# User talk:Londonjackbooks/Archive 1

"Awards for participation"

## Contributions

Also presuming that this other account Londonjack (talkcontribs) is yours. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes...Also 72.219.254.131 (talkcontribs) when I have forgotten to sign in! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

## Formatting questions

### Disambiguation

If a poet has written two or more [different] poems using the same title, what is the recommended way to title them for Wikisource purposes? E.g., Florence Earle Coates has written "Immortal"--published in Poems (1898); and "Immortal" [totally different poem]--published in The Unconquered Air (1912). I am familiar with how to differentiate between similar titles by different authors--e.g., "Immortal (Coates)"--but not if the titles are by the same author. Thanks ahead of time! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The best route would be to label them Immortal (Coates 1898) and Immortal (Coates 1912); not sure we've ever had that exact problem arise before; kinda amusing, isn't it? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 17:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll go one further! -- The same author, Mrs. Coates, has TWO poems with the same title ("Life") in the same collection: Poems (1898)! I had already named the first instance, Life (Coates)-- and will opt to name the second instance Life (Coates 2)... Kinda amusing, huh?! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually we have one author who has about six variations of the same poem, developed over a span of years. Sad thing is that I cannot remember who it is, or the name of the poem, or the template that we used. We should at least look to do a {{versions}} disambiguation page. billinghurst (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
D'oh, we already have Immortal not sure whether we can use Versions there or not, never tried that double-up. billinghurst (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

### Text alignment

How can I realign poetry text to the center of the page WITHOUT disrupting the current alignment/indentation of the lines of poetry? Would I need to add columns or tables? Or is there more simple HTML? E.g., using:

Heroes with eloquent flags unfurled
Have trumpeted loudly their just elation,
But the voice that hath sunk to the heart of the
world
Is the voice of renunciation.

Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk)

Got it! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Heroes with eloquent flags unfurled    Have trumpeted loudly their just elation, But the voice that hath sunk to the heart of the        world    Is the voice of renunciation.

### Columns

Is there a way to be able to format side-by-side comparisons of poems (e.g., using columns) to illustrate significant text changes made over time to an author's poem (by the author) from one publication to another? Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Simplest means that I find is {{multicol}}, {{multicol-break}} and {{multicol-end}}. We use it a little bit with translations, and the like.
and you can see other pages where I have played with it via http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Multicol billinghurst (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

## html

Saw your comment at Billinghurst's page. I've noticed later Gutenberg has richly formatted pages, you can also look at the source code there for some ideas. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll take a look! So far I have found this, but have not played around with it yet... Apparently it seems to be more difficult for IE? Thanks for the Gutenberg tip! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

## George H Earle, Jr

Thanks very much for the drive-by assistance at Aspen Hill Maryland Wiki!

I did find some refs for you and linked them in, so the page may be fairly well completed in terms of references. However, the reference I added shows that my source for the deeds was at "Maryland Land Records" (a Maryland State Archive project) and that direct links won't work; the researcher needs a (free) account at that site. So, I just point them at that site; individual pages regaring Mr Earle's properties in Aspen Hill all have Liber/Folio deed references associated with them and the MLR site will call them directly with book/page data input on entry forms. You have to work with two browser windows but it will get what you need. Many thanks, [1]. 173.66.162.14 14:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank YOU! I recently started researching Mr. Earle (whose sister is my favorite poet), and have become quite fascinated by his "business sense"! We could use a man like him these days to work out all our present economic difficulties! :) I was glad to find some added information about him on the Aspen Hill Maryland Wiki site! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

## A book completed

I just completed Florence Earle Coates' book of poetry, Poems (1898), here on Wikisource, and was wondering if I might be able to turn it into a "project." I have not worked on any WS projects before, but I thought I might be able to get my feet wet with my own "pet project." I have downloaded page images from the book that I scanned from my first edition copy/reference to Wiki Commons. Any suggestions for a beginner are welcomed! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything can potentially be a project, and when we get into Wikisource:WikiProjects generally we are looking to share it with others with similar interests. So yes, is the answer. We have a rotation of active projects, and if you were looking to be part of that little promotional activity, then add something to that talk page will help me construct a banner. If you were looking for help with DjVu files, then I would recommend knocking on Matt's talk page as he loves the back of house activities of image building.
Re the book, if you have completed a work, then please look to the instructions at {{new texts}} as you should be announcing the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

## Populated the index file

Index:Florence Earle Coates Poems (1898)

Generally we would take the jpg files and convert them to a .djvu. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I actually know how to do that online! I'll look into it in a bit... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

## formatting and the page ns

I fiddled with the pages transcluded at Poems (1898)/Combatants, this stops the empty line appearing in the middle of stanza. There may be a better way (I don't use the poem tag), the 'noinclude' header and footer is the trick. These are accessible with the [+] button, the continuing page heading can also go there. Suggested only, changing or reverting my edits is okay, esp. as you are being so conscientious.

Btw, the categories would go at the main page, I put them at the redirect or versions page to give a shorter title.

I'm very impressed with your careful attention to the poet, you have come up wtih some interesting solutions. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Oh!, and I used to put full spaces before punctuation, I've been convinced to do otherwise and never looked back. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Why would they have formatted it like that back then? In my opinion, it looks nicer... Convince ME, and I may heed your recommendation! ;)
After reading miles of text online, I've arrived at the widely held opinion. There is a space, in older printed pages, before ; " — characters, greater than that before , . ', etc., but a smaller space than those defining word-boundaries. This is more evident in regular text, full spaces are not so sparse looking at the end of lines in stanzas. Wiki pages, and most digital transcriptions, cannot easily render these spaces, and how the text is reproduced is a concern. If a browser renders a curly quote as a straight one, the beginning and end of the quoted text doesn't parse well. The tendency in modern formats is to make everything snug, it assists legibility, just as 19C print disposed of earlier conventions in their type facsimiles. If people want that format on their screen, or in print, the scan of each page is a click away. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That's why you're the expert! I'll make the fixes (glad I haven't gotten too far into the game)! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I will stop my current editing rampage to look over your recommendations and apply them to the pages. Much appreciated! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hope it helps you to rampage on :-) Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Expert!? brrr, that sent a chill: "for every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert". ;-) I've just spent a lot of time considering best practice.
You seem to have grasped the float center format, or nearly so. The template uses the same table code we've been using, but it can't work when more than one page is transcluded; it does work when we take the table elements out of the template and 'noinclude' some bits. This is the biggest hurdle to getting poems aligned our scan and transcript Page: namespace, once you get it you will become the expert :)
Don't get distracted if something isn't working, the solution is around and others are happy to provide them. We don't paid, so showing off is one of the few rewards. Enjoy, Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I found that when I use float center on the main page, i.e.:
{{float center|
{{Page|Florence Earle Coates Poems 1898 14.jpg|num=14}}
{{Page|Florence Earle Coates Poems 1898 15.jpg|num=15}}
}}

...it messes up the license alignment... So on single-page poems that don't continue on to another page, I used float center on the Page instead...
Does this:
{|align="center"
|-
|
<poem>. . .
</poem>
|} [BTW: Why is this ("|}") placed in the footer on the first page of a poem that continues to
another page, but placed in the body at the end of the poem text in subsequent pages?)

accomplish the same thing as this:
{{float center|<poem>. . .
</poem>}}


? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC) [OK--Rereading your input above again for the third time or so, I think you answered this question already... I just didn't "see" it the first time...]

Alright... Tell me if I'm wrong: 1. On single-page poems, I can use float center in the body of the poem; then on the main page, I would merely render:

{{Page|Florence Earle Coates Poems 1898 03.jpg|num=1}}


2. On multiple-page poems, I can use:

{|align="center"
|-
|
<poem>. . .
</poem>
|}


and on the main page, I can write:

{{float center|{{Page|Florence Earle Coates Poems 1898 04.jpg|num=4}}
{{Page|Florence Earle Coates Poems 1898 05.jpg|num=5}}}}


So, apparently, the double use of float center is what messes up the alignment of the license info. on the main page?? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) is correct. For (2), multiple transclusions, put the format in the Page: namespace or the main-page. The effect on the main page was probably stray code. I will do an example a bit later. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
this is an example of what I do: Poems (1898)/Alexander III. If you can make the spacing between stanzas work with the poem tag I will be impressed, I should warn you that I wasted a lot of time last year making it work. It is an elaborate and unstable bunch of work-arounds! I was strongly urged to use it, when I finally got it working the coding for it was changed and it broke everything. I went round and fixed all that and then they changed it again, I gave up and now do what I did here. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yikes!... Take a look at what I did with Veiled (in edit mode)... The poem breaks pages between stanzas, and all I had to do to render it that way on the main page was to place a single "break" in the body of the poem on the Page: (page) like this:
   . . . Nor guess whereunto he must go?
</br>
</poem>


It renders correctly on the Main page... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Two more questions before I take a break:

1. If a poem has three or more pages,-- on the "middle" pages, do I continue to place the

|}


in the footer until I reach the last page (where I would then place it in the body section immediately following the text of the poem)?

2. Funny you should use "Alexander III" as an example, because I had an historical question about the poem that you might be able to answer... The last stanza of the poem in this 1898 collection is completely eliminated in the 1916 rendering of the poem. Do you have any insight (historically) as to why Mrs. Coates may have decided to leave out that last stanza in 1916?

Its ironic that the solution was some of the code <pome> was intended to replace, I'm surprised that it doesn't break it. The brightest user I know reckons its a nightmare from a coding pov.
(1) is correct, and the start of the table in the Page-header.
(2) I'd be guessing, I suppose american attitudes to the revolution complicates the sentiment expressed there. Turns out to be prophetic, Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I restored your format. Let me know when your done and, if you wish, I can mark them as 'validated' —Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Alexander may now be validated and laid to rest...hopefully in peace? Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In some circumstances it may be better to apply {{smaller}} for uppercase, rather than using lowercase and the smallcaps format. cygnis insignis 16:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Definitely MUCH better when numbers are involved...
{{center|ALEXANDER III </br>


Under normal conditions, do you recommend…

{{c|{{smaller|FABLE VIII.}} </br>
{{larger|THE GARDENER AND THE AGED TREE.}}}}


Or

{{c|{{sc|fable viii.}} </br>
{{larger|THE GARDENER AND THE AGED TREE.}}}}


Or

{{c|<small>FABLE VIII.</small> </br>
{{larger|THE GARDENER AND THE AGED TREE.}}}}


Or something else? Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The first I think. I recommend using templates, not a mix, wherever possible; for example, our font sizing no longer accords with scaling of html and css. When using "smallcaps", very often the start of new section, one 'test' is 'does it matter that it will copy/paste as lower case'.
I think the guideline might be: If there is a mix of case in the string of letters use smallcaps, if they are all upper case use smaller.
{{center|8.

To {{small-caps|William Hayley.}}<ref>See note 2, p. 51.</ref>

{{small-caps|Lambeth}}, 6''th May'' 1800.}}


I inferred that "To" is normal text from style used elsewhere.

I once applied 'small caps' to AD in the text, but someone pointed out this would sometimes render as "ad", so I make the 'capitals smaller' instead. There are other more curious examples, let me know if you find them because this is probably worth documenting somewhere. cygnis insignis 03:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

## Conceptually

Don't get too worried about the formatting as it is just a play, but have a look at [2] and I hope that no one plays with the other template in the meanwhile. See if there is benefit in doing something with ToCs through the body of that page. If the concept is right, we might be able to think of some basis of building some options like this for long lists. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my poor terminology...but is it possible to float text on a WS page so that when you scroll down a page the text follows or "floats" along with you...? Sort of like what you can do within a Works spreadsheet for title text, e.g., that you need to remain visible for easy reference as you continue working down the spreadsheet... I copied the sandbox text (in edit mode) in case it is overwritten before I get to playing with the formatting. Thank you for doing that. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Probably doable, though always the issue is the browser interoperability (none of which is my knowledge area).

Don't get too hung up on copying that text, the reference that I gave is a permanent link to that code, and anyway it is contingent on what is in {{sandbox}} and that would always be grabbable, and nothing complex there anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this and if you think it's too crazy, I can undo it... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Not against the concept of the tables present the ToC, though would people know what is behind a "show"? If you are going to do it, it is probably just worth showing them, and not hiding them, especially as it is not the reproduction of a work and space is not at a premium. All that said, if you like it that way, no issue for me, my initial thought was more ToC pointers, and that seems to be a p+ve thought. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I see your point... I will work with it some more later, for I am now weary from reworking the author page (which has its own issues I'm trying to figure out)! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

## Coates' Poems Vol I. (1916)

I would like to apply space-and-a-half line-height spacing for this work, but am not sure how to... or whether I should just keep lines single-spaced. Thoughts? See here for comparison. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

## Rename Commons file

If anyone is willing, I need a file renamed on Wikimedia Commons. I accidentally saved it with the name it is saved to on my computer, but I would like it renamed to: Coates, Florence Earle, platinum 2.jpg Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I do that all the time. An option is for you to re-upload this small file to "new name" and add {{Bad name|new name}} to the old file. This creates a link to the better name, someone will get around to deleting it, and you can immediately make use of the file. There are commons admins here, they may notice and do it immediately, I'm too embarrassed to ask with all the mistakes I make there. cygnis insignis 15:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I got it... If not, I may join you in the ranks of the embarrassed! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ha! What you've done seems right, and I see you remembered to use the better title. Usage on other wikis turns at the bottom of the files page, so that is how I double check I haven't messed that up too. cygnis insignis 19:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

## Contents rendering

Hmmm. Offical Microsoft helpful comment: "Internet Explorer does not support any of the CSS3 multi-column layout properties"[3]. Not even in IE 9 Beta. I've turned it into a table.--Laverock ( Talk ) 19:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

## Images used in PotM

I checked several of them, and I think they look great. I had the unexpected chance to see some of the originals recently, and I can report that they are actually that big! --Eliyak T·C 22:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering the details shown in full resolution, I don't doubt it! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't comprehend that you were saying that you drew the image. Artistic! Which is not a skill with which I was ever endowed.

Unless you want your name on show, I would recommend that you put {{user|Londonjackbooks}} as the copyright owner, and maybe the statement that you drew it. Making the comment here so it is not tied to the image. Plus if you wish to conceal your name, I can hide those aspects from the file history from the general user. Billinghurst (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem!  :) My name's not much of an issue... It's only a click or two away from being self-evident anyway... Can we just speedy-delete the image (I can place the request on the page since I created it; perhaps I can do the same for my other image too?), and then I can re-upload the image(s) again using above recommend notation? Clean slate? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay... I'll change the notation in both (one has been done already), if you'll go ahead and hide personal "aspects from the file history" as you suggested... Thanks again! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you please do so from both images used on the page? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Done We will declare tomorrow a non-confuslement day Billinghurst (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hear, hear!... I could use one! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

