User talk:Aya

To 'talk' to me:


 * 1) Click the '+' button above.
 * 2) Type in a sensible title, and whatever it is you want to say.
 * 3) Sign and date your message with four tildes ( ~ ) or similar.

I used to write my replies on the talk page of the user who left the comment, but I no longer believe that to be the best method, since it involves forking of content, so you'll have to watch this page for a reply.

Re: Hello
Just a quick question. What timezone are you in?

Aya 22:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm in New Zealand, so, lessee... GMT + 12. Yeah. So you'll see me up all "night" editing. 'course when I actually get the flippin' game (they say it reaches NZ June 20th!) I'm guessing my edits are gonna drop right away...


 * Master Thief Garrett 01:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GTA Pages
Hi Aya, been doing some patrols of the edits. Can you check the GTA pages for consistency/ correctness? Some newbies had been tinkering around with some pages (and not all are nice cuddly newbies either). There's way too many edits over the weekend for me to look through while at work. :P

Please let the other GTA contributors know as well.

Lynx7725 4 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

Comfortable Words
I haven't even finished the page with the link back to Christianity the Wikibook I am spearheading and you already put it up for Speedy Deletion, what gives? &#45; Athrash | {Talk)  8 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

Sorry, then it's an issue of non-conformity. If I try subpage Christianity/The Comfortable Words then you delete the other, is that preferable. Or should I or you use redirect?  &#45; Athrash |  {Talk)  8 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Saw your vote on John 2, thanks. I will redirect all pages to Christianity/... That was the problem and this is the solution, I think. &#45; Athrash | {Talk)  8 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

Thank you again, when I got back to it, you did all the work. The move function, not redirect, worked for a remaining page Palestine map and now I understand the naming convention. What a switch, to say, you may have saved Christianity (the book). &#45; Athrash | {Talk)  9 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping to fight vandalism while I was away. Keep up the good work, because every bit helps. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 01:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Car Terms
If the book expands, it will be necessary to split it into sections; furthermore, short pages take less time to load. Remember that we don't all have broadband yet! How would you recommend naming the sections? If it gets big enough, one section for each letter of the alphabet might be a good idea - then something would always stay in the same section. Let me know what you think... Charlie123 16:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did consider how to link different entries together, and it seems either a single page or one per letter (in the future) is the best idea. For now it's all on one page. Charlie123 09:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

category hierarchies
Hi, I perused your critique of wikibooks and since you're one of the more active people on here, I wonder what your opinion is on hierarchical category schemes. The Wikibooks Pokédex uses a "namespace enabled" categorization scheme: I belive the Cookbook should use such a scheme (about 1/5 of all the categories are related to the cookbook), though I tend to think it should be even more highly structured. Any thoughts? Kellen 21:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikibooks Pokédex:Baby Pokémon
 * Category:Wikibooks Pokédex:Cute Charm Ability
 * My comment was somewhat apart from your document, but that is definitely a bug. Have you filed a report? The message was:

Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Article.php on line 2029
 * For saving (not editing) on: "User talk:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks" Kellen 00:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Bug reports go to the mediawiki bugzilla. I'll file one! Kellen 01:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * filed. Kellen 01:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * and fixed. Kellen 02:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Indentation on talk pages?
Hi Aya. I noticed that you changed the indentation on User talk:Chaturganj. Have a look at the standards and conventions of writing and layout on Talk page. The convention is for the second contributor to use one colon, and the third to use two, etc.; but if the first contributor comes back, then they don't use any colons (as with their first post), etc. It also avoids the need for an insane number of colons in long discussions. I hope that you don't mind, but I changed it back again. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 02:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I guess the indentation makes no odds really, but I ought to stick with policy as long as it exists that way. Problem is the page is not clearly marked as such, so I shall fix that. So far I've made NPOV the only enforced policy, since it's reasonably short, fairly well worded, and it feels like the least contentious. Everything that looks like a policy, I've added to the a category to make them easier to find.


 * I'm a bit concerned that these policies (with the exception of WB:WIN which relates solely to Wikibooks) were inappropriately forked from Wikipedia about 2 years ago, and have consequently evolved much more on Wikipedia than they have on this site. I'm wondering if they should all be moved to Meta, or in the meantime converted to redirects to Wikipedia policy. - Aya T C 13:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's difficult to learn all of the policy. I'm sure there are some cases where our policy differs needlessly from Wikipedia, Meta, etc. (like capitalisation rules ;). But, be sure that the differences are not there for good reason, before replacing a page with a redirect. That said, I'm all for consistency between Wikimedia projects. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 01:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Understood. I'm taking quite a lot of time reading through all the policy documents on Wikipedia (if the Manual of Style is to be included as well), and separating them into policies which seem to apply to all Wikimedia projects vs. those which apply only to Wikipedia. This process may take days/weeks, but I'm gonna try gradually transferring them to Policy. e.g. the aforementioned NPOV policy which appears to be fairly universal seems to exist on meta as well, although it claims the Wikipedia version is more authoritative. In the same location on meta are many distinct interpretations, and counter-arguments to NPOV. Just gives me a headache. Why did I decide to get involved in politics? I must be retarded. :-/ - Aya T C 10:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hillary Quote
Yeah, too bad. But certainly not NPOV. :) --RandalSchwartz 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, so what was the quote? You can send privately if you wish. :-) MShonle 20:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Took me ages to remember which page it was on. See this diff for the quote. :-) - Aya T E C 19:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Reward for first coffee
I think you're correct to have deleted that. I don't recall getting a dildo except by picking one up deliberately somewhere.

