am back in Windows to test it, and will let you know.— Ineuw talk 05:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem persists. It originates with the clicking sequence on the image to magnify or to stop the magnification. There is definitely something wrong there. In cases when an editor must single-click on the image to set focus for the mouse pointer (when pointing is not working) immediately this changes the scrolling to minimize or magnify the image. The idea of a single click is idiotic at best and shows that the programmer hasn't done any editing in a meaningful way to test the idea. Also, the second single click to fix the image doesn't work properly unless the toolbar magnifier is clicked. This forces the image to refocus which cancels out the usefulness of the magnifier. Why double click was changed to a single click is beyond me. The children were at play again? I am working in over/under mode and not side by side. This might be a reason why no one complained about the magnification. I must assume that it's not used very much.

One more thing. I couldn't replicate the problem in Firefox in Linux because the pages I was editing required rewriting which limited the need to scroll. I am also uploading an screen image of the problem and want to post a bug report.— Ineuw talk 06:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The uploaded image File:Lost scan.jpg
Ah well I see you've modified the width of the textarea box -- so I have to ask if this also happens when you're not logged in (e.g. none of those modifications would be applied when not logged in).

I added the "old" disable wheelzoom string to your common.js under the Proofread Page extension section just see if anything changes.

Finally, I think the files dealing with that zoom/wheel aspect reside in this folder fwiw.

... and if you're going to use the modern skin (a fancy monobook based variant) you're better off using the old "Classic" toolbar scheme with the old approach to customizing buttons etc. WikiEditor is really only tested for use under Vector as far as I know. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, although I never had any problems with the advanced toolbar, just getting used to it. The only major advantage of the modern skin is that with the logo gone, it brings up the sidebar tools. --ineuw (whatever the clock says)

Fwiw... I did the same axing of the logo space in Vector for you (in Vector.css). -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Proofreading without logging in works fine. the page image didn't disappear. This is an advancement which narrows down the issue to the wiki software and not the browser.

As for the editing screen width. it was always 80 columns wide and 12 rows, I don't remember ever touching those settings. Also, switched back to Vector...... Thanks for your help. — Ineuw talk 07:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

When "we" customized the line-height, font-size for the primary textarea box, we "screwed" with the normal settings for that box. I showed you how to restore 1em = 16px font-size ratio scheme (font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.0;) and that would have been one place to apply/try it first and then teak it your liking(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
For awhile things worked well and I was about to post here success, but then it began again. So, I reset my preferences to the default but reselected my preferences one by one. One important mention: The default checks off both toolbars as well as the "Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function". If the display problem re-occurs, I will just reset the preferences it again to default, correct the edit related (toolbar) settings, but leave everything untouched, as well as remove the contents of the css. Don't waste your time on this, we'll figure it out sooner or later.Ineuw (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There is little else I can do without actually installing FF itself -- the virtual FF under IE11's F12 Developer Tools does not replicate what you describe here btw. The most productive way to proceed here imho is to debug your session by monitoring/logging your "movements" via a console. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to do that under anything but Windows & Internet Explorer at best (which I believe you said is not behaving the same as FF & defeats the point if so).

The reason I suggest this is because even the "default" wmf code is peppered with carve-outs/hooks/and similar set for specific browsers (&/or specific versions of) in specific situations that only the most nerdy of nerds might be familiar with at best. So unless you/we can narrow possible causes or conflicts down further to a specific script, extension, module, etc., we're really just spinning our wheels at this point. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. While you were out and having fun, I removed all css and javascript, reset the preferences to default, and only then it worked without any problems. The only drawback was the default font size which was too small, so I placed the font related code back into the css and it failed on the second try. Uploaded another image tonight which shows that side by side editing is also affected.

I will figure out how to record my activity with the code inspector and then get back to you. Ineuw (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

First off -- there is no such thing as font-size: 1.2rem or anything along that variation on a theme.

There is only one value and one value only currently defined to "reset the font-size to an unaltered <body> element's default value where 1em is understood to equal 16px" (∴ 1rem ). This means when you apply 1rem to an element anywhere in a document's structure or outline it supersedes any prior existing .css or inline styling's applied to or calculated for that element and resets it so { font-size = line-height = 16px = 1em } -- which is what ALL specifications use for a baseline btw. Once the "reset" takes, you can than make/modify font-size and line-height settings of your own css - wise afterwards (thus the modification must always be below the reset in your css file). This, however is not impervious to scripting/code that waits for such "resetting" to finish along the trail from the initial click "in" to the finished rendering and defeats the purpose by executing at that point.

