User talk:Londonjackbooks/Archive 2011

Archive 2011

Contents rendering

Hmmm. Offical Microsoft helpful comment: "Internet Explorer does not support any of the CSS3 multi-column layout properties"[1]. Not even in IE 9 Beta. I've turned it into a table.--Laverock ( Talk ) 19:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Images used in PotM

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

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

My thickheadedness

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

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

Not a problem!  :) My name's not much of an issue... It's only a click or two away from being self-evident anyway... Can we just speedy-delete the image (I can place the request on the page since I created it; perhaps I can do the same for my other image too?), and then I can re-upload the image(s) again using above recommend notation? Clean slate? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay... I'll change the notation in both (one has been done already), if you'll go ahead and hide personal "aspects from the file history" as you suggested... Thanks again! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please do so from both images used on the page? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done We will declare tomorrow a non-confuslement day Billinghurst (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear!... I could use one! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

illumination

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

Thank you. I do appreciate your recommendations. Every work is unique, and I must seem to some to be constantly beating a dead horse with seemingly repeated questions about formatting... I hate stepping on other's toes; I want to "accommodate" all... But then my wish to faithfully render kicks in, and so I must go at it! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Endorse what Cyg says. To your concern ... this is a learning place, so questions are encouraged, especially those that are considered questions, which yours are. We all bring skills and specialties to the effort, all will be utilised in different ways. Billinghurst (talk)

Thank you too, Billinghurst... Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking for more information the other day about the limited, signed (1896) edition of the Howells/Pyle collaboration, I stumbled across one online and purchased it for a mere $19.95...less than I paid for the original 1895 version. All is intact but for the missing frontispiece (1st of 3 "Japan proofs"). The cover has seen better days, but the text/illustrations (printed in sepia) are in great shape! Complete with original signatures by author/illustrator, it was a great find! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Marines' Hymn

Having checked Wikipedia and followed external links to confirm, the current official version is the 1929 arrangement. I'll make a separate page for the 1919 version.- AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Image move request in Commons

DoneIf anyone is willing to take a stab at it, I have some images I need moved in Commons... Sorry ahead of time! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I just did the most recent one as well. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sent a "thanks" to you on your Commons talk page... Thanks again! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Stops of Various Quills

Your formatting is intense! I see that you're aware of <poem> tags and even {{gap}} for spacing but something you've been using: {{block center/s}} and {{block center/e}} are for spanning multiple pages and maintaining a uniform block when transcluded; try {{block center|}} (example for block center/s and block center/e) What you're doing still works, technically, and I can't complain about the output of the work at all, but just so you know in case you didn't. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The three two remaining pages for validation are the ones with overlapping text onto image. I see you've retained some of the breaks; is this to keep the text height filling out the image height? This can be achieved another way: check out this example: Page:Howells, Stops of Various Quills, 1895 037.jpg. Because this work is so closely tied to its illustrations, I want to know what you were intending and the direction we should go. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Right... I played with it and played with it, adjusting width, illustration size, etc.; and after all was said and done, I came to the conclusion that it should render as closely as possible to the original... Which would entail breaking up the lines. Especially for the poem(s) which span multiple pages (like Parable)... They won't align well in the Main if the image/text formatting is off. As for your example, again, I think the text needs to be—what's the word—justified(?) with the image... And line height should probably render uniformly in the work... It just looks "off", and I don't really like the text sitting on the illustration... But you'd have to make the illustration fairly large to contain the text, and that would make that page look odd as compared with the other pages in the book when "reading"... Can that one revert back to how it was originally?

But I am getting ahead of myself... You have been quite the busy bee with validating, and I thank you! I am ALWAYS open to better formatting practices! I will make a mental note of your block-center recommendation, and will give it a go next I'm at it... Now I want to read Voltaire's piece... Thanks for all! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh—But out of your experimentation with "Burden", it seems you have inadvertently taught me how to set line height... Something I've been trying to figure out how to do, since I am html-challenged!

<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)

Annotation

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

Gday. I have now started to note my research works for authors on the respective talk pages for the authors. Pasting text and urls, so that at a later time if it is decided to create the corresponding wp page we have a head start. There is no requirement, just something that I am thinking is a good practice. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean... That's a good idea... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be the expert, thoughts on why the first page of Savagery and Survivals isn't showing up? Let me know if you figure it out, I am trying to learn as I go :) StateOfAvon (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

fixed Because the first page is all part of the article, section tags are not required nor the "fromsection" field. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I tried it without the section tags on 404, didn't work, then with them, still didn't; guess it didn't like the "fromsection" field :) StateOfAvon (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeswaxcandle... I wouldn't have known that, and have only recently worked with sections... Learning as I go too! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

???

I am going to look for other "similar titles" to make it look like we have a whole collection of James Bond ephemera on the front page...haha, good times, good times, I will keep you posted if I find any more :D

1. 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

Came across a 1948 work on Thomas Earle as a reformer HERE. Need Inductiveload or somebody to rip it though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I printed it out for myself and read it over a year ago... Is it not still under copyright? It would be great to put this online otherwise!? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Had to double-ckeck my files, but I just confirmed... I have every image of the text saved as jpeg... I can turn them into a pdf file, then load it to archive.org—if it is not copyright protected—Then someone can take it from there...? Let me know! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I can't find any copyright renewal for the original registration ( A30801 ). I'd verify that with a 3rd party and I'd think you are good to go with this work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

But this concerns me, as my images are from the same site Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

... and that's why I suggested touching base with Inductiveload to pull down those scans without the watermarks. Public Domain is Public Domain - period. End of story. -- 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I see... Sorry—I just wanted to be sure, not being copyright-savvy... At any rate, my images don't have watermarks. Who might be a good 3rd party for verification? Should I pose/post the question on the WS copyright violations page? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

