User talk:Jguk/Archive 1

Hi Jon. I am new to the wiki books system. So any help would be appreciated. I need to learn how to make new pages within my book. I tried openning a new empty link, would it be connected to my book automatically ? Also, I don't mind to find someone reviewing my english, since it not my native language. 10x, Oz.

Hello. Could you indicate the place where you annouce the requested change "AASF" → "America's Army: Special Forces/"? I cannot run the bot unless I know all interested editors agree to the change. Thanks, tsca ✉ 19:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

ALL FROM PETETURTLE
Jguk Please check up on Romeo and Juliet. Is the started plot synopsis what might fit Wikibooks? Peteturtle. June 2

Jguk, I AM going to annote each play in detail. However, reasearch takes time, and in the near future, I hope to have an act-by-act synopsis of each play to go along in the ABOUT THIS PLAY section. Peteturtle. P.S. Thanks for merging INTRODUCTION TO SHAKESPEARE.

June 2 Jguk, Thank you for teaching me about table of contents. Checking the SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS history, it seems you've added some things to the wikibook. Was it you that added the INTRODUCTION TO WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE section? Peteturtle

Jguk, Do you know how to add tables of contents? Please tell me how. Peteturtle

Jguk, I'll take your advice on having others collaborate on the Shakespeare wikibook. I'll try to nominate it for Collaboration of the Month. Peteturtle P.S. Are you a Wikibooks administrator?

Jguk, Check the AUTHORS page in the Shakespeare wikibook. Feel free to put your real name in. Peteturtle

Jguk, YAY!!!! Thank you SO much for bringing it up again! Thank you! Peteturtle

Jguk, I received your third message. Thanks for trying to bring it up again. Peteturtle. :)

Jguk, I received your second message. I wasn't going to do only three plays! I was going to try to include ALL of his work. That way, I could have something useful to do during my summer vacation. If you read my user page, I'm only in high school! Peteturtle.

Jguk, Never mind what I just said! I can't believe you deleted my Shakespeare's Works wikibook! I was going to use your critism to make it better, but you deleted it! I worked for one hour on trying to get just right (that includes "A Midsummer Night's Dream") Next time, please confer with the author before deleting their book! -Peteturtle P.S. Please answer back P.S.S. Please try to replace the Wikibook. I worked for a long time on that.

Jguk, You recently noticed my Shakespeare plays Wikibook. I thank your criticism. Your idea is good: I should make a section only on information on the play. Check back on Comedies---Midsummer Night's Dream later to see what I mean. Thank you for your help, Peteturtle.

Hello,

I just wanted to drop by to tell you that the is actualy. We administators are very carefull about deletions and we need a reason before we delete.

--Krischik T 17:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Where I haven't given a reason, the reason is "useless redirect". Maybe I'll develop a new template that inserts that reason automatically, ~

OrthopAEdic vs OrthopEdic
I have already talked about this in length elsewhere. Though you have already gone ahead and changed Orthopedic Surgery to Orthopaedic Surgery I would like to have your views on the topic.

BDB 17:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity:School of Fire and Emergency Management
OK, I've moved the pages. However, the redirects must not be deleted, because of outside linking and personal bookmarks. tsca ✉ 12:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What do we do about converting some this stuff back? I lost all my links to "Additional Training Materials". This could really take awhile trying to find them all.--Mfinney 04:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have lost A LOT of stuff. SOMEBODY CONVERT THIS STUFF BACK. There is no way I can search for it all... it took too much time to do this.--Mfinney 05:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Began doing the clean ups... let me see what I can find first....--Mfinney 05:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Ok... I freaked out for a moment. Please accept my apologies. Here's apparently what the bot does. It did pick up most of the links. However, those links to the .pdf's and some of the images did not. If I am understanding what the bot did, it did great as far as anything on Wikibooks, but doesn't like anything that has been linked into Commons. That's my guess because the pages that had links to Commons was not picked up... those that were to Wikibooks locations were. If that could be fixed, whoever developed the bot will have created an avenue to save all of us a lot of work. He can go in and look to see what linked and what didnt. Areas where it didnt link I just reset the pages to the old links so its easy to see. Hope that helps and let me know if that gets fixed as it is a really great resource.--Mfinney 18:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting redirects
Be careful deleting redirects to main book page. They might be used to link to the book from Wikipedia. I reccomend that you don't delete them, except obvious cases (misspelling). --Derbeth talk 00:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I admit I was a bit in two minds about it myself. I'll leave the redirects to the main book pages, Jguk 07:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Support
I just wanted to drop by and thank you for supporting me on my RFA. I really do appreciate your encouragement.--Mfinney 06:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an admin
I see that you have been granted admin status. The first clue was that the total number of modules as listed on the front page has actually gone down by a couple hundred from yesterday, so I took a look at the deletion log to see what you were up to.

