Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2010/June

How can I use HotCat in Wikibooks
I've checked; apparently it's not in the gadgets part of my preferences. Do I need to apply for a right for it? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * HotCat isn't an enabled gadget here. I think HotCat would need to be heavily modified to make sense. Basically a HotCat gadget for Wikibooks would need to restrict suggestions for pages in a book to categories beginning with the book name, filter out all book categories and book subcategories for book's main page, and be able to suggest the right category name in border cases where there are two categories because there is a subject and a book by the same name. I think there is more involved in categorizing things here that isn't going to be easy to automate with HotCat, and I think using HotCat as is will harm any attempt to have a consistent and usable category system. --dark lama  13:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea, but it is possible to use HotCat in its WP form from WB by adding the following to Special:MyPage/monobook.js:

importScript('User:TheDJ/Gadget-HotCat.js', 'en.wikipedia.org');
 * --Yair rand (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

rules of management
i'd like to know about a rule in management called (let them do mistakes)
 * You can read the books from here to find out. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 08:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

contributions highlited in yellow
Hi. I am new to Wikibooks so forgive me if this question occurs a lot and/or is stupid. I have been contributing a lot to General Chemistry, specifically the section entitled 'Electrochemistry'. My edits on that section of the Wikibook are displayed after I save my changes. However, when I click on 'my contributions', I notice that those edits have a light yellow background (Special:Contributions/Backward). What does this mean? -- back ward  19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I appears as a light pink for me, but that indicates that your edits have not yet been reviewed. Given that most pages haven't had any revisions to them reviewed at all, everyone's edits will have the tint in both the page history and in their contribution history.  Notice that it doesn't show up for the talk, Wikibooks, or user namespaces, as flagged revisions (as the system is called) is not turned on for those. After you make enough edits here, you will automatically gain the "editor" flag and be able to review both your own and others' revisions to a page, mostly to combat vandalism. – Adrignola talk contribs 19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the in-depth and quick response. Yeah, it is more of a light pink than yellow. I couldn't pinpoint the color :) -- back ward  19:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Funny, to me that colour is more like a shade of orange :) --Duplode (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) )


 * My hypothesis is that it's yellow for regular users, orange for "editors", and pink for "reviewers". We'd need a larger sample size to test this. – Adrignola talk contribs 18:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For me, it's anywhere from a strong orange to a very washed-out pink depending on the angle from which I'm viewing my LCD display. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Subgum Stir Fry Recipe Help Needed
Hi guys, I have a recipe question. I have a generic recipe that is based off what I believe is a unknown copyrighted source. The measurements are most likely different and the recipe is generic and different ingredients can be used. For example, the recipe calls for vegetables but those vegetables can be a ton of things. In my recipe, I use onions, broccoli, cauliflower, and carrots. Other vegetables can be used and I will include that in my recipe. Please let me know if I can post the recipe or not. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is your own version of a recipe, then you can include it. QU TalkQu 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge RfU into RfD?
It hasn't got any action for ages, so I think it's best to keep them both in a single page. On that bar on to the 'Deletion | Undeletion' can be changed to 'Deletion | Undeletion'. Thoughts? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Although RFU is very lightly used, RFD is fairly heavily used &mdash; and because of that heavy use, I'm inclined to oppose complicating the currently very simple TOC structure of WB:RFD. If the two pages were to be combined, I'd hope it would be done in a way that didn't complicate the TOC structure.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The only way it could be done would be like Featured books/Nominations, with the more-active deletion section at the bottom, so when people click the "new section" button, it defaults to the bottom of the "for deletion" section. -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Adrignola's idea is great. I think the TOC won't be much affected. After all, the RfUs don't really get much attention so one would focus on the top part. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On consideration, I support this idea. Put the active section RFD at the bottom, and the seldom-used section RFU above.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done. – Adrignola talk contribs 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A thought experiment
Suppose that we had User:Josteingaarder as a member of Wikibooks. Should he attempt to write Sophie's World here, would we accept it as being within project scope? (P.S.: 1. Since this isn't a realistic scenario anyway, focus on the supporting arguments instead of just on the final answer. 2. In case you didn't read the book you may find skipping the spoilers/plot summary a good idea...) --Duplode (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is Wikibooks? states very succinctly that "Wikibooks does not allow original works of fiction or literature". -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to cast into doubt the worth of that policy (or even to claim that having that sort of book would be a good idea), but rather promote reflection on the rationales behind it - or, in other words, expand on the "very succinctly". For instance, a possible (if not necessarily valid) counter-argument in this case would be that the fictional elements in Sophie's World are to a large extent a didactic tool meant to support what is in essence a historical overview of philosophy. In fact, it is quite reasonable to use the chapters of the book as if they were part of an introductory philosophy textbook (assuming that you have gone through the whole book at least once, so that you don't get too distracted by the fictional elements). In fact, the book even has a back-of-the-book index to facilitate such usage. --Duplode (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A common statement I've heard made for content at Wikibooks is that if something could feasibly be a textbook for teaching a class on a subject, then it can belong here. The recent targeting of books in the religion, philosophy, and self improvement categories highlight some of the more vulnerable areas here.  While Wikibooks may not be as stringent on citations and references, at least the appearance of reliability is desired.  Fiction is not verifiable.


 * From my standpoint, for such a book as that described above to work in teaching philosophy, narratives illustrating various points would need to be made to be sidebars or separated from the rest of the text (italics, a box, etc.). Fictional accounts to illustrate a point would not be unheard of in a textbook; one I'm studying from right now has scenarios made up to demonstrate concepts.  But like my textbook, a book based off Sophie's World could not be primarily fiction. -- Adrignola talk contribs 00:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While "no original research" is one of the big, loud principles of this project, I think there is also another subtler, complementary meta-principle at work behind the scenes in this case. Wikibooks aspires to collaborative substance &mdash; not just superficial things like spelling corrections and wiki markup and such.  If the material is inherently driven by a primary author, then something is out of balance.  This meta-principle can be sensed, I think, beneath the surface of several items in WB:NOT, never perhaps as the primary motivation of any one item, but contributing to the unity of the whole nonetheless.  It's my understanding that collaborative fiction efforts in recent years always involve a moderator of some sort, because wide-open collaborative fiction was tried in the earlier years of the Internet and failed to produce coherence (though I seem to recall some of it was pretty funny).  So fiction implies a centralized model of authoring; and while NOR may be the most obvious force behind the prohibition against works of fiction, collaborative substance has its place in the rhyming scheme of the policy, too.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't clearly understand the level of emphasis you are putting in "Wikibooks aspires to collaborative substance". But by the rest of the post, I take that you feel that it is a bad thing/objectionable for (in general) a project on Wikibooks to be driven by a primary author (or evolve in a any type of hierarchical structure). Because you see it as an indication of lack of collaboration.
 * I think that this extreme view is erroneous in several ways and can lead into misunderstanding if promoted to the community. I clearly understand the issues regarding control and establishing hierarchies and mostly object to any move to establish them, having said that, we must also realize that such things work in degrees and aren't absolute terms, there are spheres of interests that are in themselves of reduced participation. We already have some hierarchies on Workbooks and we already exert some levels of control, the real issue it only in keeping the two apart and enforce consensus.
 * In the first place "aspires to" doesn't create an obligation and most importantly, collaboration can't be enforced on a volunteer basis. This should be obvious to all (but taking in consideration past discussion it isn't)
 * Collaboration should be promoted at all times and refusal to enable the participation of others should be meet harsh criticism if not part of already established rules. But collaboration is a lower priority, we could even say a byproduct of the system. Considering the requirements and particularities of Wikibooks, the history of the project, Wikibooks is after Wikisource one of the projects less dependent on collaboration, nor is this bad or good, it just is.
 * Promoting collaboration as a goal is fine but as a requirement is just false, we have ample profs of it. We could even argue that too much collaboration can become interference and has been a cause problems but that is another discussion. I just wanted to offer a counterbalance the above post. --Panic (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Aspirations do not a policy make. Verily.  But recognition of aspirations can be enlightening.  And yes, I too have noticed how easily people can fail to notice that they're trying to mandate volunteerism.  My intent was to focus not on arrangements that happen to occur in a book, but those that are inherent in the nature of the book.


