User talk:Thenub314/Archive 1

welcome
Welcome, Thenub314!

Come introduce yourself in the general reading room or your project in the project reading room. If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or contact me personally.

Thank you for your work on the Real analysis and other wikibooks. --DavidCary (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

SVG on Commons
Hi Thenub314,

Thanks for your comment on User talk:W3asal. In case you weren't aware of either Commons or SVG graphics, I just wanted to point you to these great resources. Uploading files to Commons makes them available across all Wikimedia projects and SVG just kicks ass for mathematics related graphics. Gnuplot supports SVG output and Inkscape is a free vector graphics editor with which you can create great graphics. --Swift (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks, I wasn't aware of commons but I noticed it was mentioned in the general reading room recently (under the heading of common mistakes) and found myself wondering about what it was. I wish I could produce the graphics in SVG. I have trouble doing what I want with inkscape (my linux distro has a bug) and I can't get it to do anything in 3d.  Gnuplot might be an option, but I didn't find the nice plotting commands I needed.  In short I will definitely use SVG when I can, but in my rather limited experience making graphics something always prevents me. Thenub314 (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm ... what are your problems with Inkscape? I'm running version 0.46 and it's pretty stable. A couple of years ago, it kept crashing on me, though.
 * Inkscape doesn't really do 3D as such. Just vector graphcis made up of simple shapes (ellipses, polygons), splines and such. --Swift (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, inkscape won't render LaTeX on my system. But I think this is mostly a problem with my linux distro.  Possibly it could be a licensing issue, inkscape rely's on pstoedit to convert latex fromula's from ps to svg.  But at least one of the plugins to pstoedit that coverts to svg is not open source, simply shareware.  Anyways I have been playing around with it trying to get to know it.  So far it seems very similar to Xfig with a more modern interface, most of (but not quite all of) the features, but many new features.  Hopefully building various things from source myself I can get it to give me nice pretty LaTeX'ed labels for my diagrams.  Thenub314 (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Categorizing
Hello Thenum314, how are you? I don't know how familiar you are with MediaWiki. Categorizes are list pages maintained by the software. So Category:Calculation automatically contains a list of all books in that category. It also has a place where you can write some basic information about that category. Notice that the list of pages still exists whether we've written a description page about it or not. So the link can be red but the list still exists (click on the link above to see for yourself that this is true if you want). A subject page is just like a normal wiki page, and we can include anything there that we want. The standard template that I've been using automatically includes books from the category page links, in addition to some formatting fancyness.

I'm very glad for any and all help. We have at least 3,000 books here on Wikibooks, and through the course of this project I'm probably going to have to edit every one of them. I don't pretend that I'm doing it all perfectly, but I am making things a little better and more managable then they were before I started. My goal is to (a) find a way to make things better, and (b) find a method to make things better quickly. The need for quickness is part of the reason why my work is a little imprecise sometimes.

If you're interested in helping, here are some things you can do:


 * 1) Move books from major topics like Subject:Mathematics to subtopics like Subject:Calculation or Subject:General Mathematics, etc.
 * 2) Edit the book pages to remove old templates like, and remove bare [[Category:]] markers. Category names should be used with the  template only. So you could change "" to "", or whatever subtopic is more appropriate.
 * 3) Take a quick look at the book and add any cleanup templates to the top that reflect the current condition of the book.
 * 4) Move to the next book.

It's a quick process, and it really gives you the opportunity to take a look at a lot of books that you would have ignored otherwise. It's a good opportunity to see what kinds of books we have in our collection here! Good luck, and let me know if you need anything else! --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I get the rough idea and I will do some stuff on the mathematics. If I do well, or feel like I get the hang of it, I will branch out from there.  I will probably recategorize a few things, but I get a bit particular about my own subject area.


 * But I am really quite serious about "calling a spade a spade". It seems to me we should really make the links at the bottom of the page say "Categories" instead of "Subjects". Or (even better) make the links to the actual subject pages appear, but from my understanding there is some technical difficulties there.  How do I go about really engaging the admins in a discussion about this? Where is the right place to start?  Thanks for you help.


 * Thenub314 (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sentence Casing
I'll hold off on any renaming/recategorizing for the moment. For the sake of consistency, all the subjects need to have the same casing, and I'm under the impression that it's supposed to be sentence casing. Maybe someone who has a "bot" could automatically fix the categories.

Let me know if anything changes. NipplesMeCool (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Random Stuff
I created a subject Subject:Mathematical Reasoning that currently holds the Logic book. If you like that, good, otherwise feel free to redo-that as Subject:Mathematical Logic if that's better. As for the Mathematical Logic book, I haven't touched that book since 2006. It was created by separating a lot of un-related topics from the Algebra book, which (if you can believe it) used to be is much worse condition then it is now. You are welcome to do anything to Mathematical Logic, including merging it into Logic, updating/expanding it, or even marking it for deletion entirely. Anything that you think is best is what's going to happen. Let me know if you need any help with it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to Mathematical Physics
Having this book in Category:Mathematical physics already places it in Category:Physics and Category:Applied mathematics because Mathematical physics is already a member of both of those. If every book in Mathematical physics were put in both of those, there would be no point to having a subcategory of them in order to keep subjects from becoming too large. I would like to request that you not overcategorize the book, which defeats the purpose of specific subjects. -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Adrignola, thanks for leaving the comment. I have restored the classification, it doesn't seem inappropriate to me to direct the reader not only to the most specific topic under which this book is, but also to slightly more general topics that are relevant.  I admit I did not realized that mathematical physics was categorized under applied mathematics.  As a mathematician this strikes me as a bit of a mistake in terms of what these terms usually mean.  (For example the AMS subject classifications list doesn't place Physics under applied mathematics.)  I certainly don't feel I have over categorized, as you point out I didn't even change which categories the book appears in. The links are helpful, as well as the placing in the subject page. Thenub314 (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

University level mathematics
I took books out of that category because Darklama wanted them categorized by subject matter. He felt you couldn't accurately decide when a mathematics course might be taken. You're working against what was being done to the books. -- Adrignola talk contribs 11:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is appropriate to try to give readers an idea of the level of a book. If the categorization isn't perfect lets discuss specific books. I had no idea people had taken books out of this category, I maintain it would have been a mistake to do so. Thenub314 (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The following was the discussion on my archived talk page. Maybe you and Darklama should have at this; mathematics isn't my area of expertise. I'd just like us all on the same page. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any math can be taught at the university level anywhere/somewhere in the world. There isn't an exact definition of what "university level" is. Reading Levels and Prerequisites give a better idea of what level books are at. A person who dropped out of school or never went can attend a university to learn even basic math like addition, subtraction, multiplication, division. Every book qualities as university level. --dark lama  13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can take any course at any point in your life. But most universities have a fairly standard curriculum which helps make this a little clearer.  Also, books are written differently for different audiences.  A "College algebra" book is distinct from an "High School Algebra" book not especially because of what material is there but because of how it is written.  In the same way that the wikijunior book about Geometry is really about Euclidean Geometry (an advanced topic) but clearly written for children.  I don't think there is any real difficulty in making the distinction.  And it was a positive aspect of the Mathematics bookshelf page I hope to implement on the Mathematics subject page. Thenub314 (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "standard" curriculum taught at one university may be nothing like what is taught at another university. Even how books are written can vary from university to university. Each university often has a different audience its trying to appeal to. In some countries there might not even be a distinction made between a university and a college. I think there is difficulty in making a distinction because it won't make sense in some parts of the world. --dark lama  13:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To this see my comment about graduate schools below. Thenub314 (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a bit frustrated with Darklama about this. I didn't create this subject, but I did like it.  He and I discussed it in the reading room (and from previous interactions he might have realized I was a person who cared about the mathematics here) and I have previously done a non-trivial amount of work categorizing, before I got distracted by the Linear Algebra book (which I came across while categorizing and decided it needed immediate attention.)  I have been an active editor who went away on holiday for only about a month.  If he wanted to discuss getting rid of it, it would have been polite to invite me in on the discussion, since I had been doing work (and planned to continue work).  --Thenub314 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your contributions to Linear Algebra are appreciated. The categorization of books in Mathematics is based on Wikipedia's categorization and not my own opinions of where they should be. Had you not been on holiday at the time I was working on them and had I been made aware of your expertise in the area, I could have taken any input you had into account. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Let me be clear that I am not (nor was I at any point) frustrated with you.  You and I had not had a chance to meet, and you've clearly been doing a lot of hard work.  I think in a month you've made more edits here then I have in the several years I have been here.  Keep up the good work, it is really appreciated by all parties.


 * In any case, if there is a better way no work has been done to implement it. I read the discussion on your page, but it didn't make clear to me what the other alternatives were, or give me any clear reason why this is not a good thing.  I am willing to do this work, I am enough of an expert to make the judgment call on which books belong where.  I admit there are grey area's, but there will always be grey area's when categorizing. (For example, I don't think the books Algorithms or Data Structures contain mathematics but they are categorized under mathematics so other people clearly felt otherwise.)  It is not a reason not do it, and as far as I can tell Darklama's argument is that it is too much of a grey area to have these categories. Thenub314 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Category:Algorithms and data structures is under discrete mathematics and computer science, so those two books would be pertaining to the computer science side. If all the books are related to computer science, then we should probably put Category:Algorithms and data structures only under computer science. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand, I only ment there are inevitably things that get mis-categorized. In this case the trouble with moving the whole category of "Algorithms and data structures" is that it contains Numerical methods, which is appropriately under.  The subject has a whole also has more mathematical parts to it, but from my first glance it just isn't in those two books.  So there is no clear fix in my mind.  Those two books seem to be categorized as they should be, which places them under mathematics, which they are not.  It seems to me to be kind of a catch 22.  And these type of things will always happen, it is not a reason for trying not to create useful categories. Thenub314 (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * People could urge indefinitely on whether certain books qualify as university level. Are you saying you are also enough of an expert to make the judgment call as it applies everywhere in the world as well? I don't think you can say that with obsolete certainty. You might as well put all the math books in the university level category now because that's the only way to make it work for every country in the world. I'm frustrated with people who think this can realistically work without explaining how it can possibly work. Its not about gray areas, there is nothing to go by that wouldn't require changing later when people insist that more books be placed in it or taken out of it because a book covers or doesn't cover something that is taught at the university level where they live. --dark lama  13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Graduate schools must decided if they on how to accept credits from all over the world, acceptance to respected graduate school has similar requirements in most countries, things are not that different that you can't make a reasonable categorization. Your could argue much more about Reading levels then about when one would typically encounter some branch of mathematics.  If you feel there is a problem, be specific, which country, which book.  I have taught at multiple levels in two countries now, and have discussed education a fair bit with people from around the world, and I must say I really don't see a problem here. Thenub314 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The subjects covered by Abstract algebra, Algebraic Geometry, Linear Algebra, Linear Algebra with Differential Equations, and Statistics begin being taught in middle school or junior high here. That is more specific then I think is necessary. I don't think which country is relevant, because this project isn't restricted to a specific country. Categories should make sense everywhere that English is spoken. I don't think there is any way for this type of category to be neutral. --dark lama  14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I think such a category can be made and it is common practice to categorize books this way. I have taught some of these subjects to middle school students.  The books we have are not the books to do it with.  I am not saying we make a black/white decision based on subject.  If I were go follow your advice should I remove statements from books that claim they are university or college level? (For an example see the first sentence of Formal Logic).  Are these authors not being neutral? Thenub314 (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think such statements need to be removed from books that aren't targeting an audience from a specific school or country. Some books do say there audience is for a specific country or school though. Those authors aren't be neutral if they aren't writing for an audience from a specific school or country. Formal Logic doesn't seem to be targeting a specific school or country from just a brief look so I would say that needs to go. --dark lama  15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What about Geometry for elementary school? By this logic it would seem a complete misnomer that needs to be retitled.  Nothing I have read in this book makes it specific to a country, yet in the country I am living in there are no elementary schools.  Similar arguments could be made about title of High School Mathematics Extensions.


 * You said above that describing the prerequisites is a better way to describe the level of a book. Here are some things to think about.  First: how do you describe the prerequisites in a fashion that doesn't implicitly depend on which country your from? Algebra II may be a prerequisite, but courses called Algebra II do not exist everywhere.  What about Calculus, depending on where your from then saying Calculus is a prerequisite may more may not imply your expected to know: sequences and series, envelopes, comfort with mathematical proofs, comfort with δ-ε arguments, etc. Not to mention prerequisites don't necessarily give much away about the level of the course.  What are the prerequisites for group theory?  The prerequisites for Geometry for elementary school and Euclid's Elements would have to be the same but the books are at vastly different levels.


 * What about Wikijunior? To use your argument above: A person may drop out of school and only later try in life decide to make use of the wikijunior books. So perhaps wikijunior should be renamed. On the other hand any subject listed here has probably been taught to the age group we have listed as juniors here, so why move these books into wikijunior? Thenub314 (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A book's scope and audience define what to cover. If covering addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc. is outside an Algebra book's scope then a book that covers basic math could be a prerequisite for people who don't know basic math yet. In this way the dependency is on what skills or prior knowledge that is assumed to be needed, and not on the country. Multiple books on the same subject can coexist. One book can depend on readers having prior knowledge, another book could cover everything you need to know with no prerequisites, and yet another book could have different prerequisites from the first book. Prerequisites should make sense for the specific book and books should strive to be specific about what is is you need to know, so its clear why a specific Calculus book is a prerequisite for example. A book for a specific school or country's curriculum should have more specific prerequisites then a book intended for a more general audience.


 * I think I am missing your point in the above paragraph. The first few sentences seem to explain what a prerequisite is, which wasn't really necessary.  I agree that books should strive to be specific about what you need to know.  My point was that is just as difficult do describe what the prerequisites are in some neutral manner as it is to place the book into a category describing its level in some neutral manner.  I fully understand (and encourage) multiple books on the same subject.  I never meant to imply otherwise. Thenub314 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You asked "How do you describe the prerequisites in a fashion that doesn't implicitly depend on which country your from?" Prerequisites aren't dependent on what country your from unless the scope and audience is for a specific country. By being specific about what people need to know, books with a general audience can avoid making assumptions that are country specific. --dark lama  20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you missed my point here. Sure the prerequisites are well defined, but the problem is how to describe them. It is not reasonable to list every fact from algebra you'd like to use in a calculus book.  Very few editors could list the level to which you should have reached in each major cirriculum (if that concept even makes sense.) Without requiring the reader to be familiar with the subject matter of some specific book, it is difficult do describe exactly what you mean.  This being so, you're likely to run into descriptions that don't quite work across cultures.  We should all strive to make these books as multicultural as possible, but there are realistic limits you run into.  Thenub314 (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Adults can read Wikijunior books too if they aren't familiar with a subject. Just because a book is aimed at children doesn't mean adults can't read it. I admit I don't particularly like the idea of making a distinction between children's books and adult books either, or assuming that a person must be in a certain age group to benefit from books. I see Wikijunior as more of a means to keep an eye on books aimed at children, and not as being of benefit to only children. I think the distinction between Wikijunior and other books is the intended reading level, rather then any prerequisites. Wikijunior could also be useful for people who learned English as a second language, because of the intended reading level.


