User talk:Adrignola/2009/12

Mandarin
Hello, about Mandarin Chinese, I did not want it to be inactive, and only became so because I forgot to work on the book. All the info is correct, it is summarized from Prentice Hall Chinese Link Textbook. However, if you could, could you make the book look nicer, and tell me what kinds of grades what I have would get? Thanks in advance --Master lan (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good so far. I can't really comment on translations as I have no knowledge of Mandarin Chinese.  I wouldn't worry about how long it takes to get the book done.  We have contributors here who have dedicated years to perfecting their books.  Just keep at it and you'll have a quality product in the end.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically, it is the lessons I am giving to a friend to teach him Chinese. --Master lan (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
I went ahead and made two nominations at WB:RFP. I hope you accept, and I also hope this does not expose you to any unpleasantness involved in the voting. Thanks for your work here. It has not gone unnoticed. --Jomegat (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Silence on the CU nomination? --Jomegat (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Silence no longer. :) Had to compose a thoughtful statement on the matter. Also, thank you for the nominations. -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales
Was that last edit by request ? If not since Jimbo hasn't placed a statement blocking posting to the talkpage, those posts have a validity even if most are antagonistic, only a few of those removed would be classified as slightly offensive, but somehow acceptable in a personal talk page... --Panic (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't view them similarly. You can undo the change if you feel otherwise. -- Adrignola talk contribs 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to let the owner decide. That was the issue I was attempting to point out, it is expected that they are the ones that have the capacity to decide what is or not wanted information, especially in the talk pages of another userspace
 * I would indeed support the undoing of any alteration perceived as slightly negative by another party on the user's front page. I can count by the fingers of a single hand the times I made alteration on such pages.
 * In short you executed a sanitation on another's userspace, this is not expected, probably not wanted or isn't even impartial to those that made the posts. One could also say that is somewhat against community best practices, and in my opinion something you shouldn't repeat. I'm especially pointing this out to you because of the high visibility of that page and userspace in particular, and the higher expectations the community is placing on you. --Panic (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've undone the edit. I seriously doubt the user in question is watching his user talk page, though.  Reverts of unbecoming edits to the page have been done in the past if you look at the history.  Even on your talk page you may notice there was a removal of a comment felt to be inappropriate.  Should personal attacks or vandalism on a person's talk page be ignored? -- Adrignola talk contribs 00:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you reconsideration. I agree on your assertion of that user interest to what goes on this project in specific terms. I agree that there is a thin line on what constitutes a good intervention on a Wikibookians personal space, in the specific case you point out that user was a vandal (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Barta_bus), if a single post (with the same content) was made on another users talk page I wouldn't have reversed it, the content doesn't make it particular offensive, it all depends on the context and civility level, something an outsider to the interchange may not be aware of. Consider the same action by another user with something on the lines of "Break a leg" on several Wikibookains pages, to an outsider it would again constitute possible spam (in depth analyses would require examining past actions of that user on the project), but on the other hand, all the users that got the post may be part of a theater group...
 * On the action that initiated this thread, some of the posts weren't even slightly aggressive, most of those that had aggressive connotations were somehow out of context since they (I presume) refer to actions that took place elsewhere and most if not all were unsigned, by removing them you took an active role on those disputes that were personal in nature (if outside of the userspace they indeed should be deleted). I didn't read them all but those I read didn't have any unacceptable content, I had similar posts on my own userspace that have gone to similar levels, I've been called a dick and a troll by acting admins but what is important is the context of the remarks, and giving equal chance to those engaged on the interchange to address the issues at least that is my opinion. --Panic (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Images on XNA project
Thanks for modifying the licences on my images, I didn't notice the mistake. My new ones will be sorted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willybood (discuss • contribs)
 * No problem. Our upload form isn't nearly as classy as the one at Wikimedia Commons, so it takes a bit more getting used to. -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Images
What happened (is happening) in regards to the approved changes on how we deal with images on the project ? --Panic (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bug 21011 is still open. You can add your email as a CC to get updates on it, as well as create an account and vote for the bug if you like.  I don't think it will be handled anytime soon.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Special:Upload already has some indications to use Commons, but it should be removed (until the bug is fixed) from any direct links for file uploads, like the sidebars, the first information one would get on clicking on Upload file would be to use commons and then a link to the local uploads page (since local uploads would be a minority). Media would probably benefit from the inclusion of the image limitations and a reference to Commons. All templates to be used as warnings on the user space relating to images could also benefit from that extra information. Do you see any issues with those changes ? --Panic (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't remove the "Upload file" link from the toolbox. The goal of this request as a result of discussion was to make that link point to Commons instead.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've mistakenly used that as an example, I meant any other links to that page. Is there any way one can get a "what links here" list from that page ? --Panic (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a way. But the request also calls for a user right that will be held by an "uploaders" group and administrators that allows use of the Special:Upload page after the changes are made.  Anyone who gets there from links elsewhere and isn't in either group will have a message denying them the ability to upload.  When the link at left points to Commons, admins/uploaders will have to go to Special:SpecialPages to get a link to the local tool for uploading. -- Adrignola talk contribs 19:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see now that it would be unnecessary to make any changes it that case. But the policy and these types of warnings/notices User talk:Jbwoo (as the templates used for them) User talk:Passchier and any Help: guides (like Help:Uploading files) could start to be used to make Wikibookians aware of the change. --Panic (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki import?
Hi Adrignola,

You appear to be the transwiki guru around here!

I was wondering if you could transwiki Projective transformation, as indicated at WB:RFI?

Thanks!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Find it at Transwiki:Projective transformation. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks!
 * I’ve cleaned it up some and filed it at Projective Geometry/Classic/Projective Transformations.
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the maximum width for images that allows the html, print and pdf version to render consistently
Hi Adrignola

Cheers for doing the article imports into the Wikibooks on Hinduism and Sikhism. I was just wondering if you knew the maximum width for an image for Wikibooks. I read in the Wiki edit guide that 550px is the safest width that browsers will render. I have some fretboard and scale diagrams in the wikibook on Guitar that should go all across the page for easy reading. Also, does this affect the Print version and the PDF version. One last question, is their any format advice to ensure consistent layout for those viewing with a widescreen monitor. --Sluffs (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's a technical limit to the width of an image in the wiki software itself, but you don't want an image inline to be so wide that those viewing the book at a lower resolution have to scroll horizontally to view the image. The 550px width was probably written when you had to worry about a screen size of 800px minimum, with the difference being taken up by the navigation at the left.  You can safely assume a minimum width of 1024px today.  You'd have to experiment with a print version to see what pixel width corresponds to the width of your printed page.  You can test it with your browser's print preview.  An image that fits the print version will fit the PDF version as well.  Hope that helps. -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks. I spent a bit of time searching the help pages and this is just the information I need. --Sluffs (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Welcome message, books chapters and other edits
Thanks!!! --Kartikram (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question
Hey Adrignola, quick question, I'm co-coordinating the Wikibook for my class, and noticed that one of the chapters was flagged for possible copyright violation. The chapter has recently undergone changes, with citations and sources added toward the end of the page. I understand that to prevent deletion, the contributors need to specify that the authors must grant copyright permission. I am unclear if there is a specific paragraph that violates this policy or the whole chapter itself????? Thanks!! --Kartikram (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you're just quoting material or paraphrasing it and providing proper references there shouldn't be a problem. The addition of that notice (wasn't me) was likely because a portion of the page appeared to be a copy-and-paste from another website.  My opinion is now that the page has developed further, there isn't a problem.  It's analogous to citations in a paper document; now that you have them, you can't be accused of plagiarism.  The book is developing nicely, by the way.  I'm glad to see new content added to Wikibooks. -- Adrignola talk contribs 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
It really is a rather dull job, you'll find ;-). -- SB_Johnny  talk 13:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks for accepting the position! --Jomegat (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A dull job certainly is what I think of when I hear "bureaucrat", but hopefully the tools will come in handy if needed. -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A Level Mathematics
Hi Aaron,

When I saw this guy's request my first thought was "We surely have this already." So I went to the Subjects page, drilled down the Mathematics, and then... couldn't figure out how to get there from here. When you undid the request, I followed your link to the book and found that it was in study guides. Maybe someone who knows what A-level means would know that it's a study guide, but I sure didn't. Food for thought. --Jomegat (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It can also be found via this route: Standard curricula → International curricula → GCE Advanced Level. Indeed that's not much better.  We've got about 3,000 books now and this would be indicative of problems that could be encountered upon further growth.  Unfortunately, we can't really put all the books in Subject:Mathematics.  I do note that "a-level maths" or "a level maths" in the search box would have either sent this user to the book directly via a redirect or shown them the book as the first result.  They could also browse alphabetically, clicking on the "alphabetical" link via the "browse" link at left and finding the book among others in Category:Alphabetical/A, where all the books begin with "A-level".  I'm always open to suggestions. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I called it "food for thought" because I don't have any suggestions. It's just a good problem for us to stew over as we go along.  Maybe if we could expand and collapse subject hierarchies in the subject page?  That might be quicker than following links, but I have no idea how it would be accomplished. --Jomegat (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you had to come up with any. I notice that at Card Catalog Office the subjects don't expand like the categories.  I will have to fix that by moving the top-level subjects from Category:All Subjects to Category:Books by subject.  As for the subject pages themselves, I still remember all the complaints leveled at them in the reading room when it was proposed to do away with the bookshelves. -- Adrignola talk contribs 19:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Bt
No, this wasn't a test, it's a shortcut to writing the full book name. Basically, I was getting annoyed at having to write the full book name for every template, so I made this, which is just used like and outputs. However, I'm not sure where template documentation goes on Wikibooks. Is it supposed to go on the talk page? In a /doc page? In a noinclude on the template page itself? --Yair rand (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what is for?  We don't have a standard regarding template documentation.  Mostly ones that were created here use noincludes, while ones imported from elsewhere use the /doc style. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that does essentially the same job, but it's far too long, requires an extra set of {}s and often isn't even worth it to use, because it's usually longer than the book name itself. --Yair rand (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed the query tag. Someone made Template:BookTemplate in the past doing what you're doing but it was too long and went unused.  Pardon my interference. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmm?
Y'know, I've loved all things Wiki for a long time now. I just seem to struggle with understanding what Wikibooks is all about. I had this idea of writing a book about clergy and their answer to some questions......really a piece of journalism......I'm not going to interpret their responses or anything like that....and certainly (with Wikibooks being what it is) others can contribute or delete all manner of stuff. I just don't know if such a book would/would not be appropriate here. Your thoughts? Buddpaul (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is Wikibooks? is a good place to look. In this case the Wikibooks is not a news service section would apply and if you are interested in doing some journalism, our sister project Wikinews would be your best bet.  I assume this is in reference to Twenty Questions For Twenty Preachers: An early 21st Century Perspective.  If you choose to continue this at Wikinews or some other project, you can add  to the pages of that book. Basically, Wikibooks is for textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides, and manuals.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Images you moved recently
Can I thank you for being smarter then I am about this? I didn't even think about moving the AYH track to a different name to be able to access it here. Really, Thank you. A bunch.Empire3131 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can show your appreciation by adding a vote of support at WB:RFP. :) -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird thing: I did that before I saw this comment. Empire3131 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sitenotice?
Heya. Not to put you on the spot, but what would you think about putting your CU RFP on the sitenotice? There are precious few people watching the RFP page, and as you know numbers are needed in this case. -- SB_Johnny  talk 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the chances of the nomination succeeding are slim without the notice. We've already got all the regulars on the page and it will be an uphill battle getting the last ten.  It'd be a good idea. -- Adrignola talk contribs 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So far the only reason I see for the process to fail is if you decide to withdraw your acceptance for the job. There is no time limit for requests and no one has objected to it. In any case one of the other bureaucrats on the project should take the reasonable steps to inform the creators of the requirement for a fixed number of votes and explain that it is impractical and does affect multiple Wikimedia projects (for what I understand you will be CU of Wikibooks, Wikijunior, Wikiversity and by how I see it to Cookbook, all self contained entities mostly working to become independent, if it was a reality today all would have the same problem we are facing). An improvement to the process would be to use a percentage based on the number of administrators since those are the ones that seem to participate on general discussions. I also advance the idea that this alienation of the common Wikibookians has increased (since it was always reduced due to the project characteristics) due to disappearance of other global community functions and processes like book of the month, patrollers, etc...
