User talk:Mike.lifeguard

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Messages Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). I will reply to messages left here below your comment, not on your talk page unless requested otherwise. Please do the same for me unless the message was semi-automated (ie. a template message - I don't add pages to my watchlist if it's just a template message). I suggest adding this page to your watchlist so you can easily check when I've replied. The talk page for my bot redirects here. To stop the bot, replace the redirect with a note explaining why. Post a comment If you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body

Contents 1 WB interview 2 The verdict 3 My screenshot's probpem... 4 Image uploads 5 Proteomics: Corticosteroids 6 Sorry but... 7 re: Delete 8 thank you! 9 About the Author 10 Radiation Oncology textbook 11 now commons 12 I reject your warning

[edit] WB interview

Yes, I am stilling doing yours. I am really busy with exam until next Tuesday. All publications are pushed back 2 weeks (see the schedule). Those dates are not corrected yet, so the earliest for Wikibooks interview to be published is May 12. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, noted.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The verdict

Just wondering. What was the conclusion of the discussion above? Hoping a positive reply! Thanks --Thewinster (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still convinced you don't have the right to release that content under the GFDL, though who the copyright holder actually is is unclear. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that someone's rights are being infringed here (probably the students').  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Awww...!!! Unlucky me! Why? Why does it infringe the students' rights? If we get back at it, the students have no role to play other than recall from memory what somebody else them asked in some question paper. By doing so if they do not infringe anyone's copyrights why is that we are infringing? As a matter of fact even I am a student who has answered that examination. If the invisible student has any copyrights, am I not able to release it under the GFDL? If they do not then we have got to find the copyright owners.

You may be right, there is a copyright but to whom it belongs is unclear. The problem is

• The IITs set a question paper
• Nowhere in the examination brochure, question paper, counselling brochure or any web presence of the IITs does anyone mention or claim any copyright over the question papers.

Any doubts whatsoever and I try my best to present you with the relevant details! --Thewinster (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the questions are copyrighted by whoever wrote them in the first place, regardless of whether they're marked as such. If someone copied them (even from memory) that is technically a copyright violation. A scan of said copyright violation is therefore also a copyright violation. I'm not crystal clear on the caselaw, but if you insist, I can look it up.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I did say I wont be uploading scans. And thanks for the little offer to look up to the legalese. Defintely yes for that.

By the way, I just got a little query. Many many questions on the question paper are standard ones, say 2+2=? for a first grade student and the likes only that they have altered the presentation a bit. What if we alter the question paper language and the presentation etc.? Can we circumvent this technical copyright violation? I say technical because no one will actually bother to claim copyright on this work! It is for the immense responsibility that wikimedia has to show in its content policy that we have to do censor the QPs I guess.

Very simple stuff like that are {{PD-ineligible}} so feel free to use those!  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 13:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally! Well, that 2+2=4 analogy is strictly an analogy. The question papers are of a respectable level, but the thing is - they contain work that is common property. --Thewinster (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My screenshot's probpem...

Some time ago, I've expanded article MediaWiki_Administrator's_Handbook/Spam_and_Spammers and added sreenshots of some captcha plugins.

These screenshots were removed...

Can you please solve the problem with this screenshots?

1. These pluguins are opensource.

2. I've made this screenshots myself

2.1. As an author of these screenshots I wish to share them at any licence that is acceptebe at your site.

What else can I do in order to get these images back to the article?

PS please add copy of the answer, or a link to it to my talk page, so I will be able to receive it.

Shaplov (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored, fixed & reverted the removals.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image uploads

Thanks for the note re "source". I drew the images myself, what does "source" mean in that context? I should put my name? That would be odd since the name is already in the "Author" slot, so what to do? --Mcld (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"self-made" would be perfect.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proteomics: Corticosteroids

I was trying to make this page for a school prodject. Do you want me to wait untill its complete to post it?

You can post it whenever you want (please follow the naming policy), but test edits should be made in the sandbox.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry but...

I don't want to come across as objecting to every nominations you make, but since you are the one making most of them I will mostly object to yours. In the same subject I pretty much against deletion of content if not directly opposed to policy and even on some stances I will probably push the envelope on what is acceptable and will support most changes that can make Wikibooks more inclusive.
On the copyvio I'm strongly against bringing copyvio discussions to the VfD forum, I have prety much explained why I object to it but mostly because delete votes will mostly made without any deep understanding of facts, event and consideration to contributors to the works involved.
Ok just to make it clear to you that I'm not blinding objecting to your cleanup work but only to some of your decisions or approaches to some issues. --Panic (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

{{copyvio}} is for blatant copyright violations - that is perhaps not the case with Ear piercing. As an aside, I don't see what's wrong with !voting delete based solely on copyright concerns and not "any deep understanding of facts, event and consideration to contributors to the works involved." Copyright violations are a perfectly valid reason to delete, so why would you need anything additional?  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No you misunderstood me, I don't propose anything special at all and I don't view {{copyvio}} as only to be used to blatant violation (I particularly don't like the level of "confidence" you seem to imply with the word), it is or it is not (in doubt it is not), any one not being/representing the copyright holder doesn't have the legal obligation of researching and provide prof of ownership, some of us do it as a preemptive measure to protect the legality of the content we use, the project and Wikimedia and mostly only on clear evidence of a copyright violation.

