User talk:Adrignola/2010/07

Non free templates
I think we don't really need to have a bunch of non free templates. Our requirements are pretty straightforward regardless of what it is being used the criteria is the same. You can see what I did with to get an idea of how we could reduce them as well:

--dark lama  13:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The templates I'm importing provide additional information beyond the template above and can be conveniently selected when uploading via MediaWiki:Licenses, without the uploader then having to fill in a parameter. Additionally, the separate templates allow for detailed classification of material, rather than lumping it all into a single category.  Consider that if we manage to export all the free content to Commons, the only content we'll have will be non-free and categorizing it decently as soon as possible will save time later. – Adrignola talk 13:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The license option can fill in the parameter, so the uploader doesn't have to.
 * The category used can depend on the filled in parameter.
 * --dark lama  13:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would break terribly if people tried to apply templates by hand and didn't match up the parameter with exactly what's desired. If you want to use a switch for input, then the template becomes even more convoluted.  We already had non-free logo, Microsoft screenshot, and Adobe screenshot, so I'm only expanding on what we have.  And templates like Template:Non-free symbol have a custom image and information pertinent to the situation, like "article 6ter" of the Paris Convention. – Adrignola talk 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've thought for awhile that some merges would make since, but with so many templates being used it seem implausible until it was decided to move all free content to Wikimedia Commons.
 * I think the types of non-free use work can be classified as photograph/visual, audio/sound recording, trademark, screenshot, and maybe government. Although trademark and government could both potentially be subtypes with "yes" and "yes" used. --dark lama  17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Quasicrystal
Am I reading these edit histories correctly, did this user ask take down his whole book be taken down over frustration about 's? Thenub314 (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I still wish new pages would have BookCat added to them by default, but I had added it to the edit toolbar, so that's the next best thing. But they somehow had an edit conflict editing a page and couldn't figure out how to go back and copy-paste their content into the changed page.  Before requesting the book to be blown away, they had already moved the book from its original name and orphaned about 90% of the content they had produced with changes to the table of contents.  A bit out of proportion, but nobody else contributed to the pages, so they do qualify for speedy deletion.   – Adrignola talk 11:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah they certainly did fall under speedy, you did the right thing, I am just a bit surprised. It seemed the book was only just started.  Somehow I was hoping I missed spotting something more annoying then edit conflicts at the root of it, but it doesn't seem so.  Not only would hitting back have worked but there is also the second second edit box? Oh well, what can be done, it is just a shame. Thenub314 (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (w:WP:TPS) Is it in the enhanced toolbar? If it isn't, can you add it there as well? Thanks Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to say something about my behavior on talk pages? Am I a WikiJaguar? Or did you point to the wrong shortcut? – Adrignola talk 12:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not; I am. :) So, can you add it on the enhanced toolbar? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you want added? Are you wanting the userbox?  The toolbar above the edit box I'm not sure I can edit.  The shortcuts for special characters below the edit box, I can. – Adrignola talk 13:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that one. I must have misunderstood... Thanks but which kind of symbol is it? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're the one who wanted something added... I'm thoroughly confused. – Adrignola talk 13:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just now you said you added the BookCat to the toolbar. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It just looks like BookCat; to the left of talk 14:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Thenub, seeing the non-blanked talk page of the user, I see that there was frustration over BookCat and that an edit of mine caused the edit conflict. I'm not going to apologize for adding BookCats, however.  Especially when someone decides to start blanking my talk page. – Adrignola talk 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there is clearly no need to apologize. I was surprised by the extreme reaction over such a small thing.  I only noticed because I went to find author of one of the new calc books that was started to invite him to join the math project, when I couldn't find it I realized it was they same person who blanked your page and started looking at edit histories.  Well if he ever cools down and happens upon this conversation I would suggest the WB:RFU's his book and carries on with the productive edits.  But if he can't remember to assume good faith and discuss his frustrations more constructively he probably should find another outlet.  He didn't even make clear why he was upset to anyone. Thenub314 (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that I "couldn't figure out how to go back and copy-paste", it's that my back history didn't contain the text. I 'blanked' your talk page because you reverted my earlier comment from it anyway, so I don't see it as a big deal if you're just going to revert it anyway. "He didn't even make clear why he was upset to anyone" Yes I did, it's on my talk page which has been deleted anonymously for some strange reason. Quasicrystal (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the full text of your comment: "God dammit I just lost my edit because of a merge conflict". Quite frankly your comment appeared to be vandalism, and I didn't revert.  I performed an undo and left a comment in the edit summary.  That's more than I could have done given the content.  Treat me with respect and you'll get the same in return. – Adrignola talk 02:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When have I not treated you with respect? "That's more than I could have done given the content" I don't give a fuck if you want to threaten to ban me, I'm not asking anything from you. Also I have no idea what the difference between a revert and an undo is. Quasicrystal (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith and discussing things constructively as Thenub mentions above would be a good start. Remarks on my talk page out of nowhere that I'm left to take as someone yelling at me over something I have no control over are what I consider disrespectful. Frankly, if you're not asking anything of me and won't refrain from trying to escalate the situation, stop posting to my talk page. – Adrignola talk 02:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "stop posting to my talk page" okay I copied this whole discussion over to my talk page Quasicrystal (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep it simple
