Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2007/April

Panic Blocked
I have blocked Panic indefinitely because the terms of his unblock agreement have been violated. We should not set up these agreements if we are not going to enforce them. -- xixtas talk 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will be out of pocket for a couple hours but will review comments from others after that. -- xixtas talk 15:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's my opinion that this should be the final action, and that Panic should not be unblocked again. We have been dealing with panic for a very long time now, and considering that the behavior has not improved in all this time, i dont see a reason why we should continue these efforts. Of course, this is only my opinion and the community can certainly act however they see fit. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a 'by the rulebook' kind of person. The unblock agreement is what it is, not what some might wish that it was. Still having said that, I do not believe that further mediation is going to be productive, myself. The personalities involved are too hardened in their disagreements and the disparity of opinion on the fundamental principles of Wikibooks too great. -- xixtas talk 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am unblocking Panic. It has been a week which I feel is sufficient given the small amount of damage done. I am still not satisfied with his responses, and stipulate that any further sockpuppetry should result in an indefinite ban. Also that he make a good faith effort to work on a community version of the C++ book. This is all based on the assumption that he will return at all. He may already be gone. -- xixtas talk 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What was the point of blocking him in the first place then?! I am speechless. -within focus 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1)To keep him from continuing to engage in the behavior he was engaging in at the time of his block. 2) To make sure he understood that his behavior was unacceptable. 3) To fulfill the terms of the unblock agreement. 4) To dialog about his behavior. 5) To demonstrate that we were willing to call his bluff, and capable of standing together as a community. 6) To validate any future block by holding to agreed upon procedure.
 * The question why unblock when he hasn't satisfactorily explained his behavior is tougher to answer. 1) With his last clarification his explanation moved from the realm of ridiculously unlikely to extremely unlikely but barely possible. 2) He managed to go three whole days without saying anything offensive. (He didn't say anything at all.) 3) A lifetime block would have been all out of proportion for the action that the block was brought against. 4) His silence may indicate the kind a sea change that bodes well for the future. 5) It is useful and important to demonstrate compassion. 6) Sometimes the best way to end a fight is to stop fighting. 7) By ending the block now under the present circumstances before other parties start objecting and this whole thing degenerates again, I can end it now without the need for huge public drama.
 * Then again I might just be overthinking the whole thing. I guess we'll see. -- xixtas talk 03:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Panic understands his behavior is unacceptable, because he's insisted he's done nothing wrong on every occasion that he has been blocked. I think unblocking him is premature and goes against the terms of the agreement. which from what I understood required the people who objected to Panic's behavior to be satisfied with his answers, which even you seem to not be satisfied with. This seems to demonstrate inconsistent use of the terms and invalidate any agreed upon procedure. As for his not saying anything he said he was going to give it a week so presumably he might be taking a break and not be paying any attention right now, I don't think speculating one way or another about what this means is all that helpful. This isn't to say I think he should be blocked again or shouldn't of been unblocked. This is just my thoughts on what reasons you have given. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there's plenty of room for well-meaning people to disagree. I respect and appreciate your opinion. There is definitely a part of me that doubts whether the action I decided on was the correct one, and that part of me says the same things you, withinfocus, and whiteknight have said here. I am trying to find moderate solutions to polarizing questions and it is not always easy to do. -- xixtas talk 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"blocked" template?
Is there a template similar to test1, test2, etc to notify a user that he has been blocked? I tried subst:block and subst:blocked, but neither of those exist. -- Jim Thomas (aka Jomegat) 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest with you, I have never used such a template. If the vandalism is obvious, I tend not to leave a warning at all. If i feel like the person will stop vandalizing and become productive. I tend to say something like "you are blocked because of [bad behavior], and you wont be unblocked again until [time limit or conditions]. Read [applicable behavior guideline or policy] so we can avoid this in the future". That's just me though. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, i forgot about the Template messages page which lists some of the common templates. This page isn't maintained really, but alot of the information hasn't changed. Some of the answers you are looking for can be found at Template messages/User talk namespace. This should be more helpful for you. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like test5 aka vw5 is what I was after. -- Jim Thomas (aka Jomegat) 19:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict in progress...
An edit conflict is in progress between me and User:Darklama, I have requested the user to address the changes with me as I object to some and have taken steps to provide a list of contributors (this has other implications), I created the template and I use the template in the two books I'm working in, the purpose of the template is to give copyright attribution and list authors (it was not created to list an arbitrary list of contributors), some posts on the subject have been made in User_talk:Darklama. Pages Template:Authors and C++ Programming/Authors another page is altered by using the template. --Panic 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a small conflict it has been splitting people from some time see Ownership and the actions of Darklama aren't isolated he has removed the authors page from TOC2 and that version print version on C++ Programming, this was already commented by two other administrators in Talk:C++ Programming/TOC2/Print version, and I know some users agree that author pages should not be used and others also share the concept that all contributions enable to users to have rights over the works. --Panic 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just had a quick peek at the links Panic provided, and it seems to revolve around the difference between a "contributor" and an "author". We really don't have any policies here on wikibooks defining the difference (as far as I know commons is the only wikimedia project that really mentions it, but it's rather cut and dry there), and the history of this dispute is that User:Panic2k4 insists that only those who contribute "substanitally" (the definition of substantial is equally non-existent) should be considered as "authors", and only if they choose to list themselves as an author (because (apparently) the right to refuse listing oneself as an author is also very important).


