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

Closed VfD - advice please
Yesterday I closed Votes_for_deletion as delete which I saw as the correct decision. Swift has asked me to re-open this (on my talk page if anyone requires it). I would stress I have no objection to re-opening (tho I would object to it remaining open for an undue period of time. I am aware of Xania's current view and that of Kellen.  I would appreciate the views of others (admins or otherwise) as to whether this should be re-opened and if it were whether they would see a different outcome -- Herby  talk thyme 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this issue has already played out and should be resolved now as Delete. The material would appear to be POV fairly clearly, and the author shows no sign of any willingness to change that, and certainly hasn't done anything about it in the intervening month between the first VfD and its subsequent reopening. Quack, quack. Webaware 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it. It's gone on long enough even if I had wanted it keeping.  A clear majority wanted it deleting so I have no problem with that. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 11:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The page having been deleted despite a note asking for it not to be I guess this is closed. -- Herby talk thyme 10:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * reset

Block review needed
I Blocked Panic2k4 (talk | email | contribs | [ logs ] ) today, and he has requested unblock. If you would like to discuss this, please do so on his talk page (which he can edit), so that he'll be included in the conversation.-- SB_Johnny | talk 23:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't know what I'd have done. SBJohhny has done NO wrong with this block but I'm not convinced that these blocks have any affect.  I would prefer us to work with one another to reach solutions no matter how long it takes.  But I am only one person and the decsion by other users and admins will always differ.  I'd prefer a shorter block but I know I'm in the minority.  Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 23:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If a user is clearly here to make trouble, they should be blocked.&#176; Panic is not here to make trouble.
 * Blocks should be clearly explained by the blocking admin on the user's talk page.&#176; The block has neither been clearly nor sufficiently explained on the user's talk page.
 * SBJohnny has done some wrong.
 * I would prefer at least a shorter block at most no block. You're not in the minority &mdash; User:Iamunknown 01:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am quite reluctant to get involved in this as I am not a "policy" person and the topic is one I know little about. However it is a community matter and we owe it to all Wikibookians to sort this out.


 * These are my personal views at the time of writing this - I have not come to a conclusion hence the fact I am posting it here rather than on Panic's page at the moment. My views may be of interest to others and I would certainly like to see how other people view the situation.  I appreciate and agree with most of Xania's views.  So I see nothing wrong with the block placed on Panic although I am sad to see it.  Some breathing space is required by all concerned Panic included.  I guess the block could have been a week (or indeed a month) but I support the admin action.


 * I feel I should say that I do not see Panic as being intent on causing trouble. However he does seem to attract it.  I do find his habit of reformatting his talk page for example, very unhelpful indeed - for me it makes it very hard to "follow" a conversation.  It appears (from my limited understanding) that he has real issues with the subject of ownership and "control" which run quite contrary to DarkLama's and quite possibly to that of Wikibooks.


 * One way or another this needs to be resolved and enforced for the benefit of the community in such a way that we do not continually return to scratching the scars. I will reflect and urge others including those concerned to do the same -- Herby  talk thyme 13:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reflecting - my preference would be to set up a framework/structure over the next couple of days say. We would need to agree on some form of arbitration (& an arbitrator) and the decision made must be binding on all parties.  As soon as this is set up I feel that Panic should be unblocked and the situation dealt with as soon as it can be.  If I think of more I will post it here for now.  I'm sure that Panic will be watching this and I am equally sure that Panic is aware that I watch his page!  I have no objection to trying for some constructive dialogue -- Herby  talk thyme 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what I would have done or what should have been done or what should be done now to remedy what has been done in the past. This is all very frustrating, and certainly seems to be raising everybody's WikiStress level ... or maybe I'm imagining it and it is only raising mine. I just don't like conflict and, at the moment, there appears to be lots of conflict.  User:Iamunknown 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mass speedy deletion nomination
I would like to nominate all images in for deletion. I presume they were also used in various Sonic-related wikibooks which were transwikiied and then deleted. User:Iamunknown 13:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yuck. I'll get a start on it. -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When I came across them, I very quickly decided not to tag them all. --User:Iamunknown 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a few... a lot of them are also copyvios (tagged PD when they're clearly screenshots). -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  The list looks a lot smaller now. I didn't catch those copyvios tho, I only saw the fair use ones. --User:Iamunknown 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done & thanks -- Herby talk thyme 08:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Unwatched" pages
Any admins know anything about this. For me it gets to 5000 which is only up to M or N and then stops. Is this normal, odd?? Thanks -- Herby talk thyme 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 5k is an imporvement, actually... the cache used to be 1k. Not the most useful list though, just watch RC :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks but you don't know why I was going thro it  -- Herby talk thyme 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * lol... I do now :) -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion runs
I know that this has been discussed before, but I am going to ask again. Can we please not delete tons of untagged images yet? I went through a lot of them earlier and began replacing some with my own works, duplicated works I found on Commons and I tagged a couple. One was the Ruby on Rails logo, so I used &#123;{logo}} and the others were 2-D chemical structures. On Wikimedia Commons, they are tagged as ineligible for copyright because they " [consist] entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." I followed suit and tagged a few 2D chemcial structures that I found. But only ones that used black text and straight black lines.