## illumination

The illustrations are in this work are deluxe, and contrary to what I said about the coding, losing the decorative initials would be regrettable. I'm not rushing to dispose of initials at pages like this, the collaboration between author and illustrator make them an almost indispensable part of the content. I hope you keep up this testing, and continue to report what you find. Regards, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I do appreciate your recommendations. Every work is unique, and I must seem to some to be constantly beating a dead horse with seemingly repeated questions about formatting... I hate stepping on other's toes; I want to "accommodate" all... But then my wish to faithfully render kicks in, and so I must go at it! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Endorse what Cyg says. To your concern ... this is a learning place, so questions are encouraged, especially those that are considered questions, which yours are. We all bring skills and specialties to the effort, all will be utilised in different ways. Billinghurst (talk)
Thank you too, Billinghurst... Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Looking for more information the other day about the limited, signed (1896) edition of the Howells/Pyle collaboration, I stumbled across one online and purchased it for a mere 19.95...less than I paid for the original 1895 version. All is intact but for the missing frontispiece (1st of 3 "Japan proofs"). The cover has seen better days, but the text/illustrations (printed in sepia) are in great shape! Complete with original signatures by author/illustrator, it was a great find! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC) ## Marines' Hymn Having checked Wikipedia and followed external links to confirm, the current official version is the 1929 arrangement. I'll make a separate page for the 1919 version.- AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC) ## Image move request in Commons Done If anyone is willing to take a stab at it, I have some images I need moved in Commons... Sorry ahead of time! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I just did the most recent one as well. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Sent a "thanks" to you on your Commons talk page... Thanks again! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC) ## Stops of Various Quills Your formatting is intense! I see that you're aware of <poem> tags and even {{gap}} for spacing but something you've been using: {{block center/s}} and {{block center/e}} are for spanning multiple pages and maintaining a uniform block when transcluded; try {{block center|}} (example for block center/s and block center/e) What you're doing still works, technically, and I can't complain about the output of the work at all, but just so you know in case you didn't. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC) The three two remaining pages for validation are the ones with overlapping text onto image. I see you've retained some of the breaks; is this to keep the text height filling out the image height? This can be achieved another way: check out this example: Page:Howells, Stops of Various Quills, 1895 037.jpg. Because this work is so closely tied to its illustrations, I want to know what you were intending and the direction we should go. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Right... I played with it and played with it, adjusting width, illustration size, etc.; and after all was said and done, I came to the conclusion that it should render as closely as possible to the original... Which would entail breaking up the lines. Especially for the poem(s) which span multiple pages (like Parable)... They won't align well in the Main if the image/text formatting is off. As for your example, again, I think the text needs to be—what's the word—justified(?) with the image... And line height should probably render uniformly in the work... It just looks "off", and I don't really like the text sitting on the illustration... But you'd have to make the illustration fairly large to contain the text, and that would make that page look odd as compared with the other pages in the book when "reading"... Can that one revert back to how it was originally? But I am getting ahead of myself... You have been quite the busy bee with validating, and I thank you! I am ALWAYS open to better formatting practices! I will make a mental note of your block-center recommendation, and will give it a go next I'm at it... Now I want to read Voltaire's piece... Thanks for all! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Ahh—But out of your experimentation with "Burden", it seems you have inadvertently taught me how to set line height... Something I've been trying to figure out how to do, since I am html-challenged!    (There,—I've used your block-center as well!) Thanks! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Glad to help, even if unintentional :) The original publication: great; you're digitization: great too. If you were to nominate this work for featured, I would support. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I can not thank you enough! :) With regard to The Burden, I mentioned (w/ reasons) above that I'd like to see the poem reverted back (if you agree with my reasoning)... I don't want to do it myself, because I would likely mess it up (with it being validated and all)... What do you think? And I would love to see it eventually featured... I just recently purchased another Pyle collaboration which is "a la" Stops of Various Quills, but with the author being Edwin Markham: The Man with the Hoe (1899, 1900)... Anxious to get it in the mail! Thanks for your help and support! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC) You are awesome, thanks for reverting!... I always worry I am going to offend! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC) ## Annotation Hello, Londonjackbooks. You have new messages at AdamBMorgan's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. ## Starting a practice of recording research on authors Gday. I have now started to note my research works for authors on the respective talk pages for the authors. Pasting text and urls, so that at a later time if it is decided to create the corresponding wp page we have a head start. There is no requirement, just something that I am thinking is a good practice. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I see what you mean... That's a good idea... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC) You seem to be the expert, thoughts on why the first page of Savagery and Survivals isn't showing up? Let me know if you figure it out, I am trying to learn as I go :) StateOfAvon (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) fixed Because the first page is all part of the article, section tags are not required nor the "fromsection" field. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you; I tried it without the section tags on 404, didn't work, then with them, still didn't; guess it didn't like the "fromsection" field :) StateOfAvon (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you, Beeswaxcandle... I wouldn't have known that, and have only recently worked with sections... Learning as I go too! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC) ## ??? I am going to look for other "similar titles" to make it look like we have a whole collection of James Bond ephemera on the front page...haha, good times, good times, I will keep you posted if I find any more :D 1. The Devil and James Bond...maybe? 2. Live and Let Die...wait, what?RudyardKiplingsLeftPinkyFinger (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Mr. Left Pinky Finger, Please do not notify me of any such "similar titles," as I am not interested. Someone else here on WS may be, but I would not know who to refer you to. But whatever you may find, and whatever you have in mind to do here on Wikisource, I would hope that you will follow guidelines on the what, where, and how. Good luck to you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC) To clarify, I am not interested in the James Bond aspect, and there are guidelines on Wikisource about placing titles on the "front page." If you have any questions about placement, formatting, etc., that I am able to help you with, I will do so. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC) ## Thomas Earle Came across a 1948 work on Thomas Earle as a reformer HERE. Need Inductiveload or somebody to rip it though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC) I printed it out for myself and read it over a year ago... Is it not still under copyright? It would be great to put this online otherwise!? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Had to double-ckeck my files, but I just confirmed... I have every image of the text saved as jpeg... I can turn them into a pdf file, then load it to archive.org—if it is not copyright protected—Then someone can take it from there...? Let me know! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Well I can't find any copyright renewal for the original registration ( A30801 ). I'd verify that with a 3rd party and I'd think you are good to go with this work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC) But this concerns me, as my images are from the same site Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC) ... and that's why I suggested touching base with Inductiveload to pull down those scans without the watermarks. Public Domain is Public Domain - period. End of story. -- 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC) I see... Sorry—I just wanted to be sure, not being copyright-savvy... At any rate, my images don't have watermarks. Who might be a good 3rd party for verification? Should I pose/post the question on the WS copyright violations page? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC) <chuckle> if we went by that suggestion, we'd have to dump 90% of Wikisource Getting back to verification, I only suggested that because I can tell you are hesitant to try checking yourself to see if you can find something on your own. Carl Lindberg comes to mind though he's not around as much as Billinghurst or Jeepday (I'd go with those three first). -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Not clear on exactly what you meant by "to try checking yourself to see if you can find something on your own"... but the word "hesitant" is probably accurate in any case with me! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Let's just say I would make a very poor Judge (if the previous section gives you any indication)—which is why I would never seek to be an admin here! And I am very cautious with how I handle Coates/Earle-related information, for with all the independent (yet informal & unorganized) research I do with regard to Mrs. Coates and her kin, I do not want to misrepresent in any way, or offend any descendants who hail, by the way, from a long line of capable lawyers! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC) • Every indication is that the work is PD, the images you have are not watermarked, so I don't see a problem. Even if there was a watermark on the images, the words would still be PD. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for looking into this! I'll go ahead with it then... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC) I have the book set up on Word ready to convert to pdf, but I have a concern about an image on the page facing p. 50. It is a photograph/scan of a letter written by Thos. Earle to Charles Brown "Used with the permission of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania." Since the book itself is in the public domain, can I assume the use of the photograph as it is rendered in the book is also public domain? Just want to be sure... And once I get the text into pdf format, can I just post a direct external link to the pdf here on my Talk page for someone to put onto Commons/WS (my attempts at downloading pdf texts to WM sites have been disastrous)? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC) • If everything checks out, the link to the text is: Thomas Earle as a Reformer The file size is 14MB. Took longer for me to download on Chrome, but not on IE... It's usually the opposite... Please let me know if there are any problems. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC) It didn't open correctly directly from the file sharing site but everything seems fine after I downloaded it and then opened it. It would help if someone else could try and open it to see if its just me. Either way I try, it won't convert to a .djvu using the online Any2DjVu service. Let's wait to see if somebody else has the same problem(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC) I have tried on maybe three occasions to use the Any2DjVu converter, but without success... If you look at the File History for this book, you'll see that my first attempt was in vain, and I needed to seek assistance. If all else fails, I can always go the JPEG route again! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC) I take that back, Any2DjVu can convert it if I select black and white image file instead of .PS/.PDF. What dpi would you like 200, 300, 400 or 600? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Aah... probably 600, since the images are readable already, but not super clear... I also have Earle's (GHEJr) The Liberty to Trade as Buttressed by National Law from 1909 ready to be scanned, but will probably get to that in July. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Dang it. Didn't skim through it properly and wasn't aware there are images in it. Let me try color image @ 600 dpi after it stops. Back in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Well the OCR'd text layer was a bit cleaner for the black & white one trial conversion but I uploaded the color at 600dpi to see what you thought first. Not a big deal to try the other combinations of available parameters if you think we can do better - the final file should be ~2.5M or less irregardless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC) I can work with that! Clearer than I thought it would be, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC) No worries. Of course I should I have checked to see what file name was best first but you can re-name it fairly easy through one of the other regulars around here. I trust you'll address the specifics, cats, etc. on both WS and Commons to improve my rushed work - in the mean time I'm going to extract that text layer and clean it up so there will be less editing involved overall. I will touch back with my progress. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Title is good. I'll address the specifics, and thanks with the rest! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Two questions/issues... 1. Do we need or want the blank page before the cover page for some reason? Without it, the scanned page numbering would match the .djvu page numbering (for a change) up to the next point... 2. There is a letter used by permission of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania between scan pages 50 and 51. I'm not 100% sure we can reproduce the image of the letter here on WS without ascertaining that is indeed free and clear for re-use from the Society. Q.1 No, we don't need the blank page... It was more for correct rendering in 2-page-up reading mode for pdf Q.2 I caught the image issue as well, and addressed it a few posts up, but it likely got lost in the shuffle. Actually, the image, now that I think about it, will throw off the page numbering (oh, I guess that's what you meant by "up to the next point...")... Probably good to get a second opinion on it... If need be, I can redo the pdf... Let me know! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Maybe the second point could use some more input by others as was the case with the no renewal of copyright question earlier ? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC) ## can you show me around and explain how this works I'm new here (I looked up the recent changes to find an experience editor, and found your account), can you show me how to use wikisource, I've only used wikipedia before, I have several Public domain works to add to here.江南吳越 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Funny, I'm usually the one asking questions here, but I'll help if I can. A good place to start is the Get involved section on the Community portal page. Take a look there, especially the "submitting a text" portion. If you have any further questions, I'll help where I can. Otherwise, there are much more experienced editors happy to help at the Scriptorium (Central discussion page). Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC) ## Index:Florence Earle Coates Mine and Thine (1904) Could you please validate the Contents pages of the above—I proofread them earlier in the year—then it can be validated. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC) ## Need a favor Hello again, To make a long story short - I am limited to what I can do here locally until next Monday re: the internet. A long needed file has finally changed to full view on GoogleBooks ( URL ). I cannot manipulate it (download, convert, etc.) as I normally could so I was wondering if you had the time and/or the bandwidth if you could either upload it to Archive.org for me or simply host it with that service you used the other day for the Thomas Earle PDF? Thank you for your attention in advance and please let me know either way asap so I can seek out other alternatives if need be. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Downloading it now. I'll see how easy it is to place on Archive.org. Otherwise, I'll upload it the "Earle" way. Either way, I should get it done sometime tonight(?)... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Anytime is fine - better than waiting around until next week for me at any rate. Thanks so much once again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC) OK. I think I uploaded it correctly to Archive.org with correct CC attribution. Haven't done it this way before (I've only uploaded to the site one other time, and it wasn't a Google text). I need to tweak the title/description a bit once the text is done being "derived" (doesn't like em dashes apparently)... You can find it here. Let me know if this method works for you (and if you think I did things correctly—otherwise I'll have it deleted). Curious—How are you better able to access the info from Archive, and not from Google Books (asks the technologically-challenged user)? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC) That looks fine though I see what you mean about the em dashes. I can "view" everything just fine - I just can't download anything at the moment (its a work related thing). In order for me to convert the GooBoo PDF, I would need to download it first. By putting it up on Archive.org, hopefully it will get converted to all the various file formats for me to tinker with online & before next week finally comes around. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC) For the first upload I did on Archive, it was only a matter of maybe an hour before the "various file formats" filtered through. But then I went and deleted/changed the orig. file (not this recent upload, but my first attempt), and the new (smaller sized) file never ended up converting into the other formats... Again, I can copy/paste/upload/download, but beyond that, I'm a ninny! Let me know if you're getting "down to the wire" and I'll try posting it as I did with the Earle text (were you able to merely "view" the Earle text? It didn't have to download??)... Or we'll improvise... Is there a specific section of the text you need to see? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC) This temp restriction thing started this morning so the Thomas Earle stuff wasn't an issue. Let's see what happens (its only been up about 2 hours or so). I'm not all that familar with Archive.org & how it works since most of the English stuff comes from the [U.S.] GoogleBooks libraries anyway. Being in the U.S. myself, a Google search lists pretty much everything for me. Its because of these stupid upgrades this week that I came up with idea to utilize Archive.org. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Looks like some of the file formats have filtered through, though I don't see a text version yet. It still won't let me edit (fix) the em dash errors for it is still undergoing the derivation process... Perhaps it is the text version that is still a work-in-progress. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC) The license should be public domain (as is stated by Google itself), and not CC-BY-NC, which is a copyright license. Google asks that use be non-commercial, but it's not a legal requirement, or at least one based on copyright (which the CC license implies). But this is very cool, having it more available. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I just wanted to play it safe, since the uploaded document contains all the "earmarks" & watermarks of Google... Those who are aware that it is not a "legal requirement...based on copyright" will know how to handle their use of it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC) FULL TEXT seems to be up-and-running now, and I have fixed the pesky em dash issue in the title/description. Good to go? Let me know! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks again. As with most everything I touch, there are still some issues I'm hoping Carl might have some ideas on how to resolve: Standford University attribution gone from page 2, Great Seal gone from page 5 and what appears to designs for some ship gone from pages 114 to 118. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I can get you those easy using the version I still have downloaded on my computer. Just give me a bit, as I have another task to tend to... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Coming up soon... hectic day! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) OK. Take a look here, and keep an eye out for the remaining images that I am still uploading. PLEASE look over the image file descriptions, etc., and let me know if my PD tag is correct, and etc. Can you work with this? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Playing it safe, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC) ## clarification on linking I thought your comments on annotation were excellent, but I should clarify one point. Because of the type of texts you have been working on, and the noise surrounding this 'debate', I can see how the following may have escaped your attention-  Linking the author's references to other works, and their authors, is unobjectionable. These links can appear in the main version of your new text. Make that should appear, for the reasons you have given. The topic under discussion is regarding User annnotation, and you have identified how that is problematic with regard to text integrity and subjectivity. I will give you some background to this while I'm here (with my bias). In the bad old days, Wikisource users were effectively restricted to copy-pasting the thousands of 'second-hand transcripts', such as those produced by Distributed Proofreaders. The likelihood of linking another text was very low. Deeplinking to the actual page number was probably impossible. Earlier users desperately scrabbled for something to justify the very existence of this sister by introducing novel ideas that would not be countenanced by serious sites, debate and sophistry on these was easier than producing a new transcript (typing in from a book on one's shelf). The introduction of scans with a near-perfect OCR text layer changed everything, a quantum leap: millions of books could be added and verified! And when these works refer to another—what has been called the "great conversation"—the power and potential of this sister is mind-blowing. When I say that I think you 'get this', you should understand that this is very high praise in my book. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC) A couple years ago when I was new here, it was your subtle exhortation (that's how I took it anyway) that prompted me to go about things in a "better" way than I was doing at the time. I "keep" it as a reminder on my User page. I appreciate your remarks above, and I will also make the corrections to the omitted author/works annotations in the "clean" text as you noted. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC) ## English legal citation Hello, Londonjackbooks. You have new messages at Htonl's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. - Htonl (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC) ## Index:A Little Pretty Pocket-book.djvu Could you please note that the above now says Error: no such file, since it was moved from its incorrect filename. Could you please do something about this ASAP. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I know... I just asked for help on the Index's Talk page, as well as on Central discussion. I think (hope) it can be fixed easily, I just don't want to mess things up even more. Sorry! Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I've just tried a rollback to Xxagile's edit of 10 January 2010, but it didn't work. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Ugh... I am SO sorry... I didn't realize it would somehow affect the file on Commons... I can ask Spangineer for help(?)... He has bailed me out a couple times with misnamed Commons files...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC) No not all of them were blank, in the previous version I validated some pages--they were front matter and the first page that need to be formatted again. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Again, I'm sorry for that... Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC) ## Formatting and transclusion hints Hi there! After having a look at Index:Fifes and Drums, Poems of America at War, Vigilantes, 1917.djvu, I have a few pointers to make formatting easier for you: 1. Use the <pages/> tag to transclude pages, instead of directly transcluding the Page using {{Page:....}}. This will automatically cause a page number to appear in the left margin, allowing people to navigate to the original page in the Page: namespace. This is the most flexible way to do it, as you can also do section transclusion easily with this tag. 2. Use the <poem> tag to avoid having to manually enter <br/> tags, and this environment also negates the need to type nbsp's explicitly. Check H:POEM for usage notes. You can even set a CSS style directly into the poem tag. 3. Use {{gap}} instead of a huge string of nbsp's. You can much more easily and neatly encode a length as {{gap|10em}} than some large number of nbsp's. If you feel you want to use a big set of nbsp's, we have the {{loop}} template, which will repeat some text as many times as you specify. Hope this makes your life easier! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You won't be able to compile to .doc or .pdf or fully print the content under #1 in my expierence and I believe that's why the alternative is used. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Grr, that is a very annoying defect in the renderer. Carry on doing it with direct transclusion in that case. Hopefully that bug will get acted on sometime this year decade. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) In my circles, it's the single most cited reason not to bother with en.WS and all it may possibly offer, followed closely by the desire for better PDF support in general. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC) It is a bug in the Pediapress extension, not Wikisource, so it's them I/you/we need to bug. #pediapress on irc.freenode.net and the Wikimedia bug tracker item is https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21653. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Nobody cares about the possible reader - only about their own little corner, which is just fine for an all volunteer forum such as this I guess. Waiting over a year just for it be seriously addressed was enough for me. I've moved on to correcting the text layers and re-inserting them as needed instead. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks both of you! George Orwell III explained why I use the antiquated {{Page:....}} transclusion tag (for PDF rendering, etc.)... Same reason I use non-breaking spaces and breaks as opposed to {{gap}} and poem tag as well. If all WS uses is the <pages/> tag, then there is no reason to have a download to PDF option here at all. The reference back to the specific index page is a useful tool, but, in my opinion, not as useful as print/pdf rendering. We still have the Source tab, even though it may take a user a couple extra clicks to reach their intended destination... To modify a quote by Rich Mullins (although the modification totally botches Mullins' point!), "When does faithfulness to ["best practice"] call us to lay aside our biases and when does it call us to stand beside them?"... I don't know (in this case, for our purposes); which is why I remain somewhat flexible on the matter... I appreciate your help! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I neglected to mention something in our last discussion, rather than thinking you ramble on too much about your testing, I think it is very important and should be made available to others who will meet the same problems. I actually started doing this at Help:Poem (linked above, but not read it seems), yet there are dozens of things I haven't properly documented. Perhaps your extensive investigation above my self-deprecating 'mumble/grumble' should be moved to the talk of this help page, and eventually incorporated into it. I am a persistent advocate for the merits of 'type-facsimile' instead of attempting 'photo-facsimile'—using this as the basis of a WS style guide—and poetry is a special challenge to this. Potential loss of 'meaning' requires preserving much of the format, avoiding the need to make editorial decisions. You and I have put a lot of thought into these matters, so I think others will benefit (and save themselves a lot of time and frustration) if we try to improve the documentation. Regards, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I think the poetry documentation is | has been read... There's just so much other "noise" out there as well—all well-meant and sincere, but maybe not as current any more, as compatibility issues change here in the blink of an eye, rendering what was once renderable as no longer renderable—and we are seeing the result of this in the recent reactions by Users to the PDF-rendering issue (or "bug"?)... I'll take a look at writing something coherent on the Talk page, but it will have to be at a time when I can be focused and not easily distracted (those are rare occasions), otherwise I resort to rambling and that helps no one! Thank you! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I think I'll start something soon with regard to poem formatting, etc. on one of my subpages—probably /General text formatting. It's getting pretty outdated anyway. Then once I'm happy with something, I can transfer the info. to the Help Poem talk page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I am sitting here ruminating and over-thinking (re:poetry formatting) and getting absolutely nowhere yet on this. <blank stare at a monitor> I'll try again tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC) ### page transclusion question What is to prevent some sort of script from being written into the "antiquated" {{Page:....}} tag so that page numbers can still appear in the left margin, and text can still be viewed in PDF mode? Is it the presence of items in the left margin that "spoils" the PDF rendering? I don't understand any of this [technical] stuff or how it all works, so my wording might be off... Do you all know what I'm trying to ask? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Firstly {{Page:}} isn't "antiquated" as such, it is just a "simple transclusion" rather than the "special" one used to invoke the Proofread Page extension handling as the extension expects. Having said that, some of the PP javascript does fire on a simple transclusion, such as the coloured status bar in the top left. I am not well acquainted with the internals of the PP extension, so I can't tell you exactly why that is. The PDF rendering problem is caused by the Pediapress extension not parsing the <pages/> tags properly. It is a bug that will be resolved one day, so once that is fixed (by coercion, pleading, bargaining, extortion or magic) we shouldn't need a workaround. The whole "exporting works" deal from WS has a long way to go, which is just symptomatic of the combination of our relative unimportance compared to the flagships of WP and Commons, lack of local devs, with some esoteric structures like the PP extension. <sadface/> What we really need a way to export to PDF, mobi, and all the other ebook formats, but I don't have the first clue how to do that. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Ahh...okay. So ideally some day, the <pages/> tag will be parsed properly? Question then: since "some day" could be days, months, or years,—if I continue to use the {{Page:....}} tag for now, could a bot easily take care of the change to a <pages/> tag once the "bug" has been dealt with? Thank you for your explanation! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I would think that it is fine to keep doing what you are doing, since it works and isn't breaking much. That won't be a trivial bot substitution, as there is no way to track transclusion statistics by the method used (that I know of), so getting a list of affected pages will be hard without checking every page that transcludes a Page: page, but over time we'll work it out, I'm sure. Whatever you do, but we'll probably need to trawl the database one day to catch any stragglers anyway, since you will not be the only person doing that! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Never followed up, sorry! Thanks for your answer(s)... And when all is well and fixed, I will have a "Page transclusion party" and at least fix the "affected pages" that I have made myself if need be (unless an easier solution surfaces) :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC) ## Link arrangement Good evening London (it is late evening where I am, adjust this salutation to your local time :). I did a bit more of the war poetry anthology, but I messed up the spelling of the links ... twice! Anyway, can I get a sanity check on my linking arrangement, eg. this page. Instead of splitting the work into a section for each poem, I linked the section 'Auxiliaries' from the TOC and the page number for each poem. I left out the author links to stop it being too busy. Do you think the reader will understand what is going on, that it is a neat and workable scheme? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Eastern Standard Time here (mid-day Tuesday)! I just edit into the very wee hours while the whole house sleeps because I can! :) I'll take a look at what you've linked to... Have a good one :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, G'day then :-) Thanks for checking it out. I will leave the table styling to you, it is the link arrangements I want your opinion on. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I "get" what you've done... and I had already "replicated" your process with the Belgium section (albeit with author links). I do think the reader will understand that they are to click on the page number... My only thinking—while looking at the TOC for Argosy earlier—is that the width of the TOC is so wide that the reader almost needs a ruler to "get to" the correct page no. link...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) For "playing"/consideration purposes, I placed page 10 of the TOC in my Sandbox to show how it will look when it is eventually transcluded into the Main. Feel free to use the sandbox if you'd like...Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Note on "Londonjackbooks": "London, Jack" (as in the author—last name first) + "books" (his books) = I am a fan. :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC) ## Template:right has an offset If you look at how Hesperian designed that template, you can do something like {{right|text text text|2em}} to get it to stand a distance (2em in this case) from the right margin. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the tip! I'll use it... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC) ## synchronicity Another persuasive yet temperate comment from yourself, my apologies that I have become exasperated by the circumstances. I thought to give a reading recommendation, regarding your violet dream, you should look up Jung's work on synchronicity, it is some nice food for thought. Though not immediately, but in the foreseeable future, I will suddenly be no longer be part of this community, so I want to note now that it has been nice to share the good stuff about it with you. I'll be seeing you round in the meantime, regards CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC) For example [4]: "Meleager was his name, and ere his birth his mother dreamed a dream that the child that she bore was a burning firebrand. But when the baby came he was a royal child indeed, a little fearless king from the first moment that his eyes, like unseeing violets, gazed steadily up at his mother." I don't place too much stock in dreams (and rarely remember them), but the one I mentioned was fun at any rate! :) I'll give the work you mentioned a look. Bummer that you are leaving; it has been nice sharing the "good stuff," and I have learned much. Let me know upon your departure if there's anything you'd like to see completed here that isn't. Odds are I'd get something out of it in the process! Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Browsed the topic, and just ordered a copy of Jung's work on synchronicity. I will give it a go once I finish my current read. Be well, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC) ## Where was I? Where was I during the earthquake? Wikisourcing, of course! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC) ## quibble Being soused, three sheets to the wind, I must quibble about the choice of illustration for a "wonk". How about this one? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC) .... and I noted what you said about my beloved gap, 1.97 em is exactly right, 2 em is close enough. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Well, being that I read well, but am not well-read, I will have to do some homework... True, that wonkery is not necessarily associated with Beowulf (I didn't know him personally, however)... No offence intended with regard to your beloved gap (is it yours? I 'm not familiar with its history), but "Before Ginchy" was just particularly challenging! :) And as for being soused, I never touch the stuff personally; I like coffee. You do realize that I make many trips to the dictionary when reading your posts...? Stay dry! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC) As you say, so it shall be—being as I don't know you either, I will have to take your word for it!... But it is an unfortunate picture, considering the company Perseus is keeping! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC) And I looked over at {{gap}} and noted where it states, "This template is not intended to produce a formatting preference, such as indented paragraphs..." Don't I feel stupid! ;) Hmmm... but maybe "paragraphs" don't apply to poems? What would you have done with "Before Ginchy"? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC) ## Greek snippet Hi, it roughly means "one who deals out (or distributes) barren chaos". The trouble with the online translators is that they don't cope with the stress accents and breathing marks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you for that. "Barren" would go along with "desolated", "empty frame", and "bereft" references in the war poem:  The desolated space Of life shall nevermore Be what it was before. No one shall take your place. No other face Can fill that empty frame. There is no answer when we call your name. We cannot hear your step upon the stair. We turn to speak and find a vacant chair. Something is broken which we cannot mend. God has done more than take away a friend In taking you; for all that we have left Is bruised and irremediably bereft. So the Greek then refers to the one dealing out the chaos and not to those upon whom the chaos has been carried out? Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC) ## Can you see full copy ... I am looking for a full copy of Eleanor Sidgwick's University Education for Women (1913) http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=university+education+inauthor%3Asidgwick&btnG= Are you able to see a full copy at Google Books? If yes, can you load it somewhere so we can get it djvu'd. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I'll take a look. I've got about 15 minutes right now, and will be unavailable for a good chunk of the day, but I'll try to find something; if not now, in earnest later today... [update] I'm not seeing a full copy on Google Books... Just a full copy of the 1897 lecture, which was a different lecture, I'm sure... WorldCat shows that the Library of Congress has a copy, and being that it is only 20pp. long (?), maybe I can request a scan tomorrow of the work via email. Then I can possibly set it up on Archive... Do you have any kind of "deadline" for this work? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC) No deadline. Plenty of books still to do, just part of Portal:Manchester University which has been an interestingly diverse set to work up. Thanks — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I have made the request for scans, and will let you know when I receive a reply. Copy 1 is checked out via an Internal Loan, so someone else has an interest in it as well... Copy 2 is stored offsite, so is probably not as easily accessible. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Let me give this another go tomorrow... I'll message more than one 'department'. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Seems as though it will come at a cost to request scans (starting at18 just for a 'research' fee). Wasn't charged the last two times, but the first time it was only for a small pamphlet, and the second time I "called in" their offer to 'let [them] know if [I] ever needed anything else...' I don't want to take advantage of a kindness this time around... I'm close to the LOC, but have not yet actually visited the Library personally, although I imagine myself one day having my own little cubby somewhere near the old stacks of books where I can smell the must and dust and mindlessly enter random bits of information into a computer catalogue (I'd do it for free)! But that is a dream... ANYWAY... I will put in for an interlibrary loan sometime tomorrow. Let me know if a copy surfaces for you in the meantime! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Request made; now we wait... again... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Still no word as of yet, but they have said in the past: 'No news is good news.' I guess that means it's 'working'...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

THIS JUST IN: "A book you requested through interlibrary loan has arrived: University Education for Women..." Woo-hoo! I'll take a look at it tomorrow... Hoping it's the right version, etc.! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

## Southern Historical Society Papers

Adam, something strange has happened with volume 1. The image I transcribe has disappeared after transcription. Thus, I cannot flip through the pages to see the images to be transcribed. Please be so kind as to look into this. Thank you, —William Maury Morris II Talk 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Copied to Adam's page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

## War poetry redirects

Hello again... hope this finds you & your's well

I started to go about fixing the Broken Redirects for that work and stopped myself since there seems to have been some additional consolidation (or splitting?) since the first move and now I'm not so sure these are even still needed/desired. Please take a peek and do that voodoo that you do when you get the time. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Same to you and yours! :) I'll take a look a little later this evening, for I'm about to devote some time to one of "mine" to watch a show :) Thanks for the heads up, and have a good weekend! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Done . Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, what does TIA mean? I've seen that twice now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Got it—You are either having a "mini stroke" or else you are thanking me in advance <laughing>! I'm hoping for the latter! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

## The WS:S statement is right

You are extremely competent, quietly confident with your abilities, certainly know your way around the wiki, and now demonstrate that some of the next tranche of tools would be useful to you. Have a read of Wikisource:Adminship and tell us why you not are ready to have your own DIY mop. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Billinghurst, I appreciate it, and I have read about all that Adminship contains; and in the last few months or so have been paying closer attention to the activity (i.e., not merely wearing Coates blinders) around here... But I know myself better than anyone, and I think that my 'competency', 'confidence', and 'ability' would be reduced if I were to be considered... One of my irrational shortcomings, I know... Maybe at a later date!? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand the reticence. It took them three goes to get me convinced, and it was demonstrated to me that for the work that I was doing, that it was both better (able to revert, rather than undo vandalism) and more efficient (delete rather than request delete) to have the tools, ie. become an admin. To note that one only needs to use the tools that with which one feels comfortable, and none of us has the expectation that you would do things in which you feel uncomfortable. And I truly believe that you have the skills, and a reticence is one skill that a good admin has. That said, all in your own time. billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that:) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The biggest hurdle for me would likely be judgment ('making considered decisions or coming to sensible conclusions') when it comes to helping/working with others... Besides the fact that I am a pushover and cry easily ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
LondonJackBooks aka Sonja, I agree with billinghurst on his/her suggestion that you have the skills to become an administrator but I would miss your personal works. Imagine not having administrators like billinghurst, InductiveLoad, AdamBMorgan, and George Orwell III. We would be in a sorry world without the likes of these kind of kindly people. It is too bad, in my opinion, that Marine housewives/mothers cannot be drafted into working as an administrator here! BTW, when I wrote == Nice workS == I meant for it to have a double meaning. ;0)<wink!> Meanwhile, I am still learning codes from your works. Please keep using images to make plain books look better. I have not tried all of your coding but eventually I will apply several more codes from what I have seen you do. Singing, Somewhere over the Rainbow.... —William Maury Morris II Talk 01:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Good Morning! Not sure exactly how to answer, but that I am not much fond of double meanings. While I am far from perfect myself, and still learning from my mistakes, I would still much rather speak straight/hear straight. I will continue to add images here and there as I see appropriate, but not at the expense of compromising the integrity of the text. That much at least I have learned from Cygnis the past couple years. Still "housecleaning"—at least until I am satisfied that all things are as they should be. Have a good day! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hola y mis mejores deseos hoy, Sonja. "Nice WorkS": #1 Your workS are nice! That was my only original intent. Then I saw that I could double that so #2 people being nice to each other makes for a better world. With #2 I refer to nobody specific but rather everyone in this world. I will avoid any double meanings but in my thinking I often play with double meanings just as I play with words and sometimes anagrams, names (Anna Graham), &c. Nothing bad about you or your works was intended. Only good was twice intended. I also never had any thoughts of "compromising the integrity of the text." I would not be on WikiSource if I were a vandal of any sort. I am strongly opposed to such things. I was being somewhat playfult just as with my "Alice in Wonderland" statement to you earlier and your statement of a circus and a "Horse" afterwards. You had stated to me to "interject" anytime and I did. Still, I can see how things can go the wrong way with the best of intentions so I will say no more on this. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 16:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hoping you didn't misunderstand me either (i.e., the thought never occurred to me that you would encourage compromising the integrity of any text)... I am just not good at "getting" double meanings myself (this goes for humor too), and even when I "get" that there's a double meaning, I lack in the interpretive process, so I often just have to let things go by me without understanding (although I do try),—move on, and let God sort things out (Proverbs 3:5-6)! I liked your reference to Alice in Wonderland, actually... And there were horses at the Big Apple Circus I attended... beautiful black horses. I loved horses when I was young, and they were the subject of most of my childhood drawings. Sam Savitt was my favorite illustrator. Please feel free to continue to "chime in" any time... Especially if you feel there has been a misunderstanding! Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Alice and Through the Looking Glass (while I haven't actually read it)—reminds me of Coates' "The Mirror", and of Dorothy proclaiming, "There's no place like home" in the Wizard of Oz :) Works of genius! (and a little madness!)... In addition,— Coates: "...And, lo! God, too, is there." Howells: "...yet somewhere there is God." :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: helpful admins: I have my favorites (probably wrong word choice) too!... And as far as being "drafted" as an admin... I would be a liability; for I have a mop here at home too, but am loathe to use it! ;)... Unless I have to!... I'll stick with cleaning up my own messes here at WS (unless I require help), and continue harvesting a collection of old books for posterity! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

## Jeremiah 28

Yes, that is the text.

