User talk:Londonjackbooks/Archive 2014


 * Archive 2014

Validation
Dear Londonjackbooks. Regarding User_talk:AuFCL, you in fact have touched upon one of my personal annoyances; albeit perhaps in an unsuspected aspect. Please believe I really do take both proofreading and validation seriously, and (perhaps despite what you think!) I will be beyond annoyed with myself if I have let anything slip by. (This is not to say I claim to achieve any kind of perfection, but one does in fact try: even if prosaic reality states otherwise.) AuFCL (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess there is always the possibility of offending, but I thought to ask anyway. Thank you for your responses here and there.  Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well of course it was an offensive accusation (as if there is the slightest doubt of that) and for the record I really cannot understand why anybody would make it short of protecting their private project? Now you have certainly achieved the result that I will think three times before consciously touching upon any of your projects&hellip;Would you care to furnish a list? Now you have forced me into the awkward position of awaiting any kind of edit on any of those pages I validated (&amp; for certain I shall be watching) to find out whether your charges in point of fact hold. If you should find there is any sting in these remarks then consider them commensurate with my annoyance at such a poor-spirited response to an intended "good deed." There are such things as Learning and Instructing; but this is quite another situation entirely: a completely Wasted effort. AuFCL (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you feel I have accused you of anything other than rapid validation. By "rapid validation", I by no means intended to insinuate that you had committed any sort of offence.  On the contrary, the offence is mine in not explaining myself sufficiently.  Rapid to me may be normal to someone else; I just happen to be slow myself.  Perhaps I could have worded things differently; a more accurate re-wording of my original post on your Talk page would be: "Wow! you sure do validate quickly!  I don't know you and am not familiar with your editing, so I am just making sure you are being careful not to miss any typos that were frequently the result of OCR errors, etc." (I did not mean that you had missed any typos.  When I said I had to replace many typos, I meant OCR errors while I was proofreading... not ones that you had overlooked.  You misunderstood, but that is my fault.) I tried to be as to-the-point as possible so as not to be misunderstood, but I apparently have, and for that I am sorry.  Sometimes much is lost in translation, and sometimes much comes out of it that is not the case.  Sorry I was not clear.  Best, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. Most gracious of you. I shall remain cautious of "treading upon your toes" however. Despite its confrontational aspects, I still think it more healthy to resolve these issues early than for un-explicitly-stated matters (fast validation might indicate faulty validation&hellip;) to fester.  But without finding any actual fault I continue to consider the charge an irresponsible one—however well-intentioned. I am of course going to look really silly if you do find faults now—for which I will then take full responsibility where appropriate; but now is not that then as yet. I'll put the daggers away for now. AuFCL (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not feel that you have tread upon my toes, and you don't have to worry about doing so. On the contrary, you speak of learning and instructing, and I would welcome any suggestions of how I could have approached you differently with the "rapid validation" concern.  Timing, wording, etc.  And I will not be looking for faults with your work.  Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Regrettably reconstructing the words you wished somebody else to have used so as not to have created an offence [which of course nobody would then have found even remarkable] in the first place is often an exercise doomed to futility. That I was progressing through those pages rather rapidly I entirely concede, not least because I was trialling a fragment of javascript whose effect was to change eligible (unedited yellow) links on an Index: page to "direct-to-edit-mode" ones (ala normal red-link handling.) Also, the fact that your own proofreading had been of such high standard contributed hugely. In fact looking back on my own change history I was rather surprised to note a kind of rough pattern in that about every tenth page seemed to require slightly more attention than the bulk of its compatriots?  Oh, and in case you were curious, here is the script fragment (slightly tidied up to make it a little more readable):


 * In case you are rash enough to try this yourself, please be warned that it is but a half-completed experiment which may be doomed to go nowhere; and in any case in its current form relies entirely upon the Index: page state being previously set by the official "Pages I can validate" gadget. There was no particular reason for selecting this work other than the simple coincidence of its appearance on the "New Texts" list (since cycled out) and having a substantial number of still un-validated pages. AuFCL (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Script and its use is unfortunately over my head, along with many other things technical. I am happy just to upload, proofread & occasionally validate.  Thanks!  Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The poetical works of Matthew Arnold Participation
Is it okay if I lend you a hand in proofreading The poetical works of Matthew Arnold? If so, are there any things to consider employing? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course! It would be great to have some help, thanks!  There are some guidelines for formatting on the Index talk page if you'd like to take a look there; otherwise you may take a look at any of the pages I have proofread to see how I have been formatting the work.  Thanks for considering!  Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a question: what's the template block center/e used for? When is it used? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote the Block center page: [The] template places a block of text in the center of the page, without affecting the text alignment within that block. I use the template with poetry.  If a whole poem appears on one page, you would format it like this:

If a poem spans multiple pages, you can reference this page/section, for it illustrates things better than I can explain things. Hope that helps! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I mean the bottom typing box. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The footer, actually. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have "preset" block center/e (via the Index page) to appear in the footer automatically (and block center/s appears in the header as well). This is just so I don't have to type it each time I start a new page.  It will sometimes need to be removed from the header/footer if/when it is not needed.  For example, if a poem begins on a new page, the block center/s will need to appear in the page body and not in the header (see here).  And if a poem ends on a page, block center/e will need to be deleted from the footer and placed at the very end of the poem in the page body.  But more often than not, you will find poems spanning multiple pages, and you will therefore need them to appear in the header and footer.  Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I am currently working out some formatting issues with User:Ineuw right now, so if you are still interested in helping out, if you don't mind waiting until some formatting consensus is worked out first. I'll leave word here when things are good to go.  Sorry, and thanks!  Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to go! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Page:The Spirit of the Nation.djvu/95
The original format is in the early revision, but I went back to a simpler template formatting because the transclusion broke, due to the use of a lot of templates. Feel free to put the formatting back, but the transclusion limits will need to be looked into.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I placed 'problematic' on the wrong pages then :) I'm afraid "transclusion limits" are beyond my ken, but if there is any other way I can help, let me know! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed
Spotted that when I got to Epigram (2). Fixed now.--Keith Edkins (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks!Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Index:Homer - Iliad, translation Pope, 1909.djvu
Any chance of giving this a read over?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As in proofread? or validate? or... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ideally validation, but spotting the transcription errors(and I've been careful) I've missed appreciated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure! I've gone over a couple pages already.  I'll link to the project in my "To Do" list, and I'll pay visits to it.  Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

The 'Special characters' of the enhanced toolbar are lacking a lot of the characters we need, and for this purpose, I use the CharInsert - Gadget in which the foreign character sets are complete. In addition, GO3 added an additional 'User' defined character set consisting of the following characters: —  œ   £   §   ·   º   Æ   É   Ñ   Œ   Ö   à   á   â   ã   ä   æ   ç   è   é   ê   ë   î   ï   ñ   ô   ö   o   ù   ú   û   ü which I can install for you as long as you enable the 'CharInsert' Gadget. Let me know your decision. — Ineuw talk 05:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ineuw. I have enabled the enhanced editing toolbar, disabled the show edit toolbar, and the CharInsert Gadget was already enabled.  If GO3 or anyone can transfer my customized buttons (from my common.js) to the enhanced toolbar, that would be great!  I am also missing the zoom in/zoom out buttons, which come in handy with many works... Thanks for the work and instructions, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made an effort to add what you had that were missing from WikiEditor's defaults. Let us know how they work/can be improved. The 'zoom' buttons should only be generated in the Page namespace and can be found under the Proofreading tools menu.-- George Orwell III (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thank you very much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I was about to respond, but the master (GO3) beat me to it. I studied your old toolbar on which you had the following custom buttons: Author:,, m-dash, n-dash, and . I see that GO3 added some of the missing. If you need to add anymore just let me know. — Ineuw talk 00:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your direction and help as well, Ineuw! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding: Page:The Man with the Hoe, Markham, 1900.djvu/28
Hello. I am not necessarily pushing or even recommending this; but as an exercise in a novel approach to the problem would you please do me the kindness of having a look at User:AuFCL/SandBox and letting me know if it works for you, or even looks reasonably close to what you are hoping to achieve? AuFCL (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * I thought about that as well; you could say that the text is part of the artwork... no doubt illustrated as well by Howard Pyle. I will consider it, but will also consider other options.  Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh well. I suspect all the (growing) left-offsets make my approach too browser-font-size dependant (or rather, the other way 'round.) AuFCL (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Still open to tinkering; I'm sitting on any decision for a time... Brain dead... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a bit more of a play with "your" version (at Page:The Man with the Hoe, Markham, 1900.djvu/28), trying to trim the nested divs down to a minimum which works O.K. here (Firefox.) Your last version slightly overlaps text on top of the image for me so I cut the font size down a level (the text line is about 5% wider than the image "frame" here otherwise; i.e touches/overlaps both left and right.) I hope this version still centres and isn't too small for you. AuFCL (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked BWC's opinion on their Talk page whether I should keep the whole image (to include text)—treating the text as part of the illustration—or whether I should transcribe the text, and their opinion was to keep the original (as, I believe, was also Ineuw's opinion above)—and I think that is how I will go. Thank you for your work on this, however.  I will keep a copy of your "play with ['my'] version" in my sandbox, however, for future reference!  Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind remarks. I should elaborate, however, that when I stated I'd "trimmed to a minimum which worked for me" above that that still left a few things I did (and still do) not understand, like why removing "min-width: 575px;" causes "From a Carbon print&hellip;" to gain centring yet doesn't appear to affect anything else? In short I think BWC&amp;I&amp;Co. got it right, here, when they recommended the sepia-with-alt-text option. AuFCL (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wish I had some insight into the min-width question. I copied the formatting from "The Burden"—that formatting having been "stolen" from a now-forgotten User's page at WP that I had stumbled across.  I played with the numbers and had others take a look at the output, etc., but that is as far as my understanding goes!  Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Idiot me. I just realised I wrote that last little comment regarding min-width exactly backwards. Removing it causes the carbon line to centre undesireably—and I have just realised why. A simple "width:575px;" would have worked as well and less obscurely (just tried it out—preview only—for my own curiosity.) AuFCL (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Two font related questions
Hi,
 * Q 1: Can you please tell me the name of the the font/template used in WS to imitate Old English as shown HERE? I often saw it used, but since never had the need, I made no note of it . . . as embarrassed as I am to admit it.
 * I am only familiar with Blackletter(?)


