User talk:Londonjackbooks

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

...it is self-evident that nothing educates an eye for the features of a landscape so well as the practice of measuring it by your own legs.

Londonjackbooks talk


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

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

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

from "The Boxer" by Simon & Garfunkel

Userboxes
Seal of the United States Marine Corps.svg

This user is a
MARINE
Wife
of 26 years.

September 11th, 2001

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

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

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


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


TALK[edit]

poem tag + stanza break[edit]

I don't want to step on your editing, but if the only thing that you're missing is the stanza break at a page break, the solution is to put a {{nop}} inside of the </poem> on the first page, and then another {{nop}} inside the <poem> on the second page. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: Feel free to make changes as you deem appropriate. Thanks for the alt solution! The main issue was the poem tag placement, which should be in the body as opposed to the header/footer when spanning multiple pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it used to work, when transcribing poems across pages, to put the open/close tags in the header/footer in the middle pages, but apparently it broke at some point. Thanks. -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing customized editing toolbar[edit]

Have any changes been made recently? I have not used my customized toolbar for a time, and it is missing in Page and Main namespaces. Also, zoom buttons are present, but do not make changes when clicked. @Ineuw, @Beeswaxcandle:? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

They seem to be back as of now. Zooming works too. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Gone again, back again. Unstable. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I am looking at your common.js toolbar setup and it was programmed by GOIII over a year ago, and the same setup did not work for me anymore for awhile.
The important settings for you to check are and post here as follows:
In Preferences \ Gadgets \ Interface, this first option must be selected.
Site: General utilities needed by the templates and portals of this wiki project.
In Preferences there are two toolbar related options. Which ones are selected?
Show edit toolbar or Enable enhanced editing toolbarIneuw talk 03:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for helping... I have Enable enhanced editing toolbar checked of the two. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: What about the Preferences \ Gadgets \ Interface, this first option must be selected.
Site: General utilities needed by the templates and portals of this wiki project. please make sure it is also selected.
Also, I copied your setup into mine so I see what you "should" see. Please look at this uploaded screen shot File:Ljb setup.jpg is this what you seeing - or not? I took this picture from your earlier work of today. Please open this page in edit mode and compare it to the image and let me know the difference. — Ineuw talk 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Please ignore that the layout is over / under and I can switch that to side by side if that is your layout. I am only interested in the toolbar options and the character insert bar position. — Ineuw talk 04:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Perhaps this image is closer what you (should) have? File:Ljb setup 2.jpg. — Ineuw talk
@Ineuw: Sorry, yes... "General utilities & etc." is also selected. Your screenshot (#2) is what I should be seeing, and once in a blue moon it appears; but more often than not (as currently), I am getting the default(?) toolbar. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Log out of your browser (Chrome?) and all Wikisource related browser cookies should be deleted. They hold user info. I believe you are using Chrome. If you need help with Chrome just post here. You need to log in with newly typed and selected info. — Ineuw talk 04:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Deleted history, cookies, etc. (Chrome), logged out, logged back in again, signed back into WS, and things have not changed in edit mode. Hoping I didn't err in following instructions. Just to add, if it is late where you are, we can resume this at a later time... perhaps moving this to my Talk page if it gets too lengthy here... Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Don't worry, my evening just began. :-) I will continue this on your page now. — Ineuw talk 04:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Londonjackbooks: If in Preferences 1st page you have \ Global account: (see the field next to it), then we may have to delete all Wikipedia related cookies. :-( — Ineuw talk 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Global account: is listed on 1st page after Password:. When I deleted all Chrome browsing history, wouldn't that have taken care of all WP-related cookies too? Not sure what you are saying I need to do...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Browsing history is not the same as the cookies. In settings, search for "cookies" and there you will see a list of cookies that were accumulated by your browsing. I think you can filter the list with "wiki". — Ineuw talk 05:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Meant "browsing data"... When I obliterate, I obliterate the whole list (and from beginning of time), to include cookies, etc. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a second please, I am in the process re-installing chrome and will let you know. :-) — Ineuw talk 05:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Making a PB&J... standing by. We have had similar issues in the past, if any details strike you as being similar... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Not really, because it works in my common.js file as it should. Chrome has two stores for cookies. One is called Clear browsing data and we need the one (next to it) that is named Content settings . . . . continued. — Ineuw talk 05:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Under Content settings, do I click on "all cookies and site data..."? If so, what then? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Yes, in the Content settings, click on Cookies and site data and there you can do a search for cookies containing the word segment "wiki". — Ineuw talk 05:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
And then X all the "wiki" cookies out? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: I deleted all the "wiki" cookies, all the browsing data (again), and signed back in. Unfortunately, still no changes. It's almost 2am here. I stayed up late to finish editing a work, but this may take some time? I can give another 15 minutes, then we may have to resume later. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: I guess we are in the same time zone. (Eastern Daylight). Let's continue tomorrow. At what time do you start editing? — Ineuw talk 05:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Haven't been regularly editing lately, but I can be available between 6-9am tomorrow morning. Or later in the afternoon/evening. What's best for you? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: The next step is to temporarily remove the code from your common.js, and put things back one at the time. I will do this now. Please see if you can work with this tomorrow morning. 6-9 am is a bit early, but one can never tell. — Ineuw talk 06:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed (& saved) the editing toolbar related code but left you the colors and the Character insert bar. GOIII left a not in the code that in the Preferences \ Editing The Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function must not be enabled, please check that it is so. — Ineuw talk 06:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It was checked, so I unchecked it. In Preferenced/Editing/Editor, what key items should be checked, and what should not? For example, "show edit toolbar" is not currently checked, but "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" is. Is that correct? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sept 13, 2016[edit]

