User talk:Mshonle

Hi, you've been nominated for adminship at Requests for adminship. Before any action can be taken, you need to either accecpt or decline the nomination. Thanks, Gentgeen 04:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I accept! MShonle 21:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I'm also from UCSD -- I just graduated with a BS in CS and a BA in Studio Art. I work in the IT department of the library. Kellen
 * Cool, are you vegan as well? (Since you've been working on the cookbook.) MShonle 18:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep; I used to work at the Che. I also know Dana, who I see is on your list of friends. Kellen
 * Cool. I would go to the Che last year. Perhaps we've met.

Administrator
Dysprosia made you an admin (I know, the process took way too long), so you should probibly go read Administrators, add your name to the list, and also brush up on the other policies governing admin actions. Congratulations. Gentgeen 19:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! MShonle 19:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletions: if the user (even if they are logged in) has mainly contributed vandalism, admins can block these immediately. Dysprosia 09:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!! I've been taking a long break from both wikipedia and wikibooks, but i'm back and i plan to (atleast) finish a number of things i've started.

Gkhan 17:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent work there! It's good to see the book making progress again! MShonle 23:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Advanced data structures and algorithms
Hi Macneil, sorry about deleting your "Advanced.." book from the template without asking first, but is there really a need to display a link from the main page to a book that is so far only a place-holder for future modules? Both of your books link to the "Advanced" book, so the interested reader will find it anyway. Furthermore, it is still displayed on the IT bookshelf. I hope you don't get the wrong impression, that I want to take anything away... I know there are books there, that even less deserve to be listed on the "Main Page", but I have to start somewhere. I'll work my way through, to make things more focussed (as you were taking away my links to Wikipedia - I guess it is the same philosophy, and actually, after your edits, I like the Newton root method even more - looks more professional.) Don't worry - I won't touch the link to your book in the near future - at least not before I sorted out the many other stub links. PS: If you have a minute, go to the main page, and vote for the book of February! Thanks! :-) --Andreas Ipp 00:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey Andreas: My reason was a little too complex to put in the edit summary field, and I figured you'd follow me up: The reason it's important to include links to all three books is that they are essentially a series. While the Advanced book has very little content (right now) it serves the important role of making the Data Structures and Algorithms books tractable: Consider it a defense against creeping featuritis. The tendency is for people to think "oh wow, this is just like wikipedia, let me put in my obscure piece of knowledge to add to it"-- and thus a book that is meant to be a very basic tutorial on fundamental topics could be turned into an eclectic mix of advanced topics with little relevance to even advanced students. Thus, the Advanced book serves as a stop gap: unwanted, but still high quality, contributions could get funnelled away from the basic books and to the advanced book. If links were not equal contributors might be miffed that they were being moved to a less important book.