<chuckle> if we went by that suggestion, we'd have to dump 90% of Wikisource

Getting back to verification, I only suggested that because I can tell you are hesitant to try checking yourself to see if you can find something on your own. Carl Lindberg comes to mind though he's not around as much as Billinghurst or Jeepday (I'd go with those three first). -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not clear on exactly what you meant by "to try checking yourself to see if you can find something on your own"... but the word "hesitant" is probably accurate in any case with me! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's just say I would make a very poor Judge (if the previous section gives you any indication)—which is why I would never seek to be an admin here! And I am very cautious with how I handle Coates/Earle-related information, for with all the independent (yet informal & unorganized) research I do with regard to Mrs. Coates and her kin, I do not want to misrepresent in any way, or offend any descendants who hail, by the way, from a long line of capable lawyers! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Every indication is that the work is PD, the images you have are not watermarked, so I don't see a problem. Even if there was a watermark on the images, the words would still be PD. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this! I'll go ahead with it then... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the book set up on Word ready to convert to pdf, but I have a concern about an image on the page facing p. 50. It is a photograph/scan of a letter written by Thos. Earle to Charles Brown "Used with the permission of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania." Since the book itself is in the public domain, can I assume the use of the photograph as it is rendered in the book is also public domain? Just want to be sure... And once I get the text into pdf format, can I just post a direct external link to the pdf here on my Talk page for someone to put onto Commons/WS (my attempts at downloading pdf texts to WM sites have been disastrous)? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• If everything checks out, the link to the text is: Thomas Earle as a Reformer The file size is 14MB. Took longer for me to download on Chrome, but not on IE... It's usually the opposite... Please let me know if there are any problems. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It didn't open correctly directly from the file sharing site but everything seems fine after I downloaded it and then opened it. It would help if someone else could try and open it to see if its just me.

Either way I try, it won't convert to a .djvu using the online Any2DjVu service. Let's wait to see if somebody else has the same problem(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have tried on maybe three occasions to use the Any2DjVu converter, but without success... If you look at the File History for this book, you'll see that my first attempt was in vain, and I needed to seek assistance. If all else fails, I can always go the JPEG route again! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I take that back, Any2DjVu can convert it if I select black and white image file instead of .PS/.PDF. What dpi would you like 200, 300, 400 or 600? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Aah... probably 600, since the images are readable already, but not super clear...

I also have Earle's (GHEJr) The Liberty to Trade as Buttressed by National Law from 1909 ready to be scanned, but will probably get to that in July. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dang it. Didn't skim through it properly and wasn't aware there are images in it. Let me try color image @ 600 dpi after it stops. Back in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the OCR'd text layer was a bit cleaner for the black & white one trial conversion but I uploaded the color at 600dpi to see what you thought first.

• Index:Thomas Earle as a Reformer.djvu

Not a big deal to try the other combinations of available parameters if you think we can do better - the final file should be ~2.5M or less irregardless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I can work with that! Clearer than I thought it would be, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Of course I should I have checked to see what file name was best first but you can re-name it fairly easy through one of the other regulars around here. I trust you'll address the specifics, cats, etc. on both WS and Commons to improve my rushed work - in the mean time I'm going to extract that text layer and clean it up so there will be less editing involved overall. I will touch back with my progress. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Title is good. I'll address the specifics, and thanks with the rest! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Two questions/issues...

1. Do we need or want the blank page before the cover page for some reason? Without it, the scanned page numbering would match the .djvu page numbering (for a change) up to the next point...
2. There is a letter used by permission of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania between scan pages 50 and 51. I'm not 100% sure we can reproduce the image of the letter here on WS without ascertaining that is indeed free and clear for re-use from the Society.

Q.1 No, we don't need the blank page... It was more for correct rendering in 2-page-up reading mode for pdf

Q.2 I caught the image issue as well, and addressed it a few posts up, but it likely got lost in the shuffle. Actually, the image, now that I think about it, will throw off the page numbering (oh, I guess that's what you meant by "up to the next point...")... Probably good to get a second opinion on it... If need be, I can redo the pdf... Let me know! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the second point could use some more input by others as was the case with the no renewal of copyright question earlier ? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

can you show me around and explain how this works

I'm new here (I looked up the recent changes to find an experience editor, and found your account), can you show me how to use wikisource, I've only used wikipedia before, I have several Public domain works to add to here.江南吳越 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I'm usually the one asking questions here, but I'll help if I can. A good place to start is the Get involved section on the Community portal page. Take a look there, especially the "submitting a text" portion. If you have any further questions, I'll help where I can. Otherwise, there are much more experienced editors happy to help at the Scriptorium (Central discussion page). Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Index:Florence Earle Coates Mine and Thine (1904)

Could you please validate the Contents pages of the above—I proofread them earlier in the year—then it can be validated. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Need a favor

Hello again,

To make a long story short - I am limited to what I can do here locally until next Monday re: the internet. A long needed file has finally changed to full view on GoogleBooks ( URL ). I cannot manipulate it (download, convert, etc.) as I normally could so I was wondering if you had the time and/or the bandwidth if you could either upload it to Archive.org for me or simply host it with that service you used the other day for the Thomas Earle PDF? Thank you for your attention in advance and please let me know either way asap so I can seek out other alternatives if need be. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Downloading it now. I'll see how easy it is to place on Archive.org. Otherwise, I'll upload it the "Earle" way. Either way, I should get it done sometime tonight(?)... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Anytime is fine - better than waiting around until next week for me at any rate. Thanks so much once again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think I uploaded it correctly to Archive.org with correct CC attribution. Haven't done it this way before (I've only uploaded to the site one other time, and it wasn't a Google text). I need to tweak the title/description a bit once the text is done being "derived" (doesn't like em dashes apparently)... You can find it here. Let me know if this method works for you (and if you think I did things correctly—otherwise I'll have it deleted). Curious—How are you better able to access the info from Archive, and not from Google Books (asks the technologically-challenged user)? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine though I see what you mean about the em dashes. I can "view" everything just fine - I just can't download anything at the moment (its a work related thing). In order for me to convert the GooBoo PDF, I would need to download it first. By putting it up on Archive.org, hopefully it will get converted to all the various file formats for me to tinker with online & before next week finally comes around. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For the first upload I did on Archive, it was only a matter of maybe an hour before the "various file formats" filtered through. But then I went and deleted/changed the orig. file (not this recent upload, but my first attempt), and the new (smaller sized) file never ended up converting into the other formats... Again, I can copy/paste/upload/download, but beyond that, I'm a ninny! Let me know if you're getting "down to the wire" and I'll try posting it as I did with the Earle text (were you able to merely "view" the Earle text? It didn't have to download??)... Or we'll improvise... Is there a specific section of the text you need to see? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This temp restriction thing started this morning so the Thomas Earle stuff wasn't an issue. Let's see what happens (its only been up about 2 hours or so). I'm not all that familar with Archive.org & how it works since most of the English stuff comes from the [U.S.] GoogleBooks libraries anyway. Being in the U.S. myself, a Google search lists pretty much everything for me. Its because of these stupid upgrades this week that I came up with idea to utilize Archive.org. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like some of the file formats have filtered through, though I don't see a text version yet. It still won't let me edit (fix) the em dash errors for it is still undergoing the derivation process... Perhaps it is the text version that is still a work-in-progress. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The license should be public domain (as is stated by Google itself), and not CC-BY-NC, which is a copyright license. Google asks that use be non-commercial, but it's not a legal requirement, or at least one based on copyright (which the CC license implies). But this is very cool, having it more available. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to play it safe, since the uploaded document contains all the "earmarks" & watermarks of Google... Those who are aware that it is not a "legal requirement...based on copyright" will know how to handle their use of it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

