Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Chemical synthesis/Acetone peroxide

Chemical synthesis/Acetone peroxide

 * See also Organic Chemistry/Acetone peroxide synthesis covering the same topic

This page contains extremely dangerous information (or misinformation) Instructions to make the most unstable and most potent explosive that I can think of. In addition, the information is not complete and fails to address contamination issues. Remove forthwith signed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.13.195 (talk • contribs).


 * Note: VfD tag was not added to the page in question. SB_Johnny  | talk 12:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The module does point out the hazards, though perhaps it needs a new section for contamination issues. As this is part of an advanced chemistry book, I don't think it needs to be censored for dealing with dangerous compounds. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: There's no reason to censor things of this nature; its better that people be aware of the simplicity of creating such a substance then to promote ignorance - and as stated above, its commonly found in chemistry texts. Digivation 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Making people "aware" is not sufficient grounds for keeping this. I shouldn't write a book about how to smuggle weapons in schools because it makes people aware of how easy it is. There's a certain level of public responsibility. Academic communities take considerable measures to keep things like chemicals out of the general public's hands and I think it would be challenging to find a professionally-published book open to all the public about how to create dangerous chemicals. I think a book describing chemical effects and other aspects of the substance would be much more appropriate than how to make the substance. The most I would go into synthesis would be to say "can be made with various household chemicals" or something like that and minimize controversial and dangerous discussion. -within focus 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "I shouldn't write a book about". Not too long ago, British news reporters not only reported on, but actively proved on how easy it was to break into a nuclear power plant in Britain. This was generally considered to be a Good Thing (not that it was easy to get in, but that it was made known to the public that security was not sufficient). I believe that the US (probably under Homeland Security) has a group that tests and writes public reports on how easy it is to break into secure areas (e.g. in airports). If smuggling weapons into schools is simple, people aren't aware and those in charge of security aren't doing their job, please do let those in danger know.
 * The book does not place any tools into the hands of people &mdash; only knowledge. Granted, knowledge is powerful and can be dangerous. That is one of the reasons why a number of governments on this planet choose to limit their subjects' access to it (e.g. by destroying it). This has generally (well, until recently) been frowned upon in the self proclaimed Free World.
 * "minimize controversial and dangerous discussion". Wow! I have a hunch that the proposal discussion on a censorship policy is going to be very long! --Swift 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - This user does not have the generally-accepted minimum number of bona fide edits to go along with voting (only edits on user page, here on VfD, and one other book). -within focus 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is currently neither a policy nor guideline as to who can vote. --Swift 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will only respond to this one entry, but my corrections to your comment apply to all the marks you've made regarding this. Notice how I did not cite any sort of official ruling, only the term "generally-accepted". As administrators, the issue of sock-puppets and vandalism must be addressed. You and I both can see that these users created accounts to vote and they are now finished with them. Friendliness is rampant, but the abuse of Wikibooks by Wikipedia users shouldn't be. This VfD has turned into a soapbox to talk in volumes about free speech and all the like and I can't keep responding so this'll be it. I see this as a book about how to make bombs and I think it's dangerous for Wikibooks to support due to its bad intentions. -within focus 03:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The non-citation of (non-existant) official rulings does not make the implication that new users' votes should be taken with a grain of salt any less offending. I'm a big fan of WP's assume good faith policy. I acknowledge that sockpuppetry is a problem, but don't find blatant acusations tactful. When we count up the votes, we can look at the voters and discuss whether the votes should count or not. I find your comments premature.
 * "Friendliness is rampant". Rampant!?! I disagree! I was taught that friendliness, as a common courtesy, was a virtue and, by definition, hard to overdo.
 * "the abuse of Wikibooks by Wikipedia users". I'm not seeing this rampant abuse. Are users not to be given any voice at all? I fail to see this heinous crime you speak of.
 * "a soapbox to talk in volumes about free speech" ... also about the danger of information. It is a pity that we don't have any policies or guidelines on content (where this discussion could/should take place) for us to refer to (rather than bring such a complex problem to a simple VfD). Still; please don't label one set of arguments as soapboxery, implying that others (which you sympathise with) are somehow better. (Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here. If so, I'm sorry, but I still find your wording inapproriate).