 * Having spent over half of a year trying to understand this dispute, I can only give my personal opinion that Panic is trolling (meaning arguing incessantly in order to bring others to agree with his viewpoint without compromise, even though he knows beyond doubt that others (the vast majotity of others) will nnever see things his way), rather than making a good-faith effort to collaborate. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The last part of that comment wasn't really needed and by now most people know your personal opinion about me, but yes more or less it is that (there are other twists that people don't seem to agree upon, and it isn't only one). I would even make it more generic editors vs authros (as we at the moment count each edit as a contribution, even if it is spam of fixing it) and sorry if you feel that was I that is pushing this issue (I think it is important but not of high priority), not at this time but some conflicting edits have pushed me to state it or probably get me blocked yet again. --Panic 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not trolling, because I don't think that it is deliberate or malicious; wikilawyering perhaps. --Iamunknown 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter? If "insignificant contributers" are not mentioned - so what? If all contributers are mentioned - so what? Every Wikibookian has the right to have a say in what happens on a particular module - regardless of their length of time spent editing that module. Is this what the arguements have been about? It's not important let alone high priority. Xania talk 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it matters (it is not that important or at least no such importance has been given to the subject so far), but authors have rights over works (and responsibilities), authorship is a requirement of the GFDL (we can say that some books if not authored default to Wikimedia), consider also the discussion somewhere on using other licenses for the works, or any other legal status changes or challenge of any given work, it also has to deal with a core issue to some people of getting acknowledgment for the work or the level of contribution, we shouldn't alienate users that wish to state that they have contributed to a work even if it is not a requirement to do so. --Panic 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I must correct the statement, an active and continued action from Wikimedia and even some users to avoid discussing or dismiss this problem or make it irrelevant, some time ago it was even proposed to remove all author pages from all the books. I don't think such change would be legal but I was not involved on the discussion (it was blocked). --Panic 19:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every Wikibookian has the right to have a say in what happens on a particular module this is not the part of the discussion and it was never at least from my part, in this I agree 100% with you on consensus decission. I think Darklama is contesting the definition of authors and the requirements to who gets listed as such, but he should explain his point. --Panic 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just list everyone (usernames not IP) who has ever contributed (small or big). It's that simple. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 21:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...some time ago it was even proposed to remove all author pages from all the books. I don't think such change would be legal... Why? We have the history pages for a reason: so that we can establish authorship.  I tend to agree that everyone has a say in building consensus.  Of course, if consensus is already established by a large group of editors it is definitely a courtesy to respect it and take issues to the talk page (see this page for an example) but, as far as I can see, there is little established consensus regarding the format of the C++ book.  So work to form consensus, do the w:Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but realize that you, in addition to others, will likely have to make concessions because you all apparently disagree on a number of points.  --Iamunknown 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Humm I can try to hunt down the links to that discussion, will post it here later...
 * History pages it is my view (and I'm not alone here also) don't provide a complete, exact and clear way to differentiate contributors from editors and are easy to corrupt if some editors are able to delete pages. I think there is even a request on Bugzilla to solve this.