I have no complaint, and thank you for helping out Wikibooks, doing the service that you have been performing. I also want to thank you for your efforts over the past month or so here, and they are very much appreciated as well. If you get a chance, please review MediaWiki Administrator's Handbook and add some input about what kinds of things you are not quite sure about or would like some more information regarding administrator duties. This is just an ordinary Wikibook, so nothing is sacred there or is official policy. It is just a casual guide to perhaps let you know what kinds of things may be useful to a new administrator and what "tricks" have been useful to others.

I need to do this more myself, so don't take this personally and treat this advise with a grain of salt as well (this is just my opinion on the matter): don't hesitate to still add the   tag to content that you think needs to be deleted. This way you can get a second opinion on removing the content and it can act as a check on yourself so you don't accidentally delete something that perhaps should have been kept. I've steped on enough toes already as an administrator that there are some serious arrows in my back due to mistakes in this area.

Again, thanks for being involved with Wikibooks, and let's make this an awesome project! --Rob Horning 10:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bar Ilan Troll 1
Hi,

looks like we where both out for him as almost the same time - which resulted in me blocking him/her as well. Sorry about that.

--Krischik T 16:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Jon, Thank you for catching the vandalism this subject caused. much appreciated...:) --Kajolus 04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking conflict
If you block an IP, click "Block log" link to check if it wasn't blocked before. If there are two blocks on the same IP or user, only shorter one is valid. --Derbeth talk 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had realised that. I noticed Cspurrier managed to block our main page vandal literally seconds before me yesterday, but we'd both gone for infinite. When Krischik reblocked infinitely a vandal I'd just blocked for a year, again I wasn't concerned:) Jguk 05:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

vfd
I'm new to Wikibooks, so i'm curious, how long will that take? That book/pamphlet of mine has some potential real world significance and time is of the essence. Karmafist 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for the work on ThinkStarship... as far as the naming convention thing goes, I did ask the question....

Prometheuspan 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

General Biology
Would you like some help moving pages in General Biology to correctly formatted namespaces? I started a lot of those pages a long time ago before we had the namespaces standardized, and if you want to work together on it, I can help you (and that will help me be motivated to do it, among three million other things that need to be done). --Karl Wick 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for the rename of America's Army: Special Forces
I wanted to say that I sincerely thank-you for the rename of America%27s_Army:_Special_Forces and the removal of the link back to the contents. It makes things much more sensible.

I do have one concern, which is that originally the 'book' was mostly aimed at the tactics related to the game, rather than the game as a whole, so I'm not positive that the new name is specific enough. No worries though. I'm sure it can be changed in the future.

Canscorch 05:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for permissions
I saw that an official request for permissions hadn't been made yet, so I added one for our recent de-sysopping voting. Thought you'd like to know. -Matt 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I took a similar opinion regarding the "sure thing" de-adminships compared to the others. I listed them separately there. -Matt 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Structure by interest group
Jguk, your suggestion from the staff lounge makes a lot of sense to me and I like the way you broke down the groups. I wrote Jimmy an email about it to see if he thinks it makes sense to split things up. Thanks for doing some great thinking for me. We'll see how things turn out. --Karl Wick 06:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Page navigation template
Jguk, any chance you can you help clean up this navigation template? Part of my goal to move it to the top was to draw attention to it so it could be improved. --Karl Wick 21:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Bartending
Wooah steady there Jguk youve deleted quite a few pages without even leaving redirects or any edit history. I'm really not keen on lumping recipes together and using big unwieldly lists. I'd much rather keep recipes seperate and make use of categories it makes things a lot easier. Could you please restore the deleted pages and we'll start up some discussion on the format. Discordance 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