 * Thus, the Advanced book is more important than just a "suggested" book, it is part of a larger project, which is very time consuming, but well on its way to becoming a useful resource for students. (I do actually have some content for it, wrt FFT algorithms, but it's lower in priority for me.) MShonle 00:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, but right now nothing is in the book. So since nothing is in there, I assume nothing of what you fear happened so far (creeping featuritis). As soon as somebody does write something, you don't want to have in the book, why not move it then over there, and as soon as there is content in the book, I have no problem with it being linked to from the main page. But, frankly, just to prepare things before they happen seems overprotective to me - especially in a medium like Wikibooks. But there is a qualitative difference: You are a highly motivated writer, and you care about your work. I guess if I take away links to some of the "Howto" books, where the authors barely made it beyond a splendid introduction of what the book will be, nobody will even notice. So, since you care about your book, probably its the best I don't waste my and your time, and let you continue to write your great books! Keep the work, don't feel distracted by me. ;-) --Andreas Ipp 01:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The content of the Advanced book was taken from the other books: They existed mostly only as outline content. Rather than lose track of a good idea, they have a home. (So, indeed, creeping feature has happened.) Perhaps it won't be long even before someone returns to fill in the gaps (work cycles are very slow sometimes-- a great author did some work in November, and just now they've returned back to continue). But please be mindful of the systems as they are right now (no matter how faulty) before you change them: sometimes the baby could get thrown out with the bathwater, and some faults aren't actually faults. MShonle 02:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I'm starting an AI book.
I've typed lectures 1 and 2 in wiki format here. Some kids are taking the same analysis of algorithms class I took, and I mentioned the algorithms wikibook, so hopefully, there will be some more development there. And congrats on your ascension to the next layer of wikibook enlightenment! --Waxmop 00:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool, I've also started spreading the word around my department about the Algorithms book. I'm also working on the Computer Science:Logic book, which, similar to what you're doing, I'm writing as I'm taking the class (actually, the classnotes are already in TeX, so I'm just converting them mostly, and fixing little errors). MShonle 01:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:152.163.100.136 not a vandal
He added "no way" to the front page. This is most likely his expression of disbelief upon discovering web pages that he can edit. He didn't spam or add the goatse.cx man.
 * "His" exploration might not be considered vandalism if he changed it back, but even then that's a thin line. Content does not need to be spam or gross images to count as vandalism. Obviously, the main page needed to be reverted, and the block on that ip is set to expire in a short time. MShonle 17:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My Apology
Talk about pot calling the kettle black - sorry about my quick response and not giving you the benefit of the doubt - unfortunately something similar happened to me when I first came upon wikipedia (as an anon) and kind of drove me off for a few months (thinking I was violating some kind of policy and could lose access to the encyclopedia - which I liked to use fairly regularly) - and now I push back pretty hard on such things. Thanks for all you do to keep the trolls and the sock puppets from driving policy. Trödel 22:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the mix-up. I struck out some of the text, but I could remove it completely at your request. MShonle 22:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete it and my response. Looks like it could be deleted anyway - by Jimbo - and that there are quite a few books and "articles" that are created to push a POV - Is there a policy on what is and is not a "textbook" and if not I would be happy (as a user for now) to contribute to the discussion. Trödel 22:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

response
not sure if this belongs here or on my talk page, so...


 * The "Getting a girl" book was given a proper vote. While I do obviously dislike the results, I will accept that a very loose interpretation of "concensus" might apply. (destruction of someone's blood, sweat, and tears had ought to require 85% agreement at a 95% statistical certainty) When in doubt, the article or book needs to stay, so this deletion was borderline.


 * The Cookbook:Human article did not lose a vote. It never got a vote.


 * As for inuendo and slandering, you're right. I surely have my faults. You might consider being not so quick to call people sock puppets, and not so quick to assume that articles that offend you have been intentionally designed to offend you.


 * I seriously do encourage you to help write factual non-offensive replacement text for articles that may be controversial.


 * Hopefully someday you can see the need for comprehensive coverage in the cookbook. If this is at odds with the rest of wikibooks, then the Cookbook should move to its own domain name and wiki. I have in fact already proposed this for unrelated reasons. Note that the Cookbook is by far the most active book around here.

AlbertCahalan 23:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

recipes and the GFDL
Quoting you: "If I come upon a good vegan recipe I'll add one, but all of the vegan recipes I use are from extant cookbooks, and cannot be put under GFDL."

This is not necessarily the case. You may be able to convert a recipe, especially if you live in the USA. I haven't done it, but it has crossed my mind. You may have ethical problems with this, but do remember that nearly all cookbooks are recycling the same old recipes passed down for generations. (in other words, your cookbooks probably have swiped recipes via the procedure below)

Procedures are subject to patents, not copyright. The wording used to describe the procedure is another matter, distinct from the actions of the procedure. The list of ingredients is not protectable; this has been the subject of court decisions.

So, you simply need to put the procedure into your own words. To be sure you aren't accidentally copying something that would be subject to copyright, you may wish to work from memory or have somebody else describe the procedure to you.