Of course, anyone reading your "talk" area will be very confused by this comment out of context. {grin} --Randal L. Schwartz 16:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh. Hopefully it will at least provoke a smile. We definately need more humour here to keep people sane. A few minutes looking through w:Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense usually works for me. - Aya T C 17:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to overhaul policy
As an interested user in the policies of Wikibooks in general, you might be interested in the fact that I've started to think about changes to existing policy and project scope so that policies are more clearly defined (as you suggested) and more open (as suggested by User:Robert Horning over the biography debacle). I've made a post on textbook-l as a result, please reply to my talk page for feedback. KelvSYC 05:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll take a look. - Aya T C 15:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Admin
Hey Aya. You seem to be very active...would you be interested if I were to nominate you for admin? Serge 08:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * You can if you like, but see also the appropriate part of User talk:Geocachernemesis. - Aya T C 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

And, speaking of admins, you said "In fact I'd probably support anyone who isn't obviously a vandal." So, could I get you to consider a support vote for AlbertCahalan? He's certainly no vandal, and has helped out a lot. MShonle 14:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. I just hadn't checked his edit history to see if this was the case. I'll take a look now. - Aya T C 18:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

oops sorry
I rv'ed a bit too much on the Missions page.

Also, not sure all those changes were really damage... see the talk page.

--Randal L. Schwartz 21:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No probs. Not quite sure what you mean by 'all those changes'. If you mean the last few by the same IP address, that looked a lot like me to common phenomenon of 'incremental blanking'. The previous anoymous IPs were reasonable edits, so watch out - not all anonymous IPs are vandals. I think the last version I submitted is the correct one, but I may have misinterpreted your comment, so feel free to disagree.


 * Note than generally, any deletion not explained in the edit summary is considered revert-worthy, including those made by registered users, unless you happen to know better. Even if it was someone you trusted, they may still have submitted it in error. If you want to delete something because you feel it's redundant or incorrect information, you must specify in your edit summary, else someone else may revert it.


 * Aya T C 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I also presumed that all IP addresses were false changes. I rv'ed it again from a different baseline. Apparently, only one IP was evil. --Randal L. Schwartz 21:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Got an edit conflict here, so my previous reply might seem too vague. :-) - Aya T C 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Congradulations... Hail the new Bureaucrat!
Like that normally is something you really want to call yourself. --Rob Horning 04:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems like a bit of a crappy name really. In my mind the word 'bureaucracy' is nearly the antithesis of 'activity'. - Aya T C 23:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There is some stuff that needs to be accomplished here on Wikibooks, and hopefully there are some other people who can help do some of the cleaning up here. You'll do a good job. Hopefully we can get a few more admins here on Wikibooks as well, to deal with some of the backlog. --Rob Horning 04:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the first things I did was process the backlogs in WB:RFA, and admin'd User:Geocachernemesis. He got on with blocking linkspammers, while I got through about half of the speedy deletions (they take a lot more time than you think). Also reformatted the Main Page (although I'm still not happy with the layout), and rewrote Deletion policy so it makes some sort of sense. Still loads more to do. Suggestions always welcome in Staff lounge. - Aya T C 23:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Bookshelf policy
Part of being the new bureaucrat is that you have more force in approving revisions to existing policy, since you have to be aware of them. Bookshelves is meant to replace All bookshelves, Why move books?, and perhaps Help:Development stages (and also maybe a few other pages I haven't mentioned) into a centralized policy page on bookshelves. See if you like it, and make changes as appropriate. KelvSYC 18:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. Part of this change is moving all bookshelves to the Wikibooks namespace, so that explains the red links.


 * Good work. I've tried to tag all the current policies with a template, to make it easier to keep track of them. If you come across any more pages which look like policies, stick the  tag on them.


 * I like the idea of moving all the organizational content out of the main namespace, which ought to be reserved for actual books. I was still putting some thought into the canonical index for the organization of books, e.g. using dewey codes or categories, but I think I've come to the conclusion that dewey codes can't keep up with the evolution of human concepts (far too many books would end up in the 'Generalities' section), and categories should be used for modules rather than books. By choosing our own concepts and scope for bookshelves, they can be more easily modified to keep up with trends, and thus be more future-proof.


 * It's probably best if we don't differ too much from Wikipedia's use of categories, since the Wikipedia mind-set seems commonplace amongst Wikibooks users. The thing I most want to crack down on, is the correct use of subpages, to prevent Wikibooks slowing turning into a fork of Wikipedia. We will end up with oddities like...


 * My Computer Science Book/Electronics Section
 * My Physics Book/Electronics Section


 * ...but we can't avoid it. Besides, the pages in both sections will likely differ somewhat in their scope (analog electronics is rarely mentioned in computer science). What I want to avoid is...


 * Computer Science
 * Physics
 * Electronics


 * ...where the first two share the latter as a conceptual subpage. This is more apt for Wikipedia. Obviously if all three are valid Wikibooks in their own right, that's even better. :-) - Aya T C 00:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

We do have Bookshelves/test as a really old Dewey categorization at Wikibooks, but it's an archaism that can be easily removed.

