User talk:SBJohnny/Archive 4

delete/move images request
Hi, I have some images that need movement/deletion due to a typo in the filename. The culprits are Image:Laybrinth-Finger.png --move-> Image:Labyrinth-Finger.png Image:Laybrinth-Thread.png --move-> Image:Labyrinth-Thread.png Image:Laybrinth-Zipper.png --delete->. I already uploaded a new version of Image:Labyrinth-Zipper.png, so the old name can be deleted (or ported as an old version into the new name if you want to do so). -- a  p  f  e  l m  u  s

Thanks for the speedy response. I uploaded to the new names, the old pages can be deleted now. There are no links to them anymore. -- a  p  f  e  l m  u  s  17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WMOG etc
While I was trawling thro I noticed there were a few pages (I think) that did not have the WMOG category on them? Do you want me to add them on the next run (I picked them up from your contributions - good job it is a fast broadband - then filtered them).

Very best wishes for 2007 and hope it brings you and your family good things (& maybe even checkuser status ) - regards -- Herby talk thyme 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What's with the Category:WMOG project??? Should it be on all?? -- Herby talk thyme 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * THEN ANSWER MESSAGES ON YOUR TALK PAGE ffs! - will revert them -- Herby talk thyme 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverted -- Herby talk thyme 16:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW - how come it took you "hours" - don't you know anyone with a bot! -- Herby talk thyme 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK but - yes there are un cat'd pages and some of the cat'd pages are not alpha. Hand out instructions and it will be done - I have rv'd all that I did and will go and find someone else to play with! -- Herby  talk thyme 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Explained situation to partner - she laughed and said at least you know me better now!
 * reset

So... I guess I will leave it for now rather than mess up your year any more (today) but it really is very easy to deal with cats via awb if I know what I'm doing (& it was not running "auto" and I got a "popup" saying there was a message as a point of interest - won't let you work without going to it). I'll go and try and work out how you are organising it - you have a think about how I can help.

On the one below I will look out the notes but I really would like to see a "peer review" for quality thing - we may follow policy but that does not ensure quality (IMO) quite often. I guess there are some pages not cat'd and not on bookshelves that I am pleased aren't there cos they are bad! -- Herby talk thyme 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hum - communication
Wish I'd talked to you/you'd talk to me - RFC - was working towards a "review of book" type idea myself looking to improving the standard of offerings. I'll go think -- Herby talk thyme 16:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dispute res was not the issue (for me, tho I understand that one) it was a "quality drive" one as far as I was concerned (last posting on Rob's page was a hint of where I might be going) - I'll go look for notes - BTW read the new one above to!!! -- Herby talk thyme 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Put a bit in RFC - if it isn't too off the mark will get a bit more in tomorrow -- Herby talk thyme 17:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I'll do my own -- Herby talk thyme 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You removed everything I had put in - not helpful at all - for two pins I would revert your work however I look for agreement not conflict - I will work on my own project thanks -- Herby talk thyme 17:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll get mail tomorrow and answers to other stuff here or on the appropriate page(s) -- Herby talk thyme 19:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * reset

Hello
The format is Wikipedia, but it doesn't exist anywhere on it, as time progresses I'm going to fix up broken links--and other tweaks. BookManOne 20:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't know there was a wikipedia article about it. I just read it and thought it would be good to start an article about it.  If you don't think it works for this site, then by all means, I don't mind you deleting it. BookManOne 02:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you've just given me a great idea, let me do some research and think about this guy's (Norcross') text a little bit more, so I can get time to fix it up. Can you mark the page so that people know I'm going to research for it or something? BookManOne 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also want to make one on the Great Gatsby and a book called "Something Upstairs." J.J. Williams 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (Book Man One)

IRC
OK - I just want to make it clear that for a number of reasons - some technical & some circumstances - I will not be on IRC as far as I can see for a while. You and anyone else who wants me will just have to use talk pages - sorry and regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My notes
OK - not at all extensive as other things intervened but I did hope to bring it out quite soon. If it can be usefully worked in with RFC then there should be a double benefit.

''B f R page plans

''shortcut WB:BFR ''Book for Review

''This would enable an editor to bring a book or part of a book to people for an informal review. It is possible that consideration here might lead to offers of help and assiatance or a move towards deletion. It could be that it is the content that is worrying someone rather than the layout or writing style - again this would be able to be a halfway house between hoping that it gets better and a VfD''

I think I realised that we needed to involve "active editors" at that point and that took my time. The idea probably came from here.

Are you planning to "launch" this - Staff lounge, Bulletin board etc and will it be in shape for a gazette mention?