If you have any doubts, consult a lawyer. (the above is not to be construed as legal advice, etc.) The EU, in case you live there, has the concept of author's rights (if you took the meat out of a non-vegan recipe, that could be considered a perversion of the author's artistic work) and might not have court decisions or law prohibiting copyright on recipe procedures and ingredient lists.

AlbertCahalan 00:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * When there's a vegan pizza dough recipe I'll add that to get that pizza delivery place texture you should freeze the dough overnight and then thaw it in the refridgerator. Somehow that changes the texture, in parcticularly how it rises, so you don't get stuck with that "gormet pizza" feel. MShonle 05:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Got one, right here, unless you're hard-core enough to avoid killing yeast. The topping is another matter of course, but I hear you can get fake cheese. Simply eliminating the cheese wouldn't be all that bad I think. You could try deep-fried tofu as well, added late if it would burn otherwise. Maybe also try some sort of crumb topping, like the one for Apple Crisp but with less sugar.


 * Cool. Garlic is a good cheese substitute: has some of the properties, but it's hard to beat Follow Your Heart Soy Mozerella. Good topings for a vegan pizza are artichoke hearts, olives, and mushrooms: veggies that have a good amount of calories (so that it doesn't feel like a cellulose pizza). MShonle 14:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AlbertCalahan
I have renominated AlbertCalahan for adminship. I am alerting you because you may wish to vote again. TUF-KAT 16:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would change my vote to an abstain if Albert gave a reasuring reply to my question about "anti-deletionism." I don't think there is any "deletionists" here, so persuing that agenda just sounds scary to me. In particular, the How to Get a Girl book shouldn't be undeleted. MShonle 02:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't even suggest undeleting that book. It kind of lives on now, in slightly modified form, and just recently passed a VfD. So there isn't any point to undeleting the old one. I do insist that "real" books, ones with human effort that is, go through a VfD with consensus to delete before being deleted. 51% is not consensus. Without a consensus requirement, the VfD becomes a simple popularity contest. There are a good number of books and even cookbook pages that I'd rather do without, but you won't see me trying to delete them. That just wouldn't be right. It is very unfortunate that non-admins can not view deleted pages; I may be wrong in my impression that admins are habitually destroying things they just don't agree with. BTW, the docs around here suggest that the vote counter (judge) be neither the one who proposed deletion (prosecutor) nor the one who performs the deletion (executioner). This would be a good practice to follow. AlbertCahalan 05:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's say I'm a little nervous that you thought "Human" might be a good recipe for the cookbook. I understand that you think it was deleted without following process. I'm not sure how you have that impression, but I can assure you that wasn't the case.


 * It makes no sense as a recipe. As an ingredient, it makes about as much sense as marijuana. When I showed up here, nearly the first thing I saw was that people were complaining about pages being deleted without following procedure. Things don't look quite as bad now, but it still appears that admins with a conflict of interest (an opinion on the outcome) tend to both count the votes and perform the deletion. There is often little time to object to the vote counting before deletion occurs. I hope you can see how this looks really arbitrary and unfair. AlbertCahalan 18:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you probably should mention cookbook pages that should be deleted. If I gave you a 10,000 recipe cookbook, but only 10% of the entries were even barely acceptable (with perhaps 30% of those being excellent) would you use it much? I bet you'd rather use a 1,000 recipe cookbook, that only had that good 10%. The empty set and the set of everything contain the same amount of information. Allowing bad entries to persist just makes wikibooks the result of a million monkeys on a million typewriters.


