User talk:Atcovi/Archive 2

Please don't just blindly accept changes
You recently approved an edit to Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Characters that was, in fact, vandalism. Someone, or to be precise, two someones, were replacing names of book characters with their own names, and a third created himself as a character. You then approved those edits.

It's not enough that an edit be grammatically correct. If a link to a character is altered to call out a different character, or an entirely new link is added, it is quite possible that someone is playing silly buggers, and that should not be approved. Thank you. Chazz (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my disruptive editing. Since you usually watch the page, I will let you take care of this situation. --goldenburg111 (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Atoms and Elements
This book may be deleted soon. It was created over a month ago but contains no content. --ЗAНИA talk 23:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved in userpage, and deleted delete tag. --goldenburg111 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome. The Linux Kernel book is not a new project (or mine), I'm only trying to revive it a bit. It's a pity its actual state, there is quite enough content on Wikipedia articles to start to populate it, and also other CC-licensed sources (unfortunately there is another older sources with licenses not-CC or GFDL compatible). --JavierCantero (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish you good luck on your project, and no problem :) --atcovi (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it for you.
On here. I've placed the closed template on the issues that you closed.

--Leaderboard 13:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Saw it. Thanks for the Help Leaderboard. --atcovi (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your question about "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=VSphere_Web_Client/UI_Tips&diff=2765511&oldid=2765510" edits
I'm new to wikibooks so I hope I'm doing this right.

The particular edit you highlight was a typo fix (I had 6 ='s instead of the 5 intended for a section title), I don't know how to address your other statements though, since I'm not sure which particular edits you're referring to.
 * Thank you for responding Dennisblu. Welcome to Wikibooks, and don't worry, you ain't going to get bitten around here, we all make mistakes ;P
 * Good enough reason, make sure to use the "Edit summary" tab near the "save page" button, and as well leaving a comment please make sure to use the pencil and cursive icon on the top of the editing toolbar.
 * And what I meant is the other edits you've made, click "previous revision" and those are the other edits you have made. That's what I was referring to.
 * Regards, --atcovi (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Typographie française
Merci de [//en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=French%2FLessons%2FHealth&diff=2766305&oldid=2766186 bien respecter] la typographie française. Ce n'est pas quelque chose de facultatif. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merci. --atcovi (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WJ:Extinct Birds
A general observation. It seems jarring, on a wiki, to put authorship of subpages out as a prominent element of the TOC. It's common to have a page for contributors to put their names on for a book, but that's out of the way (even so I've had doubts about it, myself). Making authorship so prominent seems likely to discourage others from contributing. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. So should I put an "Author/Contributor" section on the page itself? --atcovi (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be an approach. I don't recall seeing it done that way; most books if they have anything of that sort have one page for the whole book.  Atm you're designing the book, though, so there's a matter of what sort of look-and-feel you want it to have.  The future development of the book depends very much on what you set up now, as basic design decisions are much easier to make at the start than to change later.  (With WJ:World Religions, some decisions made early on had actually retarded later development, and I put a pile of thought into adjusting it to make it work better.)  I tend to make wikijunior books more alike, but then, in some ways I'm pretty conservative (while in others I've got a subversive streak).  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Administrators.
I have removed one of the additions you made to Administrators, the part about tool removal if the tools are abused. While agreeing with the sentiment, this is an official policy that can only be changed by consensus. Only non-material changes should be made without agreement. In addition, as it stands the addition isn't very helpful. Who would judge misuse? How would this clause be applied or enforced? These points need to be covered as well. If you look at the inactivity section you will see the procedure is very clearly laid out - any addition re. "misuse" would need to be similarly specified. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, alright sorry for the additions. I'll leave the page alone, and I'll discuss if any edits I think should be added. Thanks. --atcovi (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The other two edits are fine, as is the thrust of what you are saying. What we don't have here is much in the way of a "de adminship procedure". We did try and create an arbitration procedure but that was rejected as policy. So basically the problem is we don't have a policy or procedure for removal of admin rights for misuse (or any other reason). QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright, thanks. --atcovi (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we not have procedure for removal of admin rights? Do we need such a thing?  Surely we'd just nom them for de-sysop, just as we'd nom for sysop.  Presumably it'd need solid community support, like granting sysop in the first place.  Does that need to be spelled out somewhere?  (I've recently been reminded of what a Kafka-esque bureaucratic nightmare en.wp has become, by watching an ongoing request for admin there, afaics of a straightforwardly intelligent diligent and all-around upbeat enthusiastic nominee who is now being grilled endlessly on procedure.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Only procedure I'm aware of is removal for inactivity... and any admin can start that process, doesn't even require consensus AFAIK. Recently any admin who's been tagged for inactivity has denom'ed himself as soon as the notice went up on the nominations page. Chazz (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, shouldn't be hijacking a talk page really. In absence of a policy, we would start either a reverse-RFP (removal of permissions), or discussion somewhere else (e.g,. the Reading Room). If the consensus was to remove the rights, then a Steward would probably do so. I say probably because it becomes a judgement call in the absence of a formal policy, however, Stewards will typically apply the consensus of the community even without a policy. I don't think we need a formal policy per Pi zero. The only reason I reverted Atcovi's addition of that clause to Wikibooks:Administrators is that in effect it is making policy by adding it (i.e., someone in future could say there's a formal policy to remove administrators for misuse). We shouldn't make changes like that without discussion but, more importantly to my mind, if we are going to make changes we need to put in more detail that explains how "misuse" is judged. A simple extension of the clause to "if a member of the community thinks an administrator has misused the tools then they can start a de-adminship request at WB:RFP. If a consensus is reached (judged by whom?) or if a majority (a simple majority?) is reached after a minimum of 7 days discussion then the rights will be removed." Or something like that. But one sentence isn't enough, and it needs discussion before incorporating into policy. Not that I think it is necessary. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you guys further want to discuss this in my talk page, I'm fine with that. This discussion is in my interest, so feel free to discuss. --atcovi (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)