User talk:Adrignola/2012

Introductory Chemistry Online
Hi - I requested that this content be deleted last year... it was, and now it has re-appeared. I am having problems with the copyright clearance on some of this and so I really wanted it to disappear.

Thanks... AskTheNerd


 * Please elaborate on your request. It was restored because it was said to be valuable to many people.  See User talk:Adrignola/Notes. – Adrignola discuss 23:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

hi
at the begining of using commons I can't understand the policies!! now I am very informative about it. I've been blocked since months!! I want to ask you to unblock me. thanks in advance.

--Neogeolegend (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now unblocked your account. I look forward to excellent contributions from you at Commons in the future, be they files or assisting others. – Adrignola discuss 14:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a chance
Could you take a look at this please? I doubt you can see anything using the CU but I'd also welcome your views on next steps as this kind of stuff (probably) comes up more on Commons. Thanks QU TalkQu 13:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the vandalism help and for the full protection of my user page. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Sleepisfortheweak local image uploads
I was going to talk to the Wikibookian but may have missed something, is there a reason why his images did not get moved to Commons ? (2008, public domain) --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the thing is that any of the locally uploaded images prior to the permissions change have to be moved over by hand. I had pushed over many images, but we have several thousand to go and the tool I've used has become slower and less reliable (CommonsHelper).  Plus, I have to be able to identify any images for categorization and also verify their copyright status before doing so.  I hadn't done a good job of the latter when I first started, but now that I'm an admin on Commons I should "know better" so I can't do slipshod work (so that adds additional time).  If you want me to prioritize that particular image or all his uploads (or any others), I can direct an effort toward them in particular. – Adrignola discuss 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ho, I had thought that all had been moved, since I remember the long effort you made into that task and had not noticed any more activity in that area for a while. My attention was called to these images because some activity took place in one of these file description. I then looked at the user page and noticed your post, and so thought that licensing issues may have forced you to disregard them...
 * I do not think that the work must be prioritized, since the recent activity was vandalism. Thanks for the clarification. Can't the new inter-project admins give an helping hand in finishing off the task ? We could extend their capability into that field if useful. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Global sysops are only for anti-vandalism. They could choose to import images to Commons but their only permitted action following that would be to tag for deletion here or mark with nowcommons, not actually delete.  Even if we all agreed to expand their scope, it is unlikely they'd remember more permissive rules at Wikibooks or be interested in working in that area.  (Take a look at the large numbers of images at Wikipedia that ought to be at Commons, for instance.) – Adrignola discuss 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's images
Concerning what you said in the above thread and since I do not have a presence at Wikipedia. Has Wikipedia implemented a policy in relation to images, similar to ours ? Can our transwiki requests be extended to include a move of the article's images to commons ? I ask this questions because I was editing a wikibook that referenced another, the Lord of the Flies (BTW this project would benefit from a name change to something like Lord of the Flies Annotated) in any case I noted that the content of that project lacks basic information that is present at Lord of the Flies including the book cover image (that is local to Wikipedia)... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That book cover image is non-free and cannot be uploaded to Commons. You'd have to upload a local copy here with a fair use rationale.  Wikipedia does not have a policy similar to ours beyond non-free image use.  They still allow free files to be uploaded locally, making additional work for people having to move free images a second time over to Commons, rather than risk losing any editors whatsoever due to the inconvenience of having to apply for permission to upload non-free files locally (despite the need to understand the rules that go along with that). – Adrignola discuss 05:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