 * I'd much rather find a way to rate recipes. A good system would be something like a music recommendation service, so that you see recipes rated highly if they have been rated highly by people with similar interests as yourself. So for you, meat-containing recipes would rank at the bottom and vegan recipes would rank at the top. (with non-vegan vegetarian generally in the middle) Some way to assign searchable attributes (spicy hot, herbal non-hot spicy, metric, requires scale or balance, has creamy sauce, Americanized Asian...) would be good too, perhaps as a software enhancement to categories. AlbertCahalan 18:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, it seems like you have no trust in the wikispirit: Voting is not a popularity contest. For example, people change their votes after discussion brings up good points. Just as voting for your own adminship, I'll be glad to change my vote, but I need something at least somewhat reassuring that you understand my concerns and have legitimate reasons to agree or disagree. MShonle 17:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

adminship
Thing is, I do lots of edits. I'm well over 1500. I think the wiki software has lost track even; I'm probably near 2000 right now. Supposing that 99% of that is good, I'll still generate a lot of bad edits by sheer numbers. General apathy and hesitation means that vote counts are normally low. People will hesitate to vote unless given a strong reason to do so.

Most people pass an adminship vote with only 1 or 2 votes total. Step on just a few toes, even with a good edit, and enemies will win the vote.

One person didn't like that I insisted that "bonito" is considered a tuna in many (most, AFAIK) countries. Well, it is, and all the top Google results agree that bonito is a tuna. Another person didn't like how Google revealed that "cookie sheet" is a whopping 38.7 times as popular as his preferred "baking tray". As the cookbook needs to be readable to the rest of the world, this matters. Well of course that's two ememies right there.

You're right to guess that I might be discouraged. I keep asking myself why I bother, what with all the politics. It'd be different if this gave me a salary, but politics in my spare time??? Ugh. In fact, a couple months ago I disappeared for about a month over this. I still wound up being one of the top-10 wikibooks editors though.

The funny thing is that non-admins can be almost as destructive as admins. Note that a non-admin can overwrite an image, and an admin can undelete something that has been deleted. What a non-admin can't do is clean up messes, of all things!

AlbertCahalan 02:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually came to Wikibooks because Wikipedia was a little too political. I still do some Wikipedia edits every now and then, but I make certain it's in areas I have little emotional attachment. Anyway, some people are really hard to read online. Good point about the many edits ratio... I've probably said a couple of things that I wouldn't want people advertising. MShonle 04:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi MShonle and Albert. I've been following the process about Albert's adminship loosely (have not voted yet) but I would nevertheless like to comment on a point: It is not the sole number of edits that makes an editor better. If there are not only one, but already a couple of people that disagree with Alberts edits (and I have certain personal reservations after a peripheral discussion on Hierarchy naming scheme), then in Alberts position I would think about decreasing the number of edits, but increasing their quality. It is a matter of preference.. would you mind 2 innocent editors that have been blocked, after 10 true vandals? Or 5 good stubs deleted in 50 really useless stubs? This happens if you are very active? Anyway, Albert will find arguments to justify anything he thinks is right, so I would not mind if he read a page twice before he edits it, and have half as many edits... Just my personal opinion. --Andreas 08:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not what I meant to say of course. (besides, those are more-serious actions that deserve more consideration) I certainly have a highly biased opinion about my own editing, so never mind what I say of it. For any given level of quality though, a frequent editor will manage to annoy more people. That's all I meant to say. The edits people hate are the ones they remember. Nobody remembers the fixed grammar, added links, etc. AlbertCahalan 10:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

unease with "food"s
Here are two new recipes:


 * Spicy Australian Placenta
 * Placenta with Broccoli

I doubt I'd like the first, but the second one is really tasty. I'll get a photo scanned if the lighting was OK enough.

You might find it interesting that I feel more uneasy about eating beans. I was feeling pretty proud of myself a month ago when I managed to put aside my gag reflex long enough to eat a whole burrito. Admittedly I added lots of cheese, olives, tomatoes, and even chicken &mdash; but I got it down, somehow. (probably 1/3 beans) Then, a couple weeks ago, I even managed to get one down without the chicken.