Hear from you -- Herby talk thyme 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bugger - broadband was "off" - Well as I didn't know anything about RfC...!
 * The lounge has become far more active even in the last couple of months (and great because we are getting more people involved). Some sort of splitting would probably be good and looking at it RfC could filter out quite a lot of stuff from SL usefully. It seems the SL had the same problem in the past if the "side box" is anything to go by.  BUT the stuff in those links is mostly ancient & that is the first time I've poked there - it certainly is not obvious as it stands. If there is to be a sub page structure it requires better definition for content and greatly improved navigation for users?
 * As for BfR I'm happy it sits with RfC - there is a common theme here. I really would prefer to see stuff appear in VfD that had been thro a gentler process first.  I would also like to see that having been thro BfR some things got much better but we do need a "peer review" group around
 * Scrappy - sorry, if I can help let me know - don't want to add to the aggro -- Herby talk thyme 19:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Johnny!
As you can tell, we'll be continuing the WikiBooks process during the Spring semester. I wonder if you could take a minute and check out our new book to see what you think of it. Thanks, and have a great day!

Pete 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikitoddler
I attempted to be bold and created the Wikitoddler page. I wrote a short aim as I need some sleep and hope you will add your view of how Wikitoddler should be. Regards --Herraotic 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoped
To catch you around maybe later or tomorrow - hope all is well - best -- Herby talk thyme 16:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW one more vote needed -- Herby talk thyme 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sundance
I'm finding her presence a little bit invasive. It doesn't seem right to jam your style into another site. I'll try to watch her edits myself, but she's already made a few bad naming and location decisions with all her userpages and templates she's creating which is creating all these redirects, so someone probably needs to follow through and clean up. -within focus 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bookshelving
I would like to add my book American Literature to the Regional Literatures bookshelf. Thanks. Logophile 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Hi SBJ,

Thanks for the reverts on my user page. Very much appreciated. Jim Thomas 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help
Thank you for your help with the issues I raised in the Staff Lounge. I had already figured out the problem with the images. It seems that the problem was with the image that I had tried to embed. I tried other images and was successful. Logophile 06:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!
Hi Johnny,

Congratulations on getting the necessary votes for Checkuser Rights. I'm sure you'll do good things with this.

Jim Thomas 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You've been a big help and now another question
Hi Johnny,

This is Dwight Allen, one of the co-editors of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education. I'm a professor of educational reform at Old Dominion University where the first edition has been successfully used as the principal textbook in the basic foundations course I taught last semester. We are now on the way to the creation of the second edition. Peter Baker has been particularly grateful for your help and support as we all have been learning as we go. We now have other graduate students trying Wikibooks in their classes/schools, and another faculty member plans to do so as well.

Now I have another question for you. I am working with a group you may have heard of called Global Text. Their plan is to create a 1,000 text library to serve as basic texts for an entire college/university curriculum. Their model for text creation is very different than ours, but they are considering possible convergences. I would like to offer our 2nd or 3rd edition to Global Text for their "publication." They are concerned about the compatibility of GNU with their platform, Creative Commmons. Can you help us figure out a way to proceed. I note that in your contribution to Wikibooks Junior (How Things Work) that they simply offer to identify anyone who chooses as an author. We would be pleased to do so as well, but the Global Text folks are concerned that unless we get the agreement of each individual author (from commas on up) that they can't import it to their data base. Any suggestions?

If you like, I can email you the exchange I have had with them.

Dwight Allen

RE:Just in case you aren't watching...
I just realized that you're probably not on 'pedia right now. So: The only problem with having them all listed. I would recomend a block if he continues (he posted spoilers for an episode that hadn't aired yet which was gotten illegally, we removed, and he called it censorship). Thanks for the heads up! -Royalguard11 (Talk·@en) 00:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gazette
Can you/are you going to put something about RfC on it for the next one? Maybe even something telling folks how to "fork"?!! Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 08:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:IRC
I'm in night class until 8, won't be home till 8:30. The school network has IRC blocked, so I can't do that till i get home. I'm going to use this time instead to introduce a nice new book... --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got a schedule of my classes posted here on my user page. Two late nights each week! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the staff lounge
If you have time and would like to get involved, please consider adding your thoughts to my staff lounge brainstorming page. --User:Iamunknown 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this doing clean up
I leave this to you: Category:Hemiptera --User:Iamunknown 06:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Policy discussion about forking"
I had some "discussion" (actually a monologue until I invited a few admins to have their say in it) in the staff lounge, that far predated the forking policy. Later when people came up with the forking policy somebody moved the thread from the staff lounge to Wikibooks talk:Forking policy. -- Paddu 07:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
Still interested in getting outside mediation for the arbitration process? I wouldn't mind giving an arbitration opinion and the other bureaucrats might not either. I'd prefer to wrap this process up now. -within focus 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back (I hope!)
Hope the break was a good one. Idle thoughts - anything we can do about the Wikiversity pages here - people keep contributing bits to them (even on the pages with the tag). Not being deletionist honest - just looking to ensure folk get the right messages. Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 13:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess sensible to leave it until end Feb ish then. I'll happily work with you on it if you need a hand.  There is some good material there if we can use some of it - cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 14:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dark is Rising
No, I haven't read it. Tell me once you start annotating it if you do and I'll check it out. -within focus 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gone on my amazon wish list (my daughter hadn't heard of it either). Reviews look good - I'll let you know (tho try Pullman - Dark materials & Garth Nix - Old Kingdom series), regards -- Herby  talk thyme 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the series won some awards, one book even got the newberry. How's this: if we have three working on it, we can make a decent annotation. Pick up the first book and you'll see why it wants annotating (especialy for non-British audiences, but for British children as well, I think). Maybe we could annotate 1 book a month? They're wonderful books, and they suggest a rich context... we might be able to provide that context for young readers who want it! -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I've ordered the series! Pretty cheap from an amazon partner and due for immediate delivery - I'll keep you informed -- Herby  talk thyme 12:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sad Times
I was in my night class, got your voice mail, can't get on IRC till later tonight. I can certainly understand the frustration people are feeling here, but I contend that we are making progress. Wikibooks is becoming a better place (I can see it if nobody else can). What's the most sad to me is that a few small issues are going to cost us some of our most valuable members. Not everybody has the same endless pool of patience and optimism that I seem to have on these matters, however. There are clear problems that we can solve now, and I think we should be able to put most of these problems behind us forever.

