User talk:Londonjackbooks/Archive 1

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
"Awards for participation"
Featured article star - check.svg
Proofread of the Month
November 2011

Special: Validation month
Featured article star - check.svg
Proofread of the Month
November 2012

Special: Validation month
Featured star 8.png
Proofread of the Month
January 2013

Short works (8 completed)
26 validated works
Proofread of the Month
November 2014

Special: Validation month
26 works



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

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

Formatting questions[edit]


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[edit]

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
   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
   Is the voice of renunciation.


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 billinghurst (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


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[edit]

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]. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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}}
}} 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:
<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>. . .

 ? 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:

<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?

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>
({{smaller|LIVADIA, NOVEMBER 1, 1894}})}}

Under normal conditions, do you recommend…

{{c|{{smaller|FABLE VIII.}} </br>


{{c|{{sc|fable viii.}} </br>


{{c|<small>FABLE VIII.</small> </br>

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.

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)


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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

A fix for "Toggle button missing" (in Google Chrome)[edit]

Images used in PotM[edit]

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)

My thickheadedness[edit]

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)
Yes check.svg Done We will declare tomorrow a non-confuslement day wink Billinghurst (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hear, hear!... I could use one! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


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[edit]

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[edit]

Yes check.svg 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[edit]

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!
<span style="line-height: 2em">
(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)


You have new messages
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[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg 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. Never Say Die
  2. The Czar's Spy
  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[edit]

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—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[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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 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 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 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, 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 & 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 -- 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[edit]

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[edit]

You have new messages
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[edit]

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[edit]

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 and the Wikimedia bug tracker item is 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 wink 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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?[edit]

Where was I during the earthquake? Wikisourcing, of course! wink Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


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[edit]

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 ...[edit]

I am looking for a full copy of Eleanor Sidgwick's University Education for Women (1913) 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.smiley 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 at $18 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Yes check.svg 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[edit]

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. smileybillinghurst 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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Yes check.svg 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)


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![edit]

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)
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[edit]

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[edit]

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).winkbillinghurst 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[edit]

Hello LJB,

I noticed your post today at Wikisource:Administrators#Cygnis_insignis. The post seems to misquote the letter I sent you on 22 August. I will not respond at Wikisource Administrators as the matter is entirely collateral and has nothing to do with CI's re-confirmation that I can tell. It appears that you may be implying some misconduct by me, which is really troubling. In any case, I have posted the actual text exactly as the Wikisource Special:EmailUser function sent it to me (with redaction of my e-mail address and addition of three line breaks) at User:Doug/LJB letter for your reference. 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 and although I believe Cyg and Billinghurst are from the same country, I doubt they've ever met. ;-) As you can see what I said was "Cyg's statements towards me and Billinghurst/sDrewth were insulting" (emphasis added). 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.

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 over "related author" parameter in the header template. 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. 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. 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 ;-) ).

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)


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.")
"I was surprised at your involvement and that you seemed to be taking sides" (emphasis added). You have made a lot of statements since then that you were not taking sides, but this was before. I felt that way at the time, as I said I was upset at Cyg's response and you made a long comment none of which addressed your opinion on the "Related Author" parameter, from which I took it that you had none, or at least "nothing for the group". Your opinion seemed to be a subtle or not-so-subtle, suggestion that you were agreeing with the unfounded charges by Cyg that the rest of us do no, or next to no, proofreading. In retrospect, I can see that you probably actually meant that you thought what we were all arguing about was trivial - which it was. That is probably even what Cyg saw when he responded, but at the time it looked to me like a bunch of off topic talk followed by Cyg saying "Good show". I apologize that I let my being pissed off at Cyg cloud my reading of what you said and that I insulted you above in trying to explain myself.
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)

Thank you, Doug, for your responses above. No one is perfect, that's for sure. There was misunderstanding on both sides, and it's good to clear some of that up. On another note, and this is only perception on my part!... It merely appeared to me that you were perhaps only too eager to be done with Cygnis... From the actions/edits at WS:ADMIN on 5 Oct—from your opposition vote your "clarification and a vote of confidence now must run", it just seemed to me that you were quite proactive in the administrative aspects of the "case." But you are an admin, and that is what admins do. But it was just one other (perhaps) misconception on my part, and you have my permission to "fire away" at me for saying so... I probably deserve it... But my early opinion at WS:ADMIN still stands, where I stated on 8 Oct that " crossed my mind that if Cygnis' "offense" was so offensive, then why was (I'm gonna use "he") he not punished for it before now? Why were his admin tools not suspended at that time? Seems to me a certain amount of time has gone by between the offenses and now—where no "offensive" behavior has occurred since... The phrase "statute of limitations" comes to mind... But it's confirmation time—"let's do what we should have done some time ago and take away his tools", we seem to be saying. That's why we have such mixed responses here... Something just doesn't add up. You know what I think? I think it is simply due to the lack of structure and clear policy where dealing with these matters is concerned. And lack of structure leads to chaos (and to the exploitation of the "gap"). You know what else I think? I think Cygnis insignis is just wonkish enough to have shot himself in the foot so that we'd "get" that. "Self-sacrifice" and "volunteerism" comes to mind (think "Annotations")... I could be wrong about Cygnis, but I think I'm right about the lack of structure here. Just some food for thought..." Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:06, 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

[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 wink] 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.[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza.png

talk page[edit]

[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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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)


Sir Galahad[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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. Yes check.svg Done —I think! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

April's Proofread of the Month[edit]

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 wink. 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)
Yes check.svg 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[edit]

From Brother Officer talk page:


==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 Button category plus.png, 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


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Yes check.svg 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[edit]

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)
Yes check.svg 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)
smiley 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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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)


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

An upcoming change to poem tags[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]


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.[edit]

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)


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)


prime example of misunderstanding[edit]

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)


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}}[edit]

You have new messages
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[edit]

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―sigh!―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[edit]

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
his master well;

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

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

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

And pleased the Childe appeared nor ere the boy reviled.
And pleased for a glimpse appeared the woeful Childe.

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
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.

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[edit]

| 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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]


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.[edit]

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)


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"[edit]


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 ( 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[edit]

Please pardon the edit clash we had earlier.

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[edit]

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)
Done. Three additional points:
  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!


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!}}}}

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!


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!}}}}
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?)[edit]

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.
However the new equivalent form {{block centre|width=150px|{{stanza|0|0|di=M|ary had a...}}}} ought to:
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!
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)


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|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!
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!
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!):
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)

Idea: What about gap-indent-cycles?[edit]

(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

Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4


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[edit]

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[edit]

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>

... 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[edit]

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 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[edit]

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)

Footnote advice requested[edit]

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:
  1. Qq 4, 5; washing Q, F.

    Jonson in his Staple of News &c...