At first glance youve been copying what ive been doing in the ingredients section which is something i was trying out some ideas with but that structure simply doesnt work for cocktails, eg a black velvet is a cocktail with beer and youve put it on the cocktails with beer page, but its also a cocktail with champagne and youve duplicated the recipe there too. things are going to get real messy and confused doing things that way, the ingredients im not sure about but the cocktails absolutely need their own pages using categorys. Discordance 00:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Jguk, I don't think anyone (and especially a sysop) should completely alter book structure without discussion. I expect you will consult Discordance on how to correct current book shape. --Derbeth talk 22:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I was retaining (but simplifying) book structure. I am considering my response to Discordance and have laid off editing that wikibook for a few days. I think the issue to be resolved is whether there is a better structure than that already adopted - and will respond with my thoughts shortly, Jguk 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats cool I was still experimenting with the structure myself, I just felt that deleting the pages left me with no way back lacking admin tools, I dont like unecessary redirects but theres a fair bit of edit history gone. Having lots of short articles isnt the best of situations i agree, but theres so many ways to categorise cocktails and so many recipes to add I really feel the only way it can be done is with a seperate article for each recipe. Even if we come up with a different structure though i'd like to see the pages restored for the sake of edit histories. Discordance 19:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jguk, I seem to also be having trouble due to whatever changes have been made regarding the bartending/cocktails articles. We have broken links all over wikipedia now to these articles. I have fixed a bunch of them, but many of the articles seem to have vanished completely from wikibooks, from what I can tell. Are they somewhere unexpected, or planned to be returned, or have they simply been deleted? I understand that these bartending articles transwikied from wikipedia tend to be low quality, but still it would be good to know which ones were deleted (if possible) to aid in removing dead links. Or if you can just verify that there are no bartending articles left besides the ones in the main obviously visible categories, I'll just assume any others are gone for good. Thanks --Xyzzyplugh 14:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Added to Xyzzyplugh's talk page:


 * Thank you for your comment on my talk page.


 * I have (I hope temporarily) restored all the bartending pages (see here for a complete list of pages in the book. In each case the content of the pages beginning Bartending/Cocktails has already been merged into another article linked from Bartending/Cocktails, which is why I believe the old links to be unnecessary. However, I will discuss this with the main authors of the book.


 * Incidentally, when linking to Wikibooks, I strongly recommend always linking to the book's title. Other pages in any book are subject to significant change (such as the merging of articles here followed by deletion of the old location spaces). On Wikibooks, whilst we tend to have redirects for book titles and bookshelves, we don't for pages and chapters of books (if we did we'd have more redirects than articles!).


 * All the best, Jguk 08:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to all the articles. I'm not sure what you mean by "always linking to the book's title", though.  The links I've been using within wikipedia end up like this: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bartending/Cocktails/Irish_Carbomb  is this correct?  The original links looked like this: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bartending:Boiler  and they all went dead, none of them work anymore, so I've been switching them to the new links.  --Xyzzyplugh 09:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, well i was hoping that if enough momentum built up for the book we'd be able to produce recipe pages of similar quality to that of the cookbook, thats what i was attempting with the B-52, there are a lot of ways to index the cocktails and with the vast number we will hopefully have its important to be able to find what your looking for, at the moment the B-52 has roughly the same sortof categories as a cookbook recipe, method and ingredients but theres the possibility of alcohol content and flavour (a little subjective but might be nice). For group pages you do run into the major problem of figuring out where to put the cocktail each time as repeating the recipe is not a good idea thats going to make it harder to keep things tidy, then once youve decided where things go the reader then has to figure out where its actually been put. I think good indexing is very important for this book. The ingredients and glassware etc do favour a hierarchal structure as on the whole theres only one way to classify and group them and theres a lot less that can be said about them in a cocktail context. Discordance 13:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am sending this same message to both you and Discordance, you're the two who I know are paying attention to the bartending area of wikibooks. I've just transwikied about 90 articles on cocktails, I moved most of them to the Bartending/Cocktails/ area, and added the barwork tag to them all. Except for about the following, which had previously existing articles here. These will all need to be merged, or will need to replace the previously existing articles if they are better, perhaps. I'm not sure what the procedure is on this, how do I go about doing this properly while still maintaining the history and all? Here is the list: And http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bartending/Cocktails/Prarie_Fire I realized there is another article here with the spelling Prairie Fire. --Xyzzyplugh 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ‎Transwiki:Black Velvet
 * ‎Transwiki:Brandtea
 * ‎Transwiki:Brandy Alexander
 * ‎Transwiki:Cosmopolitan
 * ‎Transwiki:French 75
 * ‎Transwiki:Golden Cadillac
 * ‎Transwiki:Margarita
 * ‎Transwiki:Mojito
 * ‎Transwiki:Prairie Oyster this is not strictly speaking an alcoholic beverage, not sure what to do with it
 * ‎Transwiki:Rob Roy
 * ‎Transwiki:Sidecar
 * ‎Transwiki:Slippery Nipple
 * ‎Transwiki:Sloe Gin Fizz