That's my hope at least, and I believe in the mission of wikibooks enough to believe it's possible. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Only on a mo
Can you look at the move log entry other than yours currently Geology seems a little odd and I've not got time sorry and catch you - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Decision
I have stepped in to deliver a decision for the arbitration which I believe has gone on long enough. Please see my decision page and write on my talk page if you have a response. Thanks. -within focus 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood some of what I said Johnny, sorry for the confusion! Matt and I were in complete agreement on this matter, and There are no contradictions. According to my post on the arbitration page, I choose not to act against panic because of my involvement with the case, and asked matt to perform the block instead. In addition to matt's decision concerning Panic and the block, in laid down 3 conditions of my own: That you can't discipline panic anymore in the future (should he ever return), that the contributors to the C++ book better learn to play nice (again, should panic ever return), and that the actions by matt and myself on this matter are not really open for review. I endorse him 100%, and I'm certain the feeling is mutual. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Urd-10-06
Is Template:Urd-10-06 still necessary? --Iamunknown 05:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * heh... took me a while to remember what it was :P. I'll delete it. -- SB_Johnny | talk 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, sorry for bothering you more, but what about Template:Biocontprof? (delinking cuz I don't want dead links :) --Iamunknown 07:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be using that one (it's for "biological controls"). BTW, any template in Category:WMOG templates that ends in "prof" probably won't have any links to it, because they're always used with subst. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Technologies for Rural Development
Today I have seen this comment your wrote back in August about the project Technologies for Rural Development.
 * As a city-boy turned farmer, I'm interested in this topic. What do you have in mind here? -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you could work on the farming module. I see you are an organic farmer, so your knowledge would be invaluable to this project. At present there is hardly any information in this module, the format could be something like the other ones that have been started. --MJBT 10:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
If you want to try that out, fine by me. I wanted a similar yet more direct process and he rejected it. Assuming we as the community do this (even though you want to be the only one talking to Panic), the block should be extended to be indefinite until the process fails or succeeds. I consider that essential. Your process sounds sane should Panic cooperate. Contrary to my ideas regarding discussions across the project, this discussion could be considered private by some users who have recently opposed Panic's block and so I think you should get a consensus opinion before doing this just to make sure everyone's happy. You could also just do this without consensus which seems fine to me, but now I'm being attacked because apparently I was scheming away on IRC for weeks. Do your best I guess. Create a page somewhere to discuss this, then have the real process at Panic's talk of course. -within focus 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I may indeed take a break from this stuff for a bit. The Muggles' Guide can always need more content help. Good luck with the process. -within focus 01:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Post-arbitration-decision "coaching"
These are my concerns. I am concerned that individuals continue to act unilaterally in this situation. In my view, each time individuals act unilaterally to supersede what has gone before it makes the situation worse. If the remedy is going to be changed, it should be done through community consensus in a public place where interested parties can find and comment on it easily. Nothing needs to be done immediately. Anything done without clear and visible community sanction is likely to fail. Also, I have concerns that this will be additional stress and burden for you. I believe that in order for Panic to be readmitted to Wikibooks, there needs to be a clear public statement from him recognizing the things he did which led to his ban. Before doing anything, please, set up a page for community review of the alternate remedy you propose. --xixtas 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have done this already. I have commented there. --xixtas 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Email
I just sent you an email. I apologize in advance that it isn't particularly positive. I want to focus my energies now on writing and improving book content, and I would like to work with you on making some things happen in this area. I'll be in touch later today and tomorrow. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Projects Page
I have had an initial stab at a projects page for the monopoly book at User:AdRiley/Sandbox. It is a work in progess and I think could do with some layout changes (still getting my head round round the scripting language) but wanted to know your thoughts on it? Feel free to make any changes you feel would be appropriate. Thanks. --AdRiley 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Me
Hi - I guess I am pretty much out of here, I'll just try and tie up a couple of loose ends if I can. I have a fair amount of stuff to catch up with workwise so I won't be on much if at all & I can get all the trouble I need in the real world! I'll take a break and consider my position. All the best -- Herby talk thyme 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Printable Version of Book
Hi Johnny, Hope you're surviving the bitter cold up there. A colleague here at ODU has requested a printed version of our book, and I wonder if you can help clarify the following directions I found at [|the instructions page]:

Create page Book/Print version and link to it from TOC

Insert template to its top

Copy the TOC as an ordered list

Insert every chapter like a template, preceded by chapter title. Remember about chapter with list of authors. Chapter name

Insert text of GNU Free Documentation License by adding: GNU Free Documentation License

Specifically, I'm confused about the policy for establishing and naming the print version. Should/May I simply title it "Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education: Print version"? Second, I'm concerned about inserting "every chapter like a template". What does this mean? When I list the chapters, will I list the entire name

(i.e. Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education/Second Edition/Chapter 1 | Chapter 1: Philosophy and Ethics)

or just the visible part of the name -- Chapter 1: Philosophy and Ethics?

