User talk:Londonjackbooks/Archive 2016

Archive 2016

display check

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

Hi!

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. --Yodin^T 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). --Yodin^T 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 :) --Yodin^T 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)

admin

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

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

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

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?)

—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)

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

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

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

"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

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)

poem tag + stanza break

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

@Mukkakukaku: Feel free to make changes as you deem appropriate. Thanks for the alt solution! The main issue was the poem tag placement, which should be in the body as opposed to the header/footer when spanning multiple pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it used to work, when transcribing poems across pages, to put the open/close tags in the header/footer in the middle pages, but apparently it broke at some point. Thanks. -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing customized editing toolbar

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

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

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

@Londonjackbooks: I am looking at your common.js toolbar setup and it was programmed by GOIII over a year ago, and the same setup did not work for me anymore for awhile.

The important settings for you to check are and post here as follows:

In Preferences \ Gadgets \ Interface, this first option must be selected.

Site: General utilities needed by the templates and portals of this wiki project.

In Preferences there are two toolbar related options. Which ones are selected?

Show edit toolbar or Enable enhanced editing toolbar — Ineuw talk 03:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping... I have Enable enhanced editing toolbar checked of the two. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: What about the Preferences \ Gadgets \ Interface, this first option must be selected.

Site: General utilities needed by the templates and portals of this wiki project. please make sure it is also selected.

Also, I copied your setup into mine so I see what you "should" see. Please look at this uploaded screen shot File:Ljb setup.jpg is this what you seeing - or not? I took this picture from your earlier work of today. Please open this page in edit mode and compare it to the image and let me know the difference. — Ineuw talk 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please ignore that the layout is over / under and I can switch that to side by side if that is your layout. I am only interested in the toolbar options and the character insert bar position. — Ineuw talk 04:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Perhaps this image is closer what you (should) have? File:Ljb setup 2.jpg. — Ineuw talk

@Ineuw: Sorry, yes... "General utilities & etc." is also selected. Your screenshot (#2) is what I should be seeing, and once in a blue moon it appears; but more often than not (as currently), I am getting the default(?) toolbar. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Log out of your browser (Chrome?) and all Wikisource related browser cookies should be deleted. They hold user info. I believe you are using Chrome. If you need help with Chrome just post here. You need to log in with newly typed and selected info. — Ineuw talk 04:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Deleted history, cookies, etc. (Chrome), logged out, logged back in again, signed back into WS, and things have not changed in edit mode. Hoping I didn't err in following instructions. Just to add, if it is late where you are, we can resume this at a later time... perhaps moving this to my Talk page if it gets too lengthy here... Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Don't worry, my evening just began. :-) I will continue this on your page now. — Ineuw talk 04:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

@Ineuw: Global account: is listed on 1st page after Password:. When I deleted all Chrome browsing history, wouldn't that have taken care of all WP-related cookies too? Not sure what you are saying I need to do...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Browsing history is not the same as the cookies. In settings, search for "cookies" and there you will see a list of cookies that were accumulated by your browsing. I think you can filter the list with "wiki". — Ineuw talk 05:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Meant "browsing data"... When I obliterate, I obliterate the whole list (and from beginning of time), to include cookies, etc. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a second please, I am in the process re-installing chrome and will let you know. :-) — Ineuw talk 05:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Making a PB&J... standing by. We have had similar issues in the past, if any details strike you as being similar... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Not really, because it works in my common.js file as it should. Chrome has two stores for cookies. One is called Clear browsing data and we need the one (next to it) that is named Content settings . . . . continued. — Ineuw talk 05:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Under Content settings, do I click on "all cookies and site data..."? If so, what then? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Yes, in the Content settings, click on Cookies and site data and there you can do a search for cookies containing the word segment "wiki". — Ineuw talk 05:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

And then X all the "wiki" cookies out? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: I deleted all the "wiki" cookies, all the browsing data (again), and signed back in. Unfortunately, still no changes. It's almost 2am here. I stayed up late to finish editing a work, but this may take some time? I can give another 15 minutes, then we may have to resume later. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I guess we are in the same time zone. (Eastern Daylight). Let's continue tomorrow. At what time do you start editing? — Ineuw talk 05:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Haven't been regularly editing lately, but I can be available between 6-9am tomorrow morning. Or later in the afternoon/evening. What's best for you? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: The next step is to temporarily remove the code from your common.js, and put things back one at the time. I will do this now. Please see if you can work with this tomorrow morning. 6-9 am is a bit early, but one can never tell. — Ineuw talk 06:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed (& saved) the editing toolbar related code but left you the colors and the Character insert bar. GOIII left a not in the code that in the Preferences \ Editing The Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function must not be enabled, please check that it is so. — Ineuw talk 06:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It was checked, so I unchecked it. In Preferenced/Editing/Editor, what key items should be checked, and what should not? For example, "show edit toolbar" is not currently checked, but "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" is. Is that correct? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sept 13, 2016