 * I never meant to say adults couldn't read wikijunior books. Shame on me, I was being a bit sarcastic, which never comes through well on print.  I think wikijunior is a great project with many more benefits then just keeping an eye on the books aimed at children.  I think the distinction runs deeper than reading levels or their would be more confusion about what is a wikijunior book and what is a simplified english book. (By the way, are simplified english books a separate project? When I go over to look at them, for example I no longer have a userpage at simple.wikibooks.org)


 * I think the reason the two aren't confused is because Simple English imposes certain restrictions on what words can be used (in theory at least), while books aimed at children can have varying degrees in vocabulary and more complex words can be used if explained. Simple English is a separate project, but books written in Simple English seem to be fine here too, because there was some objections awhile ago to deleting a book copied there. --dark lama  20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Introductory chapter of Geometry for elementary school mentions its aimed at parents in teaching there children, which sounds like a good candidate to be moved to the Wikijunior namespace to me. High School Mathematics Extensions says its aimed at 14 to 18 year olds yet at the same time says its intended to be for anyone with at least 9 or 10 years of formal education. I think its scope is not well defined and needs to be clarified. --dark lama  16:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Both books have issues in my opinion I was just hoping to find out how you felt specifically about the Titles. Thenub314 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The specific examples you used have other issues to consider first. In general I think a lot of book could do with more descriptive titles that better reflect there scope and audience. I would probably suggest renaming <tt>Geometry for elementary school</tt> to <tt>Introduction To Geometry</tt> if it weren't for the audience seeming to be for children. <tt>High School Mathematics Extensions</tt> could probably have its scope resolved rather quickly, and renaming it to <tt>Introduction To Mathematics Extensions</tt> would probably help. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your perhaps a bit too harsh on the use of school level in the title and text of books. At the end this should be the decision of the books authors. For <tt>High School Mathematics Extensions</tt>, the title of the book is supposed to indicate that the topics of the book are extensions to a high school mathematics curriculum.  The difficulty with trying to rename a book like this is that something is necessarily lost in the translation.  <tt>Introduction to Matheamtics Extensions</tt> for example couldn't work.  There isn't a subject called "Mathematics extensions".  I don't mean to criticize your title, I understand your making the point it should be changed.  I am just offering the counter point that it would be difficult to do so without changing the philosophy of what the book is about.  For better or worse, at least in mathematics, describing the content with terms like "A-Level", "Elementary school", "College" is both natural and common.  The examples I choose were all Featured books, but in honesty this occurs in many of the math texts here.


 * The name doesn't immediately clue you in on what its about. Extensions to what math? High School doesn't tell you what math is covered. I'm harsh on titles because I think most dead-tree books are more descriptive in there names which does a better job of giving a person browsing a bookstore what the book is about. Books on Wikibooks should do the same. I don't have a problem with "A-level" though "GCE Advanced Level" would be more descriptive. With that name at least you know what curriculum a book relates to. If a book isn't related to a specific curriculum why even bother to mention Elementary, College, or University at all? The talk page suggestions there have been criticisms about the book because of its lack of focus. I think the lack of focus is caused by a lack of a clear title and scope. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, wait a minute. My understanding was that A-levels are not universal, they differ by the country offering them, which seems to be supported by the Wikipedia article about them.  So you really don't know which particular curriculum the authors are referring to. Plenty of books printed by traditional printing presses (I am guessing this is what you mean by dead-tree) have titles just as vague.  For example Princeton Review publishes "High school review N" where N is some number in the series.  I'll stop there but one could make a rather long list. The truth is that most of the math books here suffer from a problem with focus.  In fact many are little more then a table of contents.  While the book suffers from a lack of focus, it is because it is trying to be something interesting and different. Instead of aiming to be a standard text on some subject, it wants to add new additional projects to interest students.  Which projects you take and how you make them fit together is something that would be very unclear from the outset.  To be honest, I wouldn't have thought a book with that sort of agenda could do as well as it has here.  Since these books aren't tied to any curriculum the reason for saying A-level, college, elementary, etc. is to give the person some idea of what they are getting into when the pick up (or click) on the book. Thenub314 (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to imply A-levels are universal, I assumed it was because I don't know much about it. Which I think just reiterates the problem. People could end up contributing unrelated stuff because the title is misleading and the focus makes assumptions like I just did. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  01:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, this is a problem, but I feel that it is more or less unavoidable. Any project with multiple contributors will interpret its mission in different ways, contribute things that do not make sense to other editors etc.  I don't take this to mean the books are mis-titled, it would be nice if there were a nice introduction to explain.  In three of four words it is not possible to give a well defined description of contents of the book, you either say nothing, or try to say something which is necessarily leaves room for this type of confusion. (that is in my opinion of course) Thenub314 (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. When I look at the Mathematics bookshelf page, books are categorized in some way by level. I feel this is very beneficial to readers. It seems that by using categories it should be possible to automate these lists a bit. I care more about this then using the word university. Are we arguing over terminology? Do think it is possible for books to be sorted into categories in such a way that all the books in the category are at the same level of sophistication? (Beware of my meaning here, I do not mean sophistication solely in terms of subject matter and its prerequisites but something more generally that includes these together with how the book is written.) I would be happy to be flexible as long as it leads to my general goal. Thenub314 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you could say I argue against the terminology used because of concerns I have tried to explain. I guess we were both arguing about different things, since the terminology is not what is important to you. I think there are many ways book can be categorized. Some ways are probably better then others for various reasons. What do you mean by sophistication? What part(s) of how a book is written are you trying to identify? I can't think of what you could be talking about. There are many characteristics that make up a book and that can be used to identify books. If I understood what you were trying to achieve or what your general goal is, I could probably suggest solutions.


 * Reading Levels use to describe reading levels in terms of high school, college, university level, etc. until someone else (not me) pointed out the problem with that approach. A solution was found that worked with there goals. So another question that you might wish to consider is how does your goals differ from the goals of the reading levels? --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By the description of the reading levels seem mostly the use of the language. This is one important factor in how advanced a mathematical book is, but far from the only consideration.  On some fundamental level I have very similar goals.  To categorize books by approximate level of difficulty.  So I suppose to my mind there are several factors that effect the level of a mathematical text, including: How the material is structured, level of difficulty of the exercises, amount of background knowledge learn this subject, the reading level, the nature of the proofs included...


 * My ultimate goal would be to build a subject page that helped people find a level of book that is right for them for those people who did not come here looking for something specific (or in the case we have several books on the same subject at different levels). Using the categories where books are sorted into approximate levels of difficulty should make it should be possible to create automated lists that are easier to maintain than the bookshelf page.   For the other categories I will try to be a bit more creative about titles. Thenub314 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you determine the level of difficulty of a book when how difficult a subject is depends on the person? A person with no background knowledge may still be able to pickup and learn the subject. I've been down that road before with the idea of having "Beginner", "Intermediate" and "Advanced" categories, but people can disagree with how easy or difficult a book is. Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Division can be hard for someone just learning to count. So should a basic math book be considered "advanced"? The level of difficulty depends on an individuals own background, education, intelligence and other personal factors. Are there any external factors that could be used so it doesn't depend on a person? Are there perhaps any international standards for identifying level of difficulty that could be used? --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To begin with, think of this more as comparing the books to each other, not attempting to define how difficult every reader would find the book. I agree an individual may find a particular subject easy or hard depending on any number of factors.  If a reader struggles and Arithmetic because they are just learning to count, that is natural, but they are struggling with mathematics that is at a "Beginner"'s level.  So to answer your question, of course a basic math book should not be considered advanced.


 * To answer your first question, the level of the book could be determined by reading (some selection of) the book. What I am suggesting is no more or less subjective then determining a reading level.  In that case there is no definitive list of what is jargon, no clear way to decide if the reliance on jargon is heavy, moderate.  The external factors would include the ones mentioned above, which I was not trying to be comprehensive, nor have I given much detail. So for example, questions about structure: Does the book present formal proofs?  Are examples used to motivate theorems, or are the given afterwards etc.? Difficulty of exercises: Do the exercises require ideas not already present in the text? Do they require you to work in very abstract or concrete settings? etc. Amount of background knowledge necessary I hope we agree it is clear by what I mean by this, which is already part of reading levels.
 * Reading level is the reading level. Nature of proofs do the proofs follow algebraicly?  Do they require other theorems?  Are they "rigorous"? etc.


 * Turning to another question. No, to my knowledge there is no internationally recognized (nor even local) pre-defined measure of difficulty for mathematics tests.  But, there is not such a measure for Reading levels, simplified english, books appropriate for "juniors".  In fact there is not even an internationally (or locally) accepted definition of mathematics. (See the first sentence of Definitions of mathematics which I had no hand in writting.)  Or definition of the mathematical term "range".  Sadly there is no IEEE in mathematics that sets forth reasonable (or at least somewhat consistent) international standards (As mentioned above even GCE A-level's are not as international as one would hope. They are not even used in this part of the UK)  For any of these things it is a human endeavor how to categorize anything, and subject to some interpretation.  But I do think it is a worth while. Thenub314 (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant pre-defined measure of difficulty in general rather then specifically for math tests. I kind of doubted there would be anything as specific as to apply to math only. I only asked about an international standard because I thought if one existed it could make things easier. How would you describe each level of difficulty? I realize that some level of interpretation is necessary. I think keeping assumptions to a minimum and clearly identify what is up to interpretation can help avoid confusion, and problems with "Miscategorization". --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  01:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You and I are in complete agreement that clearly written descriptions of each category would be very good. Roughly speaking my decisions in categorizing "University level mathematics books" would have been consistent with
 * A course at a level beyond IB course. (I choose IB here because it at least claims to be international, but this is well approximated by AP or A-Level if you perfer). I stick with the wording of "Level" here because some calculus courses may be beyond IB while others may not depending on how they treat limits, δ-ε arguments, etc.  If you think this is nonsensical wording, I could simply define the complement, not include a book if the topics covered are are subsumed in the IB cirriculum.
 * The aims of the author explicitly state the book is aimed at a university audience, and not include the book of the author's claims the book is specifically for some other audience.


 * I admit only the second point was explicit in my mind before this conversation. Instead I relied on my previous experience to make the decisions.  But if I had to write a description it would start here, and work on improving it from there.  You suspect you may feel the second point is a bit artificial and likely to lead to problems.  And you may be correct, in such cases most likely the book would need to be improved to meet its goals, or its goals would need to be adjusted. Thenub314 (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I do think the second point is a bit too artificial. Wikibooks also doesn't do courses per-say, that is what Wikiversity is for. Maybe "Books at a level that continue where International Baccalaureate's curriculum ends. These books are often aimed at a college, university, higher education, continuing education or life long learning audience." That might be more inclusive yet possibly too verbose. Using difficulty levels with IB as a bases could possibly work. I wonder if "often aimed at an audience that has completed any mandatory school years." would work to keep it simple. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  12:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think that description is too verbose, it seems very good to me. I don't see how the second criteria has anything to do with courses.  A book may be describe its intended audience with terms like "University" or "High school" without the book being used in any course.  For example, let's look at the AMS publications: Graduate Studies in Mathematics, AMS Pure and Applied Undergraduate Texts, Student Mathematical Library, etc.  Similar types of descriptions are used by Springer-Verlag and London Mathematical society, as well as many other publishers.  The authors/publishers of these books describe their intended audience, even though many of these books are rarely (if ever) used to give a course.  This type of description is simply part of this industry.  I would strongly suggest we keep, explicitly or implicitly, the second criteria and where there is a problem we correct the book. Because that is where the problem really lies. Thenub314 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If my first description is good enough for you then I guess we can move on to what to name the category. The first criteria does mention courses though, which is what I was referring to. I think its fine if a book intends to be used for a course, but the category shouldn't imply that books are used for a course. Implying that books have to relate to a course would suggest some books don't belong even if they could fit that level of difficulty. I don't see any advantages in that. I think the second criteria would still be there if we used my first description. The criteria is just expanded to avoid differences in school systems and I think is more multicultural. Do you disagree? --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  15:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah! mentioning courses was my mistake. Your correct, it was not appropriate, I was being careless about what I typed. I am also fine with leaving the description as your first description, which leaves rather implicit the second criteria.  So, yes, we have a description for the current category, and we should move onto a name.  Given that University typically comes after IB, and the term University is more multicultural then college I am fine with the current name.  I suspect you'd like to change it, and I am happy to entertain ideas.  Beyond something generic like the terms for reading levels I am not sure I have any good ideas.  Perhaps it would help to decide how many categories would be necessary. I suspect 4-5 would be the right number.  There should also be a category for Popular Mathematics books.  For example, books like Fermat's last theorem and Famous theorems of mathematics, which do not instruct but simply describe results to a general audience.   Thenub314 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would like to change the name. That is why I got involved in this discussion after all. Just 2 categories seem needed based on what's been discussed so far. 1 category for books that cover subjects that go beyond IB, and one for books that don't go beyond what the IB covers. What would the 4-5 categories consist of? What would the differences be? I suspect knowing what else you want to differentiate would be of more help then trying to take a stab in the dark at how many categories are needed. What do you mean by "Popular Mathematics"? There is already Category:Mathematical theorems in which those two books are apart of. There should be subject categories for each branch of mathematics as books that cover each branch exist. There are already several such subject categories listed under Category:Mathematics. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Recall my goal was to recreate something like the bookshelf that listed books by level, but in an automated way taking care of categories. The ideas I had before starting this were something like one for very basic level mathematics (for things like arithmetic) and another for something more elementary level mathematics (for things like algebra, graphing, inequalities, basic counting/probability) something for more intermediate topics (trigonometry, conic sections, calculus, introductory probability/statistics, etc).  And possibly one level for books which are clearly at a professional level (discussing this point would be academic, as no such books currently exist here).  To give some idea of what this might look like I have made a quick mock up of what these lists might look like here (this is not a finished product but just for illustrative purposes.)  The idea would be to augment the current subject page.  Anyways those were my grandiose plans at some point, I suppose it is a bit more up in the air at the moment. Thenub314 (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The bookshelf seems to consist of only two "levels", an Introductory level and a Higher Education level. Books are then classified into yet other groups. These other groups exist as categories already and are independent of the level stuff. Your example seems to do mostly the same as the bookshelf, but defines some things which were identified on the bookshelf as introductory as being higher education instead. Looking back I see math levels was introduced 3 years ago to the bookshelf, and the levels along with what books belong to what levels have changed over that time. There seems to be a lack of consensus on what levels to use or even what approach to use. There doesn't seem to have ever been a discussion on using levels at all on the talk page, but rather people voicing there views and how their approach is the best at different times. Maybe this should be brought up in the reading room where it can get more exposure, and to encourage more discussion and involvement in what to do? The community may decide its best to do away with levels, or they might brain storm and come up with solutions neither of us have thought of. Doing so might help clear the air at least. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  12:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Algebra is further split. And several subjects that I mention are listed as their own subject (Calculus for example is now categorized as Mathematical analysis, and trigonometry is/was in geometry.)  Which works well, but also has the effect of separating out these subjects, which I could not do with the categories that currently exist. Thenub314 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not fond of the category Category:Mathematical theorems. Somehow it works nicely at the time it was created, but I think the scope should be somewhat broader.  Where would one file books on "What is mathematics?" or things like Hardy's "A mathematician's apology."  The common thread these books have is that they are written for a general audience, and they are not intended to instruct one to do mathematics.  While these books are about mathematical theorems, I don't think it is best to put them in a category whose scope is Mathematical theorems.  Such a category has two problems, the first is that all mathematics books beyond a certain level are about Mathematical theorems, so why not put everything in there. I also happen to feel it is a bit too narrowly defined.  I think we could do better.  Thenub314 (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "What is mathematics?" would probably go directly in Category:Mathematics right now. Hardy's "A mathematician's apology" doesn't sound like it would be a book within Wikibooks' scope to me, but I don't know what its about and I'm just guessing based on the title. Math books should be categorized according to there specific subject. If there isn't a specific subject there might be other ways to categorize it. The same was done with the bookshelf. Right now I think the mathematical theorems category makes since. In the future if there are a lot more books dealing with theorems a better way might present itself. I think the intent is for the category to be used for books specifically intended to explain theorems, rather then for books that happen to include theorems and explain the theorems a little bit as part of a broader subject coverage. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  12:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, just as books on software that runs on Windows should not be filed in Category:Microsoft Windows. Only books on Windows itself should be there, just as books that are on theorems rather than involving theorems should be in Category:Mathematical theorems. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Touche. "A mathematicians apology" is not quite under the scope of this project.  Perhaps the real problem is that the scope of this project is textbooks, and it is not immediately clear which of the books in this category could suitably be called a textbook. I generally still feel three books are not qualitatively the same, and would be better under a more general category, but I am willing to let it go for the moment. As per your comment I left a note in the general reading room. Thenub314 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DSST Fundamentals of College Algebra
I removed from that page because nearly all the books in Category:DANTES Subject Standardized Tests are of the same nature. I believe they were placeholders, with the original author wanting people to expand on them. It is a legitimate curriculum, like Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate. It's just that most of the books are stubs (and probably not intended as spam). -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, I won't put it back :). I didn't notice we had so many books on this series of exams, where all there was was two links to site offering an 80 dollar exam (standardized or not) it is easy to mistake for spam. Thanks for the catch. Let's hope someone fills in some detail there someday. Thenub314 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging
Technically pages should be marked with to indicate that a history merge is needed and to indicate which page must be the target of such a history merge. Just to let you know. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, these sense in which it is a merge is slim at best, but I will make sure to use that in the future. I wanted to get your opinion about something, take a look at these templates and tell me what you think.  It seems as if they are a portion of the book in the Measure Theory template space, which seems like an abuse somehow.  Certainly it is not helpful for newbie editors. Thenub314 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The book's authors came up with a Wikipedia-style template in a template in a template system. I've substituted templates to break it down. Templates work better for formatting and those did indeed contain content. New templates could be created if you so desire for formatting. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think that is fine for the moment. If I ever get ambitions and finish the books I am working on maybe, but I will burn that bridge when I come to it. Thenub314 (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you are spotting orphaned /Contents pages. In my "youth" here at Wikiboooks I merged a few contents pages into the main page for easier navigation and did not label them for a history merge. Oops. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * :) Always glad to help.Thenub314 (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Margalit
Name's familiar, but can't place him. Sorry. I suspected not having a user page might have had sth to do with my not getting autopromoted, which is one reason why I made it, but it wasn't on the list of qualifications. --Warshall (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Stubs
Please remember to check stubs that don't appear to be part of another book to see what links to them. Sometimes people don't make links correctly and they create them at the root instead of as a subpage. This stems from Isaiah, but it's good to keep in mind in general. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice catch, thanks. I had checked the user contribs for the page's one editor, and he only edited that one page, but for some reason didn't also think to check what links here.  Thenub314 (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fourier transform tables thank you
User_talk:DavidCary: Yes, please do improve our Fourier transform tables. Thank you. --DavidCary (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination?
I have a desire to nominate you for administrative privileges. I have gotten the distinct feeling from your requests for book renaming, page deletion, and editing of protected pages over the past months that we've been working on cleaning up that you are being held back from your full potential to assist. We have pretty much the same goals but due to my edits being more prolific in the past, I believe your contributions went overlooked, despite you joining prior to my arrival and your significant contributions to mathematics books. What are your feelings on this? -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be honored. :) Thenub314 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note your acceptance of a nomination at Requests for permissions. -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Syntax of title
"Initialization double de Microsoft Windows" means in French "Dual Booting OF Microsoft Windows" which in this case means booted windows - real boot on real hardware.