I'd sure appreciate any advice you can offer me, and have a great day!

Pete 16:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Johnny
I'll contact WhiteKnight about this. Hope you have a great weekend! Pete 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image question
Hey Johnny, just a quick question for you about images. I'm not sure whether to upload my images on Wikibooks or on Commons, I created them myself for my Stoichiometry book (which I have on my user space since it's just a lot of redlinks right now and I'd like to get somewhere on it and figure out a good name for it before I move it to the main space) but I doubt they would be useful anywhere else, though I would not mind using a free license/PD for my work... what would you suggest?

Thank you for your help. Mattb112885 03:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. The particular images are specific to one example in my book, and there will probably be quite a few more coming that are also for specific examples in this book, so unless wikiversity wants to use the same examples as I use, it wouldn't be useful. A German translation, it might be useful, I'll have to see if I can find a language-neutral way to incorporate the images into the book, if I can then I'll upload them to commons. I always forget this project is multilingual. Regards, Mattb112885 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Import Policy
I've noticed that this page isn't a policy or a guideline (and it didn't even have the proposed template!). I think that we should try and formalize this page before we start getting upset that people aren't following it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Info.
Thanks, Johnny,

I've talked with the students about this a bunch since we had some minor copyright issues with it last semester, too. I will read the literature on the topic and make sure I'm well-versed on this, and then I'll have another chat with everyone about copyright info. tomorrow in class. By the way, I really appreciate the understanding, flexible way you mention this to me. Administrators like you and User:Whiteknight are the most vital components that will keep Wikibooks successful! Thanks for your continued support and patience.

Pete 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oversight
So you like me that much!

In practice I removed all aspects of this from watchlist sometime ago. However I really do see it as being in the interest of community to resolve - I am reluctant to be involved but at present we do not seem to be moving forward and the community does need that. Under no circumstances would I wish to be involved in re-opening arbitration. The issue seems to be to get Panic to agree to be part of community on the community's terms and I do feel that he should remain blocked until this can be achieved. IF the community agree on this (miracles could occur I guess) I would be prepared to act as oversight BUT I will have conditions that I would want agreed by the community - my back has a sensitivity to knife wounds. May not be what you want, in which case sorry but get back to me - I don't like the festering wound that is left. Regards -- Herby talk thyme 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be quite firm about real agreement but let me know when you've posted - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I would like to see some evidence of explicit consensus tho a whole lot of voting may be a bit much. The community seem to have agreed to you - not to my participation and I think they should.  Otherwise I will find myself in a possibly untenable position.  That said the sooner things get going the better.  I guess it would be good to seek out the views of Xania & Xixtas at the very least - maybe you would point them to this and the staff lounge stuff?
 * Blockwise I see no real need to do anything - Panic just has to know that a new block will be applied as soon as the old one expires unless we have sorted this out. I would be prepared to re-block Panic if we have not managed to resolve the issue by the time the block expires (I do not like the idea but this needs resolving).  I guess my "community consensus" in part consist of the community agreeing that I & only I will be responsible for blocking and unblocking Panic?
 * His page went back on my watchlist when I had your first message, offline now but I will be on tomorrow and have no breaks planned for a while - I would like to help lift this cloud -- Herby talk thyme 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not happy with Matt's posting in the staff lounge that I am not impartial - to be resolved if I am to continue -- Herby talk thyme 19:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Today will be odd moments only - still think rather more consensus is needed tho. Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 09:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * reset

I think you can handle all this yourself, but the community will be reading what you do nonetheless and can say something on your talk if they need to. Set his blocks up now and start the process like you planned because I don't see anything stopping you; all (essentially) have agreed to your proceedings. I plan on being a reader only from now on. Good luck. -within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Careful
Not true - only sus, taken comment out, catch you tomorrow - -- Herby talk thyme 17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And look again at block too - check WP - no blocks, just speculation -- Herby talk thyme 17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Party Time
I see the Panic process has had an awesome start, but I wondered why you're using two-week blocks. As far as principles are concerned, I don't see why an indefinite block isn't used. If you continually add two-week blocks, you're really doing the same thing. Is this just to avoid complaints? Logically your terms send the idea that the blocks will exist until a solution is found, so I don't see the point to these short-term blocks and it leaves more room for error should you miss a re-blocking time. It will also fill Panic's block log with blocks. If you ramp up the blocking period over time, I could perhaps understand that although that seems more like a "punishment".