 * By the way, I removed the "Welcome to Wikipedia . I hope you find it friendly." It is equally an implication of bad behaviour. On second thought, it was bad form and I apologise. If you find the removal in any way unethical, Withinfocus, feel free to reinsert it. --Swift 07:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One ... more ... comment. Perhaps marking votes is offensive to some and believe me I apologize after all of this, but Wikibooks over the past year or so that I've witnessed it has a serious problem with getting overpowered with Wikipedia ideas and users. Wikibooks in some ways was a dumping ground for Wikipedia articles that got too big or were VfDed. The project I work on here was just a Wikipedia dump that I think I turned into something very useful, but many articles just sit here and add nothing to the project. When a vote here can take a month or longer, noticing finer points like "stuffing the ballots" can be overlooked. I'm not going to list offenses here, but going through the VfD archives will show it. I'm tired of simple decisions becoming the end of the world here and yes, some of this discussion shouldn't be here at all. -within focus  19:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The original poster gives us no good reason to believe the article in question should be deleted. Jason Carreiro 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - This user does not have the generally-accepted minimum number of bona fide edits to go along with voting (only edit here on VfD). -within focus 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is currently neither a policy nor guideline as to who can vote. --Swift 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm proposing that this page and all others under Chemical synthesis be deleted due to the inappropriateness of their content. The content is not totally professional in its writing to begin and I think that making a book on this subject will bring much more harm than good. I feel like this book has the beginnings of an Anarchist's Cookbook which in many ways was professionally written but still described the means for great harm and even death. Highly-dangerous chemical synthesis how-tos should be removed since I think it hurts the progress of Wikibooks as a serious and safe learning environment for all ages. We don't censor for minors, but this is just too much in my opinion and many people reading this can see its negative implications. -within focus 14:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep:Chemistry may be scary but it's not the mission of Wikibooks to protect people from scary knowledge. --The Cunctator 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - This user does not have the generally-accepted minimum number of bona fide edits to go along with voting (only edits on user page and here on VfD). -within focus 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This user is a long-time Wikipedia user and while not obviously a regular Wikibooks user, there is some merit to reviewing these comments. Not every comment like this needs to be called into question, and it is up to the admin to decide on how to proceed on content like this. --Rob Horning 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This user's practice at Wikipedia is hardly relevant to a Wikibooks discussion where the user has made essentially no edits on the project and has no trust towards Wikibooks policies and guidelines. If you look at the voting time of several of these users, you will notice a trend. I suspect that the user below this one is the same person but we don't have CheckUser to verify it. I find it important to flag sockpuppets as I notice them in case another admin misses it. -within focus 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree. People who are active on wikipedia don't necessarily know anything at all about wikibooks policy. Even if they are voting in good faith, can we expect all wikipedians to know what consititutes material worthy of deletion here? Also, how do we determine whether this user is actually the user from wikipedia, or a doppleganger? What we should do is finalize the damn voting policy, so we know for certain whether to allow votes from people with fewer then 20 contribs to vote. If they can vote, this module stays undeleted. If they can't vote, suddenly this module is in a very precarious situation. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you guys realize that the person who proposed the deletion has 1 edit? (The one edit was posting this VfD). SB_Johnny  | talk 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Although the anonymous user has one edit, proposing a VfD in some cases still needs to be treated fairly. If an anonymous user threw a VfD up without some reasoning or it looked totally fake and vandalizing, we would take it down (and believe me I know since my main book project was VfDed by a Wikipedia user here who has since only made one edit, not a fair VfD at all including no reasoning). However, the user pointed out this book and I think it was worth noticing. I just as well could have created the VfD at this point. It's a book well worth some debate. Just as some books here have been VfDed even though I wish they weren't, we need to get philosophies straightened out every once in a while. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 04:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You do realise that you are accusing a Wikipedia administrator and former Arbitrator, who has been editing since 2001, of blatant sock puppetry, don't you? On the other hand, if you think that this is not the same user, then shouldn't you try contacting The Cunctator on Wikipedia instead of just discounting him and making accusations? --Constantine Evans 18:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And? A new user account was created minutes after his vote and went to the same exact place. This is a clear-cut example of something that could be investigated if we had the tools. This is a separate project and I'm not quite sure why you even came over here from Wikipedia just to make such a statement. This is a separate project and I see no need to cross projects to contact the user about his/her vote. The issue of being a sockpuppet will not be cleared up in any way if I ask the accused user about it since it is as easy to lie about the act as it is to create a new account and vote again. If the user was genuinely interested and didn't just swoop in to vote and leave, they would continue commentary here. I think there's been enough Wikipedia users showing up on this vote, so this will be my last response on that topic. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that you might believe The Cunctator here to be a different person than The Cunctator on Wikipedia, and that is why I suggested that you might want to contact him on Wikipedia. But it appears you were actually accusing him of sock puppetry. --Constantine Evans 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notice the slogan "Think free. Learn free." This will not be achieved if we are constantly worrying about censoring ourselves because 'knowledge could be dangerous'. ChaseVenters