 * Anyway authorship isn't established it is claimed (and verifiable), just because you can determine someone contributed to a work, you may not grant rights that aren't yours to attribute, and on this subject it is clear that there was never a consensus nor a single way to go about it, I have during this years at Wikibooks watched anonymous users adding other users to authors/contributors lists and never did see no one objecting or verifying the attributions, I do this only on the books I'm an author because I know who has done what...  --Panic 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between "contributors" and "editors" and I don't even know what you think is the difference. They should all be acknowledged.  No individual has any specific rights and you should all work together to make decisions.  As many contributions are by anonymous IP users who is to know who has contributed?  This discussion is ridiculous - try working on the actual book rather than this petty arguement about ownership. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Should spammer be able to add they name, or any user removing that spam ? What about all other minor editions (text moves, spell checking) are this all contributors that may get acknowledgments ? (I don't even object to have them acknowledged, I would indeed object in calling them authors.)
 * You would have to agree here that at least making an administrative edit (adding or removing a category/VfD notice, etc.) does not constitute being considered an author. Certainly reverted vandals don't count. Take for instance this proposal [neta:Summer_of_Code_2007#Authorship_determination] made by Robert (at least I'm not alone on the importance I give the issue), or [or this post from three years ago from Richard Stallman] that dismisses nearly all aggregation arguments that have been used for fair use and license combining on Wikipedia, or this bugzilla request here (Bugzilla:2993).
 * No individual has any specific rights; this is incorrect, why do we have to acknowledge other works or authors to works used ? Just because you give the content away under the GFDL you have still rights over that content (see Ownership and in particular the talk page).
 * you should all work together to make decisions; again no one is stating the contrary about this, I agree with you there and this is a requirement of Wikibooks.
 * anonymous IP users can't claim authorship this is stated on the copyright pages, that was not what I wrote, please check, what I wrote was that I saw users not logged in, adding at times several other user or names to authors pages or similar lists.  --Panic 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion anyone who has worked on the book should be eligible to list themselves on the authors page. It should be up to the individual's discretion whether they declare themselves to be an author or not. This is not something that we should attempt to police other than to make sure that those who list themselves have provided some good-faith contribution. This is the way we do it at Wikijunior and it doesn't seem to cause any problems so far as I have noticed. -- xixtas talk 23:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree because author is not synonymous to contributor or even editor and rights aren't open to interpretations and are indeed important and have further implications, that is why we give so much attention to the images copyright, why is not the same care taken with the text?
 * I'm not here discussing this because I like the subject but because I was having a small reversion war with Darklama and again around the same problem, he doesn't seem to like the authors page and attribution of the copyright, I have failed to show him that this is a requirement...
 * As for problems at Wikijunior see Wikijunior_Solar_System/Authors the problem there was the requirements needed to be listed as author (but on the personal information required to...) involving Angela Beesley (former vice-chair of the WMF board, you must look at the history and talk page to get a clear idea, but again no consensus on how to do things). --Panic 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again you are taking a word that has a whole range of meanings and arguing that everyone should understand it in only one (narrow and unconventional) way. There are plenty of examples where a book's "author" did not write a single word of the content. Also authors do not have to be people. Legally, "Wikibooks" is just as valid an author as "John P. Wordsmith". I would like to point out to you that just because one is an "author" does not mean that one is necessarily a "writer" or "creator".


 * It's disingenuous to point to that disagreement on the Solar System as if it somehow backs up your position. The disagreement is in no way about who should and should not be given credit as an author. It is about whether a Wikimedia project should be asking people for their real names and places of residence.


 * I believe that a general sense of the community regarding this question based on this conversation and others on this subject is clearly that Wikibooks should use an inclusive definition of the word author. Much more inclusive than the one you advocate. I feel strongly that you should not be removing the names of people who have made substantial good-faith contributions to a book from the authors page if they wish to be included there, whether their work rises to the level of "authorship" in your mind or not. -- xixtas talk 03:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To me author only means one thing in the context it is being used, for instance, do you also give recognize authorship of a work based on simple edits, as I stated above, for an administrative edit (adding or removing a category/VfD notice, etc.) does it falls in the definition of author or not?
 * Also authors do not have to be people; I said that above, if no author is declared on a book the authorship defaults to Wikibooks. (I think I was clear and on another discussion with you on user accounts I even provided some info on sharing an account to for exact attribution, for example an employee being paid to work on the content)
 * as if it somehow backs up your position; I never said it did it only proves to the other poster that no single and exact concept accepted by all exists, no clear guideline or policy or what is required, and how to perform it besides the GFDL and even that seems to have be able to generate several interpretations.
 * Wikibooks should use an inclusive definition of the word author; I disagree with that concept not is spirit by on the practical side of it and I haven't removed anyone that has added himself, for instance a user even has added WhiteKnight to the authors list (to my knowledge he has only performed a minor administrative task on 1 or 2 pages).
 * Another problem that present itself even considering your utopical view, there is some reasons to have attribution of authorship, even if we can let anyone add its name but what are the rules to make the information correct or what is the information needed or what guidelines should then exist to allow the removal of names from that list and verify it's accuracy. --Panic 03:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we have to have a policy for everything? I like to imagine that Wikibookians come together in the spirit of jointly creating books that are the best resource possible for the reader. If this were true, petty arguments about who gets credit on the author page would never arise. My view is that people who have made substantive good-faith edits should be able to list themselves as authors on the authors page if they wish. If someone lists him or herself as an author without substantive edits I would assume good faith and welcome them to the book authoring team. If someone else lists a third party on the authors page, I would ask that person on their talk page if they would like to be included. -- xixtas talk 12:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

reset
We need some rules when no single and exact concept/procedure is accepted by all as true or the correct way of doing things, this basic, we don't need rules to state consensual and obvious things... Ok the authors page is a legal document to document the "owners" (no control see Ownership) of the work and allow the distribution of it under the GFDL. I for my part don't agree with your permissive use of the author interpretation but that isn't even what we are discussing here the core of the issue is indeed that but I haven't opposed no one that has added him or herself as author (this must be clear), what I opposed on this particular situation was a third party adding names (not himself) to the list, as I stated this is a legal document any claiming of rights must be made by the person owning rights on the work and willing to grant and enforce them. --Panic 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My god Panic! Is it important? - no! Let people add themselves as authors if they wish - what bloody difference does it make? Stop taking things so seriously. You're talking about lots of legal stuff when at the end of the day this is just Wikibooks and noone really cares about the legality of one module of this project. Work on the actual book and forget about the authors page - it makes no difference WHATSOEVER. Xania talk 17:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Xania, "noone really cares about the legality of one module of this project", that is not correct, that particular book just survived a VfD on bases of copyright infringement, I see several posts a week about copyright discussion about images, and as an author to that book it is indeed important to me, as I said above I haven't objected to anyone add themselves as authors, but will object to anyone else signing it for others (this is basically as letting someone sign posts as yourself).  --Panic 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

--- I'd like to summarize my thoughts on this and leave it at that.
 * 1) People who have made substantive good-faith edits should all be considered authors whether their names appear on the authors page or not.
 * 2) Individual authors (as defined above) should be able to add and remove their names from the author's page at their own discretion.
 * 3) The page history is a resource defining authorship that is at least as valid as the author's page.
 * -- xixtas talk 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Panic, I think I'm a bit confused now. Are you pushing for a distinction between an author and a contributor? I'm not sure if the GFDL distinguishes between the two. Would you be willing to provide a citation from the GFDL that indicates such a distinction? --Iamunknown 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not pushing anything, it is the interpretation I make, the GFDL doesn't do a direct reference to contributors, but to authors as rightholders of the work, the licensees, in the meanwhile this discussion was moved to the the Chat page of the Staff Lounge and it was discussed there that very same distinction. It all falls to what copyright law you are using... --Panic 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you get clarification from the Free Software Foundation. I, and apparently some other contributors, do not interpret the GFDL similarly.  --Iamunknown 06:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We may need to do that (did you saw the list on the staff lounge chat page?), it will probably be needed to be done as we update the Copyright next time, as there isn't a consensus about those points I know at least 4 different viewpoints about those, anyway take a look at Ownership, WhiteKnight and I have done some editing on that (the point there is not copyright but has some useful information on that to), it seems to be more or less ready... --Panic 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Page history merge:
Not really vandlism, but admin is required to marge the revision hystoris.

