User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 21

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

<older newer>

Replacement filing cabinet.svg

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.



Contents

HEY!

Thank you writing a book on First Aid! I am very much into health and medicine. I have actually thought about that being my career! Thank you again for your hard work

I'm glad you've found it useful. As I said, there's still plenty of room for expansion and improvement, so be bold.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Email

Okay, I confirmed one, and enabled other users to send me mail. Red4tribe (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 23:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Optimal Classification split tag

Call your attention to the discussion on Talk:Optimal Classification about the need for the split tag you added. Txs. --Panic (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied there.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

unispecs.gif

Thanks for your note and continued guidance. I will immediately make my best effort to apply the appropriate dual-license template to the logo, which is my own. Its nice to see your words again, best wishes Chris Chrismar (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mike, Thank you very much for your continued guidance. I do apologize for any inconvenience and please know that it is not my intention to be over-protective or inappropriate with the small contributions made. In the case of unispec.gif, this logo is internationally copyright as mentioned, under my name. There are manuscripts, technical gear and training media which carry this logo. However, as the creator of the logo I understand the requirement to provide free use, here. In order to make the correct change, I would be grateful if you would point me to the appropriate template for this purpose. Thanks again very much. Chris Chrismar (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I recommend dual licensing under the {{GFDL}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to allow maximum flexibility. However, you may choose any free license. The combination mentioned allows re-use for any purpose, including the creation of derivative works, and for commercial purposes, but requires attribution, and is viral (so all derivatives must be licensed under the GFDL or CC-by-sa-2.5). You can simply replace everything I have striked out (between <s> and </s>) with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5}} if those licensing terms are acceptable. Hope this is clear.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 12:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your invaluable time and patience. I have taken the entirety of your suggestion to implement both templates to the image file in question. I can't say enough as to the educational benefit you have been so kind to provide. Your instructions and directions were very clear and appreciated to the utmost. Being there may still exist some disparity on my part, I welcome your advisement always. warmest rgds; Chris Chrismar (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good for licensing - do you mind using {{Information}} to provide a description etc? Otherwise great work & glad to be of help. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why

The discussion was formally closed, if your intention is to gather objections you should just contact any party that you perceive that needs to express an opinion. I've placed a notice on the only user that expressed an opinion against the deletion (on the aborted VFD), if you indeed think there are divergent opinions the a VFD is the only way forward, but this formally invalidates the discussion process that has taken place, pointing to a closed discussion doesn't help a bit. --Panic (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not my place to convince people to take part in a discussion, nor to convince them of any viewpoint here. You need to discuss this with other book contributors and come to a consensus on what to do. You are not "other book contributors" (nor am I) so please go discuss this with them. However, placing spurious {{delete}}s is disruptive, and will stop.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please re-tag it for speddy deletion (you aren't forced to execute it) or justify why you think your action is wanted, needed or useful. --Panic (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I have clearly and repeatedly explained why a speedy deletion is totally improper in this situation. The reasoning should be obvious regardless.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems I don't get your reasoning, are you claiming that there are any non addressed standing objections to the deletion of that page ? If so point me out where. --Panic (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The VFD was closed as "no consensus" like 5 days ago. Surely you can't be serious!?  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The VFD was your action, and I clearly opposed to the wording you used as you aborted it (since you perceived, and I agreed it as error were no good outcome would came from it), more it hasn't been 5 days I extended the actual discussion to cover any of the new objections that were made on the VFD, more than 7 days elapsed since then and even I requested directly to those users to restate any objection, inaction is by default not an action. --Panic (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The proposal was opened to objections for months more that is required to validate it. --Panic (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If a proposed issue is not contested, debated or altered in 7 days it should be moved out of the Proposed section as adopted., this was adopted for use in the book in 4 March 2006, it is valid and not in violation of any policy or guideline on wikibooks. --Panic (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No objection, particularly in a case such as this, is not the same as consensus and you know it. Furthermore, there was no consenus at the VFD to delete the page (which, yes was 12 days ago; my bad). If you wish to contest the closure, please do so. But (again!) spurious {{delete}} requests are disruptive, and will stop.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting exasperated, don't you as an administration have to comply with the policies and guidelines of wikibooks ? Please see the Wikibooks:Decision making active guideline, and I call your attention to point 5 of the process, I'll grant you the option not to act but removing the delete tag is breaking the guideline and common practice based on you justification. Geez.
I've gone way out of my way to provide you and others examples that attest that your view that a discussion has to take place is erroneous, in it's strict sense in not a requirement. Just consider how you execute a speedy deletion, one user makes a proposal and you as administrator only have to check for objections, if none exist you execute the administrative action. --Panic (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
User WK decided to excuse himself based on what should be clear to all a partiality that was clearly expressed on the VFD, but he wasn't obligated to comply (but he didn't invalidate the decission, you did first without expressed objection from me to address the Jammes comment a result from your actions), but this second time I'm strongly objecting to it. --Panic (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If you indeed want to resolve and address the issue just delete the page, and commit to support (as again I do here) any valid request for undeletion. Problem solved. --Panic (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit exasperated too. Of course I have to comply with policy and guidelines as much as anyone else. I'm afraid I don't understand how removing the template is contrary to anything in that, much less section five. Indeed, compliance with that is why I have declined the speedy deletion.
There was a VFD, closed 12 days ago, which showed that there was not consensus among the book contributors to delete that page (much less among the wider community). As such, a speedy deletion request at this time is entirely inappropriate, and is disruptive. Please work with other book contributors to come to a consensus about what to do on this issue. When that happens, you may ask for an administrator to implement the decision. Until then, no administrator is permitted to take action, per policy.
I fail to see any relevant example which shows that discussion in a case such as this is unnecessary. If you can find one, I'll consider it of course. Deleting the page only to then support it's undeletion would be disruption of the wiki to make a point, and as such is a very bad idea.
If you take issue with my conduct as an administrator, please feel welcome to raise those concerns for community consideration.
Until there is a consensus about what to do on this issue, please do not request speedy deletion, nor open a new VFD. To do so would be disruptive as I have stated previously. When there is a consensus among book contributors, you may then request that an administrator implement it. Depending on the situation, that may mean a speedy deletion, or it may mean getting wider input at VFD, or some other action. However, the key here is that you need consensus among book contributors first.
Why don't we drop this rather unproductive discussion. When you have solicited opinions from other book contributors, or my closure of the VFD is invalidated, or the community sanctions me for conduct, we can consider these issues again. Until then, this discussion is, as I say, unproductive (and apparently causes us both some ire).  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • reset