 * A simple way to accelerate the closing of the RFP, if no other steps are taken, is to create a template explaining succinctly why participation is needed and what the function will be used for. I will be willing to contact the more experienced editors as to promote awareness to the issue. The site notice doesn't explain why the request is different from other announcements and pointing generally to the Wikibooks:Administrators doesn't increase the chance that Wikibookians, that I think intentionally try to keep themselves focused on their specific tasks, make the effort to understand this special case.  --Panic (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he wouldn't be a CU for wikiversity (we actually have none there, since we had to desysop one and you need at least 2). WJ and the cookbook are namespaces, and would need to independently appoint CUs if they forked.
 * As for explaining, I was thinking of just adding a "notice" section on the request page, and linking the sitenotice to that. -- SB_Johnny  talk 11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had been thinking about this recently too and how having a fixed number of people supporting is odd. Looking at RFP right now... So, there are 17 administrators on WB, 13 if you discount the two currently proposed for removal of permissions, yourself and Derbeth (depends where that decision goes). Of these, seven (so more than 50%) have supported you already. While I would never suggest admins have more say (as this could create a self-electing "club"), it is at least some indication of the level of support you have from the more active and / or long standing contributors. Of the remaining supporters, you have (for example, Panic, Pi Zero, Chazz) some of the most active community types too. I think you will eventually reach 25 supporters without a problem but equally I'd be inclined to try and call it "closed" now, or fairly soon, and request the CU bit at Meta based on the proportionate level of support you have. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 10:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it just doesn't work that way: the requirements are requirements, period. We had to go through this for all of our CUs at least since 2006. -- SB_Johnny  talk 11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since 2006! Time for a change then ;-) Okay, thanks - fair enough then! Unusual? Quite TalkQu 11:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I just took what Mike put in the watchlist notice and pasted that into the site notice. If any of you think the wording could be improved, please feel free to do so. While admins don't have more say here, interestingly a certain other project has formed arbitration committee where they do. Meta's policy on CUs actually gives ArbComs more power in electing checkusers than the community as a whole, in that they have final say in who becomes a checkuser. I only point that out as an interesting aside. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Believe me, we should count ourselves fortunate that we don't need an ARBCOM here. See w:WP:ARBCOM for the kind of dramas they're needed for. -- SB_Johnny  talk 13:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 100% agree... I sometimes think WP is really just a place to argue about philosophy, religion and politics... Much nicer here! Unusual? Quite TalkQu 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge Talk
Uploader to Uploaders talk page and see if it can be deleted or have it as a redirect. (There shouldn't be many links to fix yet, I created the abbreviation WB:UL. --Panic (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirection of uploads to Commons
When did that configuration get changed? Can you show me where the discussion was? Seems I've not been on the ball. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 06:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Got changed on Christmas eve; the developers' present to us all. I first submitted bug 21011 on this based on the discussion in the reading room.  Despite what the developer added to the final comment, administrators still have the ability to upload without needing to give themselves the uploader flag.  See Special:ListGroupRights. -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * yay &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 20:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that the page "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Upload" has been modified in the past hours will it be open for editing (by the admins+) as it would be extremely important that it would not only state who can have access but what the access is for and in the case of uploads to point prominently to commons (since the upload file function is still very accessible from the menus and we shouldn't scare people attempting to provide content). --Panic (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The content of that page is controlled by MediaWiki:Uploadtext. -- Adrignola talk contribs 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the error page (no access, you probably can't see it since you are an admin). It has been updated recently to indicate the uploader flag with a link to the page I and you recently edited. Can't the page be also made to indicate the use of commons and a direct link to the RFP page ? --Panic (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I had not seen it initially. The title of that page is at MediaWiki:Badaccess and its content is at MediaWiki:Badaccess-groups. However, that page could come up in other cases where permissions are required and someone is trying to visit a special page limited to a certain group, so it wouldn't be prudent to change that text.  We can add the pertinent information to the Uploaders page, though. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably right on the reuse, even so it could be rewritten to prominently invite people to ask for the tools. Making it inclusive in place of just pointing to what the tools level requirements are and what they consist on. This will foster at least some exploration and demonstrate that access is possible and a normal practice in place of being that sterile.
 * Another issue is the page name, I doubt that the page title can easily be made more welcoming ("Permission error") but it should. It isn't an error. "Insufficient Permission" would be an improvement on that. The common Wikibookian, as it is, will be put aback. --Panic (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the title of the page and added a link to the requests for permissions page. -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)