 * Q 2: I saw your post In the Scriptorium., and it was unclear to me which editor and which font you were referring to. I assume you are referring to the "Advanced text editor" with the multi row toolbar we dicussed earlier? and the font used in that editor which is like a Monospace Courier New font? Also, which is your preferred browser? Thanks — Ineuw talk 20:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to answer. My preferred browser is Chrome.  When referring to font size and style changes, I mean the text that appears in edit mode when proofreading, etc.  Have you not noticed a difference in font size/style yourself in the last few days?  I wish my explanation was better... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blackletter is the one I was looking for.
 * I have Chrome, and will check it for you. Just out of curiosity, are you using Windows XP? Windows 7? I can check Chrome in all except Windows 8. — Ineuw talk 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I have Windows 7. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please look at this uploaded image. On the left is Chrome and on the right is Firefox. I assume that you have the Chrome look and prefer the Firefox font, it's very easy to change in Chrome. Open up the Chrome "Settings" and type in their search box (search settings) on the upper right "font". It will display the font selection. The bottom of the list will display "Fixed width font" and change the selection to "Courier New" which is what Firefox displays. You can vary the font style and size selection to find what you like and if a WS page is opened for edit, the change is immediate.
 * In the uploaded image the toolbar & editor is the Advanced version. If that is what you have, please let me know. (For technical reasons). — Ineuw talk 22:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that took care of it! How can I tell whether I have the "Advanced version"?  Do you mean the "enhanced toolbar" in Preferences? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by 'Advanced' I meant 'Enhanced' I should have checked the Preferences for the correct terminology. — Ineuw talk 23:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the enhanced toolbar selected. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Windows 7 and Chrome
Hi, I very rarely use Chrome, and installed it only to monitor differences between Chrome and Firefox if any, when users here complain about problems.

After advising you to change the fixed font to Courier New in Chrome, I discovered to my horror when I did a web search, that the results were also displayed in the same fixed font. Did this happened to you as well? — Ineuw talk 17:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the results were also displayed in the same fixed font"... What results? I do notice a change in font/font size when browsing websites (font size is a bit larger), but I don't much mind the change... I would rather be able to have editing easier on my eyes than the inconvenience (if even) of larger font when browsing.  But if you are asking if the font results are also Courier New when browsing, the answer is no... Only when editing.  Hope that helps(?) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's the reply I was hoping for for my sake, I am glad that it's displaying everything properly on your computer, otherwise, you'd be upset with me. In my case, the search results showed up in the same Courier New font and size as in the WS editing Window. But, that's not a problem for me because I don't use Chrome. In your case, we didn't change the font size, which in Chrome settings is set to "Medium". So, if other pages are displayed with a larger size, Chrome does have problems of font display in Windows 7 according to numerous posts on the web. So, I know that it's not me. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 20:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing my problem :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

related issue?

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

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

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

larger

normal

smaller

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

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

Answering my own question... Yup... It was the min font size setting. I set it to the tiniest setting, and now I see things as I should. Thanks for helping or just being a sounding board! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Anytime. Perhaps you could install Firefox alongside, to monitor the browsers. — Ineuw talk 01:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fwiw... see these 2 discussions on Wikipedia re: Chrome & Font changes....
 * w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_129
 * w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)
 * Both seemed related & plausible (e.g. DirectWrite) as the cause here as well but I don't use Chrome so I can't check that either. Hope Inuew can take it from there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will check them out! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do believe it was Chrome-driven... Ineuw had me change settings in Chrome for fonts, and after some trial and error, I am good to go. Maybe  could explain the matter at the above discussions and help them out as he helped me.  I would give it a shot, but am not confident in my ability to explain the process.  Thanks all! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and gave my 2 cents in the discussions. Feel free to add to or correct! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are still not satisfied, you can fiddle with ClearType in the control panel. It doesn't affect Firefox, but it did clear up my Chrome problem where everything showed in Courier New. All one has to do is disable ClearType temporarily, use Chrome, and then close it and re-enable ClearType. — Ineuw talk 02:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with how things render currently. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)