User talk:Thewinster

blanking
Please don't blank pages without explanation. If you want the page deleted, please add to the top of the page instead. Thanks. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 17:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the direction. I will keep that in mind the next time! --Thewinster (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Getting in contributors for the book
Hello Thewinster, welcome to Wikibooks. I saw the note that you sent to User:Mike.lifeguard, I hope you don't mind me eavesdropping. In response to your request, I have posted a message about the Inorganic Chemistry book on my blog:

http://wikibooks.blogspot.com/2008/03/inorganic-chemistry.html

Hopefully this will generate some support for you and this book. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Collaborating - Notes
I would be willing to look at your notes and transcribe them into the wiki textbook. I am student, I've taken general chemistry and am currently taking Inorganic. I have a textbook and powerpoint by my professor to refer to for writing. I'm a physics major, I'm undecided about continuing with chemistry. I first looked at the physics textbooks for something to edit, but didn't find anything clearly in need of content.

I was reading the wikipedia article on Lewis Structures and I think it could be used with minor changes for the textbook. I didn't want to do anything because I wasn't sure about the policy on this. It looks like that the page is a good lesson on how to draw them. I held off on adding some content because I wasn't sure what was needed. Could you tell me what pages need to added to and created?

Glad to help out with the project. Timetraveler3 14 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bonding Page11.gif is missing license or source information

 * We just need a source and license template for your image uploads. If you have problems, you know where to find me. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that Image:Bonding Page6.gif is missing info. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Transwikied pages
I've started to carefully remove content on the sections that have been copied from wikipedia, removing content that is isn't useful for someone first learning the topic. Mostly I've deleted pieces about background or that talk about details that aren't relevent. Timetraveler3 14 (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Work to be done
I'm contining to slowly remove content so that the pages seem more like textbook and not an encylopedia. I don't completly understand how to fully use wikipedia. What is the best way to comment on things that i see/feel should be changed across the book. Is there one place with a list of all edits that need to be done. How should notes be made on future work to be done? Thanks. Timetraveler3 14 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional places to get content from
I think to add to at least the section on chemical bonding, we should use content from other chemsitry wikibooks. Basic things like the orbitals that are talked about in Gen Chem we use whats already done. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_Chemistry/Atomic_Structure Timetraveler3 14 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

IIT JEE Committee scans
G'day, regarding the scans you've uploaded from IIT JEE Committee question papers, is this work yours or someone else's? i.e. did you write the papers, or did someone else write them? Webaware talk 07:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the hand-written scans I assume are yours. But the typed ones I've tagged as copyvios; it looks like those are scans of a textbook, or a test, either of which would be copyrighted. Please note that transcribing them (if that's the case) would also be a copyright violation. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Solved Question Papers - AIEEE
Is this a real textbook? It doesn't seem like it to me - perhaps example questions would be best included in a pre-existing textbook on the subject. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 03:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a reference book. Since this is a compendium of questions previously asked in other exminations, it will not make sence if we have them ONLY as a part of other books and not an annual set. --Thewinster (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we know who owns the copyright to the questions? Since textbooks are educational, where is there an explanation of the concepts explored by the questions? Simply having a collection of examples isn't educational. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 15:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I had hurried up with posting. The further edits will contain solutions as well (as was planned). And since "explanation of concepts" is emphasized, they will not be step by step solutions. As far as copyright is concerned, they do not belong to anyone. These are very fundamental questions. I tried to search for a particular template - which says that the content marked with this template is common human knowledge and one cannot claim authority over that. Basically, these questions belong to that category. --Thewinster (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Chem markup
You might be interested in following 17133 Add support for mhchem package in &#60;math&#62; markup. mhchem is a nice package I use for this sort of thing. I have no idea whether that request is doable, but will hopefully get a tech person to look at it at least. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 18:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

File upload scans
I came across your file uploads and browsing around started wondering what their precise sources were. Are the hand-written ones notes taken from a course, or gathered from one or more textbooks? There are also a number of scans that seem to be from published works, but their source and authorship is a bit vague. Could you please clarify these? File:1996 IIT JEE Math QP Page 0001.gif, for example, gives the source as "Question Paper" and the author as both you yourself and "IIT JEE Committee". Thanks, --Swift (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Attribution
Some of your recent work included a lot of wikilinks, which makes me suspect that it was copied from Wikipedia (since we don't make as much use of them here other than for linking internally in a book). If you are taking content from Wikipedia, please consider the work of those that went into it and provide them with attribution by requesting an import of the page's history at Requests for import. Thank you. – Adrignola talk 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information! Will keep that in mind. Thewinster (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WCI 2011 Proposal :Accelerating Wikibooks. Help Needed!
(moved from my talk page since your level of activity here doesn't seem too high and I would prefer not to have it stand on my talk page until November 18 --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

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) 07:50, 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