The use of categories right now is either for book specific purposes, for fine-tuned bookshelf categorization, and possibly common elements of different books (answer keys, etc), although we don't exactly have any real category policy. KelvSYC 17:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This is just an FYI for you, but I've created Card Catalog Office as an attempt to try and help organize classification policies, as well as try to actually implement those policies. Not much is happening right now on the main page, but the talk page does have a somewhat lengthy discussion going on. This discussion is discussing a category heirarchy change that is going to be somewhat radically different than Wikipedia's, and certainly something more fitting for a book project than encyclopedia articles. That is not to say that Wikipedia-style categories can't be used, but this is supplimental to them.

We are also proposing a "Card Catalog Entry" that can be applied to each Wikibook (self-generated within each participating Wikibook) that would help with this organizational effort. Your thoughts and ideas would be appreciated. --Rob Horning 17:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I had noticed the announcement in Staff lounge, I've just been busy sorting out the backlog of vandals and deletions, but this is mostly done now, so I'll take a look soon. - Aya T C 18:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

re: Cookbook:Lembas
when marking a copyvio you remove the violatory text


 * Any particular reason? It occurs to me that the violatory text is still easily available from the history, so it's not as if removing it makes any odds from a legal standpoint. From a functional standpoint, I think leaving it in makes it easier for other users to confirm that the page is indeed a copyvio. When I re-wrote Deletion policy (hopefully much clearer now), I specified that the template should just preprend the text, not replace it, but I didn't change the template to match. What do you think? - Aya T C 18:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's just what I'm used to with WP copyvios, and that's what the template says to do, after all. Yet another brain-dead copy-n-paste from WP I guess... the policy change looks fine to me. GarrettTalk 23:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not replying on your page, but I'm too lazy to bounce all this text around.


 * I just worry that changing our policy won't work, cos Wikipedia users will just assume it's the same. Perhaps if we used all different template names, they might think differently, but 'copyvio' is an obvious name for a copyright violation template. Pff. I'll look into it. - Aya T C 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you re-christen me? :)
Yes this is a strange request. According to w:Wikipedia:Changing username, bureaucrats can rename users. I was originally keeping the same username on each wiki in anticipation of the global login, but plans for that seem to have fallen through. User:Garrett on Wikibooks is vacant (it wasn't on WP), so if you have a spare moment (and the process isn't too arduous) I'd like to become just plain "Garrett". Thanks! :) GarrettTalk 03:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I can, providing you have made less than 5000 edits, and the new username you want is not in use. If this is the case, then let me know when you'd like the changeover to happen, so that you're aware that you need to login with your new username. - Aya T C 15:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. Forget that. I interpreted "if you have a spare moment" to mean "ASAP", so I've made the change. Be aware that User:Master Thief Garrett has been protected so it remains a redirect to User:Garrett (same with talk page), and the old account name has been re-created and blocked to prevent someone else masquerading as you. I've renamed all your other user pages (Temp and Great War), updated all backlinks, and deleted the old pages. Make sure you update your sig to point to the new user page. - Aya T C 15:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! :) That worked fine. Only thing is it logged me out, so I knew right away the change must have taken place. Seems like everything's the way it was before the change, my contributions are all intact and whatnot, so you've evidently succeeded. Anyway, thanks for doing that! :) GarrettTalk 23:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Phew! I was getting worried that I'd blocked you from the system. I made several queries in IRC with developers to make sure I got it right, but I couldn't really tell until you logged in again. Took quite a while this time, but should be quicker next time. I must remember to write a procedural/policy doc on how to rename users to future reference. - Aya T C 00:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There's already a collection of guides in a mailing list message, http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2005-July/002409.html. GarrettTalk 02:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity
You put some commentary on Wikiversity that suggests Wikiversity should be moved off from Wikibooks, and that an "authorized member of the Wikimedia Foundation" asked you to talk about the scope of the project on meta first.

IMHO, that discussion on meta is irrelvant as what is happening here on Wikibooks should govern what is going on with Wikiversity, not the discussion on meta. The meta discussion should only be about putting it on a seperate server, which I also think is a bad idea at this time. I don't think there is sufficient "demand" to move it elsewhere.

Like the Card Catalog Office that I propsed earlier, I think Wikiversity ought to be a "Wikibooks project" with its own subset of pages and organization. Wikiversity has been an integral part of Wikibooks from the beginning and was one of the parts of the original proposal for Wikibooks. Indeed, Wikibooks was supposed to be the adjunct auxiallary "library" for Wikiversity, essentially Wikibooks was a sub-project to Wikiversity, not the other way around. Wikibooks, on the other hand, was easier to implement in the beginning.