@Londonjackbooks: Hi. Only the enhanced toolbar is to be checked. It's a either one or the other. Have you had the chance to do some editing this morning? — Ineuw talk 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Morning! Have not edited, but checked page in edit mode, and no changes. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. To save you some time, you don't have to ping me on my Talk page, as I am notified automatically of an edit. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks I wasn't sure. Would it be possible for you to post a screen shot of what you see in editing mode? That would really help. I have my account set up as yours so I can compare. — Ineuw talk 16:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Sure. File:LJB screenshot 1.jpg Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Alongside the icons of the toolbar, there are four blue titles preceded by arrowheads. Click on the arrowhead preceding the "Proofreading tools" and this will display the magnifier etc. Let me know if this is what you were looking for, and I will restore the rest of what I removed. Now, if the page is saved with the "Proofreading tools" showing, then all subsequent pages will display it open accordingly, and that is what stored in one of the WS cookies. — Ineuw talk 16:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Dropdown and zoom buttons appear, but when clicked on, have no effect. Main issue is the missing customized editing toolbar. Whenever that is present, zooming buttons work fine. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Reinstalled the original code which contains the customizations, please check now..IneuwPublic (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: No go. That is, no changes. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It just occurred to me, if you wish to infinitely control the enlargement and minimization of the page image, the click on the image, and use the mouse's scroll wheel. Would this be what you are looking for? As for the three magnifier icons, they work for me using your setup.IneuwPublic (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Clicking on the image/scroll wheel has no effect. Again, main issue is the missing customized editing toolbar. Whatever is preventing that from appearing also seems to be disrupting zoom ability. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
What special gadgets are you missing? This is not clear to me.IneuwPublic (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I meant to write "Click the image with the left mouse button (the arrow should be on the image) and the use the scroll wheel to change image size." — Ineuw talk 17:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
(ec) @Ineuw: Editing toolbar should look like your screenshot from yesterday at File:Ljb setup.jpg, only with side-by-side editing. Sorry, I thought you were aware. To add, clicking the image still has no effect. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Please try now.IneuwPublic (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: No, unfortunately. Should I try deleting cookies, or is that not an issue?

Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for all the trouble. Will be away from computer for a bit. Will check back. Feel free to take a break from looking into this if it becomes exasperating. At your leisure, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's no trouble, in the middle of it all some 90 minutes ago, my router crashed. Couldn't repair it so after for a hour, I went to an internet café,and that's where I am at the moment. — Ineuw talk 21:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Although, I lost the post because of the broken router, and I don't remember what I wrote. In any case, there is no har in deleting the cookies any time you suspect something is wrong. I made a change earlier, and after deleting the cookies, please try again. — Ineuw talk 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

just to shorten the scroll[edit]

