User talk:Adrignola/2009/10

Input and action
Please take a look into the discussion on Wikibooks talk:Manual of Style#title category vs subject category and see if you can give some input on that. Another issue that is still pending on the verge of finding consensus is the Proposal for restricting image uploads, I can't seem to understand the last remaining objections by User:Arlen22, see if you can clarify or resolve his objection. --Panic (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved the status of the proposal as adopted, check out compilation of agreed upon solutions and other tasks that are now pending to see if I missed something. --Panic (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

VFD and consensus
Not to pick a fight or even protest against the closing I disagree with. But I must be consistent and I have raised this point before so I will do it again and in "private" to you, if you see a need for a more general discussion on the subject fell free to start it. I think both of us agree that VFD discussions should fallow the established rules, that is clear but since the rules aren't that clear I take this change so we can establish what our view point on the issue at hand is. I remember Wikibookians stating the opinion that VFD isn't a vote (besides what it is stated in policy on on the very page of the VFD discussions) consensus is then the objective (I know consensus has not a single generalized meaning on Wikibooks, for my part I like the original and strictest interpretation). Because of that I strongly disagree with the closing of VFD discussion where a minority vote (whatever side the argument is defending) is simply disregarded, and the result is archived on the simple ground of numbers. After an opposing view is put forward, consensus requires the other party to at least attempt to reach a common ground or a mutual understanding of the divergences, I have always done so and IIRC you also have attempted to do so. If you don't disagree to anything I've said please avoid closing VFD discussions on majority votes, as this reinforces bad practices and by default will promote deletions. --Panic (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe me that I would absolutely love true consensus where everyone raises their arguments, one side sees the other argument's merits, they consent to deletion, and everyone is happy. For some reason there has been very little participation by people whose opinion I would appreciate having in a discussion lately.  Maybe it's their way of abstaining, but if a discussion has gone for a week, two weeks, even longer without further discussion and a majority of people are in favor of deletion for one reason or another, it seems that action should be taken at that time to bring closure to the situation.


 * If most are in favor and only one person dissents, how else can I interpret the situation except as having momentum toward deletion? I will say this: the comment you refer to should have been reworded to not promote simple votes and maybe "votes for deletion" should be renamed.  I only value opinions for or against if supported by evidence or reasoned argument.  A simple "oppose" or "support" with no substantiation is, in fact, disregarded.  Your comments, however, are always backed up and therefore please understand that I take them seriously, even if I don't always agree or even if others don't share the same position on the issue. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is also important to examine the point raised on the discussion even if by a minority (this promotes inclusion), and rely on the value of the argumentation. The argumentation is important, more than the positions taken, especially on the VFD were a bandwagon for deletion is easy formed (a proposal for deletion is in itself promoting for the outcome), it can be even cases that no one states a position...
 * You can only attribute a momentum to a discussion for consensus if people are engaging each others argumentations and one side seems to be weaker, this is very rarely the case on most VFDs posts except for the most experienced users most simply state a position and often with no valid argumentation for it. Critical analysis of the works under VFD often require taking time to do it, and clearly it is easy to notice that some people don't really put much thought behind their positions or do so very inconsistently. This is not only a problem with VFDs almost all discussions on this project are subject to this behaviors for example the image proposal, the user blocking the adoption was basing his objection due to lack of understanding that the issues had been already covered if we had ignored his position things could turn very ugly or at least would erode future decission processes, this is also valid on the VFDs, creating exceptions will be more harmful and demolish the sense of community and inclusion, this has been very visible in past events where a minority position is disregarded. Since I have been in the project I never saw anyone blocking any decission process in bad faith, and each time minority positions were ignored the user in question was alienated from the project in various degrees some even stopped participating, since most people will not take the time/effort to defend minority views even if right. One other point of interest is that most people that take time to participate in discussions aren't the ones creating the content that makes the project relevant. Making how we deal with minorities views, a very important part on how we build the community up.  --Panic (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fishing
after a long bout of inactivity.. I agree that the stub book ought to be merged with the only-slightly less stub book "River fishing". I'm still not sold that his stub book ought to cover something so dang broad as fishing. In fact,Perhaps the whole topic doesn't fit with most users here! some of this disconnect between what I like to do and other people's focus on this site is part of why i'm not so active here in the first place...

BUT... having defined something; I ought to do a better job at it. well, appreciate the comment. I will attempt to talk to the "fishing" author, as well.--JoliePA (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry and wikibooks format guide? wikijunior:whales
wikijunior:whales i guess was incorrect sorry about that but i would like to try and recreate it maybe some could guide me along. thanks 72.73.65.104 (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may find Using Wikibooks helpful in your endeavors. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Welcome message
Thanks a lot! That's very kind of you! Powerek38 (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)