As I read and understand the requirements the copyvio tag is a better avenue than bringing to the accusation to a more public forum, simply using the copyvio tag (and we expect everyone does it with the needed considerations and with a good moral ground) permits the parties involved not only to be aware of the problem but also avenues to address the issue.

I don't see any way a person would vote keep to a VfD nomination based on a copyvio allegation and don't see it as the best approach to a productive resolution of the problem, the only instance I see for calling outside (of the work/edit) intervention is to help establish the facts and VfD doesn't seem the best place for it. Bringing a copyvio to a VfD discussion is almost guaranteed to make it mush more difficult to the "problematic" contributor to resolve the issue, I think this is avoidable and stream lined by simply using the copyvio that will target only users interested on that specific content and increase the responsibility of the person that tags the work as such. --Panic (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Have you kept tabs on the Advanced Interactive Media ? Is the restructuring under any timelineVfD discussion here, since it seems to be still evolving as a course and major rewrite and restructuring will still be needed to turn it into a book... --Panic (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is still in progress.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Delete

14:54, 2 May 2008 Mike.lifeguard (Talk | contribs) deleted "About the author/Jazzmanian" ‎ (Not textbook material

Any chance of getting the text from this deleted page from a historical version ? Obviously I must have put the page in the wrong spot, and will try and get it right, but I don't have a local copy of the text anywhere. Thanks. GG (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Restored: About the author/Jazzmanian. Please see WB:NP for info on where it should go.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've got the text local now, so this can be deleted again. I've read the Naming Policy, WB:NP and am no wiser as to where or how to place my 'about the author' info, but I'll keep reading. GG (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this is supposed to be part of a book you're writing, it should be at Book Name/Authors or something. If it's supposed to be about you, but not connected to any particular book, it should go on your userpage.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank you!

on several occasions you've fixed the new pages i've created where i've forgotten to include the cookbook: prefix to my page name ... thanks!! Wikidsoup (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the Author

Hi Mike,

I'd like to hear your thoughts regarding the creation of "About the author" pages. I have one at About the author/Jomegat and I transclude it in several chapters of the Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book. There are a few other authors who have also created them (after I encouraged them to do so). User:Jazzmanian created one last week and you moved it around and maybe deleted it. I'm too tired right now to track down everything that happened (just returned from a weekend camping trip) but thought it would be good to see what you were thinking. Do you think they are appropriate (I obviously do)? Do you think they belong in user space (I think maybe they do). --Jomegat (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Just read the answer a little further up on this talk page. I think that's prolly a good idea, so I'll move mine (but maybe tomorrow - I am awfully tired tonight). --Jomegat (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's going to be transcluded into several books, it should be either a template or in your userspace (best idea). There's no book called About the Author, so the mainspace isn't a good location for it. At least, that's my take on it.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 12:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I found all of them and moved them into user space. I created mine when I was still pretty much a noob here and never really gave it a second thought. Thanks for your input on this. --Jomegat (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to do this then ? I was editing my profile page where I added my about. If I can create one in the correct spot, mine in the incorrect place can be deleted please. Gerald (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gerald - It looks like you have one in the correct spot (User:Jazzmanian/About the author). To add that to a book just insert {{:User:Jazzmanian/About the author}} where ever you want it to show up. If you can point me to one that's not in the right place, I can delete it for you. --Jomegat (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought that one was delete for being in the wrong spot - perhaps when Mike restored it, he relocated correctly on my behalf. - If so Thanks Mike ! Gerald (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The wrong spot was About the author/Jazzmanian. The preferred spot is in the User: namespace. --Jomegat (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys got it :)  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So mine is good now - cool ! Thanks all ! Gerald (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation Oncology textbook

Thank you for your nomination of the Radiation_Oncology textbook for a Featured Book. We recently received an acceptance of an abstract describing it at our professional society (ASTRO) annual meeting. I just wanted to follow-up to see if/what else we need to do to continue with the nomination process. Thanks! Tdvorak (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing left, except for an admin to close the discussion. It looks like there's a fair amount of discussion, and the only negative comments have been addressed, or are relatively minor (formatting). I would do it myself, but as I'm the nominator, I can't. I imagine someone else will get to it soon enough. Congrats on getting the abstract accepted.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] now commons

Excuse me, it's true "GFDL Presume" deceived me, I had not seen the "presumed", I had only done if the graphics, not much content, then I saw GFDL and I believed everything was ok. my mistake, sorry again (translate by google)--Wim b (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem, as these images were fixed. Thanks for taking care in the future.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I reject your warning

Wikibooks2PDF only accepts Wikibooks URLs. Thus it was for testing reasons the only way to use a normal Wikibooks page because the Sandbox can be modified from another user when using Wikibooks2PDF. Feel free to block my IP for some days _ I have made my test and will never come back to meet so "friendly" people like you. No regards --84.60.192.116 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)