I don't understand how removing the template is contrary to anything in that, again you are invalidating a correctly executed proposal that reached a decission in accord with the pre-existing procedures, removing/reverting what rightfully resulted from the now closed discussion. We have even addressed, again in the formal timeframe, (your own words) I've switched that to a VFD as that is certainly not an uncontroversial deletion. I just used the reason you gave in the template; you may wish to edit the nomination., then the only stated objection was presented after you initiated the erroneous VFD, and so the new objection stated on VFD was addressed and the decission process extended to grant James his chance to participate.
More, you asking me to force others to participate in a discussion, not I or you can make other participate in discussion and as I attempted to show you time and time again this is not how it is done, in this case and on many non specific decission processes, as I pointed out to you, in the Wikibooks:Decision making if you look in the process in point 5 it states "If there are no objections, the proposal is accepted and affirmative "community consensus" has been reached on the proposal.". You even fail to consider that this is common practice and that you execute proposals daily in exactly the same process (as speedy deletion). Depending on how you identify book contributors, I can claim that I'm the sole contributor working on the book at this time. So, if no one is around, how do we get to what you, against what is an active guideline, reach consensus? I was not joking but this requirement you are adding seems like a joke as it is probably unreachable, highly improbable and ultimately out of anyones power to obtain. That is why the execution of the deletion would switch the need to present an alternative to the other inexistent party, and is indeed a valid solution and that is why I proposed it, as it doesn't change any action future users would be able to take if so inclined even if your illusive concept for reaching a consensus is reached and the page deleted, not a "disruption" at all.
I've no wish to but if you are putting it on the terms it is my way or the highway and you don't advance any valid avenue for reaching a solution, don't restore the reached decission in the form of the speedy deletion, you live me no choice than to address your last action that invalidated a clean process of decission in the only possible way.
I'll not drop the issue since the action was originated by several requests for a solution, this is not an attempt to steam roll the issue and even I as the main editor of the book have avoided to address a problem that does indeed causes me trouble and ultimately damages the usage of the book. As it is there are no standing objections, James was asked to express his feeling and alternatives. A valid reply and statement to have is views validated was made in the VFD and a chance to address them granted. --Panic (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated that I'm not going to delete or move anything with respect to this issue, so I fail to understand why you continue harping on this issue with me. As I said, if you take issue with my conduct as an administrator, take it to the community. I suppose you could forum shop - feel free to ask another administrator or put the template back up (contrary to the edit summary I pointed out to you), though I'd be shocked if anyone saw fit to delete it at this point.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 12:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot username rename

Hi, I'd like my bot User:Computer to be renamed to User:タチコマ robot. This rename request is per my wikimedia wide bot username rename. I have decided to have a single username to more efficiently use SUL. Thanks.

  • If this is not the right place to make this request, please move it to the right place.

-- Cat chi? 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to WB:RENAME  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I am indeed me.
Defacto approved on my userpage means I am told to run my bot w/o a flag. That is either for testing or for other purposes. I generally do not mark as red so long as I hope to run my bot on that wiki some day. I was going to get back on wikibooks like two moths ago but things came up. My bot userpage is mostly a reminder to me and the example you mentioned isn't the only thing that is out dated. I hope to update it better once I have an easy access in checking which bot accounts of mine has a bot flag.
-- Cat chi? 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't remember why I though I needed confirmation from you :\  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably fearing impostors? Vigilance is good. :) -- Cat chi? 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

List of knots

Hey there, I just updated my Simplified list of knots article. Is it already good enough to delete the WB-template you placed? See the articles talk page. PS: I also read you made the "first aid"-wikibook; please note that I added some links and info to the first aid kit wikipedia article (you may want to link here if appropriate).