It is this page; the chapter begins in the middle column where a new parashah (paragraph) is evident. The end of the page is 28:7 (almost the end of the verse) following which two pages were removed from the codex. Dovi (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you... I have a Hebrew-English interlinear Bible here at home, and wanted to do some comparisons; I just needed a good reference point! Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
But I see that I'd need to get myself a Tiberian masoretic-English interlinear Bible... or at least a Tiberian masoretic-Hebrew one, and then I can have a cross-reference party! ;) The reference point is still helpful, though... thank you. So can I assume that each new paragraph is a chapter then? Would they be pretty consistent with "my" chapters? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually not. Sometimes they coincide like here, but very often not. See the article on Parashah. Your interlinear text should be good enough for spotting letters in the images. Dovi (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Ooh... That spells things out very nicely, doesn't it? :) So the beginning of Jeremiah 28 is represented by: {P}28:1-11—The WP page explaining:
• {P} = parashah petuhah ("open portion"), typically resembles a new paragraph
• {S} = parashah setumah ("closed portion"), typically represented as a blank space in the middle of a line
Ok... so the text on the 21st line (middle column) is from the previous chapter (27; reading right to left)... Ok. I'll print out the image for a closer look at the letters. Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually thank you, because your diligence has helped catch and fix an error. Jer 28:1 is an open parashah (not a closed one), as can be seen clearly in the image and is confirmed by the various editions based on the codex. The error is now fixed. Dovi (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Aah... "seen clearly" only by those who know what they are looking at (i.e., not me)! :) I thought I understood 'open' and 'closed', but will have to give it another closer look! Want to hear something funny? I printed out another page and set about comparing text... Very frustrating when you try to match the text if you're looking at the image upside down! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

### Discrepancy?

From User:Dovi/Keter: "that might explain not only why two pages are missing from precisely this part, but also why the third page following them has been partly torn away." [link & bold mine]

From: The Aleppo Codex: [Missing also are] "Three pages from Jeremiah (29:9-31:34) – and the page preceding these is partially torn." [bold mine] Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

## Ref: Eye Strain

You asked, "Eye Strain" caught my eye in Recent changes... What is the above for? If it in any way helps to alleviate User eye strain when proofreading, I'm all ears! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I reply that Inductiveload—talk/contribs 05:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC) created a color page background, text, &c for me because the white was harming my eyes. I actually had to see a doctor for the situation because I had rubbed my eyes too hard and too often. Enter, Inductiveload, an intelligent & exceedingly gracious person who totally solved the problem for me. Even as I type here and now all background is gray with black text. Look back at my User page and just follow his(her?) instructions. You can have whatever colors you want. I prefer the all medium gray for editing volumes. It's extremely easy on my eyes and saves to the regular white page that you see.
I suppose you would just create, User:Londonjackbooks/common.js and save it. You can always delete it or change the colors but medium gray is easiest on my eyes which is the color I see as I type this. On another note I have been appreciating the works you create. Like Alice in Wonderland said, "What good is a book without colors and illustrations" (something to that effect) :0)

With all due respect to your military husband and to you and your beautiful works, —William Maury Morris II Talk 00:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was very unexpected and kind, and nice to see upon logging back in! :) I appreciate your acknowledgement of my husband... Were it not for his extreme tolerance of my addiction to Wikisource (and tolerance of me in general!), I wouldn't be making the contributions here that I have enjoyed making. But the addiction has also, I believe, led to my eyesight becoming poorer (I'm doing that "trombone" thing now just within the last few months where I can't focus on smaller print)... I suppose it could be age as well, but I don't know, since it has all happened rather dramatically in a short period of time. Being a poor 'patient', however, I don't want to see an eye doctor—yet... Too stubborn... I will give the background 'solution' a try. Thank you! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The loss of focus on smaller print happened suddenly to me recently as well. For me, it's just age related changes (which can occur from late 30s onwards) but it's important to get it checked out. You don't need to see an eye doctor initially, just see an optometrist. I know that after I got my reading glasses, most of my headaches went away. At the risk of sounding like a nag—just do it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

## m-dashes & n-dashes

Hi, I've put a couple of buttons in my edit toolbar for em-dash and en-dash so that I don't have to continually navigate to the bottom of my screen for these. Would you like me to put them in yours? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes PLEASE! :) I don't think I've ever used the en-dash here, so if it's possible to just place the 'big one' in my toolbar, that would be great!... and to William Maury Morris II,—interject at will! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Done . I've given you the en-dash as well. Although it's not used in poetry you do work in other areas where you will need it. It's most common use is between numbers in a range. e.g. 1974–81. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! And with regard to en-dashes... you're right that I would need it... because now I know that I have recently erroneously used an em-dash when I should have used an en-dash. I just have to remember the title of the page(s) (I suspect it was the war poetry)... Thanks for the add-ons—and the encouragement above to pay a visit to an optometrist! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandles, please pardon my interjection here but I would like for you to create them on my edit toolbar! I have been using text-pad, highlight already saved codes, copy and paste, with the em—dash near the top as it's used so often. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II Talk 07:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, LJB, do you see the buttons? I notice that Beeswaxcandles put them in your vector.js but you also have a common.js, I've never seen someone with both and I think the latter supersedes the former completely. Any admin can move them but I'm curious whether you see anything.--Doug.(talk contribs) 12:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's all new to me... I'm still trying to familiarize myself with vector/common stuff, but have put much on the backburner for a time. Yes, I see the m/n-dash buttons (re: Beeswaxcandle/vector.js), and have been happily using them. Re:common.js—I had asked Cygnis not too long ago what the vector/common pages actually do (having seen Cygnis working/adapting, etc. his/her page here and there), and so I created the common.js page with a mind to figure things out for myself at a later date, as Cygnis said it would be "intuitive". I haven't looked much into it all yet, but plan to do so in the future. For reference, Vector is my default skin setting as of right now (if that is important?). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Both .js files will apply in the vector skin, unless they are mutually exclusive scripts, in which case the latter to load will overwrite. If you swap to another skin, then only common.js will apply. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what that all means (yet!) :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, it appears that I was wrong. You do have duplicative code though it appears, which is normally pointless - but since you are experimenting, I guess it's not (pointless). ;)--Doug.(talk contribs) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Once I figure it all out, I'll try to get back "on point" ;) Thanks for pointing it out to me! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

## Template:***

This one may be of interest. {{

• |no. of asterisks|spacing}} eg. {{
• |6|3em}} gives

* * * * * *

.

From memory it also takes other symbols as the separator. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I have used so many different sorts of formats for separators that I can't keep them straight...or which one to use for which purpose! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

## Nice workS!

Oudy, LondonJackBooks! I have been relaxing by looking over some of your various works and I find them not only informative, as so much text is, but also very enjoyable—as much text is not—due to the beautiful illustrations. I agree with Alice! It is also impressive how you have been able to replicate those images and especially the formatting of text in so many works of ye olde days. I ask, can you do artwork of any kind off computer? You seem to have that inclination. I suspect because I married an excellent artist many years ago. Well, gonna go now, keep on booking! Whole-kindheartedly, Maury (—William Maury Morris II Talk 03:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I do believe Alice is/was right! but timing and placement of the images is key (a task mere mortals can't always be trusted with)! Do you know that I went to the Circus over the weekend? One literal and one figurative. One act that struck me (in the former) was when a trapeze artist (dressed in purple that was 'wrapped' in ribbons of white)—starting from a lower level—attempted to perform his duty but fell short of the mark. He was given a second chance, however. He started not on the same level as before, but on a higher one, and this time achieved the goal! [I thought to add that the preceding description of the act was of actual events...and not metaphorical :) It was the Big Apple Circus (a one-ringer) that "came to town" —Londonjackbooks, 1 November 2011] The funny thing about the circus, however, is that it 'comes to town' frequently—displaying the performers' faults and their successes... But it's still "The Greatest Show on Earth!" :) [updated Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)] Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
And there were HORSES! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I was only quickly checking in here... Busy weekend (even still), but I promise a complete answer when I get breathing time! Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Maury,
Thank you again for your compliment :) If you are referring to the images I have placed on some of Mrs. Coates' poetry pages,—yes—they were placed there to be informative... although in hindsight, I may(?) be infringing on some sort of 'integrity' issue by doing so, for they are not actually a part of the original works (I may have to remove them at some point)... When I started looking more deeply into the details of Mrs. Coates' poetry, I found that I had no idea what much of what she wrote about referred to! Not learned in Greek Mythology or history (both of which make up most of her poetry—along with things related to flora and fauna), my understanding of her work was severely lacking. It has been a history lesson to say the least! but choosing to host her works here has obviously aided me in my personal research, as new revelations come to light every day! :)
I used to draw when I was a teenager...mostly pencil drawings... But never from my own imagination—I always had to work off of something else. I'm smiling right now, because by saying I "work off of something else" just made me think about how I think of myself as a "copyist" (liking to copy, cut & paste here at WS), and how that has translated over the years! :) I am less inventive than insightful (if the latter doesn't sound too boastful?). I like to work off of other people's thoughts and actions. [I don't talk much in public!]
Thank you again for your kind words! :) Sonja

## Software problem

Before you edit again please note that we have a software problem, which causes an extra linebreak to be inserted in Namespace, see Scriptorium for more info. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooh... I'm sorry! I'll take a look... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

## Socks are not illegal

Don't be fussed about having another sock/sockpuppet, they are not against our rules, they are just not to be abused, used in abusive way, for deceitful means. If you now have it, just declare it like Jeepday and I do on our user pages. It is now an alternate account! and can just be used when you edit from a place that is not secure. All resolved. To your passion, I like it, though occasionally it could be reined in, but heck it isn't nasty, abusive, hectoring. I am married, I have learnt the three wise monkeys (domestic deafness/blindness/silence).billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I would really dislike seeing you go, from "Stops at Various Quills" and onward, you've been a wonderfully pleasant and hardworking editor. If your "abuse" is more of a means to spend less time here as a result of a forced departure, I believe I can speak for everyone here you've interacted with in saying that we will respect that wish, but would to not want to see you go.
There are other things that can be done. I am aware of a process at en.wp in which they lock your account for whatever time period you would specify, in which you cannot login. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

## e-mail : clarification

Hello LJB,

On another topic, I sent you another e-mail after your post on WSS that you were leaving because of a socking incident. I didn't pay attention to the fact that you said your e-mail had been hacked so I only realized today that you probably never got it. The gist was exactly as those above, the sock sounds incredibly trivial and had a total of 2 edits, many of us have declared alternate accounts, you've now declared the account, relax, and I hope you stick around.--Doug.(talk contribs) 04:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

### response

Thank you for your response, Doug. I need to answer you by breaking up some of your comments. This might take me some time, so please bear with me... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• I knew at once that you were mistaken as to the content when you said that I said: "and perhaps Billinghurst (whom he also mentioned as having been "assaulted" by Cygnis)." I mention my profession in the letter, I don't use the word "assaulted" lightly..."
You are correct that I misquoted you, and I corrected my mistake (using strikeout) at WS:ADMIN. In my head, I had combined "insulting" with "personal attacks" (both from your letter) to form—erringly—"assaulted". Obviously, I was not referring to an actual physical attack... but apologies for the misquote; I do try to be careful not to do that, and I feel badly.
• For future reference, posting other people's e-mails or the contents thereof without their permission is not allowed (and is arguably a copyright violation). Also, for future reference, had you asked I would have given you permission and sent you a new reference copy of the e-mail. If you feel you need copies of your reply or my rejoinder, etc., etc., please just ask. I do not understand, however, why you think this e-mail was relevant.
You are right... I should have asked your permission first. In all honesty, I did/do not know if your initial email is relevant or not—other than my belief that you were trying to persuade me to "turn away from the latter" (i.e., Cygnis' "position")... In my email response to you, I explained that I don't take sides, that I can think for myself, and that as Cygnis had not "attacked" me in any way, I therefore had no "beef" with him/her, and that the "Cygnis" portion of your email should have been sent to Cygnis and not to me.
See below, I apologize for venting to you about Cyg. I saw no point, by that juncture, in attempting to communicate directly with Cyg.
• To clarify to you personally, and I would do this by e-mail but for you apparently not having any at present, I had actually been thinking of sending you an e-mail addressing adminship for several weeks before you got involved in the dispute with Cyg...
My email works fine (although it was compromised a couple months ago)—it was my Google Docs account that was recently compromised, and that is where I stored all my WS emails for reference. But I retained hard copies as well.
• I was surprised at your involvement and that you seemed to be taking sides very subtly while making statements that did not address the substance of the issue but seemed to align with the nonsense that Cyg was writing. You had not been previously involved there, so I felt that you were joining in merely because Cyg was sort of your mentor and not out of any real knowledge of or even interest in the underlying issue.
Surprise! :) Not so surprising to me, and as for "taking sides"—how many times can I say I was not? At WS:ADMIN, I had quoted James Fenimore Cooper, and it seems appropriate to repeat it again here: "No freeman, who really loves liberty, and who has a just perception of its dignity, character, action and objects, will ever become a mere party man. He may have his preferences as to measures and men, may act in concert with those who think with himself, on occasions that require concert, but it will be his earnest endeavour to hold himself a free agent, and most of all to keep his mind untrammelled by the prejudices, frauds, and tyrranny [sic] of factions." Any "alignment" I had in common with Cygnis had to do with PRINCIPLE (ideas about librarianship, etc.)—not PERSON!! I do feel that Cygnis has been a "mentor" of sorts—but only as a result of my own making... Cygnis in no way has ever sought a "pupil!" (I believe the word he/she would use is "ptui") and I have remarked to him/her on many occasions that if I ever became too much of a pest to let me know. And for you to say above that you felt I was "joining in... not out of any real knowledge of or even interest in the underlying issue" is insulting to me... Please show me an example. As for taking sides, your initial email to me is the only example I can see where an overt attempt has been made to persuade anyone to take sides (i.e., "I hope you... turn away from the latter.")
Yet another one of my idiosyncrasies: I often think and speak in generalities (as well as philosophically)... a fact that often causes others to interpret my statements as being "off topic" and "not on point." Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• I was particularly upset by Cyg's behavior at the time and I felt it was necessary to address this in the same letter, though I initially wavered on whether to send any letter. I'm truly sorry that you now suspect some sort of carrot and stick. I felt if I addressed only point 2 at that time, I'd simply piss you off and you would not be open to my suggestion of adminship, so I needed to put them in a single e-mail. Maybe this was a bad choice.
Bad choices—We all make 'em, don't we? One of the joys of being human! By the way, it takes a lot to "piss" me off... I would not have been upset had you only addressed "point 2" at the time... But you don't know me, and you don't know how I would react, so you did what you thought was "necessary"... That is all we can do, is it not? For the record, I stated in my email response to you on Aug 23 that you are free to "ask away on my Talk page any time!" I try to be an "open book"—maybe too open for my own good, as it often exposes my vulnerabilities in the process... But that's me...
Yes, to all of this. I really only wanted to address point 1 but, since I misinterpreted your comments at the "Related Author" discussion, I felt it necessary to address my concerns in point 2.
• The offer to nominate you was sincere and had you said to me "I will gladly accept the nomination but I agree 100% on this matter with Cyg" I would have still nominated you (though I suspect that you would have wanted the nomination to come from another in that case ;-)
To answer: No... I would not have thought it necessary for "another" to nominate me. I have no doubt that you wished to nominate me, and that you would have done so regardless of my opinions... I just never thought I was admin 'material' in the first place—knowing myself better than anyone else (my actions of late further confirm that!)... But the coupling of the two issues in a single email was unfortunately "problematic" in the end (at least for me)... One big reason why I despise this sort of communication (as opposed to person-to-person) is the susceptibility to misinterpretation...
To be clear: Point 1 and Point 2 were, of course, attempts to influence you - but they were not intended to be connected. Point 1 was attempting to influence you to be an admin. Point 2 was intended to influence you to "turn away from" the belief that I thought you were agreeing with that I and others are less worthy because of our pagespace edit counts or our interest in the process as well as to influence you to avoid mirroring your mentor in his behavior towards those who question him. Again, as you say so often, I do not know you and apparently I misinterpreted what you had meant. (end of response)--Doug.(talk contribs) 14:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• I sent you another e-mail after your post on WSS that you were leaving because of a socking incident. I didn't pay attention to the fact that you said your e-mail had been hacked so I only realized today that you probably never got it. The gist was exactly as those above, the sock sounds incredibly trivial and had a total of 2 edits, many of us have declared alternate accounts, you've now declared the account, relax, and I hope you stick around.
I wanted to leave WS because of a culmination of many factors that have occurred over the last month or so. All of these "factors" (emotionally-, spiritually-, and intellectually-related) combined in my brain to create a "perfect storm" of sorts, and I found it necessary to flee from some of the contributing factors (WS was but one) in order to retain my sanity. Remember the ending to the Wizard of Oz? where Dorothy wakes from her dream and states: "But it wasn't a dream. It was a place. And you - and you - and you - and you were there... But you couldn't have been, could you?" I started connecting some of you with people I knew—or knew of—having both good and bad connotations... but having an overall negative result where my sanity was concerned. Because I do not know any of you, I can only react to you as I would characters in a book... And how many times do we not put ourselves in a character's shoes?—or "see" people we know in certain characters? Our words here are words on a page. I wish it were otherwise. I wish you all were more than an idea to me.
I got your most recent emails to me... You mentioned I was perhaps waxing philosophical (not your words)... I am cursed with that tendency to do so! :) To summarize (although I won't say that is all I will have to say), with me, it has always been about PRINCIPLE. Not persons, not politics, not conspiracy, etc., etc. And about the stupid sock puppet... The two things I pointed to are still questionable in my mind, and I'd love to know what the Alice in Wonderland thing means... not to mention the fact that the map I pointed to is still highly suspect in my mind. Someone needs to pull that book off an actual library shelf and take a snapshot of the pages in question to prove to me that it is otherwise. Better yet, I'd like to see it for myself... Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• We do have lack of structure, and we tend to assume the best of everyone, trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I personally considered raising the question of CI at the time, but on examination his yearly was nearly due and the benefit of allow time for CI to respond to questions and to allow for a "cooling off" period seemed best. I assume others had simular thoughts. Silence is often "no" here, it was clear from very early that a number of regular members had not voted support, and that the likely out come would be loss of admin privileges for CI. In any case we do are best to be supportive of fellow volunteers, Including CI who I for one hope will stick around. As for you; welcome back I am glad you did not stay away. As for being offered Admin, by Doug I would be surprised if he was the only one to mention it. You are clearly a prime candidate for the tools. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Not "back" in the usual sense... Right now I'm just in browsing mode trying to figure out where exactly I started going "mad!" ;) Cygnis is a "big boy" who I'm sure will do just fine whatever the results, and who would likely not be one to argue about the democratic process—whatever the outcome—the outcome of which will be as it should be (yea or nay)! As for admin... still "no thank you." :) Gotta run, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
An afterthought: RE: "benefit of the doubt" (I think there's a short story by Jack London with that title?): Because I am a poor judge of character, I am a firm believer in giving the benefit of the doubt to others; but I also like to search matters out for myself before I can believe in something or someone, so I also try to adhere to the phrase "trust but verify!" (whenever possible) :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Re-reading London's work got me thinking: "Benefit of the doubt"—as a legal term—means a "favorable judgment given in the absence of full evidence." (Wiktionary) That leads me to conclude (I could be wrong) that those not willing to give persons the benefit of the doubt must either themselves already know the whole truth (having no reasonable doubt), or else they do not care to know the whole truth... In my opinion, "silence"—in this case—is not a "no vote", but is either an act of ignorance (not in the negative sense), inability/unavailability, cowardice, apathy, unforgiveness, or else conspiracy. An oft mis-attributed quote comes to mind. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

## Mystery of the missing timestamp

Hello Londonjackbooks. I noticed your recent edit summary, "added time/date; for some reason, it wasn't added!?". Three tildes (~~~) expand into your signature without timestamp. :) —Pathoschild 00:52:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

and if you miss it, you can add the timestamp alone with five tildes (~~~~~). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The latest Nancy Drew mystery solved then! :) And go figure... The culprit was me! Thanks, guys :) Londonjackbooks (talk) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

## Boozing ken

Hi, this is a rhyming slang for a pub. You'll find it in Derelict (Allison) as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! So "kens" it is... kens being a "house" (of booze) then... In a 2009(?) 'reprint' of London's "Benefit of the Doubt", they changed "kens" to "dens" ("dens" is actually used once prior to the appearance of "kens" in the short story and once after, which is why I thought it could be a typo in the original)... The Gutenberg version (apparently) shows/ed "dens" as well—as does the Sonoma website (where it states the short story was "First published in The Saturday Evening Post, Nov 12, 1910"; perhaps if I could find that issue, I could know for sure?) but I'll stick with London's 1913 rendering for now. Thanks for looking into that! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking things over—comparing corrections I made to the text when proofreading, I'm thinking the Sonoma version is a copy/paste of the Gutenberg version; or vice-versa. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about this overnight. It would be very unusual for London to have used "dens" twice in the same sentence when referring to different entities. It just wouldn't sit with his literary style. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that insight! I think you're probably right there! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

## Hint

I hesitate to tell you this, ... but I will.