I also checked, and Wikimedia installed a new software upgrade this morning. I hope it's not the cause. P.S: Please dont apologize. Retired Wikisourcians can be tired, but not impatient. :-) — Ineuw talk 21:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I deleted cookies again, but no difference. I may have to step away from the computer again soon... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's important that you open a new page for each look at the editing layout. The opening of a new page refreshes the edit setup. — Ineuw talk 22:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Yup. Opened up a few random WS pages in edit mode with same negative results. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me think about it and will post some screen shots from my copy of your setup. Until then, please take a break. I also have to move my WiFi operations somewhere else. Too much coffee and the battery must be recharged. — Ineuw talk 22:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I will take a break, but it is you doing all the work! Coffee is in my plans as well. I'll check back. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Is this the layout you need? File:LJB setup restored on IneuwPublic Chrome.pngIneuwPublic talk 00:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The layout (side-by-side) is correct, but not the toolbar. Correct toolbar would be File:LJB desired custom toolbar.jpg. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: To clarify, in this image -> File:LJB setup restored on IneuwPublic Chrome.png there are three bars. The lower two bar is the advanced editing bar one bar. The top bar is NOT part of the toolbar it is known as the Charinsert. I moved the Charinsert bar back to its original position at the bottom below the footer as is shown in this image -> File:Charinsert on the bottom.jpg Please check your editing layout now and let me know if this is what you want. — Ineuw talk 03:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sept 14, 2016[edit]

The "wrong" toolbar is still present. The layout is correct. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, needed to recover lost sleep and hope I am not too late for class. Are you able to get work done?

I assume that what you are referring to as "The wrong toolbar", is the one that shows "Insert" on the left? If that is so, then click on the arrow to the right of the word "Insert" and this opens a dropdown list of various choices. at the bottom of that list, select "User" and let me know if that is what you are looking for. The "User" selection is lost when the cookies were deleted and this is one of the personal preferences stored in the Wikisource cookies. — Ineuw talk 16:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nutshell[edit]

@Ineuw:

Current, undesired toolbar:

File:LJB undesired custom toolbar.jpg

Desired, "lost" toolbar:

File:LJB desired custom toolbar.jpg

Explanation

  1. I wish to recover my "lost" toolbar, which contains customized buttons for emdash, endash, break, ref, etc.
  2. I do not have any issues with the insert toolbar.
  3. When the current, undesired toolbar is present, zooming does not work (whether using buttons or mouse scroll).

Hoping that explains things sufficiently. I will be away from the computer again for a time. My editing times have been sporadic. Thank you for all your time! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it. — Ineuw talk 17:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for wasting your time, I now understand what you are referring to: Author: mdash, ndash </br> and <ref></ref>.. This custom script was added by GOIII, and it is way above my pay grade. Think that I can add the missing tools to the CharInsert "User" bar, but without buttons, it will display as text. — Ineuw talk 18:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
For the record, my time was not wasted :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki language and text coding used in Wikisource[edit]

I don't like to disappoint, but I must express the opinion that the chances of getting the custom buttons back are slim. I say this because I also had this same custom coding from GOIII and after awhile it stopped working. I suspect that the code is dependent on the vagaries of the Wikimedia software changes, and we did have a software update 1-2 days ago. But, I posted this issue on the Scriptorium/Help in the hope that it's possible to repair it.