As far as the "authorized member" was concerned, I think you need to spell out very clearly who that was. One of the foundation board member, Angela Beesley, is very upset over the whole thing. I would strongly reccomend that you contact her immediately to calm down her feelings on this issue, and try to resolve any complaints she may have over the content that you have added, including the decision to protect the main page for Wikiversity. She has moved the discussion of this to the Foundation Board mailing list, and did not have very good words to say about you. --Rob Horning 04:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. A URL to the appropriate mailing list post would be appreciated. - Aya T C 04:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-August/003830.html. GarrettTalk 04:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggested changes to avoid vandalism of the main page
The ass pus vandal decided it would be fun to replace the images in both the Book of the month/August 2005 and Collaboration of the Month/August 2005 templates. Because you seem to be creating the templates at the moment, I will suggest my solution to you. If the image is from the Commons, then you simply create a local copy of the image that you are going to use on the template, called something like Image:Book or the month August 2005. After using the local image in the template, simply protect both the image and the template page, at least as long as it's displayed on the main page. Do you think that's a good idea? Geo.T 12:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Bah. We shouldn't have to work around the AP vandal. It's like terrorism. If we react by locking down the site too much, or creating lots of extra work for us to do, then he wins. What I've been doing recently is telling one of the server admins in irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikimedia the username of the most recent vandal attack, then they mass-block the IP on all Wikimedia wikis, since he seems to attack all of them, not just us. Note that this can only be done for attack in the last 30 days, since they only keep logs for that long. For now, just block the account, add the username to the list in WB:VIP, and revert the damage. The best solutions should require the least amount of effort to implement. If you can think of an easier way, let me know. - Aya T C 14:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Update: See Wikibooks talk:Vandalism in progress - Aya T C 15:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not overly worried, because the vandalism is easily fixed. But if we do ever track them down, then there would be a strong case for punishing them for subjecting minors to obscene material.


 * Because we already protect the main page, like many other Wikimedia projects, it would probably be best to go the whole hog, and protect all of the content shown on it (like Wikipedia?). I'm not just thinking of the AP vandal, it may be targeted by others too. I know that it would be slightly cumbersome, but we could write it into our procedures. But, I also agree that we shouldn't automatically protect every page that has been vandalised only once. Geo.T 02:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity and its role in Wikibooks
The first mention of something like Wikiversity (that I can find) was back in August 2003 by Daniel Mayer when he suggested even a namechange for the whole project to become Wikiuniversity. Remember that back then the URL to the site was http://textbook.wikipedia.org/ and not the current method. The current "sister project" setup with Wikimedia projects was still being pounded out, and Wikibooks was only a couple of months old at the time. The issue regarding formal textbooks that would be organized for internet classes was also discussed there as well. Similar threads around that time clearly seperated the fiction from non-fiction, and another project was supposed to pick up the fiction content. That still hasn't happened except on Wikicities (where the fiction wiki really is kind cool).

Another interesting discussion can be found on Slashdot where none other than Jimmy Wales himself gave an interview about Wikipedia and other related projects including Wikibooks. Unfortunately that was just a quick on-line blurb, but does also indicate the educational direction of Wikibooks instead of pure non-fiction.

I wish I could give you something more concrete. There have been other discussions I've read over time, and if you want, I can try to dig them up. Reading through the Textbook-l mailing list (particularly at the early postings when the mailing list was very active) will give some enlightenment over early Staff Lounge discussions, where most of the major dicussion about the organization of Wikibooks seems to be at right now. The mailing list at the moment seems to be a bully pulpit of malcontents and occasional "news articles", and major announcements. Generally rather low volume, but monitored by all of the long-time users at meta and the foundation board (including Jimbo). --Rob Horning 01:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Muggles guide to Harry Potter
Hi, I noticed your name attached to ending the VFd on muggles guide. I came to the discussion rather late, and certainly from the position of expecting wiki (somewhere) to include detailed information about HP. i have read the whole debate twice and finally it seemed to me that contributors had made valid points about why this should be considered encyclopedic, rather than textbook. It seems regrettable that some people who have been reorganising HP on 'pedia do not agree, but it remains inevitable that there will be large bodies of work covering the same ground in both wikis. This seems to me why the arguments that it should have been deleted here will persist. I remain in the dark about definition of 'macropedia' and 'forking', which were both cited as reasons for deleting. (I read the 'what wikibooks is' page, but it is quite short). Do you see these two continuing as rivals or that one will largely die? Sandpiper 08:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, be aware that I am also quite new to the project, and, in fact, all Wikimedia projects. I started on Wikibooks on June 12th of this year, in an effort to enhance the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Wikibook with a FAQ containing much of the little-known information that had been cropping up repeatedly on the GameFAQs forum. During this time, I met Garrett who was also working on this Wikibook, and together we discussed, restructured and expanded the the whole book into the much more comprehensive guide that it is today. You may also notice striking similarities between the structure of this Wikibook, and the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter.


 * As a new user to the site, I found the site's rules and policies difficult to find, and somewhat confusing and contradictory, which I found off-putting, and worried that this may have had a similar effect to other new users, so I then turned my attention to making an effort to sorting this out. I then drafted the document A critique of Wikibooks, utilizing the power of wiki to analyse these problems, and come up with some solutions to help solve these problems once and for all.


 * As a consequence of this, and the fact that there seemed to be very few administrators to combat the ongoing vandalism, I requested bureaucrat status in order to get some more administrators to help out. I got promoted within 3 days of my request, and immediately started processing the backlogs of vandalism, and the backlogs in WB:RFA and WB:VFD. If you read my 'critique', you'll notice I already identified the problem of overlapping scope between Wikimedia projects, and, although I have made some changes already, this is still something that needs to be more clearly defined if we don't want this site slowly evolving into a mirror of Wikipedia.