FULL TEXT seems to be up-and-running now, and I have fixed the pesky em dash issue in the title/description. Good to go? Let me know! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. As with most everything I touch, there are still some issues I'm hoping Carl might have some ideas on how to resolve: Standford University attribution gone from page 2, Great Seal gone from page 5 and what appears to designs for some ship gone from pages 114 to 118. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I can get you those easy using the version I still have downloaded on my computer. Just give me a bit, as I have another task to tend to... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Coming up soon... hectic day! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Take a look here, and keep an eye out for the remaining images that I am still uploading. PLEASE look over the image file descriptions, etc., and let me know if my PD tag is correct, and etc. Can you work with this? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Playing it safe, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

clarification on linking

I thought your comments on annotation were excellent, but I should clarify one point. Because of the type of texts you have been working on, and the noise surrounding this 'debate', I can see how the following may have escaped your attention-

Linking the author's references to other works, and their authors, is unobjectionable.

These links can appear in the main version of your new text. Make that should appear, for the reasons you have given. The topic under discussion is regarding User annnotation, and you have identified how that is problematic with regard to text integrity and subjectivity.

I will give you some background to this while I'm here (with my bias). In the bad old days, Wikisource users were effectively restricted to copy-pasting the thousands of 'second-hand transcripts', such as those produced by Distributed Proofreaders. The likelihood of linking another text was very low. Deeplinking to the actual page number was probably impossible. Earlier users desperately scrabbled for something to justify the very existence of this sister by introducing novel ideas that would not be countenanced by serious sites, debate and sophistry on these was easier than producing a new transcript (typing in from a book on one's shelf). The introduction of scans with a near-perfect OCR text layer changed everything, a quantum leap: millions of books could be added and verified! And when these works refer to another—what has been called the "great conversation"—the power and potential of this sister is mind-blowing. When I say that I think you 'get this', you should understand that this is very high praise in my book. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple years ago when I was new here, it was your subtle exhortation (that's how I took it anyway) that prompted me to go about things in a "better" way than I was doing at the time. I "keep" it as a reminder on my User page. I appreciate your remarks above, and I will also make the corrections to the omitted author/works annotations in the "clean" text as you noted. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

English legal citation

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

Could you please note that the above now says Error: no such file, since it was moved from its incorrect filename. Could you please do something about this ASAP. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I know... I just asked for help on the Index's Talk page, as well as on Central discussion. I think (hope) it can be fixed easily, I just don't want to mess things up even more. Sorry! Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just tried a rollback to Xxagile's edit of 10 January 2010, but it didn't work. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... I am SO sorry... I didn't realize it would somehow affect the file on Commons... I can ask Spangineer for help(?)... He has bailed me out a couple times with misnamed Commons files...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No not all of them were blank, in the previous version I validated some pages--they were front matter and the first page that need to be formatted again. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry for that... Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Formatting and transclusion hints

Hi there! After having a look at Index:Fifes and Drums, Poems of America at War, Vigilantes, 1917.djvu, I have a few pointers to make formatting easier for you:

1. Use the <pages/> tag to transclude pages, instead of directly transcluding the Page using {{Page:....}}. This will automatically cause a page number to appear in the left margin, allowing people to navigate to the original page in the Page: namespace. This is the most flexible way to do it, as you can also do section transclusion easily with this tag.
2. Use the <poem> tag to avoid having to manually enter <br/> tags, and this environment also negates the need to type nbsp's explicitly. Check H:POEM for usage notes. You can even set a CSS style directly into the poem tag.
3. Use {{gap}} instead of a huge string of nbsp's. You can much more easily and neatly encode a length as {{gap|10em}} than some large number of nbsp's. If you feel you want to use a big set of nbsp's, we have the {{loop}} template, which will repeat some text as many times as you specify.

Hope this makes your life easier! Inductiveload—talk/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. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In my circles, it's the single most cited reason not to bother with en.WS and all it may possibly offer, followed closely by the desire for better PDF support in general. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a bug in the Pediapress extension, not Wikisource, so it's them I/you/we need to bug. #pediapress on irc.freenode.net and the Wikimedia bug tracker item is https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21653. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares about the possible reader - only about their own little corner, which is just fine for an all volunteer forum such as this I guess. Waiting over a year just for it be seriously addressed was enough for me. I've moved on to correcting the text layers and re-inserting them as needed instead. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! George Orwell III explained why I use the antiquated {{Page:....}} transclusion tag (for PDF rendering, etc.)... Same reason I use non-breaking spaces and breaks as opposed to {{gap}} and poem tag as well. If all WS uses is the <pages/> tag, then there is no reason to have a download to PDF option here at all. The reference back to the specific index page is a useful tool, but, in my opinion, not as useful as print/pdf rendering. We still have the Source tab, even though it may take a user a couple extra clicks to reach their intended destination... To modify a quote by Rich Mullins (although the modification totally botches Mullins' point!), "When does faithfulness to ["best practice"] call us to lay aside our biases and when does it call us to stand beside them?"... I don't know (in this case, for our purposes); which is why I remain somewhat flexible on the matter... I appreciate your help! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I neglected to mention something in our last discussion, rather than thinking you ramble on too much about your testing, I think it is very important and should be made available to others who will meet the same problems. I actually started doing this at Help:Poem (linked above, but not read it seems), yet there are dozens of things I haven't properly documented. Perhaps your extensive investigation above my self-deprecating 'mumble/grumble' should be moved to the talk of this help page, and eventually incorporated into it.

