User talk:Swift/Archives/2010

Physics Course/Infrared Wave
Removed your tag of copyvio. The rational is that due to the nature of the edit and because you could have fixed it easely (even if doubt was the reason you could have overwritten it with your own edit) the tag was doing more harm than good. While I agree with the need to give credit to Wikimedia contributors, there are specific circumstances that makes using the copyvio use problematic and certainly not a reasonable tool to educate users. If you wish to explore this subject further I'll be available as always. --Panic (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There may well be multiple ways to inform users of best practices. That doesn't make this content any less of a violation of copyright. Please feel free to leave the user a nice message or put this to WB:RFD but this will have to be addressed. The best way is for the user to ask for an import. --Swift (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, right. I already did. --Swift (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Noticed this page today Wikibooks:Reading room/User:Panic2k4
Can I move it to my personal space (I will keep it mostly the same), I would when I have time for it link it to the relevant historic logs. If you object then would you mind moving it into yours. I don't think it should remain in the main namespace, especially as descontextualized as it is... --Panic (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to copy it, but I believe the topic is relevant to the community as a whole and therefore has a place in the project namespace. It's a pity, but that the user (you) has been the main source of major conflict between Wikibookians. Though the nature of these episodes are regretful, they are certainly part of Wikibooks history. The user is furthermore still active and since the cause of the latest clash went unresolved, there is a chance (a slim one, I hope) that it could repeat itself in some form.
 * In that event, some sort of history would be of use to provide context to people trying to mediate. I will agree that it is a pretty sorry excuse for an overview, but the dates and events in place provide a starting ground for anyone wanting to dig into the histories. You are of course welcome to contribute to that history, and I trust you will show restraint in adding analysis. Personal essays, linked to from relevant places on the project page would be enlightening.
 * At the time I hadn't been sure if this page was a bit provocative (and thus unhelpful) but seeing how you still felt completely in the right and saw no logical loopholes in your position, I concluded you wouldn't oppose to an unbiased listing of events. I was actually surprised to see your edit summary stating that you hadn't seen it before. I never got around to getting that page to the state I would have thought necessary for advertising it in one of the reading rooms, but figured most people in the debate had noticed it; either when I created it, or when I added it to my user page.
 * Just to conclude, this page was not created as an indictment of you or to defame you. After stepping out of the surreal world of the last conflict I started reading up on past conflicts and found among other things what I thought was a very laudable stance taken by a formerly active Wikibookian. He stood tall in your defense and argued that the community should show restraint and not outright ostracise anyone for what seemed to some like borderline delusional behaviour. I agree. I believe the community should accept its responsibility, show sympathy and forgive those dedicated to the project and its aims. If not for your sake, then for our. --Swift (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If this page should exist, I believe it's a conflict of interest for Panic or any involved in a block of Panic to edit it. -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That assumes there is an interest to be had in this page. It neither is nor should be an indictment. My experience from past conflicts is that we can agree on the chain of events. As long as we leave the analysis to personal essays in our parts of the user namespace, we'll be fine. Passing judgment and dictating who can do what before the fact is one way to do things badly.
 * That is but one of the lessons we can learn from history. --Swift (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My objection is to keep it where it is and in particular to the name of the page (since it pollutes searches I perform regularly), not extremely important but I did think that the page had served its purpose and you would be able to accommodate my requests since personal page should not really be outside of one's userspace (the latitude here depends on the use or interest of the page to the rest of the community and as Adrignola states above the freedom to have the content open for public edits).
 * In any case I'm not attempting to have it deleted nor do I oppose the content (it is something that was already available to all).
 * As for your call me a source of conflict between Wikibookians, I strongly disagree, I never exerted any pressure on others to intercede in my behalf nor engaged in schemes and discussions to cause anyones problems not even engaged in reprisals or in spreading misinformation about other Wikibookians, that sadly has been done to me.
 * As always am as direct as I can. We both know that I'm not the only one to blame why things escalate, like the last block that resulted directly from your own actions (you bet I'm not happy on how you acted). Can you see in any way that the issues created were beneficial to the project or even addressed the problem other Wikibookians were pressing for a resolution (if anything time has proven me right on that request for administrative action) ?
 * What is interesting never the less is that the real reasons I keep being blocked don't conform to proper procedure or even to motives invocated for most of the blocks, this was made abundantly evident in events resulting from first block, and my civil disobedience was vindicated by a poll to the active community and ensuing actions, it was even made more evident on the wording of the statement I was "asked" to agree to for the unblock.
 * Besides all the bad rap some have attempted to pin on me ultimately, facts and my actions speak volumes. I've never been destructive, or even uncivil but have been given lots of reasons to be distrustful and critical of some administrators and their actions. As for the history I'm very proud to have at least been the one to make several deep changes happen, starting from need to address duplications and even the repel of the fork policy. My main motivation now is to prevent what happened to me to happen to anyone else.
 * We have moved far from the idea that admniship puts people in any control over others and are representatives of the community this shift has lead to real improvement on the project, by the proposed block policy none of the blocks would have been made (and we would be all the better for it)...
 * As for all the Wikibookians that requested a clarification of the events and after observing that all was not right (some stuff was admitted other is self evident) and somewhat defended me (it was not only one) some where directly targets of reprisals for their attempt to be fair, even the ones that kept silent have my respect, the mud and accusations made to me were unreal, just look into RH talkpage if you need your memory refreshed. Things weren't right and to me some are still unclear, I truly don't trust you to be fair to me on anything not because of disagreement, perceptions or speculations but by facts you did me wrong and you know it.
 * Regarding my request do as you see best but yet I don't see a reason for the page to be where it is, and you didn't give any valid justification to preserve it there. You bet it is a bit provocative now, at the time it was created it could be argued to have some reason to be (even if it never was linked to anything as you said), for the timing I see it now as a possible bait for an escalation and further blocks (so you probably shouldn't have placed it there in the first place), that now is the only motivation I see behind the events initiated by your email, as it stands it is extremely out of context, partial and singles me out, in part it does defame me since newcomers to the project aren't expected to understand what has happened but probably view blocks as a negative stain in ones reputation, I did, that was why I strongly opposed the first block (I don't see them like that anymore).
 * So please consider again moving in elsewhere (I even offered to keep it in my userspace), or come up with a valid reason to have it there, my only available option will be bring the issue to the community attention (I hope you see that as unnecessary and unproductive as I). --Panic (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Better indeed
Thanks for introducing me to the Mbox template. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I've been meaning to work on our range of user notices to simplify maintenance a bit more straight forward. --Swift (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement tag for article copied from non-copyrighted (Creative Commons) contents

