User talk:Londonjackbooks

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

"Wisdom doubtless is a better thing than wit; but when we read the rambling polysyllables of our modern books and magazines, I think it is much clearer that we have lost the wit than it is that we have found the wisdom. . . ."

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

USMC logo.svg

This user is a
of 25 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"


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Greeting from Italy[edit]

We found a difficult case of notes within notes splitted into pages; while struggling about, we found your solution, but we found a different solution too, using plain Cite extension and #tag magic word.

Here the pages into nsPage: from it:page:L'astronomo Giuseppe Piazzi.djvu/53 to it:page:L'astronomo Giuseppe Piazzi.djvu/57, trascluded into it:L'astronomo Giuseppe Piazzi/Capitolo IV. Solution has been found from hours, some of code and notes names are a little bit rough, but it runs. :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing! I will make note of it :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Unwanted and missing toolbars[edit]

Hi. I am continuing this conversation on your talk page, rather than the Admins' Noticeboard.

I copied your current .js to be the .js of my alter ego User:IneuwPublic then using Chrome logged in to WS with this name and cobbled together from my (Ineuw) code and yours the toolbars which you wish to appear/disappear. The only difference between our setups is our CharInsert, which I left alone.

I posted the image of this HERE. My suggestion is that I save your current common.js to the its discussion page to safeguard it, and paste my concoction in its palace. But, I need your permission to do it. If it doesn't work, then I just repaste the original from the Discussion page. — Ineuw talk 20:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ineuw: You have my permission... but one difference we have is that you edit below the original text, and I edit to the left of the original text (which I prefer). As long as that wouldn't change... I don't quite understand what you will be doing, but I trust your tinkering. Thanks for taking the time to try and figure this out. The timing is good because I'm not really editing poetry right now, but creating MS pages and versions pages; but eventually, my customized buttons will be desired. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Over/under or side by side editing is affected only by the Preferences / Editing / 4th setting from top.

Horizontal layout when editing in the Page: namespace (toggles toggles between side-by-side and horizontal layouts)

If selected then it's over/under, if unselected then it's side by side. — Ineuw talk 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Only change thus far (see most recent screen shot) is that the Charinsert bar is now above the editing toolbar (which is still the undesired toolbar), and the toolbar goes back and forth above/below the header when I navigate through a book... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The CharInsert should now be below. Please clear the browser cache and the Mediawiki cache a couple of times, and then let me know. I will be monitoring the messages. — Ineuw talk 00:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Charinsert is now below. I got what I believe to be your toolbar once in about 20 refreshes (using Control F5), but I primarily get the undesired toolbar... Control F5 clears the browser cache, does it not? How do you clear the Mediawiki cache? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Ctrl+F5 should clear the page cache - but I am not 100% sure. To clear the Mediawiki page cache, I use the Clock and Purge gadget. It will place a digital clock in the upper right hand of the screen and when one clicks the clock itself, it purges the page. If in editing mode, it closes the page to normal page view.
Preferences / Gadgets / Interface / 2nd from bottom
Clock and Purge A clock in the personal toolbar that shows the current time in UTC and be clicked to purge the page
One last possibility is that you removed all the wikisource cookies and log back in fresh. The cookies also hold some user preferences. Please try and let me know. — Ineuw talk 00:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Cleared all my browsing data & cookies, logged back in, and still have same issues... Correct toolbar appeared once, but then reverted back again after navigating through pages. Tried the purge clock as well to no avail. Retiring for the night. Thanks for your time thus far! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
With pleasure, I regret that so far I couldn't resolve it. Yet, I may have one more idea for tomorrow whenever you're online. Good night.— Ineuw talk 02:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Day 2 - August 12, 2015[edit]

@Ineuw: Here off and on for the day, and ready for the next idea... BTW, your toolbar appears when I am editing in the Main, but not in the Page namespace... if that helps any... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Hi. I created this Phabricator bug report with the image links and common.js links included. Just to be sure, I copied your javascript setup to my public account and took a screen print in Chrome. It clearly shows that in your account, the toolbars insert themselves between the header and the main text body. My copy in Chrome and your setup. — Ineuw talk 20:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll wait and see! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Day 3 - August 13, 2015[edit]

