User talk:Jguk/Archive 2

Voting on Wikijunior
Hi there! I'm new to editing and I'd like to place my vote for a proposed Wikijunior book about the Alphabet. I'm willing to help with the book. As near as I can tell the voting page has been "locked??" and your name is one of the last ones to have edited that page (I think). Did you lock it? If yes, may I ask why. If no do you know who did and why they might have done that? If you wouldn't mine emailing me a copy of any reply you might have, I'd appreciate it--Thanks. christystockman _AT_ yahoo _Dot_ com  --Christystockman 07:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion against community consensus
Hello Jon,

I'd like to ask you to revert your deletion of (done at 18:29, 29 May 2006) because the result of the debate was Transwiki (see ). I'm afraid it would be somewhat unfair to act against community consensus. On the discussion page, nobody at all proposed, supported or agreed on deletion.

This list was a considerable collection made by several people during years, something that is certainly of interest by illustrating the differences of languages in terms of phonology, morphonology and morphophonemic, and I doubt how it could be "not suitable for wikibooks".

Thank you! Adam78 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have sent you an email containing the deleted text and noting why it is unsuitable for wikibooks and should not have been sent here by wikipedia in the first instance. I am willing to extend this courtesy to others (provided they are not too many), but really an admin on wikipedia should undelete the content from there to allow the page to be transwikied to a suitable location. If the email does not arrive (it was somewhat large), please let me know, Jguk 17:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost done... Can you wait until Monday ? I moved most of the pages already I just have to check if I didn't leave a link or a picture behind. Thanks for waiting!! Renmiri 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done!!! I tagged all images and pages that I moved with which puts them in the category for speedy deletion, hope it helps! Renmiri 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're WAY out of line!
Deleting a complaint from a fellow writer/editor is beyond the pale. You should be ashamed of yourself. Johnny 00:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say you were out of line, but for future reference, you should be a little more reserved when you declare a particular user as a vandal. Entering into an edit war was certainly not appropriate behavior from a user using an open proxy, but the edits he was making were benign enough. I would have listed him on Problem Users, but I would not have blocked him without some sort of confirmation from another user. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of a user who has previously vandalised wikipedia coming over here with a series of open proxies to make disruptive, trolling edits (as easily shown by the complete lack of discussion by the user prior to my blocking, and then using open proxies to post the old wikipedia complaints of "administrator abuse" as soon as the disruptive account is posted. Wikimedia also has a policy of blocking open proxies on sight, Jguk 06:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your action, I only feel that it was maybe a bit to hasty. We could have avoided the whole discussion entirely if you waited for a second opinion on vandalism in progress. The fact that this same open proxie has previously vandalized wikipedia does not necessarily imply that this particular user was that vandal. General policy states that we shouldnt bite the newcomers, and that we should be hesitant to label as a vandal a new user. Even though this user did engage in an edit war with you from an open proxy, his edits were benign and some would even say beneficial. Again, the fact that he didn't discuss the issue on any relevant talk pages before rolling back your edits is suspect, but only indicative of a newcomer, and not of a vandal. Being bold is a prized attribute here, but being hasty and reckless are not. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On reflection - yes, I could have been slower, or introduced more discussion earlier, to allow for confirmation of my initial view that this was not a new editor acting in good faith. I will certainly bear that in mind going forward. However, in this instance, my initial suspicion proved correct - it was someone, familiar with Wikimedia wikis, who was using open proxies (and I guess you're aware of m:WM:NOP) to come here to disrupt wikibooks. Once blocked, after a warning, said user moved to another open proxy to continue the trolling.

However, I will certainly bear in mind how to deal with such a similar event in the future - and will probably act slower and investigate fuller unless there is widescale disruption. I accept that next time it may be a new bona fide editor that I am dealing with.

Getting back to this user, however,once (s)he is identified as using open proxies (and engaging in troll-type behaviour) it is quite correct to have no truck at all with this user (and I'm tempted to block the obvious sockpuppet account, User:Julie, although I probably won't do so unless it is used for further disruption).