Its this kind of timing-order / loading-order issue that my gut says is screwing you up somehow (just like how the wmf update before last caused a conflict between CharInsert & the OCR button because they where both set as universal, site-wide defaults at the time. Changed the OCR gadget to be a manual selection and both managed to live together again). -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the 1rem. It's understood.

As for the 2nd part of your post, I understood the issue, and now I am searching for a way to log all browser activity. There is a log system but I don't think it logs all changes. Will post a request on the Mozilla developer network.Ineuw (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

My money says its going to be the Proofread Page extension behind this. IMHO, it was bordering on POS status by the time ThomasV "left" and there is not much Tpt or Phe or we can do about that fact as the extension stands today. My CharInsert bar frequently loads at the top of the WikiEditor container in the Page: namespace whether I set it to do that or not in my .js file for example (something to do with the manner of generation of the Proofread tools drop-down menu & buttons).

Looking forward to your findings regardless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Managed to save a log containing performance data, showing the order and the time it took to retrieve the code. The output is JSON format and I don't think it of much use. Here is a snippet copied randomly from the middle of the output, but will keep at it.Ineuw (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems the PR image bug is resolved (nope)[edit]

So far, the proofreading seems to work today. I noticed in yesterday's perusal of the wmf javascripts that the mouse action/movement plays an important role, and that it commands to stop mouse activity at a certain point of the loading process. I checked the device manager and noticed that MS did not properly install the drivers for the HID devices. The Logitech mouse & keyboard driver was missing and the mouse showed that it had two copies of the same driver. This led me uninstall, clean, and reinstall the drivers for both the keyboard and the mouse and it seems OK now after proofreading some pages, so I keep hoping that this was the problem.

No such luck - but the mouse and the keyboard work fine.Gnome3-crying.svg Ineuw (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Boy that sucks. I've used Logitech wireless keyboards & mice for over a decade now just because they seem to work seamlessly with 'Windose' & haven't really had the need to install their proprietary drivers for some time now (unless it came bundled with some additional feature or app). In short, I doubted drivers was the root of the problem even before I read the about the "return" of the issue.

Fwiw... another idea popped into my head since my last - try editing something over the "test-bed" for the PrP extension over on to see if the same behavior occurs over there too. NOTE: before you do any editing/testing there, you should go through your User: preferences settings on that project's site first to make sure the absolute minimums are being loaded when you log-in. In other words, they have extra stuff like Courses, Visual Editor (beta) and some others on Test2 that we don't have tabs/settings for here on en.WS [yet]; make sure anything like that is not enabled whenever possible. Some stuff you can't exactly disable but you can still 'retard' their functionality via settings to have a small an impact as possible. Good Luck & let me know. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Be that as it may, removed all Logitech drivers, nevertheless the problem persists - not with the first edit, but around the ~10th page. So, I dared to search Maniphest and lo and behold (I tend to be biblical in such matters), there are many mouse scrolling related issues reported, some are exactly like mine. This one is closed. Others relate specifically to Firefox. All I did was search for the word "mouse", which yielded This page. Shall I add a new bug report? Your opinion at your leisure.Ineuw (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
fwiw... the best [free] "tool" around for hardware and software status under Windows installs is SIV. I swear by it. When you get into mouse/monitor stuff; its usually a matter of hardware/GPU acceleration vs software acceleration. In this day and age, I doubt its behind this - nevertheless it is still the first advanced internet option even in IE 11 so better I mention it just in case.

As for opening a bug report - first; I'd wait until after tomorrow's 1.25wmf17 update has been rolled out to us to file a new report, and second; make sure you cross reference any other bug (open or closed) that seems to be related to your issue when you do file that report.