Can you please restate the move information on the proposal and use only FlaggedRevs Extension/Unstable as the location, there is no need to confuse things up in indicating (I don't object to the move, but at this point it is not beneficial for mutual understanding). --Panic (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reading room discussion and listing of support positions is the location for linking to when filing a bugzilla request. FlaggedRevs Extension/Unstable is for your benefit and others who have not been following the conversation in the reading room and for whom the summary in the reading room is not sufficient.   is a complement to Help:Revision review to document what flagged revisions means to us, not how to use it, and not how it is configured.  The reading room discussion is low-level and temporary with FlaggedRevs Extension/Unstable low-level and a record of the result.   and Help:Revision review are high-level documentation and not concerned with what's going on in the reading room. – Adrignola talk 18:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
If you have the time can you help me write a clear text of what is proposed (similar to what is stated on the side bar) and with the  configuration that is at the moment the accepted one. By the comments some people (me included) just aren't aware of the status of all the items of the proposal at this time. --Panic (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose so. I assume FlaggedRevs Extension would be the destination? I'll be able to get to it a bit later today. – Adrignola talk 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I started it here FlaggedRevs Extension/Unstable. I'm rereading all the discussion making small changes to the original text based on the discussion and tagging things for clarification since my interpretation and others may not be exact or even understood. --Panic (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are something that are discussed but not stated on the sidebar I expect and we will now clearly see that people are aware that their support is on what is stated on the sidebar. Examples: the "merge" o editor- reviewer, other extensions... --Panic (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where can I see Reader Feedback Extension in action is any project using it? (not listed on the extension page)
 * Can you link or add any more information on what is the pseudo-bot ? (in the Rights Management)
 * Can you provide non technical examples for the Edit Filter Extension? (filters that we will be expecting to be implemented and the reason to adopt the extension)
 * Thanks.
 * PS: If the proposal passes as is, we will be getting people requesting admin flag only to participate on the quality classification. --Panic (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both Wikinews and http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/ use the Reader Feedback extension. Additional information on all the user groups is linked from the group names at Special:ListGrouprights.  You're going to want to look at Pseudo-bots.  For examples of filters we might implement, see w:Special:AbuseFilter.  – Adrignola talk 22:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added some to the text. One question does "Bureaucrats can add people to the Pseudo-bot group." need to be included in the proposal, isn't this an already established practice ? --Panic (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does need to be included. Currently bureaucrats can only remove admins from the pseudo-bot group, if they forget to take it off as part of their use of it.  For addition of the flag, that can only be done by admins, and only to themselves. I can vouch for this as a bureaucrat... – Adrignola talk 23:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you rewrite it as Reviewers (not all people)? I think that it keeps the intention you had when you added it to the sidebar or not ? --Panic (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've revised the wording on the page linked above to be more accurate on this. – Adrignola talk 23:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Made a small addition, see if it conforms.
 * Regarding the filters, no rule is established for the adoption process (this wasn't covered on the base proposal so it shouldn't be changed but needs to be addressed on the discussion for correction). Don't you think? --Panic (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "adoption process"? – Adrignola talk 23:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The extension and the filters are two separated items or they not? Don't the filters need some type of proposal/discussion/adoption process ? Or can we literally take that "edit filters and actions can be adjusted by administrators" without intervention from the rest of the community ? --Panic (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is correct. If an edit filter is intrusive to the community or in any way controversial, it's not created correctly. The only ones who should even notice it's been installed are the vandals. – Adrignola talk 23:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Made that clear, see if you agree or can reword it better. I will remove my objection to the adoption of the policy in a few moments. I'm going neutral just because I'm not comfortable with two aspects, granting admins the exclusive right to decide what constitutes feature material and the freedom granted to them regarding filters (it has also other implications since automation will put stress on other practices like user blocks for instance).  --Panic (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darklama didn't like that top level being limited either; if it might get your support maybe we should open it up and have it just be called "excellent". But then I don't see what the difference would be between "good" and "excellent" in practice, other than some metadata nobody sees.  With the top level locked you can have something similar to semi-protection with edits being allowed but screened by administrators due to changes to the page's stability settings.  That's where I'm coming from, but I suppose the scheme could be seen as elitist.  I'd like clarification on the filters, as I don't see what's objectionable.  Although, if you're looking for something to object to, you'd want to demand that the ability to create filters that automatically block be taken away. – Adrignola talk 00:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My issue is with the personal decision that would be behind that classification. I would support it if the use of that upper qualification was based on an open decision process. As for the filter I will mention that limitation but I fear that without proper scrutinizing the changes, there will be errors made able to have serious impact on the project, it also depends on how quickly we notice them and how we chose to resolve them.
 * Thanks for the help in making the proposed changes more understandable to all... --Panic (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * reset