I would add that, where we do have a troll, I think it is irrelevant as to whether that troll raises issues that some Wikibookians may wish to discuss between themselves. The disruptive user should go, leaving bona fide Wikibookians alone to have that discussion if they so wish. Anyway, thanks for your note, I am suitably chastened (although mindful that in this case, I was dealing with a genuinely disruptive user). All the best, Jguk 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I know policy, and I agree with your decision. But, this is the second time in recent memory (with the other being the fiasco over the alt.internet.wireless FAQs) that you have acted hastily and created a stir. I would not be so quick to judge User:Julie as a sockpuppet, or a user editing in bad faith. While we should not feed the trolls, we most definatly should not bite the newcomers either. The argument to use BCE/CE over the BC/AD labeling convention is a valid argument, and so far User:Julie's contributions on the subject, though posted without a signature, are respectful, in apparent good faith, and therefore admissable. I started a discussion on the matter on the main talk page of that book, and have already received some good replies. I am not here to chastise you, but instead I want to let you know that I am supportive of your bold actions, so long as they are for the best and they do not cause undue strain on the community at large. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, got your reply (wasn't watching this page). What went over the line from my view was deleting another person's input on the lounge page (which I assume is the local version of the village pump). It contained no cursing, YELLING, etc., and so should have at least recieved a curt answer, rather than being deleted. (I still have no idea what the war is about, as neither of you linked the book in question.) Johnny 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

archiving
5 days is a bit quick, isn't it? :/ I'll just assume wikibooks has no interest whatsoever in a project that can easily help them better manage their Commons images, then... pfctdayelise 10:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Geez, you should see the Commons:Village pump if you thought the Staff Lounge page was long... :P
 * It takes a small amount of work to set up, but after that it just runs itself (barring any unforeseen problems). Because this is an English project, we don't even have to write any translations for the interface. There is detailed information here explaining what to do (basically how to set up CommonsTicker and the template for it to use). It's good if you can use IRC to talk to Duesentrieb just through the set-up. en.wikt has theirs running now and their admin thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread. en.ws has just requested one. (en.wp can't run one until the toolserver/corrupt database problem is fixed.) --pfctdayelise 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it? :o That never occurred to me...
 * You could block the bot, or you could just ask Duesentrieb to stop running it, I'm sure. pfctdayelise 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also I just noticed es.wikibooks has set theirs up. See es:Wikilibros:CommonsTicker. pfctdayelise 07:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Peanuts stuff
Way over at Wikipedia, the powers that be decided to transwiki all of my Peanuts annotations to Wikibooks. Since that was an official policy decision, I assumed that means that they qualify for inclusion, so I've started making tha pages. Should I not do that?

Here's a page. See the top banner: The Complete Peanuts: 1955 to 1956 Annotations

Also, Wikibooks has a special annotations section.

--- Reply to last message: Ah, yes, I was mis-informed. OK, delete away. -KXL


 * How exactly does your claim that "they ought to have the feel of a textbook, rather than just be a series of what are essentially footnotes" fit in with existing Wiki-"books" like Accelerando Technical Companion, which sure looks like a collection of footnotes to me. Or, indeed, with the enforced policy "Wikibooks includes annotated texts"?  In short, did you discuss your arbitrary decision to delete this content with anyone else, or does it just reflect your own personal prejudice?

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
Jguk, I put a large majority of the modules in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion there, and if you are going to delete them, could you pay special attention to the comments I left for the delete, and let me know if they are alright? For exapmle, in some modules with one or two sentences, I just left the comment "no content"- maybe I should leave a more specific comment? Also, the wikibooks Gmail has been listed at Votes for deletion, so don't delete that yet- I'll revert the speedy delete templates on each page. Thanks, DettoAltrimenti 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Help, please...
I'm having a hard time adjusting from WP to WB... do you have time to walk me through a couple things? Assuming you're willing, here's a few questions:

1. Is there a way to set up a TOC on the main page of a WB so that it automatically adds new chapters when they're created? If not, how does one find new chapters that might have been created?

