User talk:Xerol

Semi-active, doing RC patrol, cleanup tasks, and working on software version guidelines for the Manual of Style


 * Archives: 2/06-4/09

Accountancy
I just spent a bit of time commenting on your proposed organization of the Introduction to Accounting (or just Accountancy) book, and then I noticed that you had done it almost four years ago. I'm just curious. Have you abandoned this project?

I'm also curious as to your background. A book on accounting? Another book on Cellular Automata? This sounds a lot like my background. (I double degreed while I was in college, with a B.S. in Computer Science and a B.B.A. in Accounting. I then went on in Accounting with a M.Acc., a CPA, CMA, and am currently in the Fiscal Services Department of a local government.)  But this is purely curiousity on my part. Feel free to ignore this question if you think it's too personal, or just delete it. --fcoulter (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I acted on the merge and removed the Complex Analysis Handbook RfD
I acted on the merge request (not opposed) and removed your RfD. Since there is no need for archival or to establish a special closing of the RfD the only avenue was to remove the request itself. Feel free to edit the changes to Complex Analysis. --Panic (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless the proponent of the RfD objects, I see no need to restore the RfD (though if there is an objection, it definitely gets restored). Panic &mdash; for future reference, cutting the Gordian knot by unilaterally removing someone else's RfD could go badly wrong if it were taken amiss, and there is (on reflection) an alternative that would fall safely within procedure, and get the job done: do the merge, and add a comment to the RfD saying you've done it.  The nominator has the opportunity to respond within the process, and if they agree, the RfD can simply be closed.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I considered using the comment option, but decided that if any brouhaha would happen it would be reduced to those implicated and not extend to the rest of the community since at least I'm confident that two of us will be able to rapidly resolve any issue I selected the option that could create less distraction to the rest of the community. If Xerol objects to my action of course I will agree that the removal of the RfD should be undone and we will discuss it further there. --Panic (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case we should think about a solution to this cases, IIRC this is the second time I've aborted one RfD using the same method but as you state it can be a cause of conflict (depending on those involved) since most abortable RfD originate in users with less experience and because of that more probable to escalate the issue. The action is made safe under BeBold, putting the issue of removing signed posts. --Panic (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perform a non-admin closure and leave it up for a week. It can then be archived. – Adrignola talk 19:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record the actual merge done borders on vandalism. It appears to be a blind copy and paste of material from one book into the other with disregard of the content written in the page and elsewhere in the book, style, notation, etc. Now the page on the derivative defines the derivative twice in the same module. Derives the Cauchy Riemann equations, in two consecutive modules and duplicates much of the material. And material from the introduction of the book now appears as if for the first time at the beginning of Chapter 2. I just don't understand why such the rushed job? Why not look over the new book a little first? I will take a little time and see what I can do about cleaning it up. But I really wish you hadn't done the merge in the first place, it would have been easier to get right the first time. Thenub314 (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Basically I RfD'd it because I wanted to spur a bit of discussion, not being familiar with the topic, amongst those who could properly merge the material. I only noticed the page to begin with as part of my war on orphans, saw the merge notice, checked page histories, saw that a few constructive edits had been made since the merge notice was put up, looked at the merge target book, and then went to RfD to get comments. I even mentioned in the RfD that it seemed like the content could not be readily merged into the other book, simply because the writing styles were very different, and also mentioned that I only had limited knowledge on the topic, which I intended as a clue that someone more knowledgeable should take a look at it and inform the decision. Where did I "clearly note that some content was usable"? I said there wasn't much that could be merged that would add anything to the larger, more developed book. (Original edit here)
 * I know that no one really "owns" a book but in nearly every case of dealing with subject matter with which I was unfamiliar I've elected to notify those who seem to be the primary editors on a book that action should be taken. In this case, had I not decided to put it up for an RfD (for instance, if there had been a lot of meaningful material that didn't appear in the other book, but the stubbier book was clearly still incomplete and completely inactive) I would've at the very least replaced the mergefrom notice (which appears to never have been placed to begin with; the history merge makes it very confusing though), and at least left a note on the TOC's talk page plus any user talk pages as appropriate. If nothing had been done about it within a week or so I might've acted on my own (or, in this case, asked a friend with 2 master's degrees in math). Basically there's a lot of ways to do what was done, and the way this was handled seems like one of the worse ways to do it. But, looking through the pages with my limited knowledge, there was value added to the post-merge pages so it's not like a ridiculously egregious act was committed here. Lines may have been crossed but it all worked out in the end, so let's all learn some lessons and move on. Xerol Oplan (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I take that we are all done on this subject. I have been talking with Thenub314 and I assure you if anyone can have any blame here is me for being unable to predict this storm in a teacup. Sorry about the use of your talkpage but since you were the proponent of the RfD it seems unavoidable. Since you demonstrated interest on that content now merged I inform you that of the 70 lines of text on the original 3 pages, soon after the merge, only ~10 lines remain.
 * In regard to the BeBold I urge you to take on your own words and proceed in updating the manual of stile. I'm having a "soft" dispute regarding necessary distinction we need to make on the C++ Programming book as a requirement to inform readers on the version that is covered (C++0x is almost out and some information is already being put on the book). It would be nice to point to an accepted the text even if not a guideline to establish common ground. --Panic (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to clean up the text a bit (writing in an instructional/informative tone is something I have difficulty with) but I can put up an abridged version for now and add to it. There is a consensus that it should be added, so it'll get in there sooner or later, just probably a bit later as the MOS is something that I feel requires a little more carefulness than boldness. Xerol Oplan (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Template
It would be useful also to cover "also covers" (if the information is mixed together) and "the next version" (even if it isn't a direct improvement it would be easier to search for the template after the release and fix it). Just some thoughts based on what would be required on the C++ Programming book (see C++0x), and due to some changes need to be covered next to existing "old version" content. --Panic (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can put any text you want as the SoftwareVersion parameter, for example you could say "0.47 and newer". DeprecationType probably isn't the best name for that parameter, but if you wanted a separate designation for "Unreleased" or "Future" it could be added. Xerol Oplan (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Added "Newer" and "Future" versions. Xerol Oplan (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)