 * Back to your original 'questions':-


 * it seemed to me that contributors had made valid points about why this should be considered encyclopedic, rather than textbook
 * The problems with using words like 'encyclopedic' and 'textbook' is that they are rather ill-defined, and without clarification, you will find that discussions about the correct location of the Harry Potter content are really just arguments about what these words actually mean in the context of wiki. The best distinction I have come up with so far is more about style than content. Let's use the concept of a 'spoon' for an example. The 'encyclopedia' style is a single page starting with the words "A spoon is a utensil, blah, blah, blah...", whereas the 'textbook' style would be the same sort of information, structured over many pages, with a contents page, introduction, and many distict chapters containing infomation about spoons.


 * I remain in the dark about definition of 'macropedia' and 'forking', which were both cited as reasons for deleting.
 * These are not my words, but rather an attempt to shift the negative criteria from WB:WIN into a context containing the positive criteria of what actually constitues a valid Wikibook. This was supposed to be a two-stage process. The first was to deprecate the WB:WIN page, without upsetting too many people, and shift it to About. The second was to re-word these criteria to use less ambiguous language, but I have not done that just yet, to allow other users to chance to get used to the new location. The word 'macropedia' I can't even find in any dictionary, but I guess it's supposed to mean "an extended encyclopedia entry", or in practical terms "don't dump a page from Wikipedia here, and then extend it, to get around the fact that you're not allowed to extend an article beyond a certain size on Wikipedia". As for 'forking', it's a common term in Computer Science meaning "to create a duplicate version of", or in practical terms "don't dump a page from Wikipedia here because the changes you wanted to make to it were voted out and reverted by the community".


 * I read the 'what wikibooks is' page, but it is quite short
 * By this, I assume you mean About. I feel it important to keep things fairly concise. If a newbie comes across this document, and finds pages and pages of text, they won't bother reading it, which defeats the whole purpose of its existence. I was hoping the more practical definition of "the sort of book you might find in a library or bookshop" would be meaningful enough to anyone who has ever visited one.


 * Do you see these two continuing as rivals or that one will largely die?
 * By this, I assume you mean the Wikipedia articles vs. the Wikibook. One of the few things that I find most Wikipedians agree on is that pages should be kept quite short, so I foresee both continuing to exist, although the Wikipedia version will eventually be limited in its size, whereas the Wikibooks version will continue to expand indefinately, especially considering the popularity of the Harry Potter books and movies.

IMHO, the whole reason for starting a VFD on Harry Potter was bogus anyway. People have been using such meaningless concepts as 'not educational' and 'not instructional' to justify all sorts of nonsense. Much of what I have said here may make more sense if you read http://abelard.org/category/category.htm

Aya T C 13:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

User renaming...
FWIW, now I'm shown to be watching User:Garrett, User:Master Thief Garrett and User talk:Master Thief Garrett but not User talk:Garrett. I'm not sure if this is expected or if there were any goof ups in the renaming. -- Paddu 09:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Erm. Talk pages shouldn't appear in your watchlist at all. If you're watching a page, then you're also implicitly watching its talk page. If you're certain that User talk:Master Thief Garrett is in your watchlist, then file a bug report at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/


 * Aya T C 15:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In Special:Watchlist/edit I'm shown only User:Garrett and User:Master Thief Garrett. What I meant was when I visit User:Garrett, User:Master Thief Garrett or User talk:Master Thief Garrett I'm shown the "stop watching" link but when I visit User talk:Garrett I'm shown the "watch this page" link. Also in Special:Watchlist I'm shown only User:Garrett and not any of the other three. -- Paddu 19:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, removing the pages from watchlist and adding back fixed the problem. So I'm not filing a bug. -- Paddu 19:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Might be a bug if you're watching a page which is subsequently moved. No idea. - Aya T C 19:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot
Thanks a lot for helping with the formating of my Private Pilot page, it makes things a lot easier than just blindly diving in. This is my first go at a wiki book, but I figure I might as well go all in. --ppragman 15:05, 11 August 2005 (AKST)

VfD announcement on Meta
Just an FYI, I put an announcement on Meta regarding our discussion about removing Wikiversity. I'm sure we will be swamped by comments, so perhaps we should move the discussion onto is own VfD subpage? --Rob Horning 12:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for refering the Book Format!
Hey thankx, I was really struggling to find a way to add my pages to the book. Now ill be able to do it properly. Thankx.

--Siddord 16:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikisolutions
See: User talk:Moa3333 for discussion. No point forking it here too. - Aya T C 16:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

How To Use An Abacus
User 216.187.106.148 reverted your changes to the Abacus book. Maybe you should explain the naming policy to him. I'm alerting you since you're directly involved and I'm still new here... --Azertus 17:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I've left a note on the user's talk page. - Aya T C 18:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

re: Nasrudin
You might want to be a bit careful changing God to Allah. Besides, I thought the Old Testament "God" was the same for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. - 02:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm... well, yes and no. As far as I know leaving it as Allah is the most common and "correct" way. Not only will you see that throughout historical fiction, but also in phrases (Allah). Even though fully translated into English they've left "Allah" intact.