What happened when you edited on Test2? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The test2 editing was fine. Thanks for SIW. I had a very old copy but this is far more sophisticated. I will also wait for the new software release. Now, if I can only find the acceleration, that would be nice. In any case go to sleep. It's pretty cold here colder than where you are.Ineuw (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Some additional info: On the Wikipedia test page it was difficult to ascertain the problem because the proofread document is in French. The topic was very interesting and great read, but I was slow to proofread, so it wasn't a good way to test it because the time lag between two pages also affects this problem. - The longer the time between proofreading two pages, the less of a chance for the mouse to freeze. This is a symptom I was aware of previously.

This being day two of the upgraded ProofreadPage extension (0d8cbb6), and it was much better, (you can tell by the number of pages I proofread), but the problem persists irregularly. I was able to proofread some 10 pages without any problems and then the screen froze again. I quit proofreading for awhile, and when returned the cycle repeated itself again. ~10 pages OK and then it froze as usual. BTW, yesterday, before starting to proofread, I disabled the hardware acceleration in FF but without it, the pointer movement is unstable, so I had to re-enabled it. As usual you were right about the problem is in the extension. Should I still file a bug report? Ineuw (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please consider the matter closed and I apologize for taking up so much of your time.Ineuw (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw:, How is it closed? You found the cause?... and stop apologizing - I'd rather help you cause I know you'll contribute (PSM Project) for months to come. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Months? I am looking at years. :-) I had to revert to the last version of Firefox (34.0.5) and now it works . . . for the time being. Ineuw (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't seem to be alone - every so often a rash of FF reports go up on WP's Village Pump. Anyway glad you found it & on to the next clusterf*ck. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pages tag for header[edit]

As I understand it, the <pages> tag can be used in place of a header, as it now has most of the functionality built into it that the header template has had.

However, during a recent replacement along these lines, the edit preview informed me that the page needed a {{header}} template and referred me to that template's documentation.

So, it the use of the tag in place of the template still in "beta", or is the warning message and documentation just out-of-date? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you point me to the specific example? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It happens on pretty much any page I edit in the Main namespace. E.g., open Green Mansions/Chapter 19 in an edit window to see the message. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I tried edit mode for the provided example and many other mainspace pages also using the header=1 approach without being able to reproduce what you are observing. Since you have no User: specific .js or .css file in place either, I can only speculate... its a gadgets conflict, a caching issue or something else specific to your particular settings &/or setup.

I know this gets "old" but I have to ask

  • Have you made sure your browser caches are being refreshed as needed and are current at the moment?
  • What happens if you try the same actions when you're logged-out as you've done when you were logged-in?
Otherwise, you might need to ask if this is happening to anyone else in Scriptorium just to eliminate these "just you" possible causes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my browser caches are bring refreshed. I waited some time before bringing the matter to anyone's attention, so this has been going on for a while. Yes, the problem still occurs when I am logged out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hold on a sec... is THIS the "message" you're seeing? 'Cause if it is, it's always been there just not displayed so "high up" on the preview page until I "moved" the header, footer, license, authority control banner, etc. out of Dynamic Layouts.

I never supported this garbage version of Edit Notices since it was forced upon us with no way to "turn it off" until after the fact. Anyway, is that what you're talking about? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the message I'm seeing above every edit in the Main namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
But you never see THIS anywhere when editing an Author: page? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I do now, but didn't in the past. I edit Author pages so rarely these days that I hadn't paid attention to the author notice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, then we are clear its not something as a result of any of my changes other than its position "shifting". In other words its not something I did but was also forced to live/deal with.

The only way to stop something like this is 1.) to speak up when such nonsense is 1st proposed (My POV was in the minority that time) to insure there is always an "easy" way to prevent its generation (if so desired); or 2.) to apply a workaround to deal with it after the fact. Unfortunately, both you and I are forced to use the latter solution at this point in the game. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't we at least have the text/links updated to reflect current practices? Or are we really required to use the {{header}} and are not to use the <header> tag. The warning message currently says this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: using header=1 is the left-over dream of the original PR developer, ThomasV. The intent was never to make life "easier" for us but for other language WS projects to import/translate our works. I never use that method and always go with the full header personally. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your old request on Phabricator is reactivated[edit]

I don't know if this is still relevant but you should check out Set $wgAllowImageTag to true on en.wikisource Ineuw (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Stone of the Sun and the First Chapter of Mexican History, written by Enrique Juan Palacios (1920), translated by Frederick Starr[edit]

On 23 February 2011, you deleted the page or pages under "The Stone of the Sun and the First Chapter of Mexican History, written by Enrique Juan Palacios (1920), translated by Frederick Starr". Apparently, you decided it contained "No meaningful content or history". I'm wondering what brought you to that conclusion: Did relevant scholars contend the document was a hoax? I'm curious as to why it went away, because it's still referenced in "Aztec calendar stone" at and I was quite looking forward to reading it. If it was a hoax I am, of course, pleased you removed it! In the event I'd appreciate knowing something of your rationale for removing it, beyond "No meaningful content or history". I thank you for your effort and time. Best wishes to you.