Has @Beeswaxcandle: not had an issue? I don't know how similar our customized buttons/toolbars are... Also, what are your (Ineuw) editing Preferences set to? I have both "Show edit toolbar" and "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" checked. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Like minds think alike :-) as I was writing you a post simultaneously. . . .
You shouldn't have both toolbars checked. That may be the source of the problem. Try either toolbars, one at the time.
My original post: Good morning, and I apologize for yesterday's silence. Perhaps there is a temporary fix that may place the toolbar above the header. In Preferences \ Editing, uncheck "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" and check "Show edit toolbar". This is the old toolbar which I call the "legacy" toolbar. This may eliminate the split between the header and the main text box. I also took the liberty of pasting my common.css code which hides several of the legacy toolbar buttons, and I can add some missing items to the CharInsert bar to compensate for items you are still missing. Let me know what are the problems with this change and post another screenprint. — Ineuw talk 16:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S: I have to leave for about 90 minutes, so I can't reply. — Ineuw talk 16:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"Show edit toolbar" (only) checked:

Result 1.

LJB toolbar show edit toolbar only check.jpg

"Enable enhanced editing toolbar" (only) checked:

Result 2.

LJB toolbar enable enhanced editing toolbar only check.jpg

Desired toolbar (with customized edit buttons):

Result 3.

LJB toolbar desired.jpg

Trivial matters that can wait: It really doesn't matter to me where the Charinsert bar goes, although I prefer it be under the footer. Also, I know that most changes that have been made are temporary, but when all is said and done, I also prefer the font (not sure what it is called) in the editing window of the "desired" image. A trifling matter, I know—no issue for now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Looking at the three images above, the first is a copy of my "legacy" toolbar configuration, followed by your current "enhanced" toolbar which shows that nothing changed, and the problem is not corrected.
I now pasted my "enhanced toolbar" code to your common.js. Please check if it makes a difference. If it doesn't, I can probably add the Mdash, endash, <br /> and the <ref></ref> to the "legacy" toolbar and the Charinsert below the footer is not a problem.
@Ineuw: I see no differences. Once in a blue moon, when navigating through pages or refreshing/purging (using Control F5), I get lucky and the following toolbar appears:

Result 4.

LJB toolbar blue moon.jpg

Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I am stumped. Are you able to work with the "legacy" bar for the time being? At least that bar is positioned in the proper place, and allows you to close the header & footer. Also let me know what you need on the toolbar. In the meanwhile, I will keep on searching for a solution but must take a break for awhile. — Ineuw talk 21:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: No problem... I won't be editing poetry for a time, and I can make do with the "blue moon" toolbar for the time being as needed by refreshing till it appears. No worries. Don't feel that you need to dedicate too much time on this. Edit for fun as well! Once it's back and working, I like my em-dash, en-dash, <br /> and <ref></ref> customized buttons. Thanks for all your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Just replaced the old code with the one modified by AuFCL. Please try it out and let me know if there is an improvement. Also the CharInsert should be below the footer. — Ineuw talk 00:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is improvement. Navigating through pages consistently shows the following:

Result 5.

LJB toolbar 20150813 01.jpg

I am not concerned that the Charinsert bar is not below the footer; I can edit fine where it is. Now to get those customized buttons added? unless there is still more to tweak first... Progress :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Calling it a night. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've not had a problem, because I went back to the tried and true toolbar in September 2014 and haven't ventured out again. Remember also, that I'm still using the MonoBook skin. I find the other skins ugly and they swallow screen space. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Another approach[edit]

Hello LJB.

I just realised I gave you and Ineuw bad advice earlier (what I thought was clearly stated obviously led In. astray and for that I apologise. Anyway, pending your user:Londonjackbooks/common.js being fixed up if you are game may propose a completely different test which might be performed in parallel? As I do not know Chrome I am not sure if this will make much sense but if you can create a "bookmark" (or sometimes called "bookmarklet"?) and populate it with the below (and yes I know it is horrendous) then you ought to end up with a shortcut which may be clicked upon after you enter edit mode on a page (i.e. as if you were going to leave that page and go to another internet site altogether.)

However, this link will instead invoke a menu refresh as if a portion of your common.js were re-executed, and simply refresh your edit menu toolbars on the existing page. If this works and results in your "desired" toolbar appearing then we have learnt something positive—and that is your common.js is somehow being processed "too early" under Chrome, and perhaps some further analysis may be commenced from there?