The prognosis of Preludes[edit]

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 [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 (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[edit]

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.

The whole thing makes me quite sad. I was so happy to see you working on Kipling poems. I was really excited at the chance to help you proofread that whole book until I hit "The Native-Born" and realized where it was all heading. I don't want to argue with anyone over all this. I don't really like arguing at all, and the more attached I am to the outcome the more I dislike arguing about it. I am not telling you this for any other reason than if I do not say this I will probably keep avoiding Wikisource (cause that's what I do with things that make me feel unhappy). I don't like sitting here crying about this I don't want Wikisource to continue making me feel unhappy, I actually do miss it. So there it is. I am not sure that explaining all this will necessarily change the sadnees on its own, but I know staying quiet about it won't change anything.--BirgitteSB 04:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 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)[edit]


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[edit]

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[edit]

Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

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

Treasury of War Poetry is completed[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Advice request[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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):

 var AllATags=document.getElementsByTagName('a');
 for(var S=0;S<AllATags.length;S++){
    } else {
 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

A favour to ask[edit]

Gday. I have been doing some maintenance and have moved a text to an image set, that we had. Would you mind validating Index:Bell Buoy McClure 1897. Thanks, if you can. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The toolbar issue - an update[edit]

Your old toolbar File:LJB Toolbar correct.jpg is broken for many users, including yours truly. From reading the Bugzilla bug comments on the issue is that they are undecided what to do with it. At this time, it's not worth for us to wait for a solution, and it's best to Enable enhanced editing toolbar and disable Show edit toolbar in Preferences.

I checked your common.js and you have only a few items from the old toolbar which GO3 can transfer to the enhanced toolbar. And quite possibly remove the buttons you don't need.

The 'Special characters' of the enhanced toolbar are lacking a lot of the characters we need, and for this purpose, I use the CharInsert - Gadget in which the foreign character sets are complete. In addition, GO3 added an additional 'User' defined character set consisting of the following characters:

—   œ   £   §   ·   º   Æ   É   Ñ   Œ   Ö   à   á   â   ã   ä   æ   ç   è   é   ê   ë   î   ï   ñ   ô   ö   o   ù   ú   û   ü 

which I can install for you as long as you enable the 'CharInsert' Gadget. Let me know your decision. — Ineuw talk 05:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw, @George Orwell III:: Thank you, Ineuw. I have enabled the enhanced editing toolbar, disabled the show edit toolbar, and the CharInsert Gadget was already enabled. If GO3 or anyone can transfer my customized buttons (from my common.js) to the enhanced toolbar, that would be great! I am also missing the zoom in/zoom out buttons, which come in handy with many works... Thanks for the work and instructions, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I've made an effort to add what you had that were missing from WikiEditor's defaults. Let us know how they work/can be improved.

The 'zoom' buttons should only be generated in the Page namespace and can be found under the Proofreading tools menu.-- George Orwell III (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you very much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I was about to respond, but the master (GO3) beat me to it. I studied your old toolbar on which you had the following custom buttons: [[Author:]], <ref></ref>, m-dash, n-dash, and <br />. I see that GO3 added some of the missing. If you need to add anymore just let me know. — Ineuw talk 00:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your direction and help as well, Ineuw! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding: Page:The Man with the Hoe, Markham, 1900.djvu/28[edit]

Hello. I am not necessarily pushing or even recommending this; but as an exercise in a novel approach to the problem would you please do me the kindness of having a look at User:AuFCL/SandBox and letting me know if it works for you, or even looks reasonably close to what you are hoping to achieve? AuFCL (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In my browser (Chrome), the text is not centered but is off to the left a bit (same in IE). Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Firefox also renders the text off-center. Why not go with a cleaned up original File:The man with a hoe.jpg? — Ineuw talk 17:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought about that as well; you could say that the text is part of the artwork... no doubt illustrated as well by Howard Pyle. I will consider it, but will also consider other options. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh well. I suspect all the (growing) left-offsets make my approach too browser-font-size dependant (or rather, the other way 'round.) AuFCL (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Still open to tinkering; I'm sitting on any decision for a time... Brain dead... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I had a bit more of a play with "your" version (at Page:The Man with the Hoe, Markham, 1900.djvu/28), trying to trim the nested divs down to a minimum which works O.K. here (Firefox.) Your last version slightly overlaps text on top of the image for me so I cut the font size down a level (the text line is about 5% wider than the image "frame" here otherwise; i.e touches/overlaps both left and right.) I hope this version still centres and isn't too small for you. AuFCL (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I asked BWC's opinion on their Talk page whether I should keep the whole image (to include text)—treating the text as part of the illustration—or whether I should transcribe the text, and their opinion was to keep the original (as, I believe, was also Ineuw's opinion above)—and I think that is how I will go. Thank you for your work on this, however. I will keep a copy of your "play with ['my'] version" in my sandbox, however, for future reference! Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind remarks. I should elaborate, however, that when I stated I'd "trimmed to a minimum which worked for me" above that that still left a few things I did (and still do) not understand, like why removing "min-width: 575px;" causes "From a Carbon print…" to losegain centring yet doesn't appear to affect anything else?

In short I think BWC&I&Co. got it right, here, when they recommended the sepia-with-alt-text option. AuFCL (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wish I had some insight into the min-width question. I copied the formatting from "The Burden"—that formatting having been "stolen" from a now-forgotten User's page at WP that I had stumbled across. I played with the numbers and had others take a look at the output, etc., but that is as far as my understanding goes! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Idiot me. I just realised I wrote that last little comment regarding min-width exactly backwards. Removing it causes the carbon line to centre undesireably—and I have just realised why. A simple "width:575px;" would have worked as well and less obscurely (just tried it out—preview only—for my own curiosity.) AuFCL (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Two font related questions[edit]


  • Q 1: Can you please tell me the name of the the font/template used in WS to imitate Old English as shown HERE? I often saw it used, but since never had the need, I made no note of it . . . as embarrassed as I am to admit it.
I am only familiar with {{Blackletter}}(?)
  • Q 2: I saw your post In the Scriptorium., and it was unclear to me which editor and which font you were referring to. I assume you are referring to the "Advanced text editor" with the multi row toolbar we dicussed earlier? and the font used in that editor which is like a Monospace Courier New font? Also, which is your preferred browser? Thanks — Ineuw talk 20:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure how to answer. My preferred browser is Chrome. When referring to font size and style changes, I mean the text that appears in edit mode when proofreading, etc. Have you not noticed a difference in font size/style yourself in the last few days? I wish my explanation was better... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks {{Blackletter}} is the one I was looking for.
I have Chrome, and will check it for you. Just out of curiosity, are you using Windows XP? Windows 7? I can check Chrome in all except Windows 8. — Ineuw talk 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe I have Windows 7. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Please look at this uploaded image. On the left is Chrome and on the right is Firefox. I assume that you have the Chrome look and prefer the Firefox font, it's very easy to change in Chrome. Open up the Chrome "Settings" and type in their search box (search settings) on the upper right "font". It will display the font selection. The bottom of the list will display "Fixed width font" and change the selection to "Courier New" which is what Firefox displays. You can vary the font style and size selection to find what you like and if a WS page is opened for edit, the change is immediate.
In the uploaded image the toolbar & editor is the Advanced version. If that is what you have, please let me know. (For technical reasons). — Ineuw talk 22:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that took care of it! How can I tell whether I have the "Advanced version"? Do you mean the "enhanced toolbar" in Preferences? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, by 'Advanced' I meant 'Enhanced' I should have checked the Preferences for the correct terminology. — Ineuw talk 23:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have the enhanced toolbar selected. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Windows 7 and Chrome[edit]