MisterCat (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Boy you're not going to like this -- it was exactly 44 bytes long; meaning the page was created but had little to no content in it whatsoever beyond that. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Good grief! At least it had an impressive albeit irrelevant title. "No meaningful content" for sure. Grrr.... No wonder you gave it the axe! Thanks, George, for letting me know so quickly. MisterCat (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@MisterCat: Guys. You might be interested to know that an earlier incarnation of this link from WikiPedia used to point to The Stone of the Sun and the First Chapter of the History of Mexico, which is still extant on WikiSource. Perhaps that is the article for which you seek?
  • This edit introduced the link to enWS.
  • And this one changed it to the reference George deleted above. 07:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That's the document, all right. Thanks! Trouble is, I can't figure out how to download it so that its appearance is similar to how it looks on the Web pages. The resultant PDF (via the "Book Creator") is in an entirely different typeface and is bereft of the few graphics which are contained on the Web pages. Of course, there's no telling what else is missing. But at least I can come here to read it! -- MisterCat (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

New? "feature" heads-up[edit]

Yet another thing to make you cry:

of this monstrosity: Special:UserProfile/George_Orwell_III

Maybe you are already aware of it? AuFCL (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Upon re-reading my note above and taking into account your propensities to interpret my commentary other than how I intended it be taken I should emphasise two points:
  1. I consider Special:UserProfile to be the monstrosity, not the fact I used your name as the (insane, required) parameter for demonstration purposes. (Pray mw:Extension:SocialProfile is never installed. Say no more.)
  2. I am merely drawing your attention to the existence of this thing. I have no suggestions/demands/expectations to "improve" it short of hoping it will go away just as "mysteriously" as it appeared.
AuFCL (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you sticking around this time or not? My girlfriend wants to know so she has a rough outline on how to "play me" in the future. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh bloody hell, it begins. See above point regarding (mis)interpretation. There is no way is your asking for advice on behalf of your girlfriend (real or putative) is appropriate, comfortable or likely to result in any kind of positive outcome. Besides, I have neither ideas nor any incentive to undertake research on the matter.

Sticking around? Probably not.

I have since come across task T90632 which actually makes me look like a polite diplomat. Strap in and enjoy the ride. AuFCL (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You must forgive me. I'mn under the influence of flu medication (no pun intended) and quite loopy. My previous was not my best. More when I can. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Table that feels like it should be simpler than it is[edit]

Hi, I've just spent over an hour setting the table on Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 2.djvu/578 only to discover that rotating the column headers didn't decrease the width or increase the height of the cells. Is it reasonable of me to assume that your CSS-3 explorations will solve this? If so, I'll just leave it as it is for the time being and move on to other pages until we're ready to go. (Also, if it will work, then this table might be a good use case.) Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into over the course of the next few days but if memory serves me right, I don't believe "rotated text" is something that has been worked out just yet. Still, there might be new developments that I'm unaware of. I'll ping you back here either way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Instruments. Philharmonic, London. Crystal Palace
Sinfonie Soirien,
Berlin, 1880.
Dresden Opera
1764, (Hasse).
Philharmonic Society,
New York
(Theod. Thomas).
Bayreuth, 1878. Birmingham
Festival, 1879.
Lower Rhine
Festival, 1880.
Handel & Haydn
Boston, 1880.
Handel Commem.,
Abbey, 1784.
Handel Festival,
Crystal Palace,
Damn close but no way to invert the text to match the original (so far). I'll keep looking but the above is by far the "easiest" to grasp as well as to apply imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm only seeing vertical text in IE8, but not in FF (35). As you say, it's close and without the cross-browser issue I'd be tempted to go with it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle:, I added -moz and -webkit to the first column selector; any difference in FF?
SEE ALSO An experimental implementation is available since Gecko 36. It is governed by the preference layout.css.vertical-text.enabled defaulting to false. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No difference. I'm not sure what to do with that preference, or indeed where it lives. But Gecko 36 is the current Developers' release (24 Feb), so I don't think it's available for me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent Revert[edit]