You havnt replied on the bartending page but have started moving cocktails can I assume that your ok with me then creating individual articles of high quality? Also have you done anything with the edit history?, I think you should probably have left redirects instead. But oh well. Discordance 19:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats great to hear I do intend to work on a lot of recipes. As for the AMF it should be written out in full as it is a name, however i have been thinking about modern cocktails and whether they should perhaps be seperated somewhat from 'classic' cocktails. For instance a Don Quixote is half guiness and half tequila, a drink i have tried once on a drunken evening but its clearly been designed for a digusting drinking game rather than an actual cocktail. I cant really decide at the moment whether to treat everything as a cocktail or to try to make some kind of separation. Discordance 23:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Rereading some of you comments on my talk page perhaps things like the AMF and other modern cocktails should just be left in the glossary and only 'classic' cocktails should get their own pages. The only fair way to decide what is a 'classic' cocktail would be whether or not the cocktail has made it into a printed cocktail book (but not novelty shots books). 88.144.26.238 15:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with throwing everything into a glossary index is that drinks are not simply recipes. Qualified bartenders learn how to develop new cocktails, which requires a theoretical education, not just a list of names and constituents with no indication of what's important and what isn't, how the ingredients function in a cocktail, etc. In particular, families of cocktails need to be linked together. A glossary would be a good place to put things like long lists of shooters or punches, but there is no way that anyone is going to learn to bartend well if his only exposure to the martini is a single paragraph. --Dan131m

I'll try to prepare and photograph all of the cocktails I wrote up soon. Don't worry about merging the information from the glossary into the articles, because in most cases the glossary information on the more important cocktails is either unimportant to a working bartender or could be summarized and formatted in a much simpler manner. --Dan131m

Cheers for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome message, but I don't expect to be very active here at Wikibooks. I'd like to help, but I'm doing lots of categorisation work at Commons, which takes up pretty much all of my non-wikipedia wiki time. Thryduulf 23:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about some of your deletion
I want to start out that I appreciate that you have been very helpful about clearing out some of the deadwood here on Wikibooks, 99.9% of which really needed to go from even my perspective. This is something that has been long overdue and simply needed somebody to step in and get the job done. For that I am grateful and want to encourage your continued participation on Wikibooks.

I'm just a little worried that perhaps you are going a little bit too far on deleting some of the content that you have removed in the past couple of days. Noting especially the VfD discussions, try to make sure that the discussion has wound down before going and deleting the content listed there. Wikibooks moves at a much slower pace than projects like Wikipedia, and it simply takes time to get all of the interested parties to be able to participate in a discussion.

I'm especially concerned about Wikilanguages, as this really has been a new Wikimedia project proposal that perhaps should have been moved to Meta or at least the author given a chance to move it to Wikicities. In the past, project like this were openly encouraged by several individuals, mostly those who didn't really understand the role of Wikibooks. Indeed several pages on Meta at one point strongly suggested that Wikibooks was precisely the place to put content of this nature. I've revised those pages to make it clear that Wikibooks is not the place to put stuff like that, but there were many new projects that were started unfortunately like Wikijunior where the content is loosly book-like but really has nothing to do with textbooks at all. BTW, I'm not yet prepared to fight a VfD over Wikijunior, as it would get a bunch of very irate individuals involved in that process.

I know that you and I have some differing philosophies on this and other topics, although I'd also like to point out that there are very few instances I've reversed your decision to delete content. Please keep in mind that some real people have put quite a bit of effort into much of the content you are now removing. Once it is gone it is difficult to bring it back, which is one reason why adminship is something that is reserved to trusted users. --Rob Horning 14:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The following response has been posted on Rob's talk page:

Rob

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. On the specific point on Wikilanguages, I have now restored the book - but please note that the vfd had gone on for 11 days with all the votes being to delete when I removed it. I appreciate you take a different view from me as to whether the vote should have been acted on this early, which is why I am happy to restore it following your comment, although I will note that you yourself have deleted something that's been on VFD for only four days where you have seen a clear consensus to delete. I suppose my point here is that it is clear that we are both here to improve wikibooks - whilst we may disagree on some points, I trust that this overriding aim will help us work together in maintaining wikibooks as a useful resource.