Hi, I very rarely use Chrome, and installed it only to monitor differences between Chrome and Firefox if any, when users here complain about problems.

After advising you to change the fixed font to Courier New in Chrome, I discovered to my horror when I did a web search, that the results were also displayed in the same fixed font. Did this happened to you as well? — Ineuw talk 17:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the results were also displayed in the same fixed font"... What results? I do notice a change in font/font size when browsing websites (font size is a bit larger), but I don't much mind the change... I would rather be able to have editing easier on my eyes than the inconvenience (if even) of larger font when browsing. But if you are asking if the font results are also Courier New when browsing, the answer is no... Only when editing. Hope that helps(?) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the reply I was hoping for for my sake, I am glad that it's displaying everything properly on your computer, otherwise, you'd be upset with me. In my case, the search results showed up in the same Courier New font and size as in the WS editing Window. But, that's not a problem for me because I don't use Chrome. In your case, we didn't change the font size, which in Chrome settings is set to "Medium". So, if other pages are displayed with a larger size, Chrome does have problems of font display in Windows 7 according to numerous posts on the web. So, I know that it's not me. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 20:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing my problem :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

related issue?[edit]

@Ineuw:: I don't know if it is related to my changes or not, but it seems that {{smaller}} and {{smaller block}} are not rendering as smaller, but are normal font size. How does the "subtitle" on this page look to you font size-wise? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Please bear with me for a minute. I will upload screenshots and return to insert the links, because seeing is believing.— Ineuw talk 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: This is what I get in Windows 7.

Weird. As long as others see it as it should be, I guess I won't fret about it. Strange that the font size is normal in my browser, though. Something to ignore in your opinion? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a discernible difference between the two font sizes. but Chrome altogether renders both fonts smaller. You may be able to adjust the fonts to be larger in your Chrome settings for your eyes only, and you and I have the identical Chrome settings so we see it the same way, but it has no bearing how other people see it it. — Ineuw talk 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to follow... It would just be nice to be able to see {{smaller}} and {{smaller block}} as they should be seen, but they are "normal" font size from my perspective. Maybe I mis-adjusted a Chrome font setting the other day? Let me play in my sandbox for a bit and try some things... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)






smaller block



In my view of the above, everything renders correctly from xx-larger down to to normal; but from normal to xx-smaller, they are all the same size (normal). What might cause that? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Might it be the "minimum font size" setting in my Chrome font settings? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Answering my own question... Yup... It was the min font size setting. I set it to the tiniest setting, and now I see things as I should. Thanks for helping or just being a sounding board! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Anytime. Perhaps you could install Firefox alongside, to monitor the browsers. — Ineuw talk 01:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Fwiw... see these 2 discussions on Wikipedia re: Chrome & Font changes....
Both seemed related & plausible (e.g. DirectWrite) as the cause here as well but I don't use Chrome so I can't check that either. Hope Inuew can take it from there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I will check them out! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I do believe it was Chrome-driven... Ineuw had me change settings in Chrome for fonts, and after some trial and error, I am good to go. Maybe @Ineuw: could explain the matter at the above discussions and help them out as he helped me. I would give it a shot, but am not confident in my ability to explain the process. Thanks all! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and gave my 2 cents in the discussions. Feel free to add to or correct! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
If you are still not satisfied, you can fiddle with ClearType in the control panel. It doesn't affect Firefox, but it did clear up my Chrome problem where everything showed in Courier New. All one has to do is disable ClearType temporarily, use Chrome, and then close it and re-enable ClearType. — Ineuw talk 02:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with how things render currently. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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:

"Enable enhanced editing toolbar" (only) checked:

Desired toolbar (with customized edit buttons):

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:

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:

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:

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.

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 ([16]), 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)

Image files of missing toolbars[edit]

Hi. If you no longer need them, can I delete the image files left over from the missing toolbar affair listed here? Just cleaning up.— Ineuw talk 05:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure! All of these images can be deleted. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi London :) It seems I see your edits on almost every page history I visit, and that you updated my contributions page (knowing that I would be fine with that). For all this and more I am very grateful, cheers. Hope all is well with you, regards CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Doing well, thanks! Some of your uploaded/proofread texts were of interest to me, so I validated, and took the liberty to promote them on your page. Good to see you back editing again. Your contribution and wit have been missed. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Surfeit of Wilkinsons[edit]

Can it be the same person: E. F. Wilkinson and Eric Fitzwalter Wilkinson? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC).

Yes—I believe it is the same person. Thanks for pointing that out. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I just happened to notice this in passing. This is not the victim of the famously "hushed-up" "mutiny" is he? Sort of ties up with this Commonwealth War Graves Commission entry. (Small world: I recently attended a history lecture where this matter was raised. According to some sources the records are sealed until 2017; according to others they were destroyed after ten years: in 1927.) AuFCL (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably the same. "Captain, West Yorkshires" in More Songs—aside from the mis-spelling of Fitzwalter on the casualty page. He was reportedly "killed in action [during the battle of Passchendaele], October 9, 1917" (More Songs...)—five days after Short was executed. more Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking into it—"Fitzwalter" might be incorrect... Billinghurst, can you verify whether it be Capt. "Eric Fitzwalter Wilkinson" or "Eric Fitzwater Wilkinson"? I am now leaning toward the latter... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Is this of any use? If the picture caption is genuinely period then "Fitzwater" is a shoo-in but is your eye good enough to detect if it is a later addition? AuFCL (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't trust my eyes. But this adds to the evidence. Thanks to you and Capt Nemo for the prompting. I'll make the changes & SIC's.
I consider my submission utterly trumped. Yours is much better, and besides WorlCat seems to have made its choice as well. (On a personal note I also stumbled across another researcher looking for connections with the mutiny...casting around for a good, threatenee?) AuFCL (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you know how to add a book from Hathi Trust to or directly to Commons as djvu? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that one of @Ineuw, @William Maury Morris II: was able to do this if it was needed. I am unsure of who else had the access. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I wish I knew how to import whole books from Hathi Trust rather than page by page, and being outside US also limits the number of books I can access. Captain Nemo (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thanks... I still have much on my plate. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Births Mar 1891
Wilkinson Eric Fitzwater Rochdale 8e 29 Scan

billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It would be useful to put this research and links onto the author's talk page. It is how I have been recording such information, and then transferring to WD as required, and becomes my reference point if there are any questions or contesting of ideas. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Some done, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I really tried. Although I am registered with Hathi Trust, they gave me no access to this book and the book doesn't exist in a Canadian Library connected with Hathi Trust/Worldcat, and neither does Internet Archive. However, I am hoping that @William Maury Morris II: has better luck. — Ineuw talk 12:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for trying! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
A few moments ago I was alerted about this conversation via my "Brother Officer" AOL account. I can download and am willing to get that book for you Londonjackbooks It is on Hathi Trust. It is about 90 pages long and will need some work done on it to remove all "Google" and "University of" watermarks which I have done on very large works. I did one for dear ole Hesperian in parts and another (plates) I sent to Ineuw page by page via private e-mail specially for good ole Beeswaxcandle re: illustrated color Flowers. Ineuw, "ping" I don't hear nor am I notified by it. Please let me know something via here or AOL. My brother officer email page shows on Wikisource. Kind regards to all, William Maury Morris II. —Maury (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Appreciated. At your leisure. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Londonjackbooks, I learned that Hathi Trust no longer allows .pdf downloads, whole books or individual pages in PDF format as they once did. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for trying, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Londonjackbooks, I found that I can download every page in an image format (PNG). Then all watermarks will have to be cleaned to remove those markings & Adobe Photoshop can do that. They next can be combined into a .PDF file, and next that would need OCR'ed to get a text layer. I recall that you scanned your own hardcopy of a book and would have (I guess) OCR'ed that book. There is also an image of an army officer facing front vs side. So, do you want the book images? The book is, I think, a fiction book. Can a person just upload images and then transcribe them on Wikisource? Will that text "transclude"? In any case I can download each page image. —Maury (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I have created several books page-by-page as you said, and it is very tedious. My heart is not in this particular text as it was the others to be so ambitious as to work with individual pages again, but thank you for being willing to help! Perhaps it will pop up on in the future. I'll keep watching... To answer your question, Yes—you can upload individual images to make up an Index. Transclusion is a little different, however. An example is Index:Earle, Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty, 1920 ... It was a lot of work, but well worth it. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Validating Images[edit]

Londonjackbooks, if you will alert me to images you want validated I am willing. Collect a handful and then let me know the pages. I work with images and know how difficult it is sometimes to get works validated. Post them here. I'll check back to see if you have listed any. —Maury (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Morris. I added images for User:Akme for this text. I believe they will eventually want to resize the images (I have only left them as thumbnails), but the pages will at least be more easily identifiable as image pages if they are validated. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Stevenson's poetry[edit]

Thanks again for your work on RLS' poetry. Just wanted to ask why do you want to add a poetry volume from (the second) Vailima's edition. As RLS collected works go, both Vailimas is not among the best available. Even Biographic edition is of more interest. Any poetry there which is not in collections already here? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC).

@Captain Nemo: I am open to suggestions, but yes—if you take a look at Stevenson's Index of Poem Titles, many of the poems that aren't yet linked to (in black, other than the Ballads) are available in the Vailima edition. There are around 40 or so, and I haven't found them elsewhere online. If you are aware of any other source that is available/more desirable, that would be great! I'll suspend proofreading until I hear from you. Also, we do not yet have Ballads hosted. If you know of any good editions available online, could you point me to it/them? I am not well versed on Stevenson, but I have come thus far, and would like to see it through... Any input would be great! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I am slowly digesting my humble pie:) The 2nd Vailima supposed to "suffer from Lloyd Osbourne's careless transcriptions". That may well be so (and Fanny's intro is lifted from biographical edition) but it seems that its poetry volume is extremely good in terms of hitherto unpublished pieces. So your choice was excellent after all! I cannot find the 1st edition of Ballads (by Chatto and Windus) anywhere, but Scribner's reprint (seem to be the same plates as C&W) has two good copies in internet archive: [17] and [18]. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC).
Great! Thanks much for looking into it! Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

2nd opinion[edit]

Hi. I replaced the text at The Happy Prince and Other Tales/The Happy Prince with pages you validated (cheers!), and the rest of that work. Your opinion on the display and my explanation on the talk-page would be welcome. Tak, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I noticed the double-hyphens in the Index pagelist which looks odd in the Main. I would reduce it to one. In the past, I have chosen not to transclude some matter (actual page 1, for example) if it is redundant in the Mainspace. In my opinion, it is more pleasing to the eye without it there, but that might go against "faithful rendering". Other than that, maybe more spacing between text/images at the MS title/toc page using [double space] {{nop}} at the end of the Index:Pages. I read the story first time in 2006, and gave it to one of my children to read. Liked it the second time around too. Thanks for uploading. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think of that, I added double hyphens for my own convenience (a bigger target). I can remove them now, thanks for noting that. I have read some of it before, will do a smooth-read to catch any other errors. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Missed the Talk page bit... Will read now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
To add, I generally don't like {{page break}}s, but if you keep the redundant titles, it is logical to keep them. With regard to the Talk page, I think it was acceptable to replace versions considering edition choices. Your wording on the talk page ("The text for this work currently consists of the following: Some front matter from Index:The_happy_prince_and_other_tales.djvu...") makes it sound (to me) like you have incorporated some of the 1920 version into the 1888 version (which you have not), but I might be reading it wrong. Your use of the words "currently consists" might have thrown me, but you update yourself when you state "I am going to replace the above with..." Maybe substitute the words "originally consisted"? or am I reading things wrong? Also, you want to correct your wording: "I would have done simply done that." That's all I noticed. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I notice you are uploading Chesterton's work on Blake... [Bought] read [sold] and enjoyed that one as well. If I remember correctly, there are no chapters, just one long piece to transclude into the Main. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I find hard to leave out redundant titles, front matter, ads and so on. In the pre-scan days contributors threw away everything, now we add too much of the original. However, I said, the advert I saw for the Crane ed. of Happy Prince worked on me. I fretted over that past and present tense for a few seconds, then found something else to worry about ...
I saw the quote here and have been busy ever since, I love bios on Blake, wanted to read Chesterton, and had forgotten about the index. Thanks for all the comments. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and I'll think about page breaks when I look again. I stopped using them at one stage. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Now wishing I hadn't sold (somewhat recently) my Chesterton copy. It had all the images which I could have scanned & contributed. A very small book in its proportions. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You should take the credit for this Chesterson text, I wince when I see the things I missed. You caught on, it seems, that the double line and smallcaps are used for larger pauses in the text, but you say that needs two lines (return key x 3) between the full stop and the nop. I haven't been doing that, in this index and somewhere else recently. Have I forgotten how to do something else? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Won't take credit. That's what validation is for. I always hesitate to make note of corrections, not wanting it to be "in your face". Sometimes I make note, sometimes I don't. I wince too, when it is my work, but appreciate finding repeated mistakes so as not to be a repeat offender. But nobody's perfect. Sometime after I worked on the TWP, you had to start leaving two spaces (return key x 3) before an {{nop}} to arrive at the desired spacing in the Main. I went back through that entire text and converted nops to breaks. You can also check out {{Dhr}}, but I don't usually use that template between pages in my work. You haven't forgotten anything, things just change. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I will mark this down as another successful collaboration. This is the second time we've transcluded a completed and checked index, I'm willing to bet that has never happened before. I'm going to have to go over my earliest transclusions and check the spacing, a good opportunity to update the coding and reflect on how my own approach changed. I took break from Carlyle because of end of line hyphens, he is very playful with language and it is not always clear whether it should be retained. If a search of the index doesn't work (realising as I type this that I should have been noting them somewhere), I compare what other editors have done by googling it. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It was a good re-read. I like Chesterton's humor/take on things. Looking around, I noted he wrote a piece on Carlyle as well, mentioning hero worship. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Marlborough and other poems TOC[edit]