"Microsoft Windows de initialization double" means in French "Microsoft Windows OF dual booting" which in this case means creating windowed boot - emulated boot on emulated hardware.

In English syntax along with meaning is inverted when used without OF as follows:

Microsoft Windows Dual Booting - real boot on real hardware.

Dual Booting Microsoft Windows - emulated boot on emulated hardware.

Because of this, Microsoft Windows Dual Booting title in English is more correct. ㍐ (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A few comments. I fail to see what French has to do with this, I am a native English speaker who is not infulenced by the choice of word order in French.  Why do you feel French is important here?  Secondly as titles in English, I would say that "Dual Booting Mircosoft Windows" is more correct.  Notice that this book is discussing a real boot on real hardware.  To draw an analogy, one could write an article "Cooking Fish" the it is more common to place verb before the noun, as opposed to "Fish Cooking".  There are clear cases where either would be acceptable (such as "Coffee Drinking" and "Drinking Coffee" for an article giving advice about java).  Over all I think the choice of this word order is common and in this specific subject, see for example  or.


 * For what is worth the phrase "Dual Booting of Microsoft Windows" is grammatically incorrect in English because it is missing the article "The". Thenub314 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

C++ Programming
Thanks for all the work you are putting into the book. I'm sorry to tell that I probably messed up your changes into the Enumerative data types (enum) page (due to a merge of content), please take a look C++ Programming/Variables/enum and see if you agree with how things now stand. I attempted to check the diffs and detected some minor issues, but as I don't know how proficient you are with the C++ language I don't know if the changes were intentional. I call your attention that named constants (you removed "constant") refers to the identifier to the constant value. In the example enum a { z }; the a is the enum and the named constant is z (equal to a constant of value 0)... Keep on going (from your edits you are mostly going top to bottom), a major issue of restructuring and consistent display is on the language comparisons pages, I have been procrastinating dealing with those for ages... --Panic (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In which edit did I remove "constant"? I have checked my contributions but just not finding that edit. Thenub314 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I reread it and decided I wanted to expand on what was written there, so I gave it a shot. Thenub314 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing query tag
Avoid using the query tag if the content of the page has any meaning / or can be easily expanded. It can be even be used elsewhere if abandoned. Depending on how busy or thorough the acting admin is, this query can lead to a unwanted deletion of useful content. In this particular case, it seems to be abandoned (since you got no reply to the query, but you also placed it too quickly, some of the contributors have a skittish nature). In this particular case I would try to find a location that could use the content and substitute the query by a merge tag. --Panic (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To which query tag are you referring? The one I added today yesterday? Thenub314 (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 16 July 2009, it seems. Check the history page... --Panic (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: The book is named Writing (it is on the heading) sorry if that confused you, "Writing query tag" :) --Panic (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. In this case, it looks to me like a test. Thanks for the info. Thenub314 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the team, admin!
Thanks for agreeing to help with project maintenance. There are several scripts you may be interested in using to make common administrative tasks easier. All can be enabled on the Gadgets tab of my preferences:
 * Twinkle Speedy
 * Range and wildcard contributions
 * Modify rollback
 * AJAX patrolling
 * Clean delete reasons
 * Autodelete links

As well, you may wish to join us in IRC at #wikibooks for work and play, or on the mailing list textbook-l. If you need help with the tools, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

&mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 23:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

scope and code
I noticed that you moved scope out of the code path (scope has no real meaning outside of the code concept), the idea was to have the path navigation scheme work for users. I had already streamlined the first chapter and am in a mid process to do it on the second chapter (there is also a undo of a similar nature still needed on the library section, not urgent and still bares some redirects but fixing them would be premature since pages are still in flux). What is your vision ? (the ultimate objective was to make any extraneous navigation schemes unneeded) --Panic (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was using the TOC as a guide as to where to move pages, so the directory structure reflected the structure shown in the TOC. Thenub314 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said in a prev. talk the structure is still in change (except the first chapter), even then there are some introductory parts that were removed and recently where requested again in the content discussion area.
 * No big trouble, or a need to revert it. But see C++ Programming/Code/API/Win32 or better yet from chapter 1 C++ Programming/Programming Languages/Comparisons/D on how beneficial it is for navigation. It provides a kick way to backtrack to relevant sections, without a need to do heavy maintenance... --Panic (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are continuing to go down in the structure, remember what I said about the library section it should be inside the compiler path (it was moved "recently", it has a lower priority and needs the original pages deleted to restore the structure ). As I understand you are streamlining the TOC1 but take in consideration that most of the criticism it has suffered or the claim made had probably other motivations (to my knowledge only one of the content contributors expressed a view for restructuring of the book that implied a reorganization of the TOC, further discussions lead to what is now on Understanding C++, with a more restricted scope and audience and few content contributions if any.
 * The C++ Programming book has the wider audience of all C++ books, it needs more than average verbosity on toc (the plus side is that it still is a lot better that the Ada Programming (a featured book). --Panic (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My notices
Ah sorry about posting on your user page. I meant to leave it on your talk page. If you check my contribs you'll notice that's what I did for all the other people I contacted. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!
Glad to see you're still around! -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am glad to be back. The hunt for a job was nearly unsuccessful, but I have staved off disaster for one more year anyways.  So I figured with my employment settled, it was time to get back to work and chip in on "holding down the fort".  How have you been? Thenub314 (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Still attending school, so "the hunt" for me has not yet come around yet. I recently finished merging the editions of Foundations of Education and Instructional Assessment and Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education, and cleaned up the latter to give it the consistent formatting deserving of a featured book.  I'll try to get to the former eventually, but I like to change things up every so often and vary my activities.  In doing so, I was pleased to discover a wealth of books at http://www.ck12.org .  I was disappointed that I wouldn't be able to flesh out the FHSST books when our licensing changed and the site (probably defunct) did not respond to my requests to switch to dual licensing with Creative Commons.  This new site I found is all CC-BY-SA, and has reviewed books in chemistry, calculus, trigonometry, geology, biology, life science, earth science, and more.  Once brought in, they will be wonderful additions to Wikibooks.  Ironically, the founder of Wikipedia is on their advisory board.  Hope he hasn't given up on Wikibooks. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well he would be one a good one to give advice on open content I suppose. Though I always had the impression that Jimbo was never so active over here.  Wasn't he was one of the early people to be de-admined?  But it looks like a good resource.  It is too bad about FHSST, thought I am not so suprised.  There seem to be a lot of these programs that get started and fold up.  Reforming K-12 education in the US is big business, and thus gets lots of people trying to get a piece of the pie.  Often with the result is that millions (maybe I am off by an order of magnitude) gets spent but little tangible evidence ever appears in class rooms.


 * Sorry, I am starting to rant. I have dabbled in education stuff briefly here and there and the experience has made me a bit skeptical of new projects I hear about.  But I hope they do well, textbook prices really do need to fall.  Publishing shouldn't be such big business. Thenub314 (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was glancing at some of the math ck-12 books. Do you have access to anything other then the PDF's?  Converting from PDF to wiki might be time consuming, it could be quickened a bit if you have access to the TeX code that generated the PDF's.  And if you do have access to the TeX code, then I might have some tools written to help you convert that I developed trying to straighten out the Linear Algebra book. Also I am kind of curious about the plan of attack, in case I get bored and try to help out.Thenub314 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I only have the PDFs. They're better than the "FlexBook" interface on their site, though.  The PDFs are nicely bookmarked, however, and there's no limitations on copying and pasting. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Subjects
Check out Category:Books by completion status, Status, and User:Adrignola/Sandbox and its use of User:Adrignola/Sandbox/Template. These allow for display of a book's status, which was a main concern of people about moving to subjects fully. Additionally, the template I have there can be used on the subject pages, avoiding substitution and easing mass revision of the subject pages' appearance. I'm thinking the use of the colors you see in the logo at the top-left might be nice. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is excellent! I like the visual a lot.  I wish it were possible to have an image dynamically displayed, but in all fairness phrases like "Partially developed" and "Nearing Completion" are much more accurate description then a 25% or 75% logo. It is also quite nice that one only needs to update the book and it will change where it displays on the subject page.  I think I would still one day like to taylor the layout of mathematics subject page, but in order to do something I would like it would be nice to have categories for various levels of books, but I halted that project after it drew so much criticism.


 * In the mean time I would love to incorporate this into the existing subject pages. Thenub314 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do plan to incorporate this in, very soon; as in, as soon as I have a chance. I have a feeling TakuyaMurata will keep adding a link to the deprecated mathematics bookshelf on Subject:Mathematics if we don't classify the rest of the mathematics books by level and create subjects for those categories. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I added a status icon for books with Status. Take a look at Real Analysis for example. -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a look at real analysis, I like the idea but I can't say I like the icon placement :). (See Image:Icon placement.png to see how it displays on my browser.)  The place I really wanted it to appear would be on the subject page, but it doesn't currently seem feasible to do this dynamically with existing tools.  But I think having one on the books main page might also be nice. Thenub314 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you hold Shift and hit the reload button you'll get the updated version of Monobook.css with the placement information added to it. That is indeed how it appeared before I modified it.  I also adjusted the placement for when Vector becomes the default theme.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit collision :) Research Methods/Measurement, Reliability, Validity
Was going to tag it for deletion but decided to provide some content... --Panic (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Content is always better ;), I just wasn't the one to add any. Thenub314 (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance
I just wanted to say thanks for the tip you left on my talk page re the stuff I've been inputting on Wikibooks. The assistance you and others like you give plays a huge part towards achieving consistency and quality on wiki sites. There's a lot to learn and I, for one, really appreciate what you do. (Please feel free to delete this once you've read it.) --gdm (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad to help. I have always enjoyed the cooperative aspects of wiki-editing the most enjoyable.  Its not much fun when you just tooling around on some page and you have no interaction with anyone about it.  I think I will leave your comments here though.  Sometimes look back a positive comment some has left is a good cure when your in some heated discussion somewhere else. It will be archived automatically at some point.  Have fun! Thenub314 (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you have put into it
Thank you for the help clarifying the issue about the validity of that change. I've gone trough the conversations and did only do a strikeout on part of a phrase, indicating I was in error. I've checked previous discussions I had regarding the time limitation and I've found that I mention the time limit but do not make an issue out of it, it never becomes relevant to a conclusion, and I never did act on my erroneous view of the facts (reversals or removals of the tag because of "unlawful" time limit), I think I made a stronger mention of it in some RfD but also without consequence (as I said in the thread). I hope my statement resolves that small divergence we had on policy/facts. In any case the rational behind my opposition to the short time limit and on how the copyvio has been used (regarding other Wikimedia content) is still valid from my point of view. --Panic (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad I could claify. Thenub314 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of Julia and Mandelbrot sets
I haven't the foggiest idea of what category to put this into under mathematics. I'm hoping you can help there. It also could be that it ought to be part of another book, say Fractals. -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL. I am not sure I would really call it mathematics :). The point of the book is how to make a fractal look pretty... by its own description it doesn't want to really intend to cover the mathematics of fractals, nor does it intend to discuss the computer science of making a program that draws fractals.  It indents to discuss just enough of each to then get into how you make the picture look nice.