I did a kick check, just to prevent putting my foot in my mouth and see if my assumption was correct, that all current Editor have undeniably advanced the project, and noticed User:BarkingFish why does this user belong on that group (Special:Contributions/BarkingFish) was it because of the account merge/rename. User User:Tmalmjursson is redirected there but has no contributions page. Why ? --Panic (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. User:Tmalmjursson was renamed User:BarkingFish and so the contributions associated with Tmalmjursson are now shown to be BarkingFish's. Thus User:Tmalmjursson no longer exists and has no contributions. – Adrignola talk 03:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How-come is he an editor ? (Deleted pages ?) --Panic (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He requested it. If you'd propose that in the future the inclusion of rollback with that group's rights would make it a more weighty decision as to add someone when requested, well, you'd be correct. – Adrignola talk 03:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that I'm missing something? In his edit logs there is no mention of the request and I just checked the archives of the Requests for permissions (and didn't noticed it). Since the rollback process will be automated there is no real purpose on making that point unless someone requests the tools before the automation kicks int (but that is the normal practice, since the bar is being also set a bit lower for the automation I doubt that without a proper reason people will be inclined to grant it, in recent requests support has decreased). --Panic (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I noticed it now on the user talk page. I really don't think the attribution of the flag was warranted and if similar promotions occurred (I didn't detect them on the editors) problems my arise. --Panic (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully I request that if you mention me somewhere, or decide to discuss me, Panic2k4, at least do me the courtesy of telling me, like you did with the RFP Access removal. I'd appreciate being kept in the loop. Thanks! Sorry to interrupt, Adrignola :) BarkingFish (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Find Current namespace
Hi again,
 * I want to know a way to find currently available namespaces Aliases names for a specific project.
 * Wikipedia:Namespace


 * I want to know how i can change Wikibooks: namespace to විකිපොත්:,
 * bugzilla? or betawiki or something else

pls reply in here

pls help බිඟුවා (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should I move Wikibooks: links to විකිපොත්: or just keep them as it is? බිඟුවා (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I got it.(that is fast.) Thanks. බිඟුවා (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User:BarkingFish
I've asked a question of you at WB:RFP. --Pi zero (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For signing my posts. I don't know why a bad nights sleep suddenly makes me forget the ~ key exists. Thenub314 (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's too bad it's difficult to get operators to run their bots cross-wiki. Then we could have Sinebot take care of it for you. – Adrignola talk 12:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Upload files page
Hi Adrignola,

I have an issue with uploading files in wikibooks. I have noticed that en wikibooks it redirects to Commons page. But in Sinhala wikiboooks it will remain in Sinhala project.


 * 1) Why it has redirects this to commons in En wikibooks (But it has own project page in en wikipedia )?
 * 2) Should we change the link in Sinhala wikibooks? if so then How?

Then I have another issue in upload page. But I would like to find some answers for these 2 questions first. Then I'll shoot them. pls reply in local talk page. Thank you!
 * බිඟුවා (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahaa... I have gone through your discussion. So it seems you have special users to upload images to en wikibooks. others should upload to commons. Yep, that seems a good idea. I'll start a discussion on local. May be this is the modification I should request in bugzilla.

$wgUploadNavigationUrl = 'http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload';
 * බිඟුවා (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Configuring Wikijunior pages
What's the fastest way to reconfigure all the pages on Wikijunior to display the most recent sighted version, once the overall flaggedrevs configuration changes? --Pi zero (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My initial plan is to go through Special:AllPages for the Wikijunior namespace. Given that you recently got adminship and probably haven't had to do it before, I'll just point out that the settings are available by clicking the protect tab, then the "page stability settings can be configured" link. That links to Special:Stabilization with the page specified as a target. I don't know if there's any way faster than that. – Adrignola talk 16:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be glad add some of my editing time to help with the cause. Can we start now or do we have to wait until the changes are rolled out? (Excuse me for butting in). Thenub314 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My talk page is open to all and because it is, the level of activity it sees is what justifies my archival settings. We could set "Stable version selection precedence" to "Latest pristine version; then latest quality one; then latest sighted one", and "Revision displayed on default page view" to "The stable version; if not present, then the latest revision". No need to wait. Special:ConfiguredPages can be used to track progress. – Adrignola talk 16:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving the setting "Revision displayed on default page view" on "Latest checked version" means there are no changes from (the current) default and the settings won't save. – Adrignola talk 16:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just observing that (by experiment). I take it that as long as there are any non-default settings for a page, none of its settings will change when the bugzilla request goes through.  So for now we're simply changing the selection-precedence, which will prevent the revision-displayed from changing then.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I just had some time today to help with this and I was wondering what the status was? Is it still ongoing? Thenub314 (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's anything left. Sorry about spoiling all the fun. – Adrignola talk 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose this is fun, but I'm still wondering how to check that we reconfigured all non-fully-protected templates that are used on Wikijunior. After we'd gone through Wikijunior space itself, I used Special:PrefixIndex to find templates starting with "Wikijunior", and we'd missed some of them.  Just now, I used it to find all templates starting with "WJ", and we'd missed some of them.  It's possible that we're not missing any others, but I wouldn't care to bet on it.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Help!
I tried to place Gold, Silver and Bronze between the articles about the regular colors and the Colored article (because that page is some sort of summary and normally those are placed at the end), but I failed to do it. Could you do it?

