User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 23

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

Thanks

Yeah! I'll look into it. Thanks for your suggestions. :-) -RavichandarMy coffee shop 20:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction to original work cited

I have just edited the article to which you have contributed to show that the origin of the content was from Millennium Relativity and not Special Relativity. I have no objection to the findings being presented in Wikibooks as long as the credit is properly given the millennium relativity papers in which they were originally introduced. I remind you, these are copyrighted works. Joseph A. Rybczyk Rybczyk (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not clear what page you're referring to. If the work is copyrighted and not released under the GFDL then it is not permitted on Wikibooks.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 15:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The page is, http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Physics:Acceleration_in_Special_Relativity

Joseph A. Rybczyk

Thanks. I'm afraid I can't find the exact paper the content was taken from - can you point out specifically where on mrelativity.net the content is taken from? As well, I cannot find these papers published in a peer-reviewed journal - can you please point me to where they have been published other than on your personal website?
Since the content is a copyright violation, it'll be deleted in about a week - is there any other material which was taken from your site?  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To Mike, The whole reason for the Millennium Relativity web site is to publish the papers that make up the millennium theory of relativity because peer-review journals refused to publish the initial works. This is also the reason that all of the millennium papers are on file (registered) with the US Copyright Office. I.e. to protect my rights since the science journals refused to do it by way of publishing the works. Moreover, the paper, Time and Energy, in which the relativistic acceleration treatment was first introduced in 2001, forms the basis of one of five proposals I have on file with the US National Science Foundation. My point is that the findings presented in these papers including the dates of the discoveries are well protected by several other means.

As you most likely know, the special theory of relativity has been around for over 100 years. It is well known that Special Relativity does not deal with acceleration. That in fact was the ultimate purpose of General Relativity. If Einstein developed the treatment being contested, let the poster, Carandol, cite it specifically. I.e. where in special relativity or other Einstein paper? If the treatment was developed by some other author prior to my findings being published in 2001, including by Carandol himself, let him cite the paper and produce poof of when it was published.

In summary, I don’t object to my original findings being cited in the works of others as long as it is done in a proper and legal manner and not as a ploy to attribute the credit to themselves or anyone else including Einstein himself. Joseph A. Rybczyk 72.78.223.31 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however we don't allow original research - we're simply not capable (nor do we ever intend to be) of evaluating anyone's original research. As well, we cannot allow material which violates our licensing policy. I'll just fast-track it & delete the page now. Thanks for your help.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The request for help addressing content/organization problems in the book "US history"

seemed to be deleted from the bulletin board. Did I post the request in the right place? I am trying to avert any incivil feelings from happening when our WV project "United we stand" is submitted to wikibooks.

The course instructor is thinks the current "US history" book is quite inadequate for the job. I'm take a NPOV on that. I'll just observe that it is wikimedia way to Build on previous efforts not replace them.