(Please pardon a minor piece of advertisement.) In case you are interested I made a trial reformatting of the troublesome Contents table "main-space equivalent here. To see the "Page:"-space equivalents scroll upwards from that point. Any thoughts/criticisms welcome. AuFCL (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts (I may not be the right person to offer criticism): I can really only speak to output, which looks good to me (with one comment regarding width below). I went to the {{TOCstyle}} template to try to get my head around the input aspect. I would need to play around with variables (right word use?) to get a grasp on how all the parameters (right word again?) behave as they are changed. I have an inkling that I would still be requiring help with construction (much as I do now), and some of the terminology (in the descriptions) also escapes me. I would love to not keep asking for help, and I realize this would require some serious schooling on my part, and time in a sandbox. We all have different gifts in this "body" of Users. I certainly desire the "greater gifts" (if I can misuse the phrase) and don't ever want to take for granted the help/gifts of others... but... Am I being selfish/lazy by remaining in my comfort zone and not delving into the matter more seriously? Probably.
Formatting thought: It would be desirable (for me) to have a width: auto option, if I understand its nature correctly. I don't like to set width, but 100% width is often too wide for me visually. If {{TOCstyle}} is the way of the future, I just might create a sandbox to give it some study. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do not feel I have "put you on the spot." The whole thing was at heart an idea of George Orwell III's and {{TOCstyle}} is simply the result of my guessing what he had in mind (before he got too busy on other matters for me to annoy him too frequently for guidance.) I just thought you might be interested in what I was rabbiting on about earlier and yes the emphasis was on output as I know the input format is a bit esoteric at present. My intention had been that the various "model" parameters select styles to apply to various groups of fields—an approach that is only simple when the entire table of contents is so bland that a table would probably work better anyway… Bit of a Catch-22 there?

As to whether this is the "way of the future," the reality is probably not; but I would like to think it might be on the way to "the way of the future?"

P.S. You are quite right about the "width" option. I keep thinking I should put it in but ironically because it is relatively easy to do I always seem to get bogged down in something harder which somehow seems more important! Oh well, next task in line then. AuFCL (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the effort at making tables more user-friendly. If harder = greater, then press on!—but always keep an eye toward us simple folk! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Two-three points:
  1. Added and tested class/style/width parameters. Sorry it took so long.
  2. If I don't solicit/get feedback then this exercise is going to remain only of use to a tiny circle of people.
  3. "Simple folk" don't unerringly uncover such interesting cases as regularly turn up under your hands. Don't put yourself down!
AuFCL (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. It is always at your leisure. Questions: So for "width", would you write "auto"? And, in the assembled TOC in your sandbox, what parameters did you use to make the subtitles render italic? Interestingly, when I change the class parameter to "center", the italic goes away...
  2. I'll always give feedback an honest shot.
  3. Not trying to be self-deprecating. No uncovering or discovering involved, really... The cases merely exist. What is uncovered is my lack of understanding how to solve them, and so I ask for help. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand auto width. I assumed it would "set" the width to the longest line. Is that correct, or not quite? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Tweaking in your sandbox, I noted the following:
renders "correctly" (with my understanding of auto width—which may be incorrect), but with italic subtitles
renders 100% width with no italic subtitles
renders "correctly", but with italic subtitles

Going to eat dinner, and will probably not be available until tomorrow (if then, but will likely be able to check in); then I will wikibreak until some time next week. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me I stepped away for a while (also a meal.) So here are some late answers:
  • "width" HOWTO: I envisage mostly you'd do things like specify |width=250px or |width=50%. Whilst |width=auto is perfectly acceptable you really would not see much of a (indeed any) difference due to the fact that each "row" still strives to be as wide as possible within the "auto" constraint... which in turn feeds back and expands that "auto" into an effective "100%" which is probably not what was intended.

    On the other hand, scrapping |width altogether and substituting something like |style=margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;min-width:300px;max-width:400px results in a display which never gets too wide and equally cannot be squeezed down—e.g. in a small window—such that more lines wrap around than would (more or less) appear in the scanned page.

  • the italics issue: It took a bit of digging, but insane as it seems there is a bit of CSS code hidden away in the so-called "skin" code common to all of the wikis (WP etc.) the relevant portion of which I shall reproduce below (the best link I could find was this one but despite that the actual filename ought to be something like .../core/skins/common/commonContent.css):
    div.floatright p { font-style: italic; }
    So in short you are quite correct: it is an accidental consequence of using class=floatright.
Hope these help. AuFCL (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Whoops! I just realised I owe you a huge apology. I just re-read your earlier comments and realised I had blithely gone off and implemented what I had assumed you meant rather than what you had actually asked for. Unfortunately buried quite deeply inside {{TOCstyle}} are some assumptions which more or less rule out |width:auto as you requested: the primary one being the "table of contents" as constructed is in fact a "list" of tables (one per line)—and as a consequence the choices of having lines wrap around automatically (with justification etc.); and being able to determine the "narrowest overall width capable of accommodating all lines" are currently totally mutually exclusive choices. I shall have to think on this some more... AuFCL (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
O.K. The above apology still stands...but (you knew that was coming of course!)