MiszaBot
Is it known why MiszaBot suddenly kicked back in here a couple of days ago? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 07:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Should I assume that you believe that to be a good thing? The reason is that I unblocked the bot.  Now, keep in mind that the bot was performing actions in the last year.  However, the [ block log] seems to indicate that it was blocked indefinitely since 2007.  I cannot explain how the bot was able to edit prior to its stoppage in October or why the block didn't take effect until then. – Adrignola discuss 14:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The block was applied to MiszaBot on 26 March 2007 as it was a vandal account created to impersonate the real MiszaBot (this is pre SUL so it was possible to create the account here separately). The vandal MiszaBot was renamed to a more appropriate name ("BLOCKED VANDAL 001") on 7 October 2007. Then a new account called MiszaBot was created on the same day. This is why it was able to operate between October 2007 and September 2011 despite appearing from the block log to be blocked - the entry in the block log referring to the now renamed account. Why it then stopped on 3 October 2011 is more of a mystery. There doesn't appear to be any block (either IP or account) locally or globally to explain it although shortly afterwards (on 13 October) it was blocked on en.wp as malfunctioning and remains blocked there. QU TalkQu 15:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It stopped functioning on Wikinews at, I think, the same time it stopped here, and I've been meaning to look into why (but not getting around to it, of course).  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Archives / Semi-protection
Can't all archives be put on semi-protection. Since archives aren't meant to be general edited, protecting them only to be changed by registered users seems straight forward. (prompted by this edit) --Panic (discuss • contribs) 08:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I think a title blacklist entry should do it for the main archives. – Adrignola discuss 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * May have to use an edit filter, as the title blacklist only can restrict non-autoconfirmed on upload/create/move (but not edit). Unless you'd have no problem with admins being the only ones to edit archives? – Adrignola discuss 14:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't see it becoming an issue, most archives are now topic dependent in general areas, the others are maintained by bots (will that be an issue?). Anyone wanting to do it will only have to ask for an administrative action. I rarely do any edit of archives since the bots are working properly... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point on the bots. That means an edit filter will be the way to go.  Special:AbuseFilter/36 takes care of it. – Adrignola discuss 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading room/Technical Assistance
Where are the archives ? Reading room/Archives. I was looking into a discussion I had with Darklama about the unsigned posts templates... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is where the archives are. For that forum specifically, it's anything seen at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikibooks:Reading_room/Archives/ (the "other" link on the aforementioned page).  You can use the search box on Reading room for a targeted search.  Also, if you edit a discussion page in full, you can see the target archive destination programmed in for MiszaBot at the top of the page. – Adrignola discuss 13:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, txs found it. I got lost on the multiple rooms :) and had started looking into the archives for the thread. I have replied to your post there, I see all the proposed changes beneficial (the click on the IP seems a mater of adaptability, removing information hiding and stick to convention) in any case see what I wrote and say something there... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories
About two years ago, you mentioned that the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter no longer fit into any category since the Annotated Texts category had been removed. I haven't been watching what happened since, but is there a possibility that a sub-category of Literature, possibly Literary Study Guides, could be created, and the Muggles' Guide put there? If I ever have the time to pick up editing it again, the Chronicles of Narnia likely belongs in there also. Chazz (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at the current time I'm pretty satisfied with how it's divided into genres and novels/poems at this point. That breaks it down into the type of literature you're interested in and most books here dealing with literature would be study guides in nature, whether they do it through annotations or other analyses.  Certainly it's open to discussion or other suggestions.  It just seems like a study guides category would be too all-inclusive.  – Adrignola discuss 18:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Request features
There are books written mainly by 1 or several authors. These authors normally create an 'authors' page for their book and put their names there. But how can it be sure that this page is protected? In other words, how can these main authors keep their names credited?

I suggest we should have another namespace, call it 'Author' or something like that, together with namespace 'Main' and 'Talk'. Pages of this namespace should be protected, only administrators or ones with enough privilege can edit. Once having enough evidence, the administrator can list the main authors of that book on the page.


 * You'd be best advised to suggest this at Reading room/Proposals, so that others can voice their opinions on it. That said, any page in any namespace can be protected such that only administrators can edit it, including authors pages within books in the main namespace.  So a new namespace wouldn't necessary be necessary to fulfill your proposal's goals. – Adrignola discuss 16:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Adrignola, I understand what you mean. Normally, the authors make a subpage named 'Authors' to their book and put its link in the first page (for example, in the Table of Contents). Of course the first page of that book is not protected, so anyone can delete that link (delete a link, not a page), make a new subpage and link to that! A new namespace next to the Talk namespace of the book can achieve 2 goals: its 'link' to the book can not be deleted, and its content can not be changed, until the administrators think there's enough evidence to do so.