the best way to do this, is to find someone willing to speak for the project and the project. I've already posted information on my talk page and in the talk page of the book.--JoliePA (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not civility I'm concerned with, but rather that you're making more work for yourself unnecessarily, and creating a wikibook outside Wikibooks. I've hidden the post so we can discuss this a bit. I don't have an opinion on the state of US History either, though I know it's received lots of criticism from within Wikibooks and without. If it's not ready for use, then it's best to fix it here on Wikibooks, and I have yet to see a convincing reason why that should not be the case here. Wikibooks is for collaboratively writing open-content textbooks, which is exactly what you're doing.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a policy that there can not be more than one textbook on a subject? If so, what about texts with different focuses? 137.164.142.2 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Not marked as such, but yes. We want only one textbook per subject unless there is a significant difference in audience, scope etc. There's no point having two texts for US History at the highschool(?) level which use similar or identical style etc. Thus, writing it outside Wikibooks and beginning anew means you are simply creating more work for you than need be.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a textbook for AP or college students. Therefore the focus and scope are different, no? Geo.plrd (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
No. That's the same scope and audience as AP United States History. Regardless, textbooks should be written on Wikibooks.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone object if we take over AP US? Geo.plrd (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not! Most books are dormant - authors tend to come and leave (usually before the book is finished), so you probably won't even see whoever started the book. And if you do, it certainly won't be seen as stepping on their toes. Wikibooks is about collaboration; we're all here to help, you don't need permission.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 04:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please ponder the stated preface in US HISTORY (not AP US HISTORY)
This textbook is based initially on the College Entrance Examination Board test in Advanced Placement United States History. This seems to be the best reference on which to build a textbook, since it is a standard on the subject and covers what most U.S. history students study in high school and college. Overall, however, the content and structure may in time vary from all other books. Besides the regular wikibook rules governing unbiased writing, the only other guideline should be that everything should be kept more or less in chronological order and divided into logical chapters. Everything else is left pretty much to the individual authors that elect to join the project. Enjoy!
AP Course Description http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/sub_ushist.html
the course link actually is a link the the college board requirements of which I've been using to write "United we stand"
Although the content is off and its organization is odd, it at least attempts to discuss the same topics as the college board requirements.
Unfortunately, the book "AP US history", although just started doesn't seem to have any revelance at all to college board material. Somehow they got stuck in the old world of african culture. I have hopes that in a further chapters "US history" might improve and we can adapt some of its information.
I'll working on finishing a full first chapter this week and we can ponder adapting text next week. Thank you for you help Mike. --JoliePA (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like we will be taking over US History and writing according to the standards. Geo.plrd (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Right now, I think the wisest course of action is to take over AP US History, rename it to Advanced US History, borrow sections of US History and rewrite massive portions that are subpar and inadequate. My goal is that at the end of this school year, we will have a standards based US History textbook. Geo.plrd (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok mike we have been unsure of ourselves and I think YOu can help us with this decision.
  • Basically, we have solidly determined that neither book meets OUR purpose
  • US HISTORY does a better job latter on but the first 2 chapters is unsatisfactory
  • Both AP US HISTORY and US HISTORY claim to MEET our purpose
  • AP is a stub, US History is a developed book
  • Since our purpose is Carefully defined by the college board, we feel it our duty to be ruthlessly exact with our discussion and not get caught up in tangents and to have a very careful NPOV
  • Whatever we adopt, the first chapter+ will completely go
  • thats the key then, we're not adding or merely modifying, we're gutting whats there! it doesn't meet our purpose
Geo, I think is worried about getting rid of past WB contributions that might hold some value to people that worked research and describe US history (however falling short on the college board requirement)
However, I think that since both books fail to meet the objective we have an ethical right to do whatever modifications neccesary to meet that value. Ethically, the idea that we can do it better might strike people as arrogant, however I have carefully researched where it falls short. My writings might not be inspired but I can keep on topic, and try to keep sensational material out of a textbook.
The fundmental question is Do we destroy less material and Compete for featured books status (which was kind of our plan in the beginning) OR do we destroy lots of material but fix a developed established feature book to the best of our ability
This would be SO Much easier if the author or people that approved book were around since we would gain consensus in the face of very radical changes!
I wait for your opinion with anticipation--JoliePA (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops Am I rude, you're taking a wikibreak. Perhaps I'm not being bold to put this decision on your shoulders.--JoliePA (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, trying to take a wikibreak might be more accurate :D I think making massive changes to US History is probably the best choice here. (And if a rename is in order, so be it) As I said, that text has received lots of criticism; I don't think anyone will be upset to see someone bring it up to standard (in fact, rather the opposite). So, your plan to adopt US History sounds great! Again, I don't know the subject matter, but I do know Wikibooks, so I'll be happy to help out with "operational" stuff as required. I look forward to working with you both; it's always great to see authors with a plan of action.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Mike, though I support any and all of your guys' efforts to bring a quality text to Wikibooks. Jade Knight (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Procedure and clarity

