User talk:Adrignola/2010/02

A CookBook author's comments on edits by User:MetricCook
Dear Adrignola, I don't "do" Wikibooks very often, although when I am on here my contributions can be quite substantial. I noticed your dispute with MetricCook and am leaving you a copy of my comment on the talk-page of one of my recipes, (Cookbook:San Francisco Sourdough Bread).

"'The trouble with MetricCook changing everything so that metric units always precede avoirdupois, is that it is not immediately apparent in which units the recipe was originally written. This is not an unimportant point. The original units should precede the conversions in all cases, as far as I am concerned, because conversions are usually cumbersome and, more importantly, the person doing the conversion may have been inaccurate. Furthermore, most of the conversions attempt to convert precisely. An expert does the conversion in such a way that one does not end up with idiotic measurements like 237 ml of water and 483 grams of flour. This sort of amateurish nonsense should be secondary to the original units.  Some of my recipes are written in metric units with imperial second because metric is the way I received the original recipe. This, I believe is a sensible and rational policy. This will ensure consistency whereas MetricCook's system, which is intended to achieve it, will have exactly the opposite effect and create a mess.' Mike Hayes (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)"

Edited your comment
Hey Adrignola, I meant to leave a note on it in the edit summary, but it then slipped my mind. I'm strongly of the opinion that one should leave other people's comments well alone, but in the case of [ your comment] on User talk:NumberTheorist it seemed so obvious that the WB:RFP should point to WB:RFD and was just a typo. Seeing how it was a consequential one, I (hope I) [ fixed it]. Apologies if I misunderstood it. --Swift (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What a difference a letter makes. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Transclusions limits/print version
I think I had a talk with you about this issue. I noticed that the http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B_Programming/All_Chapters&printable=yes (link for the printable version of) http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_Programming/All_Chapters seems to display all the content (but the local editable view doesn't load completely, as we already saw previously), this maybe useful for instance the Ada Book (IIRC it had a similar setup). I haven't used the full version for edits for some time now (at first it was the best way to visualize all the content) but it is still useful to coordinate the printout and overall structure of chapters. Lots of controversy on that view point also... Well just to inform you that it seems to work ok (and I've been substituting the link to the editable print version for a ready to print link on the books I'm working on, ie:The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)) this results in removing the old print template and adding the Category:Books with print version directly. --Panic (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you were able to find a workaround. No need to let the software limit your vision. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Subjects and Categories
Noticed on my recent edits that a book (cover/toc) page displays Subjects: on the top of the page (but the links provided goes into categories) and subpages display Categories: and link to the book's category. The first behavior is not expected and for me wanted. Something wrong (I recall an issue but not this specific behavior) ? --Panic (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's working as intended and notes that the root page needs to be filed in a subject with Subjects while subpages need to be categorized into the book category with BookCat. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC this is not how it was working before. Now a user will not have direct access to the related subject page, important to seek other books on the same subject (and related subjects) and is somehow redundant since most root pages of books are TOCs themselves. It is also confusing to see the line indicate subject and all links are going to the categories. --Panic (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been in place since July 2009. I made it so it says "Related subjects" when viewing a Subject page (later shortened to "Related"). However, a later revision produced what you are referring to when viewing books. I won't engage in wheel-warring, so you'll have to address this with the person in question. -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This has a minor impact on users that knows how to navigate the system. I rarely click there and I even have opted to have the hidden categories shown (even if I dislike the extra clutter). If this was in place for so long I only now noticed it (I made several edits on cover pages recently) and had to test if things were working correctly. I'll put this on my TODO list to bitch about at a later time, but it is a disservice to the "normal" user (I understand that people have personal tastes or may need to show a new trick, but stable functionality to others have to take precedent), I'll try to support anyone that makes a peep about it... --Panic (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Request removal of Wikibook
Dear Adrignola, our semester has come to an end and while working on the Wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Survey_of_Information_Policy_Issues has been educational, we are unable to maintain the quality of writing that we would like to see from the individual authors of chapters. I was wondering if there was a process to request for the page to be removed.

Regards, Kartikram


 * I have taken care of this for you. -- Adrignola talk contribs 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kartikram (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Of Mice and Men
Hi Aaron,

Is it a good idea to protect Of Mice and Men? I know it gets hit by vandalism frequently, but sometimes anonymous editors do make valid contributions to it. It has been flagged with valid revisions, so the edits won't appear to the general public until reviewed. It's on my watchlist, and I do review new contributions to it pretty much every day. I'm just afraid that protecting the page will discourage new users from coming aboard. --Jomegat (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've unprotected it. I can rest easy with you watching it. -- Adrignola talk contribs 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Level Computing
Hi,

Thank you for helping to tidy up the A-Level Computing page. I'm not really keeping to style here, but could you possibly not delete the initials that litter the page as I'm using the site as a college project. Students are allocated sections by those initials which they then have to fill in, and we're going to delete the initials when a section is complete. Thanks Pluke (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I mistook the random proliferation of letters as vandalism.  Good luck with your efforts. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User rename?
Hi Aaron, User User:Elspeth left this message on my talk page. Can her two accounts be unified? --Jomegat (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What was the original account? Also, I can only rename the original account to Elspeth or rename Elspeth to the original.  Contributions will stay with the accounts they were made.  If the original account is no longer accessible, then renaming it to "Elspeth" and renaming "Elspeth" to "Elspeth (usurped)" would not correct that.  If you're thinking of merging the contributions; I can't do that. "Elspeth" itself is not unified with other projects; she could take care of that herself at Special:MergeAccount, but given the registration dates they may not be ones she made.  In that case all the others would have to be usurped individually.  The ideal would be to fix the login issue on the original so that I can rename the original to Elspeth if it has more contributions or to stick with the original if a fully unified account is desired.  Either way one account's contributions will be left behind. -- Adrignola talk contribs 04:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Her original username was User:Tuningpeg571. I dunno what her issue was with that account, because she did use it to make some changes today.  As for her preferences... we'd have to ask her.  Let's just wait and see what she says. --Jomegat (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)