De-admin Stuff
I guess you read the discussion at meta re. Swift. I'm going to draft up a tighter policy on "low activity" and "no activity". There have been a couple of recent issues with imprecise policies - there was one at RfD and one re. the validity of votes for Checkuser elections - that mean we're going to need to be tighter. All a bit irritating and "Wikipedia-like" for me. QU TalkQu 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's somewhat inevitable that over time things would become increasingly bureaucratic. The process is just far slower at Wikibooks due to the slower growth of the user base.  CheckUser in particular involves individuals assigning permissions that are largely coming from a world defined by Wikipedia.  Thus they more often than not expect things to be done a certain way or within certain constraints. For what it's worth, I believe the policy was interpreted correctly&mdash;no admin activity in the last year, no edits in the last month and fewer than 20 edits in the last year if you wanted to be lenient.  I don't see where Snowolf should have issue. – Adrignola discuss 16:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see why it is challenging as the policy is a bit wordy and not entirely clear. I was reluctant to even propose the de-admin actually as it is another nail in the independence of this project. Reece is likely to go the same way soon and then we'll be down to nine admins of whom only four are really active and of these there's really only you and me who do anything outside of the vandalism and interface edits (i.e., imports, history merges, broken redirect removal, speedy deletions tagged by another editor). I don't mind doing the work but it's this that in a way threatens the project more than the vandalism. The global sysops will help with the vandalism but when there's a massive backlog of imports, featured book nominations, RfDs, protected edit requests, stability setting, etc., to do then editors will give up and assume the project is dead. The featured book piece is particularly reprehensible. We propose stuff as featured, comments are made but nobody tries to improve the books and nobody ever closes the nominations. Doesn't do much to promote WB as an active project really. Anyway, enough moaning! QU TalkQu 16:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Reversion and page protection
Can you please revert the cover/toc of C++ Programming and protect the page from editing (not long) but to prevent a reversion war against the user that has become increasingly disruptive. I'm always open to dialog but when people are not able to deal rationally with anyone opposing their views and deal with negative outcomes (or work toward a middle ground), respecting or at least acknowledging that other people have dedicated much time and effort to be able to create something useful is extremely vexing. I do not particularly mind the changes he made to the talk-pages they indeed have not much movement, even if it erodes my attempts to centralize and establish a better organized community since that particular book project is extremely ambitious and requires continued care. I'm asking this of you, since you at least have a passing understanding of what the history is around that work and seeing someone dedicating so much effort again to bring back past events that have already been resolved between those involved in them is extremely corrosive to my character and even to the point of calumny. I do not believe that those actions are merely a result of misinformation or lack of understanding but I was immediately put aback when the fist edits start by acting establish format and what I took as a direct disrespect for the effort, this soon fallowed by an attempt to call me out on any deficiency I may have with the English language on my talk. I have examined the users contributions since we ultimately are what we do on the project I do not see any similar disruptions even if the user has dedicated himself to aesthetics in his contributions (by the edit comments). I do not have the inclination to spend again endless time fighting someone out to cause me to lose my patience... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When I first read your message I thought we were talking about something on the level of the competing tables of contents before, with massively different structures for organizing the content. Yet all it is is just alterations to the formatting of the title and a phrase in the introduction.  Take a deep breath.  Boil it down and you should hopefully see that these are not major changes and so, while I have confidence you guys can work things out, even if the current version were to stand, it's not a big deal.  While nobody owns books here, I know it's intimidating to have people come in and start proposing/implementing changes after you've spent so much time tweaking everything to your liking.  I'm reminded of the above image, though.  I really have to take more of a role of an arbiter here and not involve myself in content disputes. – Adrignola discuss 02:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I respect and understand the position but I do not find it useful for simple edit conflict situations. I also see as positive an obligatory period of timeout but it should be enshrined in a established procedure towards a definite conclusion. This to some point has to deal with the Be Bold policy (that I and Darklama) have meet in the middle, working from distinct poles, and has the approval of the community but still a mostly uncommitted attempt to solve revision warring. That allied with the common decision process should empower the validity of the status quo facing any objection to changes.