I saw the notice to vote on the bot policy (top of the window). I ask you to fallow the normal procedure Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote, and present a locked version for approval (changes can continue to be added but the proposed text will be fixed and reversible if a mid discussion alteration is made that changes the tone of the text in any way), this way is clearer, cleaner and less prone to confusion. I also state that I strongly object making this text a policy on the same grounds I presented. There is no clear motive to impart on it the enforcible/no challenge characteristic of a policy seems to be present. Even by what I read from WK last post on the topic he seems not to object to the spirit but places some doubts on the procedure (who does what), in my view rushing the text to a vote at present will not be productive . --Panic (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think we need to use a /Vote subpage for the sake of using one, you can do so yourself. However I don't see a problem with the location of the current discussion, and I've explained already why I chose that location - it's not random.
I'll add a permalink to the version we're considering shortly, though I don't see the need. Nobody has made sweeping changes to the proposal, and if they did, it wouldn't be the end of the world - we would simply note the changes and decide whether we like them. Since it's not a straight-up vote (but rather a discussion) we're not so constrained as you imply.
I'm not rushing anything - if discussion determines that clarification is needed (ie clarifying the procedural aspects, which I view as advisory in any case - which I could explain if you'd like) then we will make those changes. If you have objections they should be made in the discussion (as you've done already), where everyone will see them, and we can take those into account - perhaps we will change the proposal to fix some problem you found with it, or perhaps everyone else will think it is a trivial issue not worth spending further time considering, or maybe something in between.
Thanks for your comments.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 10:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly think fragmenting discussions on a topic on several pages is useful and will indubitably prevent keeping a historical background on all that was said about the topic. In this case I'm not talking about the discussion but the vote part, there are established procedures to run that, I don't see any reason for you to be redefining that, when you are calling for the approval of a police you are moving for a vote. What I said is that if you think the text is ready for the vote part please use the way it has been done in the past. The location is important, it uses a consistent structure, establishes a clear timetable for the approval, it promotes participation (having it run on an administrative area will turn some people off) and permits the procedure to be archived.
If you are only asking for comments (as I thought you were), then the wording you chose for the header warning was badly chosen, as it moves for the approval of the policy, that notice is far district from the previous one you placed on the Wikibooks:Reading room/General asking for comments. --Panic (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you obviously care about this, and I see it as trivial, please be bold and fix it yourself. I need to finish my research paper now.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • reset

Done. The proposal is open for vote in Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote/Bots, you have to fix the link on the header notice as I think I don't have access to it. --Panic (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

magnitiendum.com.mx

Hi Mike.lifeguard, we saw our site is on blacklist on wikipedia. We don´t know why we are here since we add the url of our website manually and it is not spam, please give us an explation and an option in order to be removed from this. we would appreciate you send us an email with your answer on ventas@magnitiendum.com.mx.Best regards

Yes, the domain was spammed.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Still culling the draft

I've noticed some parts of only historical significance but that serve no useful purpose on the text, useful information to redefine old uses but that probably shouldn't be kept in the text. One example here. I think I removed another one.
The first lines of the text even if important, could be removed. The one dealing with bot is not replicated on the bot section (it should be moved there) and the others simply restate something that is said on the specific location (flood and bot flag section). I would remove these last two also and use something like what is stated on the key features on the vote section as an introduction.
Taking in consideration Darklamas last post, reordering the sections may reduce restatements that now exist. As an example, this should come after defining all bots since it applies to all and can probably merge parts that are common on each of the full and semi automatically definitions...
I also noticed that you never define the bot operator on its own section (a minimum experience level/edits could be set, since this would be an addition to the text it should be discussed on the vote page) and every enforcement stipulated only affects the bot account not the operator (or at least I didn't notice it). A bot can do unwanted things by accident but also by intention the first is covered by the bot block (mentioned on the draft) but it should mention also that malicious use of the a bot (with flag or not would get enforced action also on the operators account, if not declared by the IP information, something on those lines.
It would be also useful to block access to bots (all) to specific sections (userspaces if not the operator and without consent and probably other special pages).
Not revolutionary changes but something that would probably improve the overall quality, take a look if you have the time. --Panic (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Foundations of Education and Instructional Assessment / Holding Hands.jpg