There is a very easy way to make tables. You go to your preferences, to editing, and click on the before-last button. This button gives you what used to be a toolbar, but has been seen as problematic and is now disused. I've heard its also harmful to something to use it, so I only use it to make a table and then turn it off after the table is made. Hope this helps! - Tannertsf (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In your comment above, I note the words "easy", "problematic", "disused", and "harmful". The cons seem to outweigh the pro (singular), so I think I'll do things the "old-fashioned" way! Thanks for the tip, though! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

## Eureka footnote

Hi, I've just seen your comment on the split footnote. This was proofread in the days before the software release allowed us to do the named <ref follow=> technique. CI was doing a workaround, which you can see worked out on the mainspace page. Feel free to go ahead and change it to the new technique. It will make any future transclusions (including make book) much easier to sort. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! :) I don't remember how to do it from memory (technical things escape me, you know...), but I remember doing a lot of it with Coates' brother's work... Have a good one :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a brief summary of the technique at User:Beeswaxcandle/End_of_page_notes#Footnote. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I did something wrong... But give me a minute and I'll figure it out... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
No you haven't. Have a look at how CI did the mainpage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that Cygnis :) ... Should I wait till I'm done validating before I combine everything into one? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
No need to wait. It's the only problem page break and that you've discovered it, you might as well complete the task. It saves remembering to come back to it - and if someone is reading the work in the meantime, it will still be complete. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the direction! Good timing too... calling it a night! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I get snippets of understanding about this work, but for the most part, it is over my head (no pun intended). But the little I do get out of it is/has been rewarding... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

## Index pages for EB1911 available

Thanks I was aware of them. At the moment I am working through a backlog of Wikipedia pages that cite the Wikisource EB1911, the trouble is that may of them need to be attribute the source as they are in part or totally a copy of an EB1911 article on wikisource. Therefore at the moment I do not need to create any EB1911 text on Wikisource -- If I did I would use the link you gave me. At the moment the most useful thing that could be done is to get a bot run over the EB1911 articles to include the volume in the header information as is done (in the for the DNB00 pages). Also for all those pages that do not yet have the page numbers on the left of the text it would be useful to have them in the header information. Without volume and page number[s] present one can not give a full citation to the article. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just briefly read through your comment. You might make the bot request at the Scriptorium (unless there is a better place I'm not aware of to make the request), for I am not familiar with bot use—I do things the slow and laborious way! But if I can help out in any other way with clean-up, please let me know! I am new to the EB1911 project, and have only added less than a handful of articles so far. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks I'll make the request. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

## Through the Looking-Glass

[brought over from Wm Maury Morris II's Talk page, just in case anyone erroneously thinks I was "talking" to myself on my own Talk page ] I started reading the above book. Turns out I have it here at home (Companion Library "topsy-turvy" version)! A few references remind me of an America (band) song, "A Horse with No Name." Funny the connections that are made! :) They're one of my favorite bands from when I was a kid (I was an Air Force brat), but I never "got" the lyrics before... Maybe I still don't, but it's fun trying anyway :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sonja. Around 1993 on Internet, parents and teachers started complaining that there were no websites for children. Because of that many website owners blackened all of their website in protest. I did not want to do that with mine and I understood the situation so I created three websites; Alice In Wonderland, Through The Looking Glass and What Alice found There, and Hunting of the Snark. I used Tenniel's professional images which were only black and white. I colorized each image with Adobe Photoshop and replaced my online black and white images one-by-one with a colored version. It was a wonderful outcome and in came a lot of nice emails. Lewis Carroll did his works in a unique manner in that the story served both adult and child reading. For on e example you have the Lion and the Unicorn wrestling meaning differences between England (Lion) and Scotland(Unicorn). Another scene has Alice being taken from place to place. That was a professional world class chess game in reality for adults but also served as fanciful reading for children. There is the Red Queen opposed to the White Queen. The field that is shown is in reality a chessboard. Note that the grass is dark and light squares—colored as mid-green and light green by me. The man in the coach wearing a "newspaper" suit is Benjamin Disraeli of England—and on it goes, everything with a "double-meaning." The works are more complicated that what meets the eye. They are not simply stories for children. It was fun creating these works in my coloring. Meanwhile others continued to argue about webpages needed for children and some, like me, focused upon creating. Anyone can argue or be destructive. The real test is not to argue and not to be destructive but rather to be constructive. Regarding music, I could never pick out a favorite. It varies from time to time and basically I can "get into" any genre. I was never a "brat"<smile> Best regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II Talk 18:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping you didn't need to know how to play chess to read the story... I'll be reading it as a child, then! :) but I fear I will also miss much in the process...? I don't know if I was a "brat" in the literal sense... but the members of the band America were also Air Force "kids" whose fathers were stationed in England when they started playing music together... Gotta run, but I'll look into your above reply more deeply in a bit! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I would have to know the exact definition in your words as to what a "brat" is. My father's (S/Sgt)leather army belt from World War II kept me fairly well in check but I was still very defiant. I eventually cut it up into many very small pieces, hammered the buckle to a flattened piece of useless metal, boxed it all up in a water-proof manner, and threw the thing in the creek when it was heavily flooding and challenged him to a belt fight after I came out of the military. He was a very strong man! But so am I. I always knew, as a teen, he would get older as would I but he would get weaker as he got older and I would be stronger and able to defend myself. I *hated* that belt but I loved my precious father as more years passed. He was right in using that belt on me but I did not understand that when I was young.) I volunteered for the military after 1 year of university (so sis could go to the university; money problems for my parent's to send 2 kids to a university) and went back to the university (G I Bill, student work-study; construction work, &c) after the military and earned my Ph.D. Those days of being a "brat", as I understand the word, are long ago are over for me. In my thinking, these days,a "brat" is a little kid's—or teenager's—negative attitude and actions which is often considered normal. You don't need to know how to play chess (I know how) to enjoy that work but at least look at the names of the pieces like "knight" who Alice meets as he is leaning against a fence. I *love* illustrated works. "What good is a book without pictures and conversations?" asked Alice. I doubt that is the exact quote but it is close. It has been decades since I read those three works. Kind regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II Talk 20:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I tried to find your 3 Carroll sites (w/ pictures) that you mentioned, but couldn't find them... I guess "brat" (in the literal sense) is relative... I talked back quite a bit, but mostly "rebelled" via voluntary solitary confinement where I would draw, mostly... Reading came much later. Understanding what I read is still a work-in-progress (I'll try to look closely at the names and characters, etc. as I read through the Looking-Glass.) Understanding people and human nature remains mostly a mystery! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Those three websites, and several others, are long gone. Circa 1996 I removed the websites because my ISP, that my son (I have 3 sons) owned, sold his ISP to a telephone company. My works of long ago are just archived away. I just did a search and found some thing but I won't place them all here. Use Google and do a search for William Maury Morris to find my works. Here are two sites of ye olden daze I found:

• [[5] An old webpage of mine for Alice in Wonderland. The colored images were not on this page yet because I started studing something else related to the story.
I have done the same with regard to Mrs. Coates' writing & letters... Back in March of 2010, I accessed some letters written by Mrs. Coates to Amy Cheney Beach. In one of the letters, written on 28 March 1907, Mrs. Coates comments about the "Eames-Storys", and how unfortunate a situation it was, as "our life here is for such a little while." Not having been familiar with the "Eames-Story" story (and still not sufficiently enough, but it doesn't matter), I started looking into it... But what I chose to come away with was the exhortation present in Mrs. Coates' comment to Mrs. Beach (and how I choose to "remember" Mrs. Coates). Life is too short to not spend it wisely! I will also note that there is no underlining present in that particular letter to Mrs. Beach :) Be Well, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• [6] Someone's website with comments about my 3 websites with many images (approx 200 images). quote: "Another Lewis Carroll Home Page--William Maury Morris II has both Alice In Wonderland, and Alice Through the Looking-Glass here along with Teniel illustrations that he colorized and made look very wonderful. If you want to relive the great experience of Alice or have never read the books before, this a great place to do it!"

Oh! The story behind the Cheshire cat is fantastic! It's body disappears tail first leaving the smile for last. This was done in England by a local baker for the kids. They would slice the cake in sections starting with the tail and eat the last piece, the smile, last. The idea was employed in Lewis Carrol's writing. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 21:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I did come across links 1 & 2... but I was mostly wanting to see your Alice (Tenniel) image edits that you spoke of. But I guess they would have gone away with the websites then?... About to surrender the computer helm for now... Be Well! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In case you are very interested:

[7] Category John Tenniel.

• John Tenniel's illustrations of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
• John Tenniel's illustrations of Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There.

"Alice in Wonderland" is easier to understand than "Through the Looking-Glass" if you are not familiar with chess pieces and how each piece is allowed to be moved. Project Gutenberg probably has all of the text and the images to both stories. Enjoy! —William Maury Morris II Talk 22:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any of these anywhere (to which I was referring)!?
"I colorized each image with Adobe Photoshop and replaced my online black and white images one-by-one with a colored version."
"Note that the grass is dark and light squares—colored as mid-green and light green by me."
"It was fun creating these works in my coloring."

Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See my statement above— Those three websites, and several others, are long gone. Circa 1996 I removed the websites because....William Maury Morris II Talk 07:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Got it! :) Wondering if I ought to follow suit...? But only I can answer that... Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

## Periodicals, article titles, organization, etc.

Hi, I gladly offer you the benefit of my experience in organizing PSM (for what it's worth), and keeping the records of the titles for the purpose of generating lists as I have been doing for PSM. With some minor adjustments, my database program is adaptable to any periodical. — Ineuw talk 23:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Billinghurst had mentioned that "I think that the work that has been done by Ineuw on PSM has stepped through the sorts of issues that come up", which is why I "knocked." What are you referring to when you say "keeping the records of the titles for the purpose of generating lists"? Can you point me to something? Also, I am beginning to think I might be taking on more than I should, since I still have much more Coates reworking to do... My sole reason for wanting to "clean up" periodical titles, etc., is so I can selfishly add Coates mags works to the fold and link to the periodicals from the Coates magazine table I am building. But I do not want to be overwhelmed by more work than I should... nor take my eyes off the Prize—i.e., compiling Coates/Coates-related works here—which was my original intent and Purpose for being here... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
In that case, don't take on more work unless you know what you are getting into. Each project is a full time commitment. In the beginning on WS, I felt like a kid in a candy store, and wanted to do everything, and learned nothing of substance. Then, a year ago, I decided to drop additional projects until I made a significant progress on PSM. Periodicals are like a compilations of many little books. Each with it's own TOC, indexes and additional vagaries due to pressures of time limitations - like getting a May issue out in May. :-).
As for my offer, it would require text list of the publication months, article titles, serial articles of multiple parts, authors, the .djvu and page numbers. I then import into a small database which is like a spreadsheet, and standardize the text formats like capitalization if any, check for numbering duplications and textual errors. From this, I generate a Table of contents, an authors' list, and link and verify the index at the back of the publication - all wiki encoded. However, PSM has no Table of contents, so this is what started me on it. These are the elements I would check first and the database keeps my work consistent.
You can see the results in the following pages:
Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1
Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/Index
Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Authors A to D
Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Multiple part articles 1

Ineuw talk 05:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the above... I'll take a closer look at it tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I have reminded myself that my "original intent and purpose" for being here (as stated above) was actually self-promotion; while not in any spammy sort of way, but self-promoting nevertheless... That was thankfully put into check by admin diligence pretty much from the get-go, and I appreciate it. My Purpose has evolved gradually since then, and will hopefully continue to (in a positive way) with guidance :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

## The_Female_Prose_Writers_of_America:_With_Portraits,_Biographical_Notices,_and_Specimens_of_their_Writings/Maria_J._McIntosh

Hi. I saw that you converted quotation marks to straight quotes. Not 100% sure but I guess that it was intentional to use curly quotes. See e.g. pages after the ones that you validated. Also noticed that someone else specifically edit to use curly quotes ([8]). Bye --Mpaa (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you... I asked ResidentScholar about that earlier today. Until recently, I haven't done much validating of other people's work, and I wasn't aware until today that "curlyquotes" were the standard... I have been using the keyboard button my whole time here (take a look at my edits). That is a nice quotation you pointed me to. I have always said and acted as such in my marriage, and am comforted that God knows our hearts when all others can do is take our word for it, and is with us every step of the way as we live and move and have our being. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that "curlyquotes" are the standard. I tried to search for some style guide but coud not find anything except that they are not recommended on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks). I very seldom see them used. I never use them but that does not mean anything, I do not consider myself the standard :-)
Might be question for Scriptorium ... --Mpaa (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I received some guidance on it a long while back with regard to quotation mark use with one of Mrs. Coates' poems, but I'd have to do some digging... If I remember correctly, the guidance I received was to not use fancy quotation marks. I had asked, because the quotation marks had to be necessarily large to fit the formatting (the q.m.'s began the first line of a poem which used a large drop-initial), and I remember saying how ugly the keyboard-generated marks looked, and I wanted to use fancier ones... but was told it would be better not to... I'll try to find it. The fact that it is a large drop-initial might narrow it down some... Thanks for looking it up in the style guide, etc. for me at any rate... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the poem and reference point... I'll look up my contributions for that time frame and see if I can find the dialogue. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know... looks like I went from regular to curly and not the opposite... I can't find any Talk page mention of it during the March 2010 time period, but I didn't look all that closely... Anyway,— Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

## Searching for something interesting to proofread

Hi. First, I wish you and your family a happy Thanksgiving. Of all the people I know on WS, you're the only one that I am sure of celebrating tonight. :-)

Regarding our conversation on my talk page about something interesting to do, very belatedly, it occurred to me that you would like working with our little tribe of three on PSM. In any case you are most welcome and we would be honored to have you work with us. The wage is way below the minimum, but think of all the fun you would have.

When I said that PSM is not a literary magazine, I wasn't trying to discourage you, it's just that I assumed that's where your focus is. The magazine does have some literary component, but its main focus is popularizing everything related to 19th century science and technology and cater it to the emerging literates.

The best place to start is by browsing through the categorized articles HERE. The categories were my selections, and then created some when sufficient number of articles justified a category. The articles are mostly NOT proofread, with the exception of the article title page, pages with images and pages that contain tables. Also, for the time being, article categorization ended with volume 37.

Personally, while my interest is wide, I tend to lean towards an author's style, rather than the topic. There are scientific articles which are written exquisitely, keeping the layman's interest, and then the reverse is true about others authored by boring academics.

In any case, whatever you decide, I gladly offer any help when it's needed. Happy Thanksgiving. — Ineuw talk 03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not wanting your post to have been in vain, I just wanted to say thanks for the above info., and for the Thanksgiving wishes. For now, my activity here will likely be sparse and random. Your above suggestions are however appreciated. Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

## National Archives ExtravaSCANza

Hey, I was happy to see you back when we had the DC meetup. I just realized that you are not on the invite list for Wikipedians I was using, so I just wanted to make sure you saw this. Hope you can make it! Dominic (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

## talk page

[This was brought from my talk page -William Maury Morris II]

14 Question

I noticed here where User:William Maury Morris proofreads a page, and William Maury Morris—as Brother Officer—validates the same page? Is that now accepted practice? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

   Angel-Princess, Observer-Goodheart, you should take what you notice about so many people to an administrator for verification. But I would guess it would not matter if it were two different people. Perhaps it does not matter if it were one or more people as long as wrongs were not being done. Did you tire of e-mailing me? I haven't looked back there since your last message and I want that to stop. I am not contacting you but you are contacting me and now here. Go in peace and let it stay that way. I am not interested in communicating with you in any manner whether in my email or here. Go collect information from and on others for whatever your reasons—or work on wiki projects which is best of all. As some would say, "Cheers!" —William Maury Morris II Talk 07:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

   BTW, you didn't just "notice", I told you that was my other account sometime back in my email reply to you about people you were asking questions and being suspicious of so many people. I have all of my older accounts openly listed as I moved from one to the other. Since my wife is here in the hospital with a stroke my sons and their families are here in this state taking turns assisting in proof-reading. Go do something positive and quit being suspicious about people, Sonja. —William Maury Morris II Talk 07:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

       What was "noticed" was not the [Brother Officer] user name, but the fact that the user name was used to validate a page proofread by the same person "behind" the user name. If that was another family member using your account, then my apologies; I would not have been able to intuit that. By the way, I have only edited here as Londonjackbooks, with the exception of the admitted Supernova hiccup. If that can't be proven technically, then I am at least satisfied that God knows it. My initial email to you (21 December 2011; 6:56am) was with regard to your deletion of my edits from Billinghurst's Talk page—which I was curious about. You answered my question, I answered back, etc., with the last exchange being from you on December 26 (7:43pm)—which I never answered in reply. I have no tangible reason to be "suspicious" of you; I will oblige you, however, in not communicating with you further. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sonja, (or should one use your full name and cox e-mail address?) I am not interested in any suspicious you may have about people or whether your intuit was right or wrong. I also accept your apologies on that. I am also not interested in any aliases you use. As for God, HE knows us all, not just what you think and do. I do thank you for stating you will oblige me in not communicating with me further because the useless chatter fills up my talk page. Vaya con Dios, —William Maury Morris II Talk 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

### For context

How William Maury Morris' Talk page read as of 09:21, 21 January 2012before the above info was transferred to my Talk page by Mr. Morris: Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

## Question

I noticed here where User:William Maury Morris proofreads a page, and William Maury Morris—as Brother Officer—validates the same page? Is that now accepted practice? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Angel-Princess, Observer-Goodheart, you should take what you notice about so many people to an administrator for verification. But I would guess it would not matter if it were two different people. Perhaps it does not matter if it were one or more people as long as wrongs were not being done. Did you tire of e-mailing me? I haven't looked back there since your last message and I want that to stop. I am not contacting you but you are contacting me and now here. Go in peace and let it stay that way. I am not interested in communicating with you in any manner whether in my email or here. Go collect information from and on others for whatever your reasons—or work on wiki projects which is best of all. As some would say, "Cheers!" —William Maury Morris II Talk 07:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW, you didn't just "notice", I told you that was my other account sometime back in my email reply to you about people you were asking questions and being suspicious of so many people. I have all of my older accounts openly listed as I moved from one to the other. Since my wife is here in the hospital with a stroke my sons and their families are here in this state taking turns assisting in proof-reading. Go do something positive and quit being suspicious about people, Sonja. —William Maury Morris II Talk 07:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
What was "noticed" was not the [Brother Officer] user name, but the fact that the user name was used to validate a page proofread by the same person "behind" the user name. If that was another family member using your account, then my apologies; I would not have been able to intuit that. By the way, I have only edited here as Londonjackbooks, with the exception of the admitted Supernova hiccup. If that can't be proven technically, then I am at least satisfied that God knows it. My initial email to you (21 December 2011; 6:56am) was with regard to your deletion of my edits from Billinghurst's Talk page—which I was curious about. You answered my question, I answered back, etc., with the last exchange being from you on December 26 (7:43pm)—which I never answered in reply. I have no tangible reason to be "suspicious" of you; I will oblige you, however, in not communicating with you further. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

### Correction to above (14:21, 21 January 2012) post by me—which was originally posted to WMMII's Talk page until it was moved here to my talk page

I stated above that the last email exchange was from WMMII on Dec 26 @7:43pm. That is incorrect. I did answer Mr. Morris' email on December 27th @7:07am. That was the last exchange. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Context

Thanks for picking up that misattribution: an embarrassing error that had survived an embarrassingly long time.

It might amuse you to know that this error is now enshrined in an actual book. There are certain unscrupulous "publishers" out there who mindlessly scrape free web content, pull it together into book form, and then try to sell that book to unsuspecting buyers. Such a publisher has done so with Wikisource's collection of Longfellow works; thus will find Sir Galahad proudly occupying a place in a book entitled Works of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, here.

Hesperian 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That is amusing! I suppose such errors have been made in "scrupulously" published works as well... These days of self-publication, however, particularly lends itself perhaps to even more errors being made... But public domain is public domain—errors and all (let the buyer beware!), and many people are trying to "scrape" by. We'll never know who has the right intentions—all we can do is make sure ours are true! :) Thanks, and have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Heh. Thankyou for that well-deserved lesson in humility. Hesperian 13:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It's only on my mind constantly, as I have to reteach it to myself every day! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

## Greek text

Hi. You might be interested in this link [9] for typing Greek characters. Antother tip is search and copy Greek WS once you have identified the basic letters to find the right accents … Bye --Mpaa (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted. And thank you for your recent help on Genius pages as well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Mpaa,—Middle names go on the same line as last names on Author pages? Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is "Yes" "No". The reason is that in {{Author}}, when "defaultsort" is not specified, sorting is done based on "lastname, firstname". If you put the 2nd name in lastname line, it will sort by 2nd name and not lastname. Bye --Mpaa (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Or vice-versa... I am dense, and fear I always shall be... Better for everyone (including myself)! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops, you're not alone :-) See strike-through. Middle names do not go on the same line as last names. Guess it is time to log-off for me?!--Mpaa (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If that were the standard, then there'd be no one left to do all the work that needs to be done around here! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

## William Snow

Congratulations on finding the elusive W. Snow. I kept trying but I could never find any matches myself. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As ambiguous as the name is, I could still be wrong... But I think the Oxford connection—and the fact that "William Snow" is primarily listed as "W. Snow" in Google Books searches put it in his favor (at least for me). Time will tell! Thanks for your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

## Underhill?

I reverted your change to Author:Evelyn Underhill. Is there any proof that Underhill is a pseudonym used by Stuart Moore rather than being the wife of Stuart Moore? —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak... I could do some more digging/Googling to compare and contrast other sources... Or else you may! Thanks for pointing it out, however. It's good to make sure info like that is cited/sourced correctly. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That says "Mrs. Stuart Moore ("Evelyn Underhill")". That's not saying that Evelyn Underhill is a pen name for Stuart Moore, it's saying the wife of Stuart Moore writes as Evelyn Underhill. There are plenty of sources (see Wikipedia) for the fact that her husband was not interested in spiritual matters in the same way she was. She is Mrs. Stuart Moore in the same way that Hillary Clinton is "Mrs. Bill Clinton". That's not the same as saying Hillary Clinton is Bill Clinton! —Tom Morris (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Your point (or argument) reminds me of something my son might say to "trip me up", so to speak... Although I am sure that is not what you had in mind to do here! As he can be quite the wordsmith at times, he often confuses me with how he words things. As my mind is currently a muddle, I will leave the answering of Mr. Morris' question to anyone more apt who would like to tackle answering it! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It's really not like this forum to leave a question unanswered... I really don't want to have to use my brain this morning! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think Tom is right. Although I don't have any knowledge of Underhill or Moore, it is or was quite common to refer to a woman by her husband's name. I mention this as I've had a hard time tracking down some names for authors credited in this way; most recently "Mrs. D. Giraud Wright", aka Louise Wigfall Wright. Creating that author page reminded me about this discussion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't think I ever argued that particular fact... There was something else in Mr. Morris' comments above that messed with my brain. If I feel up to using a particular cerebral hemisphere (whichever one it is) later today, I'll try to sort it out... Sometimes the {{gap}} between the two is difficult for me to traverse! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Was it because the linked text put Evelyn Underhill in quotes? (ie. Mrs. Stuart Moore ("Evelyn Underhill") and the Westminster Gazette.) That would normally imply a fake name, but in this case it seems to be providing the real name of the author. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup! Probably as simple as that! But it was also something I came across when Google Books-ing that threw me. Tried to just now find the reference, but couldn't... But I came across the following which I thought was worded funny: "The work of Mrs. Stuart Moore and Miss Evelyn Underhill was combined in a quiet round of daily activities. In the morning Evelyn supervised the work of two servants and then began her writing about ten o'clock. She continued to work through early afternoon. Every day she had tea with her mother who lived around the corner on Campden Hill..." But that is probably just referring to her wearing of "two hats" during the course of a day (I assume). Ok... I think I'm good now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
OK... Mr. Morris wrote the following: That says "Mrs. Stuart Moore ("Evelyn Underhill")". That's not saying that Evelyn Underhill is a pen name for Stuart Moore... I think Mr. Morris meant to say "pen name for Mrs. Stuart Moore." For I did not think "Evelyn Underhill" was a pen name for the Mr. (did something I wrote/write? leave that impression?)... That might have thrown me as well—trying to figure out what Mr. Morris might have thought I was thinking... Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait... I might take all that back... Back to the drawing board for me... See why I didn't want to get into this?! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
And then it may be just as simple as my accidentally leaving out the "Mrs." in the Author page header description... The world may never know! Granted, however, I agree that "Evelyn Underhill" is not a pseudonym, but Mrs. Stuart Moore's given name. Done —I think! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

## April's Proofread of the Month

Hi, I'm thinking ahead to the next Proofread and intend to propose a poetry month. Billinghurst has already suggested a collection of "favourite Scots songs ancient and modern" collected by Burns. Do you have any suggestions? I presume that you don't want us to do any Coates as they're a personal project. But is there something we should have that we don't?

By the way, I'm addressing you here because this persona is the poet. If you'd prefer me to use the other, just let me know. I'm happy to fit in. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning, Beeswaxcandle! Even though Mrs. Coates' works are "pet projects" of mine, I would never be against their being worked on as a community project; but they have all already reached at least Proofread status. If there's any more by her out there that I am unaware of, now THAT would be a treat! Otherwise, anything Billinghurst would suggest would probably go over well with me... He knows how to pick 'em. I would be interested especially in his choice of poetry, however, for I am under the impression that he has somewhat of an aversion to the genre . Thanks for asking, and either persona will work—and write poetry (albeit sparingly—and only when inspired)... <thinking sans rocking> Actually, a recent visit to Robert Service's author page, come to think of it, came up wanting yesterday... His works were recommended to me years ago by a friend who knew I liked Jack London's work... But I wouldn't know which volume(s) to recommend... Again, Thanks for asking! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll have a look at Service and see what I can find. The Burns' book might not be long enough, so I'm looking for a couple of others. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh... I meant to also ask... Was it you who added the em- and en-dash icons to my editing toolbar? If so, would you mind doing likewise for my other persona?—er, account? :) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Done . What I did was copy them from your LJB vector.js and then paste them into your new common.js. If you want them I have a few other similar buttons for the æ & œ ligatures and the £ sign. Just copy them from the bottom of User:Beeswaxcandle/monobook.js and paste on the bottom of User:SonjaNBohm/common.js. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks on both counts, and Cheers to you too. Have a good one! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I don't use ligatures enough to warrant placing them in a prominent position; and I don't think I'll ever have any use for the £ ;) Thanks though! :)
• Beeswaxcandle, Do you have a link to the Burns collection? Is it this text? If so, It's pretty long actually—lookin' like a 2-Volumer too... May take a whole month after all! Sounds good to me... AKA Londonjackbooks 18:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Nevermind... I see it's a different one that Billinghurst had in mind... AKA Londonjackbooks 18:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

## Perhaps this will help

From Brother Officer talk page:

Quote:

==The mysterious Header toggle button ==

When proofreading in the Page: namespace and one has their toolbar turned on [Gadgets | Editing (tab) | Editing toolbar (checkbox)], one will see the button , and clicking it toggles the header/footer on and off. In this space we put the relevant components for top and bottoms of pages, usually by use of the template {{RunningHeader}}, so for example {{RunningHeader|Stanhope|3|Stanhope}} produces

 Stanhope Stanhope 3

I personally have my header/footer set to open in the Page: namespace and I achieved this by activating that option in my Gadgets. To also note that at this time, the use of the newer Wikieditor toolbar (Editing tab in My preferences) does not yet display all the tools that we utilise for proofreading. If you turn it off in your preferences you access the older toolbar and more editing options. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no use to toggle that button. If anything it is confusing because it isn't needed. I think it should be deleted and something better can be placed in that spot. I too am now doing as you have taught me. I have the system set to show the header and footer every time. I thank you, Billinghurst, you always come through to assist others and there is great honor in that. Respectfully, —Brother OfficerTalk 05:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll sort through all of the above in a bit. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Billinghurst's tip above ("I personally have my header/footer set to open in the Page: namespace and I achieved this by activating that option in my Gadgets.") did the trick (My preferences / Gadgets / Editing tools for Page: namespace / [check] Show header and footer fields when editing in the Page namespace). Thanks for the toss, Mr. Morris... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It was a toss to me and I am glad I could toss it on to someone else. Sorry about my toss looking so messy but I just copy/pasted it as it was. —William Maury Morris II Talk 12:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No problemo... Or is it sin problemo? I forget... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think what you have used was meant to be funny in one of the "Terminator" series. Arnold S. said it. I am not positive but I think it is, No es una problema. (It is not a problem) —William Maury Morris II Talk 13:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you could be right! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

## Existing work that needs love

Gday LJB. I have stumbled over The Complete Poems of Emily Brontë that is neither in one form or another, and could do with some love. To me it looks as though we should be shifting all the existing works to be subpages of the work, with redirects from top, and there seems to be a good need for standardisation, and the adding of next links, etc. to give the work some flow. If you don't get to it, that is okay, I cannot give the time to it at the moment, and it won't go anywhere in the interim. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Billinghurst. I don't mind taking a look at it when I get a good chunk of time... These author's works have come so far, so good, and they deserve to be represented and preserved as such. Thanks for the toss; I'll give it the consideration of at least a facelift, and perhaps a bit more TLC than that if I see a need! Have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

## Double redirects

Hi, hope all is well...

