User talk:Iamunknown/Archive 2

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

This is an archive, please do not edit it.

Contents 1 Odd edit? 2 Task needed 3 STL 4 Ratings disaster 5 Deadminiship 6 WB:WIW/Unstable Vote 7 BTW 8 CommonsTicker stutter

Odd edit?

Can you take a look at Relationships/Sex. Whatever you did seems to be an incomplete revert but I am not sure what you intended so will leave it to you --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Az fixed it. The version of Firefox that I am using has been truncating text areas. I apologise for the inconvenience. --Iamunknown 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Noticed and no problem - hope all is well --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Task needed

Can you merge the history logs of C++ Programming/Variables and Expressions and C++ Programming/Variables and delete the first, txs. --Panic 20:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this an uncontroversial change? --Iamunknown 21:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup the existence of the two pages is due to the fork and the merge of the books. It is not involved on any active dispute. --Panic 21:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think that it is done. --Iamunknown 21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to restore to the current version when you were done. I took care of it. --darklama 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

STL

Humm but should we have redirects to pagemodules ? Should it point to the book section or to the book front page? or is it really necessary at all (using the site search would be more useful), you will either agree or disagree, if you don't agree please consider at least mark it for VfD and we can argue about it and see if is really needed , if so, then we would have a lots of redirects that would like to see existing :) (I'm using a bit of reverse logic and skipping to the final stage of this rational), but as you I also see some (but less) positive reasons to have it and others like it preserved... --Panic 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Take it to VfD if you want. Its a petty issue. And currently if someone searches "STL" it automatically redirects them to the appropriate module; I don't think it would if the redirect were deleted. --Iamunknown 05:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right there, btw that is also another thing that doesn't work well, for instance if you do a search for CPU, since there is no CPU in the root Wikimedia after checking there it jumps to the users pages, people using Wikibooks search would most probably wish a reply on book contents first.

I know it is of this is of less importance but for the sake of consistency and so not to let this depend on who does or takes action (it would have saved me the time to have marked it to deletion or even you removal from deletion), we should probably see if this is a process that should be made default or just avoid deletion redirects of this nature is they serve some purpose and to where should they point to the book or to the module, in this case the module has relevance since when I made the wrong move (to the root and not to the book) the path to the last copy was preserved.

For instance C++ (also a redirect has some logic since it is indeed the core of the book subject) but STL is part of the subject, humm is like if I crated a Chocolate redirect to a recipe in the Cookbook (generally speaking), either way a consensus decission of what to do would serve to make this into the proper police (deletion, VfD or other) this would save someone else repeating actions and even this discussion later on. As you seem not to have strong filling either way and I do I think it is one of those minor issues that should benefit from clarification, I will only post this on the chat page, someone may have other valid points either way. --Panic 06:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A guideline regarding redirects may be appropriate. About redirects to the Cookbook, what I would like to see is the cookbook namespace searched in addition to the main namespace by default. I asked m:User:Pathoschild about it in January (his answer) and I can ask around tomorrow. --Iamunknown 06:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ratings disaster

See http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WB:SLC#Ratings_disaster.21.21 RobinH 11:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deadminiship

In response to your comments at WB:RFA, and User:Withinfocus' reply, I have created a dedicated discussion area for this topic at Wikibooks_talk:Administrators#Inactive_administrators. If you are interested in changing the policy, you can make your comments at that place. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, am I supposed to respond to a declaratory statement that my comments were inappropriately made at WB:RFA or assumptions that I haven't read the previous discussions? I fail to see how that will be productive. --Iamunknown 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt mean any offense to you, but if you are interested in altering the policy (as your comment would seem to indicate), then you should discuss it at the proper forum. WB:RFA is a place for implementing policy, not working to change policy. I don't want your criticisms to go unheard because people dont feel they were made in the right place. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fighting with User:Withinfocus isn't going to help anything. If he comes off as abrasive it's because he has a large amount of frustration over that page, a frustration that I share with him. If you do want to change the policy, you can discuss it at the appropriate places. If you keep fighting on the WB:RFA page, it wont accomplish anything except to make everybody angry. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I do not intend to make anyone angry, and I suppose that I am a bit to confrontational and stubborn sometimes and feel out of the loop partly because I am not as active here as I would like and partly because what I see for Wikibooks is not necessarily what everyone else seems to see. I just committed another revision to WB:RFA and, now that I think about it, it will likely only perpetuate the problem—stupid me. Again thank you, Iamunknown 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WB:WIW/Unstable Vote

Can you please explain why you oppose the adoption of WB:WIW/Unstable on the voting page? --darklama 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Explained. --Iamunknown 23:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW

Mailed you --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

CommonsTicker stutter

G'day, CommonsTicker has a bad stutter. It has now warned Cookbook talk:Cilantro six times, for an image that was removed before the first warning. Webaware ^talk 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)