User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 26

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

Clarification

Stewards/elections 2009/Guidelines → please link to your home wiki on your userpage, and link to your account here on your home wiki.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please clarify. Thanks. I am confused by your statement.老陳 (留言) 15:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To meet the requirements to vote in the steward elections, you must add a link on your userpage here to your userpage on your home wiki, and also add a link on your userpage on your home wiki to your userpage here. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me how to add a link on my userpage here to my home wiki? I don't see that on your userpage. Is there a help page for doing that? Thanks for the informations! 老陳 (留言)01:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Irish/Lessons

I saw you suggested a merge for Irish/Lessons. I'm sorry, but this is almost the exact same page as Irish/Lesson One. It was created by the same contributor on the same date, and there only a minute apart from the two pages' creation dates. -- Retropunk (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't check how similar they are. If there's nothing but duplicated content, it'll get deleted shortly.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Archiving

Hi Mike,

I'm not sure what to say, I physically did not make that edit. I can only assume that this edit was caused by some form of bug within internet explorer 8 (which i have been using for the past few days). To rectify this I have removed all of my javacript and gadget preferences in the hope that it will not happen again. As a precaution i am also changing my password and email address, in case of a stray cookie left on another machine somewhere. How embarrasing. Apologies,

Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 13:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to go overboard. I thought maybe the bot made a mistake you saw and I didn't or something...  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Haha, so maybe my response was a tad over the top... I got strangely panicked when i saw that i'd made an edit that i couldnt remember doing. Hmm.... Perhaps my head needs archiving :p do you know if MiszaBot can do that for me? Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 23:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Subject:Health and Wellness

Mike, I added this top-level subject page to cover various health-related topics. I want to move all the medicine books like the first aide stuff to this category instead of being buried in Sciences/Life Sciences/Medicine. You like this idea, or you think it is unnecessary? I won't start moving any books until I get some approval. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I think that's a great idea. The current hodge-podge of misc/medicine categorization is less than ideal - and not just for First Aid. If you've got the time, re-categorize to your heart's content!  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Why "Health and Wellness"? Each subject is suppose to have there own page right? Surely it should be Subject:Health and Subject:Wellness, or if you think they are the same subject, why not have Subject:Wellness redirect to Subject:Health? In any case I think "Subject:X and Y" type pages should be avoided. --darklama 16:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
"Health and wellness" is sortof an interdisciplinary subject combining leisure/recreation studies, physio/occupational therapy, psychosocial therapy, some public health stuff and so on. It's a distinct thing called "health and wellness" - not two things called "health" and "wellness" (although the word "wellness" does take a specific meaning in that field). Whether Whiteknight knew that or not, it's a good idea. See Alberta Health & Wellness for example.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That don't sound like something a layman might look/search for when trying to find health information. I see I am guilty of doing something similar though. Awhile back when I changed Wikibooks:Requested books to work with Subject pages instead, I used "Health and Fitness". I guess I think people are more likely to type in "Health" and press enter or click go than they are "Health and Wellness". --darklama 15:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Fitness is one aspect of health and wellness; it might be worth combining them and/or adjusting the hierarchy there. As well, there's no reason that Subject:Health, Subject:Wellness and Subject:Fitness can't redirect to other pages (or depending on the hierarchy structure, those could be the actual subject pages).  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Darklama, think more about using WB:AS to "browse" instead of using Special:Search to "search". That's the purpose of subject pages, and the name "Health and Wellness" will be perfectly usable in that regard. Plus, as Mike pointed out, it really is the name of the discipline, and having a "Subject:Health" might make some sense by itself but "Subject:Wellness" does not. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Sancus.png

Is that your preference, or policy? If the latter, please point me to it. I'm buggered if I see a problem in providing detailed context for an image such as that. YM obviously Vd. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons isn't an encyclopedia. Check commons:COM:PS - it's policy.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Hey, Mike, I writing to let you know that the one picture I have (londonme.jpg), I'm actually trying to delete. The other picture is mine, so I will put in the copyright and everything for it. Thanks for the heads up!

- Seuto001

OK, I'll delete it for you now. Thanks for your attention.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

your denial of delisting for lyrikline.org

[1] Mike, did you notice that every one of those links added was reasonable and appropriate? In the evidence provided by Hu12, there is one project where the contributions stand, most of them, and that is de, which has whitelisted lyrikline.org, because meta has refused to delist. The user was a de user, and was never blocked there. There is only one project where the use of lyrikline.org links was deliberated, and that was de, and they decided to allow it. The user edited IP on all those other wikis because registering an account on each wiki would be cumbersome; I noticed that the antispam volunteer who filed the original request for blacklisting, en.wiki user MER-C, edited IP to remove a set of links on de. It's normal. This user thought that he or she was, indeed, improving the project, was almost certainly not affiliated with lyrikline.org (there is no sign of affiliation), which is a reputable web site and has an article on de, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/lyrikline.org. Links were generally removed not because they were inappropriate for the articles, but because linkspam prevention volunteers considered them linkspam. Adding a single link to an article on a poet, to audio recordings of that poet, contributed by the poet, to lyrikline.org, isn't creating a linkfarm! The links were in compliance, all of them that I've seen, with en wiki external link policy. Please reconsider. --70.17.129.180 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC) (This is user Abd from en.wiki and meta.)(This user page was linked from your meta edit.... confusing, Mike.)

