User talk:Recent Runes

I watch book and user discussion pages where I have recently left specific messages. Please reply under my messages / comments to make the discussion easier to follow. If you leave a message on this page, I'll reply to it here. Being based in the UK, I am normally online during the week between 19:00 and 23:00 UTC.

Thank You
for adding "Analytical chemiluminescence" to category "Chemistry". --78.149.62.39 (discuss) 23:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank You For Updating Me
I originally started a WikiBook back in 2004 while still in graduate school; now, many years later, I have decided to get back to work on it since I have a stable teaching position. A lot has changed since 2004; thank you for the updates and tutorials. Let me see if I can sign my name correctly at least, lol:

Blathem (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have that down, it seems. One question if you have the time (I doubt you do, but I will ask anyway). You say "I watch discussion pages where I have recently left messages. Please reply in the same section to make the discussion easier to follow."

My question is...same section as what? Same section as in my user page or same section as in the textbook page? I am sorry if that is a stupid question...


 * Actually I copied that notice from somebody else's user page, but I understood it as meaning any replies should be as near as possible to my original comments. That could be on the discussion page of a book page or a user's talk page. The section is just the text under the heading for the discussion point, e.g. the "Thank You For Updating Me" section we are in at the moment. I have improved the wording of the notice now, hopefully to make it less ambiguous. Thanks for your comments. Regards, Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Moves moved to Wikimedia Commons
In the future can you please use when files have been moved to Wikimedia Commons instead of using ? --dark lama  17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thx for the tip. Recent Runes (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message!
Dear Recent Runes, thank you for your message! I will check out the Guidelines for class project!! --Kartikram (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please weigh in
Hi Recent Runes,

Last month I nominated Adrignola to be a check user here on WB. For that to happen, he needs 25 votes, and he has thus far garnered 24. I would greatly appreciate it if you would weigh in on this. --Jomegat (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, though I'll need to do some more reading about the CU first. Recent Runes (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's important that you come to your own conclusion.  --Jomegat (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just Rollbacker?
Hi RR,

For the past couple of days I've been thinking you should be an admin here. And then I saw that you requested Rollbacker rights, and I thought... why not admin rights instead? I'd make the nomination if you like, but if you'd rather not, then I won't. Think about it! --Jomegat (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment JWT, but actually it was Adrignola who proposed me on his own initiative. I'm not even sure what Rollbacker rights are anyway. Though I suppose if I had admin rights I could delete obviously junk new pages while I was patrolling Recent changes. Recent Runes (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Languages Project
Hey. I've not been around for a couple of years but it seems like in my absence not much has happened to antyhing. So I'm trying to get some kind of languages project going. I'm mostly gonna have a go at sorting out the French book myself. Saw your French for football book and thought you might be close to interested. WikiProject Languages Italienmoose (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up! As the French for football book still needs a lot of work, I expect my contributions to other books will remain fairly small. Recent Runes (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My vote

 * I think your vote to unblock Thekohser could be worded more clearly, as it does not explicitly state your vote. Also, it would be better if you were actually logged in to Wikibooks when you vote, otherwise how do we know it is really you? Recent Runes 19:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You know it's really me because I confirmed it on Beta.Wikiversity, where I am logged in. And I am vetoing the entire concept of blocking, not just some particular instance (while otherwise affirming or accepting the general practice).  —Moulton (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin?
If I were to nominate you for the admin tools, would you accept them? I think it's time. --Jomegat (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll think about it and let you know. Recent Runes (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now decided I will accept your nomination. Recent Runes (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I made the nomination in the usual place. --Jomegat (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to add your acceptance to the nomination. --Jomegat (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your nomination was successful. Congratulations!  Please review the expectations.  Thank you for your continued efforts to make Wikibooks a success. – Adrignola talk 01:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats! And thanks again for your willingness to serve the project in this capacity. --Jomegat (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Field Guide
Hi RR,

I know I'm late getting to this, but... I've been intending to move all the Field Guide pages so that they are named using binomial nomenclature. I had started a field guide to birds as part of the Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book, but then decided that it really should be part of the FG's instead. I meant to move them, but real life got in the way. I guess I should have gotten on the ball sooner (not that I'm exactly on the ball now).