Also, should we and others as admins actually react to the unblock request? I realize this goes against your "one-on-one" discussion with Panic, but if he puts that in technically I think we should respond. I assume the consensus admin opinion will of course be a denial of the unblock, but we don't want to ignore policies. Tell me if unblock responses aren't in policy anywhere and I'll just ignore it, something we'll effectively be doing with a decision anyway. Thanks. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 15:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's party time because Panic is back and I'm sure this process will be filled with fun and excitement. I'll let the process continue for a bit of course, but maybe after the second or third two-week block I might ask again about changing the block time period. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 18:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we need to respond to the unblock template, it's currently not part of policy that we need to respond to it at all (my unstable branch of the administrator policy is taking this into account). Also, I want to agree with Matt here, that after a few short-term blocks, if we aren't making any progress, the block should likely just be made indefinite. No sense in continually blocking and unblocking, filling up the block logs and all. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * SBJohhny, my comment on Panic's talk page isn't meant to interrupt the one-on-one between you two (although I had forgotten it was supposed to be that way). Panic isn't going to accept blame for this and there are some other Wikibookians who believe he isn't to blame either - it's just a long mess of misunderstandings.  I would like this sorted out and some sort of commitment that he'll work with other editors and consider some of his language but trying to get someone to accept blame isn't going to work.  We're all to blame. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

BIG grin
I read logs (mind you the reason I was looking was...) - catch you soon -- Herby talk thyme 19:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm laughing too. Our previous discussion was very funny. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hum - I'm laughing again! -- Herby talk thyme 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * plus I hope you have both looked at the relevant WP page -- Herby talk thyme 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Staff lounge
I just worked my damn clicking finger off, but check out the staff lounge now! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As requested
This would be best done by you, if you don't agree please state why.

I will go one at a time.

Original

Changed

Objections to the: Request that you should explain it to the user that performed the action and perform due process so any claims he has are addressed and he understands my objections. --GoToMan 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Inclusion of the GFDL on that page (GFDL is already on the bottom of every page, and is (at least it was) added into the book version for printing)
 * 2) Removal of the before title of the work (before the fork) even if the book does no longer exist on Wikibooks due to the merge, and per GFDL reference is needed.
 * 3) Alteration to the wording I would prefer restoring the template but I will leave it up to your, I strongly object to the change in "who may have donated contents", if they didn't it would be a violation of Wikibooks policy and GFDL.
 * 4) Removal of the anonymous contributor (unsung heroes) by removing and giving me single authorship of the work, I get all the control, I could in a last degree even request the pull down of the work from wikibooks or remove the GFDL in any copy I would make of the work (this may depend on the authorizations and rights of the other works used but with some content removal it would be legal).