 * Note - This user does not have the generally-accepted minimum number of bona fide edits to go along with voting (only edit here on VfD). -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is currently neither a policy nor guideline as to who can vote. --Swift 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Instructions for producing TATP from "common chemicals available at walmart" seems fishy at best, and dangerous at worst. I can't think of a single use for TATP production other then the creation of dangerous explosives. For that matter, simply trying to follow this "recipe" could be very very dangerous for any reader. Imagine that a reader who is unskilled/unknowledgable in chemistry trys this out! I am not going to have all these potential accidents and injuries floating around on my head. If the readers here want to have the recipe for TATP on the internet, it won't be here on wikibooks. Find a new host for this content. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While I certainly understand this argument, it begs the question: "if we decide to censor, when will we decide not to censor any more?" -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with censoring. Well, maybe the two are related, but I don't think they are quite the same. I am saying that this artical has the potential to cause great harm. Any person who attempts to do this at home, following these instructions (instructions that are, by the way, written with an amateur "at-home" audience in mind) is going to hurt somebody: most likely themselves. I am not against necessarily against all "bad" materials here on wikibooks, but this page has a higher-then-average potential to cause bodily injury. Talking about the free press we are getting, imagine the press we will get when a kid dies in an explosion, "Following instructions he found at our friendly neighborhood wikibooks". I can't imagine anybody is going to say "It's a shame that kid died, but at least wikibooks didn't censor any of it's materials!" What we have here, essentially, are instructions on how to hurt yourself. Anybody who is boiling hydrogen peroxide solution on their stove, and then adding in acetone that they bought from walmart, is going to hurt themselves. Including this information is akin to having a book on "How to stab yourself with a knife", "How to cut off an arm or a leg", "How to commit suicide". Sure, maybe in the spirit of free speach and anti-censorship we should include guides on efficient suicide or bodily mutilation, but that begs yet another question: In what classroom, in what accredited instituion are people learning how to stab themselves? Where are people learning to commit suicide? What school is teaching people to make TATP, and requires a companion text? It is my opinion that such a school does not exist. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is very different from the examples you cite. Chemistry experiments are almost always dangerous in one way or another... this one more dangerous than most, of course, but making dangerous things (and seeing how easy it is to make dangerous things) is part of learning chemistry in a hands-on manner. I was 12 or 13 when I made Hydrogen and Oxygen out of water, and then recombined them (bang!) in chem lab. This book seems aimed more at the college level, though I do find the references to what you can buy at Home Depot a bit disturbing.
 * I do think the contributors to this book need to come up with a good way of rating the danger level for these experiments (not just for this page). -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand the sentiment of not wanting to get into a cycle of censorship. I understand the idea of freedom of information. I'm not a complete fascist. If we are going to keep this artical (and i conceed that public opinion is against me on this one), then I am going to demand that we put a warning message on the top of this page citing the dangers, that we link this page directly and conspicuously to (or even transclude in it's entirety) Risk disclaimer. The information about synthesizing TATP may certainly have some educational value, but the warning and danger information is just as valuable (if not more so). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to imply a suspicion of facist tendencies on your part. Much better with the warning! -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree very strongly with this argument. I don't think we should act as parents, any more than censors, in our capacity as Wikibooks editors. --Swift 01:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - This content was originally moved here from Wikipedia under a transwiki, and is referenced there (which I believe is the reason for many hits to this page from outside of typical Wikibooks users). I have been watching this page for several months now, as it also seems to be a target for vandalism in part due to its nature.  Still, I fail to see what basic policy this page violates, nor do I see what the serious problem is, provided it is partially rewritten and modified to be a lab example of chemical synthesis.  Knowledge of chemical reactions is something that should be in a Chemistry textbook, including issues surrounding explosives.  This should be marked for cleanup, not deletion.  BTW, the two modules listed above should be at least merged together.  --Rob Horning 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This was linked to from a boingboing article. I would say to keep this solely for the free press we're getting. --hagindaz 22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. We might keep a few of them here if we didn't put a big "KICK THE NEWBIE" sign on their backs when they try to vote (no offence, Matt, but you see what I'm saying?) -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely see what you're saying and I don't think that's the case here. You have to look at a user's knowledge to see how to weigh their vote. When five users come from out of nowhere and make one edit to vote here, it looks like a jam to me. I wouldn't flag them if the users had done anything else here, but they haven't and express no desire to as of yet. This was a quick swoop in to vote and leave. Would your next-door neighbors tell you how to clean your house? Only if they had done some cleaning themselves would I listen. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 21:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course that is precisely why we can't use vote count to justify any of these actions, but instead how persuasive the argument is. And of course admins can discount votes that are obvious, but I think reasoned and well thought out arguments (including references to official policies) can be made by users with only one or two edits.  It is the power of the argument, not the number of people necessarily supporting that argument. --Rob Horning 13:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But simply on the basis that these votes are poorly worded, and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of wikibooks policy (possibly as a sideeffect of their not being members here), they should be discarded. Not one of the votes that User:Withinfocus marked would I say were effectual nor persuasive. How powerful can an argument on this topic be, if the users don't even know the basics of our community, or our policy? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but even some of the rather short comments did have to do with policy. The "Think free. Learn free." slogan isn't something made up out of the air... those words appear just below the logo on the upper left corner of this page. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't a common user here either I would reference that phrase. It's on every page and someone who does nothing here can easily see it everywhere. When external users come in to save a book they like, it's very easy to turn it into a "free speech" issue and talk about censorship since people tend to shy away from talking about it to avoid controversy. I'm just concerned about the (lack of a) positive impact of this book. This can be turned into an informal analysis and not a how-to on synthesis. I don't think these external or new users are nearly as worried about the future consequences of hosting a book like this here. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Lets delete all mathmatics related articles too, those can be used to figure out things like the yield of a small suitcase nuke. Grow up, hiding knowledge will accomplish nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.39.194.156 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep: Swift 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here are my comments on the articles, somewhat in response to the claim that none of the low-edit-count users here are contributing anything useful. While it has been claimed that they have shown complete ignorance of policy, I do not see a single policy being cited on either side. Supporters of deletion seem to be simply saying that it can be dangerous and is unprofessional, and supporters of inclusion are just saying that things shouldn't be censored. From my admittedly rather limited reading of Wikibooks policy, I see no justification for deletion on the basis of danger. If there is such a policy, it would be quite helpful if someone would link to it in this discussion.
 * To move to the pages themselves, they seem to be a rather unprofessional attempt to pass off information on the creation of explosives for fireworks and general entertainment under the facade of Chemistry. A Wikibook on Chemical synthesis would be nice, but right now the book could be more accurately referred to as Explosives synthesis. Nearly all of the content is devoted to explosives, and is mostly written in a highly unprofessional manner. The pages are written like individual articles, each with differing ideas on safety, and differing coverage - one page includes random information on igniting Thermite, which really seems out of place. I see very little value to the book in its current state from the perspective of a Chemistry book. I wouldn't have a problem with the book if it were honest about its scope and intentions.
 * We also have the same content on Acetone peroxide synthesis in the Organic Chemistry Wikibook. In this case, the use of Chemistry as an excuse to insert irrelevant explosives synthesis information seems quite obvious. The book is focused on theory, and seems in a reasonable state of organisation and development. Then, stuck to the end, after the Glossary, we have "Acetone peroxide synthesis". The page gives no significant scientific information, no reason for being included is apparant, and it is entirely focused on synthesis (it isn't even an experiment), which is completely out of place for the book. Some have claimed on the talk page that it is there as "a practical example of organic chemistry". That might be a somewhat valid claim, if the book aims to have more on experiment in the future, but why then does the example have to be synthesis of an obscure explosive? In our current state, with explosives being used for everything, we look absurdly immature. --Constantine Evans 19:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly good point, and one that is worth consideration. There is currently a debate going on at General voting rules to create a new policy. It is worth mentioning that till now, wikibooks has not had a policy describing how decisions here are made. Previously, VfD was mostly handled by majority voting, which we all would agree is probably a bad way to do things. Also, previous informal "policy" was to say that people who voted in such things, and had fewer then 20 contribs are likely to be sockpuppets, and may therefore be ignored. The policy is not formalized, however, and I have just created a new version that removes all mention of minimum edit contributions (but does say that comments should be judged on their quality, not numerical quantity, which would still eliminate many of the low-quality "keep" votes that have been cast here).