 * That being said, we shall place it in mathematical analysis, and suggest a merge with Fractals, and hopefully the editors there aren't opposed to some discussion of aesthetics as a digression in their book. Thenub314 (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply 2: It seems to be a copy of Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets. Thenub314 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply 3: I very nearly made a mess of things importing its history. But I think it is okay now, and I took a moment to fix the image links. Thenub314 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to do so. History merges are even more powerful than a deletion; deletions can be easily reversed but merges can't.  I guess I expected a more technical analysis out of the book than the contributor is intending. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Future plans
I remember Calculus being one of the books you were thinking of down the line of working on. Was Algebra the other? I mentioned a preference for Calculus due to the greater difficulty of the material, but now that I look at Algebra, Algebra I - A Verbose Approach, and Intermediate Algebra, and the merge tags and lack of structure, I think my preference would be the other way now. -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been going back and forth a bit with myself. But I think I will head your wisdom here and start work on the algebra books, and continue work on real analysis (that is what I have been teaching, so it makes sense to use a little momentum from that).  I am teach 3 sections of calculus next year, so maybe then would be a good time to think about that book. Thenub314 (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly continue work on real analysis until you're satisfied with it. The algebra books will still be around. -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
I wish you and your new daughter well. -- Adrignola talk contribs 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Thenub314 (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this as well. Congratulations and best wishes to you and your family! --Swift (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Thenub314 (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

About nowrap
Hi, just to drop you a note that while RC patrolling, I saw that you have been trying to use the template to display equations. I looked at the documentation and have tried to fix it. I think that is what you want, but in case I'm wrong, feel free to roll it back. Thanks, Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was meaning to go and read the docs if any. A bit annoying that it can't handle = or |, there really should be a way to specify a template with a fixed number of arguments, that could then ignore these characters as they came up later.  Thanks! Thenub314 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Geometry for elementary school
Could you do an illustration that can illustrate all the points mentioned in Geometry_for_Elementary_School/Angles? Thanks!  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  05:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there are two basic ways to display equations, one is to use HTML, which actually has a lot of math symbols already defined in it. This is what the page currently does, so if you want an ∠ you can just highlight, copy and paste it (or use a list) it can also be displayed by typing "&" followed by "ang;" like this: &ang;.  There are some examples of how to do this already on the page, but if you were looking for some other symbols I could help you find them.
 * I assume you want to see examples of how it is done in latex? So for example we could change ∠AOB + ∠BOC + ∠COA = 180° (∠s at a pt.) to $$\angle AOB + \angle BOC + \angle COA = 180^\circ (\angle s$$ at a pt. $$)\,$$ .... or maybe  $$\angle AOB + \angle BOC + \angle COA = 180^\circ (\angle s \text{ at a pt.})$$.


 * It is the difficulty of handling the interplay of math and text that is the reason there two ways to do it. The HTML way looks more seemless, but it is much more limited in what it can do.  The scripts that generate latex don't try to match the size of the current font very well, nor do they worry about the vertical alignment of math symbols.  That is why in one of the two ways I do it, the parentheses don't quite match up the way they should. So before I add formula's to the page, it might help to decide what style we want to use. Thenub314 (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * PS I will work on the diagram soon. Thenub314 (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm... I'm afriad I don't quite understand what is meant by 'the parentheses don't quite match up', (in fact in Hong Kong we call the parentheses 'round brackets'), but the second one sure looks better than the first one. By the way, thanks for the diagram but could you please name the points P, Q and R? That way I can include that in the text. Thanks again,  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look very closely at $$\angle AOB + \angle BOC + \angle COA = 180^\circ (\angle s$$ at a pt. $$)\,$$ then the second round bracket is slightly lower then the first, at least on my display. So it appears to be dipping below the baseline of the text. It is a minor annoyance at best. Thenub314 (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing's happening on my browser. :) I'll try using that method to make the equation look better.  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  12:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, how do you align the equal signs? You might also want to take a look at the developing Geometry for Elementary School/Plane shapes, for inaccuracies.  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  12:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You can use one of LaTeX equation alignment commands as long as it can be used in math mode. Such as
 * $$\begin{align}a_1&=x\\

a_2&=y \end{align}$$
 * The & character in the math align environment tells it which point in the equation should be vertically aligned with each other, the \\ tells it where to break the line. Thenub314 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks - that's a lot to learn. Also, thanks for your comments about the plane figures. I think BrE is better as it's more 'standard', and about 'base' and 'height' I haven't heard of any other usage, so I guess it's better to stick to the one taught in Hong Kong. (It's the same way for books from UK that I've read, but then England alone has gazillions of dialects.) Thanks again for your help.  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  12:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should make it British English, if that is how your comfortable writing. It is better choose one in my opinion and be consistent through out the whole book. I will caution that I have not yet carefully read the book to see how it has been written thus far. Though after a few quick glances it seems to prefer spellings like center instead of centre. What ever you do just be consistent, even if it means change the rest of the book.

I think you mis-understand me as far as base and height are concerned. The question is how do you define the word base, is the the side of the triangle or is it the length of the side. You often see formulas like $$Area=\frac{1}{2}(Base\cdot Height)$$, which if you define the base as the actual side, then your a bit incorrect. You really mean to multiply the "length of the base" in the formula. Thenub314 (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation on base and height. While I appreciate your efforts on the proof of irrationality and have copy-edited it, I'm afraid I must insist that it is too diffucult for the elementary/primary level, especially the proof. It will take quite a while for a kid to understand, and I dare say even grown-ups that aren't so into Maths like you might need some time to comprehend it. Finally, could you please draw a diagram for the last section of Geometry for Elementary School/Congruence? Thanks a lot! Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, maybe I could add a chapter about measurements, so that clears things up. About the labelling vertices, I think you mean the order, so that triangle ABC being congruent to triangle DEF does not mean it's also congruent to FED. The text was originally there (I cut-and-pasted it from SSS) and our teacher also thinks it matters. If I misunderstood, though, sorry about that. :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * About the copying and pasting: Just make sure to put a link on the discussion page, otherwise it is a copyright violation.
 * About congruence: I took a quick look through the library, it seems the exact definition varies from book to book (which I expected). Some books are careful to make sure their definitions are set up so that if $$\Delta ABC\cong \Delta DEF$$, then  $$\Delta ABC\cong \Delta FED$$ (Such as "Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometries: Development and History" by Greenberg), and for other books are worried about the order (Such as "Geometry: ancient and modern" By John R. Silvester). It depends a bit on what they want to do.
 * Basically there is a choice to be made about which definition is the correct one to take. Much like the choice between british english and american english, it is just a choice, but it is a choice that affects the rest of the book.  From a mathematical perspective I think it would be better if it did not matter in which order you write the labels of the vertices.  In my opinion the triangles $$\Delta ABC$$ and $$\Delta ACB$$ represent the same set of points in the plane, and so must be congruent, and this is how the words tend to get used further on in ones mathematical career.
 * As far as writing a section on measuring angles, that is up to you, though you should also add some "tools" to that section of the book, as angles cannot be measured by a rule and compass alone. Thenub314 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will link. (In Wikipedia it doesn't matter. :( Wikibooks people seem to be more serious about this copyright thing. I mean, who gives a monkey when you're just moving something over in the same book?) About congruence, I think as this book is for kids, minding the order of the vertices should be a good practice, (and I must say, I've done enough corrections just because I followed the wrong order. In fact my teacher requires everyone to follow the alphabetical order for the first triangle.) Anyway, that's enough off-topic stuff in brackets, so about the angles. I was thinking that I could open a new module about measuring (NOT constructions like the current module), and include the use of the protractor, ruler for measurement, tape measure, balance, etc. I might include units as well. (I think I'll use the metric system. Most coutnries now use the metric system, unlike you Americans. :P) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I am going to start with an off topic remark. I think that your teacher efforts are perhaps misguided.  It certainly helps students to learn to write there work in an orderly way, so I don't mind making students revise what is seen as messy work, but by making mathematical issues out of things that are not really part of the mathematics involved is not a good thing for students.
 * I think measuring angles is not a bad topic to include. I don't personally see measuring length as part of geometry.  I would generally advise against a long discussion about units, as this is really more of a physics topic.  In mathematics we generally avoid any particular choice of units (note that radians are a "unit-less quantity").  But be careful, the metric system breaks its own ideology about breaking things into tenths.  Particularly with angle measure and also the international community has more or less abandoned the original metric angle measure.  (As a side comment lots of countries that "use the metric system" only sort of half use it.  For example, here in the UK, beer is sold in pints, milk is sold in pints and gallons as well as litres, road signs are in miles per hour, people speak of their weight in stones, and many people still speak of temps in Fahrenheit.  Just because the government adopts it doesn't exactly means it has filtered through to the people.)  Thenub314 (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help so far. For your information, I have reorganised the book as I have proposed in WB:RR/G, and I hope you think it's a good change, as it will take a lot of time to undo all that. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, although it may be very annoying of me to ask so, could you add some diagrams for Geometry for Elementary School/Similarity? Thanks a lot! Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not annoying at all. I will be glad to help you out.  Even if we occasionally disagree on specifics, I am just glad to see another editor around. It may take me a few days before I have the free time, as I seem to be getting involved in lots of discussions. Thenub314 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How can I display a apostrophe when I'm using \text{}? I'm trying to add one after Euler and before the s in Geometry for Elementary School/Solids. Thanks, Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to your first bug regaurding the way mediawiki handles TeX. There are many. In this case you can use a similar command to <tt>\text{}</tt> called <tt>\textrm{}</tt>. Unfortunately <tt>\textrm{}</tt> does something slightly different then <tt>\text</tt>, which in practice means you need to put a backslash before any spaces in the phrase. Yes, the mediawiki developers are aware of the problem, but it is about the lowest possible priority. Thenub314 (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, if you have time, could you rewrite Geometry for Elementary School/Constructing a triangle? It's not a rush, but I think the process is too tough for kids. I think it should use the normal way of doing it, with a ruler, a pair of compasses (for drawing arcs not circles), and a protractor. Thanks, Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, do you know what I did wrong at File:Adjacent angles question.svg? I'm only a beginner at inkscape; I started using it two days ago so that I can try to draw my own pictures. Thanks, Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I identified one of the two problems. For some reason the font was listed as Arial, but I don't think this is a allowable option in svg, so I redid the letters.  Interestingly inkscape could display the letters but gave a warning at the terminal "** (inkscape:5164): WARNING **: Family name Arial does not have an entry in the font lister." (Not sure why, maybe some copyright reasons...)  There were also elements that were creating black squares, not sure why I couldn't see them in inkscape.  Since svg files are human readable I just manually edited the file to delete them with a text editor.  I think with the number of things at the moment, it will be a very long wait to wait for me to rewrite anything.  I also don't know what the "normal method" is, so I am not sure what I might say.  But if some miracle happens and I start getting lots of stuff done I will take a look at it. Thenub314 (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just wanted to drop you a note that somebody has expressed their concern about the proof of irrationality. You may want to take a look at that, since you rewrote that module. Thanks, Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw, I will leave a comment there, thanks for the heads up. Thenub314 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Navigation
Hi!!

What do you think of using an {{#ifeq:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Print||. Other shapes require more work, but are possible. But because the software only allows some parts of latex it is necessary to generate the pictures offline and upload them, then include them in your document.


 * I made a quick example of what such a think might look:
 * Expression in heart.svg


 * I used program called inkscape with an extension called TeXTexT to create a heart and an x{{sup|2}} + 1 in latex separately then dragged the x{{sup|2}} + 1 inside the heart and resized. This would probably take less than 5mins per expression once you get the hang of it.  We can talk more about how this could be done if your interested.


 * You might consider joining WB:WikiProject Mathematics if your sticking around to develop the book here. Thenub314 (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Stress
You should switch to the 3D version of the Wikistress meter. – Adrignola talk 23:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did notice it when I was looking at wikistress meters. But the gamer in my always felt the world was too in love with 3D and that many of the best games were effectively 2D.  But then again I am one of the few owners of a ATI Radeon 9500 ASC, so maybe my sense of anesthetics is a bit unusual. Thenub314 (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ASCII art stress meter: [==+++]
 * --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Panic
Calling vandalism is a bit too harsh Thenub314, nothing was destroyed and people can improve on what is there. I refrained of doing any reshuffling and complied with the non objected proposals for merge (the claim that I increased complexity is also unfounded), even Xerol clearly noted that some content was usable so I simply removed the need to put the process of salvage in the hands on the general community to the people that really are interested in working on it. Since Xerol RfD did spur interest in the content something constructive may result (I also did contact the Wikibooians working on the books and the original merge tagger). It was not a blind copy but also nothing more than a merge of related content. In any case it's best to discuss what to salvage that what to delete, it also may create a chance for you to add to it.

I think that it would be more constructive to do what you see as needed changes in place of making hash judgments. I'll gladly appreciate any help you can provide in improving it. --Panic (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I gladly made the changes I thought would improve the book. I think my assessment of almost vandalism is not overly harsh.  Besides since your usually particularly harsh with newbies I thought you could take it (I mean, really, most recipe books do ask you to boil pasta in a large amount of water relative to the amount of pasta!)
 * My point of adding it was to let you know you created more work then if you had just left the book alone. You took some modules that were half way decent (at least correct and readable) and made a mess of them.  Someone should point this out to you so you can try better next time. Thenub314 (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the things that rubbed me in a bad way, was not your attack to the action but doing it on those terms in Xerol talkpage, so I do appreciate you moving the discussion here.
 * Thenub314, the merge was not objected to and I conformed to it. In my action I did not reduce your freedom to improve the work, I didn't work against your objections so I don't understand what point are you attempting to make, we are talking about 3 freaking pages and at most 70 lines of text, so to me coming from you this attempt to create a situation to demonstrate that I acted in bad intentions seems extremely of bad taste.
 * If you still think that then I ask you that you let it go and express my sincere apologies for increasing your stress level. I could have accepted an opposition from Xerol or even Pi Zero but be clear that I think that the time you are spending in the subject and the way you chose to express it seems, well, strange, if you have any issue with me please be clear and lets deal with it, I also have issues with some of your edits but had no reason to step on you toes or call any special attention to them, I accept people are different and differently motivated, and welcome diversity of thinking, unless unrecoverable damage is made why create waves.
 * Thanks again for showing that level of interest for my edits but do realize that it can become uncomfortable especially if you seem inclined to see a misdeed in any insignificant thing.
 * If you do know how to cook pasta (that is not hard science) you do know that you should really avoid using large amounts of water, it is wasteful of water and energy and even salt and other condiments (I like to put garlic in the water or a few drops of olive oil if it is not to be immediately served, as to avoid it to getting all stinky due to the starch). The amount of waters does not depend exclusively on the amount of pasta but also in the recipient and the level of attention you can dedicate to it but the fact is that generally you can do it with very few water indeed. But my correction didn't press for a quantity I just removed the claim that it needed a "large amount of water" (since it is incorrect).
 * Do you have any other issue regarding my edits you need to be cleared ? --Panic (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't read this very far yet, but I apologize for leaving it on Xerol's talk page. I wanted to put it somewhere in a discussion with the book but the discussion was split between many places.  I will be careful not to do that in the future. Thenub314 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it maybe 70 lines of text, but if I took 70 lines of text out of Understanding C++ (not a cool listed as cool to you.) and moved them into More C++ Idioms (definitely cool to you) in such a way that ignored the content in the target I imagine you'd be a bit annoyed with me. The fact is, I would have opposed both the merge (if I had known it was suggested) and the deletion, but it is no longer possible for me to do so.  I really would have liked something different to happen and it burns me that I (and any of the community not watching the RfD page) was both short circuited out of the discussion.  The history merge was completely destructive, so your work can't be undone.  The worst part (to me) was that one of the very few math books that are actually readable got left in a completely decoherent state.  Three pages and 70 lines of text might not seem much, but it is quite frustrating.