Ischa1 (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the layout, using the same type of display that was used for the existing colors. – Adrignola talk 15:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

wikisource or wikibooks
Hi Adrignola,

I need a help again(I always have Q for you). This question is related content of the article. This is what I have understood.

Wikibooks is not for original books. (like Ramayana.) Wikisource is the place for that. Wikisource and other Wikimedia projects
 * Is that correct?

If that is Correct, we have lots of original books have uploaded into sinhala Wikibooks ( සන්දේශ කාව්‍ය) I think, that happened just because no one to guide or to help for new comers. And we don't have our own Wikisource project (Sinhala). So new comers may upload original books into Wikibooks. However that has happened. Now it is the time to solve this problem.

My Questions:
 * 1) Is that my idea is correct?
 * 2) How can we start our own Wikisource project? (I have gone through Handbook. is that OK to create a new request without any reference or something else?)
 * 3) Can I upload Sinhala content into en.Wikisource ?

pls reply in local talk page.

Thank you! බිඟුවා (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is some Interesting thing to tell you about our language & nation. We have a great history you might know about Load Buddha & Buddhism. Also there are lots of books (they are really not books) written in palm leaves, related to Buddhism & our nation. Those books can be found in most of the temple. Those books contain the real History. But they have never ever published as a book. So now we want to upload these contents to wiki projects. this is the real issue we had. pls guide us. Since they are written by some one it is not match with Wikibooks project. Could you please tell me which is the better place/project for this?
 * pls reply in local talk page. බිඟුවා (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. And it seems those kind of things should move with Wikisource since they are really old. I'll continue with Billinghurst for new Wikisource project for sinhala. But I'll catch you if i got any trouble. (you have higher rank in my wiki help list always.) බිඟුවා (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries
In reply to the comment at my talk page I wanted to let you know I am in no way upset/annoyed/etc. with you. Who could fault you for being efficient? I only pointed out that it merging stopped short any discussion so we could in the future maybe we could avoid it.

This is why I held off on merging Happiness with Positive Psychology when the idea occurred to me. I figured if someone wanted to delete it, they might not be pleased with a merge. And as it turned out Kayau's did not agree this was acceptable. (By the same token I never pointed out to Panic at his talk page that he never replied to my request for comment on that RfD. Since I would see this as a type of vote gathering that I objected to in the reconfiguration discussion.)

But I just need to stop speaking to people for a while, every discussion I have been involved in lately has been a complete mess. Even deleting a page that contained at most two sentences on a book where I felt I was the only very active contributor was a mess. My attempts to start a discussion on the role of external references, both at Wikibooks talk:Original research and in the reading room have (as predicted) not really lead to any fruitful discussion. Just another point to see where my opinion differs significantly from the community's.

Thanks for all the good advice, I am sorry if I have been bringing in a dark cloud over the conversations I take part in. I'll try to knock it off. Thenub314 (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that would explain your resolution to stop taking part in reading room conversations. I have to say that I think that's unfortunate.  Your opinion is valued.  I don't want Xania's comments about people's opinions being suppressed to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Far better for you to comment on something and disagree with me or anyone else than to not speak up at all.  – Adrignola talk 12:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if I have something important to say I don't think I could really stop myself. But I think what I once perceive  as discussing is really not how I come across.  By providing what I see as the best reasoned defense of my position, and attempts to debate rebuttals, etc.  I only manage to come across as harsh and as Panic says I "imposing [my] view point on others".  I think it is more this superfluous type of discussion I will try to avoid, just for a little while anyways.  FWIW I also disagree with Xania on this point, and as I said, if there is something I see as important, I will make myself heard. Thenub314 (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Userbox
Hey, the userbox template is a high impact page, you can't just delete stuff like that. Arlen22 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. I've merged the history in and updated the documentation.  That provides attribution to the original authors at Wikipedia and documents all the parameters in the template and shows all the possibilities through examples. – Adrignola talk 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just recently I had transparently added a notes section, and this is now missing. Sorry, I thought you knew what I meant. Also, are you sure total protection isn't too strong? Arlen22 (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Arlen22 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just saw that. I've added it back in.  Sorry about that.  It seems likely to be a target for vandalism.  With it used on hundreds of userpages, I can't think of an easier way to vandalize people's personal pages in one fell swoop. – Adrignola talk 14:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What about semiprotection? Arlen22 (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. – Adrignola talk 15:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you disagree ?
A transwiki in general terms is not a move, but a copy. In the specific context of a RfD it doesn't guarantee acceptance at the destination, and in fact the content of RfDs closed as delete and transwiki hasn't the same value. To what you disagree on this facts ? --Panic (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My point being that it is of benefit to the project to have valid but unuseful content (that can even be a temporal situation) rightly classified as we close discussions as transwiki and to explain to participants the difference. --Panic (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether I agree or disagree wasn't really the issue. That box is for explaining the usage of a template on the page and not for anything of a larger scope than that.  If you wish to clarify what each of those positions means, I would suggest that the text area under the "requests for deletion" heading would be the place to do that.  Keeping things simple in the box also restricts them each to one line. – Adrignola talk 18:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So I was making clear that it was not a move (no assurance of sucess and that the content would be safe) and the distinction between a delete and a transwiki in relation to the value of the content, why the reversal ? --Panic (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your wording altered the context of the box from one of objectivity to one where conventions are defined, and did so on a transcluded subpage that will not be watched by others but yet will set the tone for anyone reading it on the page transcluding it. The box is a demonstration of syntax with only the briefest mention of what situation the syntax applies to.  If you desire to more fully flesh out each of those situations, the small compact box is not the place for that.  The text under the heading could be expanded or Deletion policy could be fleshed out. – Adrignola talk 18:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, but will move it for a proposal to change the icon name, and for the clarification of the position taken on the RfD. --Panic (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Help - Upload file message issue
Hi,