 * The issue in this particular case is not grave as you said but if an editor was persistently working on a single project this type of ill will interference is extremely disruptive especially if pursued at multiple levels (like in this case), it can even be seen as antisocial, it can only be seen as negative to both parties assuming that both are working in good faith but the blame should also be clearly attributed to the initiator. Of course that other factors enter in the equation like for instance the time that the target of the alteration was contested, but it should be clear that this is not a matter of editorial control but of mutual respect and recognition for the work of others and their attachment to the subject under discussion.
 * I have been in both sides of the equation, the first time as the one wanting to make alterations leading to the "fork" the second as the one attempting to block alterations, leading to the clash with Darklama (that had several multiple layers of discord, that to my view started when I opposed the attribution of his admin flag), all water under the bridge but to clarify that non-involvement and lack of clear procedures (or their implementation) was always the path to further complications.
 * I do not clearly know why specifically the C++ Programming work attracts such problems, I haven't seen other works generate such edit conflicts (if it happened constantly with me globally then I was clearly a major variable) but I have multiple works going on, for instance the Hypnosis or the one on P2P are also extensive in size and never had this problems. My only view is that like in many other thing humans are attracted for what others give attentions to. Like a kid that has a multitude of books to use but will fight with another over the particular book that other kid selected to read (variations include telling the ending or cause distraction :), childish things we all have done for curiosity, need of inclusion or attention, testing of limits or show of dominance).
 * When I format or edit works that I do not have a commitment I always respect those that have been previously working on them and if I disagree I may enter dialog but ultimately respect their right to block, revert my changes. Am I wrong to expect the same courtesy from others ? Is this not the best approach and one that we should foster ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The user seems also to have unfounded ideas regarding the common practice of managing talk pages, in regards to archiving or removal of ended threads (or when to define an issue as closed). You may try to help him understand the issue since I doubt that he will be open to any attempt I make to elucidate him in that regard. I do not clearly understand his motives but that seems to be something that he sees me acting in bad faith, that allied with reading old discussions may have set the mood for the ongoing activity. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I will have to take a look at the talk page in more detail. I will say that it's probably best to leave some of the disputes and issues surrounding the book in the past, in the past.  Better to start off on fresh footing and try to think about what's best for the readers.  I remember hearing that Subject:C++ programming language has so many books because each editor took their ball and played by themselves in the sandbox.  If true, it's disappointing.  Let's try to work things out.  If needed, it may be worthwhile to try some mediation at Reading room/Assistance where others can weigh in on potential solutions to disputes.  (Or they can weigh in here if they'd like to keep things more low-key&mdash;I'm looking at you, talk page stalkers...) – Adrignola discuss 02:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * People went their separate ways because another approach that worked couldn't be found. If you do get involved, I hope you have better luck working things out. Maybe you can find a way other than an indefinite block or yet more C++ books as a solution. --dark lama  12:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only that but the multiple conflicts and the time for resolution have not only frustrated willing contributors but attracted new ones. The worst time was when I had to merge the two works (this is reflected in multiple posts on talk pages). The "fork" discussion and the conclusion that the enforced policy was not valid (that even Jimbo) commented on it also attracted more people. Note also that some works already existed, some have been merged, even with active agreement from the project creators and some like Darklama's C++ project are little more than stubs (not a critique).