At any rate, if we could all invest our efforts either creating or finding replacements for these images, we could save a lot of valuable imagery here at Wikibooks. Please? User:Iamunknown 13:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration stalled
The "arbitration proceedings" involving User:Panic2k4, myself, and others seems to have stalled out. I will not be participating in any further proceedings on the matter, but the C++ book's authors are currently not working on the book, as they are waiting for some kind of resolution before work can start again. If someone (admin or otherwise) would be willing to mediate the situation, I think that would be helpful. -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I don't understand. Not all the plaintiffs have submitted rebutalls. Or is the arbitration stalled because the involved parties are no longer willing to participate? --User:Iamunknown 03:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Request
Hi,

I created a bunch of templates for inclusion in a couple of different modules. I was later enlightened that these should be in the main namespace rather than in template namespace, so I moved them. Basically all of these need to be deleted if they are italicized. I still use Ay_prerequisite, Ay_division_legend, and Ay_camping_grade_level, so please don't delete those. There are more elsewhere too, but I'm not quite ready for them to go the way of the dodo yet. Thanks. Jim Thomas 01:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Orphaned fair use images

Delete the five images at. They are all images uploaded to be used under fair use but are orphaned. --Iamunknown 20:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fighting Game Moves

 * Please consider deleting Fighting Game Moves. It is has been totally split up at WikiKnowledge. (See the deletion log.) The Computer game department is the head of the split, but I don't think that a link to a non-content page &mdash; even if it is related &mdash; is wise. The user is looking for content, not administration. Cheers, User:Iamunknown 09:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder, however, if it shouldn't be deleted and instead should be a list of links to the appropriate pages at WikiKnowledge. &mdash; User:Iamunknown 22:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I reckoned someone else would answer this but when I asked the question when I started here I think I was told that it allowed people to be pointed in the right direction or similar. That said I agree with you - not a good advert for WB content -- Herby  talk thyme 08:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consider including a link to The Book Exchange Network (TBXN.com) in Special:Book Resources. TBXN is a free resource for college students to buy books from each other or from online vendors.  The link to an ISBN would be in this format: http://www.tbxn.com/isbn/nnn where nnn is the ISBN number. E.g. http://www.tbxn.com/isbn/031239019X

Regarding redirects
Look at Special:Wantedpages. Many of those pages are the deleted redirects when the original page was moved and the redirect deleted. I haven't found any recently deleted ones, so I don't know if administrators generally do that or if that is a thing of the past. Regardless, please do not delete the redirects without first bypassing them. Even then, however, I think we start to use some soft redirects especially (or maybe only) for established Wikibooks. Many old Wikibooks use the old naming convention. But there are interwiki and extrawiki links that we should be concerned about. Regards, User:Iamunknown 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam bot pages
If you come across one of these it is worth checking the block log as well as contribs (which may be nil if they have all been deleted). I found one today that I had blocked previously for the same offence and so placed a longer block - if I hadn't checked it I might have merely deleted the page (the same page arrived on a number of other Wikis at the same time from the same IP btw). Might just be me but thought it was worth a mention -- Herby talk thyme —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herbythyme (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 January 2007  (UTC)