Just not sure if its OK to "fix" these yet 'cause my gut is telling me things are still in a bit of flux at the moment. Should I just leave these to you to straighten-out? Its about 3 days before the next list so you'll have plenty of time. If not - let me know here. Thanx. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

All is well, and same to you. Thanks for the link to the double redirects; I think I saved that link somewhere on one of my subpages... Still trying to get the double redirect thing straight. I know what it is practically, but as I move pages and redirect pages, I am never sure at what point I will be creating a double redirect. Must be a left-brain/right-brain thing! I'll take a look at them soon. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem, though sooner would be better than later -- there is a busybody BOT that comes through here whenever it feels like it and can make fixes contrary to what is ultimately desired (i.e. deletes stuff) by an actual contributor such as yourself.
A double-redirect occurs when you move the same content twice (or more) without either asking for a speedy delete or making a dated soft redirect of the very first title ever created at the point in time of the first move.
Basically, the DR list has at least three entries for an article in "hazard" - the very last at the far right being the actual base page holding the content. Only the title to immediate left of that very last far right title has the proper redirect path. Every other title to the left of that once removed title needs to be corrected to point to the very last far right title to match. (Hope that wasn't too confusing). -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Done And as far as being confusing: The great thing about putting things down on "paper" is that you can review it later for clarification. The same can not always be said about the spoken word (unless it is recorded, of course). I prefer the former. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

## The closest thing to poetry in PSM

Hi. I thought that this article may be of interest for you. — Ineuw talk 18:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's would also help if I include the link:

Popular Science Monthly/Volume 4/December 1873/Tennyson and BotanyIneuw talk 18:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When I get the chance, I'll validate as I read through. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Done , Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It's I who thank you. Didn't mean to distract you and validate. Just remembered our conversation awhile back about proofreading PSM and it's lack of fine prose and poetry. This is all I found that may have been of interest to you. :-) — Ineuw talk 23:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It was no distraction... I just can't see 'wasting' a read if I can kill two birds with one stone and validate at the same time! Perhaps you missed the fine piece on Charles Darwin, poetry & science...? Still in need of validation! Have a good week, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
You are very funny. :-) I am nowhere near volume 74. I partially completed (the article titles, authors, TOC, volume indexes, main namespace titles, images, and tables), up to volume 50. now I am working on proofreading volume 6 ... 7 ... probably until volume 10. Then, I return to volume 51 and restart the above perhaps to volume 92, which was the last of Matt's original upload. Thus, I balance the work to keep things interesting.
On a related subject, do you recall our "conversation" about volume 75 of PSM? We didn't include it yet because of the missing photos. (The drawings are there). I remember your mentioning that you saw a version with the images included. Do you recall where you saw it? Below is the link from Internet Archive Volume 75 page 56 with the missing photo. I just wanted to show you how it looks with the missing photo. if you remember where you saw it, could you please advise? Many thanks. — Ineuw talk 00:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I remember the conversation... I believe I found the volume at Google Books, but am not 100% sure. I can double-check tomorrow. Signing off for tonight! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Google-searched with text from volume: "jaw with a tooth from any other one" came up with: this!? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

## Request

Hi, you may remember our little chat. If so, can I ask you to give me a hand with translation? I know that you do not speak Russian, but I think you will still be able to help me. --Kaidor (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What are you looking to do? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
If you are not in principle against it, then I'll write a letter with giving an account of the problem and how you can help with it. --Kaidor (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I can neither be for nor against it unless I know what "it" is. If it is within the scope of Wikisource policy/guidelines, then you can possibly bring light to the problem at the Scriptorium (WS Central discussion). Many helpful editors there too! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask for explanation of some words and phrases that aren't contained in any dictionary. And you're the only native speaker of English whom I know little. But I understand your concerns (some obscure Russian asks for some obscure things), so I can write them right here. --Kaidor (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
That would be fine, and I hope I can help... It may reveal my ignorance of my own language, however! :) Fire away... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! So…
1. We had no sooner let-go the anchor than we were environed with canoes, laden with poultry, pigs, tarro, yams, bananas, cocoa-nuts, via apples and oranges. (From there) Why «via»? What means this «via» here?
2. The weather was fine, the wind  fair, and, with studding sails set on either side, — below  and aloft, — our good ship, like a thing of life, bounded  onward, as eager to reach home as were her jolly crew.  (From there)
3. They danced the fandango to the tunes  played on the guitar, while others were drinking their  orgedent, singing, gambling, swearing, laughing, fighting,  and begging. (From there)
4. In fact, Jack says they are lop-sided  and out of kilter altogether. (From there)
5. Our mess bill, which we received at the end  of each month, read as follows: "Tea, sugar, tobacco,  mustard, pepper, bees-wax, soap, white and black thread,  thimbles, scissors, palms, large and small needles, dead- eye buttons, tin pots, tin pans, tin spoons." (From there)
6. They sit upon mats  spread on the earth-floor, both sexes cross-legged, and  "sail right in."  (From there)

That's all for the time being. --Kaidor (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A start... Other WS users, please chime in if you can contribute where I am unable!

1. "via" usually means through or by way of; I'm not sure how one can be "environed with canoes, laden with poultry [& etc., by way of] apples and oranges." My dictionary at home doesn't give another use.
2. "like a thing of life" just means that the ship resembled a living thing based on its "behavior" (i.e., "bounding onward", etc.), seemingly "as eager to reach home as her ... crew."
3. I can not find your exact word; In my dictionary I found the word "orgeat", but I don't know if the two are related. Orgeat is "a non-alcoholic drink prepared from the sweetened juice of almonds and other flavorings usually served cold..." Not knowing if you can separate orge from dent, but dent has to do with the teeth. Bottom line, I don't know about this one other than it is a drink made of ??? and it is either alcoholic or not, I don't know...
4. Kilter means "good working condition" or "aligned". Out of kilter means that it is not in good working condition; or not operating as it should, etc.
5. a) One definition of "palm" in my dictionary is "a piece of leather or heavy canvas fitted to the palm of the hand as protection when sewing heavy materials (as harness leather or a sail) by hand..." That is probably the correct reference within the context of your sentence above. b) a "dead-eye button" is "a rounded wood block that is encircled by a rope or iron band and pierced with holes to receive the lanyard and is used to set up shrouds and stays and for other purposes."
6. "Sail right in" might be similar to another expression, to "dig in"—or to "have at it"... In other words, to hastily help themselves to the food, without waiting.

One User who comes to mind that might be of more help with your questions is User:Beeswaxcandle. Or anyone else who might come across this post... Hope I have helped some! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very mach! It all has been explained to me at least. But I don't quite understand what means «Out of kilter» in that text towards the women. Does it mean that they had bad figures or they was crippled or something else? --Kaidor (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the context, it seems they are indeed speaking about the women's physical features ("round-shouldered, knock-kneed, bow-legged", etc.) Are you translating Twenty Years before the Mast into Russian or another language? or is this just for your own edification? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course I'm translating it into Russian, for the purpose of creating the article about US Ex Ex in the Russian Wikipedia, and at the same time this work helps me to improve (very slowly, as you can see) my English. :) --Kaidor (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple of notes on the things that LJB wasn't sure of. "via apples" is a wrong plural form of "vi-apple". It would normally just be "vi-apples". A vi-apple is the fruit of Spondias dulcis. It's larger than an apple and the rind tastes of turpentine but the flesh has a pineapple flavour.

I can't find anything definite about "orgedent", but we (a couple of botanist friends and I) suspect this is an alcoholic/hallucinogenic drink brewed from cactus juice. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

## Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Base Pages

It's not necessary to keep these lists up to date. The plan is to periodically generate either a list of new works since the last list, or an updated list, or both. --Eliyak T·C 23:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I 'moved' a page, and the Maintenance of the Month page came up as containing a link to the old title. I wasn't sure if the update would be necessary, but I thought better safe than sorry. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

## Seven Seas

Do you think we should be wrapping the poem titles in no include? They are in the header at the section parameter and it seems a little repetitive to me. What do you think?--BirgitteSB 03:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you mean... But bottom line, it's how it's transcluded into the Main that counts, and the title should be transcluded along with the poem—as it is in the original. If I'm not getting what you're saying, would it be too much trouble to rephrase your question? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you are saying "no"', but I will try and clarify what I am seeing. The Seven Seas/A Song of the English In the header it reads bottom center A Song of the English and then the next thing you read is A Song of the English. I am thinking it would be better to only read this once. But it is only a slight preference and I would not mind skipping the title in the section parameter and leaving the transcluded version instead of my first suggestion.--BirgitteSB 03:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess I was saying "No" :) If one instance had to be eliminated (which I don't believe it does/should), I would opt for the instance in the header vice in the body. My opinion. But as a standard, I usually defer to those who know better ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem with having it in the header only is that it then goes missing when the work is exported to ePub or pdf for use on an eReader. The headers are only used for reading here on WS. The header parameters are used for various WS things. As a result I think titles should be in both places. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

## Accounting

Hello again, hope this finds you & your's well....

I see you've come to a decision to go with just this account and apparently can't stop yourself from the temptation to log in under the other one on your own. Not sure a "speedy deletion" is the right route to accomplish this. I think the best thing to do would be to consult one of the 'crats (Bridgett or Hesperian) on the approved way to abandon a declared alternate account. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Only need one account. Easier on the brain. I'll ask Hesperian. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

## EDWARD COATE PINKNEY

[[10]]EDWARD COATE PINKNEY ("COATE") William Maury Morris II (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

## An upcoming change to poem tags

Hi, there's been an announcement on the Scriptorium about a small change to the way poem tags deal with indenting. I know you don't usually use them, but thought you would be interested. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and don't understand what is meant exactly... but I'll play around with the poem tag/colon use come Sept. 19th or so and see what happens. If I'm still clueless, I'll knock on someone's door. Thank you for the heads up! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Width size reduced to see wrapping effect
Colon use wrapped in poem tag Colon use not wrapped in poem tag Using poem tag & 'simple spaces' (not colons) Using breaks and gaps (not colons) Using breaks & emsp (not colons)
 ALL are not strangers whom we so misname: Man's free-born spirit, which no rule can tame, Careless of time, o'er vasty distance led, Still finds its own where alien altars flame, Still greets its own amongst the deathless dead!
 ALL are not strangers whom we so misname: Man's free-born spirit, which no rule can tame, Careless of time, o'er vasty distance led, Still finds its own where alien altars flame, Still greets its own amongst the deathless dead!
 ALL are not strangers whom we so misname: Man's free-born spirit, which no rule can tame,      Careless of time, o'er vasty distance led, Still finds its own where alien altars flame,      Still greets its own amongst the deathless dead!
 ALL are not strangers whom we so misname: Man's free-born spirit, which no rule can tame,  Careless of time, o'er vasty distance led, Still finds its own where alien altars flame,  Still greets its own amongst the deathless dead!
 ALL are not strangers whom we so misname: Man's free-born spirit, which no rule can tame,   Careless of time, o'er vasty distance led, Still finds its own where alien altars flame,   Still greets its own amongst the deathless dead!
Fails copy/paste test Do not use Passes copy/paste test Poor copy/paste test (renders single-space indent) Passes copy/paste test

## Declined speedy delete

Hi, I've declined the speedy delete for Song (Brontë) because there is still a link to Poems by Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell and I'm not sure where you're headed with it, so I can't resolve the link. All the others are done. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. That particular "Song" begins with the line, "The linnet in the rocky dells" which we have hosted here under a different source text (The Complete Poems of Emily Brontë). I'll link to the alternate source (other of Emily's poems on the Currier, Ellis, etc. page are linked to Complete Poems), but really,—it/they should probably be redlinked to their own source. Maybe I'll get around to that some time. Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

## spelling

LondonJackBooks, I offer my sincere apology for the misspelling of Allan as Poe's middle name. I have a brother-in-law whose name is Allen so I guess that is where I get "Allen". Anyhow, thank you and continue to watch for my misspellings in that area in the future. Kind regards, —William Maury Morris IITalk 21:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Done it myself. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

## request

Londonjackbooks, would you please provide a/some entrie/s on Coates for "This Date in History"? You have good materials and it perhaps can promote what you like which may cause others to see, read, and become an admirer of that authoress. I ask, in part, because I like the works myself -- but I know where to look for them. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris IITalk 21:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll give it some thought. Feel free to add anything yourself that you may like; it's there free for the taking. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

## A couple of new templates that may be useful

Hi, User:T. Mazzei has been busily creating some new templates. A couple of them I thought you may be interested in: {{Center block}}, {{Left block}} and {{Right block}}. These use a different way of blocking text than do {{Block center}} &c. As a result they may behave better for some of your applications. They can probably also be used within tables as they don't create tables themselves. He hasn't got as far as doing /s & /e versions, but if they work they way I think they will, you may not need these. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
First thing I notice (see) is too much space between lines—at least where poetry would be concerned. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I see what you mean, that's inter-paragraph spacing within the paragraph, so each line is being treated as a new paragraph. There's been some discussions about the templates at WS:S/H, mostly technical, but it appears that the templates are using html in ways that they shouldn't. I suggest we leave using them until there's some resolution. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Have another look at your sandbox. T. Mazzei has changed the templates a little so that the vertical spacing is normal. Also, the centre block one now works without a dictated width. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

## end spaces

I leave those in there deliberately. Although the software currently ignores them in transclusion, there is no guarantee that it will do so in the future. I therefore leave a final space when the paragraph continues on the next page, in case this change should happen. There are some known issues currently that might lead to such a change happening. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would affect an awful lot of work here. At least in my browser, where end spaces are left, I often see a dashed box between text as a result in the Main (but I haven't gone so far as to test whether only one space causes it or multiple—I just get rid of them). Where did you see the subject of these issues discussed? Also, with regard to chapter title font size, if you compare actual text size, the title font is the same as caps in the text body; likewise, subtitles are smaller than regular caps in the text body.
In the Scriptorium. There are at least two page-break issues I've seen raised where the current software implementation generates unwanted line breaks or the like. Now, I mean a space at the end of a line, and not a space on a separate line following the text. The latter is a no-no and should always be removed, but I've never seen a browser that had issues resulting from a space at the end of a text line.
For the lecture title, I simply copied the format used at the start of the first lecture (page 1) for consistency. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks X2... Makes sense... but the size is still wrong there as well; but I'll let someone else tweak it. Because while the subtitles are 'smaller', they are not really {{smaller}}. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I did some calculating, and found that the current PotM could be done by the end of the month as long as we average 17 pages proofread per day. So, three people doing 6 pages each day would get the job done with a few days to spare, and we're a day ahead right now from having some work already done. But then, I'm a person who likes math, plans, and schedules. :) --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You just got me to chuckle... I am not good at math, am a procrastinator, and dislike schedules. But I like to figure out how things work—at least on a practical/applicable level—and find myself occasionally subjecting myself to brain-strain. You took the figuring even further than I did—and your results are probably more accurate... I'll take your word for it! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

## Shift left template

I know you borrowed it from someone else before I borrowed it from you, but it is useful. I've just used it on Page:Paul Clifford Vol 3.djvu/190 and, knowing that you like to collect different ways of using various templates, I thought I'd let you know about this one. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Very nice! Thanks for sharing, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

## (using … across the board)

Hello.

I am, of course teasing, but was amused to note that in correcting my handling of ...'s in [11], despite your comment above, you had actually removed said punctuation instead...

Seriously, up to now I have always treated any form of . . . as eligible to have all leading, internal and trailing spaces removed and replaced by a single "…", with the obvious exception of dot-leaders. Would you please be so kind as to at least make Index talk:The varieties of religious experience, a study in human nature.djvu#ellipses unambiguous as to which presentation is preferred (presumably " &hellip; "?), and whether this applies simply to this specific work; or universally?

I for one would really appreciate the clarification.

Regards, MODCHK (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I posed the question, but then decided to use the 'hellip' option, as Billinghurst—who has been validating many of the pages—seems to prefer that usage... While (I believe) any of the three applications are acceptable, I went ahead with following Billinghurst's lead for uniformity's sake. I'll make note of it on the Talk page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem. It is always best to fall into line with the style leaders! (Consistency always valued more highly than rationality―most especially in proofreading…) MODCHK (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Huh... thought I was being rational. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I have clearly teased you too much―you appear to be doing it to yourself, now. Thank you for noting the clarification in any case. MODCHK (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The joke is [lost] on me. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

## RE: Speedy edits.

Thanks, sometimes I just get focused on validating pages that I get caried away. Will be more vigilant in the future. --Legofan94 (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem; I hesitated to even bring it up. Happy validating! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

## Tenent

Just to correct you on your erroneous misapprehension.

Tenet - a principle or belief - ORIGIN C16 (superseding earlier tenent) from Latin lit. 'no holds' OED . Probably best to delete your derogatory remark in order to stop proclaiming your rabid statement and ignorance of the English language Jack. Norwikian (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

[EC]:Always afraid to put my foot in my mouth or be misunderstood. Tenent? [?] Tenant [?] Tenet? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Can't think of a thing to say! Must be due to my ignorance of the Mother Tongue. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure you have the correct Century (scroll down for tenet), Jackpot? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a 1658 edition of P.E. in front of me and the OED both of which reproduce the word as the archaic TENENT. okay ??!! Norwikian (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013

Your remark which accompanies the Alphabeticall Table of Pseudodoxia Epidemica reveals just how much Americans suffer from the delusion that the English language originated in America. 18:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

[EC?]

### prime example of misunderstanding

Okay... I thought you were joking (initially), referring to my comment in the previous section about "hesitation." [i.e., 'hesitation' / 'misapprehension'] Then I looked at your recent posting (it's on my Watchpage), and figured out you were speaking of something else entirely. With regard to the latter, you probably misunderstood the history of the dialogue. I did not 'compose' the whole bit above your bit there. I merely suggested the other User sign their comment, and referred them to a source. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your Simon & Garfunkel remark: "The Boxer" has always been reminiscent of a Jack London novel (none in particular, just the "feel" of them in general). Both have great insight into human nature. But that is my opinion, and you are entitled to yours :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

## Skins

A little background. If you have a peek at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering you will see that there is a list of css (style) and js (javascript) files specific to each skin, and then at the end of the list is a shared/common file that applies to all. Changing skins means that you have the common files and the particular files for the skin. Much code in these sorts of files is transferrable xwiki or can be utilised from others user space (if you are game). — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Billinghurst, I follow you (looking at the pref page) up to the "Much code" part—but without understanding what any of it means. I don't necessarily want or need to know the technical details, I just want to edit/proofread. Sometimes I'm game for trying to understand all the technical stuff—but only insofar as it helps me to understand the bigger picture. For the time being, I'm just looking to get my proofreading tools back on the edit bar. Any assistance you can give in that respect would be great! :) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: Problem solved. BWC realized that the Enhanced editing toolbar was the culprit, and I have unchecked it. Thanks for the info on the skins, anyway,—even though it's all cryptic to me ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

## Un-{{overfloat image}}

Hello, Londonjackbooks. You have new messages at MODCHK's talk page.
Message added 02:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

## Index talk:The Pathway of Roses, Larson, 1913

I am immensely amused the despite your final invitation: "Up to you whether you wish to continue remarks related to the above here or there", you have formatted the copied conversation thus:

"The following text is copied from User talk:MODCHK. No further edits should be made to this section."

which rather suggests absolutely no further correspondence will be entered into.

In fact I am beginning to think the last few days have been a minor test, which I neither know if I have passed satisfactorily; nor even if I should be concerned if I failed. In any case I at least have had some little fun and learned some new things.

Here endeth the tease. MODCHK (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You are reading into things—something I am normally guilty of. If you think I am playing some sort of game, I'm not. I dislike most sorts of games—especially the psychological variety, and I wouldn't do that. In my definition, a "section" is not the whole page... To illustrate... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
P.S. So I don't have a heart attack in the future, please never assume with me—ask for clarification. And if I'm ever mad about something, you'll know it; but I don't usually get mad, because even then I'm too worried about offending even the offender. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Also guilty―precisely as charged. Did I not make it abundantly clear I was teasing?
Thank you for leaving the chink open so that I could so indulge myself! And yes, I did choose to misinterpret "section" in this instance. MODCHK (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
In this case, too many lines to read between [scale it back] for one (me) who appreciates humor, but doesn't get jokes. Shut up and edit (is that offensive?). Carrying on... Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the validations, by the way. Because I like to go back and see where/how I have made any errors, I noted your additional note on spelling. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
In (temporary) lieu of "shutting up and editing" (terminology which of course I find deeply hurtful and offensive―but I shall――attempt to carry on regardless. DaDa: ¡drama tag!); I note you've been carefully reversing out extra blank lines above Chapter headings (e.g. Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 37.jpg.) I have always considered these start "below" the page text area top margin, and have habitually added blank leading lines nearly everywhere I have seen it. I shall stop doing this for this work only, accidents notwithstanding. MODCHK (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
All is well... It snowed last night :) Re: blank lines: not "carefully reversing out"—I copy/paste the chapter headings for subsequent chapters, and when I did so for the last one or two chapters, I caught the blank line difference(s) and went back and put it as I thought I remembered doing so; then I caught line space discrepancies (which could have been mine), and so went back and adjusted those. Careful & methodical only in hindsight—if that's even possible! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't be so hard on yourself. "Careful & methodical" in hindsight is a sign of intelligence; in foresight is merely instinctual. Shutting up now! MODCHK (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
"Hindsight is 20/20" as they say; but human intelligence/vision only applies if/when we learn from history. If the cart ever comes before the horse, it is either incidental (perhaps accidental) or the result of Intelligence as opposed to intelligence. My turn to shut up :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding snow: I am envious. Bush-fires to the south, and flooding to the north. What a country! Our forebears (after a few false attempts!) learned to choose their penal colonies rather well. Stuck here as my house is, half-way up an escarpment above a patch of forested hillside the former concerns me most; the latter rather less so. MODCHK (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds a little like parts of southern California. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Penal colonies brings to mind an unfinished book I have by Gregory David Roberts... I always thought Wikisource would be an excellent place for prisoners to spend some of their free time. I'm not being flippant... Totally serious. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

### Rendering in Firefox

Curious: How does this render in your browser?: The section beginning "Of all his train..." I am wondering if the text above the strikeout material matches up (e.g., "peasant" with "dark eyed", etc.) or not. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not sure how much render area you wanted, so simply captured a screen-full from the point you specified forward. (Let me know if you need more.) This seemed to be the most honest and simplest way of showing how it appears: Media:Londonjackbooks-Braces-etc.png. MODCHK (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
That's close enough, I guess. Never a perfect science. Appreciate the screen capture. Re: fires and floods (rock and a hard place): stay wet and dry as necessary. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought, but is this more like the result you were looking for? (I was not too clear how you wanted the lines starting at "From Mandevilles' and scribes of similar mold" aligned; messed it up and restored your layout.)