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

@Ineuw: Morning! Have not edited, but checked page in edit mode, and no changes. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. To save you some time, you don't have to ping me on my Talk page, as I am notified automatically of an edit. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't sure. Would it be possible for you to post a screen shot of what you see in editing mode? That would really help. I have my account set up as yours so I can compare. — Ineuw talk 16:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Sure. File:LJB screenshot 1.jpg Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Alongside the icons of the toolbar, there are four blue titles preceded by arrowheads. Click on the arrowhead preceding the "Proofreading tools" and this will display the magnifier etc. Let me know if this is what you were looking for, and I will restore the rest of what I removed. Now, if the page is saved with the "Proofreading tools" showing, then all subsequent pages will display it open accordingly, and that is what stored in one of the WS cookies. — Ineuw talk 16:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Dropdown and zoom buttons appear, but when clicked on, have no effect. Main issue is the missing customized editing toolbar. Whenever that is present, zooming buttons work fine. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Reinstalled the original code which contains the customizations, please check now..IneuwPublic (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: No go. That is, no changes. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It just occurred to me, if you wish to infinitely control the enlargement and minimization of the page image, the click on the image, and use the mouse's scroll wheel. Would this be what you are looking for? As for the three magnifier icons, they work for me using your setup.IneuwPublic (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Clicking on the image/scroll wheel has no effect. Again, main issue is the missing customized editing toolbar. Whatever is preventing that from appearing also seems to be disrupting zoom ability. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What special gadgets are you missing? This is not clear to me.IneuwPublic (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant to write "Click the image with the left mouse button (the arrow should be on the image) and the use the scroll wheel to change image size." — Ineuw talk 17:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) @Ineuw: Editing toolbar should look like your screenshot from yesterday at File:Ljb setup.jpg, only with side-by-side editing. Sorry, I thought you were aware. To add, clicking the image still has no effect. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

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

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

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

Apologies for all the trouble. Will be away from computer for a bit. Will check back. Feel free to take a break from looking into this if it becomes exasperating. At your leisure, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's no trouble, in the middle of it all some 90 minutes ago, my router crashed. Couldn't repair it so after for a hour, I went to an internet café,and that's where I am at the moment. — Ineuw talk 21:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Although, I lost the post because of the broken router, and I don't remember what I wrote. In any case, there is no har in deleting the cookies any time you suspect something is wrong. I made a change earlier, and after deleting the cookies, please try again. — Ineuw talk 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

just to shorten the scroll

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

Thanks. I deleted cookies again, but no difference. I may have to step away from the computer again soon... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's important that you open a new page for each look at the editing layout. The opening of a new page refreshes the edit setup. — Ineuw talk 22:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Yup. Opened up a few random WS pages in edit mode with same negative results. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me think about it and will post some screen shots from my copy of your setup. Until then, please take a break. I also have to move my WiFi operations somewhere else. Too much coffee and the battery must be recharged. — Ineuw talk 22:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I will take a break, but it is you doing all the work! Coffee is in my plans as well. I'll check back. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this the layout you need? File:LJB setup restored on IneuwPublic Chrome.png — IneuwPublic talk 00:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The layout (side-by-side) is correct, but not the toolbar. Correct toolbar would be . Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: To clarify, in this image -> File:LJB setup restored on IneuwPublic Chrome.png there are three bars. The lower two bar is the advanced editing bar one bar. The top bar is NOT part of the toolbar it is known as the Charinsert. I moved the Charinsert bar back to its original position at the bottom below the footer as is shown in this image -> File:Charinsert on the bottom.jpg Please check your editing layout now and let me know if this is what you want. — Ineuw talk 03:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sept 14, 2016

The "wrong" toolbar is still present. The layout is correct. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, needed to recover lost sleep and hope I am not too late for class. Are you able to get work done?

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

Nutshell

@Ineuw:

Current, undesired toolbar:

Desired, "lost" toolbar:

Explanation

1. I wish to recover my "lost" toolbar, which contains customized buttons for emdash, endash, break, ref, etc.
2. I do not have any issues with the insert toolbar.
3. When the current, undesired toolbar is present, zooming does not work (whether using buttons or mouse scroll)[strike as of 9/15/2018].

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

Got it. — Ineuw talk 17:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time, I now understand what you are referring to: Author: mdash, ndash </br> and <ref></ref>.. This custom script was added by GOIII, and it is way above my pay grade. Think that I can add the missing tools to the CharInsert "User" bar, but without buttons, it will display as text. — Ineuw talk 18:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, my time was not wasted :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki language and text coding used in Wikisource

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

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

@Ineuw: Thanks for posting at the Scriptorium. If, in the end, I can not get my customized toolbar back, I may look into your solution above. There are really only two buttons that I use frequently when proofreading poetry: emdash and <br /> (the latter being crucial). I will wait to get input from the Scriptorium, and will let you know if I need assistance with your alternate solution. Thanks for your help and time, and apologies if I did not explain myself clearly at the outset. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I added both to your "User" CharInsert bar. Please let me know if it's OK. — Ineuw talk 21:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Thank you. Is it possible to do the following:

1. Move charinsert bar above the header
2. change </br> to <br /> ? Then I will give it a shot. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Done, please check. Ty. — Ineuw talk 01:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: That is workable! Thank you, Ineuw! :) Only issue now is the zoom buttons do not work. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Copied your setup into my public persona account again, and set all my preferences to be like yours so that our setup is identical. In the side by side editing mode, for some reason the zoom doesn't work initially but got it working by clicking to switch the view to over|under editing (where zoom always works) and switched back to side by side edit mode, and the zoom works. I tested this several times, logged out, deleted the cookies, logged in, and it still works. For now, please use this method until we find the source of the problem, and again please let me know if it works for you. — IneuwPublic talk 03:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Up until now all tests were done in Chrome to match your work environment. Then, I returned to Firefox and logged in as User:IneuwPublic as in Chrome, and uploaded two screenshots, one in Chrome and another in Firefox. Notice the difference between browsers, including the zoomed out page in Firefox.

By the way I copied your common.js after you restored the missing code. — Ineuw talk 03:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Thanks for discovering a temporary troubleshoot for zooming. Works for me as you. Re: your screenshots: Once in a blue moon the [desired] customized toolbar appears for me in Chrome; do I infer from your screenshots that things appear stable in Firefox? Could the issue be browser-related? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I had the same exact experience in Chrome, an occasional glimpse of the toolbar. It's not a question of stability, both are very stable. It's the interpretation of the the Wikimedia software by the browsers. Although I am a Firefox aficionado, I try working with both, but in my experience Firefox is better overall. I would recommend you to keep have both, as a backup and comparison. — Ineuw talk 16:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: I used Firefox briefly some years ago; can't remember exactly why I made the change. I am so used to Chrome at this point, but will keep the backup option open. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sept 20, 2016

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

@Ineuw: Magnifying now works when both desired and undesired editing toolbars are present. At least for now, desired toolbar is appearing more often than not (undesired editing toolbar appears first, then switches to desired customized toolbar a second later). Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

What you call "undesired" is the standard advanced toolbar on which GOIII applied his magic, so it will show up or "flash by" until the the script modifications of GOIII take over. They are seen because javascript language is slow. I have the same experience with other javascript modifications. — Ineuw talk 03:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, got it, thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot that archives

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

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

De Regimine Principum, Ad Regem Cypri

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

@Beleg Tâl: I will probably not work on it further. I wish there was an english version available to transcribe; I would contribute in a heartbeat to such a project. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are several texts I also wish had free translations. Oh well. I'll delete this one for now. Thanks. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A script of possible interest

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

@Ineuw: I will consider it if it is possible to view highlighting in the Page namespace and Page Preview, but not in the Main. Is that possible? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look at the design if it's possible. The advantage for me in the main namespace is that I get the one whole PSM article on one page. We are not as thorough as we would like to be. :-) — Ineuw talk 14:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I installed the script excluding the main namespace. The script is activated by the first active line in User:Londonjackbooks/common.js.

//activate typoscan script of User:Londonjackbooks/common.js/typoscan.js
mw.loader.load('//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Londonjackbooks/common.js/typoscan.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

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

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

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

War image rendering in mobile view

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

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

renders: Image and caption not centered relative to mobile device window/size.

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

renders: Image and caption centered relative to mobile device window/size.

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

I also checked the page on the mobile, and my all inclusive and overall comment is that the mobile version of the mediawiki software is a work in progress and GOIII had no control over mobile design changes anymore than he had over the desktop design changes. Keep in mind what they did to your magnification and toolbar issues, and my over/under editing issues, something that they still cannot resolve. I won't go into details, because the issues are far+far from being resolved and other explanations will just further confuse the issue. So, I reset the image to the original settings, so please clear the mobile browser's cache check now if it is back to what you had earlier.

The expectation of the mobile software is that the reader should click on the image to be displayed properly, and this hides the caption which is not part of the image. Just experiment until you had enough of being frustrated. — Ineuw talk 23:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Thanks for your comments and help. It is perhaps not very helpful that the extent of my technical knowledge consists primarily of "something's not right!" ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It helps a lot, because now I understand. It never occurred to me that you meant mobile. However, you should look at your works & images in the main namespace, and not in the Page namespace on the mobile. I once looked at my work, and it seemed OK. I suspect that more effort went into the main namespace software design. — Ineuw talk 00:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw: 'Screenshots' above are of Main namespace in mobile, not Page. I figure more people are viewing on mobile devices these days, and that image rendering should be a consideration, so whatever gets the job done... My initial purpose for posting at the Scriptorium was unrelated to mobile rendering... The images using the FI template were rendering at 100% size (viewing from my desktop in both Main & Page) despite set parameters... also noted by BWC... but it 'miraculously' corrected itself! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Notes on mobile images from WS

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

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

@Ineuw: Hehe... It is curved because it is not an actual screenshot. I took a picture of the mobile phone using my digital camera. I don't actually use the mobile phone as a phone (I still have a flip phone), and don't know how to take actual screenshots on the mobile. So I improvised :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected that it was taken by other means, like a mirror, etc. FYI, I use a cellphone as a WiFi connected miniature computer, I don't even have a cell number. :-) One can install a free screenprint software, from the software stores. — Ineuw talk 18:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)