 * I don't take a particular interest in your edits, but for some reason I don't remember User:Moby-Dick4000's page is on my watch list. Probably from my comment there back in 2009.  And I just thought it was funny that you claim I was being harsh as you were being equally harsh to a newbie who was only giving out the standard advise. Thenub314 (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Something tells me I'm in disfavor with Thenub at the moment. In my defense, I've history merged pages for Panic in the past and he had always done the merges properly before. – Adrignola talk 22:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to be starting to presume the worst, we shouldn't, as we all commit mistakes or interpret and act differently presented with similar situations. We that are the most active will always step on each-others foots from time to time, but we should presume that all are working toward the same goal, any conflict can be easily addressed without jumping to wrong conclusion and attempt to ambush others in bad judgment calls. In this regard even if I presume that between me and Adrignola there is a good level of understanding, at times my actions could also be badly understood for instance, on that editor's flag, even if that was not the issue. --Panic (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly care about Understanding C++ beyond the point that it preserves the intention and the scope defined by Darklama, since no work has been done there (and I don't expect it to) I see no real purpose on that stub beyond providing a outlet that enabled Darklama to realize his stricter view on the subject, and as a way to avoid the conflict arisen from the attempt to reshape the other work.
 * Merging that in More C++ Idioms would be extremely improbable, I presume Sutambe would object to the merge proposal and as I have all C+ work in my watch list, I would object to it (mostly because of difference in scopes), this makes the examples in relation to my merge as oranges to apples.
 * The history merges can't indeed be unmade but the content can easily be traced and restored, and I note that you deleted most of what was merged, even if in my merge I found no evident duplication of content (of the 70 lines only the example seems to have survived). As for taking the removal of the RfD as an attempt from my part to negate you the chance to take action, that would imply that I could foresee your actions, I have no such power in fact just to avoid similar issues you should look on the pending merges (even do some of them if you like) as I have in the past, had Xerol made the merges himself it seems you wouldn't even know, in any case my action falls in a BeBold (a bit different from your own action in the pasta subject), as Pi Zero stated any objection would result in an undo, that can still happen if you so require.
 * As for the post of User:Moby-Dick4000, it seems you have overlooked why I posted a reply there, and I reserve any taking of offense or rudeness to be reserved only to User:Moby-Dick4000 as it was meant as a constructive critic to his edit not yours. I also note that in his reply there doesn't seem to indication that he took it beyond what was intended. As a result again I see your interference as unproductive at best, regarding the way you chose to go about it. You could have asked me (in place of reversing my edit) and require me to provide a better context for my comment or changes if you felt them out of place.
 * It may all not be your intention but since I have had several bad experiences in the project, I take such dramatic actions as a way of artificially create a situation of conflict, and now I will be clear and sorry if it aggravates you but you must see it from my side.
 * Was I a less experienced Wikibookians and without understanding that we should expect good faith on the actions of others, I would take you action on Xerol talk page as an attempt to denigrate me and indirectly cause trouble to Adrignola, since he acted on my merge request, in fact all this talk has an implication of a political motivated intervention that has not any redeeming quality of granting others the same regard that is granted you or working to make the project a calmer and more productive place. Just the contrary, this, fallowed by your heavy-handedness on reverting my edit would indicate an inclination to escalate the issue since the normal response would be for me to revert your reversal. Over the time I have gained experience in this type of tactics as they were indeed applied several times to me, I was even blocked under similar claim of harshness to newvcomers, so even if I do expect and trust other to act in good faith I also like to be clear and, even to my fault, direct, I'm not claiming that these are your intentions just that they can be perceived as such, if you don't moderate you reactions to how others act they become out of place and will generate negative consequences to other or to yourself and that is not what we should aim for.
 * In me you will always find consistency and the capability to change, compromise and admit to errors, a fearless will to guarantee that all have equal treatment on the project and even if at times I have some difficulty in expressing myself in a less direct way, that can admittedly be seen as other as confrontational, my intention is only to reduce doubleness and misunderstanding and I will never carry a grudge beyond a specific discussion. I will always be a supporter for minority views on Wikibooks, even if I oppose them. I thought that after our long talks on my talk page you had already understood this, that is why it is extremely demoralizing for me having you interpret my actions as vandalism or assuming that I had an intention to be unfair to others. Think about all this and all the previous talks we had so far on the project and lets put this behind us, next time please assume my good intentions.  --Panic (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I unliterary apologize for all of my edits discussed above. I did not mean to offend. I had only meant to tell you where you had not done a good job, and what I thought were the problems with the job you did. I have failed to do this in any constructive way.

I apologize for accidently implying your edits were vandalism. I only meant to comment on the my perceived quality of the output, as I know your an active member of the community who acts in good faith. As I try to say to newbie's who misinterpret edits, the only reason any of us show up here is to improve the project, and it is a mentality I keep in mind.

I apologize for reverting your edit in the cookbook. I really did not expect this to cause offense, my wikiediting was shaped in a BRD (be bold, revert, discuss) environment, and I believe in reverting first asking questions later. As recent evidence of this I would point to my reverting darklama's retitling of Drugs:Fact and Fiction and my most recent edit at Algebra/Real Numbers. I only point it out to give evidence that my behavior was not aimed at you personally, but just my own personality defect. I also did not see the storm in the tea cup, I thought saying to someone "you've done a bad job" was acceptable if you gave reasons, and I can see my word choice ended up being divisive and confrontatial, and for this bad choice I also apologize. I will give you a wide birth and give discussion rooms a break, since I seem to only be causing trouble where ever I go. ( The bolded parts I wanted to really come across as my point. ) Thenub314 (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought hard about the validity of continue on the issue but couldn't leave it in a point that you see yourself as always causing trouble, if I was inclined to think the same about my own participation in the project I truly feel that things would be worst for all. I welcome divergent views and see them not a disturbance but as a way to foster mutual understanding and broaden views. We the active minority can claim the expectation of representing others that chose to remain silent or are just unaware of what transpires.
 * For my part I don't need an apology, just the understanding that timing, location, words and the sequence of events have to be taken in consideration when ones takes a position. One has to be able to have some empathy for other's positions, and unless facing real damage to his work, integrity and core aspirations be able to provide a leeway for others to operate, even if it requires swallowing some frogs on minor issues where raising an issue would cause more trouble or have a low probability of being interpreted as intended, therefore unproductive. We can all fall victims of judgment errors of this type, it is the capability to admit those errors and being able to clear misunderstandings that separates good outcomes from bad, like the saying goes "hell is full of good intentions", what counts is the final outcome.
 * Since we are being clear I confess that at times you take actions, or attempt to make points that would require more thought behind it and an understanding that it can be seen as imposing your view point on others even as creating unbalances on the NPOV we should attempt to protect. I and others have attempted to provide you a leeway in this regard but don't interpret that as uninterest on the actions. I speak on some of the deletionist practices you have engaged to forcefully advance your view points, that I respect and see as well intentioned but at the same time problematic, examples are the Suicide book and the Drugs issues, I expressly don't agree with some of the changes but actively decided to let you act unopposed on this situations because your overall works has been beneficial, necessary and well intentioned and escalating the issue would not lead to an outcome that justified the attrition.
 * I consider the issue closed and do recognize I started the chain reaction that led to this unfortunate and unforeseen sequence of events.
 * I hope to continue to count on your strong capability to defend your core beliefs, sad will be the day that we all come to agree in all things. Just keep in mind the timing, location, words and context and the return value of taking a position. --Panic (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How To Do Nothing
Would you object on changing the closing of the RfD from Delete to Transwiki (It's a judgment call even if we go by the cold numbers). As I say there on the discussion a Transwiki is a deletion with an indication that it may be useful elsewhere, since the action requires administrative intervention and all requests administrative actions can be or not satisfied, the transwiki vote even if not acted upon can later on be a guide for undeletion. A not acted upon transwiki (even if it is a minority of the opinions) isn't overruled by majority opinion for deletion (as traswiki is a deletion) or even keep (since a Work can be copied elsewhere also). It all depends on the re-usability value of the content under discussion and the positions expressed. --Panic (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily undeleted it for you, once your done transwiki'ing let me know the new location and I will delete the page and replace it with a soft redirect to its new home. It might be wiser to RfU in the future, on the off hand the closing admin is suddenly not around for some reason.  I was supposed to be out of town today, but luck intervened that I was around to act on this in a timely manor. Thenub314 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't transwiki, the page is protected so I can't tag it for traswiki and you forgot to change the closing to transwiki, the last action was the most important one, as it classifies the content even if deleted, or refused at the destination, as of some value, in accordance to the RfD discussion. IIRC transwikis to Wikiversity are made by Darklama. --Panic (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Transwiki's at wikiversity are handled by putting in a request at Import. Just a section and put the line


 * How To Do Nothing -> Transwiki:How To Do Nothing


 * Tagging the page here is for the purposes of discussing the transwiki before it happens. In this case I felt it was already discussed.  Any custodian over there can transwiki a book, not just Darklama.  The most recent two done for me were done by someone else.  I will add an appropriate comment at RfU soon. Thenub314 (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a Wikiversity import (functionally the same) but not equal. To abbreviate this discussion that is again becoming longer than necessary, what point on my request for tagging it for transwiki aren't you getting or are disagreeing with.
 * A - Opinions if counted by number in the discussion of the RfD are split in numbers, as I stated if based on that it would be a judgment call, and I expect the basis of your closing.
 * B - The argumentation of that RfD clearly was inclined to an outcome of transwiki, so I'm in fact tactfully objecting to your interpretation and the closing as deletion.
 * C - Transwiki and Deletion are mostly the same, but traswiki marks the content even after deletion as potential useful (not trash).
 * D - Import is not the same as tagging something as traswiki (by point C), on the above post you are attempting to state something that is the same as stating that pushing and pulling is the same thing.
 * Do you disagree with any of the above points in a way that validates the time we are now spending on the subject. By moving the process to a RfU you are not addressing my request and are complicating the subject (formalizing you seemingly compliance to my request grants the chance of an objection, in this situation it would be a mess). Based on the content of the RfD discussion, again, I had no expectation that you would cause difficulties, the point of my request is not the transwiki in itself but how the discussion is archived.  --Panic (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your import and transwiki issue so I'm now making a proposal that probably also addresses your concern there. See here. --Panic (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree at least with C and perhaps others if I thought about it longer. I respect that you disagree with my closure.  In this respect I saw undeleteing the material as a compromise.  I only made a note at RfU because I had already closed the matter as delete, and anyone following the conversation deserves the ability to object to any of my actions, including undeleting it.  At Import you and I are more or less the same, I don't believe the custodians check my permissions over here when I request an import.  Nor do I always explain that the import is the result of an RfD.  I simply request an import.  Thenub314 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now explained point C on the discussion, since you aren't willing to comply to my request regarding How To Do Nothing I as result remove it as a way to centralize the discussion in a single place. --Panic (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So am I to understand your done doing what ever you intended to do with the page and it may safely be deleted? Thenub314 (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, since you refused to change the closing as transwiki, my request (and I don't see as productive to tackle the issue further only with you, hence the proposal), for my part I'm not requiring further action from you. But by your expressed view point on formalism you should comply with the RfU since no one seems to have objected as I would like for Wikiversity to accept it, but that is not under my control. As I'm not an active participant on that project, requesting the import is not practical for me. --Panic (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Tip
If you edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice, you also want to increase the count on MediaWiki:Sitenotice id by one. This makes it so that if people have hidden the site notice previously, the new message appears for them by forcing it to be shown again until they hide it once more. – Adrignola talk 12:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How to do nothing
Hi, respecting the import to Wikiversity, I'm not sure if to do it, because it doesn't belongs much to Wikiversity's scope. Dunno what to do here. Diego Grez (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was sort of my feeling when I originally deleted the book. If it doesn't fall under your scope simply mark it as not done, and we will decide what to do with it from there. In fact we have been discussing ways to involve WV (and other projects) more when we suggest a transwiki. Since our community has a limited understanding of the scope of other communities the feeling is transwikis should be discussions and not just automatic copies.


 * So to summerize, mark it as not done and we wikibookians will decide where to go from there. Thenub314  ( talk ) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, marked as not done. Cheers! Diego Grez (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Mathematics
Thanks for the invitation, and I will join immediately. Be aware, though, that the reason I am here is to brush up on my own math (I'm in high school), and thus may not have the knowledge or the ability to contribute on all issues. I'll expand as much as I can, however, and I thank you for the invitation. It is good to know that there is a community backing math writers at this website, even if it is a small one. --Freiberg (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is excellent. There are books on every level, so there will be plenty to contribute to and learn from.  Have fun!  Thenub314  ( talk ) 02:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser
Hello Thenub314,

Per community consensus and meta request I have activated on your account the checkuser bit. Please remember to follow the CheckUser policy and the privacy policy.

There's a closed mailing list for checkuser discussion etc, checkuser-l; which you can access (subscription instructions are on that page) and an some IRC channels (#wikimedia-checkuser and #wikimedia-privacy) that you can access too if you use IRC (ask for an invite on #wikimedia-stewards).

Should you have any questions feel free to ask me, or another steward on meta. We will try to help.

Best regards, --Dferg (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. --Abd (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Mathematics
Thanks for the invitation. I've joined the project. I want to make the Trigonometry book into a useful textbook - one that can be used in conjunction with the Khan Academy videos. In its current state it would be hard for someone new to trig to learn from it. I love what Sal is doing on his site with video and on-line exercises, and I am helping there, but at the same time a text is essential. A good book is way more efficient for fast learners.

JamesCrook (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@Thenub314: Please could you look over my plan User:JamesCrook/Trigonometry_Plan and amend it or add comments on the talk page?

JamesCrook (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar
Had to undo your undo. "Your" is possessive, while "you're" is a contraction of "you are". So "remembering that you're dreaming" represents "remembering that you are dreaming". – Adrignola talk 22:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That was actually an interesting one. In fact, using the contraction there isn't great writing for a book, I'd spell it out. So I have.


 * (If it were "your,' the initial clause of the sentence would be missing a verb. What is the subject of the verb "will"? With "you are," it is "remembering." With "your,' it is "dreaming." But that leaves "remembering" dangling, so we'd wonder if it was supposed to be "Remember...." This kind of misinterpretation happens when we read, also, which is why it is often best to spell out "you're." It makes it a bit easier to read.) --Abd (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. While my grammar is atrocious it was not a misunderstanding of your/you're that was the problem.  I think it was that I misread "Remembering" as Remember, and the sentence was trying to describe some property of an individual lucid dream.  So my brain had interpreted "Remember that your dreaming will become easier as you continue to lucid dream" to mean that "Remember that your dreaming will become easier (more restful) as you continue to lucid dream (refering to the individual dream)".  Abd's improvement to the sentence works well, though there is still the possible ambiguity as to whether or not "continue to lucid dream" means your continuing with an individual dream or continuing with the practice of lucid dreaming.  Clearly it is the practice of lucid dreaming that is meant here. Thenub314 (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Lucid dream will not be easier as more restful. It means easier to archive. Haven't you never had the experience ? It is amazing...
 * «"continue to lucid dream" means your continuing with an individual dream or continuing with the practice of lucid dreaming» in the context of lucid dreams it is both, as you attempt to control your dreams you will improve your recall so you will be able to count more dreams even if not all are lucid dreams. Increasing the number of dreams will increase your chances to hold control over some of them... --Panic (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did experiment with lucid dreaming 20 years or so ago. For what it is worth, I found it more restful, but perhaps my personal experience just differed from the norm.  I am content to leave the sentence as it is, if no one else finds any ambiguity with the phrase "continue to lucid dream", which is why I didn't go ahead a change it. Thenub314 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Methods Manual for Salt Lake Studies
Thanks for undoing the vandalism Peri Coleman (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Thenub314 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Crat RFP
I have posted another question for you at your crat RFP. --Pi zero (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! Thenub314 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your nomination was successful. Congratulations. – Adrignola talk 16:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. Expect questions until I am not so green. :)   Thenub314 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. I went there just now to see if it was still open, I had seen some of your good work elsewhere and had decided to change my mind. So I was pleased to see the result. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this was an excellent answer. I was amazed to find on Wikipedia how many admins there were who would -- and did -- deny the importance of recusal policy, and it was tolerated. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks

For your information
What do you mean by "non authorative reference (i.e., a self published work)"?