I am a persistent advocate for the merits of 'type-facsimile' instead of attempting 'photo-facsimile'—using this as the basis of a WS style guide—and poetry is a special challenge to this. Potential loss of 'meaning' requires preserving much of the format, avoiding the need to make editorial decisions. You and I have put a lot of thought into these matters, so I think others will benefit (and save themselves a lot of time and frustration) if we try to improve the documentation. Regards, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the poetry documentation is | has been read... There's just so much other "noise" out there as well—all well-meant and sincere, but maybe not as current any more, as compatibility issues change here in the blink of an eye, rendering what was once renderable as no longer renderable—and we are seeing the result of this in the recent reactions by Users to the PDF-rendering issue (or "bug"?)... I'll take a look at writing something coherent on the Talk page, but it will have to be at a time when I can be focused and not easily distracted (those are rare occasions), otherwise I resort to rambling and that helps no one! Thank you! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll start something soon with regard to poem formatting, etc. on one of my subpages—probably /General text formatting. It's getting pretty outdated anyway. Then once I'm happy with something, I can transfer the info. to the Help Poem talk page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sitting here ruminating and over-thinking (re:poetry formatting) and getting absolutely nowhere yet on this. <blank stare at a monitor> I'll try again tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

page transclusion question

What is to prevent some sort of script from being written into the "antiquated" {{Page:....}} tag so that page numbers can still appear in the left margin, and text can still be viewed in PDF mode? Is it the presence of items in the left margin that "spoils" the PDF rendering? I don't understand any of this [technical] stuff or how it all works, so my wording might be off... Do you all know what I'm trying to ask? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly {{Page:}} isn't "antiquated" as such, it is just a "simple transclusion" rather than the "special" one used to invoke the Proofread Page extension handling as the extension expects. Having said that, some of the PP javascript does fire on a simple transclusion, such as the coloured status bar in the top left. I am not well acquainted with the internals of the PP extension, so I can't tell you exactly why that is.

The PDF rendering problem is caused by the Pediapress extension not parsing the <pages/> tags properly. It is a bug that will be resolved one day, so once that is fixed (by coercion, pleading, bargaining, extortion or magic) we shouldn't need a workaround. The whole "exporting works" deal from WS has a long way to go, which is just symptomatic of the combination of our relative unimportance compared to the flagships of WP and Commons, lack of local devs, with some esoteric structures like the PP extension. <sadface/> What we really need a way to export to PDF, mobi, and all the other ebook formats, but I don't have the first clue how to do that. Inductiveload—talk/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! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Never followed up, sorry! Thanks for your answer(s)... And when all is well and fixed, I will have a "Page transclusion party" and at least fix the "affected pages" that I have made myself if need be (unless an easier solution surfaces) :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Link arrangement

Good evening London (it is late evening where I am, adjust this salutation to your local time :). I did a bit more of the war poetry anthology, but I messed up the spelling of the links ... twice! Anyway, can I get a sanity check on my linking arrangement, eg. this page. Instead of splitting the work into a section for each poem, I linked the section 'Auxiliaries' from the TOC and the page number for each poem. I left out the author links to stop it being too busy. Do you think the reader will understand what is going on, that it is a neat and workable scheme? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Standard Time here (mid-day Tuesday)! I just edit into the very wee hours while the whole house sleeps because I can! :) I'll take a look at what you've linked to... Have a good one :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, G'day then :-) Thanks for checking it out. I will leave the table styling to you, it is the link arrangements I want your opinion on. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I "get" what you've done... and I had already "replicated" your process with the Belgium section (albeit with author links). I do think the reader will understand that they are to click on the page number... My only thinking—while looking at the TOC for Argosy earlier—is that the width of the TOC is so wide that the reader almost needs a ruler to "get to" the correct page no. link...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For "playing"/consideration purposes, I placed page 10 of the TOC in my Sandbox to show how it will look when it is eventually transcluded into the Main. Feel free to use the sandbox if you'd like...Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note on "Londonjackbooks": "London, Jack" (as in the author—last name first) + "books" (his books) = I am a fan. :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:right has an offset

If you look at how Hesperian designed that template, you can do something like {{right|text text text|2em}} to get it to stand a distance (2em in this case) from the right margin. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! I'll use it... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

synchronicity

Another persuasive yet temperate comment from yourself, my apologies that I have become exasperated by the circumstances.

I thought to give a reading recommendation, regarding your violet dream, you should look up Jung's work on synchronicity, it is some nice food for thought.

Though not immediately, but in the foreseeable future, I will suddenly be no longer be part of this community, so I want to note now that it has been nice to share the good stuff about it with you. I'll be seeing you round in the meantime, regards CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

For example [2]:

"Meleager was his name, and ere his birth his mother dreamed a dream that the child that she bore was a burning firebrand. But when the baby came he was a royal child indeed, a little fearless king from the first moment that his eyes, like unseeing violets, gazed steadily up at his mother."

I don't place too much stock in dreams (and rarely remember them), but the one I mentioned was fun at any rate! :) I'll give the work you mentioned a look. Bummer that you are leaving; it has been nice sharing the "good stuff," and I have learned much. Let me know upon your departure if there's anything you'd like to see completed here that isn't. Odds are I'd get something out of it in the process! Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Browsed the topic, and just ordered a copy of Jung's work on synchronicity. I will give it a go once I finish my current read. Be well, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Where was I?

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

quibble

Being soused, three sheets to the wind, I must quibble about the choice of illustration for a "wonk". How about this one? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

.... and I noted what you said about my beloved gap, 1.97 em is exactly right, 2 em is close enough. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, being that I read well, but am not well-read, I will have to do some homework... True, that wonkery is not necessarily associated with Beowulf (I didn't know him personally, however)... No offence intended with regard to your beloved gap (is it yours? I 'm not familiar with its history), but "Before Ginchy" was just particularly challenging! :) And as for being soused, I never touch the stuff personally; I like coffee. You do realize that I make many trips to the dictionary when reading your posts...? Stay dry! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As you say, so it shall be—being as I don't know you either, I will have to take your word for it!... But it is an unfortunate picture, considering the company Perseus is keeping! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And I looked over at {{gap}} and noted where it states, "This template is not intended to produce a formatting preference, such as indented paragraphs..." Don't I feel stupid! ;) Hmmm... but maybe "paragraphs" don't apply to poems? What would you have done with "Before Ginchy"? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Greek snippet

Hi, it roughly means "one who deals out (or distributes) barren chaos". The trouble with the online translators is that they don't cope with the stress accents and breathing marks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. "Barren" would go along with "desolated", "empty frame", and "bereft" references in the war poem:

The desolated space
Of life shall nevermore
Be what it was before.
No one shall take your place.
No other face
Can fill that empty frame.
There is no answer when we call your name.
We cannot hear your step upon the stair.
We turn to speak and find a vacant chair.
Something is broken which we cannot mend.
God has done more than take away a friend
In taking you; for all that we have left
Is bruised and irremediably bereft.

So the Greek then refers to the one dealing out the chaos and not to those upon whom the chaos has been carried out? Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you see full copy ...