AlbertCahalan 00:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed those new entries. I'm thinking we should perhaps add a warning to all of the related articles that placenta eating can pass both HIV and Hepatitis. BTW, did you see the straight dope article on it, where he says it made a vegetarian queezy? It's no surprise... after not eating meat for a while, the thought of meat becomes disgusting. I know that meat eaters like you like to secretly think we're all sitting there, lusting for dead animal flesh, but nothing could be farther from the truth. MShonle 06:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The warnings should be on the Placenta page, or possibly on a Human page. Note that HIV and hepatitis are only problems prior to cooking. (I have heard of placenta sashimi.) After cooking, I suppose you could spread mad cow disease, but that's extremely unlikely. Note that in the Straight Dope article the vegetarian did try the placenta. In other words, he did not find it morally or ethically objectionable. He was merely grossed out a bit, just as I am with beans. I don't imagine you'd have any craving for a steak or a burger, but passing up things like real ice cream (milk) and real brownies (eggs) sure doesn't look easy. Avoiding burgers and bacon is probably good for you, but avoiding canned salmon and anchovies is probably not good for you. AlbertCahalan 20:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Soy and rice-based ice creams can be wonderful, and there are plenty of vegan brownies out there (in San Diego I can get both vegan brownies and blondies). Eggs and Milk aren't exactly the two most crucial ingredients out there: there are plenty of alternatives. As for salmon, that ain't so healthy for you either, considering the levels of mercury and other toxins that get amplified through bio-accumulation. I'm sure a meat-eating diet could be healthy, but if it's not necessary for survival, it's immoral. Unless you have no other means to survive, and are not scavaging what's already dead, there's no moral justification. MShonle 00:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Acetone peroxide synthesis
How exactly does me making an edit and you reverting it constitute an edit war? Do you believe that protecting the page on the version of your choice is the best response? UninvitedCompany 00:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you have confused my carefully written edit with the editing pattern of an anon vandal previously at work on the same page. UninvitedCompany 00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no choice or interest in the matter, but given the vandal I reverted to the page with the most information. Just give it some time to cool down. I might be back open by the time you read this. MShonle 00:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not impressed. UninvitedCompany 00:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just hang back. Although it's just a temporary protect to allow things to cool down these things can take time. MShonle 01:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the hassle UninvitedCompany. But, you got stuck in the middle of action taken to manage an ongoing edit war, it's nothing personal. It may be a day or two before I unprotect the page, then I will ensure that your contribution is preserved in some form. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 01:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mshonle, I've unprotected the page. Thanks for your intervention, even though our timing was a bit out of sync.;) I've decided to compromise and stick with UninvitedCompany's version of the page. I don't think that it will keep the vandals happy, however. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 00:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is only necessary to keep the vandals happy when they are right. At this juncture, they really don't have a legitimate complaint to make about the page.  The web abounds with recipies for blowing yourself up, like the print media that came before it.  Many an emergency room has seen the effects of reading the Anarchist's Cookbook without the proper degree of skepticism.  Information wants to be free only when in the proper context, and this article was a perfect example of partial information (that is, synthesis data that is misleading and lacks information needed to conduct the synthesis safetly) being worse than none at all.  While it is still not perfect, I believe that it now addresses the topic responsibly.  Were my child to read the results of a web search on "TATP synthesis" -- for which Wikibooks is the first hit on google -- I would much rather have hir see this article than some of the other tripe that is out there.   UninvitedCompany 02:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually didn't know how politically charged this was. I just noticed the numerous anonymous reverts, the call to put a freeze, and so I froze it. (Indeed, I did revert to Geo's version, because it had more information and I trusted Geo. I see that I could have done more dilligence to see if your changes were the same.) MShonle 04:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that an anon has reverted my changes. Would you care to take another look at this module? UninvitedCompany 17:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Try and reverting it back and making a note to see the talk page. Then, on the talk page, make your case for your edits. It would be much better to have the debate shifted to the talk page rather than a continuous revert battle. MShonle 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Cellular Automata
Thank you for posting the first two modifications to 'my' wikibook on CA. I had a look on Computer Science:Data Structures and there is some useful markup. I am still working on the content, I intend to 'finish' two chapters, only than I will make some changes to the main page (a short intro, a nice table of chapters near the top of the page and I would like a cover image). --IzI 11:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD
Aya, why did you delete my comment?


