User talk:Mattb112885
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Welcome Back!
Hello Matt, welcome back! The semester has been hard for me too, and I'm not even done yet! My classes are over, but I have two final projects to complete and submit before I can officially call it quits. What have you got lined up now? Vacation? Job? I'm in the middle of the job hunt myself, and that may be more stressful and time-consuming then school was! Wikibooks has been quiet lately, so I'm hoping a lot of students and teachers pick up now that the semester is over. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the best wishes, I need all the good luck I can get! Last I heard about the hit counter, the script broke down or something and nobody bothered to fix or replace it. I don't know what the story is with that, but I personally miss having those numbers available. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt, Thank you for the very helpful advice on my economic expansion piece. I will resubmit as you suggest. I don't see how to reactivate the image though. Should I resubmit as I did when I orginally submitted the text? I'm concerned about leaving any orphan pages behind. - Al (Talk) 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thank you for telling me that, I was not aware of that. Red4tribe (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just wanted to thank you for the Chemical Engineering Wikibook. I'm mostly a Wikipedian, but I'm striving to be a chemical engineer, so this book looks good. TheSun (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Right to Vanish
I'm aware they have that right, but don't they need to offer a reason first? Or maybe I'm just confused. I apologize if I am. Red4tribe (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] speedy
I'm not opposed to readdress the issue (nor to your change of the tag even if the previous was more explicit), and give it more time. I took actions to reactivate it just to cover the new objection of Jammes.
There needs to be consensus before deletion; please do not put the tag back up until there is a compromise reached (as shown at the VFD, it has not yet) this statement is erroneous.
Can you point to me how it failed the normal decission process ? Can I oppose a concluded and formally established decission process after it is finished and revert it ? Since in this case we aren't re-evaluating and already passed decision nor addressing an undeletion but in fact the action is being reversed against what is the normal decission process.
In any case if no valid objection is given in 7 days after the last post on the issue is made,I request that you fallow trough on your action and address the speedy personally. Or do you have any other point that you haven't raised ? --Panic (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that a reversal of passed decission is possible by stating an objection, in this case indirectly, since the actor even if a Wikibookian objected on the grounds of his interpretation of another user wishes outside of the discussion process and after its conclusion, in an open and understood as normal decission process, please go to the book conventions and remove/revoke that approved decission. That was the base for the speedy request and you should add your own view of how it was mishandled on the reactivated discussion process so to avoid or clarify future and similar actions. --Panic (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think you should work it out with James before trying to claim that a consensus has been made. If you can arrive at a compromise, I will not take issue with its qualification as a speedy, but as the VFD showed there is still work to be done. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- You think right and Jammes and the other user was already informed on their talk pages, but nevertheless if you removed the tag based on your comment you must elaborate. Take the case for example that I objected now to the action that granted you your admin flag? Would it cancel your promotion? No the best I could do, was to request its removal in a new discussion. Do we have a different standard here ?!?
- The VFD only occurred because of WK refusal to take action on a previously reached decission and I and Mike agreed on both the initiation and its closing, the VFD was an error and even WK makes a fuss about it and probably he is right.
- The problem you must address is:
- A) The decission was lawful but WK isn't forced to implement it and is free to state any considerations, the decission stands and an administrator must act on it B) The decission is unlawful, you remove the tag for speedy and act accordingly as I requested.
- You acted and claimed something that was not based on the events. I just called your attention to that and requested that if you are sure of your action you should complete it. You are now the third administrator taking action on the subject and I'm asking you to do it right one way or the other nothing more.
- Jammes opinion is valid but out of time to reverse the decission, if it is considered valid, as I have said before the rational he provided doesn't address the keeping of the page, nor advanced any solution or alternative. Would a valid VFD vote be take constructively if I only substantiated my vote based on the creator's nationality or in the faces of the moon ?!? (an exaggeration to prove the point, Jammes isn't crazy)
- I could point you to previous VFDs to validate this common practice to dismiss opposition (even with some bases but on minority), and in this case we aren't, the issue is how to address the rest of the proposal.
- I would be the first to support an undeletion of the page if Jammes wished to do it, the proposal addressed is the title page situation, the deletion of TOC2 was only part of the problem (its removal would remove any purpose for the actual title page) and the decission addresses it, so please clarify and take action, removing the speedy tag doesn't address anything. Each time someone intervenes he seems not the address the issue.
- The right action for WK was to exclude himself of the action and/or he should have requested DL to clarify it, on the discussion page (but his reply is peaty clear, he stated he doesn't care) even so it could be argued that I'm a raving mad and am attempting to steamroll the decission, well the fact is that I've gone out of my way to speak to DL (Do you go, after a proposal is passed, informing each user of the decission and seeing if they object to it ?!?, in this case and due to the lack of participation and since he was the creator I decided that I should, if he was inactive I would go that far). --Panic (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I will not take a stance on whether it should actually be deleted or not, that is for book's contributors to decide. However, the page should not be deleted until all the contributors (i.e. James) agree that it is for the best future of the book, I believe (and this might be a different interpretation from yours) that section 6 of the speedy deletion policy only holds if the contributors have all agreed on the new structure of the book. If you link make an agreement you make with James, I won't take issue with you claiming it fits that criteria.
- Also, there may be informally reaonable amounts of time after which it's not possible to reverse the decision but, how much time has passed since you made the proposal? If it was less than, say, a month or two, I think it's too soon. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- reset
About section 6 what we disagree is on until all the contributors, what you imply isn't practical nor done as you seem to indicate in any other decission process.
less than, say, a month or two you are clearly joking, even community decission don't take that long. In the case at hand it takes 7 days of no stated objection, so in a few days if no one commits to a validated opposing position we will have to address it again.
I see that you are fidgeting about the issue and don't want to commit to an action, again that is your prerogative and I will bother you no more... --Panic (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My reviewer request
Hi Mattb112885: Please consider supporing my request to become a reviewer. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