IMO, using binomial nomenclature will avoid a lot of problems. There are many species with several regionally-specific names, and in some cases, a name used in one region is applied to a different species in another region. What do you think? --Jomegat (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I only renamed the page in order to have another page link in to it - I don't really have a particular view on the naming convention used. I guess the Latin names are more universal and technically correct, but probably you should use whatever convention would be best for the book's target audience. Recent Runes (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for weighing in.  I guess I ought to get off my duff and take care of this. Tomorrow! --Jomegat (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured_books/Nominations odd edits
The reason why I removed 's comment was because the content in it was outdated. When he wrote the comment he thought he sole writer of the book and that it was far from completion. However I have been editing the book more recently and chapters have now been written for all the topics. Rrgreen (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuing lack of attribution for Wikipedia material
I have added the attribution so please remove the banner.IF you think they are still missing please let me know before 8th april because after 8th i am going out for conference. Sorry for delay.I have added the attribution so please remove the banner.IF you think they are still missing please let me know before 8th april because after 8th i am going out for conference. Sorry for delay.Thanks kaushlendratripathi (discuss • contribs)
 * HI i have added in most of them if you think still some are missing please let me know by the para graph number or some other mean. thanks.contribs)
 * HI i have not received any reply from you.kaushlendratripathicontribs
 * I have added all the attribution and links as suggested by you. thanks.kaushlendratripathi (discuss • contribs
 * I have not received any response from you please reply.Because tomorrow i am leaving for my conference. thanks kaushlendratripathi (discuss • contribs)
 * I have not received any response from you yet. Give your view.thanks.kaushlendratripathi (discuss • contribs

Missing attribution in Principles of biochemistry
Most of them, actually. Thanks for telling me, but if you realy have a gripe about the time limit, either work fast, get someone else to help you, or take it up with Recent Runes. He's the one who suggested flagging the pages. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So is it possible to you give me some more time.Because i am little bit busy person.I shall be grateful to you .thankskaushlendratripathi (discuss • contribs)


 * If pages have been correctly labelled as copyright violations then they should be deleted after 7 days if they are not fixed according to our policies. But administrators can reverse a deletion, so I think we should be able to agree a work-flow between us so that pages can be undeleted progressively as you find the time to fix them. e.g. You let us know which pages you think you can fix over the next 7 days and we provisionally undelete just those pages, while still tagging them as copyright violations. When one batch is fixed you could then request the next batch to work on. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, i think i will able to do chapter 6 to 10 in given time thanks. kaushlendratripathi (discuss • contribs)

Thank you
Hi Recent Runes, I just wanted to thank you for your cool headed comment in the Projects Reading Room, on the topic of LGBT Wikibooks. Also, with regards to your changes to the French wikibook, I been watching the book since 2007, and your edits do not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Thank you. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer Flag
I occasionally make minor edits to cookbooks, and it would be rather nice to be able to have them visible immediately. Would you be able to grant me the reviewer flag? (I already have the flag on the English Wikipedia) Ronk01 (discuss • contribs) 22:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You will need to request it at WB:RFP please. Reviewer is granted automatically by "the system" once a certain set of conditions are met. Thanks QU TalkQu 23:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem
I was "defending" the rational fail of the second RfD and comparing with the first, the nominator and the argumentation for deletion is the same. No problem I added a small explanation of my intention to address any confusion. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I should have performed a better exegesis of your comment before moving it. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"British vs. American spelling"
"Preferred variant"? That's not my "preferred variant" but the way a European have rights to learn European history.

Have I ever "preferred" pages on American subjects??83.149.9.196 (discuss) 04:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)/Josh
 * /Validation & correction - JLincoln (discuss • contribs) 05:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) PS. Sorry for excessive emotions:)

A user page
May I put the template on my user page? I'm not a native, but my only language used on English projects is British English. I'm not a postgraduate in it, and I do mistakes.. Nonetheless, I hope I am apt to apprehend the grammatical structure of the language and do link it with the phonological system. I'd like to mark the language I operate with. JLincoln (discuss • contribs) 06:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which user boxes to show on your user page is entirely your choice. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
Thanks for the welcome! I probably won't get too involved in the near future due to a slight oversupply of interesting projects on Wikipedia, but will of course make fixes as and when I find reason to do so. --Slashme (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Belated thanks. Sidelight12 (discuss • contribs) 23:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WCI 2011 Proposal :Accelerating Wikibooks. Help Needed!
Hello!

I will be delivering a Talk at the Wikimedia Conference India 2011 on the topic of "Accelerating Wikibooks".

Over the next few days, I aim to make the proposal more and more wholesome and relevant. I'd like to discuss with you about the proposal and hope you can recommend me a few names on Wikibooks with whom I can discuss this.

I'd be very happy if you could discuss the proposal at User:Thewinster/Accelerating_Wikibooks

--Thewinster (discuss • contribs) 08:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the proposal
This is not a summary of the final talk, only a tentative guideline.