 * If I write a travelogue about my experiences in hiking across the Andes, then it's inherent in the premise of the book that only I can determine valid substance for it, though someone else might help with mechanics and formatting. That one's called "original research", and probably belongs on a blog.


 * If I write a book that's the unadorned text of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, then valid substance is determined by the original Essay, leaving only superficial work for others, including me this time. That one's called "text repository", and presumably belongs on Wikisource.


 * But, if I write a book about the use of quaternions in physics, and a few other people help out a little work on it but they all defer to my vision of how the book should be &mdash; and halfway through the book I get run over by a bus, but I left the book with enough suggestion of where I was going with it to be useful to someone else wishing to adopt it later &mdash; then maybe months or years later someone else will pick up that book and recast it somewhat for their vision that's different from mine, and they'll push forward and others who help out will defer to them. There was one primary author, and that may in fact have been an asset by giving the book a clear direction, but it wasn't objectionable (as long as it was voluntary on everyone's part) because the identity of the primary author wasn't inherent in the nature of the book.  --Pi zero (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as a curious question: Is this post supposed to be related to the Rfd of Lohse, Martin? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been approaching this thread as an exploration of deep principles underlying WB:WIW. I didn't have Lohse, Martin specifically in mind.  In fact, actually contemplating the way my (clumsily articulated) "collaborative substance" meta-principle relates to that specific case, I have a feeling... it doesn't illuminate that specific case at all.  Trying to apply it there may actually make the case harder to think about.  Interesting.  The difficulty may be that the meta-principle, as a contributing element in the formation of the policies themselves, is at a different level of abstraction from the policies.  As if one were discussing whether roses are out of place in a certain flower garden, and in the midst of talking about color schemes and seasonal patterns one tried to bring electrons into the discussion.  Also, the single meta-principle alone may be producing an unbalanced picture because, at its level of abstraction, there are other meta-principles involved that are not being taken into account.  Even the policies that it contributes to are not only about it.  WB:NOR, WB:HOST, etc. aren't just refinements of "collaborative substance".  --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting arguments, from all of you. While, strictly speaking, I do not see any original research in Sophie's World (which would be the case if Gaarder tried to present a novel philosophical system - whether using fiction as a tool or not), the "collaborative substance" issue is certainly pertinent. The objection Panic raised to that concept is an important one to think about. A proper textbook must have internal consistence, logical articulation between its chapters and, in most cases, a well-defined didactic approach. Such features demand that all co-authors share an unified vision of how to build the book. But wouldn't that work against the "collaborative substance" principle, given that the unified vision is in nearly all cases set by a single main author or by a small group of people? Is Wikibooks a paradox?


 * The solution to that dilemma, which had been bothering me for a while, is implicit in Pi zero's travelogue/repository/quarternions example. An unified vision can coexist with full-fledged collaborative writing as long as that vision can be expressed objectively. A travelogue can't possibly fit WIW because the vision of the traveller is too strongly based on subjective elements (his experiences and feelings during the trip) and subjectivity is by definition something difficult to share and argue about, especially through the Internet. To a slightly lesser extent, that would apply to a full-fledged fictional work as well (although, back to the hypothetical example, I do not think it would be entirely unreasonable to think of people writing new Sophie/Alberto dialogues about philosophers not covered by the original book, kinda like in a "fanfic". But I digress).


 * The key "meta-principle" at hand, therefore, would be that it must be possible to state objectively the principles, goals and conventions behind the composition of a Wikibook. Such a principle is indeed clearly distinct from other foundational issues such as "openness to collaboration", or concrete policies like "no original research". My take on the "levels of abstraction" issue is that the more we are able to think, and write policies, in terms of meta-principles the better.


 * P.S.: This provocation has a bit to do with all the RfDs on humanities and arts we had over the last few weeks. That includes Lohse, Martin too, although subjectivity is not really a fundamental issue in that case (in principle it should be possible to discuss the works of Martin Lohse in an objective way). Also, it is important to realize that even with a strong meta-principle there are many subtle points that make decisions difficult. For instance, even things that we would intuitively assume as objective can be developed by an author in a way that they become indistinguishable from subjectivity for future contributors. See Requests_for_deletion for a clear example of that. --Duplode (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me begin by warning that I'm only 12, and most probably the youngest of Wikibooks regulars (though if I'm not, do tell me! :) I'm turning 13 in 4 months btw.) Besides, I am a non-native speaker and I'm not familiar with Western culture. Therefore I may not be able to explain this 'philosophy' in a rational way. However, my opinion would be that if a book is written in a style that would otherwise be impossible to be followed by others, that book wouldn't be a good one. That's because we are writing for our readers; making a book too obscure, especially a textbook, will make the reader confused when the reader comes across things that are closer to the 'norm'. As for the OR thing, I think it's pretty straightfoward: If it's unverifiable, delete it. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What comes to my mind is Logicomix. In many ways it sounds similar to Sophie's world, but it goes in the other direction. That is it is meant to use actual history and philosophy to create "a good yarn."  Rather then intending to teach, it is meant to entertain.  But you might not be left with that impression reading it.  While I find these books approach creative and clever. I don't think they are appropriate for wikibooks.  Mostly because if I encountered such a book it would never be clear to me if facts were being change to support the fiction or vice versa.  Generally, I think Sophie's world falls outside if what I find verifiable.  (I am guessing, having not read the book).
 * Also generally speaking I do think books here need to have a high degree of "collaborative substance". I generally think the scenario that Pi Zero sets out is a fine example of what it could mean.  Though I would caution an editor against starting a book with a very unusual point of view on a subject, I would by no means think anything should stand in their way, but Beginning Mathematics has made me less optimistic about such books. Thenub314 (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reject ArbCom proposal
See Wikibooks talk:Arbitration Committee. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Handbook of Management Scales/Executive Commitment
I wonder if anyone could please remove Handbook of Management Scales/Executive Commitment to Handbook of Management Scales/Executive commitment (small c!) and also change the link to that page. 92.225.83.175 (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 07:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Next time just go ahead, create an account, and after 4 days you'll be able to move the page. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 07:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

download pdf not working?
i'm trying to download a book in pdf, it do'snt seem to be working help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydnar1957 (discuss • contribs)
 * Are you trying to save it via a collection or from a File:blah.pdf page? You can usually right-click on certain links and choose to save the file to your desktop.  If you can be more specific on which PDF you're trying to download, I can be more specific in my answer. – Adrignola talk contribs 18:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Software Books and software versions
This is an opportunity to stop a potentially major problem before it becomes one. As I very recently posted on a talk page for Inkscape (a piece of software that is continually undergoing heavy development) nowhere in the book does it mention what version of the software is being referenced. I checked around some of the other software books (especially those in Category:Open_source_software) and have found very few examples of any guidelines or procedures (trying very hard not to use the word 'policy' here) with respect to software versions. GIMP/Manual_Of_Style comes close (and is pretty much the very last line in the entire book) but there is still no outwardly obvious way for the end user to tell if a particular page is for one version or another of the software.

This can obviously lead to problems (as in the mentioned Inkscape) when a new version comes out, but pages are not updated. The problems are further compounded by the fact that a new version coming out doesn't invalidate the work for the old version, and complicated still when some features change significantly, some nearly invisibly, and some not at all, so a page may appear to be valid for the current version, when in reality it was written for a previous version and the implementation has changed slightly enough to make the page incorrect and even possibly appear deceptive.