Please use the above page for your answer. Also please let me know if you would prefer not to be informed that there is a new entry on that page asking for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible merger
Solving Integrals by Trigonometric substitution has been marked for possible merger to Calculus/Integration techniques/Trigonometric Substitution for some time. Comments on both talk pages show agreement with it. I'd do it if I could, but the knowledge required is not in my area of expertise. I was wondering if you'd be up to it, assuming it's possible? – Adrignola talk 13:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to. I am in the middle of writing, giving and grading some midterm exams, but starting next mid next week I will set my sights on getting those pages merged. Thenub314 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done Thenub314 (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! – Adrignola talk 21:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics Handbook
This book was recently created by a long-time anonymous editor. I added it to the general mathematics subject category. This is the same editor who created the Arithmetics book that you had nominated for deletion, so it may be worthwhile to make sure it doesn't fall into the same problems. It seems to want to try to cover elementary arithmetic, algebra, and calculus in one book. – Adrignola talk 18:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, I will take a look. Did I ever mention I hate grading?  Midterms are no fun for anyone.... Thenub314 (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics subjects
JamesCrook is trying to categorize all the books in the generic Subject:Mathematics into more specific subjects so that the page can use root subject to showcase featured books in the same way as Subject:Humanities. Along that line, Subject:Category theory and Subject:Mathematical collections were created. You and he would best be able to determine what to keep/change/get rid of (Subject:Topology has a single book, for instance) and discussion is occurring at Subject talk:Mathematics. – Adrignola talk 20:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks!Thenub314 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

CK-12
Well, now I see why my request to Jimbo Wales to ask the CK-12 Foundation to return to the commercial use allowed license from their current noncommercial license so that we could use their future content here failed to produce a result. They have their own wiki. My versions, however, from their PDFs that were available before they decided to change licenses at CK-12 Books will have much better formatting, navigational templates, and use images hosted at Commons with clearly indicated licensing. Guess Wikibooks, where anyone can edit and where someone might actually have to charge for the cost of printed books (like PediaPress does) is too open for them. – Adrignola talk 00:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am curious, do you know if Jimbo actually made the request? The cynical side of me would say probably not. But the even more cynical side of me wonders if they got wind of your attempts to wikify their books and thought "Hey, a wiki is a neat idea."  I think I lack a side which isn't cynical.  Their choice of a more restrictive license is a shame.  They are shooting themselves in the foot. I am of the opinion that any attempt to get a major school district to adopt one of their "flex" books is only possible if there is a commercial side of the business.  School districts feel like commercial entities have more accountability.  This is slightly unrelated, but when I was in Chicago I heard through the grape vine that the public schools rejected adopting a math book recommended to them by the experts because the most recent edition wasn't recent enough.  They felt more comfortable going a book that didn't do as great a job with the content, but had been published in the last year.  I think they were afraid that if no one saw the need to print a new version within the last five years perhaps the book wasn't doing very well, and could potentially go out of print, thus causing them to go through new textbook selection early (which I am sure is expensive for a large school system).  Thus it was a bit better to go with the flavor of the day.  Well at least we still have the pdf's to work from.


 * The thought that they had created a wiki to spite us occurred to me too, but I see page histories going back to 2009. You can see on those pages that they went back later and changed the license (works to prove I'm not crazy or lying).  I can't be sure that Jimbo actually did make the request.  I had also sent them an email wanting them to provide permission via OTRS just to keep me in the crystal clear but no response.  However, the PDFs at Commons show the CC-BY-SA logo (they went back and regenerated them with the NC one later on).  Isn't it great that once you release content under a license you can't retract it?  Now that status tagging is done I'm really plowing through the transcribing and I enjoy it much more too.  Hopefully those books and others I can find from http://cnx.org will attract readers who may become editors. – Adrignola talk 05:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed-ness of CK-12 wiki
The closed-ness of the CK-12 wiki bothers me more than the NC license. My perspective: I see these as being the motivations behind closed-ness, i.e. all coming 'from Teachers' rather than 'from CK-12'. We can tackle each of these, but it needs to be a 'bootstrap' as we need many more editors for our strongest arguments to hold water. JamesCrook (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Teachers who put a lot of work into writing want the CV credit of being in a closed editing group that is perceived as being professional.
 * Teachers looking for free books are worried at the prospect of a book that might not follow their local syllabus really really closely.
 * Teachers worry about vandalism and inaccurate information.
 * Regarding the first, this kind of thing should be more for altruistic purposes and not a selfish furthering of one's own standing. I have listed authors that contributed to the books where they were originally listed, so they will still get credit here.  On the second, it's hard to have books that can be used nationally or even worldwide fulfill that.  Instructors are free to skip around or add material.  With Special:Collection, they can even reorder the pages however they like for saving/printing/book ordering.  On the third, every page I create in these books is using flagged revisions that indicates whether any changes have been made from the approved version, allowing anyone here to check for vandalism. – Adrignola talk 15:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Our versions of CK-12 content
About hosting a copy of High School Trigonometry here - I am sure teachers will worry that the copy hosted here may have been 'damaged' relative to the CK-12 hosted version - in spite of seeing better images, formatting and navigation. To counter that we need more reasons for them to use our copy. I would aim to add links to (well regarded and popular) Khan Academy videos, so that they have more reasons to prefer our copy. Then, gradually, we might get editors here. JamesCrook (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting close to finishing the earth science book transcription, but once I start on the high school trigonometry book, feel free to see about integrating those. I'd never heard of a Khan Academy, so I can see the benefits of hosting the material here will already bear fruit. – Adrignola talk 15:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues with WB:WIW
You were asking me about controversies surrounding Wikibooks: What is Wikibooks.

By far and away the most controversial change to that page simply must be this edit by none other than Jimbo Wales himself: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks%3AWhat_is_Wikibooks&action=historysubmit&diff=281147&oldid=265973

He never explained himself on this point, and it is still to this day something I never really appreciated, nor did he ever clarify what he was thinking about. Wikibooks had been around for several years (not days) prior to this "change" and it was only later on when other kinds of content was being culled in a wholesale fashion from Wikibooks that this particular "philosophy" get invoked. Note here in particular what the policy read previously and that it certainly was not changed based upon community consensus but by pure fiat... fiat by somebody who really didn't have the authority at the time to make those changes either.

Textbooks have been a focus for Wikibooks, and on that aspect I'll agree, but for that to be the exclusive domain of this project was never intended nor something supported by Karl Wick, the real founder of Wikibooks.

I still support the general notion that Wikibooks ought to be for almost any sort of book that you would find in the nonfiction section of a library that is collaboratively written and available under terms of the GFDL (now CC-by-SA) licensing scheme and compatible licenses.

I find it very interesting that the sins of the past are starting to come to the surface again. I certainly feel that the great video game guide purge in particular was something that ended up taking considerable wind out of Wikibooks and made this into a much, much weaker project than it would have been had they been allowed to remain. I also think there was most certainly a conflict of interest on the part of Jimmy Wales as he personally has benefited fiscally from the decision to ban such guides on Wikibooks. Futhermore, any such efforts to bring those users back is a lost cause, as they are gone never to return so far as what might have been.

I worked long and hard to promote Wikibooks, and during my tenure as admin Wikibooks saw some tremendous growth. I was warning then that the core group of Wikibooks admins and editors shouldn't be taking that growth for granted. Unfortunately, that growth isn't happening any more. Oh, there seems to be a steady creation of content but it appears to be saturated in terms of recruiting new contributors to the project... about as many people are leaving as are coming into writing on Wikibooks now. This is also a problem on Wikipedia BTW.

Here's to the future of Wikibooks. It will be around for awhile longer, and my hope is that sometime sooner or later something is going to click where the power of Wikibooks and projects like it will be apparent to people outside of the Wikimedia projects. I certainly don't think the WMF appreciates the concept at all, nor is really supporting Wikibooks to emerge into its full potential. I got seriously burned out earlier, which is why I've taken an extended wikibreak, but I do intend to come back. There are a couple of Wikibook ideas that I have a scratch to itch, and most likely it will be in that capacity that I'm going to return to being a regular Wikibooks contributor. --Rob Horning (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Feedback
It takes much longer to do the transcription for the High School Trigonometry book because of the need to use <math ></math> and because of the many figures. I've found a program that does graphs of equations in SVG format as long as you don't need to change the scale of the axes. For others I've found that the raster to vector conversion of Inkscape works well enough for producing SVG images. I have the first page done at High School Trigonometry/Basic Functions. If anything pops out at you, let me know so I can adjust as I work on the remainder. Regarding aesthetics, I centered images in High School Earth Science and I continued that so far in Trigonometry by centering figures and equations in the main text. I left-aligned in the example boxes, though. Let me know if you think it should all be left-aligned. Hope you're done with mid-terms soon! – Adrignola talk 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC) ·
 * Looks great! I have noticed your using HTML for "inline" math expressions. That is my preferred way of doing it but it can sometimes can get to be a pain with some expressions, but looks so much nicer when possible.  But really, I couldn't have done better.  Forgive the length of time it took me to reply but things are getting busy for me in real life lately. Thenub314 (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you taking the time. – Adrignola talk 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well also let me offer what little help I can. I would be glad to aid in your cause anyway I can, if you think of something that it would be useful for me to do (rather slowly as I am busy :) ) Just say the word and I will be glad to chip in. Thenub314 (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about some formatting thoughts. If I'm writing about a function and using inline math expressions, should I italicize the f or not? As in f(x) or f(x). Also, should I use × or • for multiplication? – Adrignola talk 01:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will take another look and see if I can give my thoughts. On the two questions brought up above I would tend to avoid using &times; for multiplication, I prefere &middot; (or •).  The reason is pedagogical over use of the &times; symbol in problems involving the variable x tends to make students confused, not of what is written in the book, but of their own work written on paper.  Too many times I have seen y &times; x become a yx2, so once past algebra I tend to prefer a dot for representing multiplication.
 * The question about how to represent $$f(x)\,$$ as an inline expression is apt. There is not really a great answer, the standard wisdom from wikipedia is to use a &fnof;(x), I tend to like the look of this, but it is a pain to type.  Italicizing it as f(x) is the next best bet.  Generally of course for any function given a special name (such as: sin, cos, e, ln, log, etc.) are not italicized in TeX so they are not italicized in inline HTML.
 * For other purposes I thought it might be nice to create an (inline math) and  (display math) templates, mostly for the convince of people attempting to make pdf versions.  In some users userspace there is a program for converting a wikibook into LaTeX, and for math books it would be handy to give this program a clue about whether $$...$$ should become <tt>$...$</tt> or <tt>$$...$$</tt>. Thenub314 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also it occurs to me that sometimes HTML simply cannot render (by any way that I know of) some math. A standard example that comes to my mind is the summation signs, where you want to put the indices. The symbol &sum;undefined10 just doesn't space the indices correctly.  The corresponding LaTeX expression $$\sum_{n=1}^{10}$$ is huge, at times like this it is handy to know you can force LaTeX to display the symbol as if it was meant to be inline by using \textstyle (the opposite of \displaystyle), in this example the expression becomes $$\textstyle \sum_{n=1}^{10}$$ which is a bit smaller and disturbs the line spacing less, making the paragraph cleaner and easier to read (IMO). Also textstyle for fractions has an abbreviation.  You may simply type \tfrac.  Here are some examples:  $$\frac{\sin(x)}{x}$$, $$\tfrac{\sin(x)}{x}$$, $$\textstyle \frac{\sin(x)}{x}$$. Thenub314 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. Manual of Style wasn't too helpful.  I suppose while I'm going through the text I should also use a minus (−) from the toolbar instead of being lazy and using a hyphen (-).  Reading Manual of Style (mathematics) I see they have w:Template:Math which will prevent line breaks and make the font serif.  I'll have to update Template:Math.  That same page also does recommend · as an alternative to ×, so I'll use that version of the dot.  I actually just noticed that under the toolbar's special characters tab, under symbols, there is the ƒ character available.  Had you not mentioned the HTML entity I wouldn't have thought to even look in the toolbar.  However, I notice there's been debate over f and ƒ at Wikipedia.  Looks like they prefer f.  – Adrignola talk 18:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think for us the most important issue is that an individual book be consistent. Unfortunately there is no very good way to handle inline math, except possibly a better handling of the way the software handles math.  But there is very little interest/ability in this direction among the developers it seems.  The only other issue that may be worth thinking about is how to handle spacing/line breaks around math symbols.  So the standard wisdom used to be (when I was active over at WP, and it seems things have changed a bit) was that on either side of symbols like +, &minus;, &middot;, = should be &nbsp for two reasons.  First you want a little space for reading (Ex: x + y vs. x+y) and two it keeps from a line break from occurring at an awkward point in an expression.  Personally I find that &nbsp provides too much space and I like a thinner space that comes with something like &thinsp, but at some point the effort of manually doing the typesetting comes into play, for example achive what I want I might have to type: x&thinsp+&thinspy (with a few semicolons in the right place), that is almost as bad as MathML in terms of difficulty to type by hand. I personally try to add a bit of space around "binary operators" but alternate between whether I think it is easier to explicitly type out nbsp's or simply but a  and use regular spaces. Usually thinsp only occurs if I am feeling obsessive compulsive.  For what it is worth, I usually also italicize ƒ still renders best.  (That is ƒ vs. ƒ).  Thenub314 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Navigational schemes
In regard to the C++ Programming book historically we've had IIRC 3 navigational schemes implemented, the last one was removed by Darklama because the user that created it stopped maintaining it. There is also the evolution of the Wikibooks project in the meantime, with the "/" naming style convention navigation has become intrinsic to the project (with the required automation) this also addresses the issue that not all content on the book is linear, there are parts of it where a static use of a navigational scheme will not work/make sense as the user navigates across sections, in any case the sheer difficulty on maintaining and updating it consistently makes it unfeasible. Any issue in backtracking is now perfectly well addressed by the back function of a browser and browser caches. --Panic (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you mean that there will you never intend to have a scheme for getting from one page to the next page? Thenub314 (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the function of the toc, the navigational aid provided by the "/" convention, book category and the links already embedded on the content. That and the normal faculties provided by the browser seem to suffice and remove the burden to create and maintain ad-hoc solutions.
 * In general, not that it matters, as a user I must confess I don't use or particularly like most the template navigational solutions provided on Wikibooks project (I find them useful on the project name-space). I even find the space they occupy on screen detrimental to the use of the books content. Probably why the "/" convention was created since the "flat" structure didn't provide for easy navigability (all under the same level on a book's namespace). --Panic (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Two column proofs
Hi, I'm wondering if there's a template for two-column proofs? Thanks Kayau 14:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kayau. Forgive the delay in reply I was on something of a wikibreak.  I have not seen one, but it does sound like a good idea.  But maybe we should check to see if WV/WP etc have one we can import.  Thenub314 (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Neither projects seem to have one... Maybe one could be created here. The template could consist of two columns, one marked statements, the other reasons. Maybe there could be references in the template, enabled by #switch. could yield the statement AD//BC and the reason int. ∠s supp. Hm... Kayau  15:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement
Hi Thenub314,