I am looking for a full copy of Eleanor Sidgwick's University Education for Women (1913) http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=university+education+inauthor%3Asidgwick&btnG= Are you able to see a full copy at Google Books? If yes, can you load it somewhere so we can get it djvu'd. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I've got about 15 minutes right now, and will be unavailable for a good chunk of the day, but I'll try to find something; if not now, in earnest later today... [update] I'm not seeing a full copy on Google Books... Just a full copy of the 1897 lecture, which was a different lecture, I'm sure... WorldCat shows that the Library of Congress has a copy, and being that it is only 20pp. long (?), maybe I can request a scan tomorrow of the work via email. Then I can possibly set it up on Archive... Do you have any kind of "deadline" for this work? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No deadline. Plenty of books still to do, just part of Portal:Manchester University which has been an interestingly diverse set to work up. Thanks — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made the request for scans, and will let you know when I receive a reply. Copy 1 is checked out via an Internal Loan, so someone else has an interest in it as well... Copy 2 is stored offsite, so is probably not as easily accessible. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me give this another go tomorrow... I'll message more than one 'department'. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems as though it will come at a cost to request scans (starting 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

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

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

War poetry redirects

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

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

Same to you and yours! :) I'll take a look a little later this evening, for I'm about to devote some time to one of "mine" to watch a show :) Thanks for the heads up, and have a good weekend! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, what does TIA mean? I've seen that twice now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Got it—You are either having a "mini stroke" or else you are thanking me in advance <laughing>! I'm hoping for the latter! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The WS:S statement is right

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

Billinghurst, I appreciate it, and I have read about all that Adminship contains; and in the last few months or so have been paying closer attention to the activity (i.e., not merely wearing Coates blinders) around here... But I know myself better than anyone, and I think that my 'competency', 'confidence', and 'ability' would be reduced if I were to be considered... One of my irrational shortcomings, I know... Maybe at a later date!? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the reticence. It took them three goes to get me convinced, and it was demonstrated to me that for the work that I was doing, that it was both better (able to revert, rather than undo vandalism) and more efficient (delete rather than request delete) to have the tools, ie. become an admin. To note that one only needs to use the tools that with which one feels comfortable, and none of us has the expectation that you would do things in which you feel uncomfortable. And I truly believe that you have the skills, and a reticence is one skill that a good admin has. That said, all in your own time. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that:) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The biggest hurdle for me would likely be judgment ('making considered decisions or coming to sensible conclusions') when it comes to helping/working with others... Besides the fact that I am a pushover and cry easily ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

LondonJackBooks aka Sonja, I agree with billinghurst on his/her suggestion that you have the skills to become an administrator but I would miss your personal works. Imagine not having administrators like billinghurst, InductiveLoad, AdamBMorgan, and George Orwell III. We would be in a sorry world without the likes of these kind of kindly people. It is too bad, in my opinion, that Marine housewives/mothers cannot be drafted into working as an administrator here! BTW, when I wrote == Nice workS == I meant for it to have a double meaning. ;0)<wink!> Meanwhile, I am still learning codes from your works. Please keep using images to make plain books look better. I have not tried all of your coding but eventually I will apply several more codes from what I have seen you do. Singing, Somewhere over the Rainbow.... —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 01:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Morning! Not sure exactly how to answer, but that I am not much fond of double meanings. While I am far from perfect myself, and still learning from my mistakes, I would still much rather speak straight/hear straight. I will continue to add images here and there as I see appropriate, but not at the expense of compromising the integrity of the text. That much at least I have learned from Cygnis the past couple years. Still "housecleaning"—at least until I am satisfied that all things are as they should be. Have a good day! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hola y mis mejores deseos hoy, Sonja. "Nice WorkS": #1 Your workS are nice! That was my only original intent. Then I saw that I could double that so #2 people being nice to each other makes for a better world. With #2 I refer to nobody specific but rather everyone in this world. I will avoid any double meanings but in my thinking I often play with double meanings just as I play with words and sometimes anagrams, names (Anna Graham), &c. Nothing bad about you or your works was intended. Only good was twice intended. I also never had any thoughts of "compromising the integrity of the text." I would not be on WikiSource if I were a vandal of any sort. I am strongly opposed to such things. I was being somewhat playfult just as with my "Alice in Wonderland" statement to you earlier and your statement of a circus and a "Horse" afterwards. You had stated to me to "interject" anytime and I did. Still, I can see how things can go the wrong way with the best of intentions so I will say no more on this. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 16:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hoping you didn't misunderstand me either (i.e., the thought never occurred to me that you would encourage compromising the integrity of any text)... I am just not good at "getting" double meanings myself (this goes for humor too), and even when I "get" that there's a double meaning, I lack in the interpretive process, so I often just have to let things go by me without understanding (although I do try),—move on, and let God sort things out (Proverbs 3:5-6)! I liked your reference to Alice in Wonderland, actually... And there were horses at the Big Apple Circus I attended... beautiful black horses. I loved horses when I was young, and they were the subject of most of my childhood drawings. Sam Savitt was my favorite illustrator. Please feel free to continue to "chime in" any time... Especially if you feel there has been a misunderstanding! Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Alice and Through the Looking Glass (while I haven't actually read it)—reminds me of Coates' "The Mirror", and of Dorothy proclaiming, "There's no place like home" in the Wizard of Oz :) Works of genius! (and a little madness!)... In addition,— Coates: "...And, lo! God, too, is there." Howells: "...yet somewhere there is God." :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: helpful admins: I have my favorites (probably wrong word choice) too!... And as far as being "drafted" as an admin... I would be a liability; for I have a mop here at home too, but am loathe to use it! ;)... Unless I have to!... I'll stick with cleaning up my own messes here at WS (unless I require help), and continue harvesting a collection of old books for posterity! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeremiah 28

Yes, that is the text.

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

Thank you... I have a Hebrew-English interlinear Bible here at home, and wanted to do some comparisons; I just needed a good reference point! Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But I see that I'd need to get myself a Tiberian masoretic-English interlinear Bible... or at least a Tiberian masoretic-Hebrew one, and then I can have a cross-reference party! ;) The reference point is still helpful, though... thank you. So can I assume that each new paragraph is a chapter then? Would they be pretty consistent with "my" chapters? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually not. Sometimes they coincide like here, but very often not. See the article on Parashah. Your interlinear text should be good enough for spotting letters in the images. Dovi (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooh... That spells things out very nicely, doesn't it? :) So the beginning of Jeremiah 28 is represented by: {P}28:1-11—The WP page explaining:

• {P} = parashah petuhah ("open portion"), typically resembles a new paragraph
• {S} = parashah setumah ("closed portion"), typically represented as a blank space in the middle of a line

Ok... so the text on the 21st line (middle column) is from the previous chapter (27; reading right to left)... Ok. I'll print out the image for a closer look at the letters. Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually thank you, because your diligence has helped catch and fix an error. Jer 28:1 is an open parashah (not a closed one), as can be seen clearly in the image and is confirmed by the various editions based on the codex. The error is now fixed. Dovi (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Aah... "seen clearly" only by those who know what they are looking at (i.e., not me)! :) I thought I understood 'open' and 'closed', but will have to give it another closer look! Want to hear something funny? I printed out another page and set about comparing text... Very frustrating when you try to match the text if you're looking at the image upside down! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy?