I had a question about an image used in my wikibook article. Holding_hands.jpg I got a message saying I needed license information. I added the license info, and then got another message on 10-17 saying it would be removed in 5 days. It has an attribution license and was free to use or distribute. I added an attribution to the photographer and the image came from Flickr Commons. I'm not sure what else I need to do to keep the image.Aburk018 (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's it. Thanks for your attention.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 04:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First aid question

Hi Mike,

Could you review this diff for accuracy? It doesn't sound right to me, but I'm not an expert. I don't want the poor grammar to taint my judgment of the technical merits. --Jomegat (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they might be trying to say "If the patient has no circulation (pulse), do not administer resue breathing. In such circumstances, CPR is used instead." however that's not strictly correct. Actually, what you have already at Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/First aid/Rescue breathing isn't quite correct either, but I don't know the requirements for the award. If it requires "rescue breathing" specifically then it's fine. You might check whether that requirement has been updated though, or if it refers to "resuscitation" or something similar. For now, I've reverted the change. If you can let me know what the requirement states, I can be clearer about what it should say. Hope that's helpful to you.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. The requirement is what it is, for better of for worse:
Know the basic principles for mouth-to-mouth breathing and the treatment for an obstructed airway.
That's for First Aid, Standard. THe module is also used in First Aid, Basic, where the requirement reads:
Know the proper steps for rescue breathing.
If those are two different things, then I guess they should have two different answers.
I have no authority to change it, and the organization is painfully slow about updating such things. Their slowness is a major part of why the Wikibook was started. My usual approach when I find badly written requirements is to explain why I think it's wrong, and present an answer that discusses the issues. --Jomegat (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
That's probably wise. So, then it looks fine, though out of date (which isn't your fault). It might be worth mentioning that it needs updating or something. I could do that if you'd like.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If you'd be willing to do that, I'd be very happy. You can see how I've been doing that here using a template that flags it and adds the honor to a category. Every now and then the Honors Committee solicits input for corrections, so this category helps me keep tabs on what I perceive to be problems. Last time they asked, I didn't have too much to suggest. Next time, I'll be organized. --Jomegat (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Added a bit.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jomegat (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Question about my pics on Foundations of Education Wikibook

Hey Mike,

I fixed the copyright tab info on my Wiki page: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Education_and_Instructional_Assessment/Edition_3/Foundations_Table_of_Contents/Chapter_5/5.5.3

Can you please confirm I have done everything correctly? This is part of a class project, so I really want to make sure I have satisifed all requirements. Thanks! Tish Ehawk008 (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

When you want to use images from Commons, there is no need to upload them here. If the software can't find an image by the name you provide on Wikibooks, it will search for it on Commons. I've deleted the local copies, and replaced them with the Commons images. Thanks for your attention.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Air_Cadet_Guide VFD

If you have the time it would be great if you included your rational. What motivated you to move for a VFD clarification ? Txs... --Panic (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel it met the speedy deletion criteria.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yup that was clear, but you only commented on the information given for the speedy, not on the points in favor for a keep. No big thing but probably useful for the discussion as of now I don't see any real argumentation done in favor of a keep. --Panic (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how that's a problem. My opinion isn't necessary.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Heck, I was just asking for it as you were the initiator of the procedure and you position wasn't clear. You are free to be as occlusive as you like. --Panic (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a position other than what I've already stated: I don't think it met the speedy deletion criteria. If I form any further opinion, I'll feel free to make it known. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Superm401/Compare link.js

Thanks for the heads up about bug 16165. I've commented there. Superm401 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I'm now trying to update it for htmldiff.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 07:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I am sorry. I was occupied with personal work. I expected it to get over by Sunday but it dragged on.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 01:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I just thought you might not have noticed. We all get called away.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Um I did not understand what you said

You should be aware of this account. See the bs on wikisource. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Hi, I tagged Bad Science with "query" as it appeared to be in a pretty bad shape and then removed my tag in reply to User:Ewen's request. I guess we should keep a watch on the page looking for improvement.