I hope this makes a modicum of sense. Now prepare yourself for a shock:


Regards, AuFCL (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Kindly forget all that mess as I believe it is now superseded. AuFCL (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Day 4 - August 14, 2015[edit]

Thanks for the overnight work... As of right now, I go back and forth between Result 2 and Result 4 images above when navigating through a text. My Preferences are back to having both editing Preferences options checked ("Enable enhanced editing toolbar" & "Show edit toolbar"). Similar results occur when only the "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" option is checked. Not a fan of using the "Show edit toolbar" only option (Result 1)... Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Since we just had an edit conflict I am hoping you are about. In a nutshell please have a look at: ForLJBreview.png—and if acceptably close to what you want, copying the current contents of user:auFCL/common.js into user:Londonjackbooks/common.js ought to give you something "real" to try out. Good luck! AuFCL (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
As I navigate through pages, the toolbars go back and forth between your example and Result 2 image above, with the latter being prevalent. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously disappointing, but there is still hope. Does the "Help" menu insist upon appearing on the right when in the "Result 2" phase? What do you see if you attempt to edit a page whilst logged out (no need to save of course; I just want to know which icons appear, please.) AuFCL (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
"Help" menu is ever-present. The following is what appears when I am logged out:

Result 6.

LJB toolbar logged out.jpg

Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That is pretty much as I had hoped. My thinking is that sometimes (well whenever "Result 2" is appearing) your common.js is "executing" too early with the result "Vector" is coming along and rewriting your toolbar buttons back to what it thinks is "standard."
I stole an idea out of phab:T108323 (scroll right to the very end for the interesting bit: Krinkle Aug 11) that (I freely confess) I do not fully understand but believe the net effect to be to delay part of common.js "completing" until more of the various system loading has finished. For me on firefox everything still works consistently with this change but if you are O.K. trying this could I get you to copy common.js again as you did before? In point of detail only two lines have changed but a full copy might be easiest? AuFCL (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Result 2 is prevalent. Your toolbar example comes up about every 15 tries or so... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh well, we tried. That's pretty much me out of ideas (well I think I know the fault just not how to actually fix it!) AuFCL (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Billinghurst left a message at the Administrator's noticeboard that might be related? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
He will probably want to shoot me if I say "that old thing? Been playing catch-up from day dot." (So I will, just to be annoying.)

I am going to sleep on this and see if the morn brings inspiration. 'Night! AuFCL (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Upon reflection I misread your link. I thought you were pointing to the Phabricator report and my snark was aimed at that (if you haven't read it a quick summary is most of it is bickering about process and all of the technical content has been three—and more—days behind the current state of play here on wikisource.

On the other hand his "procedure" as Ineuw recommends following amounts to slash/burn all settings and start afresh. Arguments both ways but for now looks like you've started along that road so might as well see where it takes you. AuFCL (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No sooner do I turn the computer off than a seriously dumb idea occurs. Your common.js already puts all the toolbar initilisation code into a variable. Now if we use you as a means to delay execution to the correct point, creating a bookmark with the crazy location/URL of

ought to permit execution at will (to explain: customizeToolbar is the variable; the rest is just syntax to force execution of its contents inline on the current page.) Please go ahead and create said bookmark; and then next time "Result 2" occurs, click the new bookmark. This ought to add the toolbar icons which are missing. (A warning though: multiple clicks will just add them and add them again!)

Worth a try?

If nothing else this should prove whether some means of delaying execution might prove efficacious. Now back to sleep for me. AuFCL (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I could not create a bookmark, but I was able to type in the line of text and hit enter, and the toolbar changed (albeit not location; it was still located between the header and the body). Missing from the bar, however, is "Help" and "Proofread Tools"... perhaps limited by space availability due to location? Let me know if you want a screen shot. Hope this helps. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't bother. This was a bit desperate anyway. I am just sorry it led up a blind path (wasn't ever going to be a permanent solution anyway.) AuFCL (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, mainly as a test because the result runs as slow as a wet week I implemented the full phab:T108323 recommendation in the latest incarnation of user:auFCL/common.js. This launches a background javascript function which waits for theoretical "page load complete" before checking if modules are loaded and eventually modifying the toolbar. On my (ff) browser it still performs the correct operation, but can take between 10 seconds and a full minute or so before the toolbar settles down. I really hope such levels of desperation are not required for Chrome but who knows? If this works then we have something concrete to add to Billinghurst's trouble ticket and you'd probably be wise not letting me be the one to make the statement as my diplomacy gland is currently pretty empty. AuFCL (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Fill it up again. Only you can speak for you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
(Probably not a good idea to encourage me but I thank you anyway. AuFCL (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC))