 * In my view and these facts seem to point to it, even if I expect Darklama to disagree with it, proving that all interferences with peaceful contributions to the work not only have been prejudicial to that work's evolution but to the project itself by my (and others) forced political radicalization or alienation (especially James). I personally came to the project wanting to contribute to a work that had been stalled from a while, not even wanting to socialize or understand the politics of the project and found myself having to deal with issues that ultimately had few things or nothing at all to deal with the generation of free content. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Adrignola, leave the disputes and issues surrounding the book in the past. Those who don't learn from past are doomed to repeat it. Those who teach the past are doomed to relive it. Those who preach the past are doomed to reexperience it. Those who focus on the past are doomed to being unable to enjoy the present. I came to Wikibooks wanting to contribute to a book that had been stalled for a while as well, only to find myself forced to deal with issues that ultimately has little or nothing to do with contributing to the creation of free books. History repeated. --dark lama  22:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Even in not intentional that is the type of inexactitude that really ticks me off, and really the major reason we ever collided. Without memory nothing is learned. Those that remember the past are less prone to repeat it in the future. I do not point past events to put you or anyone down, in fact it was not even I that this time went digging for them, but am once again obliged to provide clarification now here and at a later time on the book's talk as what is stated there in no way can be seen as promoting good will, understanding or even my continued participation on that project.
 * We should learn from what occurred, understand why and avoid repeating it, that was the point I was making. It was in no way any covert criticism or attack (I do not do that, my problem at times is being too direct, and I know I'm doing it now, sorry but I'm compelled to).
 * One just needs to look to our first edits to see that the situations and circumstances were not the same and I strongly object you insinuating that I prevented you ever from providing content since that was indeed the one core issue and a motive why I strongly attempted to block your actions, but not from the onset and never with a reversion. During a time we did even work well together. Since the end of that turmoil (one for you but the third for me) it has gone noticed that at times we even start to agree on stuff, but in this case leaving issues closed is not the same as forgetting them, because ultimately they have not only shaped ourselves but even the project, and for some things I'm even proud of the changes and of having been a motivator for them. I've always admitted my errors, regrets and limitations.
 * There are some subject that can't even be closed like the issues on licensing and copyright, to what I still have to engage Pi zero on that. I'm giving it a timeout because had I replied immediately thing would certainly derail. I am even amazed by the dimension of the lack of understanding demonstrated of the subject and also the lack of interest in the subject by a community that makes large use of not only author pages but other copyright statements, that no one else comes forward to correct him. I'm even nursing a small paranoia because the initiator of the proposal is an IP is it possible that the issue has been raised on purpose because it was expected that I would intervene on it. I had half a mind to requesting a CU on that...
 * I know perfectly well that part of the agreement was never to pursue any grievances, I never did, have not intention to do so. I always recognized you as a valid contributor and except were in dealing with me (or my interest) in the past, a good admim, that was promoted in bad circumstances, but you have proven at times to even be indispensable to the project, believe me that I recognize that and that I repeat again this fact, with no guile but to show that this view if anything has been straightened. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers
Can reviewers be given the possibility of reseting a page to the primary state (the no-revised state) that does not display the request for review? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All revisions following a reviewed revision must be reviewed or no revisions must be reviewed for there to be no requests for review. The interface at the bottom will be present regardless, in order to allow an initial review.  The different interfaces you could see can be seen here. – Adrignola discuss 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've sometimes had occasion (on Wikinews, of course, where we use the bit differently) to de-review all the revisions of a page. I start by viewing the earliest revision, de-review it, then click the link to the next revision, de-review it, and so on.  With the result that the last one I de-review is the most recent, and remains the most-recently-reviewed revision right up to the moment it gets de-flagged.


 * However, doing that effectively destroys all (practical) record of just which revisions were reviewed, and by whom. Which in the Wikibooks context is pretty destructive, to my understanding, because the value of flaggedrevs here (outside WJ) is in that record of which revisions have been sighted.


 * As I've remarked before, we'd really like to arrange that if a registered user doesn't have the reviewer bit, they don't see flags about which revisions are and aren't reviewed. For our purposes (again, outside WJ), it matters very little to a user which revisions have been reviewed unless they have the reviewer bit.  Next time I see someone who'd know what is and isn't possible in that regard (and I do encounter such a person, semi-regularly), I'll ask them.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Could be possible with some JavaScript and CSS. Darklama may be able to help in that regard. – Adrignola discuss 18:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes JavaScript can be used to do that, but it seems like something FlaggedRevs ought to be doing itself. --dark lama  21:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I took an opportunity this evening to bug ask someone clueful. They said, hack some js or convince whoever's currently maintaining flaggedrevs to add an option; and noted it's a matter of conditionally hiding id mw-fr-revisiontag.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes conditionally hiding it from anyone not in the editor group is simple:


 * My beef is FlaggedRevs shouldn't be tracking pages set to show the latest revision at all either, and thus such pages shouldn't be listed in logs like Special:UnreviewedPages, in addition to not showing the notice for people not in the editor group. --dark lama  18:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons and fair use
Open Education Practices: A User Guide for Organisations "Interestingly, it seems that Wikimedia Commons is accepting copyrighted works under USA legislation of Fair Use" it seems that this is incorrect I was going to edit but I do not fallow policy changes on the other project, so will I pass the buck to you :) --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've modified the wording at Open Education Practices: A User Guide for Organisations/Librarians are critical to reflect the correct policies at Commons. – Adrignola discuss 00:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I take the chance since Pi Zero is probably watching to explain how I detected it (it is an indeed an interestingly and clarifying experience). Especially the relation between completeness and quality of works with copyright statements and their correctness. I searched the project for copyright (I have so far contacted one Wikibookian by email, copyvio), and another tagged one copyvio. So if anyone detects anything objectionable (I should probably clarify that as commonly objectionable, as in direct violation of our licenses) to wait 7 days before taking action. I'm intentionally not naming names.
 * Other actions should be executed but I will cover the issue later on (for instance works claiming to be licensed by the GFDL, we use the GFDL with limitations) some statements could be simply deleted others must be transformed to the proper label (don't believe anyone will object to that change) or even converted to CCASA if the last edit predates terminus of the conversion of the Wikibooks license change (a bit more in the gray zone), this will also permit to remove the verbatim copies of the GFDL from some of those works.
 * I found it also interesting that some works do a very cool thing, they expressly attribute the copyright to Wikimedia I hadn't noticed that practice yet. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at Template talk:Infobox Recipe Nutrition
Thank you. AmieKim (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"too different"?
Would you explain me ? The molecule is exactly the same, the file is only 'rotated' or mirrored. (dunno exactly, I'm really careful in tagging and taking care that the chemical structure is exactly the same, or I will move the file to Commons!) <small style="font: 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">mabdul 09:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh and FTCG is usable for all WMF wikis since you only have to switch the 'server' in the preferences! <small style="font: 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">mabdul 09:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Taking a closer look at the file, I can agree; I'm sure you're careful. As for FTCG, while true that it can be used on any wiki, I'd need to first create and email a local wiki data file before its use.  I said it wasn't setup, not that it wasn't usable.  I may take the time to create/email that file in the near future. – Adrignola discuss 10:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Huch? you have to click on 'Settings...' --> 'Local wiki login details' and fill in that textfield: 'en.wikibooks', username and password and then on 'OK'. Start transfering! No local data or anything... <small style="font: 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">mabdul 11:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming
Hello. I request renaming my following accounts: Please, delete all my userpages and talk pages of these accounts before renaming and I will create them later .Thanks in advance.--M.Gedawy 07:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * محمد الجداوي → Avocato
 * GedawyBot → AvocatoBot
 * Confirmation link:
 * Reason: Privacy reasons
 * I've done these, thanks <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 10:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs
Hello Adrignola. At esWB we're discussing right now whether to implement or not the flaggedrevs system. I'd like to know, if possible, how it's working here, the problems you've encountered, etc. That is, information from a similar project that has the system enabled. On the other hand I've had a look at mw.org looking for a file with the complete variables that FlaggedRevs admits, but I've only seen examples. Is there such a file anywhere? Thank you very much. Best regards, --MarcoAurelio (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC) (eswb bureaucrat)


 * Greetings. You can see our specific configuration at FlaggedRevs Extension, which also has links to the discussions for the various settings changes over the years.  A big problem would be that you need enough people looking over pending changes and reviewing them to make the system worthwhile.  If you don't have that, there's no way you'd want to make it so changes have to be reviewed before going live.  Otherwise, the system acts like the built-in new page patrol system, only for any changes.  Ensuring that autopromotion to the editor group is configured correctly is important to keep from having too much extra work; that or you make sure to assign the group to deserving individuals on a regular basis.  We do use separate settings for the Wikijunior pages to ensure that vandalism isn't shown to the children, by requiring review before publication.  So the system is flexible; you can configure per namespace.  I personally don't have a problem with it, but I know some have worried that it increases editing complexity and could scare away users. – Adrignola discuss 22:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate your comments. The Spanish Wikibooks has been dead for years, lots of things needs to be fixed and still we have not very much volunteers there however given that it's low traffic and we've disabled article creations by unregistered users and have abusefilters enabled, etc. I feel we can handle the workload. We'll see. Thank you. --MarcoAurelio (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Page in vietnamese
Please have a look to OTRS ticket related to  Otourly (discuss • contribs) 07:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Change my name
Hello:

I want change my name. From Kuartas to Swazmo. Can you change that?--Swazmo (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC) --Kuartas (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I sure can. Please login with Swazmo from now on and visit Special:MergeAccount to re-unify the Swazmo user here at Wikibooks with your global account. – Adrignola discuss 23:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

featured book request
Hi,

I'm sure that this is the wrong way to go around things: I've submitted my A-Level Computing book for featured book status: Featured_books/Nominations

The page seems very quiet these days and I was worried that no-one looks at it. Is there a way to get my case looked at faster?

Thanks Pluke (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You could bring it up at Reading room/Projects, which is a forum geared toward the discussion of particular books. There you could work with others to determine if there are any areas needing improvement that might hinder featured book status.  It's always helpful to have an additional perspective for something as complex as a textbook, especially in seeing whether someone unfamiliar with the material can learn it, in cases where a book's target audience is the layman. – Adrignola discuss 22:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not having much luck with either page. The featured book section seems to be a ghost town, some of the books on there have been up for nomination since 2010.  Any other ideas? Pluke (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a community process so if there is a lack of participation, there's not much we can do. This is not something that would traditionally warrant measures such as a site-wide notice. Posting on talk pages, or "canvassing" would be frowned upon. A notice could be placed on the watchlist, but people who visit that page likely would already follow the major discussion forums. Try the textbook-l mailing list. See Contact us. – Adrignola discuss 22:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Structuring
Hi Adrignola,

I recently ordered a PediaPress printed book of Open Educational Practices, and the book structure comes through in the contents and chapter headings - meaning, Open Education Practices: A User Guide for Organisations/Introduction and so forth. Is there a way to structure a book so this doesn't happen, so that Introduction is all that shows in the title and in the printed book? Can I rearrange the book into a flat structure? leighblackall (discuss • contribs) 06:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You can actually include pages and then format the titles of the pages just as you would format the title of a link, using the pipe (|). Additionally, you can exclude certain content from the PDF/printout using Template:Hide in print. I have made adjustments to your collection and title page to reflect this. – Adrignola discuss 08:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Beautiful! Many thanks Adrignola! Now I have the printed proof, I can slowly go through this old book and fix it up a little, or a lot! Then I'll order another copy, and keep going. Have lots to update it with, over the years since, working in other places trying to develop open education. Thanks for your help and support all this time. leighblackall (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, one more thing.. do you know if its possible to place a custom cover to a collection? One that replaces the cover preview calling for a "copyleft" image? leighblackall (discuss • contribs) 00:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can add Blah.jpg to the saved book template. – Adrignola discuss 02:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! :) I've done that, and am learning quite a bit about all that now. It has me rethinking the layout, and now I have a proof book sent from PediaPress, I'm trying to edit and improve the print result. Is there code I can add around a template so as to be excluded from print? I have this 'contents' template I'm changing, and don't want it included in the book. leighblackall (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, just reread your first reply and see that you saw me coming with this question :) Thanks, I'll work it out. leighblackall (discuss • contribs) 02:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The PDF output should largely represent the book, so you should be able to make changes and preview them in the PDF version. I wouldn't want you to think you must keep ordering physical copies.  I'm here if you have other questions. – Adrignola discuss 16:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)