 * You'll also see this in English versions of the Qur'an (The Holy Qur'an/At-tur, WikiQuran). It's just like the Jews making Tanakh translations and leaving the name Yahweh instead of using God (which to some of their scholars is a term only Christians would use).


 * So you see it's a complicated issue, but it looks like Allah is "the right one" to use. GarrettTalk 02:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Again thanks
Glad you helped with the formatting on my page. Also, do you think I should restructure the who thing? The book Becoming a Private Pilot needs to be made more book like, but I'm not sure exactly how. That will come I suppose.

Thanks PpragmanTalk 8:44, 15 August 2005 (AKST)


 * This is very much up to you. Having the whole thing on one page makes it easier to print out as a single document, but there are also advantages to splitting it onto separate pages. Note that WB:NP doesn't say you have to split it up, but rather, that if you do so, you should follow the conventions therein. - Aya T E C 17:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

cottage cheese?
What's with the cottage cheese stub? Sort of a random thing to put in there =) Kellen T 05:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Random? I assure you it was appropriately based on the phase of the moon. ;-)


 * I was going through the broken redirects list, and noticed a couple of cookbook ingredient redirects which linked to non-existent upper-cased versions of the same name. I was a bit concerned that with these appearing as blue links, people might have forgotten that they hadn't actually been written yet. I quickly gave up, since there were quite a few, and I've been thinking about having different stub templates like Wikipedia, depending on the subject matter. See also Talk:Main Page. - Aya T E C 13:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We have in the Cookbook, but I think I'd prefer the redirects to just get deleted outright. A cookbook-stub template might also be appropriate. Kellen T 19:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Deleted - Aya T E C 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Original research, "create your own religions"

 * Thanks. I used Wikicities to set up my "Create your own religions here" thing on a Religion wiki. 209.92.89.26 19:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

See my response on abacus page. - 216.187.106.148

See my response on abacus page. - 216.187.106.148

School of Rhetoric and Composition
Hey! Is there any reason for a separate School of Rhetoric and Composition considering that we have the same thing under School of Literature and English Studies. I don't mind if it's moved into SLES, I just don't think it should be two different things. Atrivedi


 * I don't know. I merely renamed the page to make it consistent with the other "schools" on the Wikiversity page. I'm trying to get the whole lot moved off this wiki anyways. Be bold, and change it to how you think it should be. - Aya T E C 15:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy renaming of Template:Adakw to Template:Ada/kw
Only an administrator can make this movement because I would like to preserve the History log of the page (it's not too long, but it would be nice). Can you make it, please? Thanks --surueña 16:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. - Aya T E C 16:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

MoC
Hey, you never cast a vote either way for the MoC. I am curious what your take is on the issue and how you read Jimbo's comment. Kellen T 18:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I don't really like the voting system. I prefer instead that the community decides what the scope of the site should be, modify the site policy to make it clear what is acceptable based on that, then admins can safely delete content which is not in keeping with policy, without having to go through a tedious voting process. Unfortunately it would seem that not everyone agrees on the type of content that we should be hosting.


 * Regarding Jimbo's comment, it would seem very similar to Mshonle's interpretation, that is that any book which could conceivably be used as a textbook in an academic institution is okay, while everything else is not. However, in order to know which is the case, you'd have to be aware of all courses being taught at all major academic institutions (and define "major" in that context), which seems impractical. There are also some rather crazy courses being taught at some major institutions ("Star Trek Studies" springs instantly to mind). Even if that were possible, there is still the problem that many books are borderline, in the sense that you argue either way that the book is approriate or inappropriate, depending on your POV.


 * Personally I think this particular problem is fundamentally insoluable. The "sum of human knowledge" does not fit into nice neat categories for organizational purposes. Even "simple" binary categorization such as...


 * Fiction vs non-fiction
 * Educational vs non-educational
 * Instructional vs non-instructional


 * ...is not as clear-cut as we might like it to be. As to which category a certain book belongs in, is very much a matter of personal POV, which is no use for a site used by many people whose opinions in this regard differ to a greater or lesser extent. In order for a site-wide "acceptable content" policy to work, it must represent an objective viewpoint (if such a thing can even exist in the real world), with a clearly defined distinction between the two.


 * Back to the MoC, this is one of these borderline cases. I could argue such a text might be appropriate in courses such as Law, Psychology, Sociology, Politics, and others, but, similarly, I could argue that it is not appropriate at all.


 * Perhaps the problem here is with the community consensus idea (comparable to a "direct democracy"), and that something more akin to a "representative democracy" (i.e. the community votes in a small subset of users to make these sorts of decisions) would prove more effective.