 * I assure you it was not intentional. The page saved fine with no edit conflict. Must be a bug in MW. - Aya T E C 22:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

re: Manual of Crime
Hi Garrett: I think we need to step back and ask not if the MoC is legal or useful, but if it's appropriate for the project. This sounds like something for a wikicity for me. It's not like we're a censor board, with infinite power, determining what can be on the web or not. Instead, we're just voting, What kind of books do we want in this little digital library we're making for ourselves? What would give you more pride, being part of a project that taught kids math, or being part of a project that taught kids to blow things up? MShonle 18:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL! This is exactly the sort of reason I haven't voted yet. It's a very, very complex issue and whatever I decide I want to be satisfied with. I'm also well aware of the fact that other voters may well be influenced to vote like us admins for no reason other than "we know what we're talking about". And so I will have to be 100% certain that the vote I give is what I'm happy with. Thanks for your concern, and what you've said is basically the conclusion I'm drawing anyway. :) GarrettTalk 01:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the presence of WC means we can be more razor sharp in what we allow. Perhaps after a policy is in place, we can start a countdown. When the countdown expires, we'll move all of the books that haven't made any progress into a special abandoned books section. That should make it easier to locate "the good stuff." Perhaps there should even be a page limit rule: like, anything under 16 pages is not a book (and must then be merged or elaborated with how it could be a larger book)-- without some limits, books can soon lose their goals, and, I think as you once said, go no where. MShonle 01:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandal
Hi, 85.99.133.201 added pornlinks to Help:Wikibooks, which I reverted. He also did that on the Dutch Wikibooks. I blocked him for that there, but here I've no adminrights. Can you block him, or at least add a warning template to his discussionpage? Thanks, Firefox 20:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! They've been blocked. MShonle 21:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

ACT
Sorry for the confusion in the Staff Lounge. I meant the college entrance exam. --Think Fast 23:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. :-) Sounds like a fine idea for a wikibook. MShonle 23:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Uploading image sourcefiles
I ask you as an experienced wiki user, is there a way to upload image source files in OpenOffice.org .odg format? They are small files, smaller than the relative .png images. --IzI 16:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like .odg formats are restricted, and even putting it into .zip isn't allowed. So, the only way I could think of getting them there is putting them in one of the usenet-style compressed ASCII formats, but that's probably not recommended. In the meantime, you could upload special versions of your PNGs that don't have English labels on them (so that it will be easier, say, for the German version of the image to be made). Maybe someone hanging out in the staff lounge knows more. MShonle 17:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

MySQL
I allways though it's a database and expeced any language to have it's own name (like Oracle and PL/SQL ;-).

Anyway since I have no idea what kind of language could you fill in the Programming languages bookshelf and the Template:Programming languages bookshelf. Thanks.


 * I think the database implementations also have the same name, but SQL itself is a structured query language with its own syntax and semantics. However, even though HTML is a language I wouldn't consider it a programming language. MShonle 18:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well SQL iself on the Meta-languages bookshelf as it should be - however PL/SQL (there is currently no wikibook for PL/SQL) with it's Ada inspired syntax is a full blown programming language used for stored procedures. Be as it is - I don't know MySQL enough to categorise it.


 * The term Meta-languages sounds like a misnomer to me. Perhaps XML is a true meta-language, but a lot of the other books listed I would just call domain-specific languages or just encoding languages. MShonle 19:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it: You are right and I would support a renaming of the page to Domain-Specific languages bookshelf - do we need to call for votes or just do it?