Another solution would be to use a keyboard macro system for every imaginable task one uses on WS. The list of what I use it for can be seen HERE. Any keyboard key combination can be assigned to any action as you wish. The advantage is that the software is free, and it's not dependent on Wikisource changes and it works with any Windows operating system, from XP to Windows 10. It's a very sophisticated and highly thought of softwarea and I am not the only one uses it here in Wikisource. The software is downloadable from here and the installation is simple, and I offer my help to step you through it, explain, and write the code. All you need to do is let me know which key combination you want to use for which action. — Ineuw talk 20:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Thanks for posting at the Scriptorium. If, in the end, I can not get my customized toolbar back, I may look into your solution above. There are really only two buttons that I use frequently when proofreading poetry: emdash and <br /> (the latter being crucial). I will wait to get input from the Scriptorium, and will let you know if I need assistance with your alternate solution. Thanks for your help and time, and apologies if I did not explain myself clearly at the outset. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I added both to your "User" CharInsert bar. Please let me know if it's OK. — Ineuw talk 21:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Thank you. Is it possible to do the following:
  1. Move charinsert bar above the header
  2. change </br> to <br /> ? Then I will give it a shot. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Done, please check. Ty. — Ineuw talk 01:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: That is workable! Thank you, Ineuw! :) Only issue now is the zoom buttons do not work. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Copied your setup into my public persona account again, and set all my preferences to be like yours so that our setup is identical. In the side by side editing mode, for some reason the zoom doesn't work initially but got it working by clicking to switch the view to over|under editing (where zoom always works) and switched back to side by side edit mode, and the zoom works. I tested this several times, logged out, deleted the cookies, logged in, and it still works. For now, please use this method until we find the source of the problem, and again please let me know if it works for you. — IneuwPublic talk 03:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Up until now all tests were done in Chrome to match your work environment. Then, I returned to Firefox and logged in as User:IneuwPublic as in Chrome, and uploaded two screenshots, one in Chrome and another in Firefox. Notice the difference between browsers, including the zoomed out page in Firefox.
By the way I copied your common.js after you restored the missing code. — Ineuw talk 03:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Thanks for discovering a temporary troubleshoot for zooming. Works for me as you. Re: your screenshots: Once in a blue moon the [desired] customized toolbar appears for me in Chrome; do I infer from your screenshots that things appear stable in Firefox? Could the issue be browser-related? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I had the same exact experience in Chrome, an occasional glimpse of the toolbar. It's not a question of stability, both are very stable. It's the interpretation of the the Wikimedia software by the browsers. Although I am a Firefox aficionado, I try working with both, but in my experience Firefox is better overall. I would recommend you to keep have both, as a backup and comparison. — Ineuw talk 16:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: I used Firefox briefly some years ago; can't remember exactly why I made the change. I am so used to Chrome at this point, but will keep the backup option open. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sept 20, 2016[edit]

Can you test the magnifying system in your normal editing mode without clicking on the horizontal/vertical icon (the icon which always reminds me of the gallows.) It was supposed to be repaired. — Ineuw talk 00:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Magnifying now works when both desired and undesired editing toolbars are present. At least for now, desired toolbar is appearing more often than not (undesired editing toolbar appears first, then switches to desired customized toolbar a second later). Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
What you call "undesired" is the standard advanced toolbar on which GOIII applied his magic, so it will show up or "flash by" until the the script modifications of GOIII take over. They are seen because javascript language is slow. I have the same experience with other javascript modifications. — Ineuw talk 03:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, got it, thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot that archives[edit]

Hi. In case it is of interest, user:wikisource-bot is doing user talk page archiving on a regular basis to a person's preferred configuration. The template to use on your talk page, with the configuration options, are displayed on that page. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I have added the link to my helpful links section. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

De Regimine Principum, Ad Regem Cypri[edit]

Will you be doing more work on De Regimine Principum, Ad Regem Cypri? If so, I'll move it to Translation ns, but if not I'd delete it since only one sentence has been translated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I will probably not work on it further. I wish there was an english version available to transcribe; I would contribute in a heartbeat to such a project. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are several texts I also wish had free translations. Oh well. I'll delete this one for now. Thanks. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A script of possible interest[edit]

AuFCL created the typoscan.js script which is a very useful tool for identifying typos and speeds up proofreading. I wrote a short documentation which can be read HERE. If you are interested, I can place a single line of code in your javascript, linking to my copy which can be removed anytime. It is installed individually, (not a gadget). If you like it, I will place a copy in a page related to your name and you can specify the highlight color of your choice. — Ineuw talk 01:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: I will consider it if it is possible to view highlighting in the Page namespace and Page Preview, but not in the Main. Is that possible? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I will take a look at the design if it's possible. The advantage for me in the main namespace is that I get the one whole PSM article on one page. We are not as thorough as we would like to be. :-) — Ineuw talk 14:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I installed the script excluding the main namespace. The script is activated by the first active line in User:Londonjackbooks/common.js.
//activate typoscan script of User:Londonjackbooks/common.js/typoscan.js
mw.loader.load('//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Londonjackbooks/common.js/typoscan.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

To deactivate it, place two forward slashes // preceding mw.loader.. — Ineuw talk 17:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, @Ineuw: Seems to be working correctly... I am sure it will come in handy! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. — Ineuw talk 16:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

War image rendering in mobile view[edit]

@Ineuw: With regard to the following Page: Page:War; or, What happens when one loves one's enemy, John Luther Long, 1913.djvu/8... GO3 was on to something with his parameter settings, noting the differences in mobile view below. It achieves what I originally had in mind and was concerned with: that images 'resize' relative to the device they are viewed on.

{{FI
 | file     = War (Long, 1913) frontispiece.jpg
 | width    = 500px
 | caption  = '''Then he looked in her face, playing softer and softer'''
}}

renders: War image mobile view undesired.jpg Image and caption not centered relative to mobile device window/size.

{{FI
 | file     = War (Long, 1913) frontispiece.jpg
 | width    = 90%
 | cstyle   = max-width: 400px
 | caption  = '''Then he looked in her face, playing softer and softer'''
}}

renders: War image mobile view desired.jpg Image and caption centered relative to mobile device window/size.

Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I also checked the page on the mobile, and my all inclusive and overall comment is that the mobile version of the mediawiki software is a work in progress and GOIII had no control over mobile design changes anymore than he had over the desktop design changes. Keep in mind what they did to your magnification and toolbar issues, and my over/under editing issues, something that they still cannot resolve. I won't go into details, because the issues are far+far from being resolved and other explanations will just further confuse the issue. So, I reset the image to the original settings, so please clear the mobile browser's cache check now if it is back to what you had earlier.
The expectation of the mobile software is that the reader should click on the image to be displayed properly, and this hides the caption which is not part of the image. Just experiment until you had enough of being frustrated. — Ineuw talk 23:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Thanks for your comments and help. It is perhaps not very helpful that the extent of my technical knowledge consists primarily of "something's not right!" ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
It helps a lot, because now I understand. It never occurred to me that you meant mobile. However, you should look at your works & images in the main namespace, and not in the Page namespace on the mobile. I once looked at my work, and it seemed OK. I suspect that more effort went into the main namespace software design. — Ineuw talk 00:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: 'Screenshots' above are of Main namespace in mobile, not Page. I figure more people are viewing on mobile devices these days, and that image rendering should be a consideration, so whatever gets the job done... My initial purpose for posting at the Scriptorium was unrelated to mobile rendering... The images using the FI template were rendering at 100% size (viewing from my desktop in both Main & Page) despite set parameters... also noted by BWC... but it 'miraculously' corrected itself! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Notes on mobile images from WS[edit]

Hi. I couldn't figure out why your mobile screenshot seems curved, so curiosity took hold of me and took my first screenshot of the main namespace page of War; or, What happens when one loves one's enemy on my cellphone and this is the result.

Also created this frontispiece which includes the original caption. — Ineuw talk 11:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Hehe... It is curved because it is not an actual screenshot. I took a picture of the mobile phone using my digital camera. I don't actually use the mobile phone as a phone (I still have a flip phone), and don't know how to take actual screenshots on the mobile. So I improvised :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Suspected that it was taken by other means, like a mirror, etc. FYI, I use a cellphone as a WiFi connected miniature computer, I don't even have a cell number. :-) One can install a free screenprint software, from the software stores. — Ineuw talk 18:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

EB1911 Shoulder Heading: Right- v. left-alignment in Main[edit]

FYI, Please see Template talk:EB1911 Shoulder Heading#Right- v. left-alignment in Main -- PBS (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Edinburgh[edit]

Hi Londonjackbooks, that's great that you'd be willing to help. To be honest, I'm just trying to get the hang of uploading texts to Wikisource and so your help would be gratefully accepted. I do want to understand the process better: setting up index pages, incorporating images and proofreading and so on as I have curators at the university here who would like to add lots of books to Wikisource... IF we can make the process easy enough for them to pick up and run with. So feel free to pitch in with 'Edinburgh' text's images etc. (but if you are also able to at all help with explaining the process of what you did at the same time then that would be great too as I'd like to be able to pass on to others.) Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: Great! It will be a learning experience for me as well, as I am more used to doing than explaining! but I will do my amateur best :) ... I took a look at the text's images available at Internet Archive for the specific work, but the image quality wasn't to my liking. I found the same version of the text at Hathi Trust, and was able to download much better images from there. The first thing I would do is create a Wikimedia Commons Category page for the work, which will house all of the images once uploaded to Commons. Then it is only a matter of applying the uploaded files to the Index pages using one of various formatting methods available for image placement. I'll get started creating the Commons Cat page and upload the images that I have saved... More in a bit at the Index Talk page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My occasional house cleaning[edit]