I don't want to clutter your talk page, so feel free to delete this message once you've read it. I just wanted to say thanks for the encouragement and ask that you please not hesitate to correct or criticize my edits if you notice I've made an error or don't like my edit for any other reason. You won't scare me away :) Greenbreen (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading room/Assistance
Hi! I'm trying to help out someone in IRC who wants to bring a project to Wikibooks. Xe needs to know if there would be problems for hosting images, specifically screenshots of the software the project would be addressing. Apparently these images would not be allowed on Commons? Xe opened a discussion in the reading room. Would it be possible for someone familiar with WB's policies to respond? - Amgine (discuss • contribs) 21:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure it would. I responded, we do allow screen shots software if a book needs it and if a fair use rationale is given, I left him a note with letting him no that there.  Thanks for bringing the question to my attention!  Thenub314 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thought I had linked it properly. Maybe you can look into the request for importer priv?? I think there is way too much importing to expect anyone else to do it!07:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.
Thank you for the welcome on my user page here. I've been visiting to look at some of the existing books on primary mathematics, and I hope to revise those (or add news ones) from time to time. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Hope you have fun editing and let me know if you need any help. Thenub314 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Former featured book" template
Since you checked this edit by an IP, I wanted to ask you if you would have any objection to the "Former Featured Book" template being re-added there or placed anywhere else that it applies. I'm not sure why it would be discouraging. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should be consistently putting that template on the book's main talk page? That's what's been done with Quenya.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No objects, I checked it to level "minimal", which my understanding means "this is not vandalism" and little more. I have no particular feelings about the edit, but the talk page does seem a better place to me. Thenub314 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would think that placing that template on the main page is a way to let outside readers know that they can help to improve the book, since they may be unaware of that ability. Most such readers would not see it if it were on the talk page. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is your call, on the page is ok as well. I have no strong opinions, just make sure to be patient if the IP editor returns and takes it down again.  New editors sometimes get a bit upset when they encounter their first disagreement.  Thenub314 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the IP found the message discouraging, I tweaked the template a bit. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Linear Algebra
Hi!

I've seen that you contributed with major edits to the wikibook linear algebra. It's quite good! Thank you for your efforts!

Yet, I think that I have spotted two flaws that I'd like to draw your attention to. I've posted them on the discussion pages:

Talk:Linear_Algebra/Strings, Talk:Linear Algebra/General = Particular + Homogeneous and Talk:Linear Algebra/Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors.

I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at my short remarks. Wisapi (discuss • contribs) 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody home?
Thenub, you've been missed. There is discussion of your probationary custodianship on Wikiversity, at. I hope you are well and able to respond. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I left a comment. Thenub314 (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WCI 2011 : Accelerating Wikibooks : Would like to discuss!
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

Algebra -- re: Your note to me 6 July 2010
Sorry I've been off line for sometime. The mixtures of writing styles 2nd & 3rd persons, verb-noun agreement is disconcerting--I don't have the strength to reconcile that & am mostly leaving that to the pedagogues. Go ahead and merge merge merge. This book's information is all-over in a more haphazard than organized treatment & full of blatant material errors, which I will look for, & omissions, which I may realize. I'm also perusing the format on mobile devices & via 7val. This is my primmer for real algebra (more advanced) and other higher maths. Help me to maintain an 'intermediate' scope or presented basics first. Mouselb (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
For the note about the "\sen" function. Magister Mathematicae (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I am doing my best to improve texvc to the extent possible, and there is no good way to let people know about the change except to tell them.  If there are other internationalization issues please let me know.  I would be happy to do more. Thenub314 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Vim
Thanks for picking up on my Query tagging of this article. I had no idea whether it was real or nonsense.--ЗAНИA talk 20:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. This is exactly what Query's are for. :)   With the first sentence I almost thought it was nonsense even knowing what vim was.  Thenub314 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism
Just thought I'd point out that Cannibalism survived a vote for a deletion a while back. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I had noticed. If you think it is better to bring it up for Rfd, I will do so.  But looking closely at the case back then, everyone simply agreed that it couldn't stay as it was and changed it.  The problem is that since the changes there hasn't been any contributors to the book beyond relatively minor categorization/spelling/etc.  But it looks like Panic is planning to merge it into another book, so it is a non-issue at this point I suppose. Thenub314 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Outdoors survival
A discussion request is implied on the tag of a merge (and in this case was initiated on the source), so these tags shouldn't not be removed willy-nilly, like I changed your deletion request (since no further argumentation is necessary in that case, and opposition to the merge is still possible). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert me if I made a mistake, or you feel strongly that they should be merged. Thenub314 (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit collision) My change of the deletion request was commented (I clearly didn't agree with the proposal on its own value), but my change was not a dismissal of your position, it just superseded it in a away that extraneous dialog was not necessary. A direct opposition to the deletion request would have been turning it into a VfD, but the content present is a stub so I agree that there was no major need for the preservation of that project in a stand alone form. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

With the merge request I was responding to the conversation taking place at the source project and agreeing that the stub was replicating already existing and more advanced projects. In any case I would like to know why you objected to the merge request --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the subject of outdoor survival is a strictly more general thing then the subject of "When it hits the fan", and so their scope and audience is rather different. It makes sense to study outdoor survival if you intend to spend lots time in the woods (say hiking the whole Appalachian trail) but your not particularly concerned about difficult survival situations.   As I understand when it hit the fan it discusses (local) apocalyptic situations which one intends to survive.  I would agree that understanding that some understanding of surviving outdoors may help in some of these situations, and not in others.  To give an example of potentially different audiences, boy scouts are more likely to be interested in outdoor survival to meet the requirements of a badge, but be less interested in When it hits the fan. Thenub314 (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you still see a point in preventing the merge please move the above post (and delete this one) to the "Outdoor survival" talkpage. I do agree with you in very general terms but the outdoors survival is a incomplete and abandoned stub, that has valid content that I felt could be used on the other project that I was attempting to lift out of the ground (it was also a stub). In regards to readers preferences I can't really tell what would interest more a boy scout, but unless our childhood was extremely different I would contest that view :) (Remember also that there is a wikibook expressly dedicated to all things related to boy scout badges) --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * :), left a comment on that talk page. I might suggest you correct the merge templates to point to the correct discussion place, currently they point to the discussion page of When it hits the fan, so if anyone clicks discuss they will  miss our comments. It is always safe to assume I had a very different childhood! Thenub314 (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Forcing PNG
Has there been a change made to the extension and the interaction with user preferences such that <tt>\,</tt> will effectively force a formula to render as PNG rather than requiring <tt>\,\!</tt> ?
 * The way the program works it decides that \, is a difficult but not impossible to render in html. So with the user preference "HTML if possible or else PNG" the expression $$x\,x$$ should render as HTML.  Certain commands, such as, \! always force png regardless of what other commands are around them (I suppose there is no html entity for a negative space?).  More and more, I have noticed people adding \,\! at the end of the formula because the help document makes it sound like the combination is necessary.  Granted it never said that combination was necessary bit it did recommend it.  That particular combination is nice in that it can be placed anywhere, but I thought it would be simpler to say place \! at the end or the beginning.  It saves people typing and makes the wikicode slightly more readable. Thenub314 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

PS the combination \!\, also could be placed anywhere and not change final png. This effectively just moves the "cursor" backward and forward, but never prints anything to the image. I felt the whole discussion of canceling out gave the wrong impression of how TeX (and texvc) were doing their job. Thenub314 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

PPS \operatorname also doesn't need \, after it anymore. I fixed that at meta, but it is on my todo list here. Thenub314 (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The additional information provided here is helpful. – Adrignola discuss 17:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Ljapunov Exponent
Hi. I see that you have changed spelling from Ljapunov to Lyapunov in this article. The resons for Ljapunov : I agree that Lyapunov is more common. Thx and regards. --Adam majewski (discuss • contribs) 07:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * this spelling was copied from original article
 * there is explanation in wikipedia : "Aleksandr Mikhailovich Lyapunov (Russian: Алекса́ндр Миха́йлович Ляпуно́в; June 6 [O.S. May 25] 1857 – November 3, 1918) was a Russian mathematician, mechanician and physicist. His surname is sometimes romanized as Ljapunov, Liapunov or Ljapunow."


 * Interesting, I never new that. Oh well, I'll try to be more helpful next time ;). Thenub314 (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Abstract Algebra
Unfortunately I was moving and merging it while you were updating the title page to remove the merge template! I've shifted the older version and added a "to do" flag. I don't think anything has been lost by doing the merge of the front page but I'll check all the subpages just in case. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is not big deal. I was mainly trying to keep the link to the old page, as well as the sub-TOC which I thought Arydye001 might have wanted.  But he hasn't been active on that page in a while so: no harm, no foul.  Thenub314 (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possible to revert the merge without too much effort. Worst case I'll do that. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 21:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, it is not worth the effort to undo it. Now, on a technical point to make sure I am not behind the times: Is it possible to undo a merge? I thought this involved going through all the edits and trying to separate them out which I admit is possible but usually pretty painful. As there been any improvements to the software? Thenub314 (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No improvements, no... just takes patience! <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hi Thenub,

Thanks for welcoming me here and over at Wikiversity. I don't expect to contribute more than incidentally, but it was very nice to be met at the door like that.

Cheers,

Sietse (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am always happy to see people developing the math resources. All contributions, big and little are welcome.  I look forward to working with you, if only in passing. Thenub314 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverted your reversal
I do not normally do this but I reverted your reversion of my alteration to the C++ Programming cover page. I did that because your action was without cause or even in relation to the discussion invoked in it on that page talk nor remotely supported by common practice, logic or Wikibook's policy. I do not see any reason for ever reverting me unless I made a grave mistake or taken any action that could be construed as a violation of policy or common sense since I am available daily to address any issues that may arise. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, I replied at the talk page. Thenub314 (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What age are you ?
No I do not need to know, just that you think about it. Remember what I said once before ? You are doing it again, not funny nor productive. There is no long term greater good served by this short terms shenanigans. Chose you battles well but be ready to support and have legs to defend your points if you want to realistically be taken seriously. "Me too" argumentation is only working to create the feeling that the point should be taken further, rallying support for issues that have no merit removes any merit to those that act to support them. The last comment couldn't be more demonstrative of if not bad faith of a very misinformed view of reality, further promoting the continuation of the hallucinatory rampage that user was engaged. What end game do you perceive as being the goal off continuing in this path ? What will be gained ? One thing you already had managed is that I've moved contributing content to that book at my lowest priority. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am old enough to understand that the "act your age" bit is simply patronizing to adults and generally not helpful. I have long complained that the C++ Programming book was too complicated to edit easily, and this has discouraged some editors from working on it (if no one else I can certainly say this is true of me).  I felt I had said a bit more than "Me too", and pointed out this was a KISS situation.


 * I am not playing any sort of game. If we managed to come to an agreement about the books structure, then we could hopefully improve it.  I understand you see nothing to be gained here, but I do.


 * Stressing you out to the point of changing your priorities is certainly not my goal. I don't see how I would have done so in such a short amount of time.  I only took one active edit to restore the title (and perhaps I shouldn't have) beyond that I have simply expressed my opinions on the talk page and tried to understand yours.  In fact I started to rewrite one page last night and stopped to avoid adding more fuel to the conflict. Thenub314 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Act your age means is a call for you to came to your senses. This is not about the C++ Programming as no valid point is recognized in the arguments made so far, this seems to me more to be about a bruised ego and difficulty with dealing with opposition, it may even be a seeking of recognition or attention of some sort, but one thing is and never was is about the C++ Programming. This continued dodging and scramble to create unseen danger and announce unrealized misfortune is taxing on my patience to deal with such infantilities. If you or others have good arguments then use them properly, do not go out of your way to cause unnecessary and pointless havoc and spend endless time reaching nowhere...
 * It continues to boggle my mind that some people simply seem incapable of dealing without rancor to any proper expression of opposition. I did and do oppose most of your changes done in the drugs work and was deeply annoyed by you censure of part of what I added to suicide work and you can continue to count on me to point every action that I see as unjustified or improper. I'm vocal and will continue to be. But that does not dictate that I must at every chance, blindly and without proper cause, side with those that oppose your views, criticize your every action or be a nuisances to you. Is it much to expect the same from others.
 * When you last engaged me on the C+ Programming book you acted in behalf of a user that was being extremely unpleasant, even irrational. He started on my talk page and moved into that work. You first action was to side with him (even if to your credit admitting later that it was in error).
 * I will not repeat the argumentation I provided on that discussion but will gladly address any counter argument you have regarding the validity of the original opposition, the proper way to handle reversal disputes, that issues have a terminus date (it could be disputed if 7 days suffice, but hopping that a discussion from last year is still pending resolution can only be a joke). What you presented so far has no credibility by normal practice or validity in future implementation, including a reformat of the work, if is not only unrealistic but impossible to do maintaining any type of order in the book.
 * The fact is that all things being equal your interest on the C++ Programming project should not be much different than the interest I have for the Ordinary Differential Equations or Real Analysis project, but it seems that all things are not equal... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is perciesely about C++ Programming. While you may believe this is fundamentally about something else as far as my motivations go you are incorrect.


 * To be frank your the only person introducing rancor into this disagreement. Let's list the words/phrases with a negative connotation in this thread: "shenanigans", "bad faith", "misinformed view of reality", "hallucinatory rampage", "patronizing" (by me), "infantilities", "rancor", "blindly and without proper cause".  And that is just this thread!


 * I am not looking to side with people who disagree with you specifically. I just came back from a long wikibreak, and noticed the discussion on Adrignola's talk page.  I read the discussion page to see what was happening and I comment on threads where I thought my input could be useful. I understand we have disagreed about books in the past, and with both the books you mention you have also made edits I disagree with that stand to this day.  Compromising is part of what it takes to get along.


 * I'll admit I no longer remember which user your referring to, nor the specific situation. But if I have a redeeming quality it is that I will admit I am wrong in the case I am wrong.