 * We can just do it. MShonle 14:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

regarding C plus plus
Hey Garrett. I noticed some edits to Programming:C plus plus in July where you said "please don't use transclusions" and then some comments about a merge. Since you seem to know more about this than I do, what's the story? What did you mean by no transclusions (as that would be the solution to the fork problem)? It seems going forward we should have a single C++ book. Or, perhaps two: one as a complete reference, the other as a tutorial on the basics. What are your thoughts and can you fill me in on the story? Thanks! :-) MShonle 22:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a difference. He was using transclusions unnecessarily to insert the first few paragraphs into the book, BUT that intro wasn't shared by the other book. There's no reason to transclude something that only appears in one place, it will end up confusing people trying to edit the page.
 * I cannot see having the two books remaining separate. Panic forked his off for the sole reason of having a single-page gargantuan guide, and it no doubt is still 80% identical to the other book. Therefore they need to merge, somehow or other.
 * As for the solution, I really don't know enough about the topic to sort things out myself. All my attempts so far to reach compromises have come to naught. Bah. GarrettTalk 01:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently we are violating our own Forking policy. I'm going to execute it as stated. MShonle 01:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

/Fork issue... and then the most amazing discussion about this you've ever seen.

Mshonle, as I'm taking an extended holiday, I just wanted to say continue the great work with your policy proposals (the Wikibooks vision and the book charters). Methinks the next few months will be very interesting on Wikibooks; so good luck with your ideas. Serge 11:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that or your talk page. Have a great time! It certainly has been interesting around WB lately. Next week classes start up for me so WB will have to move down my priority list. Thanks for the kind words. MShonle 14:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hillary quote
See User talk:Aya. - Aya T E C 19:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel the Magic
I've taken it upon myself to finish the Wikibook. Would you consider changing your vote? - A Link to the Past 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome! I've changed my vote. --MShonle 04:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Computing Bookshelves
I don't think I agree with you in the usage of three separate bookshelves for CS-related books, as it makes it difficult for newbies to navigate to the correct bookshelf (the IT/programming/CS separation is not especially intuitive). Subjects like humanities, art and science are much broader in diversity compared to CS, but they still have only one bookshelf each.

What about creating sub-bookshelves/subcategories for cs, programming, IT etc. under a common Computer Science bookshelf? This would both unify CS-content and open up for internal diversity. --Orderud 19:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Computer Science is a subject quite separate from programming and information technology. For example, learning and using Photoshop or GIMP is a subject we vitally need to teach, but under no stretch of the imagination is it a CS topic. As for computing, I don't think it makes much sense to have an umbrella shelf to cover all of them, since CS is not a sub-branch of computing either. Perhaps there can be a separate CS shelf and an IT shelf with IT/Programming and IT/Computing, but as I said, any single merge would be like putting autorepair in with Physics. --MShonle 19:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Programming:C plus plus
Hi,

I just read your email about the merge (I don't get to read non-work mails regularly nowadays :. It has been pointed out earlier that the fork predates the policy on merges, so hope that has been taken care of before merging.

I'd also like to mention that there were some reports that some of what Panic2k4 had added are from some other C++ book (I don't remember the name but going through the talk pages for the 2 books as well as their archives/page history and probably older versions of the Staff lounge should reveal the name). I vaguely recollect seeing instances of some material from Wikipedia being pasted here without proper version history (i.e. without going through the transwiki process) as required by the GFDL (I might have discussed this with Panic in the talk pages of the two books or his user talk page or the Staff lounge so the older versions of these pages might have some clues). Hence part of the material might be infringing on the copyright(s) of the author(s) of the other C++ book and the copyrights of contributors to various Wikipedia articles on C++.

I don't get much time nowadays to work on Wikibooks. Even my activity on Wikipedia has come down quite a bit. Hence I'm not able to search through the books and talk pages and find out more about the material that has been pasted into Programming:C -/- -/-. I'm sorry for that but I do hope someone with time in hand would do so and remove infringing content (if any still remain...). I just wanted to mention these issues since these would be easier to resolve sooner than later.

I'd like to clarify that I didn't want to just write a reference text on C++ but rather an entire book but just couldn't get the time and inclination (inclination -- mainly due the fork) to do it. The sensible thing to have done is to get all the non-copyvio material from the fork on to the original book but this was getting increasingly difficult for me since the page became huger as days passed, and I couldn't find what is copyvio and what isn't.