Panic's Puppets
The creation of these alternate accounts is unacceptable. He may think he's creative by doing this to "prove his point" but it is still considered an extremely bad faith move and everyone should know that's not the way to do things or to effectively convey a message. He's now using at least one of the accounts to continue discussions with you here, something that should be done at his talk page alone since he's blocked. Just because there isn't a mention of sockpuppets in the blocking policy doesn't mean these users can't be blocked. There is a myriad of other policies and guidelines about good faith, civility, etc. that forbid this sort of action. We are not a courtroom here and we don't need to prove that Panic is truly behind these puppets either, even though he specicially mentioned he was using one to comment on your talk page here which is a direct association to his actions. These accounts need to be blocked immediately. You may see this as interfering with your process, but Panic's actions are a direct violation of the one path to a solution that was given which was through you. Panic himself should also be blocked infinitely (or indefinitely if you prefer although this action has invalidated the solution process to me). If you do not wish to do this then please say so and I or another admin will commit the blocks because this is ridiculous. I considered myself finished with all the useless discussion on this issue but now that he's effectively vandalizing pages by puppeting around and deliberately avoiding his block, things have changed. I and other admins should have no problem with continually blocking new IPs he uses from now forward. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 13:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Matt on this one. I understand the "point" he was trying to make, and i also understand the humor in it. Many policies were written expressly to be open to interpretation, such as the good faith and civility policies. Even though it isn't stated anywhere "thou shalt block sockpuppets" I still think it's unacceptable behavior and should be dealt with. Using sockpuppets to circumvent a user block is exceptionally bad faith on panic's part, and should not be tolerated by you or the rest of the community.
 * I would insert language about blocking sockpuppets into the Wikibooks:Blocking Policy, but there are enough unrelated objections on that page already to slow the entire process down. I've proposed a new draft at Sockpuppets that might expedite this particular matter, but there will likely be the standard "we dont need another policy document", or "isn't this assumed already", or "we should merge this into WB:WIW/Unstable instead".
 * I'll probably post a message about this on SL to alert the community of the problem, and (hopefully) enough people will get angry about it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I'd prefer immediate action to be taken, I guess letting some others hear about this before committing the blocks for a day or two isn't unreasonable. For the time being however, someone must be watching those puppets since he's already used GoToMan to make edits in the C++ book. Certainly all these accounts should be infinitely blocked. Again, I think Panic should be infinitely blocked but of course you can still talk to him all you want and maybe propose to the community at a later date that he's ready to have his block lifted. His recent actions to me say that he's no longer an "indefinite" case but an "infinite" case until perhaps he changes something in the somewhat-near future, but not too near. If there's a technical issue with making that happen, then I guess indefinite will do.
 * It may not have been necessary in the past, but we're getting large enough that we need more separate policy pages. Jamming them all into one place is becoming a hassle and isn't good organization. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem. Wikibooks doesn't forbid secondary accounts so how is Panic doing any wrong?  His 'Panic' account has been blocked so naturally he's created a new account.  What do you expect people to do when their account is blocked?  He probably sees it as his only way to stay on Wikibooks.  Do we really expect blocked users to stay away from the project? --Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 16:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You must be joking! He has created at least 5 sockpuppets in the last day or so that he's using not only to go around a block, but also to steer conversation and take jabs at other users. I'll keep talking to him about the other stuff in the faint hope of some future resolution, but he's gone beyond the pale now. I'm sorry xania, but if you don't see the problem with this, I really don't know what else to say. -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Use of sock puppets in this way is a bad faith attempt to circumvent the block which does have the overall support of the community. -- xixtas talk 01:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course Wikibooks forbids secondary accounts in the way you've described! You cannot be blocked and then just create another account to continue as if nothing happened; you're blocked for a reason. If someone is blocked, then they as a person, not just an account are implicitly blocked from the site. That's the best we can do with our current technology. An account represents edits and that's what we block, but we're blocking that person's actions and behavior. Sockpuppets are terribly bad faith and subversive to our practices here. There is no problem when a user creates multiple accounts to serve different purposes, but if one is blocked then that person should not continue with the others.
 * If a user is very careful then perhaps they can create a new account some time later and re-integrate, although we hope that process won't succeed. Panic's unique language style for one will prevent that by how I see it. We as admins must now block all IPs he uses to re-inject himself since he is blocked, not Panic2k4 specifically. He is expected to remain off the project until unblocked (besides the communication through his talk page). -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you need to make it very clear to panic that if he continues acting like a child like this, he won't ever be allowed back. Worse then that, i am tempted to have him labled as a permanent "nuisance" (since he isn't exactly a vandal), and require that all puppets and IPs used by him be blocked on sight from now on. All he had to do was say "I should have tried to be more understanding", or something like that, and he would already be back. Instead, he refused to say anything, threw a temper tantrum, and is now flagrantly disregarding our behavioral norms. I know you are endlessly compassionate on this matter, but my patience with it all has grown painfully thin. Proceed as you will (since we did all put you in charge here), but that's my opinion for what it's worth. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My suggestion in this would be to treat him like a normal vandal. We will infinitely block him and all accounts he uses like we usually would. Elevating Panic to any sort of special status is his desire. Discounting him and treating him like normal vandal trash is exactly what we need to do. Once he realizes no one cares, he'll stop doing whatever part of this gives him his kicks. As long as we make it clear to everyone that notices his edits that he's the loser in all this, we'll have no problems. This is business as usual and he'll tire in a much shorter period than all other active contributors defending the project will. We shouldn't even discuss him anymore since he tanked himself. His talk page will be his only outlet now. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 19:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He's not a "normal vandal", he's a disruptive sockpuppeteer. The only thing that make him unique in that is that he's the first sockpuppeteer on English Wikibooks (they're a dime a dozen on Wikipedia and Commons). As far as how to treat it, the only difference should be that any and all IPs he uses should be blocked as well... if he can edit from them, they're obviously Open Proxies.
 * I wouldn't count on him getting bored with it too soon by the way. Whatever else you might think of him, he's definitely tenacious and not one to be bothered by a few bruises. -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please make it clear to Panic that if he continues to create new accounts and use the User talk namespace as a continuation of his soapbox then his chances of having a shortened block period will be even more remote. Although User talk allows for some personal material, creating new puppets and filling their pages with this essentially translates to polluting the namespace and yet another act of bad faith. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 06:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't been pressing it lately, but I can start once again. We'll see how it goes. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit query
Interesting - but a "selective" diff - my edit is actually this one. All I did was alpha cat the page - the intervening edit is the one that moved other content -- Herby talk thyme 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for checking... I didn't see that :P -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hi, I noticed a dispute between User:Panic2k4 and you. I was wondering if you would be interested in an informal dispute resolution? If so please look here --Cool Cat 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that User:Panic2k4 is blocked. I was wondering if you could temporarily unblock him for the purpose of this dispute resolution attempt. Alternatively we could have this convo at commons but I'd prefer to keep them here. -- Cat out 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL... thanks Cool_Cat, but you're out of the bag already. I can't unblock him now (he did a big sockpuppet thing and there are a lot of angry people!), but talking is good. -- SB_Johnny | talk 02:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I already said this, but he isn't even approved to be unblocked since the process isn't over. Even though I personally do not support this, the community's decision showed that as well. He can complete discussions at his talk page. There is no utility in letting him edit elsewhere. Cool Cat can work on his talk page, a single page, since that's what he'd be doing anyway. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
indeed to see the news - hope you feel more relaxed soon, catch you round somewhere I'm sure (cat'ing uncat'ed stuff on commons at present!) Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 12:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I am truly sorry, but I cannot support the proposed mediation. Although I strongly considered keeping my mouth shut, in the end I could not remain silent. You may move forward over my objections, and I do pledge to respect the results of the mediation. I do not think that at this stage anything which is non binding will do anything other than fuel the fire. -- xixtas talk 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

why writing in German
Re: "Warum schriebst du auf Deutsch?". I am just using a very useful text from the German version and translating it into English, is it ok?

