User talk:Adrignola/2010/01

Which One?

Hylian should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master lan (discuss • contribs)

Okay, I've deleted Langve Hilana at your request. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nature

I was going to remove the reply on my talk page (from Whiteknight), where I was asking about a NOPV tag he added to the work. By his reply and what I think of the project the existing categories seem a bit off, Nature is OK, but Biology should be changed to Philosophy, or something on that area, see if you agree... --Panic (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The title doesn't make the subject matter immediately clear. I've recategorized it. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Go Post Your Request on Meta

25 at last. Well done, have fun. QU ^TalkQu 21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yay! --Jomegat (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. --Swift (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the support. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 01:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncategorized Wikijunior pages

I figure at least a 50% change I'm missing/forgetting something obvious, but...
is there a way to get a list of all uncategorized pages in Wikijunior space? (There seem to be special pages like Special:UncategorizedTemplates only for some specific namespaces.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. They are in alphabetical order, but that's it. I don't believe the Wikijunior namespace is included or anything outside of the main namespace is included. For example, Help:Searching is not categorized and doesn't show up in the list. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 16:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the swift edits as I started my first edits here and starting the new book Astro and Safari Repair and Maintenance! If you like, You could help me to move the page to Astro and Safari Maintenance and Repair as I think that's better. (Yes I know, I should have thought of that earlier). --Rynik (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Done. You can also ask for help on the Admin Notice Board --Jomegat (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Bigfoot Evil

Hi Aaron,

I blocked this guy and then noticed you had placed a warning on his talk page. That's not my usualu practice, but this guy shares a modus operandi with several other recent vandals. Perhaps some CU action is warranted? --Jomegat (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also this guy. --Jomegat (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Evil Spectre, Bigfoot Evil, Doktor Noo: Likely - same network but blocking the range necessary could cause collateral damage.

Above with Big Bob: Unrelated, but you do not need to worry about Big Bob due to an action I have taken. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 01:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikijunior New Book of the Quarter

This all seemed much simpler before I started trying to explain it.

There are seven Wikijunior New Book of the Quarter pages. The second and third out of seven are fully protected against both editing and moving; otherwise, I'd have edited and moved them. The two are

Wikibooks:Wikijunior:New Book of the Quarter/2006-2nd Quarter Vote

Wikibooks:Wikijunior:New Book of the Quarter/2006-3rd Quarter Vote

I would have added to each of these

[[Category:Wikijunior Policy|Book of the Quarter/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]

which deliberately leaves off the "New " prefix because almost all the pages in Category:Wikijunior Policy start with "New ". And I would have moved them by removing the "Wikibooks:" prefix, so putting them back in Wikijunior space; that last would have been especially bold of me, because all four quarters of 2006 were pointedly moved from Wikijunior space in 2006 by Jguk (gone since early 2007, de-admined as inactive in 2008). The move explanations on three of them were "better namespace", and on the fourth, "does not belong in module namespace"; but the other pages in this category are in Wikijunior space, incuding the three quarters of 2007 (not to mention I just find "Wikibooks:Wikijunior:" ugly).

If you've no objections to how I'm handling these pages, I'd appreciate if you could add the categories to the two protected ones, and I'd love to see them moved back to Wikijunior space. Not sure what to think about just two out of seven being protected; there might be a non-random reason for it... --Pi zero (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Also unprotected the two oddballs. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 04:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Pi zero (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Could you also un-move-protect Wikibooks:Wikijunior:New Book of the Quarter/2006-4th Quarter Vote? (The stated reason for the protection is "high visibility from front page".) --Pi zero (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Closure at last. Sorry I missed that other move protection the first time around. I'm now guessing that those names were a legacy from when "Wikijunior:" was a colon-convention idiom rather than a namespace; the main WJ page was moved from Wikibooks:Wikijunior to Wikijunior in January 2007. --Pi zero (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Algebra/Additional function and relation graphing from Wikibooks < Algebra>