Also, I didn't intend the "Hello world", "Data types", "Variables and expressions" pages to be part of the appendix as they are now. I wonder if they are there just temporarily since these things don't seem to make sense in an appendix. Rather they were intended to be part of the main book, either expanded into larger chapters, or as sections (I'd like chapters to span multiple pages with each page being a section or a subsection). -- Paddu 22:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming back online! I agree that it's odd for the Hello World, et cetera parts to be put into an appendix. I think some of the problems with the C++ book reveals the huge difference between WB and WP. My main concern is that the book is so far off from its goal that others won't want to do all of the many steps necessary to make it better. --MShonle 20:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problem with Image:CompSciLogicLinearResTree.png
--Derbeth 23:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My Next Book
I wanted to get your opinion on a new book i've been working on, that is currently only an outline on my user page: User:Whiteknight/Communications. I would like to introduce this book sometime within the next week, assuming too many people dont have too many problems with it. Because of the size and the scope of the proposed books, i've been asking people whether this book would "step on the toes" of other bookshelves (I would like to put this book on the EE bookshelf). Since you are a frequent contributer to the CS bookshelf, i would like to ask if you think this new book would overlap too too much with books currently on the CS shelf. The "Berkley API" section in particular might raise some eyebrows, but i think that either a) this new books should contain at least a brief introduction to network programming, or b) link frequently to other wikibooks on the topic. Either way, this book would need space for it. Also in question are subjects of routing algorithms, CRC checksums, packet formation (i would much rather focus on packet structure, rather then packet formation, or packet parsing) and data compression. I would like to point out that Electrical Engineers may use all of these subjects, and many of them might not think to find them in a CS book to find them. I would like to introduce this book by next week, so a reply would be greately appreciated. --Whiteknight T C E 05:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fine outline and suitable for the EE shelf. I also don't see much concern about duplicate material with CS books. By their nature some books are going to repeat some of the information in other books. Any "solutions" to this duplication "problem" are far worse than the minor headaches duplication can sometimes have. By being free to overlap some content books can be more focused, more helpful, and clearer over all. Forcing users to read another submodule written in a different context will lead to a worser learning experience. I'm sure some CS types will find some "duplication" (i.e., teaching a single concept in more than one book; not to be confused with forking) ineligant, so I suggest you stick with making the treatments somewhat different. An introduction to network programming with an emphasis on EE details is quite different than a programming introduction. Indeed, you could claim that CS books are in the EE territory whenever they mention a wire or a bus. But really, the reality is that it happens. There are probably at least three introductions to Big-O notation around here, for example. Anyway, it sounds like a great project! --MShonle 03:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! You may have noticed from the main page that i have already launched the book, Communication Systems, and you are more then welcome to come help out (although i know you are plenty busy already). --Whiteknight T C E 16:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Right now I'm at one of the more busy local maxima in my studies, so it might be weeks before I could even think of participating more on Wikibooks. :-) --MShonle 00:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on Logic for Computer Scientists
The book Logic for Computer Scientists, which you have put a good deal of effort into, has been vandalized. I have reverted from the vandalism. You may want to check subpages to see if they are okay. --JMRyan 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It looks like you got them all! MShonle 01:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image licenses
Hi, Mshonle. Could you add licenses to these images: GFDL is preferable. Thanks! --hagindaz 07:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:AlgorithmsShortestFirst.png
 * Image:AlgorithmsLeastConflicts.png
 * Image:Algorithms-NetFlow1.png
 * Image:Algorithms-NetFlow3.png


 * Wow, it's almost been a year, but there you go! MShonle 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!
I hope you are here to stay! It's been a long time since we saw you around here, and it would be good if you stayed around. How have you been? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your De-Adminship
Hello. I would like to inform you that you will have your sysop rights removed here on 3 Aug 2007 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 12:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)