@Londonjackbooks: Apologies for my late arrival. Before fulfilling life's demands, read all the conversations which occurred when I was offline, and pasted AuFCL's last revision into my other account and tested it in Chrome. I forced the CharInsert to remain below the footer. It worked for me, but I don't know how you are doing at this point. — Ineuw talk 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Ineuw:. Charinsert is below the footer for me only when the toolbar in Result 2 is present. When AuFCL's toolbar above appears, the Charinsert bar appears above the edit toolbar. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Hi, At this point User:Billinghurst's post HERE is the best advice: returning to the basics by de-selecting all gadgets (but recording their status somewhere, like another screen print), and resetting the Preferences to default. and deleting the common.js and .css code.
Your current .js page comes from AuFCL, and the original is saved on the .js discussion page as well, so clearing is not a permanent loss.
Originally, the common.css page was empty, and whatever was there came from my .css. I now removed everything and saved it on the talk page. Besides they have no relation to the .js problem and does not affect your proofreading.
Only from that point on can we determine what is affecting the toolbars. Please try and let us know. — Ineuw talk 19:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: How do I deselect gadgets? Is it in my Preferences under the Gadgets tab? Do I deselect everything that is checked on that page? or do I go down to the bottom and merely "Restore all default settings"? Do I understand correctly that I am to clear my .js page? Please be specific on the steps I need to take (I realize you probably already are, but this is not intuitive stuff for me!) :) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
1. @Londonjackbooks: Yes, clearing all the checked gadgets which only you can do. I would recommend you post an image of the selected gadgets, and this may help to determine if these have anything to do with the problem.
2. Resetting Preferences to default is by selecting this option in at the bottom next to the save button. I am not sure if this has to be done, page by page (this appears at the bottom of every page), so it's best to check the changes.
Question 1 I get the following message when I click on "Restore all default settings (in all sections)": "You can use this page to reset your preferences to the site defaults. This cannot be undone." And then there is a button to click below the message to perform the task. What "cannot be undone" exactly? I hesitate to click on it... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Okay... I unchecked all my gadgets and hit save... It made no changes in output from my latest (back and forth between toolbars as I navigate through pages). I have since restored all my previously-saved gadgets. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Select all (Ctrl+A) in edit view of the common.js and tap the Delete key, and save the emptied page. I can do it easily, but you may be proofreading at the moment, so it's best that you do this. — Ineuw talk 19:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Question 2 When I cleared my common.js page, I got the correct toolbar consistently [but obviously without my customized buttons]. I have since undid my edit, for I was wondering what purpose tweaking the Gadgets page under Preferences will have (what will it show/test?) if my common.js page is blank. I have not yet edited the Gadgets page, for I am waiting for a response to my Question #1 above. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I have "neutered" my common.js page. I get the correct toolbar consistently now [but obviously without my customized buttons]. What happens now? Should I also deselect my gadgets again or have we already determined above that the gadgets were not the problem? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


Sorry for my unavoidable absence this week -- I see there has been all sorts of excitement since my last.

Unfortunately, LJB's toolbar issue probably has to do with the now long unmaintained contrast reducer bit(s) in her Common.js file - specifically the "call" to what amounts to a string of color settings "made in between" setting the time-out has never been the optimal approach to achieving that feature (or so I'm told). A friend reproduced LJB's problem under Chrome & Win7 earlier today for me and as soon as the contrast bit's removal had cycled through the system cache, toolbar & custom button rendering became constant.