Of all his train there was a henchman page,
A peasant
dark eyed
boy, who served
loved
his master well;

And often would his pranksome prate engage
Childe Harold's
Burun's
ear, when his proud heart did swell

With sable thoughts that he disdained to tell.
Then would he smile on him, as Alwin
Rupert
smiled,

When aught that from his young lips archly fell
The gloomy film from Harold's
Burun's
eye beguiled;

 And pleased the Childe appeared nor ere the boy reviled. And pleased for a glimpse appeared the woeful Childe. $\scriptstyle{ \left. \begin{matrix} \ \end{matrix} \right\}\, }$

Him and one yeoman only did he take
To travel Eastward to a far countree;
And though the boy was grieved to leave the lake
On whose firm banks he grew from Infancy,
Eftsoons his little heart beat merrily
With hope of foreign nations to behold,
And many things right marvellous to see,
Of which our vaunting
lying
voyagers oft have told,

 From Mandevilles' and scribes of similar mold. or, In tomes pricked out with prints to monied ... sold In many a tome as true as Mandeville's of old. $\scriptstyle{ \left. \begin{matrix} \ \\ \ \end{matrix} \right\}\, }$

Obviously in a "real" application most of the <span> ugliness could be hidden in a template (in fact I stole the layouts from {{transl}} and {{sup}}!) MODCHK (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Merely as rendered in the original image. Yours does look good, though. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer. Reveals your layout was spot-on all along. In all honesty I don't see there is enough improvement to be worth the rather horrible span directives; but the approach might be worth coming back to if a lot of this crops up somewhere. Any thoughts what the template might be called, if it ever gets created? I am really poor at coming up with names for things like this! MODCHK (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I sug-jest you ask Billinghurst or George Orwell III. I think they like templates.  ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Maybe something that is a combination of "superscript" and "strikeout"... Like "supstrike" or "superstrike" or something. If you were being serious. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Serious … yes; vastly premature ― also yes. I think the issue can happily lie fallow until its day arrives; if ever. And funnily enough, the strikeout was the one aspect I had consciously thought should not be "templatised"; on the basis sometimes the upper word should be struck; and sometimes the lower. And possibly neither, on occasion? Templates are, after all, only a tool; and simply because one uses a tool does not prove one is not a corvid? MODCHK (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you rephrase your last sentence (with fewer "not"s)? and I didn't get the crow/jay, etc. reference... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay... I got it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Milady, the game belies the price of the candle. Even a blackbird of superior intelligence can use a tool. Clear as mud now; and not a single three-letter-negation expressed. MODCHK (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think any exasperation with templates would have to do primarily with redundancy (more than one doing essentially the same thing) or looking for a template solution (like I did) that could have just as easily been addressed using simple HTML (or whatever). I have no dog in the fight... Whatever renders with the least amount of conflict works for me. Speaking of dogs, the mannerisms of crows always remind me of my dog... and a Dan Fogelberg song (or two). Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The good thing about templates is that they can tidy away a lot of ugliness. However the danger of templates, I fear, is that a lot of ugliness is not noticed because of the nice sugar-coating…
Which reminds me; in the absence of further comment/complaint it must be about time to update {{overfloat image}}. AdamBMorgan agreed there was a minor (and irrelevant to your use) flaw in the existing version; but I am not sure he realised the extent of the additions I wanted to make! MODCHK (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll rely on you to let me know when a best-case solution is reached as far as what template, etc. to apply to the affected pages is concerned. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
So no responsibility, eh? I propose I re-proofread each of the "Rose" framed images again; and if you like the result you might consider validating them. Does that sound acceptable to you?
(I just copied my changes into the "official" template, so if nobody starts baying for my blood shortly I think I shall consider that part successful. Everything I have checked so far seems unchanged (i.e. I am reasonably confident nothing is broken), which is how I had intended it to be at this stage. Why does this seem so furtive?) MODCHK (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Not furtive. Careful. I accept responsibility for everything I do; I just don't always want to do everything ;) I'll await the purple-turned-yellow pages and turn them to green (if the system lets me, and [big] if I like the result). Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

### formatting questions

| item1 = {{italic block|{{fine block|{{justify|{{line-height|1.5|{{hii|1|-1}}<div>''Text text text''</div>
<div>''Text text text''</div>
<div>''Text text text''</div>{{div end}}}}}}}}}}


Above is as rendered (essentially) on p. 5. Questions:

1. Is my original italic [''] notation even necessary given {{italic block}}?
2. Why are the <div>s necessary? The page seems to render fine without them as long as you leave a line between paragraphs.
3. Why is {{div end}} necessary? Does it go along with all the <div>s? or is it for some other purpose?
4. How is it that paragraphs are rendered indented?

That's it for now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw your questions on p.105 and then noticed these. Answers (I hope) follow:
1. No. You might have noticed I did a double-take and went back to remove the extra ''s. Although it seems to work, I think having a nightmare mixture of '', <i></i> and {{italic block}}s seems to be skirting with catastrophe; and will almost certainly confuse the next editor?
2. The <div>s surrounding sentences and paragraphs is probably excessive and certainly not clever. In many respects they are playing the part of <p>s, but seem to avoid the leading problems that were concerning Beeswaxcandle.
3. The {{div end}}s are actually the "other end" of the various {{hii|x|y}}s. Where you have removed them the result seems to work here, but I would not bet some browser will get upset that the blocks don't end properly. (Oops, I used a "not!")
4. That is what the {{hii|x|y}}s are doing. I thought the multi-paragraph items looked better, the singles probably don't want it at all. Your project; your call.
I like the paragraph indentation; wish it was still universally used. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Does this perhaps explain things a little bit better? MODCHK (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
More to the point, have I answered everything that you wanted so answered (and of course that I am able to answer?) MODCHK (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
So far so good. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the </div> on page 51? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Umm. To prove that I am an idiot; got distracted and did not clean up the prior version properly. Mea culpa; mea maxima culpa. MODCHK (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Es okay. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Can't say as I agree with the interpretation/translation of the latter Latin. A fault (or blame)—even taken to the max—does not necessarily a failure make. "Culp-a-bility" also contains the able-ness to eventually get it right! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

### Scan Question

My turn to throw a question your way. This is not a criticism; merely intended to satisfy my curiosity. Do you know why the page scans have turned out with such a variety of background tints? Some of them are nearly orange, whilst others vary through blue, grey and even nearly blue-green. I assume they were originally photographs, but taken under different lighting perhaps? MODCHK (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

They are original[.] photographs. I take about a chapter's worth a day usu. sometime in the morning when lighting is best. I can't use a digital camera worth beans, so lighting deficiencies are due to a number of factors (sun behind clouds, shadows off of trees, too much sun, etc.), but the main factor is my lack of knowledge where lighting compensation is concerned; i.e., I don't change any camera settings. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I am impressed. I usually find my attempts to photograph printed pages are defeated by various combinations of:
1. Shiny clay paper, which reflects flash or natural light.
2. Tight bindings which curl paper and make sure 1. above shows somewhere on the image.
3. Lack of enough hands to hold book, camera etc. Three seems to be requisite minimum.
So well done! MODCHK (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice validation technique by the way. I charted your pattern two ways (I was bored but not in the mood to edit), and placed together they look either like a double cheeseburger w/ nothing in the center... or upper/lower teeth impressions. I'd take a photo and place it on WS, but it would be way off topic. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It was entirely accidental. My I.S.P. dropped the connection a couple of times today and I was perverse enough to leave the tabs of the pages I wanted to complete open until the connection came back. So I really don't have any idea in which order I validated the last block, 'though I am not surprised it was rather strange! MODCHK (talk)
Best I can describe it is spiral. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

### Oops, I seem to have set a precedent

For here and here, and here and here, here and here, and indeed here. here, here, here and here. Oh and here and finally(?) here too.

I am quite sure by now there is simply no way you will ever believe me; but I really never intended to mess your editing life up so! MODCHK (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

One page to go on Kernel and Husk before I have to cook dinner, and you compel me to answer you at this critical juncture? Shame! By the way, I found no pattern whatsoever in your validation technique this time—other than the span of pages that actually went in numerical order. Hoping the subject matter is compelling enough for you (I have mixed feelings with certain matters of content), and thanks for validating & for the formatting help you've given so far. Be well, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Shame is acknowledged―contingent upon the sole condition that you convince me that a comment can always be considered an imperative. I currently fail to see the association. Hope you enjoyed dinner. Untease.
I was deliberately trying to validate in reverse page order this time. Looks like I cannot even get the simple arrangements right! (In fairness, WS did throw up a "our servers are dyyiiinnnnggggg" plea through the middle, so that possibly randomises things a bit as well.) MODCHK (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Completely overlooked your above comments yesterday. Umm... a comment can sometimes be considered an imperative when it is written (and read) as such. Right? Dinner was actually pretty good; thanks for hoping it wasn't. Thanks for validating—whatever order it ends up in is fine with me; thanks for being thorough. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. At no point do I believe I implied I wished dyspepsia upon you. And I certainly did not intend for you to take it so. Consistent failure to take the benevolent alternative may be considered hostile, and may result in lessened cooperation in future dealings. Not appreciated at all. MODCHK (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The sentiment came before the "Untease". Thought that's how it 'worked'? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh,—and thanks for catching the spelling discrepancies... some of which is probably differences between 1st edition & this one. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I did spot a pattern in "marvelous" c.f. "marvellous"; also quietly amused that "centred" appeared. Perhaps British spelling is catching on after all? MODCHK (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
British edition calls for British spelling, I guess. I wonder if the same is true of "The Jacket" vs. "The Star Rover" (London, Jack)? I haven't yet compared the two. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

## "All is well"

<Quote>

MotM edit conflict of sorts

I moved the commentary portion of the Creating a YouTube Video to the corresponding Talk page if that is okay. In the process, a post you made was left out of my move, and I don't know where you would prefer to place the comment as things currently stand, so I will leave that up to you... It's okay by me if you wish for everything to be back as it was. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC) </Quote>

Londonjackbooks, whatever you do is fine with me because I know that you are not destructive. —Maury (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

## Excerpt from Scriptorium Maintenance of the Month section, etc.

The following was copied/pasted by me from Central discussion and is intended as a personal reference/mental note. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The following was copied/pasted by me from Wikisource talk:Maintenance of the Month/Creating a YouTube video about Wikisource and is intended as a personal reference/mental note. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

## Londonjackbooks/archive

Hi, just found this page in Special:LonelyPages. I suspect it's in the wrong namespace, but do you still want it? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not needed. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Just looked at the history; a reminder of an 'episode'. I'd clue you in to the rationale behind the history/creation, but there only exists [a] reason without any accompanying logic. ;) Blah :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

## Image parameter "upright"

Hello.

In the coloured-rule example you recently posed at Scriptorium/Help, I notice from the earliest edit there is specified "upright=.2" (later amended to "upright=.3" specified on the File:/Image: element. Even after reading w:Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Upright_images I confess I have no idea what this really does.

Would you please be so kind as to (try to) enlighten me? MODCHK (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want to ask Theornamentalist, because I have no idea... I just tweaked it. If you take it out, the image is way too big. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I know I can set the size like I normally do for images, but it 'worked', so I kept it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I have taken your suggestion and initiated a Theornamentalist botheration. In case you too are interested in the answer (if indeed there is one!), here is the reference. MODCHK (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look at it in a bit. And thanks for formatting some ads for Pathway. To be honest, I was gonna leave the pages as-was (unproofread), but you have inspired me (made me feel guilty)—none of which is your fault. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding adverts.: I must admit (1) You went to the bother of scanning the pages, so why not? (2) I always feel I am being a bit subversive in doing ads & catalogues; and cannot resist rocking the boat a little. And (3) the pages contained formatting which was a bit of a minor technical challenge, which made them fun to do (at least for me.)
No guilt or offence intended whatsoever (I wouldn't dare after the accusation of wishing to poison... Enough said.) MODCHK (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I scanned the ad pages so I could get a good OCR reading from them (onlineocr.net). I figured if I wasn't going to proofread them, I should at least make the text reasonably searchable (do search engines like Google pick up Index pages?). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

## "Pathway of Roses" Chapter Headings

In validating "normal" pages of this work, I encountered this situation:



{{center|{{larger|CHAPTER XXII}}

The Infinite is changeless, therefore there is no ...


Bearing in mind you are the very person who convinced me empty leading lines above the chapter title are probably a bad idea; how would you like this situation handled? If you consider the leading empty lines are significant, then the insertion of a leading {{nop}} is appropriate. Otherwise should the blank spacers be removed, so that the first body line becomes the {{center}} directive? MODCHK (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a 'bad' idea (that I am aware of), but not problematic either (to paraphrase from memory a previous comment made by you on another page). It would be my first impulse to remove the leading empty lines; I only didn't because I took you at your word ;) I have no issue with their removal. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of an edit clash. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I shall remove the leading blank lines and proceed.
Re. clash: I was pretty certain I wiped out your edit to Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 372.jpg entirely. Please double-check the result is acceptable to you. MODCHK (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't notified of any edit conflict... I saved it as "not proofread", and it saved okay. See? There are only a couple font size differences between my edit and yours (and some weird template spelling) but nothing objectionable. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I think I have restored the font-sizings you made. Surprising you received no notification, as I added the book image and reformatted a lot of stuff into a table for layout. I was surprised considering the changes in parallel how little difference in overall length the results were. This is the change entry I meant (also curious the timestamps imply my edit was 19 minutes after yours!) I presume the "weird template spelling" you refer to is my habit of spelling center centre (it is of course the style around here. Hint: I am being cheeky and disrespectful.)
The main thing, of course, is whether we are both happy with the result. MODCHK (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not picky. The main thing is whether the finished product is true to the original. If that makes one happy, well then, I think we're on the right track! Cheeky is good when amusing. You and Billinghurst made me laugh today. Thanks for all your help. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Bending the topic a little (but probably better than carrying it on in HTML comments): Scanning? Surely you wouldn't want to be ripping pages out of your beautiful book and entrusting them to a mere document feeder? Sacrilege! MODCHK (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
No feeding required; merely placement on a scanner bed. The binding is already in a bad way. There was enough "give" toward the end of the book that I could scan without making things worse. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

## Seeking for opinion

Hi LJB. I would like to hear your opinion in cases like this: [12]. The indentation here is due to limitation in paper size. I was thinking what will happen to someone with a small screen, which will require a line wrap. With std methods, the indentation will be lost and text will be a bit cluttered for the reader. I tried three possibilities here, try to resize the browser to force line wrap and see the difference. How do you approach this? What you think is the best? Comments welcome.--Mpaa (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Many Kipling poems I have been working on have the same length issues. I have been handling it like your example #1 (i.e., not handling it). I do like your example #2, however; but that requires a lot of work. Problem is, even a poem that looks like it would fit within a small screen still might be viewed in different (larger) font sizes set by the user (I assume that is an option?), and wrapping would still occur. It's hit-and-miss. Your #2 approach would be preferable. If (dare I say) a template could be drawn to incorporate your markup, it could be used universally for all poetry 'like' a poem tag of sorts (but not, 'cause it would have to work with a poem tag if a user wishes to go that route). Universal use of the markup within a single text would be preferable (for uniformity's sake) so one doesn't have to eyeball each poem and guess if it would fit in a small screen or no... My answer to you is a naive one, and not very technical, sorry :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Please pardon my involving myself; but I have taken the (further) liberty of adding a fourth suggestion. This is the approach LJB/Beeswaxcandle suggested to me for handling the text blocks inside the overlay images (e.g. Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 15.jpg) and degrades somewhere between Methods 2 and 3 as the page narrows (or font size increases)). The wiki coding is somewhat intermediate as well. MODCHK (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice. I see two possibilities (with my level of knowledge at least ...). 1) a new template, based oh {{hi}} + the part from {{hii}} used to compute margin {{#expr:{{{1|0}}}+{{{2|2}}}}}em}}}, so that it can be used also to take care of indentation instead of {{gap}}. 2) Or use the fourth option as is, which also allow to avoid {{gap}}. 1) Pro: simpler from the user perspective, Cons: tens of template transclusions per page. 2) Pro: no new templates, only a few transclusion per page, Cons: a bit trickier mark-up to handle indentation, see some indentation based on fourth suggestion.--Mpaa (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
If I might add a couple more cons to method 4: the <div>s are ugly for the editor to have to add and maintain, and semantically are performing the even more distasteful role of telling mediawiki not to further mess around with the line/paragraph formatting. I find it somewhat unwieldy that you apparently have to add code to stop normally clever things (like line leading) happening; and would rather hope somebody steps forward to point out a cleaner way to do this! MODCHK (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, looks like the only option is a new template, to be applied per line, or some smart guys :-)--Mpaa (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I am truly going to regret my poor choice of template name (i.e. {{divify}}); and feel free to laugh (as if you needed my permission!) at my truly sad first foray into Lua-land (Module:Poetry), but here is my attempt at a div-line-wrapping template, and how it might be used. You are both welcome to tear it to pieces (and please-please improve the documentation!); however I might not be able to satisfactorily stitch the pieces back together! MODCHK (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you apply the template to In Springtime (the poem spans two pages) for me so I can see how it works? I have placed a stanza break within the poem just to see how you'd handle that as well. The poem will transclude here. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
1. I added a width restriction to the existing block center to better demonstrate the wrapping effect;
2. I have also added an alias for the template ({{constant leading}} is probably a far better name from the point of view of what it does, as opposed to how it does it.
3. Regarding the 'stanza break', somewhat to my surprise the template quietly swallows it! I have left this unmodified so that you can see the result (there are several obvious ways of "fixing" this.) In some respects I think this behaviour is fine in any case; unless a more accurate duplication of <poem>..</poem> blocks is really desired, in which case...? MODCHK (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) I removed the set-width (I just make my browser screen smaller) and justify... I also think the indent notation (hii) needs to be kept within the body, and not in the footer/header, for the way it was originally (I have moved it since), the second page was not showing indentation (from hii) in the Main (whereas now it is). What would the best (and simplest) way to handle stanza breaks be? for the template doesn't recognize manually spaced (2 carriage return—if that's the right terminology) breaks... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Quite rightly so (removing set width and justify.) My mistake for complicating matters with my own experimentation!
For genuine stanza breaks I would simply end {{constant leading}} and restart it after the break, on the reasoning that leading is no longer constant over the break.
I am concerned regarding the need to move hii out of the header on the second page for Main to look right. That definitely sounds like a problem. I know that the new template tends to "take over" any wrapped hiis and can destroy indentation of the left margin. I am afraid this new toy still has some "sharp edges" and may need a bit more taming for civilised use. MODCHK (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Still, it's a good start. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look now. I've put the hii back into the headers, and unprotected the stanza break. The transcluded page at Departmental Ditties and Ballads and Barrack-Room Ballads/In Springtime looks correct (and seems to behave correctly) to me. What do you think? MODCHK (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. Don't know why it didn't work the first time. I think instead of recreating the 'constant leading' template for every stanza (lots of work for some poems with many stanzas and few lines per stanza), using something like <br /><br /> or two {{Dhr}}'s would do the trick better. Too bad there's not a Dhr or other template that renders 200% line height (that I know of). Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Meant to add that I like that you don't have to add breaks after each line. Why is that (in layman's terms)? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the whole idea of the template was as a bit of a cheat instead of typing all those <div>s! As they are still there in the HTML, their effect is twofold. It is as if each line is its own paragraph; but with the normal vertical spacing of a normal line instead. (Hope this is reasonably clear!)
I also had a quick look at {{dhr}}, and internally it works by specifying line-height:100%. It would be trivial to modify it to accept an optional parameter (which it currently does not do) to multiply the height (e.g. {{dhr|2}} might give vertical spacing equivalent to the following:)

I wonder if anybody might object? MODCHK (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not think so. Just post the proposal on the template talk page and if it goes unnoticed for a while, at Scriptorium.--Mpaa (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't object, but I am not always reasonable so I wouldn't count my vote. I agree with Mpaa below (if I understand correctly) that it would be nice if the template incorporated the hii settings; not sure what was meant about {{Gap}}, however... It would also be unreasonably selfish of me to suggest that you name the template {{Poem}} ... not very 'accommodating', however ;) Bottom line: Would the template be used? I would use it for poetry if the hii notation was incorporated into the template, and if the template had a one-word name. But I can only speak for my lazy self :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I note in passing {{poem}} apparently was in use in the past and has subsequently been deleted. Would this be enough reason in itself to choose another name? What about {{stanza|left|indent|content}}? I have also added variable spacing as an option to {{Dhr}}.
I have applied the formatting to Page:Departmental Ditties and Ballads and Barrack-Room Ballads, Kipling, 1899.djvu/169 and Page:Departmental Ditties and Ballads and Barrack-Room Ballads, Kipling, 1899.djvu/170, and Departmental Ditties and Ballads and Barrack-Room Ballads/In Springtime still looks O.K. to me. For more serious applications should some thought be made towards creating a /s, /e variant, as frankly I think I got away with this particular case? MODCHK (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Just remembered I hadn't included a {{Dhr|2}} example between stanzas, but when I went back I see you have anticipated my failure! MODCHK (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion is to include into the new template also what is taken care by {{hii}} and {{gap}}, so one single template fits all. More user friendly for the editor.--Mpaa (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree in the long run. I did in fact originally consider this, but for the moment see this as more a generic building block. By explicitly not including provision for hii and gap parameters a wider variety of layouts may be accommodated. It is always a toss-up between simplicity and rigidity, and I am happy to take any advice as to any "standard layouts" anyone may wish to promote. MODCHK (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
LJB, forget about the {{gap}} inn my comment. I was assuming the need of one template per line, so I wanted to handle also indentation at the same time. But I saw it can digest multiple lines instead, which is good, so we still need gap for indentation. My view is the same as LJB a few lines above.--Mpaa (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that latitude Mpaa. I was quietly shunting the {{gap}} issue into the background as I couldn't figure out how to accommodate it. (I should be more ashamed!) Good to see we all seem broadly in agreement. MODCHK (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) Got it, Mpaa. MODCHK, I tweaked the first page to include the Dhr|2 and eliminated the template's use on the second stanza (one per page seems reasonable: I proofread a Kipling poem with multiple stanzas of only two lines each... That would have been a pain to apply the template each time). All said, there are fewer steps than if I had to add all those breaks at the end of each line. That's a plus (for me). My next poetry project, I will consider using the new method (if it is finalized, etc.)... I have been getting poetry editing-weary recently (editing in general, but that might be a lack of inspiration), so I'll keep this section handy for future reference... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
{{block center|{{stanza|0|3|{{drop initial|W}}HEN beeches bud and lilacs blow,<br />
{{gap}}And Earth puts on her magic green;<br />
When dogwoods bear their vernal snow<br />
{{gap}}And skies grow deep the stars between,—<br />
Then, O ye birds! awake and sing<br />
The gladness at the heart of Spring!

{{Dhr|2}}

When flowers blossom for the poor,<br />
{{gap}}And Nature heals the hurt of years,<br />
When wondering Love resists the cure,<br />
{{gap}}Yet hopes again, and smiles through tears,—<br />
Then, O ye birds! awake and sing<br />
The gladness at the heart of Spring!}}}}

 0

Doesn't seem to work with drop initial(?) unless I formatted incorrectly... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the added headache... Signing off for now. I get to eat someone else's cooking for dinner :) Better than that, I don't have to cook! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe your formatting is quite correct, so you have exposed a significant fault. Curiously this:
{{block center|{{stanza|0|3|{{drop initial|W|3em|0|1em|0|-1.2em}}HEN beeches bud and lilacs blow,<br />
{{gap}}And Earth puts on her magic green;<br />
When dogwoods bear their vernal snow<br />
{{gap}}And skies grow deep the stars between,—<br />
Then, O ye birds! awake and sing<br />
The gladness at the heart of Spring!