 * Aya T E C 14:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am actually quite in favor of community consensus, but this relies on an understanding that our fundamental goals are the same. Right now, due to a lack of definition of wikibooks should be from wikimedia, I feel like there is a split in fundamental viewpoints on wikibooks (though to be fair, there's maybe 20 people who regularly read VfD -- maybe polling all contributors would turn out differently) and this split seems along the lines of textbooks versus instructional materials. So we currently lack agreement on what the fundamental goals of wikibooks are, and therefore we are unable to come to consensus about whether or not particular materials fall within our goals.
 * I think Jimbo's comment begins to address this, but I see some inconsistency in his comments on VfD. I do not think that the "wikibooks community" will come to the consensus that all non-textbook materials should be deleted, though this is what some people think is appropriate and desirable. I personally think that the goals of wikimedia may call for only textbook-like materials, but I don't think that wikibooks contributors will be able to come to this consensus on their own, and I tend to think intervention in the form of a clearly defined goal from wikimedia is necessary to resolve VfDs for things like the MoC and "how to cheat..." Kellen T 20:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that when the fundraising drive is over we should replace MediaWiki:Sitenotice with a site-wide vote on these issues. Someone just needs to draw them up in an adequate way. Currently we've only had about two or three people discussing what belongs. GarrettTalk 01:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Garrett to the rescue (again). Good idea. We could also use MediaWiki:Sidebar. We need to make votes on such important site-wide issues extremely visible, otherwise users may feel cheated that they weren't informed that a voting process was going on. This also ties in with an idea I had a while back of a centralized voting index page to link into pages like VFD, and to add in new pages to vote on important policy issues (perhaps we could use Community Portal?). We could also use this opportunity to split up VFD into separate pages for each item to vote on (like WP). We will need to ensure that voting is fair. Obviously we'll need to takes steps to avoid sockpuppetry, but we'll also need to ensure that the points being voted on are written in an unbiased way. Comments? - Aya T E C 15:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've drafted an example at Policy/Vote. Feel free to add or alter the points for now, it's not until closer to the vote that these options need to be relatively fixed. For now I've just used quotes by various contributors to illustrate the points, but ideally they'd be rewritten. GarrettTalk 03:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

New policy (again)
Hi Aya, et al. Looks like I just found this "club." Inspired by Gerrett's works, I've tried to narrow-in on a WikiBooks policy. Please look at User:Mshonle/Policy, which is based on feedback from those who have already been working on Garrett's page. I will post it there soon, too.

Aya, in particular I was wondering what you felt about video game guides. I think I've found a decent enough reason to exclude them, but I'm also the type of guy who changes his mind when confronted with new thoughts and information. MShonle 04:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If we've decided to go with academia only, then I can't honestly imagine any academic course which would require the use of guides to specific computer games, although a guide on programming computer games might be appropriate.


 * On the subject of academia vs. any non-fiction, it would seem that the site was originally supposed to be only the former, whereas it extended to include the latter as time progressed. I feel that perhaps this was wrong, and we should return to what the site was originally intended for.


 * However, such a massive change in scope means that most of our existing content will have to be moved elsewhere, and we must find somewhere for it to go before deleting it. For the computer game guides, I know Garrett is looking at getting admin rights on one of the game guide wikicities, and when this is done, we can start moving the game guides there. But what about all the other stuff which no longer 'fits'? This will all need to be moved somewhere else. Is there an existing wiki on which it can all go, or will we need to create one or more new wikis for it? Most importantly, is this going to be practical? This is the main reason I suggested extending Wikibooks to include all non-fiction, since I don't believe that the bulk of the existing content already here fits into the category of 'academia'. - Aya T E C 03:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that a radical shift in policy that would re-move a lot of books would be bad and we should avoid that. The middle-ground I have found, and put on the policy talk page is one that allows course work textbooks, how-to guides, and hobby and vocational guides. I have made a section on what books I think would be affected. Some of the books have already gone up for VFD and have been removed since I posted them. I think most important in the new policy, and indeed why we are even having a policy discussion, is to decide the reason why we would not allow future Manual of Crime-like books from being part of this project. I think we must also be midful of Larry Sanger's issues. For a textbook project to work and create results that are actually used in the classrooms (particularly in developing countries) we need to attract and keep academic contributors. This policy change would only be a part of that. The game guides is a huge issue and if they are to move we'd need it to be as smooth as possible. I'm not sure if an incremental move is better, or an all at once move is better. We could decide to leave the guides up here for a longer period to help us decide. MShonle 04:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I worry that using a term as vague as "hobby guide" could be reasonably extended to include just about anything. Certainly playing computer games is a hobby of many people, so under this wording, they would stay. If the goal is purely to ditch stuff like MoC, then why not "any non-fiction except that which glorifies the breaking of (US) law".
 * [This worry is addressed in the exclusions and qualifications: any guide that is on fictional creations without any conceivable classroom use is excluded. Because video games are fictional creations, guides to them are not allowed. Similarly, this would disqualify movie triva, except for study guides for films that film-students would see. The standards of quality section would probably imply there could be a single Film Study book, instead of dozens of smaller books on The Godfather, The Graduate, Kiss of the Spiderwoman et cetera. I'm sure even after all of this time and conversations that some of my policy suggestions could leave holes or exclude good books. A good way to check would be to post a list of books you see as edge or boundary cases, and I'll see how to interpret them, and make changes to the language if neccessary. (That is pretty much what has been going on already.) MShonle 15:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)]
 * Another possibility (although somewhat more radical), is that (in borderline cases) one of the flaws of the VFD system means that some poor user may spend ages writing a guide, only to have it deleted later. Would it not make more sense to have a "Votes for creation" (VFC), which would allow the community to decide on whether or not they actually want the specified book to be created in the first place. It would work something like this:
 * [I don't think we'll ever find a perfect system. It does suck that some work is "wasted" because they get deleted, but it's not like the authors don't get a chance to post it somewhere else instead. MShonle 15:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)]
 * A user wishing to create a new book (as opposed to adding a new page to an existing book) would add an entry to the VFC page, specifying the title of the book, and some sort of minimal scope that the book intends to cover. Any new page created in the main namespace is assumed to be a new book, and if the page has not been voted in by VFC, it will be speedily deleted.
 * The community would discuss/vote on the creation of the new book. Something which might crop up frequently is that a book already exists on the subject, and the user should work on that instead. This would also provide a place for users to discuss the structuring of the new book, and the appropriateness of it for the site. If the new book gets the green light, then they can start on it. If the book gets the red light, then they have wasted little time on its creation, and can also be given the URL of a more appropriate wiki to create it on.


