User talk:Adrignola/2009/09

Thanks for catagorisation
Hi Adrignola. Thanks for applying the catagorisation to my "Guide to PIC Documentation". I am new to WikiBooks and am currently typing for all I'm worth and learning as I go. If you have time I would be grateful for any feedback on formatting etc. which you think would help this WikiBook. All the best - --Codinghead (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocks
I'm not sure it makes sense to block a "vandalism-only account" for only two weeks. If it is a vandalism only account then it should be an indefinite block; if it is a two-week block then you should use a reason other than "vandalism-only account". Thanks for clearing up what you intended here. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 04:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking back I chose the comment "vandalism-only account: Repeated bad page creation" seeing the "repeated bad page creation" portion of it. I probably should have written only "bad page creations" in the comment box.  If you look at their deleted contributions, it was the creation of the same page three times, with content being of a religious nature.  I would normally block a vandalism-only account indefinitely, but I wasn't sure whether this was truly vandalism or simply a determined individual who couldn't take a hint from their non-textbook material being deleted.  Should you feel it applicable, I would have no objections to it being changed to an infinite block. -- Adrignola talk contribs 11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my initial reaction was that the block reason was a bit off but the block length etc was correct. Thanks for clarifying.


 * While I'm here, did you email the address provided for INGRES DBMS Essentials? &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 12:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I placed a notice on the talk page of the author using Twinkle, but did not email the author. The original author, Winstonmr (talk) did not have a link to "E-mail this user". -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lost books
A month or two ago we were discussing the usefulness of the orphaned page list. At the time you mentioned that someone had a bot go through all the pages and add alphabetical tags to the pages, thus making it difficult to find books that did not appear on any subject page, because they wouldn't appear as uncategorized modules. So I have spent a bit of time generating a list of books for the "all pages" list and going through it to check the categorization of each book. I finished today, so baring human error every book will have a subject tag. The catch is that I did not take time to properly find a subject for any book, if it was missing a subject, DDC, or LOC tag I added a blank tag so it would be listed in Category:Uncategorized modules, DDC: Uncategorized, or LOC: Uncategorized respectively. Alphabetical tags are simple to take care of on the spot, so I did. Many of the books in Category:Uncategorized modules are probably trivial to categorize because I didn't bother to take the time to see if a plain category tag already placed it into some subject page, but some had no tags at all. Anyways I thought you'd be interested to know. Thenub314 (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to do that. I know that it takes a lot of patience and dedication to do that sort of thing. -- Adrignola talk contribs 11:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)