After going around in circles quite a lot I realised that I actually had bumbled into an answer of sorts for your issue. Now please bear with me because there is a complicated technical solution and that is to apply |style=display:table;margin:0 auto 0 auto. Neat, works but pretty inscrutable.

However do not despair: simply surrounding {{TOCstyle}} with a simple {{center block/s}}{{center block/e}} pairing works just as well and also results in a self-sizing TOC, with very little extra baggage: an extra internal <div> layer, a bit more complicated CSS and that is about all.

The choice is now yours. AuFCL (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There would appear no "official" means of propagating thanks, but I believe this (User:George_Orwell_III thanked you for your edit on MediaWiki_talk:Coltest.css.) is every bit as much yours as mine. AuFCL (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for finding solutions for self-sizing a TOC. I have made note in a sandbox. I'll give {{TOCstyle}} a shot next text I transcribe. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

TOCstyle experiments[edit]

Hello. I hope you don't mind my interference. I noticed your experiment at Page:Sandbox.djvu/3. I am actually quite shocked that leaving |completing=yes in a standalone block like that even worked. (In fact the parse very neatly sheared away everything that did not "fit" and produced HTML quite different to what I would have expected. I may have mentioned previously the output was normally intended to be a list of short(ish) tables. In fact this removed all of the list directives resulting in a (language fails me!) list of tables... Umm. let me start again: instead of:


you actually got:


which just happens to work in this instance.

For future reference the trio |starting=yes, |continuing=yes and |completing=yes were intended to mark TOC segments which crossed from page to page to page; analogous to combinations of {{block center/s}} and {{block center/e}}. In particular |completing=yes assumes there is some kind of initilising code going on in the Page: header area (typically something like {{TOCstyle|header=yes}}).

Anyway nice you are trying things out. I am sure extra bits will be needed from time to time so if you get too stuck please just ask. Probably as you did at template talk:TOCstyle is as good a place as any. AuFCL (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have permission to use the TOC for this work as a guinea pig. I thought I understood the use of starting, continuing, completing—but evidently not. I am sure I will have questions along the way. Just because what I produce may "work", it doesn't mean it is correct, so I'll likely be asking you to look things over when done. Thanks for looking into/creating the new models. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just discovered a bug I introduced (accidentally, obviously) into {{TOCstyle}} a mere about four hours or so after you wrote the above. I only just realised (and eventually fixed—I hope!) it earlier today. The root cause is simple (comparison in dictionary- rather than numeric- order: so that e.g. "10" < "4") but it affected all of the rowN-Mmodel and rowN-Mpageribbon stuff rather erratically and strangely. So if you had any "problem" cases please have a quick recheck (maybe purge the page?) and I trust all will be good again.

Semi-related: more or less through observation of other people using this thing I realised there was a good case to be made for applying styles to ranges of entries (some were getting around this limitation by having tables of contents inside other tables of contents.)

Accordingly I have added the trio of control parameters rowNstyle, rowN-Mstyle (a.k.a. rowNtoMstyle), and rowX,Y,Z,…style which I hope might be useful. Each one accepts any additional CSS (say margin-left:2em) to be applied to each row in the designated range. AuFCL (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was keeping an eye on the changes being made to Ledwidge's TOC, et al., and thought it best to let you two work things out while I observed and took notes. Why is the addition of a dash necessary on each row prior to the page number (ref link above)? Is it a workaround? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Whew! I had to go back and check to what you were referring. I would not have made this choice if left to myself (probably because as writer I considered it a semi-failed experiment) but Zoeannl seems to be partial to |model=D?P and that one happens to demand the basic leader "pattern" to be repeated as the content of the field between the descriptive text and the page number. (My personal choice would have been |model=D.P|leadersym=- but the results are near to identical.)

For example:

{{TOCstyle|width=50%|model=D?P|leaderspacing=2em|To My Best Friend|-|27}}
{{TOCstyle|width=50%|model=D.P|leadersym=-|leaderspacing=2em|To My Best Friend|27}}


  1. To My Best Friend
  1. To My Best Friend
—to all intents and purposes identical (even down to the final HTML level.) I trust this makes sense? 11:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Pardon. The above was me. I do so love it when the system just logs you out without a by-your-leave. Happens about once a week here—just uncommonly enough to catch me out every time. AuFCL (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Gerard Manley Hopkins[edit]

Hi, I see you've done a lot of work on the book of his poetry. A bit of a challenge to format! I'd been doing poetry elsewhere and wondering how to wrap long lines of verse with a nice hanging indent, without leaving ugly gaps between the lines. After much template-searching I came across a pretty easy way to do it (which it turns out you were involved in developing), decided to practice on a poet with very very long lines, and wound up at your project. Hope you don't mind too much. The {{divify}} template seems really handy in cases like this, but it's hardly been used. Is there some reason not to use it? Anyway, could you look at The Leaden Echo and the Golden Echo and tell me what you think? Mudbringer (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mudbringer. Just to give you a heads up, that particular Index is problematic in that it is missing pages (noted on the Index talk page). I have searched high and low to find another first edition online/for sale in order to fill in the blanks, but to no avail. First editions are in the thousands of dollars, and any library leads I have followed left me empty-handed. For now, at least, I would suggest not transcluding any poems into the Main. This index is on my backburner list of things to do, and were the missing pages to be "found", I would happily complete proofreading (welcoming your input as well!). I prefer using the {{block center}} template with breaks when formatting poetry, and shy away from the poem tag; but it does seem prudent to address possible line-wrapping issues that long lines present. @AuFCL: might be more familiar with the {{divify}} template, and @Beeswaxcandle: might offer a better opinion on its use—or some other method. Apologies for my lack of opinion-offering on your work, but it is due to the technical nature of the formatting that I defer. I will watch this thread with interest, however. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi folks. I was involved in {{divify}} and yes it was an experiment in semi-automating poetry formatting long since abandoned as a bit of a developmental blind alley. (If I recall it was something like coping with drop-capitals was the final straw when it was realised the possible design bloat would rapidly become unmanageable?) At heart this thing worked in the (slightly crazy) observation that saturating every line with its very own <div>…</div> enclosure (thus the "divify" moniker) sufficiently confused the mediawiki parser into not fooling around further with lines you the editor had already crafted. It was really <poem> by other means and as such not really much of an improvement!
Credit to the ever-modest Londonjackbooks for eventually developing the {{block center}}+<br/> method which I am sure she will further endorse (In short there are numerous ways of solving this problem and the biggest issue boils down to deciding which of them is least ugly and most easily remembered.) There appear to be eternal developer promises to address the basic problems of the poem tag but last I checked they were still bogged down in a three+-year argument as to whether to call it <lines> or perhaps something else. In short, breathe-holding is not going to be real good for your health. Hope any of this helps. AuFCL (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
[Speaking realistically and not modestly, I don't believe I have had any hand in method-development here. If my "name" is in any template history, it is for correcting a typo or something :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)]
Thanks for the feedback. I can't see where there's a serious problem in the djvu file. The pagenumbering is a little out of whack, but the section of poetic fragments ends on p. 90 exactly where it does in my copy of the 4th ed. on p. 199, then there's the two manuscript images (not in the 4th ed.) and then the Editor's Notes. ... On second thoughts, I can see where the use of divify is confusing. What it does is replace invisible newline characters with visible <div></div> tags (which ironically no one ever sees unless they look at the source of the resulting page) and it's sometimes impossible to see in the editing space whether there's a newline character or if the line is just wrapping itself. That bit me and on the first try I wound up with the word "death" isolated on a single line before I fixed it. The same problem occurs when using the <poem> tags. So maybe it is better to make things more explicit, albeit more cluttered. Mudbringer (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Some history on the missing pages: I've looked at the book and pagelist in detail. There appears to be a facsimile image missing between 70 and 71 (or the second blank page shouldn't be there). This is because pages have to be in pairs. I'm not sure that poem #72 does end on page 90. This is because of the asterism at the bottom of that page. Bridges seems to be using asterism to indicate a break in the text, and hasn't put it at the end of any other fragments. Also, the footnote at the bottom of p86 says that the facsimile is "after p. 92." So, yes, pp 91 and 92 are missing from this scan. I don't know what to suggest at this point. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Also, take a look at the last page of the Notes at the end of the book. It references poems 73 & 74, which do not appear in the Index. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