{{Dhr|2}}

When flowers blossom for the poor,<br />
{{gap}}And Nature heals the hurt of years,<br />
When wondering Love resists the cure,<br />
{{gap}}Yet hopes again, and smiles through tears,—<br />
Then, O ye birds! awake and sing<br />
The gladness at the heart of Spring!}}}}

Yields:
 0
Which is practically right (and no, regrettably those values are not all the defaults.) At least this reveals the problem is not insoluble; but I for one am pretty stumped right now. Perhaps stanza destroys/blocks/changes some default upon which drop initial relies? MODCHK (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course it does! We have effectively asked for the drop initial to be offset 3em right, using the font size of the base text. However, in the context of drop initial itself, the internal offsets are expressed in terms of the enlarged font size; so the simplest method of cancelling would be: {{block center|{{stanza|0|3|{{drop initial|W|||1em||-1em}} (only works because default drop initial font is 3x base font.) So much for the problem, still not at all sure as to a solution. MODCHK (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
What about embedding Drop Initial as well, so you can feed its size using the input from stanza without the user to be bothered?--Mpaa (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Not 100% understanding what you are saying, Mpaa, but would the user still be able to set drop initial size? because technically, the drop initial size for the above poem should be 1.5em. I merely left that out to make things simpler & illustrate better. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
If I may, what exactly do the 0 and the 3 represent here: {{stanza|0|3| Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
They are exactly the same parameters that {{hii}} takes (in fact internally are passed to that template.) Accordingly they are both numbers (always expressed in em-units) which respectively, add to the current left margin; and the (relative) hanging inset depth to establish. So {{stanza|0|3| leaves the margin unchanged; but sets up a 3em hanging indent on all affected lines.
Ah,—Thanks for the explanation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As for Mpaa's suggestion to embed drop initial processing, I am not sure how to do it nicely:
1. {{dropinitial}} takes so many possible parameters.
2. how often will it be required; i.e. would it make more sense to set up another template for these cases?
3. because of the dependency on relative font sizes, I suspect the calculation to convert factors might be in itself rather messy and complicated.
In short, please give it a go if either of you want, but right at present I have no real idea how to go about it "properly" (just whatever that means!) myself. MODCHK (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd say don't worry about it right now. Only when/if it becomes a niceessity. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘

### Stanza containing Large Drop Initial (a.k.a. Just how difficult can a niceessity become?)

Just to find out how difficult it would be, I have attempted (more like: made a rough stab at) a template for stanza-with-drop-capital support, and the result may be seen here (template here). To try to simplify things (and {{drop capital}} a.k.a. {{dropinitial}} is a right can-of-worms which I can only pretend to partially understand) I have limited control over the large capital to only the letter name and size. Even the "em" size factor creates problems with calculations, so I dropped that as well. I really hope somebody good at this stuff (and I am certainly not!) comes along and either fixes this mess up or sows me how it ought to be done.

At this stage the template is fairly robust regarding changing font size. However there is a niggling tendency for the margin above the initial capital to be wrong. At font-size 1 (i.e. template parameter: cap-size=1) the calculated value has to be 0.2; reducing to 0 at font-size 3. My current guess at a formula is just that, a complete guess; and as such is probably quite useless.

Please pardon my frustration. It was a really good call of yours, LJB, uncovering this case; and I do want to make it very clear I am not harbouring any ill-feeling for pointing it out. I am just not smart enough to see a good way of addressing it. MODCHK (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As per usual, I only stumbled upon the case accidentally,—but knowing you like a challenge... ;) I can't address anything technical above (to my eyes it looks like it worked, but I don't know the end you had/have in mind), but I can say thanks for the attempt. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"Like a challenge...": that was cruel. I have since bitten the bullet and incorporated all of the other (seven? I lost count) parameters of dropinitial in my temporary template. Also added the logic to make it accept "em" in quantities. This doesn't really solve the issue; but just throws ultimate responsibility for making it all work back on the end writer (i.e. you!) I cannot help thinking this is the exact opposite of what Mpaa was pushing for. I reiterate, dropinitial is an absolute balancing act, and I simply do not understand how (lots of) it works. MODCHK (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Take the following in a positive and sincere way: I hope your earnest experimentation will not be in vain, and that I may be able to employ it in an inspiring future project. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I expect I shall come across as completely mad here, but I have refitted all the drop-capital stuff back into {{stanza}}. For convenience here is a direct link to my attempt at documentation (yes, there are parameters supported I do not fully know the purpose of―z-index I am looking at you!―so feel free to correct/improve as you see fit): Template:Stanza/doc. As this last includes a couple of sample invocations, I shall not duplicate them here. I just hope this is useful to somebody, and not just a learning experience for me...
Oh, and please note: obviously {{block centre|width=150px|{{stanza|0|0|{{di|M}}ary had a...}}}} does not (and never will) work (i.e.
 0
However the new equivalent form {{block centre|width=150px|{{stanza|0|0|di=M|ary had a...}}}} ought to:
 M 0
Oh bother: I can't tell the difference between them now... MODCHK (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Might help? z-index. Do not ask me for an example ... :-) I can't imagine an application here. Keep up the good job. I am going to use this template when stable. And I am sure you are learning a lot.--Mpaa (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the z-index link. It is not the function of the style parameter that is bothering me, rather it is the fact that whoever added the code (actually User:Oxguy3 on 19 Nov 2011, and subsequently used it here. The page works without the parameter anyway...) to the {{dropinitial}} template saw fit to include it as a special parameter; and I simply cannot comprehend how an enlarged drop capital rendered on top of the same coloured text, is supposed to be materially different from rendering the text on top of the capital. Unless this is to do with coloured images being used as the capital letter...?
I just hate trying to document a parameter which I frankly cannot see a purpose for at the current moment; yet obviously better minds than my own must have seen was necessary. All may become clear one day? MODCHK (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Is something broken? I can't see the indent effect when resizing the window. Am I wrong?--Mpaa (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Please elaborate. Which example is not working and how? As far as I am aware I haven't broken anything (yet!) If something is not working to your expectations, please let me know what you think ought to be happening and I will try to fix it if I can. MODCHK (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind, sometimes I see ghosts ... must have been late last night, sorry about that.--Mpaa (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

[EC. Note: Don't overlook Mpaa's comment above due to my mess below.] Not intending to ignore any technicalities, ideally, simply,

{{block center|{{Stanza|{{drop initial|G}}ive me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—
{{gap|1em}}Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!
{{Dhr|2}}
Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,
{{gap|1em}}From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,}}}}


would render as:

 Give me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—  Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now! Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,  From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,

I realize that there are limitations that get in the way of not adding extra necessary markup to the template. I am also remembering that the main issue and purpose of {{Stanza}} is dealing with possible browser size issues. I also noted on the template page that the second example had the drop initial "floating" left and not in line. All in all, I don't know what I am trying to convey exactly; or I do, but I am trying not to do it in a pesky manner (an issue of how)... However markup can be done in the simplest manner for a user like me (so I don't have to continue to go back to a "cheat sheet" to remember how to format) would be ideal. <up shield> Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please pardon my being stupid. Is the issue how the template handles when the initial indent parameters are missing? I could simply change them into named parameters (e.g. margin (lm?) and indent (hi?)) and then the result of leaving them off is manageable, at the cost of mucking up any older style use.
Not sure if this is what you are getting at, but if it is: easily changed. It seems to be my day for being dumb. Please treat me as such. MODCHK (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Not dumb. I find no issues with your work, only with my grasp of things technical (my issue, not yours). I'll try to elaborate (or summarize) what I meant in a bit. Brain-dead & busy right now. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

### Questions

At {{Stanza}}:

1. What is the purpose of manually setting width (280px)? Is it necessary?
2. Why can't {{stanza|0|4|...}} be 'consolidated' into {{stanza|...}}? [that's primarily what I meant by "simply" and "simplify" above... Simple for me to say, more difficult for you to accomplish] That is, why can't the 0, 4 markup be incorporated into the template? [You may have already addressed this somewhere above]
3. In Example 2, the "W" is shifted left. Can it not be inline with the rest of the text?
4. Is ...capital=W|cap-size=2em|cap-margin-top=-0.1em|cap-text-indent=-1em... a substitute for {{drop initial}} when using {{stanza}}? Is it because drop-initial is not [yet] compatible with {{stanza}}?

Hoping I am being more clear. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) (aka "Dummer")

As you will see below my internet connection misbehaved for about three hours, so I'm not sure how long it will last this time... I shall do my best to answer your questions:
1. I only set a width to force the default presentation to have some of the lines already "wrapped." There was no other reason for doing this.
2. Aha. This is what I thought you meant, but wasn't quite sure. Yes, I agree and shall change this when I next get a chance. It will break our older tests, but will set an easier standard. (The omitted inent values will be the same as 0|0; agreed?
3. I was deliberately trying to demonstrate some of the "other" parameters inherited from {{dropinitial}}. Removing the "cap-text-indent=-1em should result in the behaviour you want (i.e. you want the default.)
4. In short, yes to the first part. All the cap-whatever (or alias) parameters carry in the various possible {{dropinitial}} parameters. Unfortunately the margin and indent when applied to {{stanza}} "spoil" the environment for normal use of {{dropinitial}} within the enclosed text, effectively applying an offset to both the left and right margins surrounding the enlarged initial letter, which depends also on the ratio of the font sizes used. By specifying the parameters required for {{dropinitial}} to {{stanza}} instead, it can calculate compensating values to pass on to dropinitial. This is probably an admission that although I have an answer which works, it is probably not the "best" way to do this! I just don't know what that "better way" is at present. Make sense?
The two templates are doing things which contradict one another. {{stanza}} is trying overall to force all lines to be of the same vertical spacing; but {{dropinitial}} has to break this rule to allow for both the larger letter; and to permit the initial lines to wrap around it. Moving the {{dropinitial}} outside of {{stanza}} does not help because there is a tendency to treat the join between the two blocks of text as a paragraph end, with result the "wrapping around the capital" effect is broken once more. Not to mention that {{dropinitial}} uses <span>; and {{stanza}} <div>s. Chalk and cheese at every stage, I'm afraid. MODCHK (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanations. They helped. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice of you to say so. I have changed the parameter names around in {{stanza}}, so everything is now officially broken™. The old "first" parameter is now called "margin", and the second "indent". So that your example from above:
{{block center|{{Stanza|{{drop initial|G}}ive me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—
{{gap|1em}}Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!
{{Dhr|2}}
Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,
{{gap|1em}}From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,}}}}

now renders like this:
 Give me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—  Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!   Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,  From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,
And with the alternate notation:
{{block center|{{Stanza|initial=G|ive me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—
{{gap|1em}}Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!
{{Dhr|2}}
Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,
{{gap|1em}}From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,}}}}

now renders like this (Yes―different result!):
 G ive me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—  Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!   Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,  From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,
O.K.? MODCHK (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(My I.S.P. connection has just been in a complete sulk for the last hour or more; so perhaps you may not hear from me again today...)

Here is an idea I want to bounce off both of you. I am not sure this is going to come across clearly, but it strikes me that a lot of poetry layout falls into the pattern of repeating the same cycle of per-line indents, and we end up inserting the same pattern of {{gap|xem}} in front of each line, over and over.

Don't get excited, I have not written any of this yet; but is it a worthwhile idea to have a template or template parameter which carries a cryptic pattern like "02" or "021" which has the effect of, respectively:

Gap-cycle proposal:
Value Effect
02

Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4

021

Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4

Without going completely overboard, if a simple notation (mainly for ease of parsing: I suggest one letter per line) could be worked out maybe this idea might even extend to simple repeating style-to-apply-per-nth-line pattern groups? MODCHK (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If it would be faster and easier than my copy/paste, paste, paste approach to applying gaps to lines, then it might be worth it. I'd be happy to challenge it to a John Henry-style speed duel if it is ever written, as long as I don't have to die with a mouse in my hand :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Unless there was a lot of repetition I suspect copy-paste-paste-paste might be very hard to beat. Maybe not such a good idea, then. Oh well. Not sure I get the mouse-in-hand reference, but it does not sound like much of a pleasant outcome. MODCHK (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
W:John Henry (folklore) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer. I understand now (I was thinking Paul Bunyan, so right idea but wrong era and technology.) No; don't want to do that to you in any case. MODCHK (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

### Test case

I have created a test Index: Index:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu and accompanying sandbox to view the output. Feel free to edit away on any page.

Three things I noted so far:

1. I notice no [hanging] indentation when I make my browser size smaller.
2. {{Stanza}} doesn't seem to be compatible with {{Right}} (see page 13).
3. [Unrelated to new template (I think)] On the sandbox page, page numbers are not showing up in the left margin.

Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You are so good at finding these cases!
Regarding item 1: No hanging ident? Simple reason for that―you never asked for one! I have gone through and added "indent=2" to each {{stanza}} and now hanging indents appear when page is narrow(ed). This did have two extra effects I am aware of and have already addressed:
• on page 3 the indent tickled our old favourite effect on stand-alone {{drop initial}}, and the capital was moved right overlapping the following text. Changed to "initial=" parameter to {{stanza}} and problem went away (this is the left-and-right-margins around the enlarged capital issue I was trying to describe to you earlier. Stanza calculates and applies correction factors only if permitted to by the presence of the "initial=" or "capital=" forms.)
• on page 13 the {{Dhr|2}} just in front of "P. S. Number 2.—" needed the addition of a new line to prevent "P. S. Number 2.—" from being treated as run-on from the prior line and thus being indented incorrectly. I have added said missing line end.
I believe I have fixed item 2. Would you believe {{right}} had a (tiny) bug in it? It used to add two line breaks―one either side of the text. Nobody would normally care, but {{stanza}} does and shoves in some more <div>s in between the set-up part of {{right}} and the {{sc}} surrounding "B-lly S-w-rd." on this page, thereby effectively neutering "right" before it can act upon the output of "sc." I have modified {{right}} and if nobody subsequently screams at me I think that's a victory of sorts.
• Also in passing, I have now learned {{right}} accepts a currently undocumented parameter "leading-top", which explicitly influences the line spacing {{stanza}} tries to control. I haven't experimented at all; but I can imagine there may be possible issues in this area if the parameter is ever used. (I am not sure how―or even if you can―search the wiki for parameter use? My lame attempt to do so turns up nothing.)
Sorry, I cannot help with item 3. I don't think there is an interaction (but am not certain of that either!) In practice I find page numbers appear less than 50% of the time for me anyway, and am usually pleasantly surprised when they appear. (They have not so far for me on these pages, so I simply cannot tell.) I have had this issue for a long time before stanza existed, and have normally dismissed it as some kind of javascript quirk in my browser. (Which is a half-hearted way of saying "I dunno.") If inspiration strikes you and you find an answer please let me know.
MODCHK (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
1. Oh—so that's how it works.
2. et. al: Thanks for the tweaking. I'll try in a bit to look around for parameter use. It'll be a shot in the dark, but I might learn something [else] in the process.
3. It must have had something to do with being on a subpage of my user page,—I don't know... Because the page numbers show up now that it has its own page in the Main.

Thanks overall, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Acting on a suspicion, {{left}} and {{center}} both have the same potential (fault?) as {{right}}. I have changed left, but center is locked down beyond my authority to alter it. I started to write to Hesperian about this, but seem to have accidentally edited the wrong talk page (Inductiveload). If people still take me seriously after being such a fool... I just hope I have straightened out the damage caused in trying to straighten out the damage... in making the enquiry in the first place. (I don't think I am on drugs―but would I necessarily know?)
A Reconstruction Letter still shows up page-number-less to me. Sigh. MODCHK (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Rats. {{justify}} would muck up too. Looks like this might be a common theme, and maybe I shall have to rethink {{stanza}}'s fairly mindless approach... MODCHK (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

See,—All along I thought that you had created {{Stanza}} for the purpose of Mpaa's original question about browser limitations and indentation. All this time I was under that impression, which would explain the couple/three times I kept asking about why the hii notation wasn't written into the template. My turn to cry 'dumb'. As far as my ability to find cases, they usually find me. And with regard to your being taken seriously: I don't think there's any question as to when you are being serious and when you are being a fool ;) There's a difference between a foolhardy pursuit and merely making a mistake: The latter usually involves the use of logic—only somewhat misguided—and is usually easily rectified and quickly forgiven in this forum. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple of (minor) clarifications:
• The "fool, me" comment above was my own frustration at my own stupidity in composing a note to Hesperian regarding (the wisdom of/) getting {{center}} changed; and then somehow managing to actually make the edit into the talk space of the last person to alter center instead―which happened to be Inductiveload. And then on top of that messing up trying to send it to Hesperian the second time...
• My overriding reason for stanza has always been to simplify the issue of constant leading. Remember all those apparently pointless <div>s we added to "Pathway of Roses"? That. As for hii and dropinitial, they came along for the ride largely as afterthoughts. Remember Mpaa's comment, later retracted w.r.t. gap about integrating margin, indent and gap sizes into stanza?
Apologies if this sounds testy. I am still awaiting Hesperian's response, and don't really want to fiddle with anything more until I get it. I still entertain a shred of hope this exercise might still yield something useful; but if to achieve that aim means making stanza aware of dozens of templates and/or modifying dozens of templates to fit in with the new one the cost maywill be much too high to even bother proceeding. In your own prophetic turn of phrase: "dying with a mouse in hand"―do you not agree? MODCHK (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You are much more ambitious and patient than I. I will hope for the best, for that's all I can do [unfortunately]. The capacity that you and others have to absorb all this stuff is mind-boggling to me, but we all have different brains and purposes obviously. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(Thank goodness―) We all have slightly different skills, strengths and weaknesses. I think I have been too ambitious here, and patience? What is that―I have no time to learn such rubbish.
I for one have been grateful for (and occasionally appalled as a result of) some of your questions. In trying to explain anything to somebody is precisely when one discovers just how many things they don't know; or have blithely assumed are true but upon examination are not so. Nobody―not one single person―is ever as smart as they secretly believe themselves to be, and learning this is rarely a pleasant lesson.
Besides which, you seem to be the undisputed de facto queen around here of reference and poetry layout, testing... (anything I've forgotten?) MODCHK (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yup... Occassional madness. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes it is nice to have visitors to the asylum. Have you met my friends, Napoleon, Napoleon, Napoleon, and err.. Nap...? MODCHK (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
<smile> It is often difficult to distinguish the 'help' (to include visitors) from the 'helpless'... both in an asylum—and out! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Nolo contendere. According to foregoing, apparently not a valid plea in my part of the world? MODCHK (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I could think up a better friendbetter friends than Napoleon, but I guess one doesn't really have a choice in the matter ;) And I was just going to improve on your image of Pascal, but I chose Nolo offendere.Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Regards Pascal: please go ahead. Graphics is definitely not one of my strong suites. I could not get good contrast on both the face and the frame; and sacrificed the latter for the former. I am sure you will do much better.
• Napoleon: bad pun in reference to local comedy sketch (by outfit called "the Wharf Revue") which probably won't work for external audiences anyway. Please forget it. MODCHK (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Forgotten. And last edit for the day will be Pascal. Have a good one :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

#### A Small Disaster

I have tagged Page:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu/22 Problematic again even though technically its appearance is "correct". Hesperian responded to my query regarding {{center}} and provided a link to this old discussion which pretty much invalidates all my assumptions for {{stanza}} to work. This just might make the whole thing quite impossible. I shall think a bit more and see if an answer presents itself. MODCHK (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem.

Please also see George Orwell III's rather kind remarks here. MODCHK (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup. George is good about spelling things out. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Just a quick point - while a div might "need" to open and close on their own lines, nothing contrary to that would apply if the parent div & child divs were assigned their own class & settings (or ids). This would properly differentiate these divs for stanza use from any other div. A test css of...
div.Stanza > div.StanzaLine {
margin-top: 0.0em !important;
margin-right: inherit !important;
margin-bottom: 0.0em !important;
margin-left: 2.0em !important;
font-size: inherit !important;
line-height: inherit !important;
text-indent: -2.0em !important;
}
div.StanzaLine {
display: block !important;
}


... and an underlying HTML code of...

<div class="Stanza">
<div class="StanzaLine">P. S.—If you're reading, just try a few snatches</div>
<div class="StanzaLine">From my book, lately printed, of foreign dispatches;</div>
<div class="StanzaLine">I flatter myself they will go to posterity—</div>
<div class="StanzaLine">Historical models of terseness and verity.</div>
</div>


... produces the same output as on your problematic page. The only difference being nobody should expect any .css defined div to be applied or rendered the same as an undefined div would. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If we look at where we started from, looks like we are going towards option 2, more or less ... Is it a feasibile to define a new class CSS or something prevents that?--Mpaa (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry; between you and the other guy being set to all posts marked minor by default or something - I sometimes miss things like this at first.

Nothing is preventing that. My only concern (not related to anything here specifically) is that our Common.css is rather jumbled and a bit to long as it is. I was looking at WikiBooks approach to Common.css as proposed change here but the lack of free time keeps preventing me from drawing it up, etc. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

##### Index:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu

Because I felt badly about this work becoming the victim of the stanza debacle, I have taken the liberty of reworking the pages (ironically into Mpaa's "option 2" or a close facsimile thereof) as an interim measure. I have deliberately marked all affected pages as "proofread" although I consider them now "validated" and will be happy to upgrade them wherever permitted. However, I wanted you to have the right of veto if you consider their current state unacceptable. Two issues I am aware of:

• The wrapping is not perfect with variation of width/font size due to the fact I applied a width restriction overall to obtain initial wrapping approximating the scanned pages. It appears that (in my browser at least) this seems to indicate enable horizontal scrolling for narrow pages in priority to closer wrapping of the text.
• On the reasoning that dropinitial was being applied to a graphic image of fixed size on Page:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu/12, I reformatted the text to flow directly around the capital, and adjusted the line styles appropriately. As this might well be considered to be me being stubborn &/∨ experimenting; please feel free to restore the drop capital template if you feel strongly about the matter.

However, I consider the current state of A Reconstruction Letter to be, in the immortal cop-out line, "good enough for Government work." (Hope that doesn't hit a raw nerve.)

Oh, a final question: Do you know why A Reconstruction Letter appears in Category:Pages with override author? Is Author:Edmund Clarence Stedman some kind of pseudonym (in which case I still can't see how this categorisation is being applied.) I am not sure this is worth worrying about; please consider it a casual observation. MODCHK (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

At some point, the current Header template no longer perfectly matched the one generated on the fly through the pages command line. Damn if I know why this on-the-fly thing was such a benefit never mind where to start looking for a way to re-synch the two. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably fits in with this stubbornness theme I've got going: I never seem to remember to use "header=1" on <pages>. Are you actually saying this, for once, has paid off? MODCHK (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
All I know is when the standard header template is used in the mainspace instead of calling one using the <pages command line (like now) there is no faux cat pointing to pages with override Author. It seems the coding is not the "same" between standard & virtual OR is caused by something in the Index:; template & its making it think override was/is being used. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Curious... Re:"apply regular header to show no override author category as under virtual on the fly header", etc.: What does all of the above mean with regard to author category, etc.? Layman's terms please :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem with the reworking. I uploaded the piece for {{stanza}} et. al. formatting experimentation purposes anyway. Feel free to validate. Should the set width be kept or is it no longer needed? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting and fixing my goof (cut/paste crazy?) on Page:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu/13. I have removed the width restriction (only line affected significantly was "Thus far all's as smooth as your oiliest sentence," on Page:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu/12, which I reformatted around the large capital per the lines above it.) A Reconstruction Letter looks O.K. to me, so if you are happy too only page 13 remains unvalidated (I can't promote it further as I was the last person to tag it "Problematic".) MODCHK (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the system will let me validate, so I'll go ahead and proof it again. BTW, I looked up some "Wharf Revue" videos, even though you told me to forget the Napoleon reference (probably because you told me to forget it ;) ). So I lied when I said "forgotten". I am curious that way, sorry! I figured you weren't necessarily giving them a plug, merely providing some realistic context for the reference... Thanks for the work on A Reconstruction Letter, et. al. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

## Thanks!

Thanks for your edit to Page:Satires and profanities -microform- (1884).djvu/25! I knew there had to be a more sophisticated option for formatting the verse than what I had been able to find. I think the hardest part of getting used to WS for me is going to be getting enough familiarity with formatting templates to make things display well. Fluffernutter (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wasn't familiar with the {{Poem begin}} template. I could have kept the poem tag in, but I prefer to use breaks and {{gap}}s instead. {{shift left}} was created to keep the quotation mark to the left of the text that should stay inline, and it has been useful for other formatting issues as well. You can also refer to Help:Poetry for more formatting options if you ever require them. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

## Page numbers and EB1911

At the moment I am cleaning up about one and a half thousand edits made by Bob to Wikipedia where he did not distinguish between an article that should cite EB1911 and one that should attribute the text. (see for example w:Confession of Basel) (Myself an another editor have been through about 1,250 of the articles so far). In fairness to Bob, at the time he made his changes to the Wikipedia articles the template "1911" did not take any parameters so he used a template he wrote called "Wikisource1911Enc Citation" to link Wikipedia articles to the Wikisource article.[13] Since then there have been developments in the Wikipedia templates with one called "Cite EB1911" for articles that just cite an EB1911 article, and "EB1911" which contain copied text from an EB1911 article.

Now to the point of this posting to your talk page. I read your comments in the section User talk:Bob Burkhardt#Transclusion from EB1911 Index pages to Mainspace pages. It is useful to include page numbers in the Wikipedia citations, but because I have enough on my plate "fixing" the Wikipedia articles, if I come across a EB1911 Wikisource article that has not been transluded from the corresponding Index pages, but is simply placed in Mainspace, I look to see if there is a hidden comment for a page number. If there is then I add <div class=indented-page> {{page break|page number|left}}. I also add that as a comment to the edit so if you look in my contributions you can see which pages have been altered. You may find this a useful list if you wish to do more work on moving pages from main-space to the the index pages and then transluding them back, as the volume (I had a bot job run to include the volume number on all EB1911 pages) and page numbers now exist for those EB1911 pages listed in my history, because it reduces considerably the search time to find the corresponding index page.

