User talk:Darklama
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
|
I believe discussions should continue where they started.
|
[edit] SB_Johnny
[edit] PDF problem
BTW: I noticed the problem when making a pdf and seeing that it didn't follow the "noprint" protocol that the interwiki templates need to follow. That's a big issue too :). --SB_Johnny | talk 13:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] One more template thing
(Way over my head on this one.) Could you see if you could alter Template:Cite web to not require the "title" (in the first few lines)? Seems to me the URL should be sufficient. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, maybe set "accessdate" to autofill if not filled in manually too? --SB_Johnny | talk 10:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Erm, on second thought, maybe have it autofill the date only if substituted... sorry i'm so demanding :). --SB_Johnny | talk 10:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citation templates
w:Wikipedia:Citation_templates has the full list. I'm still not certain that it needs to be consolidated though. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Understanding C++
I approve of your idea/brief overview of the goals of this text, and strongly agree that some planning should precede the creation of actual content. Having a good outline up front is key to achieving coherence, even though the Wikimedia medium allows for fixing many things over time.
One of the most fundamental decisions to make then teaching programming using C++ is whether to deal with high-level or low-level details first. My personal leaning, for most beginners, is to start with high-level constructs (e.g., use std::string before talking about arrays and pointers). No doubt there are many people who like bottom-up approaches (and, when learning, I may be one of them), but my experience is that most of those who start learning C++ from a low-level viewpoint never progress to master its high-level aspects too, whereas a good fraction of those who handle the high-level pieces first can fill in the details later (and many never need to). Besides, there are many books that try to teach low-level C++, but relatively few that cover the "modern" C++ style. -- James Dennett 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Subject:Programming
I know you had done a lot of work on this page previously. I know Panic said he was going to recategorize some books. One of the tabs on this page is completely empty and another tab doesn't display when I click on it. Maybe you want to take another look at this? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I had done a lot of work previously to use plural form of the category name as well. I'm not happy with the change. Makes no sense to me. --darklama 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- This also means its inconsistent with Category:Domain-specific languages, Category:Markup languages, Category:Languages, Category:Scripting languages, etc. --darklama 20:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] IE issues with tablecollapse
Hi, I stumble upon MediaWiki:Common.js/Navigation.js and fell in love with it, it has many of some features i was trying to code when i found yours, but as i was testing and in FireFox div NavFrame had no issues and with table collapse the hide/show did not appear and with IE div NavFrame seem to work perfectly but also table collapse the hide/show did display but they did not collapse, i test it here at wikibooks, and i find the same issue, in case you need to know im using FF 3.0.5 and IE 7.0.6 with OS Vista User:Cizagna at Wikia.com
[edit] Collection Extension
The indent template is supposed to create a linefeed before it indents the line. It works on Wikiversity, but doesn't do the linefeed on Wikibooks. If you inline it, instead of getting a new line, it just puts a gap in the line where you asked for the indent.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- The {{indent}} template didn't include a line break like the Wikiversity version did. That was a bug in the template and not the collection extension. --darklama 12:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Funny I could swear that the first time I used it, it worked fine, in fact it was because I used it here that I started using it on Wikiversity.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Caution
I noticed a posting today that might be part of a campaign by a user that likes to have multiple accounts, and refuses to sign their postings. This user is currently under ban on Wikiversity, and Wikipedia because they like to post what they term "Big Wiki Art" which is an excuse for entries that expand the number of edits they do without improving the quality of the wikis they contribute to.
An example is the posting of a "header" at the top of talk pages that were connected to headings on another page, in a portal. The Author of the portal didn't see the rationale for the postings and instead of dealing with the issue the user in question erased the question from their user talk page.
So far I hadn't seen evidence here of the same campaign, but recently a posting reminded me of it, and I thought I should warn you that they may have shifted their interest here since they can't convince Wikiversity to return their access. Because they make such a good case for the number of edits they do, this user often gets system rights, and has been known to collect them on multiple accounts, something the stewards frown on. Look for postings without signatures, mentions to big-wiki-art, and useless edits which characterize this users work. For instance one part of his campaign was to drop NOTOCs at random onto pages. I think there is an agenda behind the campaign but what that agenda might be is anyones guess.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] My Reviewer request
Hi Darklama: Please consider supporing my request to become a reviewer. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
Hi,
I have to go, but if you want to give response... ;) Canp (catienpetji talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] deletion policy
Your last changes are not in complete accordance to what was in the text and best practices.
"Administrators may ignore requests, reverse requests, seek a second opinion from the community through Requests for deletion,"
The reverse bit is dis-contextualized, the ignore bit is already present in the Wikibooks:Administrators if needed to be repeated it should be done on the top of the text as it will cover all the admin actions (speedy, RfD etc), the original intention was also a better way to address admin doubts, just leave the speedy on for another to deal with (second opinion). All other avenues are left open but that should be the first option in KISS principle, having admins initiate RfDs because they failed to act has already been proven damaging.
"The last may qualify for speedy deletion depending on the situation or if you want a second opinion you may make a Request for deletion."
The indication was for anyone restoring a blanked page, they shouldn't directly bring it to a RfD. An attempt should first be made to open a dialog with the Wikibookian that performed the action, depending on what the intention is for the one restoring the page, it will turn a 1 on 1 discussion in a 1 to many that probably will not even have participation. Historically page blanking have resulted in speedy or block, no RfD is welcomed in those cases. --Panic (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Event trigger
Hello!
I would like to suggest a change to Template:Event trigger. It seems to be possible to simplify it, changing
{{#ifexpr:{{#time:Ymd|{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}}} >= {{#time:Ymd|{{{date|{{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}}}}} +{{{when|7 days}}}}}|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}}}
to
{{#ifexpr:{{#time:Ymd|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}} >= {{#time:Ymd|{{{date|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +{{{when|7 days}}}}}|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}}}
What do you think? Helder (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