display check[edit]

I noticed something odd, I'm hoping it is something wrong with my browser. A page you proofread showed a new paragraph, but I only found a single return when I went to validate. I played around and found that one new paragraph is inserted when the line breaks have not been removed.

Can you tell me what you see at this page, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just alighting on the page, the last line shows a new paragraph. I proofread a page yesterday where I missed a line break, and I noticed the overlook after I hit proofread because it showed a new paragraph where there should not be one. It used to often show up in the Main, but not in the Page namespace. Is that what you were referring to? Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that is just what I mean. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it problematic? I have transcluded three of the non-proofread pages to a sandbox (leaving line breaks), and it renders with no undesired new paragraphs... Am I missing a technical aspect? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: I reverted myself here, and left the overlooked line break... but it has no similar effect in the Main (p. 215). Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for testing what happens after transclusion in main. I don't want to sing at you about technical and social aspects of changes like this. I am enjoying Yeats on Blake very much, did it cast some light and shadow onto your reading about theopoetics? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Funny you ask; it did bring it to mind, broadly, although I am still trying to grasp the concept. My comprehension being dim for a spell, I am in the process of working my way through it by slowly re-reading Wilder's Theopoetic as mental exercise, and trying not to be too overwhelmed by what I don't understand. "Before the message there must be the vision, before the sermon the hymn, before the prose the poem." Clear and true enough; but I might add, "before the Wilder, the intellect." Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
...Meaning (if it was unclear), before [reading] the Wilder [requires] the intellect. Reviewing a letter Coates wrote to Wilder, she appeals to him: "While remembering that poetry should be sensuous [as opposed to intellectual, I suppose] and impassioned, 'gnomic and divinely wise', do not forget that it should also be simple, and deny yourself the privilege of too many rare and aristocratic words." I am of the same mind with regard to his prose. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The meaning was not unclear, but thanks for the elaboration. I would be interested to see how these poets responded to her criticism and suggestions ... if they did. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There was at least one example where her words impacted Wilder's thinking, and that was in a letter (1924) where she quotes, "We judge of a man's wisdom by his hope" (from Emerson, I believe). He later addresses this in an article in 1952 stating how he had puzzled over the aphorism, but then goes on to work it out... He also wrote a poem in 1923 ("The Vision of Purgatory")—dedicated to Coates—describing

...I learned how hope could conquer circumstance
And vault the phantom barriers of time,
I learned to mock the incidence of chance

And wait each true conjunction at its prime...

...And through the somber western copses driven
The fires of sunset pierced that nether grove
Where loitering spirits, chastened and new shriven,

Won absolution by a lake of love...

...And after purgatorial pains and trial
Took convalescence in that dim asyle.

The place of composition was Birch Island, Upper St. Regis Lake... near the Coates' summer home, "Camp Elsinore". Mrs. Coates resided at her summer camp that same year, so I will assume they had visited one another—perhaps initiating their conversation on hope, among other things... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"I learned to mock the incidence of chance/And wait each true conjunction at its prime" is reminiscent of Jung's Synchronicity... Just proofread Yeat's "Magic", and what comes to mind comparatively is the distinction between waiting [for the "true conjunction"] and that of conjuring; the one is inspiring, whereas the other is just plain unsettling. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Shelley edits[edit]


Thanks for working on and standardising The Complete Works of Shelley. The reason I'd done some work there a few years back now, was really just to get the "Fragment of a Ghost Story" (here, with another work at The Prose Works of Shelley) transcribed, as it is one (albeit the least) of the infamous ghost stories of the Villa Diodati, along with Frankenstein, The Vampyre etc., of which this year is the bicentenary of their creation.

As such I wanted to be able to transclude it, and so had sectioned it (along with the others as I wanted the entire page proofread), and (I think) given it its own main space page, both of which (sectioning and page) are now deleted.

You've got me wondering what your thoughts and plans for this work are, and if you had any advice on the best way to keep the poem in main space? Thanks. --YodinT 13:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yodin. I have decided to create Mainspace pages for this work based on sections of the text as portioned out in the TOC. So "Early Poems", "Poems written in 1816", etc. will include all the poems contained therein. Therefore, the titling convention that was originally created for two or three proofread poems is no longer being used. As it was, the original transcluded pages had no content, if memory serves. "Fragment of a Ghost Story" is transcluded (you have to scroll down a bit; I may consider using anchors here)—it just appears along with the other poems within the same section, with titles being redirects to their corresponding pages. Hope this explains things sufficiently? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand completely, again thanks for looking at the work as a whole, and I'm sure your decision is the right one. One of the things I love about Wikisource is its live & let live approach, so I hope you wouldn't mind if I resectioned just Fragment, and transcluded it as its own main space page as well (as Fragment of a Ghost Story), if I get around to making some kind of mini-sub-portal in time for the June anniversary? Otherwise, a specific anchor (rather than the current page anchor) wouldn't be the end of the world (though, in my opinion, not as good as having the work as itself transcluded, which would also allow for categorisation of the poem, rather than the entire section). --YodinT 13:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily the right decision, but an alternate one anyway. I see no problem with giving "Fragment of a Ghost Story" its own page, although others might see it as redundant. But we would need to convert Fragment of a Ghost Story into a versions page pointing to the two transcluded "versions" (even though they are in actuality the same version), and your version would have to have a disambiguated title. These are just my thoughts. Others might have a better solution. Perhaps you could go this route and transcribe the poem without transcluding it and titling it "Fragment of a Ghost Story (unindexed)" or some such title? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Cheers :) --YodinT 16:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
To add that if you go the unindexed version route that you also include edition information on the Talk page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Good morning,

I've closed your admin nomination as successful and granted you the bit. Good luck!