 * Back to your comments, I agree with you (although i didn't articulate it in my previous comments) that this "book" certainly doesnt constitute what I would consider to be a "book". It is a collection of unrelated articals, and the subject material doesnt match the title (although the later reason is hardly justification for deletion). It's not about censorship, it's about removing poor-quality, un-book-like material from wikibooks. However, the point can be made that we don't have a formal defintion of "What is a textbook" anywhere on wikibooks. In fact, I would say that there simply are no policies to point to to justify any votes to keep or delete.
 * Now, this doesnt mean that I don't worry about including blatantly dangerous material on wikibooks. I do worry about it, and I don't think that we should be describing--poorly--how to make explosives in your kitchen from things you buy at walmart. There is a distinct difference between describing the theory behind the TATP synthesis reaction, and giving a jury-rigged bullshit "home brew" recipe for it. The former is educational (if not impractical), the later is stupid. It's not censorship, because we can talk about TATP until we are blue in the face. It's a matter of a poor quality module that (as a result of it's poor quality) has the potential to cause significant harm. I would like this module removed, and in fact, i would like most of the book to be removed as well. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both: that it should be removed because of poor quality or its hazardous topic. The content in the book is mostly new here on Wikibooks and deleting it now because it doesn't fit your high standards for written prose is premature. It seems that many half finished (if that) books lie around untouched for long without any objections.
 * As for the hasard, I empathise with those (mainly North Americans &mdash; I say this with out any direspect) who have become so terrified by recent incidents of violent backlashes against some Western countries. I do, however, cringe at the thought of censoring and under that banner, the information should stay.
 * The recent "popularity" of this book is partly a reprecussion of the recent scare at Heathrow, which may have been blown (no pun intended) a bit out of proportion . --Swift 00:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about "violence", I could care less if a terrorist or other ne're-do-well reads this information and makes a bomb from it, because people who are intent on making bombs are going to find the information whether we provide it or not. That said, I also disagree with your analysis of the quality point: it has nothing to do with the quality of prose that is used to write this module. This module isn't bad because it is poorly written, it is bad because it is providing information in a way that is inacceptable. Talking about how to buy the chemicals at home-depot, or how to mix TATP up on the kitchen stove is completely un-academic, un-professional, and unacceptable. Wikibooks is for textbooks, not any old instruction manuals for doing any old task. No accredited institutions teach students how to prepare TATP in your kitchen with materials from walmart. This is not to say, of course, that nobody teaches students how to make TATP at all. The difference is the way in which the material is presented, the target audience of the page, and underlying assumptions by the author. This is not an appropriate textbook by any standard.
 * That said, if some intrepid editor wants to rewrite this page, removing all references to making this stuff at home, removing all mention of buying the products at your local hardware store, and including actual reasonable professional safety information, then perhaps i will conceed that it should stay. Until that happens, this module is (as far as i can see) a violation of current policy, and should be deleted. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Which policy would you say it violates? Also, should books not be judged also by their potential rather than only their current form. As I've stated, most of the content on the book is new here on Wikibooks and I think it premature to kill it off. --Swift 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry the content sucks. My involvement with the Nitroglycerin synthasis kept being deleted from the Wikipedia article. WP has a non-censorship policy so I reverted for a while as visitors kept removing the section. Then, as it was pointed out that this type of information belongs rather on WB, I moved it here, adding it to the Chemical synthesis book.
 * As I was reading up on Wikibooks and preparing the move, I found a few other synthases of similar nature (an editor had put them together on a userpage subpage since they got being deleted) which I moved as well. This is now the bulk of the book and the reason why it has a slanted representation of synthesis information. It is neither the scope of the book (which I think is pretty well defined) nor the intention &mdash; simply an effect of their disputed nature. --Swift 00:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand the situation, I really do. I am not against this material, I am not against teaching people how to make explosives. I am against the offhand, do-it-yourself attitude that is used to do it. No school teaches it's students to buy acetone from walmart, boil it on the kitchen stove, and make TATP. Now, we certainly don't have any consensus to delete this (even if we remove all the disputed votes from above), so I don't think you need to worry about this getting deleted. However, it would be in everybody's best interests if this material was rewritten from an academic point of view: emphasize safety, talk about getting pure ingredients, talk about the dangers, discuss the possible reasons why a person would want to try this experiment in the first place. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, can we then end this VfD and take the discussion to the book- and page talk-pages? --Swift 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I'll remove my vote. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Kept. No consensus to delete. We've come to an understanding about the material of this page, and we've included a warning message that's satisfactory. I'll archive this discussion in one week. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)