Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2008/September

New book proposal subject to peer review
Hello to all,

First I'd like to thank everyone for their support and vote to keep the Optimal Classification article. I have returned the application example to the main page and added a computational example section.

Because two papers I have published at the Wikia are under peer review (Check and Rapid sort routines and A Method for Simulating the Process of Logical Human Thought) it is sometimes difficult to make any contribution anywhere without it being considered original research.

However, with the inclusion of a working example in a book here of the Rapid sort routine I was wondering if a number of you might be willing to do a peer review of the Check and Rapid sort routines so that it could be published here in full?

Thanks again for your votes to keep the Optimal Classification article. Typative (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can do that - none of us are experts on the subject (so far as I know). Even if someone were to be an expert, the paper would need to be published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal before it would be something we can reference. Wikia doesn't count (at least not in my books). I think the statement "it is sometimes difficult to make any contribution anywhere without it being considered original research" is telling. If you're having difficulty, perhaps it would be best to wait until there is more material published from which to draw. As a scientist, your first stop should be a journal, not a wiki. After getting published, you'll have something you can reference here. But perhaps someone will disagree with my view of what is needed here. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 10:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is inviting you to do peer review without proper credentials. You are being invited to do a peer review only if you have the proper credentials.
 * Because the very purpose of the Wikia is for publication of original research it is not also used as a reliable reference. However, that does not mean there is a lack of unreliable, but verifiable sources, such as the National Enquirer and books with blank pages which can be referenced as verified sources. My experience is that no one involved with a Wikimedia project is required to tell the truth or required to read any reference, including a closing administrator.
 * Once published in the Wikia it is easy for anyone with a grudge to falsely claim everything else an author writes is original research. That is the difficulty to which I am speaking.
 * Peer review and publication by a real world publisher often includes a contract that requires a copyright which would prevent publication here. After being peer reviewed and published elsewhere there will be nothing that can be legally published here to reference. Typative (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mike. As we keep having to tell people wikibooks is  not a place for original research.  And until a paper is published in a reputable scientific journal that's exactly what it is.  Also I think that writing a textbook about your own theories seems a little like self promotion to me.  If you have already published them elsewhere then what does it add by writing a textbook about them here? --AdRiley (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Academic Press is a highly respected and reputable publisher, yet in my experience that is meaningless compared to the opinion of more than one 19 year old Wikimedia project user. This may come as a shock but since open edit sources can be vandalized moments prior to viewing or updated moments later they can not logically be considered reliable sources even when under constant peer review. But you make a good point about self promotion and keeping a preface or an introduction which includes a statement by the author as to his personal motivation and purpose for doing a work separate and distinct from from the work itself. Typative (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is a conflict of interest, which was raised in the VFD. I have serious concerns about how appropriate it is for Typetive to be writing on this subject, especially since this work has yet to be published in a repuatable peer-reviewed journal. We have no policy or guideline on this problem, but common sense tells me this is the sort of situation we should strongly discourage. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 21:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What is a conflict of interest? Optimal Classification is not original research and the accusation that it is, is not based on fact. Claiming that use of pseudo code in an article to elucidate and make clear the mathematical notation or examples used in the reference is not original research and to say that it is only casts doubt on the validity of the accuser's motive and qualifications. Typative (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I might mention that the Wikipedia forever forfeited the opportunity to host Optimal Classification due to the failure of anyone there supporting its deletion to read the primary reference, tell the truth and to not practice religious and sexual discrimination. Typative (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, I don't think it's really a good thing to be accusing people on Wikipedia of all sorts of discrimination. It certainly doesn't help here and it's not important so don't make it a part of this discussion.
 * Notions of "Verifiability" and "Original Research" have always had a far different meaning and different connotations here then it has on Wikipedia. Considering the rich diversity of projects in the WMF, and they're widely differing attitudes about "original research", it seems strange to hold everything to Wikipedia's standards. We are very tolerant of original research here, and I strong recommend we maintain that standard. We not only tolerate, but actually encourage authors to utilize novel and experimental presentation methods for material in their books. We require only that material in a book be verifiable by the reader. Therefore, it makes no difference whether Typetive is indeed an unpublished author in this area, because readers can take him to task over any unfounded or unsupported claims that he makes. Plus, if he doesn't provide all the necessary supporting background, he isn't really writing a book and this will be deleted as being some kind of article or essay.