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

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

Ref: Eye Strain

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

I reply that Inductiveload—talk/contribs 05:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC) created a color page background, text, &c for me because the white was harming my eyes. I actually had to see a doctor for the situation because I had rubbed my eyes too hard and too often. Enter, Inductiveload, an intelligent & exceedingly gracious person who totally solved the problem for me. Even as I type here and now all background is gray with black text. Look back at my User page and just follow his(her?) instructions. You can have whatever colors you want. I prefer the all medium gray for editing volumes. It's extremely easy on my eyes and saves to the regular white page that you see.

I suppose you would just create, User:Londonjackbooks/common.js and save it. You can always delete it or change the colors but medium gray is easiest on my eyes which is the color I see as I type this. On another note I have been appreciating the works you create. Like Alice in Wonderland said, "What good is a book without colors and illustrations" (something to that effect) :0)

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

Wow, that was very unexpected and kind, and nice to see upon logging back in! :) I appreciate your acknowledgement of my husband... Were it not for his extreme tolerance of my addiction to Wikisource (and tolerance of me in general!), I wouldn't be making the contributions here that I have enjoyed making. But the addiction has also, I believe, led to my eyesight becoming poorer (I'm doing that "trombone" thing now just within the last few months where I can't focus on smaller print)... I suppose it could be age as well, but I don't know, since it has all happened rather dramatically in a short period of time. Being a poor 'patient', however, I don't want to see an eye doctor—yet... Too stubborn... I will give the background 'solution' a try. Thank you! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The loss of focus on smaller print happened suddenly to me recently as well. For me, it's just age related changes (which can occur from late 30s onwards) but it's important to get it checked out. You don't need to see an eye doctor initially, just see an optometrist. I know that after I got my reading glasses, most of my headaches went away. At the risk of sounding like a nag—just do it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

m-dashes & n-dashes

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

Yes PLEASE! :) I don't think I've ever used the en-dash here, so if it's possible to just place the 'big one' in my toolbar, that would be great!... and to William Maury Morris II,—interject at will! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've given you the en-dash as well. Although it's not used in poetry you do work in other areas where you will need it. It's most common use is between numbers in a range. e.g. 1974–81. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! And with regard to en-dashes... you're right that I would need it... because now I know that I have recently erroneously used an em-dash when I should have used an en-dash. I just have to remember the title of the page(s) (I suspect it was the war poetry)... Thanks for the add-ons—and the encouragement above to pay a visit to an optometrist! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandles, please pardon my interjection here but I would like for you to create them on my edit toolbar! I have been using text-pad, highlight already saved codes, copy and paste, with the em—dash near the top as it's used so often. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 07:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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

It's all new to me... I'm still trying to familiarize myself with vector/common stuff, but have put much on the backburner for a time. Yes, I see the m/n-dash buttons (re: Beeswaxcandle/vector.js), and have been happily using them. Re:common.js—I had asked Cygnis not too long ago what the vector/common pages actually do (having seen Cygnis working/adapting, etc. his/her page here and there), and so I created the common.js page with a mind to figure things out for myself at a later date, as Cygnis said it would be "intuitive". I haven't looked much into it all yet, but plan to do so in the future. For reference, Vector is my default skin setting as of right now (if that is important?). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Both .js files will apply in the vector skin, unless they are mutually exclusive scripts, in which case the latter to load will overwrite. If you swap to another skin, then only common.js will apply. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what that all means (yet!) :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, it appears that I was wrong. You do have duplicative code though it appears, which is normally pointless - but since you are experimenting, I guess it's not (pointless). ;)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Once I figure it all out, I'll try to get back "on point" ;) Thanks for pointing it out to me! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:***

This one may be of interest. {{ ***|no. of asterisks|spacing}} eg. {{ ***|6|3em}} gives ******. From memory it also takes other symbols as the separator. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Nice workS!

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

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

And there were HORSES! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I was only quickly checking in here... Busy weekend (even still), but I promise a complete answer when I get breathing time! Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Maury,

Thank you again for your compliment :) If you are referring to the images I have placed on some of Mrs. Coates' poetry pages,—yes—they were placed there to be informative... although in hindsight, I may(?) be infringing on some sort of 'integrity' issue by doing so, for they are not actually a part of the original works (I may have to remove them at some point)... When I started looking more deeply into the details of Mrs. Coates' poetry, I found that I had no idea what much of what she wrote about referred to! Not learned in Greek Mythology or history (both of which make up most of her poetry—along with things related to flora and fauna), my understanding of her work was severely lacking. It has been a history lesson to say the least! but choosing to host her works here has obviously aided me in my personal research, as new revelations come to light every day! :)

I used to draw when I was a teenager...mostly pencil drawings... But never from my own imagination—I always had to work off of something else. I'm smiling right now, because by saying I "work off of something else" just made me think about how I think of myself as a "copyist" (liking to copy, cut & paste here at WS), and how that has translated over the years! :) I am less inventive than insightful (if the latter doesn't sound too boastful?). I like to work off of other people's thoughts and actions. [I don't talk much in public!]

Thank you again for your kind words! :) Sonja

Software problem

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

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

Socks are not illegal

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

I'd like to add that I would really dislike seeing you go, from "Stops at Various Quills" and onward, you've been a wonderfully pleasant and hardworking editor. If your "abuse" is more of a means to spend less time here as a result of a forced departure, I believe I can speak for everyone here you've interacted with in saying that we will respect that wish, but would to not want to see you go.

There are other things that can be done. I am aware of a process at en.wp in which they lock your account for whatever time period you would specify, in which you cannot login. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

e-mail : clarification

Hello LJB,

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)

response

Thank you for your response, Doug. I need to answer you by breaking up some of your comments. This might take me some time, so please bear with me... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I knew at once that you were mistaken as to the content when you said that I said: "and perhaps Billinghurst (whom he also mentioned as having been "assaulted" by Cygnis)." I mention my profession in the letter, I don't use the word "assaulted" lightly..."