 * I will keep arguments about the actual book at its discussion page, and discussions about my behaviour here. Your welcome to edit Ordinary Differential Equations or Real Analysis. I believe my edits to C++ predate any serious disagreements we have had.  The fact of the matter is that I occasionally enjoy programming and I have picked up some hodge podge knowledge about it along the way, and so I have an interest in this subject.  Thenub314 (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't give me crap, take this last bout. You did go out of your way to give support about an esthetical change to a work that I have not only been contribution but have by a large part created. The point under discussion is about a freaking alteration that today is in several book (I myself have made the same change in many other books, most of those books communities kept these changes).
 * In fact we I had previously had a discussion about the same esthetical fixture that upon you telling me that it caused problems got immediately removed by myself and since it was used in other works immediately corrected.
 * But you saw merit in this user particular protest. Coming in support of an argument that was at least 7 days old to revert a change (not reversion) that had at most a similitude with was claimed (but was not the same implementation) in fact it was an equal implementation that had been in the work for years before. Be real man... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to say I feel like I have been duped. I was feeling rather guilty about causing you to "[move] contributing content to that book at my lowest priority".  I went to look over the damage I have caused... and excluding edits you mark as minor, vandalism reverting, and rejecting changes by others I have to say it looks like you have made a handful of edits since Jan 1st.  What ever lowered the book on your priority list, it seems to have happened a while ago.  Not sure why you felt the need to make me feel guilty about it, but you were successful, for a while. Thenub314 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My intention is not to guilt you but to shame you, my fellow co-author in that book. Regarding these types of unproductive shenanigans. To make you think in the goals you attempt to pursue and the impact of your actions.
 * You know perfectly well that this is not the first time you engage and are called out due to this empty argumentation. In any case lets concentrate in debating the so important aesthetics of the C++ Programming title lettering on that talk page...
 * The amazing thing is that I still contribute at all and give a crap about the future of the Wikibooks project. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have done nothing to be ashamed of, and the premise by which you intend to manipulate my feelings on this point doesn't really hold much water.


 * As far as the debating the aesthetics of the text size, I said let's keep it your way didn't I? The fact I reverted you was more procedural then any claim of importance.  As I said I wanted to give the discussion time to build a consensus.  As far as text size goes, I stated what I felt was better and said, since you seemed to feel strongly that we should stick with your most recent version, and give time for the conversation to continue.  Yes I said I didn't share your views about status quo, but what of it, I didn't try to say we should change it again based I that fact.  I basically just said "Fine, we can stick with it, but I don't personally like it."  How is this something to be ashamed of? Thenub314 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thenub314 I do not have the intention to manipulate anyone's feelings. You asked me what I meant and I answered you. That I was calling you to reassess your behavior, not only on the present but in general when you argue a point or unnecessarily intervene.
 * You claim that you felt guilty, but at most my intention was to point you that you should feel bad (but not particularly guilty). Shame is a feeling arising from the taking consciousness or exposure of unworthy, indecent, dishonorable, improper, ridiculous conduct or circumstances, etc.
 * To what I've pointed that your involvement in Dan's case was unworthy, the reversal improper and the continue debate ridiculous. That you silence in Darklama's intervention (in your behalf or Dan's, I really can't find any justification for his action) is at best a continuation of a dishonorable trend that you and me are perfectly aware that did not start in this specific situation. Even your recent move from the support from ones Dan's diatribe to another, is a continuation of this indecent behavior, that ultimately we are all aware that nothing useful with result from it...
 * To that I point out that I may (and have) object to some of your changes and positions but unlike you select the goals that I feel are important and never came into any situation a simple "me too" argumentation. I must have a point to defend or something to add or I intentionally will remain silent.
 * Take for instance the argument we add on the drugs alterations even if I felt the changes unnecessary I understood you motivations and decided that no better good would be archived by the continuation of the debate or attempt to block you. The same with the removal of content and small changes I strongly opposed on the Suicide book, there I felt that the actions were negative and specifically due to your own beliefs and point of view on the subject and suffered by being seen by me as persecutory (since I was doing the previous edits). Even so I did not act or go beyond expressing my distaste. I do not pursue you on your activity on the project or go out of my way to comment on it. Take for instance how you came to claim co-authorship on the C++ Programming or the recent example regarding th discussion about merging works, completely out of proportion, more to make a point of presence than be ultimately constructive...
 * As for the text size thread yes you did agree with me. But that is not the point why I'm spending this time talking to you. I do not care that you agree or not but that you ponder the motivations and possible consequences of your actions. In that subject specifically and in the future.
 * In the text size and your reversal I would appreciate that you to make it clear to Darklama (and others that I know are reading the thread) not that you agreed with me in keeping the alteration. But more importantly that my reversal of your reversal was not contested. Your silence speaks as loud as your first intervention. It promotes actions from others that may not be as well meaning or agreeable.
 * I did-do not take offense in your reversal and always welcome a constructive criticism. I just find it strange that I'm particularly singled out for all the attention, especially dealing with minutia, and things that in general are not unique in my contributions. When we all could be spending the time doing better things... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * PS: I'm only spending this time in the subject because we have a long history in attempting to mutually understand each other. I do not particularly claim malice on your part only that you at times fail to measure consequences and the worthiness in pursuing a point. This is not the first time I call your attention to this. I do not know if you are the same outside of the project, but as a rule of thumb being more ponderous in regards with the positions one takes will only bring benefits. Take it or leave it, my critique is well intentioned and done constructively. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I haven't a lot of time, so this is in no specific order. First, regardless of how you phrase it, the implication that I was the one to lead to lower C++ Programming on your priority list doesn't hold much water.  It seems this happened long before this discussion.
 * Second your giving Darklama too little credit. He noticed what he felt was an edit war and protected the page.  A fairly common reaction across most projects.  I don't think he was acting here out of any personal vendetta.
 * Third, I tend to read discussions and comment if I have something to say. Unlike you that might be a simply "I agree".  But I didn't jump from one diatribe to an other, I happened to notice another thread the summarized something I had felt for a while, so I said so.
 * Fourth, and most importantly you seem to feel I am following you about and specifically oppose you without thought or reason. This is most certainly not the case.  I have an interest in this book, and I expressed my opinion.  Yes, I added myself to a the co-author list of C++ Programming because I worked hard to think of a good pedagogical example about enumerated types for that book.  I feel most books here shouldn't bother with an author page, but if the other book contributors feel there should be one, then I am going to add my name to it.  Yes, we disagreed about what the best strategy for History Merges.  In general I think they are misleading at best and harmful at worst and should only be preformed with the greatest of care.  Because trying to undo them is a pain!  On this point I speak from personal experience.  I recently decided not to undo one that was done inappropriately (IMO) because of the work.  So if a acceptable alternative exists that avoids a History Merge, you'll probably see me advocate for it.
 * The real issue seems to be you cannot fathom anyone holding such points of view so the only alternative is they are being difficult. But my edits really have nothing to do with you.  And for what it is worth I will probably give you as of a berth as possible going forward from here.
 * But your posts make it sound as if Dan, Darklama, myself, and perhaps others, have it out for you in one way or another. I can not speak for anyone else, but that really is not the case here.  Dan, reading his page, seems frustrated with how you collaborate.  Darklama is enacting what he feels are best practices, but I really don't think it is personal in his case either.  My silence was simply because if I came across two editors behaving as you and I were, I might have protected the page as well.
 * For your sake I will leave a comment about the title which was previously an issues I was done with. Thenub314 (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue with C++ Programming has been running longer than the time you have on the project. The degree of my contributions, especially to that work have indeed decreases. No one better than I can state that fact and it is merely logical...
 * I was giving Darklama too little credit, now I'm giving him all the credit what I stated regarding his intervention has not changed, and the way your where silent and now justify his action speaks volumes. But to you I still attribute it to inexperience, while Darklama is clearly directed and to a point badly intentioned, I was freaking speaking to him regarding another issue when he took the action. So don't give me crap Thenub314 lets call a spade a spade.
 * It was abusive, unreasonable therefore with bad intention (and a repetition of something he has done several times in the past, I'm hoping he will email Dan's into the broil so things get even more "productive").
 * You action in itself (or any divergence in the past we may had) have been resolved by dialog, I do not particularly mind and we both have been able to compromise, even on this last issue but what I've noted and stated above continues valid (it may probably be that we have similar tastes regarding the arguments or the projects we tackle ). In regards to history merging we are in full accord regarding the problem, just not on methodology of approach (as seen).
 * Thanks for comment you left. Sadly it continues not to be exact to the fact that we were not in dispute when Darklama acted (but that is reflected on the thread, the issue is that people tend not to read all the posts). That is what I wished you had made clear. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Thenub314, you seem to allow your imagination to run wild when you have difficulty fathoming or accepting explanations and points of views expressed. I'm no actor, and there are no directors or script writers telling me how to perform or what my motivations are.

Comments such as "we were not in dispute" suggest you focus on the who and not on the what. There is a content dispute present at C++ Programming, even if the dispute is about aesthetics as you believe it to be. I have no idea whether you consider aesthetic disputes important, or of little or no value. About 5 people seem to consider the issue important enough to have boldly made a change to address it. Of the 5 people who boldly made a change to address it, 3 seem to care enough to comment on it when you reverted them. Of the 3 who commented, 1 seems to be frustrated enough with how you collaborate to have left a post on their user discussion page. You seem to be frustrated by people's concerns over aesthetics. I think the edit war is also a source of frustration for both you because you see the edits as aesthetic in nature, and for the other parties because of how you address their concerns. I can admit even my edit protection is a source of frustration, but I think it is a necessary one, unless people are prepared to accept edits they don't like while discussion is going on to keep the peace and collaboration going. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Darklama. Go read all the previous persons talk pages. Note that all issues have been addressed and that any dispute I had with Thenub314 had ended. More you perfectly know that simply by talking to me any reversion would be immediately stopped, in fact your protection of the page did not address any conflict past, none was occurring and the only pending change request was of Dan's. More, the fact that the page still remains protected and is not restores to a) Previous to Dan's alteration (objected by my, and if you wish under dialog even if after 7 days to me the issue is closed) b) to the consensual balance found by myself and Thenub314.
 * It is still unclear after the last 2 reversion have been proven as non-conflictual, the page still remains protected on non-agreed version. A version that was imposed by Dan's by reversals (a rerun of long past events).
 * This in any case should be addressed on the books page so not to split the conversation. I and Thenub314 are not discussing here the esthetics of the page title, that we already had come to an understanding nor even you locking of the page.
 * What you fail to understand and always did. Is that civility obliges an order to changes (any order, not specifically this). That even administrators fall to the obligation to fallow common practice and not inventing new solutions without reaching a consensus. That is, on any dispute to be impartial and fair the status quo is protected, this does not prevent in any way that a discussion be conduced but in a discussion as irrelevant as is it green or red that two parties can't agree and there is not external benefit (no argument supplants the other) the color that should be kept is what existed before the change. There is no turn around this simple logic.
 * If anyone, it would be Dan's place to revert me not you (or call attention that he continued to not like my compromise). The fact that you acted is also clearly implicative, beyond the methodology.  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Whose discussion page are you suggesting I read? Thenub314's? Thenub314's comments here and there seem somewhat inconsistent. I was never certain whether Thenub314 had any issues with the title to begin with or not. The only thing that is certain is Thenub314 did in fact edit the book's main page to restore Dan's change to the title. Dan's? No signs you commented there. Dan mentioned Ruakh's opposition. Ruakh's? Ruakh seemed to have explained the problem to your satisfaction, and you wrote, "I will try to find out if something can be done". I had in fact read around before taking any action, and of course I might have still missed something, but go read stuff remarks aren't helpful when what should be read isn't specified.
 * We've have many discussions already about what you or I fail to understand and I think we haven't achieved anything from it. You reverted Dan twice, and Dan reverted you once. You told Dan previously that it wasn't his place to force his views on others. Suggesting now that it would be Dan's place to revert you or to call attention that he continued to not like the compromise isn't logical. I don't understand what you are trying to implicate. Shaming and gult trips don't work on me, if that is where you are attempting to go with that. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  18:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Where did I shame you ? I call the facts as I see them. When I say you action was uncalled and abusive I'm not shaming I'm pointing my view on events, and explain my reasons. I do not need to shame you because I fully understand that you have none and continue to see this type of issues productive and in the best interests of that book and of Wikibooks, something that to me they clearly aren't.
 * In any case this is not the proper forum to address the situation of the page or others than Thenub314. And I do not have any issue with Thenub314 besides his incurious actions that seem to be convergent. That is what I called his attention to. To me the issue is closed in the hope that next time he considers not only the context but the results as relevant, not only with me but especially if it in any way involves me. But that is between him and me.
 * I will reply to the rest on the page's talk since it is to it that it concerns... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fermat's last theorem
Recently, an IP added a proof of the theorem, which I formatted. Just now, another IP has notified me that it is in fact nonsense. The organisation hosting the proof looks like a reliable source, though. Is it real? Thanks Kayau (talk · contribs) 22:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to reply 3 weeks later.  Yes this article is very fishy, I started to read it to see if I could point to obvious flaws in the proof and was stopped immediately by the grammar and lack of complete sentences.  If this is indeed a peer reviewed journal as it claims to be, its editorial staff is not up to snuff.  In addition it is a bit odd to publish a result in mathematics in an engineering journal where the standards of rigor are fairly different.   Overall, I suggest we take it out. Thenub314 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's keep the status quo, then. Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL
Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-Single+User+Login+finalisation+announcement%2FPersonal+announcement&filter=&action=page translate and review the notification] that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages Rename practices and Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 13:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry Nemo, I was on an extended wikibreak I am just returning from now. Hopefully QU or someone else was on top of this in a timely mannar. Thenub314 (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hasn't happened yet for various reasons but it will soon. When it does, local bureaucrats won't be able to do renames anymore. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is good to know, not sure how I feel about it yet. Was there some problem with local 'crats doing renames? Thenub314 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it is related to a different issue. The WMF wants a single unified account across all projects. Shortly they will be forcibly renaming accounts where there is a conflict (i.e., a name is used by different real people on different projects) using a series of rules to see who "wins" each name. Once that is done, renames can only occur for the whole global account so they will be performed by Stewards centrally. Stewards will still be able to access the local rename interface in case they need to sort out problems with the initial forced rename process. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Interview for our Master Thesis?
Hi Thenub314,

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


 * Dear Otto


 * I certainly don't mind being interviewed. Who is the second student?  I only see one email address/name?


 * Thenub314 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Thenub


 * The second student's name is Fredrik Skagerwall. Would you mind sending us an email? Either to his email fresk661@student.liu.se or to mine ottve507@student.liu.se


 * Regards
 * Otto Velander OXp1845 (discuss • contribs) 09:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Emailed. Thenub314 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perfect! OXp1845 (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users
Dear Thenub314,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December
''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@undefinedwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December
''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@undefinedwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December
''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@undefinedwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 20:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December
''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@undefinedwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 22:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December
''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@undefinedwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 17:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC) • Access to nonpublic information policy/MassMessages/Follow-up notice to volunteers • Get help

== URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 ==

''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 2015 (OTRS users have until 31  2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 2015 (OTRS users have until 31  2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 2015 (OTRS users have until 31  2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

''If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing related user rights after the 15 2015 deadline.''

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 18:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC) • Access to nonpublic information policy/MassMessages/Follow-up notice to volunteers • m:Talk:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

== URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December ==

''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015 (OTRS users have until 31  2,015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 2,014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015 (OTRS users have until 31  2,015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015 (OTRS users have until 31  2,015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

''If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing related user rights after the 15 2,015 deadline.''

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 02:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC) • Access to nonpublic information policy/MassMessages/Follow-up notice to volunteers • m:Talk:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

== URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December ==

''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015 (OTRS users have until 31  2,015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 2,014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015 (OTRS users have until 31  2,015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015 (OTRS users have until 31  2,015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

''If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing related user rights after the 15 2,015 deadline.''

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 06:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC) • Access to nonpublic information policy/MassMessages/Follow-up notice to volunteers • m:Talk:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign