Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2010/July

Request project notice
I request that a project notice (box at the top) be created about the changes to the general discussion (regarding proposals) or about my proposal, since most people will not have the new location on their watch list. Thanks. --Panic (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done-ish. I have updated the notice so that it announces the reorganization of the reading rooms and invites editors to join in the discussion about proposals. A project notice about the icons used at the RfD seemed a little out of place to me, so I hope this more generic announcement is satisfactory. Thenub314 (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you seem to have made a grammatical mistake. 'All discussions' should be a third person plural which means there should be no 's' after 'take'. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you sorry! Well done and thank you. I have corrected it now, let me know if you spot any other mistakes. Thenub314 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, even if I don't see it (using classic skin here). In any case stating that my proposal is about icons is the same as stating that the barnstar proposal is about finding a solution for the project lack of participation. --Panic (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe people don't participate because there's no sense of community with few developing WikiProjects to join together collaborators, a hostility toward personalizing one's user page with userboxes, and no feel-good awards for people to give each other for helping to improve the collective state of the project. – Adrignola talk 12:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The first one is intrinsic to the project nature, I don't think that it is fixable in a consistent way and the few we are the more difficult it will be to turn it around from inside. For the rest I disagree with your view point, I've heard people stating that they don't like them and don't need them (a sentiment that I share) but I haven't noticed anyone objecting against the liberty of others to pimp their user pages how they see fit. Did I miss something ? --Panic (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe Wikibooks needs to develop its own personality to give people a sense of community. Maybe that is why few develop WikiProjects, use userboxes, and suggest rewards. How about BookClubs instead of WikiProjects? How about bookboxes instead of userboxes? Medals have already been discussed as a possible alternative to barn stars. The theme seems to learn more towards developing our own approaches and not simply copying what Wikipedia has done.
 * A WikiProject is a way to bring together participants that work on related articles, but all those Wikipedia articles are part of a single work. Wikibooks has multiple works, so Wikibooks would benefit from a different approach, one that involves taking into account that Wikibooks already has book-level participation and discussions without WikiProjects. A book club discussions many books, which would be a level above book-level discussions.
 * User boxes on Wikipedia seem to often be random and unrelated to Wikipedia in some way. I guess maybe some people at Wikibooks feel that userboxes should have some purpose. The babel boxes let people know what languages a person knows. Book boxes could let people know what kind of books people read and might be able to help with. --dark lama  12:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Borrowing certain things from Wikipedia lowers the barrier to entry for encouraging people who edit there to contribute here as well. You can have userboxes that describe a book as Xerol describes below.  WikiProject Languages is an example of how a WikiProject can have a scope unique to the project it is on. WikiProjects are not Wikipedia-specific. – Adrignola talk 16:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there's a way to facilitate inter-wiki groups, perhaps on meta. It might require a bit of micromanagement (especially at first if people don't have SULs set up) but that might really get people involved. In the case of the languages project, people on wikibooks would collaborate with people on wikipedia and wiktionary to get all the appropriate pages up to date with information that's both relevant inter- and intra-project. Xerol Oplan (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Duplode had gotten interwiki WikiProjects stated as the best possibility when he went to Wikipedia to recruit for Wikibooks. People complained about the lack of an interwiki watchlist, however.  There is a proposed WikiProject to foster such collaboration: w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cross-wiki collaboration.   – Adrignola talk 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Duplode's spirit also inspiried me to go project specific, but to no real avail. If your curious the conversation is archived here. Thenub314 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like one of the easiest ways to combine a few approaches is to have userbox-type boxes for particular books they've contributed to on more than a minor scale. Of course it's not really that enforcable so if someone wants to put on their page that they're a major contributor to a Quantum Physics book when they don't even know what a proton is we can't do much about it. (I guess we could, but it's effort that could be much better used elsewhere.) On a higher level, a way for contributors to groups of related books to congregate and collaborate would be nice. I could see groups for Mathematics, Languages, Physical Sciences, etc. forming and encouraging cross-book collaboration would also go a long way to having more polished works on WB. Quick note, I know books are supposed to be largely independent from each other but I personally find it difficult to look at two books in one subject area (but different subjects) that are completely different in presentation. I can't find it now but I also seem to remember there being some kind of vandal patrol group years back (2005 or so), a couple groups like that for various cleanup tasks (RC patrol, reviewers, war on orphans, to name a few) would perhaps get more people on board with those tasks. Xerol Oplan (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That group's still there, at WB:CVU. – Adrignola talk 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block 98.177.155.42
Repeated page blanking. Xerol Oplan (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ –   15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block 67.8.184.67
Intentional vandalism of pages. --Panic (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ --dark lama  20:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block Jojipauljoseph
Intentional and deceptive vandalism of pages. --Panic (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done. I already had to revert them twice and warned them twice. It's no longer a case of being new or making a mistake.  I tried assuming good faith but yes, now it appears that the edits are intended to break things. – Adrignola talk 12:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved existing photo to the commons, and updated it their
I moved wikibooks:Jeepbody1.png to wikimedia:Jeepbody1.png, so i could upload a new version with step numbers to match the text. I tried to use the commons helper tool, but it seemed unable to do the task; but it gave me the templates I needed to put in to the commons version of it.

I've marked the one here at wikibooks with \{\{nowcommons\}\} and am wondering if I need to do anything further in order to have the original removed, and have the one at the commons become visible here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearts (discuss • contribs)


 * I have deleted it for you, so you should be able to see the Commons version here now. You may have to flush your cache though. --Jomegat (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, It is now visible from the book page. thanks! Pearts (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to use CommonsHelper to move to Commons directly, you need to sign up for at TUSC account. Otherwise you can only copy the templates and have to upload manually.  Alternatively, you can make a request here and I'll prioritize it over my other efforts to push files to Commons. – Adrignola talk 12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did sign up for a TUSC account, but commons helper kept complaining that the image did not have a compatable license to permit moving it to the commons.. I tried to add a more recient template to it, but the commons helper did not find what it was looking for. Any ideas on what is missing? Pearts (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Somehow CommonsHelper has been adjusted for our templates here, despite differences in usage between here and Commons. The Blender 3D screenshots, for instance, use, while they have to be changed to use  at Commons.  I see you put the latter on the page before the move.  The former is what will appear valid to CommonsHelper. – Adrignola talk 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block 202.45.119.19
Intentional vandalism. --Panic (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done. Blocked for two weeks and cleaned up the cruft. – Adrignola talk 11:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)