By the way, I don't wish to use IRC right now as I haven't used it earlier and I am not sure how I can mask my IP. Well, maybe, I need a few weeks before starting to use it.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 12:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To mask your IP, you need to request a cloak. It does require you to go on IRC to register your nicks and /msg the bot, but you can do that without joining a channel. Then, after you have a cloak your host will be hidden.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

losethegame.com blacklisting

hey :) i'm having trouble unifying my account as it says that there is a Jessi1989 account on de.wikipedia.org although when i look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Jessi1989... "Diese Benutzerseite existiert noch nicht"! anyway, i'd like to discuss with you your decline of the recent unblacklisting request for losethegame.com. the only other contributor to the discussion, ohnoitsjamie, claimed that the site was blacklisted because of a spamming campaign by the site's owner over the past 3 years. you apparently took his word for this because you declined it with the reason "per ohnoitsjamie". however, i can't find any evidence of this spamming campaign, which isn't mentioned in the blacklisting reason, so i asked ohnoitsjamie to provide some diffs to support his statement. the only evidence he could provide were the contributions of user:jonty303 who added the site to 14 pages in feb 2006 and hasn't made any edits since, over 18 months prior to when the blacklisting took place. he also stated that the site has been blacklisted "for several years", which is not true. it was blacklisted here, in october 2007. do you think you could look into this issue further? i only wanted to use something hosted on this site as a reference, but after reading the guidelines for blacklisting, i'm inclined to believe it should not have been blacklisted in the first place. i'm not sure why ohnoitsjamie seems so keen for it to remain blacklisted. please see our recent discussion here for more details. thanks Jessi1989 61.5.149.187 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with at m:Talk:Spam blacklist.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
hey, my reply ended up pretty lengthy so i posted it on my own talkpage here so as not to make a mess of yours. thanks Jessi1989 61.5.149.41 (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In case you're wondering, it's better to post things on m:Talk:Spam blacklist.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
oh ok, sorry i thought that by declining that you closed the debate and that it was best to talk directly to the declining admin. i'll post a summary of my opinion there shortly. Jessi1989 61.5.149.24 (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

YAY FlaggedRevs

Hi Mike

I just don't know what is going on the Structural Biochem page. Why do they ask for a validity check? thanks.

We just got a great new feature installed called FlaggedRevs. I'm writing the help page to explain what it is in detail right now, but it's basically a way to flag a particular revision as "good" etc.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 23:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I'd like some help with something. Is there a template where there is the tool of multiplying numbers by the set parameter (e.g. here the four is the parameter) for helping out with printable recipes?--MrIPAddress (talk) (contributions) (email) 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but that would be a very good idea.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I'll check on other projects.--MrIPAddress (talk) (contributions) (email) 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Welsh

Just an FYI: Brenin yr elyrch has been doing AMAZING work over at the Welsh book. Don't worry about anything he makes—it's high quality stuff, and he's prolific! Jade Knight (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving of "Berlingo Electrique Service Manual" to "Citroën XM Service Manual/Introduction"

Can you help me understand why you did the move above.

A lot of the original contents are specific to the Berlingo Electrique and not even the Berlingo petrol/diesel. I cant see how it is related to the XM at all.

Thanks, Arsharpe (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind I know next to nothing about cars. If it's in the wrong place, move it into a text where it makes more sense. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mike,

I'm also confused as to why you chose to move "Berlingo Electrique Service Manual" to "Citroën XM Service Manual/Introduction"? Surely it's original location was correct, no? What was your reasoning behind the move?

Thanks,

See the above.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive_23"