 * If we are going to delete this book, we're going to delete it because it's fundamentally flawed, not a book, or some other kind of garbage. I really can't condone deleting quality book-like material just because we worry the author studies, researches, or practices the material in his daily life. If it's not a copyvio, obvious quackery, or some other nonsense, we should give it time to develop and mature before we start throwing stones. If we do deem it to be inappropriate at that later time, we can discuss whether and where to move it, as we always do. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Whiteknight for your very thoughtfully comments. I apologize for assuming sexual discrimination based on the fact that Wang used his real name and my assumption that he must have assumed the female pseudonym I used was real. However, my comment regarding religious discrimination is based on the fact that Wang told me his decision to nominate the Optimal Classification article for deletion was based on his disagreement with my religious convictions, which inspired my Wikia article and therefore believed it to be a hoax. He also claimed Optimal Classification was original research based on not having ever heard of Optimal Classification himself or of Dr. Rypka's method. He did not read the primary reference as instructed.
 * To help defend the book I created here from future attack I added a computational example. To my extreme delight I discovered that in preforming the multiset count step and displaying the results I had also created a working example of the Rapid sort routine which I published in the Wikia. With a working example created by accident (or by subconscious endeavor) but a working example nonetheless I feel the time for peer review of the Rapid sort routine has ended; that the time for it to be published some where it can be referenced without fear of reprisal has begun. Typative (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whiteknight, there is a difference between self-verifying information as might be found in Knots or Introduction to Crochet or The GIMP and technical information such as is being discussed here. (I should be clear, I don't think the book need be deleted.) What I'm saying is that Typetive should be very careful to source information he adds to this book; where that is impossible (ie it hasn't been published yet) it should either be published first or not included where such information is not self-verifying. One could say that the research I do is self-verifying as well: "All you need to do is get Deaf people in an EEG and perform this series of tasks and analyze the ERPs like this - then you'll see!" But that is not "self-verifying" by any reasonable definition. It may be the case (I do not know) that this subject is something which can be called self-verifying - if that's the case, then I see no serious issue. However, at first blush it seems to be a rather technical subject with "a large area of research" which readers should not be expected to verify themselves. I might be wrong. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mike, I did not make the statement in my prior response that you have the situation reversed, however, that is the case. I am not referencing my work in the Wikia here but referencing the self-verifying example here from over there. Had I not gone through the deletion process and ended up doing the computational example to back up the validity of the equations I may not have realized the multiset count step was missing or realized the opportunity it provides to validate the Rapid sort routine for many years, if at all. Consequently, surviving the deletion process and then adding the computational example as a wheel chock to provide any reader with the means to verify and validate the authenticity of the equations for themselves turned out to be highly beneficial for the original research I did in developing the Rapid sort routine. It is entirely coincidence that one of the steps used in the Optimal Classification computational example lends itself so perfectly as a real world example of using the Rapid sort routine, but it is reality nonetheless. Typative (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike, sorry if I misread you. I agree that we can be judicious about what we call "verifiable", and there is a difference between things that can be verified with a piece of rope or some time in front of the GIMP, and things which require graduate-level theory. I've already said on a number of occasions that there are a few requirements for this book to remain here in the long term, not the least of which involves Typetive adding the necessary background information to his book to support his high-level information that's there now. Books obviously need to be more then just a single article on a single topic. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It may turn out to be there are no other Optimal Classification methods than Dr. Rypka's. Frankly, I did not go searching for any but rather for applications such as developing an entirely new and different database for soils. Soil is a bounded class with attributes in common which is virtually impossible for the laymen in a timely manner to easily identify using current soil taxonomy schemes. All that is needed is to find those common attributes and to provide names or numbers for their states. Other Optimal Classification methods are certainly welcome but I may not be the one who seeks them out.
 * Currently there is a tag requesting the book be broken into pages which I had done previously for the application example. However, a user then suggested the application example was better left inline. After developing the computational example I decided to start from scratch and put both of them inline. I really have no preference here but suggest that a book, especially a book which utilizes online Internet capability, need only have a page number marker after a fixed number of words so that if the reader is called away or there is a power failure that they can return to the last page they were on yet can also find where they were last by scrolling to that point rather than having to get there by clicking on page after page.
 * I have no problem with chapter breaks but have not yet learned how to utilize the system preferred here for breaking chapters and pages. In either case doing anything only for its own sake may not be the best idea, even though I find some online publications which emulate their printed counterpart to be quite entertaining. Typative (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Breaking pages up is not just for its own sake. Some browsers limit just how much text can be displayed or edited in a textbox, and not everyone has a broadband connection. Breaking content up into smaller chapters, allows more people to contribute and to read the book. Chapters are just pages that being with the book name like Optimal Classification/Introduction or Optimal Classification/History. How to split the book up into chapters is up to you and any other contributors to the book. --dark lama  01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * &#8617;