-- MichaelFrey 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WB:VIP.--Az1568(Talk) 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

CommonsTicker...
...is up and running! Note to admins, is currently not running perfectly and so there may be some reason we wil need to block. Just make sure to block with autoblock turned off! It runs on the Toolserver, so any autoblock block would kind of not be a good thing... :\ --Iamunknown 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would we need to block it? It only edits that one page, doesn't it?-- SB_Johnny | talk 12:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Duesentrieb indicated that it might be necessary but was not specific... --Iamunknown 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange speedies
"Guide to the Wheel of Time" - loads of them. With pages being created including the speedy tag - seems odd to say the least? -- Herby talk thyme 09:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every page that includes Template:Guide to the Wheel of Time/Intermediate Spoiler includes db in addition to any other page for which it has been manually added. Apparently they've moved to Wikia.  I can't verify that the request is legit, though, and I'm not sure I would support transwikiing it anyways, since we could just fork the content.  --Iamunknown 23:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser nomination
I've nominated Az1568 for Checkuser rights, because he's been doing most of the "gatekeeping" work lately, and it would be easier for all of us if he could just do the checks himself rather than asking me or Herby. Our friends at meta require a minimum of 25 positive votes for this, so please ask any active users you are in contact with to vote in support (or against)!

This is really a convenience measure, because User:Whiteknight and User:Derbeth are both pretty busy these days (as am I), and User:Herbythyme (and, again, I) is more busy on commons these days. Herbythyme has proven beyond reasonable doubt that this tool can be used to protect us from vandals, and has made it his mission to protect our project. I'll happily continue to use the tool on his behalf (as would Herby, I'm sure), but it would be a lot easier if he could run the checks himself. -- SB_Johnny | talk 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity to Wikibooks...
Hello. There are many parts of modules within Wikiversity that may be more appropriate as book material (like introductions). If the community consensus decides that some of the material would indeed be more appropriate as a book, is there a way to transwiki pages from Wikiversity to Wikibooks? --Remi 19:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User:SB Johnny is the resident expert on all things transwiki, so you should definately ask him about it. I know that the import function was activated for moving pages from wikibooks to wikiversity, although I dont know that the function was activated to allow information to go back the opposite direction. Without the import function, we could do a regular "copy + paste" transwiki, but nobody likes those. Maybe we could vote to activate the import function for this kind of stuff. How much material are we talking about? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How much material? It depends. It seems much of the other introductory material at Wikiversity may be more appropriate for Wikibooks.


 * If people decide to take a look at what is there and everyone agrees that moving "Introductory" material to Wikibooks would both improve and expand Wikibooks and also clean up and make Wikiversity more concise efficient and oriented towards its goals then it could potentially be quite a bit of material - more than I might want to deal with right now! =)


 * Perhaps the matter should just be filed away, and it is not appropriate for any action to be taken at this moment. --Remi 04:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the suggestion to move those introductory texts here, or to copy them? If the latter, then I would suggest that a better approach would be to reference them in Wikiversity from Wikibooks, rather than simply copying them here. Otherwise, you end up with two copies to maintain... unless that is what you desire (e.g. for the purpose of forking a separate version). Webaware talk 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have taken a look at least to the C++ information (hadn't noticed it, txs Remi) and it doesn't seem to be formated as textbook material, I doubt that a simple copy was what Remi had in mind, but there may be indeed some useful content there, the benefits or a "complete" transwiki would be maintaining the history log of contributions (even if the text would later be completely redone or in some sort merged), what are the requirement of rights attributions to Wikiversity material, the same as with Wikipedia ? --Panic 02:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Remi... we don't have import enabled from Wikiversity, though we probably should do so for learning projects that have evolved on a path that makes them textbookish. -- SB_Johnny | talk 10:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi I want to translate Technology on Rural devolpment book into hindi. how should i proceed? Help me.Can i use the same material as given in english?ThanksDanger Amit Mahajan

Featured books for the front page
The following books have been given a "goodbook" template:

Communication Theory

Special Relativity

Stuttering

European History

UK Constitution and Government

Karl Wick noted that he thought the front page should have a large number of our best books up front. I agree. Would 30 be a sensible limit? RobinH 11:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I like a decent amount of featured books, but 30 might just be too many. How about 20 or so? Also, for that to fit on the main page some further structural development is necessary. We can't just have a super-long column down one side of the page. It should be balanced, and I think we can use some of Main Page/test once we pretty it up a bit. -within focus  12:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the current look of the main page, with only 5 or 6 books on it. This gives us enough room to show books, cover images, and their descriptions without cluttering everything or making readers scroll down to find more stuff. Once we get more books with a suitable Goodbook template we can use a bot or some other kind of template-inclusion mechanism to rotate pages on and off the main page on a regular basis. I can start work on such a project as early as tomorrow, but we still need people to create more advertisements for their books. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * PS, the addition of those 5 books to the main page has had a deleterious effect on the formatting. Also, those 5 books aren't initially visible on the screen you need to scroll down to see them, which most people won't do. The previous books can be moved off and the new books can be kept on, but we can't try to jam a million books onto that page all at once. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Or alternatively can make use of {{#switch:{{CURRENTMINUTE}} and show 5 different books each minute or divided by a certain number, causing a rotation effect. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rotating by minute would certainly make things go quickly, but we could use any of the CURRENTMINUTE, CURRENTHOUR, or CURRENTDAY magic words to rotate things in and out. We could stagger the entries so that the rotate in at different speeds and then the list keeps changing. We could even get more complicated by use of a bot, if that's what we wanted. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of rotating through 30-100 books and changing them with substantial frequency. I also like the idea of keeping the selection as random as possible. -- xixtas {{sup| talk }} 12:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 30, 100, hopefully someday 1,000! 5 books would probably be the best way to keep it from getting cluttered... it might be nice to have some sort of small boxes used for each good book that has a small picture of the cover, etc. -- SB_Johnny | {{sup| talk }} 13:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree that we should limit the number of books on the main page at once for visibility and aesthetic's sake. If the location is made essentially random anyways then the "addition problem" Rob mentioned a while back wouldn't be an issue. Mattb112885 (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another view required
Could others take a look at both user talk page and PearPC look a little suspect to me. The fact that it states "TekSupport is merely a WikiBooks user name. Any relation to a business or a trademark of a company is PURELY CONICIDENTIAL" merely serves to make me more suspicious (upper case is a dead giveaway! & there is a .co.uk company of that name with a site that has plenty of links) -- Herby talk thyme 07:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion page looks like an installation page from a software manual. Surely the user should be allowed to work on this content in his user space as it is well within the wikibooks oeuvre. The links don't seem either excessive or unuseful to me. -- xixtas talk 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

???
How do you promote a book you've created before it's finished? Tannersf 19:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content
Hi, I would like to ask if any admin can send me deleted content (with history list) conected with the begginings of Wikiversity. I am preparing a presentation for "Wikimedia Polska Conference 2007" about it. It is for the "proto-history" of this project. Sites:
 * Wikiversity
 * Wikiversity

Hopefully its there. According this edit, there should be something. Many thanks. Reply on my acount on Wikiversity or cs.wikipedia, please. Juan


 * I dont know how we would "send" it to you, although considering that the wikiveristy pages aren't a big issue it shouldn't be a problem to temporarily undelete them for you. Also, most of the wikiversity pages that were here were imported to wikiversity with history pages intact. User:SBJohnny was a major force in the split, so you may want to ask him for more specifics of where the pages actually went.
 * I will undelete the pages you listed above, and you can look at them and at the history pages yourself. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Ill aks SBJohny.--193.84.33.171 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Well, I have just found it so I dont need to undelete them, no. Thank you very much for your help.--193.84.33.171 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:Mac OS X Tiger Box.jpg]]
can somebody check me on this? the software is saying that this image is broken and it wont load. If other people see the same thing we do, maybe we need to delete the image. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

page-move vandal
A page move vandal flew in under our collective radar, check out the contribs on User:Ocatecir. Classic WOW page moves. i reverted the moves, but it's my experience that sometimes the move reverter can actually cause more problems then it solves (luckily i dont think WoW has ever learned to exploit the particular situation that causes the problem). So if anybody wouldn't mind, go over these contribs and make sure i didnt screw anything up. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ability to "edit" block reason
Given the times I do the block quickly and then think "bother" (!!) the idea that we could edit block reasons would be good - I see it is currently a redlink - anyone know anything about it? Thanks -- Herby talk thyme 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown? You can edit it, it is just set to default currently (when it is default, it shows up as a redlink)...  Cbrown1023  talk  21:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The same for Mediawiki:Ipreason-list, but I'm not sure which is being used here right now.  Cbrown1023  talk  21:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Check User request
The edits made to Wikijunior Ancient Civilizations/Goths by  look suspiciously similar to those made by. Could a CU look into this and if appropriate, apply a block? -- Jomegat 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing very interesting Jim & not connected (apparently) but I'll keep an eye (as I'm sure others will). Regards -- Herby  talk thyme 06:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)