Algebra/Additional function and relation graphing From Wikibooks < Algebra>

The content of that page seems not to be at the right place. What is it anyway?? Dear Adrignola, if it was you that put it there then my advice is that you remove it as soon as possible. As well as the link to it at the bottom of the Function Graphing-page

Andre anckaert (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude. No, Adrignola only added the category. The issue is solved (tagged as speedy). --Panic (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Adrignola,

Please read on my User talk page what this Panic2k4 is spanking me for. I am just a relatively new user asking questions. I think, as you avised me, boldly and in good faith. That Panic2k4 seems not to assume. I am an old gentlemen (°1928) and enjoy strolling around here. My school-maths stem from the 1940's. Please tell me, am I really wrong when asking questions or expressing an honest opinion?

Andre anckaert (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How the Stock Market was founded section

I had put this under US since the description it contains doesn't apply globally (I don't know particularly the US history) but what is described there existed and was used before Columbus discovered America (it can be a limitation on how it is described, it could as well be talking about shipping insurance etc). In place of a deletion, since I don't know the history of the US Stock Market (nor have I checked it) it reduced the scope to a reduce the error. --Panic (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC) See w:Stock exchange for instance... --Panic (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't rearrange the headings, just made them each one level lower since the page title is level one. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know but if you have knowledge on that area, I'm asking for you to check if the content is somehow correct. It shared the parents scope before I tweaked it, I reduced the scope of all the content to the US the first bit was named stocks (or something generic). --Panic (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The ordering of the headings looks fine, as the content applies to the US. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 04:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'm off to bed. I'll duplicate what I've said here on that page's talk so future editors understand what happened (probably link to the RFD too)... --Panic (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple English Wikibooks

Hello Adrignola and thank you for taking the brief time for introducing me here. Right now there is a possible conflict of interest regarding the closure of the Simple Wikibooks. The proposal for closure was finished a few days ago, with the final result being 45 yeas and 17 nos. The outcome is 72.5% in support for closure, and the discussion has lasted a little over six months. The main reasons why the project was nominated for closure was due to long-term inactivity, little supervision within the project, and a lack of will from editors to continue the project. Two former admins from simple wikibooks commented why the proposal had not been closed yet. I decided to make a bold step in good faith and did the work for them. I noticed that you made a bugzilla request (#22106) asking the developers to import or transfer content from simple to here. I believe that is unnecessary. The English Wikibooks is doing very fine right now, but combining itself with simple does not seem like a good idea. There is little to be gained or benefited from as most of the content is stubby and incomplete. I wish you could rethink about that and just let the will of the people who voted in the discussion be carried out. Regards, Slipknot1 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Mike.lifeguard suggested the bug be filed citation and I notice that an admin at Simple has posted a notice stating that the content will be merged. The bug I filed I will admit was premature but I can't change its status at this time. Additionally, a page was created by someone other than myself at Wikibooks:Simple English merger, certainly with the intention of merging content. There are three options: do nothing with the content, merge it in to the main namespace and remove any distinctions of simplicity, or merge it in to a new namespace and preserve any distinctions. I haven't brought in any content myself at this time as I'm trying to determine what the community here as a whole thinks about the content. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing nothing with the content that is of good quality would be a waste and hurt contributors, merging it in to the main namespace would preserve it but might offend those who believe Meta was a vote on the content as well as the project, merging it in to a new namesapce would offend those who feel the project should no longer exist in any way shape or form, even as a subproject. I see where you're coming from, but I also don't see any prohibitions on importing of content, so I was hoping the best of both worlds could be achieved. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Stubby and incomplete is how one might describe much of the content at English Wikibooks. Anyone is free to upload content that fits our scope as long as licensing is fulfilled. I put this page up to get an overview of the content over at Simple English Wikibooks. We've already identified several pages that are of questionable value and that do not add to this project. Anyone is free to import or request an import of anything else, wholesale or per page. --Swift (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bug request withdrawn. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In most closure cases, the project and its content are usually eliminated together until they are reopened. However since the Simple English projects have a different situation, some people are concerned that the contributions might go to waste. Doing nothing with the content was what I was sort-of expecting, but I'll support merging content if A) the content is merged into the namespace and is unsimplified into regular English or B) the appropriate content is merged strictly to Wikijunior and not as a subproject. I hope that may resolve this. Regards, —§ stay (sic)! 06:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that your position seems at odds with the fact that you have nearly 6,600 contributions at Simple Wikipedia. For someone who contributes so heavily to a Simple English project, I am curious as to why you're so adamant about the demise of a sister project. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 17:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple wikibooks (SEWB for short) has served no useful purpose throughout most of its existence other than being an extension of wikibooks and the simple english projects. Simple wikipedia or SEWP on the other hand, has better potential as a successful project and has a stable group of long-term editors and admins. If SEWP was also proposed for closure, I would oppose its closure. I am a regular editor at SEWP and formerly at SEWQ so I am not new to simple projects. If something is unnecessary and has no benefits for keeping, we should eliminate it. Besides I don't understand why I'm still discussing about this. The proposal has been closed. I've been repeating myself here for the past days. —§ stay (sic)! 04:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Thanks for cleaning up after my page creations with categorising. Seeing how you do quite a lot on that front, could you have a look at Wikibooks:Categories, in particular the Books section. There is no mention of {{BookCat}} so I figured it could use an update by someone well versed in the field. --Swift (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried my hand at it and also updated Using Wikibooks/Subjects, Categories, and Classifications to use BookCat primarily. I removed complex details of the code underlying BookCat to avoid overwhelming newcomers with technical complexity as I doubt anyone will want to tune the category code by hand. It all boils down to having BookCat on every page directly or indirectly. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, --Swift (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikijunior subpages