This is an issue related upload files in Sinhala Wikibooks. (I always here with problems. sorry for that). Here is the problem.

See the different between these 2 links.


 * Upload file in Sinhala
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload -->my own work

Have you noticed that Licensing: Drop down box. In english it has several values (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, Public domain...). But in Sinhala only have one Selected state. Do you have any idea about this? Where to report this Error? pls reply in local talk page. --බිඟුවා (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a clean cut you have given. But Only problem is that we don't have any admins. However I know what to do. Thanks for the help. බිඟුවා (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Bug in" What Links here"?
I was looking at the list of orphans you pointed out to me I at Talk:Drugs:Fact and Fiction and I am rather puzzled. For example if you look at Drugs:Fact and Fiction/Stimulants then you see right away links to "Kratom", "Khat", "Caffine", all of which show as the only thing that links to them is the Talk:Drugs:Fact and Fiction. Is this a bug or is there some point I am missing? Thenub314 (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A bug in the same way that if you move a book and all its subpages, they will not be categorized into the new book name's category using BookCat until you null edit each of the pages in turn. Null editing the Stimulants page corrected the listing of what linked to those pages.  I updated the list of orphans to reflect your finding. – Adrignola talk 15:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to know, a few of the other pages are also linked, but I will sort it out. Thanks! Thenub314 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Bug 24304
Shall we put Bug 24304 up to highest priority? Arlen22 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the most we can do is vote for it. Highest priority is for something that breaks the software.  Our request type is always filed under Wikimedia and given priority "enhancement", which is not a high priority.  While it could be months before they get to it, such is life and we must have patience.  Rob Halsell is often the one assigned these types of bugs, but I don't want to step on anyone's shoes and assign it to him myself. – Adrignola talk 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 2 fields, one says Normal, the other says Enhancement. Why don't we change normal to highest? Arlen22 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, feel free. – Adrignola talk 17:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is assigned, I don't know if it helped or not, nor if that means we will get it in the next week or two. How long does it usually take After it is assigned? Arlen22 (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It can depend entirely on the developer's workload. It's better now that it's in someone's queue instead of in limbo, but we won't have any idea how soon it will be done. – Adrignola talk 13:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