I don't know whether to reply here or somewhere else?! Yes it is from German wikibooks, it is very good. It would be great to develop a good Persian wikibook because textbooks are very expensive, only at beginner's level, or outdated etc. Poppy 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WMOG
I'll look over the project pages and FAQ and all, and see what I can do to help. I'll fix what I can fix (a small set of things), and ask you to clarify the rest. If you are expecting an influx of new readers/writers, that's a very exciting thing and perhaps you should do well to post it in staff lounge. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

References on fictional work
Hello! I was looking through the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, and was just wondering under what circumstances such work regarding a work of fiction is acceptable. I've looked through the policies and guidelines, including the guide to deletion, but couldn't find any guidance on the issue. Is this more of an informal, "in-practice" type of thing? The Wikias normally aren't geared toward study and annotation a work, nor is Wikipedia. I would like to do some work of this type, any guidance as to when it would be allowed would be appreciated. Thanks! Seraphimblade 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

CCNA Certification
SB Johhny - The point was asking for a review of two things - not so much the contents of the outline, but more the structure and to a certain extent style. What I'm looking for in the review is feedback about specific pros and cons of the outline and style I'm using.


 * For example, I start with a template that gives the reader the ability to navigate from any page to any other page to browse the book. Is this good, or is it wasteful of wikibooks resources since each book will have its own navigation template?


 * Then on the cover page, there is a picture with its credit below. Of course it's licensing is correct - public domain, cc, or gnu, etc.  The purpose of it is to provide an appealing cover picture like you have in real books.  But is it a waste of space?


 * The table of contents follows a pattern:


 * 1. Acknowledgements Image:00%.png
 * 2. Introduction Image:00%.png
 * 3. chapter Image:00%.png
 * 1. section
 * 2. section
 * 4. chapter Image:00%.png
 * 1. section
 * 2. section
 * 3. section




 * 30. Conclusion Image:00%.png
 * 31. References Image:00%.png
 * 32. Index Image:00%.png
 * 33. Glossary Image:00%
 * 34. Appendix A - appendix Image:00%.png
 * 35. Appendix B - appendix Image:00%.png
 * 36. Appendix C - appendix Image:00%.png
 * 37. Appendix D - appendix Image:00%.png


 * External links and resources


 * Indirectly I was fishing for some constructive criticism that would help me answer a few questions 1) I believe there is benefit in not numbering the chapter and section file names so that one can insert a chapter between two existing chapters or sections. Is there a reason why some people prefer to do it in a rigid matter by including numbers in the chapter and section names? 2) I believe there is a need for all the references in the book to be together in a reference chapter so that they can be referred to within the whole book rather than in one chapter or section at a time, but wikibooks seem to force you into the footnote style with the available tools.  Are there tools to collect references into one chapter?  3) I believe an Index is a good thing so that a user can find a section from a list of topics.  Are there tools that can help build an index?  It's nice to hyperlink the online version, but how do we reference from a key term to a module number inside the book? 4) I believe a glossary is great for people to understand unfamiliar terms.  If the book is printed out, hyperlinks can't be counted on.  But nevertheless, there should be a table of acronyms and common terms to define them in the context of this book.  5) Is there a page that has all the copyright/copyleft that creates a chapter within a book so that when it's printed out, it's part of the book? 6) Is there a way to letter chapters instead of numbering them with the # sign.  My appendix names include the alphabet letter, which keeps me from re-ordering them later.Kgrr 16:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Replies:
 * 1) Some people like numbers for the chapters, others don't (I don't use them in the garden book, for example). It's just a matter of personal preference.
 * 2) I'm not sure about this, but you might be able to do that in the print version page (I'll play around with that and see).
 * 3) Unfortunately indexing probably needs to be done by hand, though someone might have a bot for it. I'll ask on de.wikibooks, but if not, try asking either User:Darklama, User:Whiteknight, or User:Derbeth... they're our local bot experts.
 * 4) I started making one for the garden book that's linkable using # in the wikilink: A Wikimanual of Gardening/Glossary (look in the edit window).
 * 5) yup. When you make the print version, use WB:GFDL as the last page.
 * 6) Not as far as I know.

I'll look into those other things today. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

VIP
Hey Johnny,

I think I already reported this guy on VIP, but nothing happened.

Or maybe that was someone else. -- Jim Thomas 20:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Wikibooks
Your comments on the Administrator's notice board are starting to get substantially off topic, but there are a few points I would like to note here:

Most important, I completely agree that if the WMF wants to step in and regulate the content of Wikibooks, that one way or another it has to happen. But I would also like to point out the extreme reluctance on the part of the board to get involved with what are ultimately individual project matters which govern content. About the only major policies they are interested in enforcing are the NPOV and original research policies. Fair use may be something they may deal with in the near future, but nothing has as of yet been formally approved, and the board member who did speak up only mentioned some potential directions that many board members were thinking about.