Okay, I used the Chess book as a guide. Take a look at it now. Typative (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

edit break
outdent Yeah, that looks better to me. I wonder whether all the links to Wikipedia should instead be subpages themselves - are those subjects you are going to cover in the book? If so, I recommend leaving a red link. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 02:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The Wiktionary and the Wikipedia are internal project resources and if there is a word or topic that needs clarification or to be given the right context up front then it is far better to take advantage of the expertise and knowledge they provide than to replicate it myself. I will only provide more in depth clarification myself here if it is not provided there. In a few weeks DONE! I hope to have a .gif ready to illustrate the "cover". I am relying on questions from readers being posted to the discussion page to go beyond what I now have planned, which is currently limited to parceing of each equation and adding more graphics. The online version of Scientific American or the National Geographics is what I would really like to do. Typative (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly concerned about your comment about "Scientific American or the National Geographics". What exactly do you mean by that?  Correct me if I am wrong, but are they not both monthly magazines rather than textbooks?  --AdRiley (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not have the difference between magazine and textbook in mind when I made the comment. The difference I had in mind is the similarity between the printed version and the online version in terms of layout with pictures, tables and diagrams interspersed throughout the text. If you intend to emulate the printed version of a textbook here with the same constraints of a 600 page book and 30 to 90 lines per page with graphics to neatly fit a desktop screen then perhaps the formatting could be done by several hundred bots according to established WB:xxx rules, leaving the author with the sole task of concentrating on content accuracy, etc. rather than formatting and layout, However, just like intentional misspellings sometimes an override is necessary to assure that the author's intended meaning is not mangled by a dictatorial speller or a format, layout and grammar dog. The Chess book offers a pdf file format version which seems to already provide such matching capability so maybe it is really a mute point or a point for having yet another file format which can be downloaded by users. Typative (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked from Wikipedia
Hi!

I badly need help. I am developing a section of the book with the generic title iStuff to cover things such as iPod, iPhone, iBook, and so on.

No sooner had I created a page with the title I-stuff on Wikipedia than it was deleted (within 10 minutes). I recreated it... It was immediately deleted. Upon second try I was blocked from Wikipedia.

I regard this as very unfair.

Can you help?

(Михал Орела 10:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Perhaps after the page was deleted the first time you should have stopped to work out why before just recreating it. Perhaps have a discussion with whoever deleted your article as to why they did and what you could change to make it more suitable?  I'm sure that they had a reason to delete it and simply recreating the article doesn't change that reason.  I'm afraid that wikipedia and wikibooks is not suitable for all content and I recommend that you read  What is Wikibooks to ensure that your content is suitable here.  --AdRiley (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We cannot help you with respect to your block at Wikipedia. Please discuss such issues with the administrator who placed the block. I should note that the content you describe is inappropriate for Wikipedia.
 * As for Wikibooks, AdRiley's suggestion to double-check that your content is appropriate for Wikibooks should be heeded. You may want to search for books on similar topics; I think we have already a book on several Mac products, but I can't seem to find it ATM. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 15:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not being an administrator here and this not being a reference desk I am making the following comment simply because the question caught my eye. Wikipedia user sandboxes are utilized for this purpose. Once you have the article up and running then you can move it onto a public page with its final name with little risk of deletion for incompleteness or a bot interpreting it as spam. Typative (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is very little that we can do about wikipedia here at wikibooks. Although it does seem a little bit harsh to block you that quickly, you should have probably asked why they deleted it. You can protest your block if you feel that it is unfair.-Red4tribe (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New Meta Logo - Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
Hi, Can someone update the meta logo on the main page per m:Meta:Babel/Wiki_logo. The new logo is Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg. Thanks 203.122.240.118 (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling help
The class from Dominion University which will be beginning the latest version of Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education have created accounts and userpages. I've been patrolling them (and sometimes giving a few pointers on wiki markup:  ) and welcoming the users. If a patroller or admin has available time, I could use some help. The usernames are something like Abcde123, and they will normally have a few paragraphs of text on the userpage describing themseves and their teaching philosophy (actually, fairly interesting to read) - please mark the userpage as patrolled, then add to the userpage, moving any prior comments to a generic section as applicable.

Thanks for your help! &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 13:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

move in a different direction
After due consideration it now appears to me that Optimal Classification should become a chapter in a book on classification rather than being a book itself with other chapters on temporal classification or the type of classification use for soil taxonomy. What is the best way to go about doing this? Typative (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a great idea. I always recommend that you take some time to write up an outline first for your new book, so you know all the things you want to include before you actually start writing. That way you can stay more focused with a plan, and things don't come out so free-form. Plus, having an outline helps to define some things like the scope of your book, which will prevent it from sprawling endlessly as new materials are added. Some points:
 * If you need to make a new book, do that. If you need to make two or three new books, do that. As the author, you get to pick the best way to present your information, and you want to do it right.
 * Try to answer a few important questions first:
 * What is the title of your book?
 * What is the target audience?
 * What is the scope, how much do you want to try to squeeze into a single book?
 * Do you need any help with all this?
 * We have a few resources that you can look at when starting a new book: Using Wikibooks, which has a section for authors, and my personal new book notes which I've compiled from my time and efforts here. I also have a few javascript tools that can help automate some of the processes you're going to need to follow, if you are interested in that. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, yes I think that is the best way to proceed. I'd like to start a new book from scratch entitled "Classification" with help in setting up the layout so that it best conforms to prescribed Wikibook layout and once that is done add the current book on "Optimal Classification" to it as a chapter along with other possible chapters such as "Temporal Classification", etc. Typative (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)