Just wondering, since I see Swift subst'd a bunch of these into the Wikijunior main page and you then deleted the subpages... what happened to the subpages' edit histories (and, legally speaking, does it matter)? --Pi zero (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, to cover ourselves we should merge the histories, and I have done so. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Adventure writer

Hey Adrignola. Could you explain to me why you deleted Adventure writer as "Not textbook material even after I replaced the speedy deletion tag with a query? It seemed to me that a textbook on w:Adventure writer was a fair topic. --Swift (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Content was "Glad to join the WIKI world-" — not what I'd consider indicative of a stub. I'm not sure what to make of your link to a nonexistent Wikipedia page. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The link is a handier reference to the deletion log entry than this. Did it come across as something else?

The contributor went through the bother of signing up, expressed an interest in the community and knew enough about wikis to sign his comment (albeit on a module page). Did you think it was unreasonable to give this a week? --Swift (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism can be created by those logged in and many times a user page can be created to "blue" the name and make it easier to slip under the radar. While this may have been a non-threatening act, the page does not correspond to a topic one could see as a textbook and otherwise appears to be a nonsense page, regardless of who created it. Maybe you mean to link to w:Professional Adventure Writer above. Your w:Adventure writer link goes no entry. I have added comments to the user's talk page to mediate the situation in light of your feelings and so hopefully that will be satisfactory to everyone. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry: I meant to link to w:Professional Adventure Writer. I hope you don't view this as something you felt you had to do for my feelings. It's a question of following policy and building the community. There was nothing about this case that suggested vandalism and there was certainly no need to prematurely delete a page tagged with {{query}}. Deleting one of a new user's first edits without notice only invites frustration. In this case there was no harm in leaving the page for a week (I was preparing a note for the user to alert him of the issue as you deleted the page). There are occasional incidents where editors (usually but not always newcomers) feel they've been wronged. It poisons the atmosphere and is a complete waste of everyone's time when it can be so easily avoided.

Thanks for the note on the user's talk page! Reaching out to a hundred one-time visitors is better than shunning a single future Wikibookian. --Swift (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Requests for deletion#Slackersbible

Check the discussion and if you agree change your vote. --Panic (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)