On the more general issue, when I came to wikibooks, it was clear that it had an identity crisis, which had seen a number of splits - the cookbook, wikijunior and wikiversity in particular had all been split off in some way. There was no standard naming convention, so each book looked separate rather being as part of a whole. There were many remnants of former days as a multilingual site, a lot of latent vandalism (eg a number of pages still needing ass pus or still having been damonized), and serious difficulties navigating to find what books are actually worth reading. This, through the efforts of a number of editors, is improving (although I'm sure not as fast as we'd all like).

There is still some way to go - personally I very much do see wikijunior and wikiversity as being part of the remit to host and develop textbooks, and I would love the rifts to disappear. The Cookbook namespace should disappear too. Hopefully making wikibooks look like something to be proud of will bring them into the fold. For me, we also need to resolve textbooks such as Knowing Knoppix and Gardening, which have already been published, but which are clearly textbooks that would not be out of place here had they originally been started here. To my mind wikibooks is the wikimedia project you look at for textbooks (and if it isn't, it bloody well should be). They are not appropriate for wikisource (which does not appear to cover things even remotely looking like textbooks), yet provide a welcome addition to wikibooks.

Other issues to resolve are to make things more user-friendly. I have already changed the Wikibooks portal (along the lines of what is done for other wikimedia projects), though this probably deserves more work as it is the first thing many first-time visitors see. I have started to redraft the Help namespace content using modified wikipedia content - this too needs to be completed. The main page, no doubt, can be improved further.

In summary, there is much to be done to make wikibooks look like a good place to develop new textbooks - but that is the noble aim. If we can succeed, we can help bring down the cost of textbooks generally, which will greatly help education throughout the English-speaking world. All the best, Jguk 07:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

All cocktails articles disappearing
Hi, I've noticed that the wikibooks cocktails links are all going dead again. It looks like you're combining all the cocktails into one enormous article. I have about a dozen articles still in Transwiki: which I listed in your talk page a bit above, do you want to handle these or should I? They are all for cocktails which had previously existing articles here, but they have substantially different content, and should be merged with or should replace the previously existing articles. --Xyzzyplugh 00:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right. The Bartending book needs a bit of TLC at the moment - but I'm hoping that come June (or later) it will be a book of the month. This means some consolidation. As noted before, when linking to wikibooks, it's best to link through to the book title (ie to Bartending) rather than any of its subpages. That's because book structures change, sometimes dramatically, whereas book titles tend to be static, and then have redirects remain when they are moved. I'm happy clearing out anything in the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace if you want. Alternatively, feel free to add them direct to Bartending/Cocktails/Glossary and add the contributors to Bartending/Contributors. Kind regards, Jguk 06:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia e-mail confirmation
Please see w:Help:Email_confirmation - a new Wikipedia e-mail policy has recently been instituted: since your WP account was registered way before 2006-03-02, your existing e-mail address has not been officially confirmed, which means people can no longer e-mail you via Wikipedia. If you would like, you may go to your WP account to confirm your e-mail address so that people can e-mail you via WP again. --69.117.7.119 02:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Cabalism
It's ok, nothing was really in it, and my thoughts have not been on this wiki stuff lately. I might recreate it later, but if it's NPOV, deleted or not is irrelevant, i'll just keep on recreating it. I'll look forward to your assistance in making an accurate and objective accounting of the social structure of Wikipedia as a whole. I know i'm biased, but ultimately, all humans are. We just need to accept that and step outside of ourselves to see these views from another perspective.

I hope you can give this other perspective once or if I can feel comfortable with Wiki-ing again. Karmafist 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi from a new user that stumbled in from WikiP! I never got to my WikiWork today as I browsed through the staff lounge and saw a familiar theme from various wikipedia archives, this time, in time to make a timely contribution.
 * On a personal note, my wife's in your line of work which over here means 18 hour days seven days a week this time of year making me a single parent. If you need a cross-pond (sic) consult, www.cabrandt.com (email:cbrandt as in Cindy) will give you a contact. Or email me, and I can introduce you. Just wait until April 19th or so (this year) to jog her elbow!  Does your tax laws impose such bubbles of activity on you? Fabartus//&#91;&#91;&lt;font color=&quot;green&quot;&gt;User talk:Fabartus&lt;/font&gt;]] 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (I wish I knew how to fix this sig!)

Scratch page
Hiya, it appears my scratch page was deleted by you, "per user's request", but I don't recall asking for it to be deleted (as there was in-progress work there). Could you please undelete it? Thanks Kellen T 11:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I must have gotten the wrong end of some stick somewhere. Now restored, Jguk 11:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that perhaps a tag was included from some templates I was testing, so you probably did nothing out of order. Thanks for restoring it. Kellen T 13:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleting Colonising Mars
Please don't! If you really feel compelled to delete this module, please VfD this book. Or at the very least nominate it for speedy deletion so a 2nd admin has the chance to review the idea. I've expressed some grave concern that perhaps you are deleting too much content here on Wikibooks, and I think this has gone too far.

I know that you are trying to help clean up some older content that has needed to be removed, but you are starting to move into areas that I really don't think should be touched, at least without community concensus and not just the opinion of one lone user. The weight of the world is not on your shoulders, and Wikibooks will do fine with even some of this cruft laying around for a little bit longer. The ability to remove content from Wikibooks is not something to be taken casually, and can be abused. --Rob Horning 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hit counters
Is there any way that a Wikibooks hit counter can be used on a sampling basis? I know that hit counters were removed but what I had in mind was including Wikibooks counters on the first introduction page of a set of books (not the main page) for a week and then removing them so that we can gauge hit rates. This would not put excessive strain on the servers. RobinH 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I'm no technician and therefore not in a position to answer this. Hopefully you can find someone else to tell you, Jguk 15:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Guide to cheating...
Actually, I think it makes sense to keep this, but convert it to a guide to prevent cheaters. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks policy
I have re-opened this at the staff lounge. There seems to have been some confusion about whether or not the elevation to "enforced" was justified - perhaps the discussion can be re-opened for another week or two. RobinH 12:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

please let me know if a discussion regarding the issue of contravention comes up. With a guillotine hanging over my head, I'm not spending any more time on it until the issue is resolved. If it goes up for deletion, or etc, I pretty much only ask that i be given fair notice and time to move it.

Other than that, I'm twiddling my thumbs over here. Prometheuspan 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jg, I cannot get a grip on this issue. I am surprised that you overrode the vote. RobinH 12:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: game guide transwikiing
I really see no problem in deleting pages that have been transwikied - to my mind, Jimbo's amendment to policy allows them to be deleted anyway as being outside the scope of Wikibooks (point 7 on the proposed Deletion policy), although in practice they won't be deleted until they have been moved elsewhere. As far as the transwiki'ing point is concerned, point 4 on the proposed policy makes no references to the wiki being a WMF wiki.) I'd also be ok about allowing the book title page to contain a link through to the new location for a short while - a year, say.

Could I ask you, however, to expand on how the process of getting the games books over to StrategyWiki would work? I have a number of questions:
 * 1) When would it happen?
 * 2) How long would it take?
 * 3) How would we know what has been transwikied?
 * 4) How would we know what the entire contents of any one book has been transwikied? (at which point we can delete the book from wikibooks)
 * 5) How would we know what will be transwikied?
 * 6) What would happen if the authors of a book did not want it to go to StrategyWiki?
 * 7) Do you need help from Wikibookians, including Wikibooks admins, for the transwiki'ing to occur? If so, what?

All the best, Jguk 12:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I guess that's the best way to go about it, and since it's all official anyway no-one's likely to object. Anyway, here's the answers...
 * Pretty much any time. The only real concern is some books have had edits more recently than the last dump (April 21st I think). The more stagnant ones can be done straight away, but the rest will have to be done once the next dump surfaces (either that or merge the old dump with a current revision only dump, which may result in loss of some edits).
 * Not long. The tool does its thing (speed depending on both the dump's size and the computer) and then it's uploaded using Special:Upload over there. It doesn't take any more than a minute or two, but the larger books sometimes encounter errors during the transfer. However another thing to consider is fixing the book page naming. This is a lot easier to do via search-and-replace in the dump itself than with the move command. Same thing goes for the slash convention.
 * The books will be done on a per-book basis (although the biggest MMO books might require two or more parts, it will depend on WMDumper's speed/efficiency) so everything will be marked and/or deleted soon after.
 * I'll mark the book's main page appropriately, and either delete the rest of the pages myself or else leave a message on the main page about their deletion.
 * Check out this list for exceptions. I haven't been through all the pages yet so there may be more.
 * Well, that's what the GFDL is for. Either they can extract their chosen pages from a Wikibooks dump (or the pages themselves, while they still remain) or else fork them from the StrategyWiki equivalent.
 * I don't think so, apart from deleting pages and things like that. Of course if you want to download a dump and jump on in feel free to. :)
 * Anyway, I think that's it. Now that my broadband speed boost has finally kicked in I can get started on the unpopular guides... GarrettTalk 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've transwikied some now. See this list for the new links, and recent changes here for the devastation to the old ones. ;) GarrettTalk 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

explain comment
My comment to jguk is only stating that as long as there is a question as to whether or not my effort on THINKSTARSHIP is in contravention, it seems irrational for me to continue that effort, until the issue of whether or not i am in contravention is resolved. It is not a personal attack, only stating that i'd like to see the issue resolved, and explaining that it makes no sense for me to continue working until it is. Prometheuspan 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasurances. Now i feel sort of stupid and lame and kind of petty for not working all week. It doesn't look like things are going to go off in the direction of deleting me, etc. I am sorry...I guess its back to work then... Prometheuspan 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bartending
Hey just wanted to say nice work and sorry for dropping out this month right after we decided on a format for the book had uni work to concentrate on. Its great to see interest from some other users is starting to pick up too. Discordance 20:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jguk me and Dan131m have been discussing some things about the book, we'd like some more opinions on what to do about measurements in the book. I think we should use ratios for consistency and to keep things international but Dan131m feels we should keep the original measurements for accuracy and ease of contributing. Any thoughts? Discordance 15:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sidebar
As I explained at the Staff lounge, I changed "search" to "books" in MediaWiki:Sidebar, which apparently solves the formatting problem. --Kernigh 08:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ac.thequeen.jpg
Jon, please note that we don't have most of templates Wikipedia is using and most of links in copied text become red. --Derbeth talk 21:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Be bold in updating pages
You deleted this page but just take a look what links there. What do you think we should do with it? --Derbeth talk 09:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
My first day here and I'm in trouble already :\ Anyways, as I replied on my talk, the only userboxen I created (and the only ones I planned to create) were about instant messaging platforms. They look pretty innocent to me, after all, there's a MSN Messenger userbox already. So I figured nobody would care much if I added the rest. — nathanrdotcom (talk &middot; contribs &middot; en.wiki) 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Formula Dé deleted
You deleted the pages Formula Dé and Formula Dé/1999 League Schedule & Rules, and I can not find any discussion on said deletion. How is a rulebook on this game any different than a rulebook on Monopoly? Why was this done without some discussion? —MJBurrage 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As you may well be aware, recently at wikibooks we have been looking at what books we have and assessing whether they really meet our inclusion criterion of them being textbooks. The pages you refer to fall foul of this (under pretty much any definition) and were therefore liable to be deleted summarily without further discussion. I am mindful, however, that authors may not have a personal copy of their work, and am willing to email (or if necessary temporarily delete) pages to them if they do not. If that is the case here, please let me know and I will email you the text (as I have already done for KingKogs (see below)). As far as the Monopoly pages are concerned, I believe they will go in the near future too - it's only because that book is longer and is about a very familiar game that it has not yet been removed, Jguk 07:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have a copy of the material at home. Related to the deletion, and Game Rules in general, which wiki would be the proper location for such material? —MJBurrage 16:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Games are taught at universities
A variety of games are taught at a number of universities. One example would be Computer Games and Simulations for Investigation and Education which is a class that uses a number of computer games and board games as teaching materials at MIT. Wouldn't this make the game content appropriate even under your interpretation/implementation of Jimbo’s comments on the matter? —MJBurrage 15:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Request
You recently deleted a page entitled "Character Attacks for One Piece" and said you'd e-mail the content to the authors if asked, I wrote almost everything on that page and I'd very much like you to e-mail me the contents at inuthrashya@yahoo.com as soon as possible. Thank you.KingKogs 00:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now done this. Please let me know if for any reason the email has not arrived, Jguk 07:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of "FAQ for alt.internet.wireless"
I'm stunned to find that all pages of this book have been summarily deleted as "not a textbook" without discussion or warning! They represented a great deal of work which hadn't been saved in any other place. Please at least send me the last content. I'd also like an explanation of the reasoning behind this kind of summary execution. --John Navas 05:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As you may well be aware, recently at wikibooks we have been looking at what books we have and assessing whether they really meet our inclusion criterion of them being textbooks. The pages you refer to appear to me to fall foul of this and were therefore liable to be deleted summarily without further discussion. You do not indicate whether you disagree with my comment that this book is not a textbook or not.