2. Is it better to set up a glossary of terms in a wikibook, or just use "w:" links when a term seems like it needs a bit of explanation?

3. I'm pretty sure you're familiar with what I'm working on (A Wikimanual of Gardening). As I move the WP how-to stuff over here, I feel the next step should be to rm the stuff in the WP article and leave a link to the appropriate chapter of that book. Am I asking for trolly edit wars here? (Well, I'm not asking, but will it be percieved that way?) Any advice on handling that part?

4. During our little scuffle last week, I noticed that you responded to me here (on your talk), rather than on my talk. Is that the normal thing on WB? (I don't like "watching" other people's UPs... makes me feel like I'm eavesdropping).

-Johnny 18:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick and informative reply. Have questions about it though... would you mind watching my page so we can continue the discussion there? Johnny 19:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert of Lazyquasar's home page.
Thanks for the attempt to correct vandalism. For reasons I will not go into my computer drops the account cookie from time to time. I have changed my page back to let friends and aquaintenances that I will not be wasting time here for a while. Perhaps if the stacked board ever approves stable URLs I will be back, perhaps not. It looks like the special appointed committee and other existing project partisans are slowly eviscerating the idea of an online university. Please leave my message announcing a walkabout as is this time. Thanks again. user:lazyquasar

Re: South America
Hey, hey, wait, England has nearly drawn with Paraguay and Sweden hasn't managed to score Trinidad and Tobago even one goal. Let's wait for the match between Trinidad and Tobago and England :P --Derbeth talk 22:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Main Page content
I changed the one heading from "Wikiversity books" to "Wikiversity Schools". I didnt realize that this change had previously been made, and that you had reverted it back, until I looked in the page history. The resources being linked to under this heading are the actual school pages of wikiversity (akin to the bookshelf pages here at wikibooks proper), and each page linked to is in the format "School of X". I think that is makes more sense to name them "schools", and not "books". If you still disagree with this, then we can start a discussion on the template's talk page, and try to find concensus. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:My book guide
You raise a good point, in that entire guide I never once explicitly mention the target audience. I tacitly assume, I think, that the target audience will simply be "students". However, different subjects are taught differently to different groups of people. For instance, Engineering students learn things differently from physics students, who learn the concepts differently from math students, etc. I'll go back to the guide and add in a section about a target audience. Thanks for the feedback! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Hi Jon,

I noticed you created a category for my book, Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book. Since I'm the primary on that, I was wondering what I should do from here on out. Why make a category for a single book? I'm just looking for guidance here, and wanted to know what you had in mind. Jim Thomas 14:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have the same question about the book Choosing_The_Right_File_Format for which I have been the main author. What's the purpose of filling a category with sections from a single book? --DuLithgow 23:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Textbook Format
Hi.

You added a warning in the tutorial Im writing about DVDs... What do you mean exactly by "Textbook format"?

Bonafé 23:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for checkuser rights
BTW, since User:Uncle G has seemingly dropped out of sight and User:Derbeth has apparently received the 25 necessary votes to get checkuser status, we need an alternate candidate for checkuser rights to help fill the requirements of having this sort of privilege on Wikibooks.

I hope you would consider accepting your nomination on Wikibooks:Requests for adminship for checkuser rights.

While I do have many disagreements with you, I do appreciate the efforts you have made on Wikibooks and you are not a random troll trying to patently destroy this project. I also find it very healthy to have a diversity of opinions and have appreciated your comments on the various talk pages and even the mailing list. --Rob Horning 12:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to let you know personally that my neutral vote on your nomination doesn't mean I dislike you or that I want to punish you or anything, I'm just being cautious. When you start getting upwards in votes, and no more issues are raised, I will gladly change my vote, and petition others to vote in your favor as well (assuming you accept your nomination, which I think you probably should). Good luck, talk to you later. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Germany 1 Poland 0, England 2 Trinidad and Tobago 0
Ok, but everyone, including England fans, say English team is playing terribly bad and it's a real punishment to be forced to watch them :P Hey, and we lost goal in 91st minute, after 20 minutes of playing only 10 agains 11. And we did not loose goal situations in a way Peter Crouch did! ;-)