You are correct that I misquoted you, and I corrected my mistake (using strikeout) at WS:ADMIN. In my head, I had combined "insulting" with "personal attacks" (both from your letter) to form—erringly—"assaulted". Obviously, I was not referring to an actual physical attack... but apologies for the misquote; I do try to be careful not to do that, and I feel badly.

• For future reference, posting other people's e-mails or the contents thereof without their permission is not allowed (and is arguably a copyright violation). Also, for future reference, had you asked I would have given you permission and sent you a new reference copy of the e-mail. If you feel you need copies of your reply or my rejoinder, etc., etc., please just ask. I do not understand, however, why you think this e-mail was relevant.

You are right... I should have asked your permission first. In all honesty, I did/do not know if your initial email is relevant or not—other than my belief that you were trying to persuade me to "turn away from the latter" (i.e., Cygnis' "position")... In my email response to you, I explained that I don't take sides, that I can think for myself, and that as Cygnis had not "attacked" me in any way, I therefore had no "beef" with him/her, and that the "Cygnis" portion of your email should have been sent to Cygnis and not to me.

See below, I apologize for venting to you about Cyg. I saw no point, by that juncture, in attempting to communicate directly with Cyg.

• To clarify to you personally, and I would do this by e-mail but for you apparently not having any at present, I had actually been thinking of sending you an e-mail addressing adminship for several weeks before you got involved in the dispute with Cyg...

My email works fine (although it was compromised a couple months ago)—it was my Google Docs account that was recently compromised, and that is where I stored all my WS emails for reference. But I retained hard copies as well.

• I was surprised at your involvement and that you seemed to be taking sides very subtly while making statements that did not address the substance of the issue but seemed to align with the nonsense that Cyg was writing. You had not been previously involved there, so I felt that you were joining in merely because Cyg was sort of your mentor and not out of any real knowledge of or even interest in the underlying issue.

Surprise! :) Not so surprising to me, and as for "taking sides"—how many times can I say I was not? At WS:ADMIN, I had quoted James Fenimore Cooper, and it seems appropriate to repeat it again here: "No freeman, who really loves liberty, and who has a just perception of its dignity, character, action and objects, will ever become a mere party man. He may have his preferences as to measures and men, may act in concert with those who think with himself, on occasions that require concert, but it will be his earnest endeavour to hold himself a free agent, and most of all to keep his mind untrammelled by the prejudices, frauds, and tyrranny [sic] of factions." Any "alignment" I had in common with Cygnis had to do with PRINCIPLE (ideas about librarianship, etc.)—not PERSON!! I do feel that Cygnis has been a "mentor" of sorts—but only as a result of my own making... Cygnis in no way has ever sought a "pupil!" (I believe the word he/she would use is "ptui") and I have remarked to him/her on many occasions that if I ever became too much of a pest to let me know. And for you to say above that you felt I was "joining in... not out of any real knowledge of or even interest in the underlying issue" is insulting to me... Please show me an example. As for taking sides, your initial email to me is the only example I can see where an overt attempt has been made to persuade anyone to take sides (i.e., "I hope you... turn away from the latter.")

"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 onward...to 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 "...it 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 hey...now 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

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

and if you miss it, you can add the timestamp alone with five tildes (~~~~~). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The latest Nancy Drew mystery solved then! :) And go figure... The culprit was me! Thanks, guys :) Londonjackbooks (talk) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Boozing ken

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

Thank you! So "kens" it is... kens being a "house" (of booze) then... In a 2009(?) 'reprint' of London's "Benefit of the Doubt", they changed "kens" to "dens" ("dens" is actually used once prior to the appearance of "kens" in the short story and once after, which is why I thought it could be a typo in the original)... The Gutenberg version (apparently) shows/ed "dens" as well—as does the Sonoma website (where it states the short story was "First published in The Saturday Evening Post, Nov 12, 1910"; perhaps if I could find that issue, I could know for sure?) but I'll stick with London's 1913 rendering for now. Thanks for looking into that! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking things over—comparing corrections I made to the text when proofreading, I'm thinking the Sonoma version is a copy/paste of the Gutenberg version; or vice-versa. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about this overnight. It would be very unusual for London to have used "dens" twice in the same sentence when referring to different entities. It just wouldn't sit with his literary style. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that insight! I think you're probably right there! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hint

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

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

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

Eureka footnote

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

Will do, thanks! :) I don't remember how to do it from memory (technical things escape me, you know...), but I remember doing a lot of it with Coates' brother's work... Have a good one :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a brief summary of the technique at User:Beeswaxcandle/End_of_page_notes#Footnote. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I did something wrong... But give me a minute and I'll figure it out... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't. Have a look at how CI did the mainpage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that Cygnis :) ... Should I wait till I'm done validating before I combine everything into one? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to wait. It's the only problem page break and that you've discovered it, you might as well complete the task. It saves remembering to come back to it - and if someone is reading the work in the meantime, it will still be complete. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction! Good timing too... calling it a night! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I get snippets of understanding about this work, but for the most part, it is over my head (no pun intended). But the little I do get out of it is/has been rewarding... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Index pages for EB1911 available

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

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

Thanks I'll make the request. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Through the Looking-Glass