Thanks. KVDP 87.64.197.212 (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I left some notes on the talk page, and added a bunch of content, added some structure and shuffled things around a bit. Hope you like it.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tankevicius

Hey Mike, why did you revert the addition of Tankevicius to Writing_Adolescent_Fiction/Character_names/Lithuanian? I googled it and it appears to be a genuine Lithuanian surname. Cilantrohead (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It matched a pattern of rather severe cross-wiki vandalism. If you think it was a legitimate edit, you can of course reinstate it. Thanks for noticing.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 11:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

C++ Toc 2

Why did you close the vote? What, in the name of all that is sensible, could possibly compel you to close that vote?! ~VNinja~ 03:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It was clear to me at the time (as it is currently) that there was no consensus to take any action among the book contributors (much less among Wikibookians in general), and leaving the discussion open would arouse only further drama. The best solution is for the contributors to come to a clear consensus with respect to this issue through discussion on the relevant talk page(s). I've explained this in ludicrous amounts of detail to Panic already, so you may review those conversations as you see fit. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikijunior

Do you know if there will be more voting for new books in wikijunior? I recently made a suggestion but I am somewhat unfamiliar with the process and I do not know how long it takes to pass, although I do realize it probably takes more than 1 vote. Do you know?-Red4tribe (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on a side note, do you know where User:Neoptolemus has been? I asked him if he was interested and it is unlike him to remain inactive for such a long period of time. Well, I guess school is a possibility.-Red4tribe (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, the policy of voting on new books is ignored (& should possibly be marked as obsolete or somesuch). As for Neo, he does take infrequent wikibreaks, though he normally leaves a notice. Perhaps email would be better in that case.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So, would it be okay if I created the book for wikijunior? I want to be sure before I take action.-Red4tribe (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, go for it.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 09:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benkenobi is a retardate

Thanks for the help, Mike.lifeguard! I have gone cross-wiki reporting before, so after I fill out an RFCU, that's the first thing I plan on doing. I'll also keep Jpgordon's advice, and hopefully I will be able to set my mind on something else eventually. Cheers, Troy 07 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Navbox

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Template:Navbox

This template is now [incorrectly] collapsed in Firefox. I would undo your last change but the template is locked. Please sort it out. Regards SunCreator (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I only imported the template from Wikipedia. I don't know what it uses in terms of javascript, but perhaps User:Darkcode can help you with that bit.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cookbook:Cuisine of Ghana

I created this page intentionally, so as to provide links to navigate to Cookbook:Kelewele. Can we have it back please? --Sirmylesnagopaleentheda (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure - the concern was that it contains no content. Perhaps you could at least provide a paragraph or two describing Ghanian cuisine? Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 12:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical Physics

Hello Mike, yes I saw the Physics books the site already has, but mine uses a completely different formalism and is based around the N-body problem. It goes from the microscopic Physics to the the macroscopic scale. This is the material one usually studies in Post-Graduate courses. The one already existing cover more what is usually taught during the first two years of University. if you have some special book in mind, then include it and I'll have a closer look at it. Alexmadon (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't have a particular book in mind. I'm certainly not a physicist, so you will know better than I whether the book really is different from other books we have. If that's the case, feel free to remove {{merge|}} from the book. Mike.lifeguard 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Modules?

I am not sure how some pages look just like regulalr pages, and I have to insert a link back to the cover page, while others already have the link back, and called modules. How do you add a module?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Literature_Reviews_for_Doctoral_Students_in_Education"

Sorry, messed up. Can you process this whole little book for correct names? http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Literature_Reviews_for_Doctoral_Students_in_Education

WIll be more careful in the future, promise.

I left a quick explanation at Talk:Literature Reviews for Doctoral Students in Education and renamed the book to use subpages. Always glad to help.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 23:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

India

Hi Mike,

I deleted the page you marked. I have a red link to it as a placeholder, but until someone has some real content for it, it should just stay red. --Jomegat (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity edit

What does removing cross-wiki link placement mean? --JWSurf (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It means those links were placed inappropriately on many wikis, and I am removing them. m:Talk:Spam blacklist for reference.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I read this. Wikiversity invites users to describe their interests an their user pages. I feel that your original edit summary was misleading and I find the excuse ("placed inappropriately") for the edit that you gave me on this page to be inadequate to justify your edit. If you object to some particular links, feel free to come to the Colloquium and make your objections known in a public place where the Wikiversity community can evaluate your objections. --JWSurf (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, however doing so on a cross-wiki basis for promotional purposes is abuse of WMF resources. If Wikiversity allows inactive users to place self-promotional links that is no longer my concern, however I would note that doing so is extremely unhelpful.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Gears of War guide

Hi there,

I was trawling through wikipedia as per normal on a boring day at work and noticed there was a guide for gears of war, AMAZING i thought.

Unfortunately it has been removed and your name was next to it. Do you have a copy? If so would you be kind/cool enough to email it to me?

Thanks

Ron

That book is available at StrategyWiki, along with many other strategy guides: http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Gears_of_War  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that big guy. ^"^

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive_21"