Seriously, Polish players' play was a disaster, I promised myself to stop watching Polish national team matches. --Derbeth talk 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again :).
I'll have to make some better templates for A Wikimanual of Gardening so you don't have to keep categorizing them. Johnny 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Control Systems
I see that you added this category to every page in the Control Systems book. I think it's a good idea to mark these pages with this template. However, I wonder if we should put the template into the Control Systems Page template, that is already at the top of every page in this book. I've already been using page-header templates in other books to put a category designation on every subpage. Which method do you think is better? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you, Jguk, for all the editing you have done on Developing A Universal Religion. David Hockey 18:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cookbook redirects
Please undelete the Cookbook redirects that you deleted on 18 April, [ log here]. Thanks. Kellen T 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for undeleting most of the redirects, but you missed a bunch in A-C. [ log]. Kellen T 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, please undelete these. Kellen T 09:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Page locks for transwiki archives...
Hi Again,

Yet another question about transwikied material that I'm using for source materials in A Wikimanual of Gardening, namely, I'd like to see the original versions protected, rather than edited (an IP user has done this once or twice. I would be putting these under "Volume/Chapter/Transwiki". Is that a good idea? And would users be able to view the edit page cor C&P, or would this restrict all C&P to copting from the module view? (Am I making sense?) Johnny 11:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome. {RCLBoW presses a fast forward button on remote.}

Second Law/Entropy in Wikibooks
THANK YOU!! I'm a novice and, so far as I can see, your editing was to improve the formatting of the chapters. (When I saw that 'someone' had altered the chapters, I was frightened that the many many hours I spent on writing them had been wiped out by a wild vandal..:- THX so much for your aid! FrankLambert 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Character Creation
You moved my article... and then two of it's pages is deleted! The least you could've done was move all of the pages, and drop a note on my talk page! I know your probly a mod but... I DEMAND YOU MOVE THAT BOOK BACK UNTIL ALL IT'S PAGES CAN BE MOVED! ~VNinja~ 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this is about. As far as I was aware I corrected the misspelling in the page titles for all pages in this book. If I overlooked anything, that was by accident, Jguk 04:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Woah... I was hot-headed then...

Meh, sorry for being so short with you, dude. ~VNinja~ 20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

PHP Programming
Given the functionality of a page such as this one, in addition to cross-linking in the main pages of most PHP articles, is it necessary to add category tags to each individual page related to PHP? Imo, it would be better to add the category tag to the main page of each wikibook project related to PHP instead of linking every single page with PHP on it. As the number of PHP-related pages grows, it will become increasingly difficult to get any real use out of the category page as it will have more and more pages listed with little to no context.

Or is the functionality I described above better suited to Portals? --banzaimonkey 19:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding categories
I'm curious...

Why are you adding categories to a whole bunch of pages that there is already a logical link to them? Certainly it isn't hard to get from most Wikibooks to their "parent" page or a table of contents in most cases without having categories.

I certainly don't mind putting the Wikibook "title page" in a category or something like that, but this seems counter productive and useless information by adding every module page into a category that is essentially just a book name anyway. --Rob Horning 18:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe if I can answer this point here. The aim of categorisation is to allow any user to drill down to any module on wikibooks through using categories.


 * As each module can be in more than one category, categorisation allows for relationships between different modules to be identified. It also has the benefit of listing out all pages in each book and of making it easy to follow all recent changes made to pages in a book (including new ones added) by using the "related changes" function on the category page. Admittedly for some modules, these benefits are less than for others. However, in no cases does categorisation present an impediment (ie there is no downside to categorisation). For some subject areas, categorisation will, I think, become a key way of locating material, Jguk 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By categorising each page in a book when categorising the book would be sufficient, you overcrowd the categories page, making it less useful. You recently put a few new pages in into Category:Chemistry &mdash; a category that has over 200 entries and I don't see an end to a proliferation of chemistry pages on Wikibooks in sight.
 * Has this been discussed anywhere? I could not find anything on WB:PAG. --Swift 20:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK
Jon,

Are you all right? Alison and I have been trying without success to get in contact with you for a while...

James F. (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

General voting rules/Proposal
I have introduced a new proposed version of the general voting rules policy here, and I would like to get a few pairs of eyes to read it over before I move for an official vote. Once We can get this voting policy in order, I would like to work pretty hard on some of the policy reforms that you have suggested (because alot of them make good sense to me). Please head over to General voting rules/Proposal, and let me know if you like the language used, and the rules required for votes. I would like to call a vote on this policy within the week, hopefully, and make this policy official. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited the text of your rewrite on the policy. I wanted to move the "Concensus" section up, and put more emphasis on the process of concensus. Make sure I didn't ruin anything that you were trying to say previously. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding categories
Could you please explain your behaviour. You've been slamming categories everywhere and not responded to [ my comment] from [ 20:17, 30 July 2006]. Since then you have seemingly made well over 500 such edits! --Swift 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The initial move to categorise every module is near completion, and should be complete within a week. That is, however, just an initial run through. As you note with your example of the chemistry category, there will need to be some tidying up, which I will move on to next. I would be interested to hear from you how you believe the chemistry category could usefully be subdivided so that users can easily find both books and pages they might be interested in. In view of the concerns you have expressed, once the initial categorisation is complete, I will make further tidying up of that category a priority - although do feel free to help too. All the ebst, Jguk 07:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this a very efficient process? Categorizing everything only to recategorize it later?
 * I haven't really looked at the chemistry category page. I just noticed that it was very crowded and with the growth that we've seen in some other wikis I feared that such a proliferation would be detrimental for the usefulness of the category page.
 * I asked in my first comment on your talk page whether this practice had been discussed somewhere. The reason is that I believe that every book and every page will need a different categorization scheme and rushing off to categorize everything by some simple criteria isn't neccessary the best way to assing books and pages to the most fitting categories. A couple of days later, without a reply from you despite fairly rigorous editing, I took the matter to the Staff lounge where I was told that there were no policies or guidelines and no discussion either.
 * I'll be away for a while from tomorrow, but upon my return to civilization, I'll see if I can start something if it hasn't begun already. I'd love to hear about your rationalization for your original categorization scheme and your plans for how to approach your second round through. Also, do you keep a special log of your categorization, and do you do everything by hand or do you use a bot? --Swift 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting transcluded pages
Could you stop deleting transcluded pages? Last example was Learning the vi editor/Moving around - 4 pages need that transclusion and you wack it away. "What links here" would have told you:

< Learning the vi editor/Moving around

The following pages link to here: View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500). Learning the vi editor/Basic tasks (inclusion) Learning the vi editor/Vim (inclusion) Programming/LearnByExample/Nix/Editors/vim (inclusion) Learning the vi editor/Print version (inclusion)

Your adminstrator right are not a toy - think twice before you delete.

And just in case you don't know what a transclusion is, that's one:

which results in

Shure on it's own it looks a little lost but look at it in context: Learning_the_vi_editor/Vim or Learning_the_vi_editor/Basic_tasks. If you delete a transclusion source you cripple the pages which include them!

--Krischik T 12:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for editing help
Hi, Jon. Thank you for help in editing for Water Resources Directory with its many pages. My intention for this large book project is to contact many water resources professionals, who are not Wikibookians (but soon will be), to ask them to contribute. But this project can't move along until the dreaded VfD sword is removed from the book. Could you please help out by voting to keep? Thanks very much for considering. I noticed your discussion with Rob Horning about the educational content for Wikibooks at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_talk:Inclusion_criteria/Proposal --  KHatcher 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jon. This is a big help, and now I can move the project forward. -- KHatcher 11:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories (2)
Hi Jguk,

There are a number of redundant categories in the How-to sections... hope you don't mind me consolidating them (it looks like you had created at least some of them). I've been thinking about a good structure for this section: see User:SBJohnny/howto_guidelines_worksheet for details (feel free to edit, of course). -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please reorganise away, Jguk 05:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again,

There's been a few cases where things have been miscategorised (unrelated books starting with the same letter being categorised together... don't worry, I know how it happens). I've cleaned up the smaller ones as I went along, but I've been tagging the larger categories to, should you be in the mood for a rote task. (They're not all how-tos... one I just found while on NPP, but the first ones were, so I figured I'd keep them all in one place).

BTW: any thoughts on my RfA? -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Note to all admins
As i mentioned at the voting proposal, I want to send out a simple message asking all active admins to come take a look at the discussion. I say "admins" specifically, because the addition of committies, arbitration/mediation, or other structures would affect the the duties and responsibilities of admins (as well, perhaps, as the admin selection criteria). Here is the text of the note that I am going to send out, let me know if it is fair:
 * I would like to personally call all active wikibooks admins and users to come take a look at the proposed version of the General Voting Rules policy that is currently under discussion. The current text of the policy puts a focus on "consensus" as the primary method of making decisions. However, it has been asserted that such a policy would allow disruptive or stubborn users to "block" votes, or prolong them indefinately. This policy has the power to affect all users here at wikibooks, and it is imperative therefore that all users read the proposed text of the policy, and join in the discussion.

Thanks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means go for it. Kellen's rewording looks to have merit in it - it does not, of course, pick up on Robin's concerns directly, but it doess set out the options someone has if a decision goes 'against' them, Jguk 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of separating out the multiple subversions we have had about this proposal: This way we can look at them side-by-side, and (hopefully) weed out the versions we dont like, and improve the versions we do like. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Version 1 My original version of this policy.
 * Version 2 Jguk's version
 * Version 3 RobinH's revision of Jguk's version
 * Version 4 Kellen's version

Policies and guidelines/Proposed reform
After we get the General voting rules policy enforced, I would like to start reworking policy to fill in the holes that (i think) we have here. I like alot of your proposed changes on this page, and I would like to work with you to make alot of them happen. I know there are some other users as well who have expressed interest in working on many of these policy changes. If we could team up and work out a priority listing of changes that we can work on, we can start to take care of them one at a time. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to make Roman Catholicism no rights reserved
As the creator of the book and principal editor so far, I propose to make the Roman Catholicism book no rights reserved. Would you be OK with that? If so, please mention it on my talk page and/or the module's page. Since several other people have edited it, it will either be necessary to get the other editors' OK's or to not use their additions. Hopefully I can get the OK from the admins. JBogdan 16:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

PHP != Pascal
I'd really love to know how Pascal Programming/Beginning has anything to do with PHP... (see []) --Ajdlinux 07:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Where've ya been?
Hi Jguk... are you popping in from time to time? The uncategorised pages list is quite long again... I'm going through them, but some help would be great. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'll be back soon (though mostly to develop my Taxation in the United Kingdom book). Just been really busy elsewhere, Jguk 07:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Acetone peroxide synthesis
I have proposed the acetone peroxide synthesis for deletion. What do you think? Ewen 14:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job!