 * One thing that you should realize first before engaging in any dialog with a Wikibookian is that they can be very distinct. The common ground of every Wikibookian rests only on the volunteer work they do in the project. Most active Wikibookians on the project are the political or technological dedicated not particularly involved in long term or broad contribution to effective content, most efforts of this section of the community is dedicated to function and standardization. Note also that it is very rare for the ones involved on specific projects to want or see the need to get involved on the political and technological (and maintenance/administrative) side of the project and vice versa those that do active work on maintaining and evolving the project will often cease to produce any content contributions. Because of those facts I don't particularly know who I should recommend you to talk with, since your message is dedicated to those that contribute content but is focused on creating and orienting policy. My best recommendation is that you should be clear and elaborate a proposal on your own userspace and place a summarized notice on the general community discussion area and attempt to contact people you detect as actively contributing content.
 * Regarding your proposal there are also some contrasting targets, wikibooks are more often than not, a work of a single author, in this case the creation of roadmaps will not be helpful or wanted as edits from other are sporadic. On the other side there are a few wikibooks that could benefit from a roadmap to help more complex book communities (like those working on the 3D studio), we also have complex book communities that aren't organized on wikikbooks (for instance those working on the AROS project (I presume they are organizing edits outside of the visibility of the wikibooks project, so far this is not a problem since the scope of the works is very specific), but of course making the structure more visible would create the opportunity for others to join. So as for the creation of roadmaps that is my view, they should be created by and for the specific book communities and so far this hasn't been an issue. In the last years, mostly by my actions in regards to the fork policy, and the recent creation and organization of the subjects namespace we have created the necessity to present a scope for books this in some way is a proto-roadmap...
 * On the issue of outcomes I have a difficulty to distinguish what you mean. The outcome is part of the general definition of every Wikibook and often expressed on the the declaration of scope/intentions of a Wikibook, and in view of you intention to define a roadmap, the establishing of goals is indispensable. In any case goal setting can only go so far on volatile volunteer base, I often reformat books that have been abandoned, that have a valid structure and even content but no defined goal or objectives. (Example House_Construction)
 * Providing links and annotations on the construction of a Wikibook is extremely dangerous, for instance it can be used as covert a form of pressure and attack or simple malicious interference. My experience in this regard is extensive, I've been accused of plagiarizing, and copyright infringement getting to the point of having one of the works going through a RfD (and surviving). Being transparent in regards to sources creates the possibility for comparison, I'm a strongly defendant that one can turn most copyrightable material into something freely usable but see that since editors rarely have time and have no editorial control the chance that someone without the necessary understanding (or by malice) to come and create issues is extremely problematic but some wikibookians do that (mostly in low evolving works that permit close scrutiny for instance Data Compression mostly a single author work by DavidCary, most sections start by a simple annotations/references (I have discussed with him some issue privately since a book community doesn't exist) or even my work The_World_of_Peer-to-Peer_(P2P), I often copy web sources into TODO boxes for latter expansion of content. In any case my view is that most of the Wikibook community dislike public interaction that goes beyond the book creation. This was most visible in the not so old discussion regarding the Questions and Answers pages some books support or even the suppression of non-Wikibooks specific questions that sometimes are posted on the general community discussion areas that are summarily deleted by some as being out of context.
 * The part about tweaks and fixes in regards to crowdsourcing may be the strongest point but the hardest to realize, for instance the evolution of the Wikimedia software is too much centered on the needs of Wikipedia, Wikibooks shares most of the necessities with Wikisource. Even a better interaction between Wikibooks and other Wikimedia projects would help. For instance we recently concluded our move and cross dependency with Commons but some problems exist when images are deleted at commons without considering that some times a replacement image exists or a local resistance to use wikilinks to Wikipedia...
 * I read the Persuasive Design : Eight Step Process by B. J. Fogg but most concepts seem to me to be commonsensical, I think that the solution to issues is not exclusively technical, for instance as an editor/author at Wikibooks my major problem was issues of the legal ambiguity, that leads to the usurpation, attacks of reputation and general diminishing returns in regards to the work performed. Volunteers at Wikibooks contribute because the love the subject matter, like to share information, seek to improve or contest someone viewpoint, seek recognition and to establish to others they have knowledge (or a mixture of these motivations at various degrees). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may also take a look into what seems to me a failed experience called WikiProjects and if you have the time try to talk with users of the projects that have made use of it (especially the chess community), the lack of participation in regarding to Featured books (I dislike this particular methodology but see the objective as valid). You should also attempt to try to contact with User:Robert Horning (use email) and post something on the Wikibooks mailing lists (most others you have already bumped). Take special notice of Jomegat (extremely old, contemplative Wikibookian, than can probably give you good insights)‎‎ and Adrignola‎‎ (especially for his extensive work on organizing the subject and categories sections of Wikibook will certainly have a good general view on trends and how volunteers engage the project). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 04:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Math Playground
$$a/b$$