 * This is actually similar to the procedure for getting a new Wikicity. It would also mean we don't have to worry about creating a well-worded policy on acceptable content, since each new book would be voted in on a case-by-case basis. We can retain the vague policy "this site is for educational books", and let the community decide for each new proposed book.


 * How does that sound? - Aya T E C 15:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of increasing any barriers to entry. I would rather make it simpler for the "right" people to easily create books and get working on them. One danger is that approvals could take a long time, or people might find it hard to even explain what they are trying to do to non-experts. Also as a result we might instead encourage people to, instead of achieving what they wanted to do by writing book X, that they try to achieve what they want to do by changing or ammending book Y, even though Y really shouldn't cover X.


 * In terms of wasted time, we could set a procedure that kicks in after a certain period time passes after a book's creation, or after a book grows to a certain length, whichever comes first. That way, the only wasted effort is that certain length of time or bytes.


 * The procedure I have in mind is that the book would need to have a specific charter proposed, revised, and approved. The charter would state what is and isn't appropriate for the book, the criteria necessary to reach a "first edition", an explaination of how it would fit the "what is a wikibook" rules, and what the book is trying to accomplish.


 * Charters would make it easier for contributors because then everyone would have the same idea of the scope and everyone would be aiming at the same target. But charters would not encode decisions that are likely to change. For example, it would not say what the order of the chapters were, because that would make it too hard to change the book (because then you'd have to change the charter and get it reapproved). A charter system would also respect the experts more, because it would prevent just anyone (or a group) coming along and making changes to a book that are counter to the (approved) charter. It's easier for an expert (e.g. an academic) to argue for and against charters than it is for them to fight against pseudo-trolls and other project hijackers. This could also be an enforced policy, which would mean charter deviations can be reverted.


 * Whatever the case, this sounds more like VFD/book creation policy than it does in defining what is a WikiBook. But the two can be complimentary. We might not be satisfied until we see both. MShonle 15:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your 'signature'
I've noted the cool superscript 'T E C' thing you often put when you sign your name and am wondering if this is a MediaWiki feature like the four tidles that I am not aware of, or if it is something of your own making? -- Singpolyma 11:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You can change the way your signature is rendered with, by editing the "Nickname" field in your preferences. Be sure to check the "Raw signatures" checkbox for maximum flexibility. - Aya T E C 17:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

main page +sk
please add interwiki to main page! :) Thanx! --Liso 07:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to have been done by Garrett - Aya T E C 17:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding .ico to the allowed filetypes?
A user has suggested that we have our own faviocn differentiated from Wikipedia's. So I banged one together but I can't upload it. Is it within your powers to allow .ico uploads, or is that a PHP-level customisation? GarrettTalk 23:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I just checked on #wikimedia-tech. The favicon.ico is not something that you can change via the wiki interface. File a request under the Wikimedia web sites section on bugzilla, and attach the new .ico file to the bug report. N.B. you can't attach the file 'til after you've submitted the report (for some bizarre reason). I can't imagine the .ico file format will ever be added to the allowed list of media types, since it's an MS proprietary format. - Aya T E C 17:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

bot
I would like to install a bot at English Wikibooks. There is a plenty of books that do not follow WB:NP; a bot can easily rename multiple pages. I know a bot used successfully at Polish Wikipedia and Polish Wikibooks - w:pl:User:tsca.bot. If you don't have other candidates, I think it would be ok.

What do you think about this idea? --Derbeth 11:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. - Aya T E C 09:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your De-Adminship
Hello. I would like to inform you that you will have your sysop rights removed here on 21 Dec 2006 due to inactivity. If you would like to discuss the matter, please see WB:RFA. You can re-apply for adminship at a later date if you wish. Thanks. -within focus 02:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back!
Welcome back, it's been quite a long while since we've seen you around here. I'm glad to see you back! As you've obviously noticed with the naming policy, a lot of things have changed around here in the past few years. We've adopted a de facto policy of minimalism, which is good in reducing needless bureaucracy, but can sometimes raise confusion where helpful or even necessary information has been omitted.

We tried like hell to get in touch with you about the deadminship thing. I hope that doesn't cause any sore feelings, it's something we've been doing more as a bookkeeping measure then as some kind of "punishment". The general consensus has been that it's better to have an accurate list of active admins, then to have a huge list where many of the names are inactive or have left forever. Plus, we've been viewing adminship more as a toolbox then as a badge of honor: Get the tools when you need them, give them back when you don't. Really, we're hoping it's all no big deal like jimbo once promised :).

Anyway, it's good to see you. I'd probably like to chat with you a little bit about history, since you were here long before I ever joined and probably know more about this place then I do. But, that's something we can save for later. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)