It's not confusing. @en.wb fairly clearly means "at English Wikibooks."
The link was being pushed cross-wiki (in what is probably a conflict of interest), so it gets blacklisted. Dewiki can whitelist & monitor as they see fit. Enwiki might want to whitelist and add to XLinkBot if there's consensus to do so. However, Meta's criteria for blacklisting are not about content, it's instead largely about protecting small wikis from being spammed. The large wikis have resources the small don't, which is why the options I mentioned are possible; please go use them.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rolled back again

I rolled back some vandalism to your talk page, then decided to restore it - the vandal helpfully left links to all the rubbish he created. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 09:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I killed it off again, as it was not in fact useful; the categories he had added were all redlinks anyway. Chazz (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychology

Psychology already was listed as a social science, I didn't really change that. The biggest thing I did change was to make Neuroscience a "hard" science instead of making it a subset of psychology, which it definitely is not. I've always heard psychology referred to as a "soft" or "social" science, not a "hard" one. I don't mean any condescention with any of these names, it's just what I've always heard these things called. I'll do some research today to see if I can find a good categorization/explanation somewhere. I'm not against making it a child of both Subject:Science and Subject:Social Sciences either, but I'm not going to jam extra subjects on there if it's not really warranted.

The beauty of the subject pages is that to change the category hierarchy we just need to make a single edit to the page's {{Subject}} template and everything sorts itself out. Wherever we want Subject:Psychology to be listed, it's easy enough to make that happen. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do remember that now... You're of course correct that neuroscience is a hard science. Psychology should probably be a subcat of both, as you describe (& I think that'd be the only tweak).  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


"Book" and "Collection" pages

Mike, do you happen to have a list of all the Collections extension pages that use the word "Book" now? I know you had gone through the list previously to update some stuff. I have some friends down at fr.wikibooks who want to edit all the pages to use the word "Collection" in the interface instead of "Book" like is used now. fr:User:Sub is most interested in this, maybe you could give him a holler. Thanks! --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a list, no... all the system messages start with "Coll" I think, so that makes it a bit easier. Sorry I can't be more help.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

finding license information for an image

Hey Mike,

Hope all is well with you. I haven't seen you around much lately, but I do know that you are my image guru, so I wanted to pass along a quick question from a student in my class. She wants to use this image in her Wikibooks entry but is not sure about the licensing. My gut tells me this pic is already licensed by someone who won't want it shared freely, but I wondered if you had any secrets for figuring this out for sure.

As always, thanks for all your help, and have a great day!

PbakerODU (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the copyright owner states otherwise (& I don't see that here... though you could of course ask them) then the image is "all rights reserved" - On the other hand, you could maybe make an argument that using it is fair use. The argument would have to be made though, in line with the Wikibooks policy and US fair use law. For example, if it's for criticism and analysis of that image (so a replacement won't do) then you might consider looking at that.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Meeting

You missed a pretty good meeting on friday, I've got logs somewhere and have to write up a summary of it sometime. It ended up being more international then we had originally intended, lots of people from fr.wikibooks and de.wikibooks. We talked mostly about issues that were common to all language projects, and didn't really discuss too many issues that were specific to en.wikibooks only. Maybe we can hold another similar meeting soon that's going to be en-centric to hash out some of our issues. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds great. I had some stuff to do with travel pop up, unfortunately, but I will definitely want to be there for any further meetings we can organize.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

HI!!

Hey there! I didn't know that you had an account here too!! This is cool!--God'sGirl94 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I have an account on every public Wikimedia wiki. This is my first home wiki though.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dinosaur Comics

Hi Mike,

I dunno if you're familiar with Dinosaur Comics or not, but today's episode was particularly good for anyone familiar with CPR. Thought you might enjoy this, or perhaps find it amusing. Dunno whether I'd incorporate this in a class or not, but it could certainly help someone get the correct rhythm. --Jomegat (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that fairly regularly. Today's is a gem - I'll definitely save that for the next class I teach. Thanks a bunch  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Difference in page layout with/without login

Hi, I'm not sure whether I should be asking this question here. Please let me know the right place otherwise. I have observed that the layout of the front page of More C++ Idioms is different when I login from when I don't. When I login, the preface is expanded in the front page (the image is shown). Otherwise, it simply shows a link to the preface. How can I fix this without replicating the preface in two places? Thanks for any help you might provide. Sutambe (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just the difference between the current version (what all registered users see) and the last stable version (what unregistered users see, if possible). To "fix" that, the newer revisions need to be reviewed by someone.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 13:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. Preface needed some grammar tweaks, and that was about it... at least for that page. Chazz (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect and Delete tags

Must I place a delete request tag on a page after redirecting it? Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to, sure. I don't see any huge need to delete it though.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reflist coding

I've noticed the reflist coding isn't working right on the print version of the cookbook. For instance the reflist on my recipe, cookbook:Red paella, made with chicken and seafood (recipe number 142) is displaying references from Cookbook:Ratatouille (recipe number 138) even though the reflist command is working correctly in the recipe's module. Why is this and how do I correct it? Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what print version you're talking about - can you provide a link?  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, found it. Looks like that's because there's no differentiation in the anchors. Since your browser goes to the first anchor it finds by that name, you end up linking to the wrong recipe. That could be worth reporting to Bugzilla.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked me!

Why was I Blocked for trying to revert the string of vandalism I just found when looking at recent changes!? I was trying to help and I created an account specially just to do that! It pretty insulting! Check my edits I was just trying to get rid of that blokes edits in a hurry and also check my Wikipedia user page User: Climax Void and ask if its the same person, I've never vandalized a single page once while I I've been there --Climax Void ☭.

All done... --Climax Void ☭.

That's fine --Climax Void ☭.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive_26"