Just got a notification about a revert, but it didn't indicate the page, Was there a concern about something specific?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really. You put the reason for Proposed deletion as No file for Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Index:United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_50_Part_2.djvu when it really was some User: generated gibberish that warranted it's deletion. I just reverted your last addition/edit in order for the deletion log (only Admins can see) to show the gibberish first & at the top is all. Nothing to worry about & sorry I didn't close the Proposed deletion at the same time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Add new mediawiki:blockedtext message by March 4-8[edit]

Hello there George Orwell III, can you add this block message please by march 4-8? Because the block message got deleted on 21 December 2013/December 21, 2013. 15:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Get bent. Myself and others have told you before to take your suggestions and move on - this project's current approach [the default message] serves us well and there is no reason to change it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Congressional Record standard formatting not working[edit]

What changed recently?

The Congressional Record standard formatting with the div/div style formatting isn't working lately.

Example at 2002 Wikipedia Press Release.

Any ideas on how to fix it?

-- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Any other examples that weren't copied & pasted from flawed press releases to begin with? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, prior to very recently, even if they did have formatting issues, as long as the first line of a paragraph was on a new paragraph line, (just press enter essentially at the new paragraph), the whole rest of the formatting looked great, but now, not. What changed? -- Cirt (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean now & I think I've "fixed" it. Yes? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hrm, I don't think so, as this version should still look totally fine, with the div formatting, but it doesn't. Any idea why not? -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
THAT specific example was flawed at the source (extra space before every line start) to begin with -- which is why I originally asked for another example that wasn't a 14 year old POS copy and paste.

Not for nothing -- and with all due respect -- are we really that lazy & dependent on wiki mark-up to do basic [re]formatting? It took me less than a minute to turn the line fragments & extra-spacing into proper paragraphs (which renders the current revision just fine under your just as ancient "prose" approach btw). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey man, I very much appreciate all your help, sorry if I've troubled you. Of course it's okay to do the formatting oneself, just was curious what prompted the code from looking different recently? -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries & never a problem.... but that was a bad example to begin with is all. Sorry if it came-off otherwise.

Long story short: the recent "change" was an overlooked side-effect of me trying to switch Dynamic Layouts (MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js) to be a proper Gadget instead. Part of that script strips all existing classes before creating the 3 layered div "container" and instead of only executing on mainspace pages with content Transcluded in from the Page: namespace, it was stripping those common pre-proofreading extension classes on all pages regardless. (my bad 100%; sorry for the inconvenience -- it won't be the last time it happens I'm afraid). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thank you. No worries, here, too. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks with the fs90 and fs85 templates[edit]

  • To my HH, (Hungarian Homie), aka GO3.
  • Thanks for THIS LINK, & the font size and line height info provided below.
  • However, the purpose of my paragraph examples below was to demonstrate the lack of a paragraph break in the User namespace, as opposed to THIS PAGE in the Page namespace, where an empty row is sufficient to separate two paragraphs when using {{fs90/s}} — but not with the {{fs85/s}}. I am aware of the <p> but that's not what I was looking for.
  • I attribute these to changes in the font dimensions and the line height you indicate below, which differ from my earlier calculations.
  • By GO3. Baseline (i.e. post Vector Typography Refresh) is a 14px font-size with 22px line-height (plus top & bottom margins @ 7px each when Paragraph tag is in "play")
  • By GO3. {{fs85/s}} = [calculated] 11.93px font-size, 13.0px line-height

1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

  • By GO3. {{fs90/s}} = [calculated] 12.6px font-size, 15.0px line-height

1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

  • By GO3. ... and fyi {{Dhr}} = [calculated] 14.0px font-size, 15.0px line-height

Ineuw talk 19:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed your correcting my omission above, but that is not what I get on THIS PAGE. When you have the time and pleases you, please look at this. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 19:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)