Hi. There are four of your images in this Category:Wmf software bugs since September. If you don't need them, can I delete them? I promise to dust and vacuum afterwards. :-) — Ineuw talk 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Thanks. I saved a couple of them to my computer in case I have a similar issue again. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but must say, like minds think alike. — Ineuw talk 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Clandestine Marriage[edit]

Sorry to have validated those incorrect stage directions. I'll leave them to you to sort out now. Thank you for making them more consistent, I don't feel good enough at Wikisource yet to deal with that kind of thing. BethNaught (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@BethNaught: No problem! I have actually asked EncycloPetey at his talk page how he wants to address stage direction formatting—wanting to be sure using {{float right}} is okay. I am not always sure of my formatting choices, and usually defer to those who know better :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@BethNaught: Thanks for the extra set of eyes and all the catches! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem either! I'm only sorry that the stage directions deterred me from doing more of the validating—so I helped in this way instead. BethNaught (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Other birthdays coming[edit]

If you keep an eye on Wikisource:Scan parties, you'll know that 2019 will mark the 200th birthdays of American poets James Russell Lowell and Walt Whitman. Either (or both) would be tremendous projects and give you two years lead time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. With regard to Thoreau, I just found an inexpensive copy online of a Thoreau bibliography (Henry David Thoreau: A Descriptive Bibliography, 1982 by Borst, Raymond R.) that includes listing poetic works. If we're lucky, it will identify poetry that is Thoreau's within his essays. If not, then I have an otherwise good reference book : ) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoreau vol. 7[edit]

The simplest action would be to upload the correct file over the bad one at Commons. Just replace it, keeping the original name you intended, and cancelling the deletion request.

Then mark the second copy of the alternative version as a "speedy delete" (reason=duplicate). This way, all the volumes will have the same filename structure, and it will be far less confusing in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I was aware that you could upload over images at Commons, but not DjVu files. I already uploaded a correct File to commons, and have been proofreading from the new Index. I agree with keeping filename structure uniform, and that was my original intent; but when giving it a second thought, thought it useful to add "Journal" and Volume no. to the File names for the Journal volumes (Index:Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906) v7 Journal v1.djvu). If you prefer to leave out "Journal &c." in the remaining volumes, I will do so. Apologies, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It really depends on how the transclusion is expected to work. It will be messy, whatever we do. I just expect it would be less confusing with a uniform filename pattern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I am not understanding what will be "messy." I am asking to merely delete the following files here and at Commons:
It will be messy in that: (1) links between different volumes will use different filename structures, possibly leading people to believe some volumes have not been uploaded; (2) Transclusion tagging will require different filenames in different volumes, even though they are part of the same overall work. If we can be consistent from the outset, when it takes the least work to do so, then it will avoid these and other potential headaches later. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Oof... Let me know what I need to do. Should I stop proofreading on the new Index upload? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
If you can upload over the original, and switch to the standard name, that (as I say, and Billings hinted) is the easiest way to handle this. You've done very little, so a few copy-pastes could move what work we have.
On a related note, were you aware that Vol. V has a large selection of poetry at the end and appears to be the source for the list of Thoreau's poems? The list appears near the end of the volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Yes, thank you. I was aware of the poems, and will happily proofread those pages as well. I also noted the list of poems and bits of verse from Thoreau's prose writings near the end of the volume. I used it as a guide to proofread those poems we have Indexed here. Now all of the poems listed in the WS Index of Thoreau's poems are Indexed unless otherwise noted (such as Redlinks list on Poetry index talk page; most of those poems and bits of verse are found in the Journal writings). Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: To be clear, I will be overwriting the existing File at Commons with the correct File by clicking on "Upload a new version of this file"? [More questions may be in store, so apologies at the outset!] Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: done.