I'm sure the contrast reducer part can be made to work "more elegantly" and without interference but damn if I know how to do that. Please also note: the charinsert bar's final position when in the Page: namespace is a seperate issue from the loss or spotty loading of toolbars/menus or buttons. I'm afraid that too will need outside expertise to rectify. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Both of the struck out paragraphs above are fair questions. First, reset the Preferences to default. It erases nothing of importance and the default settings mean nothing more than the developers idea of what is desired by the proofreaders. Don't attach any importance to these. For example if you have set the Watchlist to monitor a duration of 30 days, the default may be only 7 days (or less). Another would be is the duration of "Recent changes" etc., which displays changes to the specified number of days, all can be readjusted. It may also change your preference of how to display the datestamp of your work. These are the changes that can occur with default. Settings that I know are important to you, like side by proofreading is the default, but even if it isn't, is no big deal to change back.
The important thing is to make sure that after you saved the defaults and then, ALL Gadgets are unchecked and saved again because the saved default may activate an assumed Gadget! Gadgets are probably the greatest cause of numerous unknown issues. Furthermore, selecting both Advanced and "legacy" toolbars is not correct and would also cause a problem, in conjunction with a Gadget.
Keep in mind that the reason for the Gadgets is experimentation of ideas by the developers,. . . and it takes years for any of them to be accepted and incorporated into the main code. e. g. Some of GO3's great space saving ideas ended up as gadgets and doubt if they ever become part of permanent Preferences. Also, some are very outdated, and no one bothered to change or remove them.
Besides, we are all here to support and explain. Furthermore you will get to be familiar with your setup as you discover how you "like" things. — Ineuw talk 20:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear all, back again.

As it appears I am inadvertent archivist of LJB's common.js would somebody let me know if there is anything I need to do to bring it up-to-date? I saw there was some discussion about removing the ContrastReducer settings, for example. It would not be good later on to copy back a setting which would restore bad settings and start the hunt all over again. AuFCL (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Still needs independent verification that it is indeed "problematic" and causing issues first. Otherwise, I'm thinking the Gadget itself might be a better candidate for re-working & change the trigger to execute at the "end" in the same place customizeToolbar currently is but haven't gotten into the nuts & bolts of it all pending verification that the contrast bit of script is playing a role here or not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I am one step ahead of you. On the subject of using a working background color strain reducer script, I copied it from Gadgets' MediaWiki:Gadget-ContrastReducer.js into my common.js. It works but I don't know how to change the colors because it uses 3 character hexadecimal. — Ineuw talk 22:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
So removing the existing bits for contrast reducer rectified the toolbar/button generation issue for you too?

As for hex colors, I copied the colors LJB had - 3 character hex or 6 character hex or a mix of both should not matter. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have 2¢ worth to offer on the ColourReducer load logic but poor LJB's talk page is already groaning. I'll carry on this point at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ContrastReducer.js if that is acceptable? AuFCL (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent rendering[edit]

The following is the most recent rendering of what I see in edit mode with 1) common.js cleared, 2) Preferences set to default settings with 3) all Gadgets unchecked, as well as 4) "Show edit toolbar" unchecked (default had it checked, and Ineuw said to uncheck it). It is consistent in content and position as I navigate through pages.

LJB toolbar default no gadgets.jpg

Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is s good foundation to rebuild the missing features. I expect to be on line later in the morning (EST). In Preferences, feel free to re-define the changes you think that are lost because of the default settings. We can cover all options tomorrow. In the meanwhile, I will re-install the background color, as you had it earlier. It works very well in my .js. but must figure out how Inductiveload defined the colors to restore your previous preference. Now, I must take a break. — Ineuw talk 02:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The following is not exactly what LJB had previously in her common.js but is my attempt at a more stable implementation (yes I've tested it only on firefox so normal provisos apply; but at least it has her original colour choices preserved.) So if you want to proceed "feature-by-feature" in restoring her environment may I present:
//<source lang="javascript">
/* Original js code is pasted in the Discussion page */
function colourBackground( pageBG, editboxBG, fontColour, linkColour, newLinkColour, extLinkColour){

    $('#content').css('background-color', pageBG);
    $('#content').css('color', fontColour);
    $('a').css('color', linkColour);
    $('.new').css('color', newLinkColour);
    $('.extiw').css('color', extLinkColour);
    $('textarea, input').css('background-color', editboxBG);


if($.inArray( mw.config.get( 'wgAction' ), [ 'edit' , 'submit' ]) > -1) {
    jQuery( document ).ready(colourBackground('#E6D7C3', '#E6D7C3', '#222', '#22F', '#BA0000', '#33F'));
—as a candidate for a stage one effort? AuFCL (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Day 5 - August 15, 2015[edit]