Since such books make up a significant portion of the total content on WB, I think we need to come up with some guidelines for maintaining these books with respect to different software versions. It seems like way too much work to actually maintain a separate version of each book for each separate version of the software (compounded moreso by minor revisions). Categorization might be appropriate here but doesn't solve the problem of keeping around an older, but valid version of the page for older versions. Perhaps something can be done with RR to allow multiple valid, reviewed versions. I'm not sure what the best solution actually is, but that's what the discussion is for, right? Xerol Oplan (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm adding my first suggestion as a response (as the original post was getting lengthy). At the very least, as a stopgap measure, pages should use a template (as appropriate for the book) with the version number that the individual page is intended to cover, and perhaps a link to a "software versions" page with sections on each version covered by the book, and in the case of free/open source software an appropriate download link. In the event of major version changes (e.g. in the case of OpenOffice 2 vs. 3) a new book is probably more appropriate anyway. This could probably be accomplished by a single template if editors on different books can come to a consensus on a software versions page and adhere to a standard. Xerol Oplan (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you seen that software book at WB:RfD? You might want to comment there. ;) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Displaying clearly version information for software books would make a good editorial guideline. I don't know if multiple stable versions would work well (personally, I find FlaggedRevs to be confusing enough to start with), but standardized templates could really help to make things more transparent. The one observation I would make at this point is that the text in the templates shouldn't necessarily read like a deprecation warning, but rather like a plain notice - old books can sometimes be very useful as long as you are aware of how much it is outdated. Finally, I feel the need for having new books for major revisions should be evaluated case-by-case, but in general even in major version changes it is possible to build on the existing content (the example which springs to my mind is Java 1.4 -> 1.5 -> 1.6). If some page does become deprecated it can be moved into some "Legacy" section of the existing book. --Duplode (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are multiple versions of flagged revisions; they include, pristine, quality, and sighted. I've only seen the latter two possible to review in our configuration, however, and the drop-down selectors don't outwardly correspond to those values.  ("Featured quality" equals quality and is only available to reviewers, anything below is equal to sighted and available to editors.  By default, the latest reviewed revision is shown to logged-out users, but administrators can change that to show draft revisions by default (effectively turning off flagged revisions for the page) or showing quality revisions by default (requiring a reviewer to sign off on changes and setting the bar higher than an editor).  The nomenclature is all out of whack, as everyone can edit pages and even editors get a "review" link in recent changes, plus in a page history, sighted shows as "sighted" but quality shows as "validated".  And the three different areas (composition, area, coverage) are rarely differentiated between when sighting a page; usually the defaults of the lowest reviewed level are selected. We have a consistent two-month backlog at Special:OldReviewedPages, no matter how lenient we make the qualifications for "editors". The only good news is that the names "editors" and "reviewers" can be changed by administrators in the interface messages MediaWiki:Group-editor-member, MediaWiki:Group-editor, MediaWiki:Group-reviewer-member, and MediaWiki:Group-reviewer. -- Adrignola talk contribs 23:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it there's one thing that's always seemed a little problematic to me and that's comparing wikibooks to published books. Aside from a static PDF print version there's no real way to have a complete stable copy of a book from any one point in time. Using transcludes works if you want a full copy of the current book, but, aside from using subst: and maintaining several pages of those per book, it doesn't seem like something that would be very easy to keep up with (with the wiki software as-is). However we have to work with what we are given so here's my proposal:


 * Book editors/managers should explicitly state what version a book is for, either on the book's front page or on one of the first pages of the book.
 * Books should only cover one major version of a piece of software. Minor versions/updates can be dealt with in footnotes/infoboxes of some kind (something like a "Note: In version x.4 it works like this..." in a book which is substantially about version x.5).
 * Books covering minor versions/updates should keep the most recent version in the main text and differences from unupdated versions as side notes.
 * Major version changes (for example, FL Studio 8 vs. FL Studio 9) should be separate books. Barring changes to the wikimedia software, this seems like the only way to really have separate complete "editions" of a book. If the changes between major versions are not very large (e.g. the fundamental operation of the software is essentially the same) then a static version could be made with subst: inclusions, but this makes correcting errors difficult, and all pages of a book must be up-to-date with the old version and not yet updated for the new version.


 * This proposal is meant to affect existing books as little as possible while providing easy-to-follow guidance for new books. I'm not too attached to how #4 works right now, so if anyone has a better idea I'm all ears. Xerol Oplan (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While I am not opposed to anything in your proposal, it may be a bit too strict to call it a guideline. Perhaps it could become one of our essays which provide information about good practices and the like. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What about an addition to the Manual of Style, regarding books covering software... --Panic (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a good start. In other thoughts, it's not like there isn't precedent for making stable copies through substitution (some print versions already do that) but the difficult part would be keeping things up to date especially if errors needed to be corrected, and you lose wiki-navigation (although anchor links could still be used). It's just frustrating at this point because there's no way to work within the existing software to come up with a better way to do this, and my main goal is to keep it simple enough for book managers to keep up with. Pretty much every idea requires a good amount of work every time a page gets major changes, and even more if the software gets an upgrade. I think a lot of these issues, however, delve into book-by-book policy levels of detail, so I think the best thing to do now is to just dive in and start implementing it in practice to see how it works out. Xerol Oplan (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Languages
I would like to restart the inactive languages project. I personally think it's a shame that some potentially good learning resources have been left half finished for so long. Anyone who wants to be involved, name on project page and we'll se how we go. Italienmoose (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I added my comments on Wikibooks talk:WikiProject Languages. --Martin Kraus (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

strange lines near math displays.
I have recently noticed some strange horizontal and vertical lines appearing around the mathematics png generated by texvc. Am I the only one seeing this (ie is it a user/browser issue)? Here is an example of what I mean File:Strange_lines.png. Thenub314 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for others to check, the page in question is Linear Algebra/Topic: Projective Geometry. I've tested it myself with Firefox and Chrome and am unable to reproduce the lines in the picture. -- Adrignola talk contribs 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I use to see that happen with scaled images sometimes in older versions of firefox regardless of website. I'm not seeing that problem now though. The problem could be with an image rendering library used by firefox rather than firefox itself as well. --dark lama  21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Short update and work around. While I am still encountering this problem, it seems to be related to how "zoomed in"/"zoomed out" I am in firefox. That is the lines appear/disappear as I cycle through different zoom levels by pressing "CTRL +" and "CTRL -".  By returning to the natural zoom level (by pressing "CTRL 0") the problem disappears. Thenub314 (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did check when you first reported the issue and looked at it again now. I also use firefox (last release version), I increased and decreased the zoom and didn't noticed any issue (then and now). If no one can replicate the problem try checking your drivers for the video card (update) or any alteration you have done there and work your way up. --Panic (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it is listed as a "Known Issue" in the latest version of Firefox and seems to have been around for a while, but it only effects those users running Linux. It looks like it is slated to be fixed for Firefox 4.  For anyone interested in following the bug, the bug report is listed here. Thenub314 (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Syntax higlightning tuning (for Haskell)
The default GeSHi colour scheme for Haskell highlights literal strings with a hideously unreadable dark green background, as you can see, for instance, here. Could an admin please change it into something more reasonable? As far as I could figure out, adding

.source-haskell .st0 {background-color: #cdffcd !important }

to MediaWiki:Geshi.css will change it into a far less obtrusive light green (I tested it on my user .css and it worked). --Duplode (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done. I've made the change.  I trust the choice doesn't conflict with any other highlighting within the same language. – Adrignola talk contribs 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate userpages?
Once in a while, some users use their own userspace for myspace-like material. They may put their own personal profile or some kind of spam on their userpage. However, these actions cannot be justified as those users usually have no other edits. Should such userpages be nominated for deletion? If so, does it qualify for CSD, or will an RfD do? Thanks Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 05:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no consistent practice on that regard. I have for several times (IIRC 2x) cleared some offensive or clearly abusive page (like recently the use of a talk page for something that it wasn't designed for), I and others have also fixed some personal data, and warned users for the fact that they should be careful on what they share about themselves.
 * Except for clearly abusive content (offensive) I don't think that the userspace should be censored regarding support/attack to products or companies (without being clearly promotional or used for marketing campaigns). I would specially see as extremely problematic not differentiating users that do actual work on the project and those that do not. I would grant a higher leeway to those that active participate...
 * See this discussions Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/User:Indiaebooks User:Swapnil_durgade, Allowing Userspace Blogging?.
 * It has been several times repeated that we don't allow blogs on the userspace here, but that view was not based in practice or gathered consensus (IIRC Jimbo Wales even promoted the practice). I think we don't need more policies or guidelines to establish what is acceptable on the userspace. The policies and guidelines we have, already determine what is acceptable behavior on the project and an RfD will suffice to address any problematic issues with I expect some consistency (we can always use previous discussions as supporting arguments). --Panic (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think any user page you find inappropriate can be brought up at Rfd. It never hurts to encourage other people in the community to look at it and see what they think. I personally don't think user pages dedicated to spam are tolerable.  Other issues are a bit murkier and tougher to decided.  I seem to recall the "myspace-ness" of some user pages coming up when people were doing a vast cleanup of images here, but I can't remember what the outcome was or even if I am remembering correctly, maybe someone else will remember (Adrignola, did you start a discussion about images on user pages at some point or is my memory still too sleep deprived to be trusted?).  It seems to be the case that some of the books are based on university classes, and this classes strongly encourage (perhaps even require?!?!, I will with hold my opinion about this) students to start an account here and work on the book.  Since not all students to their assigned course work, and less do their suggested course work, this create a number of users who just have a user page and a few edits to it near the beginning of their course.  Because of the large group of editors this creates with little or no exposure to culture on a wiki, I think we should be lenient about some things. Thenub314 (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Many of my comments on the issue are at the RFD linked above. I will say that I believe common sense should reign, in that if a user's only edit is to create a page that is blatantly spam, I'm not going to waste people's time with an RFD.  I don't believe I started a full-blown discussion on images on user pages, but now that we're uploading to Commons, the policy there is that they only accept images that are educational.  Pictures of yourself would not necessarily be such.  However, they have an exception for those images used on a user page (see commons:Template:Userpageimage).  Abusing that by linking 50 from your user page to use Commons as a host for images linked elsewhere would be frowned upon.  As for the content of user pages, I leave that up to the user.  If you want barnstars and userboxes on your page, feel free; it's your page and the impression you're managing. – Adrignola talk contribs 12:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange things in Special:RecentChanges
It might be something I accidentally set on my preferences or my browser, but why did I start to see [pending edits] and [urneviewed] in brackets while RC patrolling? Mysterious. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be this. --Pi zero (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 08:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you sight all the pages you won't have to see those tags. More invasive than the exclamation point, these tags encourage editors and reviewers to pitch in. – Adrignola talk contribs 12:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AQA A-Level Physics
With all due respect to anyone who contributed to these pages, most of them are pretty poor. The pages on particle physics that I looked at this morning were riddled with errors and grammar that's so bad that even the most straight forward facts seemed confusing. I think that these pages could be a great resource for A-Level students (Having a free alternative to the textbooks sold by the exam board's chosen publishers would also be a big plus!), but no teacher in the land is going to direct their students to these pages as they stand.

I made a start on some of the pages, but the sheer volume of work that would be required to develop the existing stuff into an accurate and comprehensive resource is such that I really don't want to get started, only to have to leave everything half finished.

Is anyone else interested in developing these pages?

MalachiK (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you considered working on the OCR A-Level Physics book instead? That looks like it has progressed further than this one. Recent Runes (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, and it seems that there's more activity there as well. I was interested in the AQA book because this the specification that I teach - although I do wonder if there's a call for any general A-Level Physics book in the style of Muncaster or Nelkon & Parker.  Does anyone know if this has been discussed anywhere?  Anyway, I'll take a look at the OCR stuff some time and see if there's anything that needs doing. MalachiK (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance that someone could approve the edits that I made over a month ago on these pages? I annoys me to see such badly written copy giving the project a bad name and even though I've edited it - it doesn't change. And this is a policy to improve quality? MalachiK (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, since no one is around watching the articles who can speak to accuracy etc., I have removed the previous flagged revision at AQA A-Level Physics/Particles and Anti-particles/Constituents of the particle so now all changes should be immediately visible to all viewers. Your other pages had been sited by someone else before I arrived. We have quite a backlog in our Special:OldReviewedpages, so this seemed the most sensible option. Thenub314 (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs update on June 14
Hi everyone! As part of the Pending Changes feature rollout on en.wikipedia.org on 2010-06-14, we'll need to update the implementation of FlaggedRevs plugin that is in use on this wiki. We don't anticipate any problems or any reduction in functionality, but as with any new software, there may be unanticipated bugs. If you discover any problems, please report those changes at the Pending Changes issue page. Thanks! -- RobLa (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I was aware, the implementation proposed at en.wiki is significantly different from flagged revisions as we know it; hence Wikipedia's is flagged protection. I was under the impression that the version to be implemented at en.wiki only turned on for pages specifically selected by administrators, while here it's only turned off for pages administrators choose.  In fact, that's why I thought they changed the name for en.wiki, in that the extension would be unique to en.wiki.  I hope you've actually taken a look at how we're setup here. – Adrignola talk contribs 00:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The way that Wikimedia wikis work in production, we roll out a plugin to one wiki, we roll it out to all of them. There's been a lot of changes made to make the plugin work for English Wikipedia.  The main developer (Aaron Schulz) is quite aware of the different uses, and is pretty confident that this rollout shouldn't affect the other configurations, but I wanted to make sure we gave everyone fair warning that this change might affect the functioning of this wiki, only because it's impossible to test every permutation of functionality before rolling it out. -- RobLa (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree it is difficult to test every permutation, but equally there are only a handful of larger projects using FlaggedRevs (as I understand it), of which this is one of the biggest. So I'd hope the configuration used here was part of the testing... QU TalkQu 08:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: a couple hours ago I got a database error which mentioned PendingChanges while trying to edit a sighted page. The problem silently vanished after two minutes or so. --Duplode (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On a perhaps related note: I have been attempting to sight Calculus/Print version.  Unfortunately I keep getting errors each time I try.  I think the problem is fundamentally that the page is too long and is somehow causing timeouts.  I have encountered this type of problem before, but don't know of a work around yet. Thenub314 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, we're primarily testing the German Wikipedia configuration and the English Wikipedia configuration, which represents the two very different configurations. If you'd like to set up a test site of your own, the configuration files for the various wikis is here: http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/flaggedrevs.php.txt -- RobLa (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to configure the way your watchlist displays in the new flagged revs? I find the [unreviewed] and [pending] edits much more obtrusive than the red "!". The fact that the red ! still appears along with this new system is definitely overkill. Thenub314 (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Thenub. I still prefer the exclamation mark. Makes it simpler. KISS. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 08:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:FBN warning
Template:FBN warning. Per 33roger's proposal earlier. If it's redundant, will an admin please delete it? Thanks Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 06:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Turn off "unreviewed" markers for a specific wikibook?
My watchlist screams at me that most changes to the Haskell are unreviewed. However, I consider this a "bug", not a "feature".

In my opinion, the formal review system is way too fine grained to deal with current edit patterns; how am I supposed to judge the quality of a spell change or a change to part of a text that I'm not too comfortable with anyway? My criterion for inclusion is always "does no harm", and I check periodically for that.

Can we turn the review system off, at least for the Haskell wikibook? -- apfe&lambda;mus 08:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to the one a couple of sections up. It's messing up the RC! Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't know about the discussion above.
 * But I don't want the red exclamation marks either: I don't want the feature at all because it doesn't make contributing simpler or better, at least not for the Haskell wikibook.
 * -- apfe&lambda;mus 09:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the red exclamation mark. It clearly shows which edits are already approved so you don't need to go check it again. Isn't that great, no? Perhaps if you aren't a regular RC patroller you might find it annoying, so perhaps if there's a script you could put in your monobook that disables the function, that would be good. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth we are not the only folks who dislike this aspect of the interface, it seems wikinews, and huwiki have also complained. See here if you want to keep tabs on that conversation. I have added another section there mentioning some people here did not like the recent interface change. Thenub314 (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the invasiveness. Not enough people participate in the system.  As for the fine-grained-ness, I'd like to get a consensus on reversing the configuration to this wiki to return to the default of just having one drop-down selector for reviewing a page.  I seriously doubt anyone fine-tunes the three different rating categories for pages they review.  It's far easier to simply hit the Submit button using the defaults of the lowest-level for each of the drop-down menus.  Cut it down to one drop-down, with a basic level editors can review to and an advanced level reviewers/admins can review to.  That said, if everyone's ignoring the system (Special:OldReviewedPages), then maybe we should turn it off. – Adrignola talk contribs 12:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe 3 selectors is the default, just what is being measured was changed, unless the default has changed since I last looked. If we are going to change things, we could try simplifying it to one as you suggested, with something like a "Quality" selector with "Not reviewed/Unacceptable", "Minimal", "Average", and "Good". I imagine most people don't care to review books, but some books might want to have stable branches and this gives them the option. Nobody said that OldReviewedPages has to be checked. I think its just a case of people feeling compelled to do so because its there. --dark lama  12:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should only be three states: unreviewed, not vandalism, and undo/rolled-back (for vandalism). The bigger problem I see is that once a book gets flagged, only reviewers can sight it.  For new books, or for school projects, this is a major hurdle.  People make good-faith edits, and they are invisible.  With a class project, the volume of edits can be so heavy that no single person who is unconnected with the project can keep up.  Perhaps it would be better if it were a lot easier to become a reviewer (or is that editor - I can never remember the difference).  The danger, of course, is that if it's too easy, vandals slip through.  Maybe if a person got auto-promoted as soon as they had N edits that were approved by a reviewer?  Again, I dunno! Or maybe admins should be more proactive in granting reviewer/editor privs?  As in, "this person is doing legitimate work on a book; I will promote him/her." Another possibility would be to grant the privs on a per-book basis, but that is likely a code change rather than a settings-tweak. --Jomegat (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In the configuration file linked in the previous discussion (http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/flaggedrevs.php.txt), we can see that Wikibooks has a unique configuration override with three selectors. $wgFlaggedRevTags = array('composition' => 3, 'accuracy' => 2, 'coverage' => 2); instead of the default $wgFlaggedRevTags = array( 'accuracy' => 2 ); – Adrignola talk contribs 12:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jomegat the problem with that is the extension doesn't work that way, the options are ratings not states. If you think of star ratings with 0 being bad and 5 stars being good then anything in between is somewhere between bad and good. In other words Minimal is better than Unreviewed, Average is better than Minimal, and Good is better than Average. IMO the extension wasn't designed with its actual use by users in mind, or the extension developers was going about solving the problem the wrong way. In any case if all that is wanted is to mark pages as being free of vandalism, this extension is overkill, because its like using a jackhammer when all that is needed to hammer in a nail is a hammer. Wikinews seems to show the ratings as stars now actually.
 * Adrignola, That might be the Wikimedia wide defaults now. I was talking about Extension Defaults. --dark lama  13:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally only use it for marking pages as free from vandalism. The traditional patrol approach would be more designed for that, but flagged revisions was already in place before I started here, so I made do.  I've added CSS to the Common.css to hide the redundant marker for unreviewed pages in recent changes.  Please clear your caches. – Adrignola talk contribs 13:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that the desire to use it as a patrol substitute by some people was only learned about after there was consensus to enabled it. FlaggedRevs isn't useful as a patrol substitute, so I agree that the traditional patrol approach is better designed for that job if all that is wanted is to mark pages as being free from vandalism. FlaggedRevs is useful for reviewing page quality with ratings that reflect the quality of a page, and was designed to show the best quality revision based on which revision has the highest rating at any moment in time. If the unreviewed/minimal/average/good system were used, a revision marked minimal will be shown before any unreviewed revisions, a revision marked average will be shown before any revision marked as minimal, and a revision marked as good will be shown before any revision marked as average. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with the last sentence, only on technical grounds. That's only the case if the default settings are altered by an administrator.  Otherwise the latest reviewed revision, regardless of level of quality, is shown.  That's what I take from the default stability settings page: File:Revision configuration.png. – Adrignola talk contribs 14:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it we might of changed a configuration for it to be that way as well. I recall that we asked to have auto review turned off, so the latest stable version would be shown unless someone intentionally reviews a revision of a page. I think the default for Wikibooks is to show a stable revision if there is one, but an administrator can alter it to show the latest instead. I know I had to do that for the Main Page. If the default has indeed changed to latest revision maybe someone changed the default for Wikibooks without telling us? Also btw registered users can override the wiki wide default in their preferences. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * File:En-wikinews review ui.jpg shows the difference in the UI. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing my terminology (also it seems as though you referred to an page with no reviewed revisions as "stable", which is contrary to my thinking). The default still is to show the latest reviewed revision to unregistered users and the latest revision regardless of whether it's reviewed to registered users. My point is that if you have a featured-quality revision followed by a minimal-quality revision, the minimal quality revision will be shown to unregistered users unless settings are changed. – Adrignola talk contribs 14:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not calling a page with no reviewed revisions "stable", the latest revision is just shown which is similar to how I thought FlaggedRevs worked when there are reviewed revisions. I was not aware that a minimal-quality revision would override a featured revision. I thought only a new featured revision could override a featured revision. Are you sure that an unregistered user will see minimal-quality revision when a featured revision exists? --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark  lama  14:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Darklama, the screenshot of Wikinews has nothing to do with FlaggedRevs. The object in the screenshot is the feedback form, which readers, not editors, use to comment on the news article. The 'comments' part go to the comments namespace of Wikinews where people express their feelings about the news event, not about the article. Also, you do not appear to have reviewer rights on Wikinews, which means you may not be able to see whatever Wikinews uses for FlaggedRevs. (Me neither, so I'll try to contact Pi zero.) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See Flagged Revisions Test. In the history we have a higher-level quality revision ("featured" level, which only reviewers can bring it up to) followed by a lower-level quality revision (the base level an editor can bring it to).  If you log out with the defaults in place, you'll see "'Sighted' revision".  The higher-level quality revision states "'Featured' revision".  Only when I changed the stability configuration on the page did I see the featured-quality revision when logged out.  At that point the interface also complained about pending changes due to a lower-level revision following a higher-level one.  With the defaults, it had no problem with a lower-level revision following the higher-level one.  Additionally, I see that instead of "sighted" and "quality" as you saw in the screenshot I took, the history now labels them as "checked" and "approved" respectively. – Adrignola talk contribs 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that lower quality revisions are shown can be good or bad depending on your perspective. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  15:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I find the "!" useful, and I use out of date reviewed pages all the time to check for vandalism, etc. Agree that the multiple levels of review aren't very helpful though. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 13:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooooh I hadn't seen the mess in the RC when I made this comment. That interface change is horrible! <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 13:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, the interface change is rather horrible. I didn't even see it until the first time I came over here after the change, though, because I was at Wikinews when it happened, and over there they fixed the things about it they didn't like so fast that I didn't notice the difference, and was only aware that they'd customized the new interface because I read about it.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Another thing which bothers me about the new interface is the change to the stable version notices on the pages. What used be just a discrete notice on the right margin saying "Current revision: unreviewed" is now a prominent "There are no reviewed versions of this page, so it may not have been checked for adherence to standards.". Which standards? For books which do not use FlaggedRevs systematically (such as Haskell...) that is plain obtrusive, and even misleading. --Duplode (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed the default wording to read now "This page may need to be reviewed for quality". --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To get a short note in the right corner there is a preference "Edit Review" called "Use small icons and minimal text to show review status of pages" which may do what you'd like. But I am glad we have toned down the long form of the disclaimer. Thenub314 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it just reset preferences. I've always had the bar across the page for unreviewed pages and no bar for reviewed pages, and intentionally did not switch to the small version. – Adrignola talk contribs 22:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Thenub! In case someone hasn't noticed, apparently it seems like they will take away the [pending changes] and [unreviewed] because a lot of people hate them. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * :) Don't thank me yet, this option doesn't effect [pending changes] or [unreviewed] on my watchlist. But you may be noticing some changes Adrignola made to Mediawiki:Common.css.  His changes initially took these loud flags out entirely, but (since some of the concern was mainly about the recent changes page?) he updated it so it only took them out of the RC list.  For a while after he made the second change I still didn't see the flags on my watch list, it wasn't until I did a "hard reload" that the reappeared again.  So maybe your browser has an old style sheet?  Either way I have done nothing to take them away, he deserves thanks (and has mine) for getting them out of the RC list. Thenub314 (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, actually Thenub, I was thanking you for dropping a note about the preferences. :P Of course, we have Adrignola to thank as the bother is now reduced. :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops I somehow misread and thought you meant I was making these things go away. I can see now you meant the developers are changing the setup. Thenub314 (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Until then, I've also duplicated the code to apply it to the watchlist. Another hard reload/cache clear and you should be good there too. – Adrignola talk contribs 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adrignola! RC is a lot clearer now! Almost as good as new! Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this history make sense?
Hi, I just (rather needlessly) rolled back the edits of an IP user that undid his own contributions. The idea was to allow the page to revert back it its previous sighted version without me sighting it. When I look at the edit history, I do not appear in the history, instead it shows up as the IP user who automatically sighted this page. See here, has anyone else encountered strange behavior with rolling back to sighted revisions? Thenub314 (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. The edit doesn't show up under my contributions either, so it has effectively disappeared from the database. Thenub314 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure you really edited that page? :) I do see the "automatically sighted" note, which would never happen for an IP user.  Maybe you can clarify and list the steps to reproduce this, as I'm not entirely clear on what happened. – Adrignola talk contribs 23:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was working through the Special:OldReviewedpages page and noticed a page pending review that had a diff of size 0.  I thought I could handle that, so I looked at the page.  Some IP user had changed the word "thumb" to "thumbnail" in an image link, realized his mistake and changed it back to "thumb".  I am rather anal, or at least picky, and don't like being listed as the person who sighted a page as quality unless I had read the page, so rather then sighting the page I went into the pages history, went to the IP users second edit and clicked roll back.  I double checked the edit history  to make sure everything went as I expected and I didn't see my name, but magically the IP user was listed as automatically having sighted the page.

I don't know exactly how to reproduce it, but I suspect the following would work:
 * 1) Find a nice reviewed page with the most current version flagged.
 * 2) Log out
 * 3) Edit the page
 * 4) Edit the page again, restoring the original (I wouldn't try actually "undo"ing, just change it back)
 * 5) Log back in.
 * 6) Try to roll back your IP edits.

--Thenub314 (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed this worked for me at Calculus/Volume. (oops just checkuser'ed myself :P) Thenub314 (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ut
 * I've seen this too. Basically, I don't think you can do a rollback that doesn't make a change.  MediaWiki sees what you're trying to do, says "yeah, yeah", and then politely ignores the "change" which is really no change at all. --Jomegat (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So, it's basically similar to a null edit to a page then. The "automatically checked" still shows up for the IP user, but since we know IP users can't have edits auto-reviewed, there's nothing to worry about.  If it's still a problem, there's always Bugzilla. – Adrignola talk contribs 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose it is a non-issue at the end of the day, though it would be nicer if non-edit was picked up earlier and the page never ended up needing to be "Reviewed". Thanks for hiding my IP, I wasn't really worried, but having been wikistalked once over at wikipedia maybe I really should be more careful.  Thenub314 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

the audio template
At en.wiktionary the audio template is somehow configured to play off audio file while the page it is embedded on is still in full view. Here, at least in firefox, a new blank page appears while the file is playing. This is a major disadvantage for the language books. E.g. when listening to pronunciation files of larger text fragments it would be advantageous to have the text fragment still in view. Can the audio template be updated? Actually minus the rather bulky push button that wiktionary uses. That would probably clutter may language books rather badly.

Jcwf (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd want to use Template:Inline player for the same functionality as Template:Audio on Wiktionary. – Adrignola talk contribs 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bug in user contributions
Probably another issue related to the FlaggedRevs changes... it seems all main namespace edits in user contributions are being displayed as a blank line. --Duplode (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please clear your cache. I've fixed recent code added to Common.css designed to hide the [unreviewed] link to target that only and not the whole line in user contributions for pages that are not reviewed.  The CSS class that was hiding the whole line is the one that gives the unreviewed pages in user contributions that tint. – Adrignola talk contribs 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you cite that you have accessed the information in one of the textbooks collection - APA style

WB: as a short form of Wikibooks: prefix
I don't know the technical issues, but in other projects, the abbreviation of the project plus a : points directly to the page of that namespace. For example WN:Style guide points to Wikinews:Style guide and WP:Assume good wraith points to Wikipedia:Assume good wraith. But in Wikibooks pages with the WB: prefis are considered part of the mainspace. Is there any way to change this to keep up with the other projects? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gain consensus on the community and submit a bug request. I support creating a WB namespace redirect to Wikibooks, similar to how Project also redirects to Wikibooks.  It will be necessary to handle the shortcuts already in place prefixed with WB once that change is made. – Adrignola talk contribs 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes using $wgNamespaceAliases. I support adding $wgNamespaceAliases = array('WB' => NS_PROJECT, 'WJ' => 110, 'CAT' => 14, 'COOK' => 102); That will also add aliases for Wikijunior (WJ), Category (CAT), and Cookbook (COOK). --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark  lama  15:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't 'CB' be preferable to 'COOK'? Seems more in line with the others... --Yair rand (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that idea and would prefer it myself. – Adrignola talk contribs 21:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * COOK was suggested as a no-brainier, so most people would know what it means just by looking at it. "Jr." is a common abbreviation for Junior which could arguably also justify using <tt>'JR' => 110</tt> for Wikijunior instead for a similar reason. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Kayau as soon as you get the feeling of the community remember to formalize it into a clear proposal (at this time it will include 2 items; the WB abbreviation and changing COOK to CB) and ask for the placement of a general announcement. I don't see anyone objecting to the proposed changes but wait a bit for more input (7 days). --Panic (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of having these shortcuts (WB, WJ, CAT, CB) as redirects to the real namespaces. Helder22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a fine idea to me, with one exception, why are we leaving the subjects namespace out? Maybe it should be S or SJ? Thenub314 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't have to pick and choose. Several aliases can be made for the namespaces.  I've summarized the desired prefixes listed here so far in the table to the right. – Adrignola talk contribs 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to see all the existing alias (a partial one can be seen in Special:SiteMatrix). There seems to be a lot of inconsistencies or at least not one scheme covers all the projects systematically. For instance we have [[s:]] for Wikisource but not [[WS:]] and [[v:]] for Wikiversity but not [[WV:]], we already have [[w:]] and [[W:]] for Wikipedia working and we are proposing to add [[WJ]] but not [[j:]] and why is [[wikt:]] in place of [[t:]] ?
 * If there aren't any collisions the schemes should be fully extended to cover all projects consistently. --Panic (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the current state of affairs is inconsistent. One-letter abbreviations go to sister projects (which are probably the more common external links in book writing proper), while 2+ letter abbreviations link to Wikibooks namespaces. is rather strange, indeed, and t: (or even ) could be used alongside it. --Duplode (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think t: is a good idea. In the future, some lazy bones may want to use T: as a shortcut to a very popular talk page (a good example is w:T:TDYK in Wikipedia). Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 05:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Added "SUB" and "SJ" as possible aliases for Subject. – Adrignola talk contribs 11:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To comment on Kayau's idea, I think using t: for talk pages would be a bad idea. Under the "call a spade a spade" philosophy, lazy bones at wikibooks should be using d: or D: for discussion pages (let's have a little project pride and use our own names for things).  I also like the idea of linking t: to wikitionary to be more inline with links like w: and v:.  The one letter for sister projects seems seems rather consistent otherwise.  I suspect wikimedia folks didn't want to do this globally because it stepped on the toes of wikipedia and their talk pages.  Of course wikipedia is the big fish, so it is clear why there is just one exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenub314 (discuss • contribs)

Panic says after we reach consensus after a while, I should 'formalize it into a clear proposal'. How can I do that? I have never used Bugzilla before. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add it to Bugzilla when we get consensus. – Adrignola talk contribs 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 00:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We propose to add <tt>$wgNamespaceAliases = array('WB' => 4, 'WJ' => 110, 'CAT' => 14, 'COOK' => 102, 'SUB' => 112);</tt> to the wiki configuration to create aliases to current namespaces using abbreviations. They are listed to the right. Discussion occurs above. – Adrignola talk contribs 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Revised per Pi zero's comments below, with one prefix per namespace. – Adrignola talk contribs 17:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Submitted as bug 24042. – Adrignola talk contribs 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now implemented. – Adrignola talk contribs 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * – Adrignola talk contribs 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  15:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * as amended (withdrawing my opposition below). --Pi zero (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Thenub314 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * as amended --Panic (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * as amended --Duplode (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As nom, also agree with Pi zero about multiple shortcuts. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 00:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Objection has been addressed by amendment, so I'm not opposed to the amended proposal. --Pi zero (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)) I strongly oppose this in its current form.  I was actually in the process of writing a rather long post on why I think that in its present form this would cause irreparable harm .  (As usual, I spent too long writing it and missed the moment.)  If we eliminate JR, CB, and SJ, I would support.  I'll try to cut down my long-winded comments and post some further explanation here in a little while.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Executive summary: We don't want the long-term consequences of having created multiple shortcuts for a given namespace.


 * Creation of these things is irreversible. Once people start to use a namsepace shortcut, it will quickly become impossible to retract it &mdash; although a bot could fix the problem on Wikibooks, and perhaps likewise on its sister projects (in theory, at least), namespace shortcuts are especially likely to be used across the entire web, with about as much chance of undoing it as undoing the introduction of Kudzu in the southeastern US.


 * Off hand I can think of a couple of reasons for us to regret being unable to reverse such shortcuts. The most immediate is that different people using different shortcuts for the same namespace will make any large body of material that mixes styles harder to read (from individual pages up to and including Wikibooks as a whole).  Also, on a scale of years, namespaces change.  For example, Wikijunior might remain just as it is for ever more, or it might change in ways we simply can't foresee &mdash; and that's kind of the point.  It's in the nature of such things that we often can't anticipate specifically what will happen, so we ought to be minimizing the likelihood that what we do now will become a stumbling block for future developments.  In this case, that liklihood is very roughly proportional to the number of short namespace shortcuts we create now.


 * Of the multiple-choice shortcuts proposed, I submit that WJ is vastly to be preferred over JR since the former is already standard while the latter is not. I recommend SUB over SJ, both because it's more instantly obvious what it means (I keep seeing SJ and thinking it ought to be associated with Wikijunior somehow), and because the other three-letter shortcut is CAT, so it makes a stylistic similarity between the functionally similar namespaces.  It took me longer to decide what to suggest about the Cookbook namespace; but I recommend COOK, because it's just blindingly obviously right, and I can't remotely imagine changing circumstances that would make it not-right, whereas CB is okay but not as blindingly obvious, and, given that there are only so many two-letter abbreviations, CB becoming less right someday because of changing circumstances is merely improbable (rather than unimaginable).  --Pi zero (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Pi zero's amendments. --Duplode (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about SJ and CB. OTOH WJ is only used in one place right now so isn't at all that standard yet. If you look at Wikijunior as being a junior project than JR makes sense too. Wikijunior could have as a style that any use of shortcut should or must include both the WJ and the JR version which could resolve the issue of which to use and any problems with inconsistencies. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  16:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said WJ was standard, what I meant was that I perceive WJ to be the standard shorthand way of referring to it that people routinely use when, er, talking about it. (If it isn't talking, why are they called talk pages?)  --Pi zero (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The multiple styles problem has more to do with actual deployment rather than availability, indeed. By the way, I also dislike JR for aesthetic reasons, if that would count for anything. --Duplode (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fiction
I am new to Wikibooks and frankly I can't get over the excitement of being able to connect with the WHOLE world in such a unique way. My question is this? Are fictional books featured here at all? For example 'Frederick Forsyth's Negotiator. Can it be read here or not? Please be gentle with me, I am new to this.
 * Fiction books are not allowed here (see WB:WIW), just textbooks. Fiction books may be allowed at wikisource if they have been published elsewhere. Thenub314 (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikisource books must be in the public domain as far as I know. I remember there is a wiki where you can publish your own fiction book, but I forgot what that site's called... Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 00:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

CAT:Links to external webpages
Many of these pages are suffering from link decay. Since the pages are only meant to be links this is pretty bad. Here are some issues I have noticed: So maybe we should take a look and clean them up? Or maybe some should be deleted? To be honest I find it strange we don't host game guides but we maintain pages dedicated to linking to game guides. Thenub314 (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strategywiki is now Stategerywiki.org (not strategywiki.net)
 * Some pages were "soft linked" to wikiversity only later to be recreated here? Such as Human physiology (Wikipedia link-book) and Human Physiology.


 * I tend to believe that external links are fine for the short term, but should be deleted in the long run. We got links to the game guides because those books use to be hosted here, and I think was done to give time for people to find where they moved to. I think most of them should be deleted now. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember that I'd once thought of proposing the deletion of these pages, but I decided not to since this may be contradictory to previous consensus. It's great that I'm not the only one who thinks they should be deleted! RfD? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Darklama but understand that deleting them will not be of any particular interest and as someone else has said before, it prevents recreation of the works and helps promote the new location (if working and in relation to most games titles or stuff like the jokebook). Besides that, I don't see any useful purpose on keeping them, if the link is broken delete... --Panic (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I think an Rfd may be too formal. One page per entry would get to be a bit much, but it doesn't seem right to simply say "let's delete everything in this category".  Rather I think it would be better to come up with a criteria here for which things should stay and go and let "common sense" prevail about the rest.  But I think what we are suggesting is in spirit I think the "Orphaned/Broken" redirect policy, so hopefully we won't need to Rfd each link.
 * I would suggest that links to external webpages created more than then 6 months ago should go, this will cover a lot of the strategy wiki stuff. I think I would include in this removing links to sister projects where we now have material here (as in the example above).  Though I have no problems with sister links in the material here, I really mean modules whose only existance is to contain a link.  I do not support the idea, but I can imagine extending some grace to links to sister projects where we don't really have a corresponding book here. Thenub314 (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think having a policy to delete external redirects more than X old is a good idea. I could support 6 months that is reasonably long, but I would also support a much shorter period like 30 days. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  11:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even as long as six months will eliminate most of them; not something I see as a problem. I've added a list of them ordered by creation date (ones created before July 2008 still show July 2008). – Adrignola talk contribs 12:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

color in wiki books
If I order a wiki book does the pic printed in color? On th PDF file I see them in a B\W colors.

thank U.
 * PediaPress books ordered via Special:Collection will come in color. See http://pediapress.com/ for a sample book with pictures of the quality you can expect. -- – Adrignola talk contribs 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The cover page of the sample book on http://pediapress.com/ is in color but all the images inside the book are in black and white. At the bottom of that page they also state that the books have a "color cover and black & white interior". Adrignola: what is your statement based on? --Martin Kraus (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's based on my poor reading comprehension, apparently. – Adrignola talk contribs 13:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Translating a WikiBook across programming language?
There is an existing WikiBook: Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 Hours. I'm interested in potentially translating this book into Java (and corresponding dependent libraries). This would also potentially involve rewriting some sections; the current book has explanations in Haskell; these would need to be rewritten to target Java.