About the images rationales
I notice that Orderud has only a warning about 1 file, there seems to be 4 images from him on the category. I never wrote a rational for an image, can any one one provide it for other people's images? Do you remember work that uses this type of images (proprietary software) so I can see how the rational is applied ? Thanks. --Panic (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I only placed one notice, but that notice links to the user's uploads as well as the category with images missing rationales, so it works for them all. You certainly can justify anyone's uploads. You can see the syntax at Templates/Files and an example at File:Fx-tutorial-06.png. – Adrignola talk 23:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since anyone can justify a picture use, do you have any idea on the amount (few, some or lots) of images, that were in use, have been deleted by this requirement?
 * I'll take a look. But if it falls within what I'm expecting the requirement doesn't seem to serve any real purpose, only on a very extremely complex use that I can't envision on the Wikibooks would there be a problem of anyone providing one. I did participate on the WB:MEDIA discussion but don't remember the issues behind this point.
 * I also take this chance retract my position and admit that a post of yours at WB::RR/AA jolted my memory about I having expressed opposition against the creation of Wikibooks:CVU badge. I've attempted to find it but couldn't, it should have been in the archives of the old discussion area. IIRC it was about it artificially creating a stratification of the community since the functions performed by members of that "cast" are expected to be done by all Wikibookians as per policy enforcement and guideline fallowed, something on these lines.  --Panic (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not an insignificant amount of images that have been deleted. If you'd like to start discussion at WB:MEDIA on allowing for liability via hosting copyrighted images with no rationale for fair use, that's your prerogative. – Adrignola talk 00:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can only do a few things at a time :), but I'll put it on my todo list, take a look at File:Visual studio additionaldependencies.png I can provide the same just and fair rational to all images with it (I would agree that the image must be in use and context for it to be valid). It also seems that the indicated template was changed to include the dreaded "module" word (but not the examples), since images are attached to book (especially this type of images), I don't see a usefulness to indicate pages (increase of maintenance work). --Panic (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Indicating the page shows where it was intended to be used. These files should only be used on one page each, otherwise they violate fair use.  Specifying the page lets others know which pages would be the offending one if "what links here" goes to more than one page. – Adrignola talk 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what you are saying regarding a violation of a the fair use (for instance if an image is used out of context, the fair use rational loses value). Does the template supports adding more than one "active uses" of the image ?
 * This creates another gray area since Wikibooks (the project) is considered an aggregation of independent works the inclusion of one good rational can be sufficient to justify any other use.
 * Besides the problem created by the requirement for the rational has anyone caused issues about a fair use image on the project, in a non-preemptive way, as in a copyright holder or in a way of clear abuse of the image of a product ? I haven't dealt with images issues here besides the WB:MEDIA and a support for the move to Commons...  --Panic (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If it must be used in more than one location, a second non-free use rationale must be added to justify the second use. I know you'll probably find that repulsive in terms of extra work, but this all is to protect against legal liability.  It boils down to the fact that we really should not be using these images, but we can justify it if they are low resolution, do not cause financial impact, and are used in as few locations as possible in cases where the subject could not be illustrated otherwise. – Adrignola talk 03:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is not much as a repulsion but lack of knowledge as I think I have since I'm contributing to the project only uploaded 3 images here, I have always preferred using commons from the start and I never faced a need to upload a fair use image (not a particular requirement on the books I work on), and the practice you describe (providing each of the multiple locations of the use of an image) I don't think (I don't remember but haven't checked) were described on the WB:MEDIA. But I appreciate you taking the time elucidate me on that regard. I'll try to keep a eye on that category, since most deletions seem avoidable and we can even avoid bothering the original unloader since the subject is confusing and anyone can do the task most of the time.  --Panic (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the dates but I presume that all new Wikibookians with the upload flag understand this issue and have avoided the accumulation of work there. Do we have a bot the verifies the uses of the images against the "what links here" list to make sure all uses have a distinct rational ? --Panic (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't. I'd be interested in an anti-vandalism bot and an automatic signature bot as well, but I don't think anyone operating them at Wikipedia is interested in running them elsewhere. – Adrignola talk 04:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * TPS: I have tried to make a request to SineBot's owner, but the user has archived the request without answering. Perhaps somebody here can programme a bot to do this? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 04:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is one issue that could be helped by making our necessities more visible, some type of bot wish-list discussion page, I remember having already discussed the lack of a bot issue before with you, but even if we have in-house people that can run them or adapt already available implementations they may not be aware of the needs or the resources already available to create the bots. I remember doing some research last time we talked about it but the information seems to be very disperse. --Panic (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reorganizing archives
I have a few suggestions, since you seem motivated to make changes to the archives:


 * How about giving each past requests for permission its own subpage? For example Wikibooks:Requests for permission/Administrators/Adrignola. That would make it easier to find and keep track of previous discussions just like with requests for deletion.
 * RFD has some numbered archives left over that could really use being split apart to use a consistent naming system for past discussions.
 * I think Archives should be kept in page names where archives only divided up by year, month, etc. because PrefixIndex can be used to return all Archives or just archives from a specific timeframe, while without Archives in the name, people can not find all archives at once.

Also could you please use the flood flag while you are reorganizing the archives? I can't keep track of other changes in the Wikibooks namespace while your doing that without the flood flag. --dark lama  17:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do plan to do the RFDs too. You read my mind.  You can see how I'm doing things at Reading room/Archives.  I was doing it by date, but I can switch to by user instead.  I'll have to add some indicators such as (+Editor) or (-Editor) to some headings to indicate whether it's a removal or addition and what position (old discussions indicated removal or addition and position with many headings).  That will mean that you can't use a PrefixIndex at the above page to search by date, but it's probably more useful by person. If you include the trailing slash when using PrefixIndex like I am on the above page, you can get the dated archives.  Sorry about the flooding.  I worry that people will think I'm not being transparent if I use pseudo-bot too often.  I've hidden my edits and not much is really going on today. I'll assign the pseudo-bot flag when I resume.