Now we have:

  1. Overwritten Commons file with correct filename
  2. "Duplicate" Commons file with incorrect filename
  3. Index associated with desired Commons File (no proofread pages)
  4. Index associated with undesired Commons File (some proofread pages)

Awaiting next step. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Next, mark the Duplicate file at Commons with {{duplicate}}, including the name of the file it duplicates. Duplicates can be processed quickly without listing them for deletion. The template adds them to a file, and the duplicate status can be easily and quickly checked with a bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: At what point can I copy/paste proofread pages to the desired Index so I don't lose the work? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
As soon as the new copy of the file shows up in your edit window when you edit from the Index page. I'm already seeing it. Depending on your browser, you might have to purge or to clear your cache, but it should be ready now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Done and done Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
P.S. @EncycloPetey: Would you prefer that I not ping you at every step? Also, I appreciate your help and patience. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Pinging is fine. Everything looks good at this point. If you have finished all copy-paste you need to do, then I can delete the unused Index page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Copy-paste is complete. Thanks! Let me know if there is anything else... I also meant to ask with regard to the Writings Volume 5 "Poems" section: I can proofread the poems; were you envisioning transcluding all poems onto a single page in the Main (Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Poems)? I assume so, but wanted to make sure before deciding on sectioning/formatting. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Working on the poems is fine with me. I intend only to work on the Translations. I'm not sure what the best way would be to transclude to Poems. They might all work on a single page, if there aren't too many. However, I also am unsure whether to put them at Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Poems or at Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Poems. With a multi-volume work, it can be better to have the sections grouped within the volume. But as I say, I'm not sure whether or not this would be the best option for Thoreau. I'm also not sure who would be best to ask for a second (or third) opinion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: This might serve as a second opinion (thanks to AdamBMorgan). May I propose:

  • Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Translations/Translations from Pindar
  • Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Poems (there aren't many—only 22) otherwise, Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Poems/Nature
  • Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 7/Journal/Volume 1/Chapter 1 OR Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 7/Journal Volume 1/Chapter 1 ? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
For the first six volumes, I would prefer:
  • Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Translations from Pindar
over the use of
  • Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Translations/Translations from Pindar
because subsections within volumes tend to make navigation messy.
For the Journal volumes, I am less certain, we might simply use a structure like:
  • Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 7/Chapter 1
provided that all the journal volumes are organized into chapters. And the overall Journal could be indexed using:
  • Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Journal
--EncycloPetey (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I confirmed that all of the Journal vols. are divided into chapters. For lack of a better way of putting it, I assumed levels in MS titling should be—what's the word...—in other words, does it not matter that Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 7 would be at the same "level" as Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Journal? Do you know what I am asking? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It shouldn't matter, no. Especially if "Journals" is the only such grouping that isn't leveled that way. The challenge is that his Journals span several volumes, so we'd either be creating an extra page not in the original set, or we would simply list all journal entries in the main table of contents... wherever that ends up. The contents could be listed on the "main" page for the set, or on a separate "Contents" page, or we could list most things and "Journal" on the main page, and have a separate "/Journal" page for listing the journal chapters to keep the main Contents listing of manageable size. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Because I work better with visuals, I have represented TOCs for the Main page (using Aux TOC), V. 5 and V. 7 in my sandbox (first 3 sections), using what I think to be your preference for main/subpage titling. Feel free to make adjustments to titling if I have misunderstood you. I don't think we need a separate page for a Journal listing, do you? Apologies for belaboring this subject... it can wait... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That's pretty much how I imagine it should work. The would be an overall contents pointing to volumes (though we might also identify the major components of each volume in the main contents), and each volume would have its own main page with a more detailed contents listing transcluded from the volume itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Thanks for the input. Done for the day! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

House of Atreus[edit]

Thanks for catching that error.

I discovered this weekend that the entire trilogy (and prefaces!) in this volume were recorded as a full-cast reading for LibriVox, so I returned to working on our transcription. I had thought to nominate E. B. Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound for November (and Beth kindly validated it), but with the LibriVox available for this work, I may nominate this one instead if it can all be completed by September (and that should be easily done), and hold Browning for a later date. We've never had a Greek play (or any Greek work!) featured before, and the only Classical work we've featured was from India. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Our chief is gone ... And hath not left his peer! grabbed my attention. I was familiar with the lines in Milton's Lycidas ("Lycidas is dead ... and hath not left his peer") from Mrs. Coates' dedicatory piece on her mentor, Matthew Arnold, some years after his death. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)