BTW not all such edits were made recently and I do do other things on Wikisource, so you will find other at random intervals back through my history, but often they are in clusters. Earlier before the bot job on volumes was run, I used to mark such edits with "volume=vol number page number" eg "volume=27 page 556" -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW I copy and modified some information from the DNB project to the EB1911 project (see Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Transclusion) which includes a template called {{EB1911set}} which you may find useful. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I don't do much work on the Britannica set, but have contributed [only] one or two articles. My comments on Bob's Talk page speak for themselves, the gist being my opinion that it is best to work from the Index pages. Any improvements you make where accuracy/verifiability is concerned is appreciated. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, based on your experience with the Byron volumes, I'm seeking your thoughts on how to manage a page like Page:Romeo and Juliet (Dowden).djvu/51 where there are two sets of footnotes. The first are critical and the second are explanatory. However, both are based on line number rather than our usual reference sequence. I'm planning to transclude based on Scene rather than an entire Act (so /Act I/Scene i). I'm wondering if I should add reference markers in the text to indicate a note, or if I should just put three separate sections on each Page: and let the reader check for themselves. Alternatively, I could use sidenotes or some other tabular arrangement. However, I was planning to use {{Playscript}} for the dialog and that is a table based template, so could cause problems. Rather than speculate on any other possibilities I thought I'd see what you think. Best, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether I should or not, I ignore the distinction (critical v. explanatory) between the two sets of footnotes that likewise appear in Byron's work and treat all references equally. In Romeo and Juliet you can probably do the same; and the footnotes lend themselves well to reference markers where you can ref mark sir! no, for example, and then use the rest of the reference as the reference. Any non-specific (ref mark-wise) reference (I didn't note any) that merely alludes to a line number (i.e., not a specific word or phrase), you can place the ref mark at the end of the line. Unless there are other variables than these in the work, that is how I would handle it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Noting that there are two footnotes both referencing line 66, and both referencing the same word, "swashing"[1]... You can probably combine the two footnotes (critical & explanatory) into one footnote:
 ↑ Qq 4, 5; washing Q, F. Jonson in his Staple of News &c...

## The prognosis of Preludes

I wish folks would 'look before they leap'... I eventually arrived at the same conclusions as you just did on my talk page and then some! Duplicate pages; unordered pages; image shadows - this one had quite a few quirks alright.

I think I managed to straighten it all out before uploading it for DjVu conversion at Archive.org [stress think]. The real pain was the omission of page numbers here & there (just for asthetic reasons?)... and the reuse of Sonet this, Sonet that every other body of work.

Anyway, you'd better take a good, long look at it over on Archive.org (Read Online) to make sure my "fixes" are indeed fixes approaching the state as first published. When you give the word no further changes or swaps are needed, I'll upload it to Commons. Don't worry about the Google 1st page still being there - I whack those before I upload to Commons as a practice - & that will align left-facing pages to the left (hopefully).

After all that exposure to poetry today, I think I have an urge to go pet a kitty cat or something. Weird.

George Orwell III (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I do believe I can work with that, thanks; and I can upload it to Commons as well. I can sort out all the quirks setting pagination in the Index. Many poems in this text are not present in Meynell's collected works, so it would be good to get them onto WS too. All is appreciated, and apologies if you are not a cat person! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I had pagination worked out (see Index), I believe, before the Google material was taken out of the piece. Now I believe I have to redo pagination, etc., for the order is now out of whack by a page when it was okay previously. It is better without the Google material, but I hope the page deletion/substitution doesn't create too much need for meddling (fixing). I'll try to figure it out tomorrow, as I was planning on retiring for the night. Have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I promise not to touch anything until I get your input. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You should be ready to go now. Trust that there is purpose behind what seems at times to be acute madness on this end. No worries. Go knock those missing works out now :) George Orwell III (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hoping that with the added 'exposure' to the poetry, you wouldn't get a sudden urge to start swinging that kitty by its tail instead of patting it ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
[The above being figuratively speaking, of course. In hindsight, apologies if anyone finds it offensive and in poor taste.] Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

## Kipling poems

I really haven't been around at all lately. I can't say that knowing this issue was coming up was not heavily involved in my avoidance of WS recently. It really is not something I can speak about (nor view) in a detached manner. I don't wish to become upset speaking about something I am very attached to. Nor do I wish to see people making desicsions largely based on not upsetting me (which strangley kind of upsets me a little), and it looks like that is what happened. Which all leads to just my not looking at all being my default option.

I knew topic was coming up when I was proof-reading behind you on the Kipling book and came to "The Native-Born". That was my work as well. Since it may very well have been the first thing I ever did on WS, it was done before I made an account. Apparently my name not being attached to that one earned it a different treatment. Obviously I care about these works, they are the things that inspired me about Wikisource in the first place. Obviously I think they desirable and want such worsk to be supported. What I do not have a firm opinion on is the exact balance to struck with such work. Often when I would look at these after I first did them I always felt the need of pruning a few links. I seemed to find my intial attempts overdone at later review. It was something that I always hoped would be hammered out through collaboration. I stopped creating new works like this because there was not that facet of the community here to work it out with. I stopped because I was a little afraid that being too bold too soon with too little support would end up with the whole endevor banned. And later on I became afraid of people not handling the issue on its own merits because my name was too recognizable.

I can't say I don't care what you do about these works. I can say that I still want you to do whatever you would if it were just an IP (At least I can say that so long I can pretend I don't know the answer.) I am certainly NOT going to edit-war or anything. I think you are awesome and have great taste in poetry! I don't want you to feel bad or conflicted about all this, but I don't really have any answers here. We discussed this all in the past and I doubt you wil be convinced by a re-hash. I think there can be a technical solution, but I am not sure that even opt-in solutions would be enough for you and those who hold your views. And it certainly won't be easy to implement when none of us understand programming.

I made note on your Talk page which poems I had come across that you had "penned"; and yes,—it was probably incorrect of me to assume that some of the other poems perhaps didn't "deserve" to be handled with the same respect. But there were dozens of poems—to include poems by Poetlister (most of them), and most of the poems were unindexed. I tried to be discerning, however... Not always a forte of mine... and I did seek advice beforehand. I believe my work is reversible, and have no issue with handling the situation as you would have seen fit. That is why I came 'knocking on your door' to begin with. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I don't remember where we had "discussed this all in the past". Can you point me to the conversation? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I will look for the old discussion. (found at Wikisource talk:Annotations/types) It was in more general terms, not what to do about X poem, but we discussed Kipling's work as an example. I am not really criticizing your descisions about how you handled this. I cannot be even halfway objective enough to claim an opinion on that. I don't want handle the situation as I see fit. I want there to be consensus, but I believe I know your opinion amd we have never been anywhere close to that.--BirgitteSB 12:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no problem with trying to reach a consensus, and if it means going through each poem myself and rectifying things, I am more than willing! My 'opinions' are not necessarily written in stone. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
going to work now. Will reply later.--BirgitteSB 12:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I had some questions related to your initial post, but I'll ask about them later if the need arises. I tend to get off on tangents, and I would like to remain on point here. So I'll await your return to hear about whether/how we can reach a consensus, rectify the situation, or hear how you would have handled the situation using specific examples so that I can learn from this situation and handle it differently next time. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Taking in everything as a whole, I see now how annotations comes into play in your concerns above. I hadn't really considered that aspect when deciding to "usurp" the poem pages you had edited. My decision was based mainly on the fact that most of the poems-in-question were unindexed. There were a couple/few that were indexed, and one that was a Featured Text (can't remember if you had collaborated on that one—or which one it was), and at least one that I also decided to keep ("Fuzzy-Wuzzy")... All of which I added to versions pages to make the distinction between the indexed version and the unindexed version, etc. If my issue had been with annotations, I would have removed everything from the unindexed "Fuzzy Wuzzy" version. As for my current opinion on the annotations debate, I believe I have only contributed one line to the discussions now ongoing about Annotations. The discussions are so vast and detailed, that I can't even begin to wrap my mind around them at this point. Hoping this clears some things up. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not a full reply as I doubt I will have time for that over lunch, but I just to clarify a few things. First, it is only the annotations that I have any concern about. Replacing the pre-indexing versions with indexed will often be uncontroversial (although not 100% with poetry). I am unaware of any significant edits Kipling made between Barrack-Room Ballads and the Seven Seas. if any of these had been sourced to The Scots Observer or the Inclusive Edition, I would hesitate to usurp them with The Seven Seas. I would be shocked to discover any of the poems you usurped were sourced to those editions. Therefore the only issue I have is the loss of annotations. Secondly. Besides giving extra attention to works with my account in the edit history (which is the smallest part of what I found upsetting),, I have no complaint with how your process in handling this. You did nothing that was not beyond "debatable", so I cannot believe you did anything "wrong". I am unhappy about The Native-Born, but that is life sometimes. It would have been best if I could have started this dialog when I first came across The Native-Born. That was my choice to do otherwise. Just like it was my choice to refrain from integrating the annotations into the The Seven Sea/The Native-Born. I probably would have done the latter without a second thought if I hadn't known you were working on the text and believed that you would find that highly controversial. I didn't open a dialog about it, because I knew it would upset me and too much else was going on at the time. I choose to go away for a bit only because I knew I would handle the situation better when I had less stress from meat-space. What you did in the absence of my speaking up was entirely within reason. --BirgitteSB 18:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
That actually was a full reply after all. I appreciate your restoring the other version of The Native-Born. I know you weren't working on this text with the purpose of overwriting the annotations and I apologize for coming across that way. Truthfully I am just worn out from the long-term debate over topic. It has really disheartening to me for some time now. This wasn't the first time this had happened and I have never said anything about the other time (also they never approached me about the other text), so I am afraid you had an exaggerated response out of me. I really appreciate your hearing me out so kindly. --22:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem. And if the results of the current discussions about annotations line up with your vision for Kipling's works, I will gladly help with proofreading poems from the Inclusive Index so you can do your thing with the text. So let me know if you are ever inclined to take up the task once again. Have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

## Wikisource meetup or training

Hey LJB,
I was talking to a few Wikipedia editors last weekend who are planning to have an edit-a-thon during the summer in NYC, most likely Manhattan. They suggested doing a Wikisource thing too, where we could most likely help interested Wikipedia editors learn how to use Wikisource, but I think it would be a cool opportunity for some of us to meetup too. I think I recall you mentioning that you live in the tri-state area, but I may simply be imagining things. Is this something you would be interested in doing? Nothing is definite yet, but I wanted if to see what kind of interest there is in this sort of thing. It'd probably be half about Wikipedia and half about Wikisource. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Theornamentalist. I actually live in the D.C. area, soon to be on the West Coast. Otherwise, I probably would have had an interest in attending. Have a great time! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok :( I heard that you had made it to one of the meetings in DC some time ago and wished I would have been there to actually have a Wikisource meetup thing. Maybe sometime in the future - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

## Custom edit button recovery

Billinghurst, Would you be able to do what is necessary to recover my "lost" custom edit buttons? They reside on my common.js page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Reload your cache file and see whether it now works. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Like a charm, Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

## Thanks for the help

LJB, Thanks for the help cleaning up some errors on The Yellow Wall Paper! I'm sure you noticed I've nominated it for FT. Sometimes I think we need a third set of eyes on everything, especially when we have so many people working on it (I don't really think we should require that but de.ws does and this work apparently needed it). Wish you could've made it to the GLAMWiki Boot Camp where we started work on this. It's getting a lot of attention (relatively) over on the enWP world.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm giving it another lookover for a few reasons: To read it, because it's short, and because I noticed it had been nominated for FT. Some "errors" are not really errors, like the removal of some end-of-line spaces; but I like to tidy things up that way, so please ignore that idiosyncrasy of mine. More Wikisource gatherings would be nice to see—small though they might be. Have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

## Georgie Johns Ruger? (Page talk:Memory (1913).djvu/3)

Hello.

Aren't you the clever lady? I had struggled as far as figuring the H. in H. A. Ruger was "Henry", before realising somebody else had already figure out "Henry Alford" (without supplying any kind of reference!), and now you promise this gold-mine of biography (tease, tease!)

If you can uncover (or remember) your "online sources" would you mind please recording them and/or passing them on so I can⸻if it is not too much trouble? Of late I have become quite lazy about creating Author records, because I (frankly) don't understand the rules any more. You know, you seem to "know" a lot more when you are truly ignorant; but then you learn a little and find out just how much you are never going to know...! MODCHK (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: I did a quick search for GJR and came up with [14] which doesn't supply much except an association with Columbia University; so looks positive anyway! MODCHK (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Might not exactly be authoritative, but...

• "HENRY ALFORD RUGER, research pioneer in the techniques of learning and of ... In 1901 he married Miss Georgie Johns of. Port Byron, Illinois, lady principal ..." (came up in Google search; can't get access to orig. site)
• Library of Congress record for Mrs. Ruger shows she collaborated on a book entitled, "Psychological tests, revised and classified" (1918)

As far as Author pages and following rules goes, I just copy the formatting of the most recent author page created by Billinghurst. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

## Fugitive ref

Hey LJB,

In case you're not seeing it (maybe a difference in browser or something, I'm using Chrome) I do not get sent to the main page reference list; instead, on the Fugitive Verse page I get a '''Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found''', that's why I made the edit. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I see the red error message too (on the Fugitive [sub]page). Billinghurst came across the same not too long ago... The issue is that when you supply the ref tag on the Fugitive page, it sends refs askew on the Author page—where the Fugitive page is "housed" (i.e., transcluded). Do you know what I'm trying to say? I'm not sure if there is a way to 'hide' or noinclude the ref issue on the sub pages or not, but if you know of a solution where refs appear correctly both on the subpages as well as on the Author page, please feel free to make changes! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
So it doesn't seem to be a problem when used in Author:Florence Earle Coates/Other Works, and others; they both appear properly on the subpage and the main page. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You'd know better than I would, I added a <noinclude> and it seemed to work; does everything else look in order? - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
All present and accounted for, Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

## Wikisource User Group

Global message delivery, 23:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

## Treasury of War Poetry is completed

Hi, I had intended to complete this while you were moving house and have it ready as a welcome back present, but life got in the way. Anyway, with some help from Kathleen, it's now all done. Adam is thinking of using it as a featured text during the centenary period of WWI and working through it has nudged me to start thinking seriously about a Poem of the Day (or Week) feature on the Main page. I need to think through the logistics of how to make it work without having to manually change a template every day. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I was just in the process of thanking you again for the validation on your Talk page after seeing the work's status changed to "done"; but then I noticed your post here, and the little bit I began to write seemed an understatement in light of the "welcome back present" :) MUCH thanks to you and others who have helped me with this work. It is a favorite of mine. To note, I completed the work by—and added it to new texts on—9/11/2011 (8:46am NY time) in remembrance of the September 11th attacks. Again, thank you guys so much. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Not a short poem, but if I may suggest a poem from the text to illustrate (perhaps during that "centenary period"), it would be "Sonnets written in the fall of 1914" by George Edward Woodberry. I remember editing the poem, and not wanting it to end. It well illustrates the time, in my opinion. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

## Index:Canadian poems of the great war.djvu

Want to have a go at this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit burned out from Armistice Day—thanks, by the way, for having a go at that one; it motivated me to see it through to completion, even as validator. I already have a To Do list, and am moving at a slow pace, but I will place Canadian poems on the backburner. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Susan has asked me a question at User talk:Beeswaxcandle#Translations that has taken me out of my depth. I was wondering if you might have some thoughts about it? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

## In respect of Armistice Day

Thanks for getting that to completion, even you did have to do a double validation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem; sometimes the best motivation is collaboration. Wish it had been a simpler task, but then one doesn't learn something new in the process! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

## Audio recordings.

I note that you've been a contributor in respect of other War Poets as well. Are there good recordings of them?

Also has 'The Unseen Host' (by Percival Wilde) ever been adapted as a radio production? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard any. Re: Wilde, I have no idea; but a quick Google search shows that a Wilde one-act play entitled "The Finger of God" was "presented with a technique never attempted in radio before." [15] Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

## Help with a poem in a footnote

Hi, I'm having problems with the poem split across Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 5.djvu/613 & Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 5.djvu/614. It's coming out oddly on History of England (Froude)/Chapter 33#cite note-p613-92. What am I doing wrong? Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, BWC. Look what I did here, and on the subsequent page. When formatting the poem, I basically treat it like it is not broken over two pages. It looks messy on the index pages, but it works perfectly in the Main (footnote 59). I have tried other ways, but they don't seem to work. Hope it helps; if there is a better way, I'd be interested also. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
In other words, don't make it more complicated than it needs to be. Thanks, much appreciated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
On a different note, is there a new default Layout for Mainspace pages? All books when now viewed on my computer are displayed with what used to be (may still be) Layout 2. Is it something I can change in my Preferences? Some books render well with this layout, but not others (to include poetry with long lines). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure with this one, as I'm not seeing it, but I'm still using monobook for my default skin. As a possibility to look at, have you turned on the beta feature "Typography refresh" in your preferences? Beyond that I can't help. It's probably more George's or Eliyak's (or maybe Viewer2) area. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if anything, the "cookie" feature for Dynamic Layouts has been improved so that it actually remembers the last Layout invoked in the left hand Display Options menu. In short, cycle thru the Layouts until "Layout 1" (the default) is displayed. This should not change unless you change it or a mainspace work has the lines to force a particular layout included in it somewhere (which is probably going to become real problem in the coming weeks).

The other 2 options in the Display options menu ( hide page links & page links within text [or inline page links] ) should also now work for everybody regardless of browser in use. All credit goes to Eliyak and his script tweaking - I only b*tched & moaned to him about fixing it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

## Validation

Dear Londonjackbooks.

Regarding User_talk:AuFCL#Rapid_validation, you in fact have touched upon one of my personal annoyances; albeit perhaps in an unsuspected aspect. Please believe I really do take both proofreading and validation seriously, and (perhaps despite what you think!) I will be beyond annoyed with myself if I have let anything slip by. (This is not to say I claim to achieve any kind of perfection, but one does in fact try: even if prosaic reality states otherwise.) AuFCL (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess there is always the possibility of offending, but I thought to ask anyway. Thank you for your responses here and there. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Well of course it was an offensive accusation (as if there is the slightest doubt of that) and for the record I really cannot understand why anybody would make it short of protecting their private project? Now you have certainly achieved the result that I will think three times before consciously touching upon any of your projects…Would you care to furnish a list?

Now you have forced me into the awkward position of awaiting any kind of edit on any of those pages I validated (& for certain I shall be watching) to find out whether your charges in point of fact hold.

If you should find there is any sting in these remarks then consider them commensurate with my annoyance at such a poor-spirited response to an intended "good deed."

There are such things as Learning and Instructing; but this is quite another situation entirely: a completely Wasted effort. AuFCL (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel I have accused you of anything other than rapid validation. By "rapid validation", I by no means intended to insinuate that you had committed any sort of offence. On the contrary, the offence is mine in not explaining myself sufficiently. Rapid to me may be normal to someone else; I just happen to be slow myself. Perhaps I could have worded things differently; a more accurate re-wording of my original post on your Talk page would be: "Wow! you sure do validate quickly! I don't know you and am not familiar with your editing, so I am just making sure you are being careful not to miss any typos that were frequently the result of OCR errors, etc." (I did not mean that you had missed any typos. When I said I had to replace many typos, I meant OCR errors while I was proofreading... not ones that you had overlooked. You misunderstood, but that is my fault.) I tried to be as to-the-point as possible so as not to be misunderstood, but I apparently have, and for that I am sorry. Sometimes much is lost in translation, and sometimes much comes out of it that is not the case. Sorry I was not clear. Best, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Most gracious of you. I shall remain cautious of "treading upon your toes" however.

Despite its confrontational aspects, I still think it more healthy to resolve these issues early than for un-explicitly-stated matters (fast validation might indicate faulty validation…) to fester.

But without finding any actual fault I continue to consider the charge an irresponsible one—however well-intentioned. I am of course going to look really silly if you do find faults now—for which I will then take full responsibility where appropriate; but now is not that then as yet. I'll put the daggers away for now. AuFCL (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not feel that you have tread upon my toes, and you don't have to worry about doing so. On the contrary, you speak of learning and instructing, and I would welcome any suggestions of how I could have approached you differently with the "rapid validation" concern. Timing, wording, etc. And I will not be looking for faults with your work. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Regrettably reconstructing the words you wished somebody else to have used so as not to have created an offence [which of course nobody would then have found even remarkable] in the first place is often an exercise doomed to futility.

That I was progressing through those pages rather rapidly I entirely concede, not least because I was trialling a fragment of javascript whose effect was to change eligible (unedited yellow) links on an Index: page to "direct-to-edit-mode" ones (ala normal red-link handling.) Also, the fact that your own proofreading had been of such high standard contributed hugely. In fact looking back on my own change history I was rather surprised to note a kind of rough pattern in that about every tenth page seemed to require slightly more attention than the bulk of its compatriots?

Oh, and in case you were curious, here is the script fragment (slightly tidied up to make it a little more readable):

javascript:
var AllATags=document.getElementsByTagName('a');
for(var S=0;S<AllATags.length;S++){
if(AllATags[S].hasAttributes('class')){
if(/ppi-todo/.test(AllATags[S].getAttribute('class'))){
if(/\?/.test(AllATags[S].getAttribute('href'))){
AllATags[S].href+="&action=edit";
} else {
AllATags[S].href+="?action=edit";
};
};
};
};
void 0
In case you are rash enough to try this yourself, please be warned that it is but a half-completed experiment which may be doomed to go nowhere; and in any case in its current form relies entirely upon the Index: page state being previously set by the official "Pages I can validate" gadget.

There was no particular reason for selecting this work other than the simple coincidence of its appearance on the "New Texts" list (since cycled out) and having a substantial number of still un-validated pages. AuFCL (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Script and its use is unfortunately over my head, along with many other things technical. I am happy just to upload, proofread & occasionally validate. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

## The poetical works of Matthew Arnold Participation

Is it okay if I lend you a hand in proofreading The poetical works of Matthew Arnold? If so, are there any things to consider employing? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course! It would be great to have some help, thanks! There are some guidelines for formatting on the Index talk page if you'd like to take a look there; otherwise you may take a look at any of the pages I have proofread to see how I have been formatting the work. Thanks for considering! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a question: what's the template block center/e used for? When is it used? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
To quote the {{Block center}} page: [The] template places a block of text in the center of the page, without affecting the text alignment within that block. I use the template with poetry. If a whole poem appears on one page, you would format it like this:
{{block center|The thoughts that rain their steady glow<br />
Like stars on life's cold sea,<br />
Which others know, or say they know,—<br />
They never shone for me.}}


If a poem spans multiple pages, you can reference this page/section, for it illustrates things better than I can explain things. Hope that helps! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I mean the bottom typing box. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The footer, actually. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I have "preset" block center/e (via the Index page) to appear in the footer automatically (and block center/s appears in the header as well). This is just so I don't have to type it each time I start a new page. It will sometimes need to be removed from the header/footer if/when it is not needed. For example, if a poem begins on a new page, the block center/s will need to appear in the page body and not in the header (see here). And if a poem ends on a page, block center/e will need to be deleted from the footer and placed at the very end of the poem in the page body. But more often than not, you will find poems spanning multiple pages, and you will therefore need them to appear in the header and footer. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, I am currently working out some formatting issues with User:Ineuw right now, so if you are still interested in helping out, if you don't mind waiting until some formatting consensus is worked out first. I'll leave word here when things are good to go. Sorry, and thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Good to go! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

## Page:The Spirit of the Nation.djvu/95

The original format is in the early revision, but I went back to a simpler template formatting because the transclusion broke, due to the use of a lot of templates. Feel free to put the formatting back, but the transclusion limits will need to be looked into.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess I placed 'problematic' on the wrong pages then :) I'm afraid "transclusion limits" are beyond my ken, but if there is any other way I can help, let me know! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

## Disambiguation needed

Spotted that when I got to Epigram (2). Fixed now.--Keith Edkins (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks!Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

## Index:Homer - Iliad, translation Pope, 1909.djvu

Any chance of giving this a read over?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As in proofread? or validate? or... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Ideally validation, but spotting the transcription errors(and I've been careful) I've missed appreciated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure! I've gone over a couple pages already. I'll link to the project in my "To Do" list, and I'll pay visits to it. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)