Certainly the video game books never, ever, got to that level of discussion by the board, and even Jimbo himself said this is something that needed to reach local community concensus. He just wanted to prod the community into thinking that perhaps we had been a bit too permissive in allowing certain kinds of content he didn't think needed to be here. See Wikibooks talk:Votes for deletion for some of his thoughts along those lines.

I have never been happy with the video game books being removed from Wikibooks and have been very vocal about that both when it happened in earnest and even when Jimbo brought the subject up in the first place. That there certainly were some problems both in terms of potential fair use content violations and becoming macropedias was also significant, not to mention any relevance to the educational mission of Wikibooks that might make removing many of those video game book a near no-brainer. But those were not the reasons given for their deletion, was it?

Invoking authority of the WMF board when such authority was never granted is mainly what I'm fighting here. And people raising the StrategyWiki to the status of a Wikibooks sister project. I suppose that last point is something that perhaps could have some other widespread support, but it would have to be some substantial community concensus, and something I believe would get strong negative attention from the WMF board as well. Wikibooks were deleted without even so much as a VfD happening (although it is happening now). Perhaps I could have been a bigger PITA and agressively undeleted the books when I objected, but that would have brought about other problems.

As for the rest of my comments about the video game books, what I said here is still just as relevant as when I wrote the replies in the first place. And mind you, I wasn't the only person who didn't think this was the right thing to do. And Jimbo didn't issue "orders" to remove this content, nor did he even do any deletion (on these books). Unfortunately my comments have been mangled up in the discussion, so it is sometimes a bit hard to follow what I had originally posted.

As for the tax exempt status being an issue for Wikibooks at all, I said my fill here on the subject.

I know that at least in the near term (over the next couple of years, at least), video game books like we had here simply won't be coming back. But I do object strongly to the idea that any book about video games as a topic is inappropriate for Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 06:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was perfectly on topic, as I was trying to answer a new user's question (which became much more complicated by your lengthy comments). My understanding is that the VG books were not looked upon favorably by the foundation, and yes, the problem was with questionable fair use aspects and their incompatability with our educational mission. The active VGB writers moved their projects to StrategyWiki, and the other VGBs were subsequently abandoned. I don't think there's been anyone actively hunting them down, except perhaps by those at SW who want to work on them and are more comfortable working there than here. With that trend in mind, we've generally just deleted them after making sure they were properly copied over.


 * I'll start a policy page on it. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Request
Not to be picky but can you reword that last comment, no "bad habits" were identified or acknowledged by me or any other party but yourself, Darklama and probably 2 other administrators. Txs --Panic 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. You need to be cautious about being civil and considerate when dealing with other users... considerably more civil and considerate than you have been in the past. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok so replace "bad habits" with that, but do you also find that faults in yourself ? at least on the same subject matter ?
 * All I'm asking is that you be clear and not to insinuate any other things, you are free to make your own personal interpretations as am I. I can point to the same problem in yourself so as to be fair you should only state the issues I have addressed, failing to do so would bring me to state the same in such a public forum that would serve no one. --Panic 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nipple Rings
That revert is hilarious. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Question and request
On Perl Programming

== Interfacing Perl == :GUI and desktop programming :/CPAN/ :/DBI - Perl Database Inteface/

the last page name has a spelling error "/DBI - Perl Database Interface/", I was to move it but I decided to ask you if page moves now preserve edit history ? If not can you fix it ? txs. --Panic 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Page moves have and always will preserve the edit history. I just moved the module. --Iamunknown 01:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok txs. --Panic 01:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Things and stuff
I read a great article the other day about a webmaster (back in the late 80's with the dawn of the internet) who ran a discussion board about the Bosnia crisis. Back in those times the notion of a "troll" was basically unheard of, and no defenses to them were ever erected. In short, everybody on the internet expected everybody else to rise to the same level of respect.

When a troll did appear on the message board, the entire community was brought to a virtual standstill. New posts stopped being created, and users stopped logging in. By the time the troll was finally banned from the website, the message board was almost completely dead. It was, to say the least, a very interesting read.

I've been so busy recently with school work (especially my ever-growing thesis work) that I haven't been able to make more then a handful of contributions each day. Unfortunately, the majority of those contributions are made in places that aren't textbook pages. I am looking to the horizon when the school semester ends, and I have the freedom of summer to contribute like a mad man again. Even if i devote 10 posts per day to dealing with trolls, that will be a small percentage of all my contributions in a single day.

I'm sorry we keep missing each other on IRC, i've been working late nights and tend not to get online until 8 or 9. Tonight will be no different, and then i'm gone for the weekend. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the call, i got cut off when i went into that tunnel. I dont think i need to "hand the reins back" because i'm not certain at this point that any one person needs to take control of the situation. Doing so will cause that one unfortunate person to deal with this problem and not contribute enough to anything else (which is a fate worse then perma-ban).
 * I'll see what i can jot down concerning that policy, i dont know what kind of time i will have before next week. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)