 * Actually, do you want it /Username with all assignments and removals on that page or do you really want it broken down by position and user in the path? – Adrignola talk 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there are many ways that discussions could be broken down. People might want to look into why there was support or opposition to give a person certain tools to understand what has changed for new discussions, just as people do for books that have been brought up for deletion before. I wasn't suggesting to separate assignment and removal of tools. I think all discussion concerning a tool for a user should be archived together, not all discussions (will) end with assignment or removal happening. I think what is likely to be more important to users is understanding why there was support or opposition before and what has changed now. People can support or oppose giving one tool, but feel the opposite for another tool, so groups seems like a good point to break up a discussion to me. Further dividing discussion up by assignment or removal doesn't make since to me. --dark lama  18:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't meaning to break it up by assignment or removal in the path. But to me it would be simpler to have it be organized like /Username rather than /Position/Username, as all of a person's rights change discussions would be on the same page.  That would also cut down on the number of archive pages created.   It would also simplify any templates that might automatically point to a person's rights change discussions. – Adrignola talk 21:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well besides what I've pointed out already as to why by group than by user might be useful, I guess it doesn't really mater right now. If /Username archives become too big than by groups could always be added to the mix later. --dark lama  21:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to remove the flood flag when your done. Just a reminder, because I noticed you were editing other pages that you probably didn't intend to edit with the flood flag still on. --dark lama  05:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Looks like I've found another bug. Watchlist showed when you added the flood group, but not when you removed it. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  05:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * <TPS>It appears on my watchlist. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 08:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just weird. Still isn't on my watchlist. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not entirely a bug. Basically the pseudo-bot flag hid the rights change action as part of its final effect before being turned off.  Darklama, check to see if you're hiding bot actions on your watchlist. – Adrignola talk 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that I am. Still seems like a bug to show one, but not the other though. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  17:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if old requests for permissions were broken up by user, instead of by date, that would make it impossible to reconstruct how project standards have evolved over time. Which seems to me to be of more vital long-term interest to the project than being able to rapidly conjure up all the records for a particular user. Organizing by date facilitates studying the overall trends, and it's still possible to dig up all the records for a user if necessary.

So it seems to me RFP archives really should be kept by date. (Unless there's a way to do both without guaranteeing that eventually there will be mistakes made and the two versions of history will be inconsistent with each other.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One solution might be to have a page to keep track of when a discussion happened, adding to the bottom of the list a link to the last archived discussion. Something like "* Adrignola nominated for adminship May 17 2009." Like you said though mistakes could be made or isn't kept up with. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  17:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi
What do I have to do to become an editor here? Thanks. Diego Grez (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You just do what you're already doing. Anyone can edit at Wikibooks.  If you are referencing the revision review system, you will gain what is current called "editor" status (soon to be called "reviewer") automatically after a period of time editing (be sure to use edit summaries, as that is one of the requirements). – Adrignola talk 16:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Thanks again. Diego Grez (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bicycles/Maintenance and Repair/Derailleurs/Rear Derailleur Adjustment
I corrected some serious issues with this article (it's good overall though), but my edit does not show the full page on my screen after I saved the review version (I'm using Google Chrome on XP). In particular, the Introduction section seems to have disappeared. I reloaded the page, reverted the edits, logged in and out and back in, logged out of my machine and back in again etc, nothing has worked. I noticed that you checked my edits (made before I realised I could log-in). Did the Introduction and all other sections show ok on your screen? Centrepull (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome! You had a link using the external link syntax with a single [ rather than two ( Adrignola talk 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I fixed the several small inaccuracies etc in the article, you fixed the major mess-up I made with my edit. As we sey inna Jamaica: 'nice an' smooth!' Centrepull (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving pages in Abstract Algebra/Groups
Hi, Adrignola. Thank you for reviewing my editing on the Groups section of "Abstract Algebra" Since I made some mistakes in naming, I hesitate to start cross-linking. I then have 2 questions:


 * 1. Can mediawiki automatically fix broken links if I rename a page after I do the cross-linking?
 * 2. If not, is it possible to allow me to rename within the section? I can't wait to start cross-linking theorems in the section.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydye001 (discuss • contribs)


 * You are quite welcome. The software will not automatically fix broken links and we do not have any bots doing that for us here.  It's all done by hand, usually by editors or administrators.  If you have to move a page twice, you can click "what links here" in the toolbox at the lower left to see which pages are pointing to the old location of the page you just moved.  You will then be able to correct those links to point to the correct location.  If you are having trouble with a specific page, just let me know and I'll take a look. – Adrignola talk 00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to ask again. Can I be added to the conform group?