 * I am quite happy to email you the content of the book (if you provide an email address) or alternatively to temporarily undelete the content to give you an opportunity to copy it. I would also note that, whilst I think the content is not suitable for wikibooks, I do wish you all the best in finding a suitable home elsewhere in wikiworld, Jguk 07:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posted my detailed objections to your action and rebuttal to your contentions in Votes for undeletion, and ask that any further discussion take place there. Thank you. --John Navas 20:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response in Votes for undeletion . Unfortunately, like others that responded there, I still don't agree that your actions were justified -- I still think they were capricious, unwarranted, and unnecessarily harmful. You also failed to respond to all of my questions, including my request to undelete the book (as you had offered), much less submit the issue to Votes for deletion, which is what you should have done originally. You also failed to address the issue of other Wikibooks I've created. Please do so now. I'm seriously considering a formal complaint to Wikimedia. --John Navas 16:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 game guides
After my Illustrated Guide to the world of Spira (FFX and FFX-2) is on the line for deletion, and seeing that pretty much all game guides eventually will be deleted, I wonder when it's going to be their turn ? It is fine, we were expecting it after FFVII was transwikied. Both the Illustrated guide and the FFX / X2 stuff has been offered a home at Wikicities Final Fantasy Wiki and all 3 are being slowly moved there. Just give me and the others who work on the books some time OK ? Renmiri 06:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: If you can e-mail the content of all 3 (as I've seen above) that will be a great help! My email is kila01 at yahoo.com Thanks! Renmiri 06:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Adminship
I protected the requests for adminship page because those people kept adding in those false entries for User:Speedline1. I hope this wasn't an over-reaction on my part, but the same vandalism had happened multiple times, and was coming from more then one puppet user. I will unprotect that page personally within a day or two, once things have cooled down. If you or any other admin wants do take down the protection sooner, feel free to do so. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

FAQ pages on VfD
I know this might be a little bit of a hot-button topic for you, but i figured i would say something anyway. The Wireless Internet book in it's new form looks promising, and (I feel) is suitable for wikibooks. Also, there are a number of stub books that can (and should) be merged into it, if we vote to keep it. If you feel like your original complaints have been satisfied, I would ask that you vote to keep those books. Looking through the VfD discussion, yours appears to be the only vote against. If you do decide to change your mind, we can move to end the vote early. If not, that is alright too: I can certainly relate to a person who wants to stand by his convictions. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Transwiki
I responded to your concern about my transwikification at my talk page. Could you please clarify what you meant there? Thanks. TheProject 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Transwiki'ing
Great work so far. I hope the ones you have transferred to StrategyWiki are bedding down well. May I ask about the guides still listed at Books possibly in contravention with WIW? Are you intending to move the remaining ones? I saw you instituted a personal moratorium whilst Jimbo answered some questions, but I believe he has now dealt with those issues and that it is clear all game guides have to go. All the best, Jguk 07:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just haven't got to those ones yet. The ones I'm not importing for various reasons are listed on this page. Naturally this list may grow as I continue through the other books. And yes I'm resuming work now. GarrettTalk 08:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

wikistudy and wikiprofessional
Jguk, why can't there just be a bookshelf for both of these? it seems kind of excessive to give them their own page, and put them on the sidebar. Is there a discussion about this somewhere? DettoAltrimenti 21:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest in what I am doing. This was an example of being bold, rather than discussing first - although I have mooted the idea around without actually proposing it a number of times. I feel that these areas are part of the core areas Wikibooks should be addressing, along with Wikijunior and Wikiversity, which already have special "sidebar" status. Of course, Wikibooks should have textbooks that don't fit within any of those four descriptions too, and these can all be found through the bookshelves. I think the Wikistudy area - essentially a place for textbooks addressed at specific syllabuses on core school subjects - is a particularly important one. It is here that we have the most (as yet untapped) outside interest. I hope to assist in getting that interest turned into useful school textbooks both here at Wikibooks and through my work with Wikimedia UK. It is also the Wikistudy area that could make a real difference, especially given the high cost of purchasing copyrighted texts. I hope the future of Wikibooks has the Wikistudy concept as an excellent core which then spans out to cover textbooks on other areas, Jguk 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Email...
As an active admin, you should have a specified email address so people can email their concerns to you. If you wouldn't mind, please activate it. Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought (erroneously) that I had activated it. Have now corrected matters. Kind regards, Jguk 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I just know how frustrating it can be to go and email someone, and find myself unable to do so. Also, since you seem to be a very active deleter, etc. people should have a way to talk to you off-wiki. But I'm sure you already know all this, so I'm basically wearing out my keyboard for no reason. ;-) Thanks! -- LV (Dark Mark) 02:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)