 * Create Roadmaps for a book
 * Define Learning Outcomes
 * Annotate and Discuss new content available from around the web.
 * Minor tweaks and fixes which concentrate on crowdsourcing.
 * Identifying Small Contribution that advance a book and designing good UIs and triggers according to B.J. Fogg's Behavior Change Model, 8 Step Design Process. The paper can be found here at Persuasive Design : Eight Step Process by B. J. Fogg

Probable edit history removal
Check High School Earth Science/Recent Space Exploration since it is personal information and the editor is unregistered this should probably be removed from the edit history. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that sounds right. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bored
You really must be bored by now ;-) I have a bot for adding book categories but even it would be bored after adding as many as you have! QU TalkQu 22:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is rather boring - though sometimes I have spotted other problems which might otherwise have been missed; e.g. pages floating ouside the book structure they should be part of. There are also some odd pages like Canadian_Criminal_Evidence/Observation, which I don't quite understand. I suppose there must be some drawbacks or limitations to the bot, or you would be running it on a regular basis already. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a number of pages in that book that are odd, like self referencing redirects. The bot "problem" is that about 50% of the book's it identifies for edits have some other problem, much as you've probably seen. The other thing the bot does - adding a reference section where one is missing - also turns up lots of errors of unclosed ref tags. Still, it beats doing all the work by hand. QU TalkQu 22:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't point to any examples but I had the idea that some books deliberately left out reference sections on the pages in order to gather them all together in an appendix in the printed version. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can run your bot to just clear the current backlog of uncategorised sub-pages by putting in the BookCats, then the ongoing rate of new page creation might be manageable by hand. I'm sure there will still be plenty of other really boring tasks left over to help mop up my spare time.... Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 01:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure I can do that over the next couple of days QU TalkQu 21:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done up to "PHP". There may be a couple missed as some pages are in a category but not in a book category - for example, in "chapter stubs". I'll check the 100 odd that I did tonight during the morning tomorrow then do the rest tomorrow evening. The uncat special page takes a while to update so we won't see the results for a while QU TalkQu 22:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All of them done now except a couple of root pages that need adding. QU TalkQu 16:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks QU. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Italian page on Mizar32 book
Thanks, but it's not part of the book, it's a draft of an article for a local magazine, which will be deleted when it is sent to the editors. We just put it there as a collaborative place to edit, since it is based on a translation of the Introduction. It will disappear in time.

In fact, we may do an Italian translation of the book - in that case we will be sure to use the italian wikibooks site as you suggest. Cheers Martinwguy2 (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "it's a draft of an article for a local magazine, which will be deleted when it is sent to the editors.". Wikibooks is not a web host - you are not allowed to use it for the purpose you describe. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Introduction to Philosophical Logic/Arguments
You presently have the most current revision of the Introduction to Philosophical Logic/Arguments page found here. I would like your input on what looks like a mistake: Under the "Sound Arguments" section, a sound argument by definition must satisfy all of three conditions, one of which is that it must contain valid logic, and another it must have true premises. Also under the "Valid Arguments" section a valid argument is an argument for which the following implication holds: true premises ⇒ true conclusion. Then a sound argument which by definition must be valid, and which has true premises, must have a true conclusion. Yet conflicting information follows with examples of "sound" arguments which have true premises and a false conclusion (e.g. "Grass is green ... ⇒ Pigs can fly"). I believe this confusion follows from a faulty definition for an argument on the same page, that is, an argument must have premises, a conclusion and a turnstile. I believe an argument should be defined as a set of statements of which there are premises, a conclusion and an inference (i.e. support for the conclusion based on the premises) - a turnstile being indicative only of an inference rather than definitive evidence of such. Under such a definition, the set of statements asserting that pigs can fly is just such, but not an argument because it contains no inference. I believe my position is justified based on the wiki page for soundness. Please will you provide feedback? Rcgardne (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Rcgarde! Thanks for your question and interest in Wikibooks. Unfortunately most of the material on this page was written by an anonymous author many years ago and I have only edited the page to revert minor vandalism. I don't really have sufficient knowledge of philosophical logic to comment intelligently on the subject matter. If you want to initiate a general discussion with others who may be watching this page, your best option is add your comments to the talk page associated with the material. Best regards, Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

Interview for Master Thesis?
Hi Recent Runes,

We are two students doing our M.Sc. thesis about motivational factors to contribute with Open Educational Content and we need people to interview. We were wondering if you would like to help us? The interview won't take long and we can do it over Skype. Interested? Please send me an e-mail me at ottve507@student.liu.se or leave us a reply here.

We would be really happy if you choose help us!

Regards Otto


 * Well, I am not interested in this kind of study and I don't think it would advance Wikibooks much, so I decline your invitation. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 22:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Deadminship
Please see Removal of permissions, where your deadminship for inactivity is being discussed. Thanks Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)