Hesperian 03:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If you have any other access or language skills can you please update the table at Wikisource:Administrators#Current administrators? Thanks, Hesperian 03:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Congrats! Pages will look a little different, with some new options in drop downs, or the appearance of check boxes, or listings at Special:SpecialPages. Expectations on use, are where your comfort levels are. It is near impossible to break things, and there is WS:AN and each fellow admins talk page available for questions. There are usually no new questions, just answers in need of a home. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you :) Feel free to nudge me if any task ever presents itself that you think I could handle. I'll take a look around! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Happy to have you as admin.— Mpaa (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Mpaa :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Index:Canadian poems of the great war.djvu[edit]

Hi. Stumbled on this work while doing maintenance. Not sure whether you knew that was here in its form. So waving it, nothing else. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have stumbled across it a time or two myself. I'll put it on my backburner list, and maybe set to work on the TOC and a page or two. From the Talk page, it looks as though quite a few authors could stand to have their names added here along with their works... Which reminds me to familiarize myself with adding {{authority control}} to author pages as well. I am unfamiliar with the template and with how wikidata works, etc. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hint for moving pages[edit]

Hi, when you're moving pages and don't want to keep the redirect you now have an extra button on the "Move" page. If you un-tick "Leave a redirect behind", the redirect will be suppressed at the same time as the move. It's a small thing, but does save you an extra step. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to figure that out (a small thing, but I tend to overthink): So, if I move Title/Chapter I to Title/Chapter 1 without leaving a redirect, in what state will Title/Chapter I then exist? It will still need to be deleted (if desired), correct? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The deletion happens quietly in the background. It shows up in the deletion log against your name, but you did it all in the action. The original title will now not exist (redlinked). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. A further hypothetical (sorry!): If A Poem redirects to Title/A Poem, which I move to Title/Poem, A without leaving a redirect, I still need to update A Poem to point to the new title, yes? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, all links to the old title need to be changed to point to the new title. Unfortunately, there's no automatic way of doing that. I use the "what links here" tool to get the list before moving a page and then use that list after doing the move. I put the list in a separate browser tab. However, if you've got a long list of links from pages outside the book, then the old title should probably be left as a redirect. That said, we do try to avoid "double redirects". So, coming back to your question, the redirect at A Poem needs to be updated either way. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You have not confused... I was just musing over how succinct your responses are, and I am appreciative. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes within page-spanning footnotes[edit]

Thank you so much for collecting thoughts and solutions to the sticky problem of footnotes within page-spanning footnotes. You have saved my time, my morning, and my sanity.

You can see the implementation on Dramas of Aeschylus (Swanwick)/Persians in footnote #9. I have also applied a {{bar}} because (a) the notes would have been visually lost, and (b) the source used something like that anyway. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad the notes were useful. It is all very confusing to me, and I referenced them constantly when proofreading Byron's works. I will add your implementation to the notes as an example. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A meta-thanks (would that be thanks²?)[edit]

—for Page:Appeal to the Christian women of the South (Grimké, 1836).djvu/6. No doubt you have already seen my note to WMMII? As you have probably figured out I have been indulging in a glacially-slow rework of pages containing misplaced {{hws}}'s—by no means completed but the end is coming delightfully in sight on the horizon.

So it should not be a surprise that I should eventually encounter Maury's plea to yourself, and subsequently to be thanked for what turns out to in fact be upon reflection to be an utter no-brainer. AuFCL (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@AuFCL: spurious --> nefarious. What was I thinking? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
D'oh! I missed that completely. Let's just share the blame? AuFCL (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It's all good! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@AuFCL: If it's any consolation, I have been rightly humbled into being more cognizant of my obvious inclination to err in matters {{hwe}}. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh please don't be. Just because I have been indulging a monomania for this single issue should not be taken personally! At my last count only 13 more pages to go, and not one of those looks likely to have been "one of yours." (Take heart from the fact I was a bit nervous dabbling with the Stedman pages for fear of incurring your ire…) AuFCL (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. My ire. Hmm... Reserved only for special offenders (even then, not worth fussing about)—not those genuinely trying to be helpful. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The Fables of Florian (tr. Phelps)[edit]

I made a couple of changes related to this book. The first is a translation page at Fables of Florian. I'm not certain it's formatted correctly. The French title doesn't use "the".

The second is a change to the title appearance and page number spacing on this one poem. The first page number was overlapping the header block, so I shifted it down. I also simplified the title. If this looks like an improvement, I can buzz through changing the other poem pages some morning. If not, I'll undo it. Outlier59 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This sort of edit can be confusing, because you "signed" it before you did the edit to the additional pages. Outlier59 (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I was not seeing what you spoke of with regard to page number overlapping. I removed a single line space, and all looks ok to me?I see no problems with "cleaning up" titling if you wish to do so. Apologies if my edit was a source of confusion. I am going through the text little by little, and instead of adding a new line to the thread each time, I merely overwrote. I will update my signature in future edits as well. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The overlapping might be a browser quirk. I see it in this month's Featured Text also. I won't worry about it. Outlier59 (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Poems (Coates 1916)/Volume II/Index of First Lines[edit]

In this work we have a local generated version of two volumes rather than the transcluded version for the second volume. If we are not going to transclude those pages (nos. /285 to /294), then I will mark them all as "not transcluded", though wanted to check that was the purposeful intention prior to so marking. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Now transcluded. I did not realize it was not so already. Must have been my way of prepping for the 'complete version' of the Index, and I failed to follow through with transclusion. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Magic. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Wikisource Barnstar Gold Hires.png

Thank you for your work, on WikiSource and elsewhere. Not just from me, but also on behalf of all the other people who have enjoyed reading your contributions, and those who will in the future. I especially like the quote: "no good, once given, can be lost". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Sharing Mrs. Coates' poetry, which has meant so much to me through the years, remains my primary goal here. Her messages are timeless and universal. Someone recently thought to nominate an image of the poet as a candidate for featured picture. Little by little :) Have a great day! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

nice blog post[edit]

"Why I proofread poetry at Wikisource".Lingzhi (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Index:The Recluse, Wordsworth, 1888.djvu[edit]

I finished validating it. I updated the index page; is there anything else I'm meant to do at this point? Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the validation, and for correcting my oversights! I believe all is in order :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)