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

Hello, Sonja. Around 1993 on Internet, parents and teachers started complaining that there were no websites for children. Because of that many website owners blackened all of their website in protest. I did not want to do that with mine and I understood the situation so I created three websites; Alice In Wonderland, Through The Looking Glass and What Alice found There, and Hunting of the Snark. I used Tenniel's professional images which were only black and white. I colorized each image with Adobe Photoshop and replaced my online black and white images one-by-one with a colored version. It was a wonderful outcome and in came a lot of nice emails. Lewis Carroll did his works in a unique manner in that the story served both adult and child reading. For on e example you have the Lion and the Unicorn wrestling meaning differences between England (Lion) and Scotland(Unicorn). Another scene has Alice being taken from place to place. That was a professional world class chess game in reality for adults but also served as fanciful reading for children. There is the Red Queen opposed to the White Queen. The field that is shown is in reality a chessboard. Note that the grass is dark and light squares—colored as mid-green and light green by me. The man in the coach wearing a "newspaper" suit is Benjamin Disraeli of England—and on it goes, everything with a "double-meaning." The works are more complicated that what meets the eye. They are not simply stories for children. It was fun creating these works in my coloring. Meanwhile others continued to argue about webpages needed for children and some, like me, focused upon creating. Anyone can argue or be destructive. The real test is not to argue and not to be destructive but rather to be constructive. Regarding music, I could never pick out a favorite. It varies from time to time and basically I can "get into" any genre. I was never a "brat"<smile> Best regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 18:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping you didn't need to know how to play chess to read the story... I'll be reading it as a child, then! :) but I fear I will also miss much in the process...? I don't know if I was a "brat" in the literal sense... but the members of the band America were also Air Force "kids" whose fathers were stationed in England when they started playing music together... Gotta run, but I'll look into your above reply more deeply in a bit! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have to know the exact definition in your words as to what a "brat" is. My father's (S/Sgt)leather army belt from World War II kept me fairly well in check but I was still very defiant. I eventually cut it up into many very small pieces, hammered the buckle to a flattened piece of useless metal, boxed it all up in a water-proof manner, and threw the thing in the creek when it was heavily flooding and challenged him to a belt fight after I came out of the military. He was a very strong man! But so am I. I always knew, as a teen, he would get older as would I but he would get weaker as he got older and I would be stronger and able to defend myself. I *hated* that belt but I loved my precious father as more years passed. He was right in using that belt on me but I did not understand that when I was young.) I volunteered for the military after 1 year of university (so sis could go to the university; money problems for my parent's to send 2 kids to a university) and went back to the university (G I Bill, student work-study; construction work, &c) after the military and earned my Ph.D. Those days of being a "brat", as I understand the word, are long ago are over for me. In my thinking, these days,a "brat" is a little kid's—or teenager's—negative attitude and actions which is often considered normal. You don't need to know how to play chess (I know how) to enjoy that work but at least look at the names of the pieces like "knight" who Alice meets as he is leaning against a fence. I *love* illustrated works. "What good is a book without pictures and conversations?" asked Alice. I doubt that is the exact quote but it is close. It has been decades since I read those three works. Kind regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 20:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find your 3 Carroll sites (w/ pictures) that you mentioned, but couldn't find them... I guess "brat" (in the literal sense) is relative... I talked back quite a bit, but mostly "rebelled" via voluntary solitary confinement where I would draw, mostly... Reading came much later. Understanding what I read is still a work-in-progress (I'll try to look closely at the names and characters, etc. as I read through the Looking-Glass.) Understanding people and human nature remains mostly a mystery! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

• [[3] 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)

• [4] 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:

[5] Category John Tenniel.

• John Tenniel's illustrations of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

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

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

Well, I don't see any of these anywhere (to which I was referring)!?

"I colorized each image with Adobe Photoshop and replaced my online black and white images one-by-one with a colored version."

"Note that the grass is dark and light squares—colored as mid-green and light green by me."

"It was fun creating these works in my coloring."

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

See my statement above— Those three websites, and several others, are long gone. Circa 1996 I removed the websites because.... —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 07:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Got it! :) Wondering if I ought to follow suit...? But only I can answer that... Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Periodicals, article titles, organization, etc.

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

Billinghurst had mentioned that "I think that the work that has been done by Ineuw on PSM has stepped through the sorts of issues that come up", which is why I "knocked." What are you referring to when you say "keeping the records of the titles for the purpose of generating lists"? Can you point me to something? Also, I am beginning to think I might be taking on more than I should, since I still have much more Coates reworking to do... My sole reason for wanting to "clean up" periodical titles, etc., is so I can selfishly add Coates mags works to the fold and link to the periodicals from the Coates magazine table I am building. But I do not want to be overwhelmed by more work than I should... nor take my eyes off the Prize—i.e., compiling Coates/Coates-related works here—which was my original intent and Purpose for being here... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, don't take on more work unless you know what you are getting into. Each project is a full time commitment. In the beginning on WS, I felt like a kid in a candy store, and wanted to do everything, and learned nothing of substance. Then, a year ago, I decided to drop additional projects until I made a significant progress on PSM. Periodicals are like a compilations of many little books. Each with it's own TOC, indexes and additional vagaries due to pressures of time limitations - like getting a May issue out in May. :-).

As for my offer, it would require text list of the publication months, article titles, serial articles of multiple parts, authors, the .djvu and page numbers. I then import into a small database which is like a spreadsheet, and standardize the text formats like capitalization if any, check for numbering duplications and textual errors. From this, I generate a Table of contents, an authors' list, and link and verify the index at the back of the publication - all wiki encoded. However, PSM has no Table of contents, so this is what started me on it. These are the elements I would check first and the database keeps my work consistent.

You can see the results in the following pages:

Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1

Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/Index

Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Authors A to D

Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Multiple part articles 1

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

Thanks for the above... I'll take a closer look at it tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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

The_Female_Prose_Writers_of_America:_With_Portraits,_Biographical_Notices,_and_Specimens_of_their_Writings/Maria_J._McIntosh

Hi. I saw that you converted quotation marks to straight quotes. Not 100% sure but I guess that it was intentional to use curly quotes. See e.g. pages after the ones that you validated. Also noticed that someone else specifically edit to use curly quotes ([6]). Bye --Mpaa (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you... I asked ResidentScholar about that earlier today. Until recently, I haven't done much validating of other people's work, and I wasn't aware until today that "curlyquotes" were the standard... I have been using the keyboard button my whole time here (take a look at my edits). That is a nice quotation you pointed me to. I have always said and acted as such in my marriage, and am comforted that God knows our hearts when all others can do is take our word for it, and is with us every step of the way as we live and move and have our being. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that "curlyquotes" are the standard. I tried to search for some style guide but coud not find anything except that they are not recommended on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks). I very seldom see them used. I never use them but that does not mean anything, I do not consider myself the standard :-)

Might be question for Scriptorium ... --Mpaa (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I received some guidance on it a long while back with regard to quotation mark use with one of Mrs. Coates' poems, but I'd have to do some digging... If I remember correctly, the guidance I received was to not use fancy quotation marks. I had asked, because the quotation marks had to be necessarily large to fit the formatting (the q.m.'s began the first line of a poem which used a large drop-initial), and I remember saying how ugly the keyboard-generated marks looked, and I wanted to use fancier ones... but was told it would be better not to... I'll try to find it. The fact that it is a large drop-initial might narrow it down some... Thanks for looking it up in the style guide, etc. for me at any rate... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the poem and reference point... I'll look up my contributions for that time frame and see if I can find the dialogue. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know... looks like I went from regular to curly and not the opposite... I can't find any Talk page mention of it during the March 2010 time period, but I didn't look all that closely... Anyway,— Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Searching for something interesting to proofread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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