 * The template that you added to some article copied from Wikipedia is not a copyright infringement content because this content that copied from Wikipedia is not fully copyrighted and thus this content is copied under the following :


 * This content that copied is under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License] which the person can copy the content freely any time but must follow under the agreement of CC contents.

Before do so, please check the footer of the website which is a references to the book that you need to be check first. Please check that if the following message written ""Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply."" or ""The copyright logo"". If the website found is copyrighted & not creative commons then you may tag a book. Please do not tag the book if the article is copied from content such as Wikipedia under Creative Commons. Please study about Creative Commons Thank you -- Cheong (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikibooks, Cheong, and thanks for your interest in the project. I happen to be not completely unfamiliar with the copyright issues of the Wikimedia Foundation. I can't say that I know the details of the recent move to dual licensing content under the GFDL and CC-SA, but I do know that the latter (and less stringent) license still requires attribution. See the WMF terms of use for details.
 * I recognise that fixing the modules shouldn't be too much work. That work, however, isn't the responsibility of the community but the contributors of the content. The pages from which you removed the tag were created by a users who were duly notified and informed of the problem. They neither responded to repeated notices nor have they cleaned up after themselves.
 * Should you wish to adopt these modules, feel free. If not, we should delete them. The content is available at Wikipedia for when a serious contributor arrives. --Swift (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous warnings on other sites
FYI, I've considered warnings on other sites to be related enough to warrant the blatant vandal warning as opposed to treating him as a new user. You can see a bit more info here, which basically shows that he managed to get blocked more than once. --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if the account were unified, there are some eight months from the last block until the user registered at Wikibooks. I see neither a reason for assuming the user is beyond redemption nor any warrant for as opposed to warn (and most certainly not without further justification). --Swift (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How to include a book in a Subject Page?
Hi Swift, this is probably a silly question, but i cannot figure out how to list a book in a Subject Page, although i've figured out how to put in a Category Page. Your advice would be appreciated. Cheers, PeaSoup 04:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Use the template. Categories is your friend. Let me know if these are unclear. Oh, it might confuse you that the subject category that a page is in is listed as a "category", not a "subject" at the bottom of the page. --Swift (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Swift, many thanks for the help. It's working now. Perhaps the Subject page updated itself much more slowly than the Category page, so i assumed wrongly that it was not working. Psoup.


 * Good to hear! Let me know if you have any other questions. --Swift (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Automatic sighting
Hi Swift, When i edit a page, it is automatically sighted by default. How can i correct a typographical error in a page but retain its status as Current revision (unreviewed)? Thanks in advance. Cheers, PeaSoup 02:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have to manually unreview it. There shouldn't really be any need, though: Sighting only implies no obvious vandalism, not accuracy. --Swift (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Swift. How do i manually unreview a page? Cheers, PeaSoup 02:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a box titled "Review this revision" at the bottom of pages in the main namespace (ones without "Wikibooks:", "Help:", etc. prepended to their title).
 * The odd thing is that my edits don't seem to automatically sight pages and I vaguely remember changing some settings related to FlaggedRevs a while back but, frankly, I've never bothered much with FlaggedRevs which I'm still unconvinced is a positive feature. --Swift (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Swift. Cheers, PeaSoup 03:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Assistive_Technology_in_Education/Proloquo2Go
Hi Swift, First, a big "Thank You" for watching over some of the pages my graduate students are working on to fill textbook gaps. Regarding Proloquo2go, I'm hoping you can help me with a mystery. The original Proloquo2go page was created in July, 2009, and it was a model page! I see that it's history now seems to begin on February 20, 2010, and that all (or mostly all) of the original page is gone. As a knowledgeable Wikibookian, how can this happen. I'm sure that you weren't involved because you didn't access the page until the 22nd. I don't think that jCroom gutted the page either, because it would have shown in the history. Any clue? Thanks for you thoughts! --Sgarrigan (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind ... the Proloquo2go page was split off of another page. I found the edit, the edit trail is intact, and the mystery is solved. --Sgarrigan (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you sorted things out. Let me know if you run into any other problems down the road. All the best to you and your students! --Swift (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot work request
Your bot can also work Turkish Wikibooks? Thanks and good night.)--Reality006 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It could, but I'm afraid that I haven't quite recovered from a computer crash and don't have access to the bot scripts at the moment. --Swift (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Here I am kicking you
You've forgotten to elaborate on "Learning Styles" in Authoring Foreign Language Textbooks =P —Internoob (Disc·Cont·Wikt) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers, done! :-)