I am a new user, and certainly not a vandal. For the past four days, I waited patiently and mostly wish to give proper names to pages before I start cross-linking them. Thank you for your time. Arydye001 (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot add anyone to the confirmed users list. The only way to move pages is to be autoconfirmed.  Looking at your account, you will be automatically confirmed at 03:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC).  The current time is 03:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC).  So you've got about five minutes.  I can also move pages for you.  All you have to do is ask and I'll be happy to assist. – Adrignola talk 03:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice the move button finally appear. Thank you very much! Arydye001 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikikunior:Religions
I was surprised that you did a history merge of WJ:Religions into WJ:World Religions. There's no harm done, in this case, since I know enough to simply redirect the link from the talk page to point to the appropriate revision &mdash; but the content merge (whatever than might be) hadn't taken place yet, which is why the templates were mergefrom/mergeto rather than now merged. --Pi zero (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I merged the content. I added the additional religions that were not present on WJ:World Religions to the contents page.  They are the ones that are red linked on that page right now.  There were no subpages to bring in. I'm not that daft. – Adrignola talk 16:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah! I see where I disconnected on this &mdash; I'd had my eye particularly on a different aspect of the content.  Apparently very narrowly focused on it, in fact.  Thanks for the clarification.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Import thingy
The thing I had copied can be found at simple:wikipedia:Biographies of Famous Americans, and the Wikibooks page is Wikijunior:Famous Americans Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about user rights
If you have less than 100 edits, can you apply for editor privileges? Having to have my edits reviewed is kind of a drag, especially since I have review rights on Wikipedia Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can request them at WB:RFP and if the community is in favor of it, you can certainly get editor privileges assigned. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that people don't usually take editing on other wikis into account, simply because Wikibooks has a style, environment, and guidelines unique to itself.  As a result, they might want to wait and see.  Not because they don't trust you, but simply because we would want to be reminded to review your edits and see if there's any areas you might need guidance with.  If you at some point feel comfortable here, you can go ahead and request it on the above page.  Also, until we get our wiki configured, edits in the Wikijunior namespace don't count toward autopromotion to editor.  If you are primarily editing there, then you will need to request the bit. – Adrignola talk 22:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests
I cannot delete those C & C++ X pages you have marked for speedy deletion as they are still in use. The links to them must be pointed to equivalent content. – Adrignola talk 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok sorry, since the TOC will probably be deleted, didn't change it. Didn't even saw the what links there, wait for me to finish the merge it will save us some work. Ignore for now any tag on that namespace.  --Panic (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok I think it is finished, there are some userspace link but seems to be the creator, since he didn't participate on the discussion, and the watchlist is updated with the moves (no real merges done. It is up to you if you see a need for any action on that regard... --Panic (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One question, why isn't the ending summary displayed in the print version of the book chapters (chapter1) ? --Panic (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of the . Any fix ?  --Panic (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be because of <small ></small>. I played with it but couldn't get it to appear, even using regular HTML instead of wikisyntax and without the small tags. – Adrignola talk 00:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved discussion here so you don't forget about the deletions. Will post something about the summary on the more general location.... --Panic (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try the new stage it is a bit more flashy but removes the need for a subtitle and is easier to maintain, it may take a bit to adapt, but lets see if anyone makes any comment. Thanks for the fixing the template. --Panic (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have to provide a date with stage short either; it's optional. And in fact it's easier to maintain in that you only have to boost it when the content changes by 25%, rather than whenever the content changes by 10%. – Adrignola talk 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice?
Hi, could you take look at this question and advise? Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighblackall (discuss • contribs)
 * Sure. – Adrignola talk 12:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work
Nice work with Template:Lorem ipsum (though a bit complicated). I thought a short version, a medium version and a long one would be fine! 23:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's actually the work of people whose edits were brought in via the history import. But this is why I've made an effort to update templates in terms of features and documentation.  Many were getting left behind the equivalent versions at Wikipedia and limiting our possibilities. – Adrignola talk 00:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

sister templates
I hadn't even noticed, until you did Template:Wikipedia that's on my watchlist, that you've drastically changed the appearances of the sister templates. Did I miss a major community discussion about trashing the Wikibooks house style? As far as I can tell you also did history merges of the old, thoughtfully formatted templates whose appearances books relied on (and have now been betrayed by) with the inconsistent alien imports. Common sense should have led you not to change the appearance simply based on the fact that it would screw over all books that expected the old appearance. Even with consensus of the small number of us who deal with project-wide issues, if we were going to import the alien templates with their names unchanged, the old templates should have been renamed and, frankly, all pages that used them modified to use the new names before importing the aliens. History merges of lovingly crafted Wikibooks-style templates with templates in an incompatible tradition is close to vandalism. What on Earth were you thinking? --Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I brought in additional sister project templates quite some time ago and wanted consistency in style. I would appreciate less hyperbole as it was a simple tweak to return to the old formatting.  And it is a side box and the minor formatting change is not equivalent to vandalism.  I really do not appreciate that tone.  You could simply have stated that you did not like the new formatting and I would have returned it to the previous, just as I have now. – Adrignola talk 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I did not compare the formatting change to vandalism, and what I did compare I did not allege to be equivalent.


 * That said, I do think that the overall tone of my above post was quite unnecessarily abrasive, for which I apologize. When I reached the limits of how much improvement could be achieved by revision at the time (for whatever reason), I should have rejected it entirely, walked away, and come back later and tried again.  The templates would have waited patiently.


 * There is a subtle discrepancy with the former behavior of the templates, which I hope to have time to investigate later. The observed effect is that the templates have vertical space between them when stacked, as in the example I linked earlier, HyperText Markup Language.  (Does that sound familiar?  I think we may have encountered the same effect at the time of the decoupling of mbox-side.)  --Pi zero (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you at Group Theory
<font color = DarkOrange>Thank you very much for deleting unused pages at Abstract Algebra/Group Theory. Arydye001 (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I try to provide support so that you can focus on content creation.  It's important that I justify my existence. – Adrignola talk 02:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the blender photos to the commons!
I'll keep putting the ones I find on wikibooks into the blender 3d screenshots category, feel free to move em to the commmons and delete the category as you have time. thanks again for you assistance :) Pearts (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. There's about 8,000 free files left to push to Commons, so every bit helps.  – Adrignola talk 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)