So far so good. Things appear stable. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: My sincere apologies for being so late. The kingdom (of sleep) demanded my presence much longer than expected. I will continue to reassemble you common.js but test it first in Chrome using my public account. As for the above correction, recommended by AuFCL, I will implement this as well. — Ineuw talk 18:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Completed the code transfer to your common.js because it worked well in my account. Please see if it is stable and functioning OK. — Ineuw talk 18:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
All looks good to me! What seemed to be the culprit? Is anything else necessary, or can I give thanks all around now? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Everything should be as it was before it broke. The story in a nutshell: The culprit was the function which provided the brown? background, which I, along with everyone else didn't remove because it worked in both my accounts. The error was found by one of GO3's friends. There was a similar gadget, written by User:Inductiveload years ago but the background was grey. So, AuFCL made a copy of it for individual use, polished it up to meet current programming standards, replaced the color, and the rest is history. I am using it as well.

P.S: I won't comment on the Mediawiki developers because it's not nice to bite the hand that feeds us sometimes. — Ineuw talk 21:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all true on so many detail points but it is a nice lie and I won't spoil the magic.

(Besides Billinghurst has a go at me whenever I try to interpret personal motivations.)

Good to hear it is apparently doing its trick for you. AuFCL (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@To Whom It May Concern: I appreciate retaining the editing background color for me. @Ineuw: It is a darker version of Antique White. I did not care for the grey. I believe my original code/gadget was from Inductiveload, which I tweaked to get a desired color. At the time, Beeswaxcandle prompted me to see an optometrist—which I did—and here I sit with glasses. @AuFCL: It's all magic to me, in my rose-colored glasses. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


@Ineuw:, @AuFCL:, @George Orwell III:, @Billinghurst:, @Beeswaxcandle: Hoping I didn't leave anyone out, but I just wanted to say thanks for helping (in whatever capacity) with my toolbar issue. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A Child's Garden of Verses[edit]

Hi, there! Help in the Garden is greatly appreciated (having some serious trouble with punctuation marks "facepalm"). Regarding the line breaks ([1]), I think that they might be worth retaining (at least in this specific case). Here, I think, it is not the physical constraint of a page that motivated the publisher, but rather an attempt to be visually appealing (similar to indentation of short lines). Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

No issues with changing the formatting back if you prefer. I do think it is still a physical constraint issue in this case, but I could be wrong. I usually defer to whatever @Beeswaxcandle: thinks on these issues, but it is up to you! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The thought occurred to me that I could be validating as I go along... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
In this case I would do it as LJB has. The poet's intention is 4-line stanzas (from the rhyming pattern). The three lines that have the last foot on the next line are slightly too long to print on a single line. RLS was very careful to maintain regularity within his poetry and if his intention had been to put those feet on their own line, he would have done it to all the stanzas. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A couple of questions about the speedy requests[edit]

Hi, you've asked to have Underwoods/To Mrs. Will H. Low and Underwoods/To Will H. Low deleted. But they are both the targets of redirects. I'm not sure where the redirects should point instead. Can you please give me some guidance? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot to update the redirects to the correct Mainspace titles. All should be good to delete them now(?) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Underwoods book II[edit]

I hope this is acceptable? I split out the Table of Common Scottish Vowel Sounds from the start of The Maker to Posterity and linked back to the new section via the contents. If this is a step too far please reverse my changes. AuFCL (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I am a total idiot. Missed the title completely! AuFCL (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec):No; it was a good move, thanks. And also for the validating... Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Underwoods/To Will. H. Low(Underwoods book I)[edit]

I now declare myself thoroughly confused. I "standardised" the inter-stanza spacing by removing the {{dhr|4}} here and am now having second thoughts. Is the wider vertical spacing a printing artefact; or is the end result better? Please bail me out. AuFCL (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I don't know. The stanza break seemed awfully wide to me that I assumed it was purposeful in its spacing; but just looking online at other versions,—they all use "standardized" spacing as you did. Had I more insight into the poem/poet as @Beeswaxcandle: might, I could be of assistance, but alack! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell this is the only point in the book where this situation arises so there is no point of comparison. If the worst comes to the worst a "purist" solution is possible wherein the Page: and "main" versions are presented slightly divergently? Please let me know if you want me to do this. AuFCL (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Purely a printer's artefact to make the third (shorter) stanza balance the page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There are three stanzas, ten lines each. One stanza ends at a page break (in comparison with other versions [different works] of this poem). I am comfortable with keeping the spacing "standardized"—if that seems to be what you two are leaning toward? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)