 * Invertebrate Zoology/Metazoans is a great module. Thanks for all your edits on it. Tannersf 02:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * is a great module. Thanks for contributing to it and Wikibooks. Tannersf 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Gamsat guide is a great module. Thanks for contributing to this module and Wikibooks. Tannersf 22:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ancient History/Americas/Aztec Empire has become a good module, but is not complete. Thanks for contributing to this module and Wikibooks. Tannersf 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Art Tutorials/General Concepts/Light and Shadows is a great module. Thanks for contributing your work on this module. Tannersf 12:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Serial Programming:Modems and AT Commands/Special Commands and Character Sequences is a great module. Thanks for contributing your work to this module and Wikibooks. Tannersf 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Puzzles/Easy Sequence 4/Solution is a great module. Thanks for contributing to this module and Wikibooks. Tannersf 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * GCSE Science/Electricity multiple choice practice question 8 answer 4 is a great module. Thanks for contributing to this module and Wikibooks. Tannersf 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Gardening/Wax Plant is a great module. Thanks for contributing to this module and Wikibooks. Tannersf 18:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese/Pronunciation
Hi, as you're a contributor for this page can you confirm that this page should be deleted. It was nominated for speedy deletion because "This page has long since been broken up into shorter pages, and made into a more complete 4-page guide which starts at Chinese/Pinyin_Pronunciation". I just want to be sure before it's deleted. Xania talk 22:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Email...
I sent you an email, sorry if that isn't a convenient method of communication. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I resent the email. Talk to you later. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Helpful and levelheaded as always, Jguk, thank you for your reply! You do make some very good points: (1) we shouldnt be making policy decisions with a bad taste in our mouths, (2) we should rewrite it to be more friendly, and (3) I need to work on my participles. I've mentioned before that I am not dead-set on having the ownership stuff included in the decision making policy (although User:Darklama is, i think). It seems we need to excercise more thought in this matter before we make any changes. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Given that you seem to be around and are a more experienced admin than me can I have your views on a user name - User:Swastik - is this iffy or not (just been created). Hope you don't mind and thanks -- Herby talk thyme 09:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the advice. I felt similarly to you but wanted to run it past someone - still new at some aspects.  Regards -- Herby  talk thyme 14:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to volunteer as a potential member of editorial boards?
See Volunteer_editors

Also Editorial board,Wikipublish and the discussion in the staff lounge. RobinH 15:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to volunteer all my services to the starcraft wiki-book. It needs a lot of new pages and as it stands, has poor coverage of UMS maps. There are few things I know more about than sc. I also ask that you choose to disregard on the main wikipedia, I have no remorse for what I did and those guys deserved it, but I really want to help with the sc wikibook.

Blocking Policy
I saw your message on the new blocking policy proposal, and I wanted to personally get in touch with you about it. There have been instances lately (and i wont list any names) where admins have have been more "bold", and less interested in community or courtesy. I can't fault people necessarily, for following the be bold mantra that we are always chanting. The problem arises because there is the Be bold guideline, but there is no counterpoint talking about when it isn't appropriate to be bold. What I want to avoid is people saying "I think this other admin is wrong, so I was bold and corrected him", or "I didn't want to wait for community concensus to use my admin tools, so i went ahead and used them anyway". These kinds of statements are dangerous and should not be tolerated.

Another point that you brought up is the issue of some wikibookians using all this additional policy as a way to find fault with admins. The more rules we create, the more likely it is that an admin will violate those rules (even by accident). I understand this concern, but at the same time i feel that admins should be held to a higher standard, and that we can tell people "thou shalt not" when we give them all the shiny new buttons of adminship. When in doubt admins shouldn't use their powers, and it is always better for us to say "don't use your powers in the following few situations" then it is for us to mandate that admins must use their powers in particular ways.

I hope this helps to ease some of your concerns. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CCNA Certification
Are you still interested in participating? Drop by and see if there is anything you can add.  kgrr talk16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to remember you
Policies and guidelines/Vote/Be Bold is running, try to cast your vote (a list of policies/guidelines status is available Policies and guidelines/Proposed reform. Txs. --Panic 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Organic Chemistry
Hi Jon, I'm a college student in the States. I'm trying to revise some of the O. Chem Wikibook, and I saw your question about soy bean oil and epoxy plasticizers. Could you provide some more background information? I didn't quite understand the question, although I must admit I'm not an expert on epoxides. WilliamJenkins09 03:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to call you attention to...
The current VfD of Votes for deletion/90 Days to Calculus II a work were you have made a post on the discussion page on wanting to do some alterations... --Panic 02:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks Issue Guide VfD
The work Issue Guide was tagged for deletion on Wikibooks, your input would be welcomed. --Panic 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)