User talk:Londonjackbooks

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Londonjackbooks talk


Page 19 illustration (greyscale) in The Game (London).jpg

"All I know is that you feel good
in the ring."The Game (1905) by Jack London

"All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest"

from "The Boxer" by Simon & Garfunkel

Userboxes
USMC logo.svg

This user is a
MARINE
Wife
of 24 years.

September 11th, 2001

...It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
          And made forlorn
          The households born
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;
"There is no peace on earth," I said:
          "For hate is strong,
          And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!"

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!
          The Wrong shall fail,
          The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men!"


—from Christmas Bells by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
"Awards for participation"


TALK[edit]

Index:Impressions- A Book of Verse.djvu[edit]

Hi. Seeking for advice. How would you capitalize these poems in main ns and TOC? Thanks--Mpaa (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I would use standard rules for capitalization of titles. Had a similar issue here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template[edit]

Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:

Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Polbot[edit]

LJB, I saw your request for speedy deletion of the redirect at Problem (Emerson) and was about to delete when I noticed that User:Polbot was flagged for exactly this purpose, creating redirects from titles without the article to the work with the article. If you still think this redirect should go, let me know but if so, likely Polbot shouldn't be doing this job. I've temporarily removed your request so it doesn't get acted on by someone else in the interim.--Doug.(talk contribs) 04:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that Polbot hasn't run since 2008. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems redundant... nay unnecessary to me to create added redirect pages without the use of the articles "A", "The", etc. But if it is 'standard practice' to do so, I won't press it... But as it is, wouldn't a double redirect be created? "Problem (Emerson)" -> "The Problem (Emerson)" -> "Poems (Emerson, 1847)/The Problem"? I will update the target if need be, but my vote is for deletion unless there is policy or proposed policy about the issue. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that we have "A Problem" and "The Problem". At this time, "Problem" points to "The Problem". That could be problematic for search purposes. If anything, if "Problem" is to remain, it should be converted to a disambiguation page incorporating titles using both articles. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Just curious, what if a bot ran across one title—"A Problem"—before another—"The Problem"... Would it create "Problem" as a redirect to "A Problem" and then ignore "The Problem" once it runs across it? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle, noted and I now notice its flag was removed about 2 years ago for inactivity; however, it still doesn't argue for removing individual redirects unless there is something special about this one. I don't care either way but if we don't like this process, we should likely set an admin bot to undoing it all rather than deleting them as we run across them.--Doug.(talk contribs) 00:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if running an 'anti-bot', so to speak, is a good idea either; perhaps just leave well enough alone, but without encouraging the practice in the future. I'm not so sure it was a good idea in the first place, unless I am missing something. The only reason I can think of would be to incorporate instances of "And" and "The" within a disambiguation page, like so:
[Page:PROBLEM]
{{disambiguation}}
*A Problem
*The Problem
in which case, "undoing it all" with an 'anti-bot' may likely delete [at least?] one useful practice... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Doug: What do you suppose happened to all the other instances like that in the 2 years since? Magically took care of themselves? Nope. "We" as collective pick up each others slack when such matters arise (pretty successfully I might) and took care of it as warranted; by bot when the numbers were large or manually when the list is short.

And with all due respect - maybe you should spend more than 4 or 5 days "catching up" after going MIA for a ~year before voicing changes to existing practices or policies. No offense intended. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

George, do tell what the existing practice or policy is and where I would find it. I have no problem with any resolution, I was only asking whether LJB was aware that she'd tagged it for speedy delete as unneeded when there was at one time apparently a practice of allowing a bot to create them. As I said in my original post, "If you still think this redirect should go," that's fine. Thanks for the warm welcome, George.--Doug.(talk contribs) 01:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The practice/policy stems primarily from en.WS opting out of the global dbl-redirect / broken-redirect BOT regime since we prefer to review each bang on a case by case basis unlike other projects. LBJ was correct in deleting a title that amounted to the equivalent of just a noun with the omission of the prefix The in spite of the presence of Emerson. Deleting it would have avoided winding up on this maint. list, which is the overriding concern; not mirroring Wikipedia for no discernable benefit or rationale.

Welcome back - now go screw yourself and help fix something already!!! :) George Orwell III (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Charinsert[edit]

Hi. Has the Charinsert been restored for you, because I am having no luck? — Ineuw talk 04:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It is still absent for me in Chrome. Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, at least I started the wheels moving, :-).— Ineuw talk 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Appreciated! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)