How does one go about doing this in WikiBooks format? Can I create a new variant of this book in Java? Where's the right place to contain the book while it's being translated ("not ready")? I have some experience with Wikipedia but limited experience with WikiBooks -- apologies in advance for my ignorance. Xiphoris (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Both Wikipedia and Wikibooks use the MediaWiki software, so they use the same set of wiki markup. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember also to give some form of attribution to the original work. --Panic (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by translate? Do you want to use existing material from "Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 Hours" as a bases for the Java version? Do you just want to use that book for inspiration? If you want to use existing material as a bases you'll need to credit the book, the best way to do that is to include a reference to the book in an edit summery when you use material. If you just want to use the book for inspiration without copying anything than there is no need to credit the book. You can acknowledge that the book was a source of inspiration though anyways if you want people to know what inspired you, but you should do so in a way that people don't mistakenly believe that the book must be attributed should they want to reuse this new book.
 * Other than the consideration to be made if you intend to copy material from an existing book, you would start a 48 Hour Java book like you would any new book. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want, you can edit your own user page to hold temporary material for the book. This can be done in sub-pages which can be deleted later if the past versions are of no longer of any interest. Although, if you are re-using material from other Wikibooks or Wikipedia it is convenient to credit the original sources with links in the edit histories. Most books here start with a basic skeleton and add material gradually. You can use standard under construction or percentage complete templates to inform readers of the state of the book. Recent Runes (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Page turning"?
Am I missing the way to "turn the page" in the wikibooks? For example, if I am here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AP_Computer_Science/Java, how do I get to the next section/page? Currently I've been going back to the menu and then clicking the next section, but that seems pretty inefficient. Daviddoria (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently that book is a 'bad example' of what a good book should be. A good book usually has a navigational aid that helps you turn the pages, such as Template:Navigate. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, the media wikisoftware doesn't handle books very well. Specifically all navigational aids need to be put in by hand.  It is a job you could help with if your interested.  You can see Linear Algebra/Introduction for one example of how it can be done.  Navigational aides are something we encourage, but currently do not appear in every book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenub314 (discuss • contribs)

Wikijunior:KinderCalculus
I invite community involvement in this discussion. To be clear, this is a discussion that I started, and the two issues (not restricted to the one talk page, but in practice this is where all the discussion is taking place so far) are the name of the specific module and, more broadly, the metaphor of layers of clothing of which it is a part. --Pi zero (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to read through it and tell you my thoughts, but I am a little concerned the book describes itself as "an experimental K-6 math program". I have my usual concerns about verifiability and original research.  This sounds to me like a part of realm of education research.  Do you off hand know if there any references, syllabuses, etc attached to this book? Or is this wikbooks the home of this experiment?   Google searching doesn't really turn up much, but maybe I am out of the loop or searching the wrong terms. Thenub314 (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Kayau has started an RFD, where Panic has suggested transwiki to Wikiversity. I've commented there (and the thread on the talk page continues).  --Pi zero (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading the book, I think the phrase "an experimental K-6 math program" just tries to say that this book uses a new, innovative approach to teaching the topic. IMHO this is the best reason for writing wikibooks. --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DefaultSortkey for namespaces with subpages
Hello!!

What do you think of requesting at bugzilla that for namespaces using subpages the DefaultSortkey should be the subpagename of the page (instead of the fullpagename. This seems particullarly useful at Wikibooks since our book are grouped using subpages and in the category of a book there is no point in using the fullpagename, because all of its pages starts with the same prefix "book name/".

The current behavior is defined is at Parser.php: The new version would probably use getSubpageText to get the correct value.

Would this be a good idea? Helder18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be a great idea, though we have simplified things with BookCat. I think the developers would want the actual code changes and a demonstration of consensus at the project before they would proceed with the change. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect, I don't see any point in tinkering with the default sort key. We never use the default now (that I can think of), and we don't specify anything else, either.  We tell BookCat to take care of it for us &mdash; and BookCat almost always sorts book pages by CHAPTERNAME (except when deep filing).  It's undesirable to bypass BookCat anyway, because when one occasionally renames a book or moves a page from one book to another (or rearranges a book with deep filing (shudder)), BookCat automatically chooses the right category for the new name without our having to edit individual pages &mdash; plus, if we ever did for some reason decide to do some project-wide rearrangement of things, we would be able to do it in BookCat without having to go through and edit every page of every book.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, Pi zero. But note: Template BookCat was created at 2007 here and at pt.wikibooks we created AutoCat almost one year afterwards (independently, reinventing the wheel) and no other wikibooks projects seems to have some automatized way of setting the sortkey of book chapters (e.g. it.wikibooks). If the feature is available by default in MediaWiki, the things are somewhat better also for those projects (I think), and can helps even in the case where a user forgets to add the sortkey (and don't know about the template).
 * I've added a possible reimplementation of the function above (but I'm not a PHP programmer, so it needs review...). Helder22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually think it's preferable that pages categorized freehand (i.e., without BookCat) should come out sorted badly, so that it's more likely someone will notice and replace the freehand categorization with BookCat.


 * Aside from all that, though, I'm a bit confused by your proposal. Did you really mean to propose that the default sort key should be  ?  I don't think there are all that many books here that are sorted that way now; BookCat only does that if you use parameter  .  Most books, that I've noticed, use CHAPTERNAME, which I think I prefer for the purpose.  (It appears to me that pt AutoCat uses CHAPTERNAME too.)


 * (Incidentally, BookCat got hugely upgraded last summer. It now works on book subpages, book-specific templates, and subcategories of book categories both for the book's templates and for deep filing, both for mainspace books and for Wikijunior books.  So yes, in theory the template was created in 2007, but most of the code in it dates from 2009.)  --Pi zero (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was thinking about because this coincides with CHAPTERNAME for pages with only one level of subpages and because we already have the MagicWord  . But you are right, in general we indeed prefer to use the result of CHAPTERNAME as sortkey. So, the proposal could be that this value should be the default sortkey for namespaces with subpages, instead of the full pagename, probably using something like a new function getChapterText or getMainSubpageText whose functionality would be the same of our CHAPTERNAME.
 * In this case, if a page could be sorted correctly by the new default sortkey, with a code like, I think this would be a good thing, because then it wouldn't be necessary to update the categorization in order to serve the readers with well organized categories. Helder20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a request at 22911. Helder02:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Note
Hi, I just deleted a page here using my tools here as a global sysop. I think it's the first time a global sysop has done that and just want to make sure what I did was within scope of local policy. Thanks! Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like a good call to me. You'd be right that it's the first time we've had a global sysop come around after opting in.  I was worried that they'd choose not to come around thinking that it'd be embarrassing for an English language wiki to need global assistance. Other than that it's just been the steward bots doing local blocks of accounts. We had Wutsje from the small wiki monitoring team doing rollbacks as a global rollbacker some time back, but now that he's a steward, he's been too busy.  Recent Runes has been good at IP vandalism patrolling.  Good to have your assistance! – Adrignola talk 02:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle Warning Gadget
I've added a gadget to Special:Preferences that people can use to notify/warn users for vandalism/spam, personal attacks, content issues, ignoring process, structural mistakes, etiquette, or blocks. I'd like to thank Darklama for providing consultation on the three generic templates I also created that are used by the script (please help, please agf, please learn) and for optimizing the JavaScript. The great thing about the script is that it only uses those three templates, adding additional information to their output based on the situation you've selected, rather than use 40 separate templates, beyond blocked for block notices. If you have the welcome gadget installed, you'll have a second warn tab. If people so desire, that warn tab could be removed from the welcome script (which only provides the use of test. – Adrignola talk 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice! I look forward to trying it out.  Thenub314 (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Image Hovering fails in Internet Explorer
It is a feature of the Template:HoverImage Can support be added for this?

Armchair (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It works fine in Internet Explorer 8. Older versions do not support CSS hovering over anything but links. – Adrignola talk contribs 14:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Adrignola, Since you seem to have IE8, can you tell me whether or not it supports the pre-wrap value for the CSS property Whitespace? Version 6 does not. The overflow test on page/section Browser Pre-wrap Test is a quick way to find out. Thanks, Armchair (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The long sentence wraps just fine inside the dotted box in IE8 and the appearance does not differ from what I get in Chrome 5.0.375.70 or Firefox 3.6.3. – Adrignola talk contribs 12:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the inputs, Armchair (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)