User talk:Ravichandar84

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Hello Ravichandar84, welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started

To learn the wiki-markup-language syntax, see Help:Editing. You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ There is a box at the top of the edit window that will insert this, too; it looks like part of a signature. Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox. You can tell the community something about yourself in your userpage. You can get to this page by clicking the tab at the top of the page labeled with your registered username. If you are a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different). If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI (requests for importation) to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL. If you're an instructor and plan on using Wikibooks for a class project, see Wikibooks:Guidelines for class projects Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas. Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. Please take a look at Wikibooks:Naming policy before starting a new book. Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view. Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be a good idea to add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there. You can do that by clicking the tab labeled "watch" at the top of the page.

Good luck! Mattb112885 (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Wikibook on .NET Application development foundation 2 .NET Framework 3.0 3 Copyright problem with Image:Website Admin Security Roles.JPG 4 Deletions 5 Ancient History 6 regarding Cutting Enzymes 7 WB:VFD 8 WB:RFP 9 Adding sources 10 Textbook upload on United STates history 11 How To Build A Pykrete Bong 12 Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism 13 Welcome to the team, patroller! 14 Bad Science 15 seven days

[edit] Wikibook on .NET Application development foundation

Hi Ravichandar,

I've been working on Microsoft_Certified_Technology_Specialist/Exam_70-536 recently and I saw that you are interested in .NET while doing some research for other .NET resources on Wikibooks.

If you have a few minutes, could you take a look at the Microsoft_Certified_Technology_Specialist/Exam_70-536 and tell me if there are major errors or if you see ways of improving to book's organization.

Thanks in advance, Regards, -- Jacques (talk) (email) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .NET Framework 3.0

I'm glad you like the template, it's just a basic design so there is lots of room for improvement if you are interested. I'm not certain that this book is ready to be featured, and I'll tell you why: all the pages are very short and there are too few code examples. What's here serves as a brief summary of the topics, but doesn't really get in-depth to any practical level. As it stands now, it's more like an "introduction to the terminology of .NET 3.0", because it explains what some of the words are terms are, but doesn't explain how to implement them.

I think the book is off to a good start, but I feel like it really could be expanded in a number of areas. I would like to see more code examples, more text and explanations, more information in general.

If it's not your intent for this book to be large and comprehensive, maybe the title needs to be changed to reflect the fact that it's basically a short primer and not a "complete textbook" in the ordinary sense. "Introduction to .NET 3.0" or ".NET Framework 3.0 Primer" might be options worth considering. However, even with a change of title, I worry that there still isn't enough content, and people are going to vote against featuring it because of that.

To a certain degree I can help with the expansion when I have some time, but this isn't an area of expertise for me. Let me know what your plans are. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to move the book, you do need to move all 15 pages to new locations, and then update all the links to point to the correct places. User:Tsca.bot is capable of doing this automatically, although I'm not sure that the bot is still operatio

I can move the book for you if you confirm you want it done.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem with Image:Website Admin Security Roles.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Website Admin Security Roles.JPG. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about what Wikibooks includes because of copyright law, and requires that we maintain a strict copyright policy. Image:Website Admin Security Roles.JPG and other files you uploaded may soon be deleted unless a rationale for a fair use claim is provided. In order to upload fair use material, specific rationale must be provided as to why fair use media is necessary, and how there are no free alternatives. Images or other media that do not have such rationale will likely be deleted as a copyright violation. If the information of a fair use media component could be duplicated by a free alternative, that media may not be uploaded. Please edit image descriptions pages directly to add this information; there's no need to upload the image again. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask another Wikibookian at the help desk. See Ravichandar84 (no fair use rationale|untagged) for a complete list of your uploads which may get deleted soon. Thank you.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have trouble finding the information needed to fix this problem, please leave me a note on my talk page. We're trying to improve the information included in this template message. Thanks!  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

Redirects should not be deleted until orphaned. The redirects you marked for deletion are not orphaned; please make all links point to the new location before asking for the redirect to be deleted. Thanks.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You "closed" this VfD as delete. In practice VfDs stay open for a minimum of 7 days. As 7 days are now up maybe "reclose" the VfD now (allowiing it to have been open in a sense for 7 days)? Equally you can then re-instate the "impending doom" tag. I think you have to realise that the policy is there for a reason - if you had created something & were not a daily visitor to en wb then you might well be concerned to find that your offering had been deleted without you having a chance to voice an opinion. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient History

Hello Ravichandar, I've been working on the Ancient History Wikibook, and I'd like to use some of your work in Iranian History in the Ancient History/Iran section. Would you mind if I did this? Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I can do that. Thanks! Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 23:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've copied it into the Ancient History book here. There is a small note at the bottom of that TOC page that tells where it comes from. I can add that note to each subpage if you'd like. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 20:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is now on each page. Thanks again for letting me use it! Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 00:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] regarding Cutting Enzymes

I had tagged the page as <query> the tag has been removed by another editor (not the original creator of the page), the requirements were not met (no clear scope or idea on what way the book should evolve was added, the information present is very general). There must be another book were the minor content present could be added to (I noticed you post on the talk page), if the book stalls in this situation the probable outcome will be a VFD vote... --Panic (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been patrolling and fixing a lot of related issues, but not from the same editor, posting information or making a fuss about it will probably not resolve the issue if it continues probably sticking a note in higher evidence in the toc will be the only recourse. I haven't examined every possibilities on why it is happening, I fixes some empty links on the toc to bad locations (outside the book scope) but new new pages have continued to appear outside...

I have been welcoming each one just in case the read the information and have made a comment on the end of the TOC, hope that suffices. --Panic (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What part? Patrolling ? You can request the flag.

The problem seems to have been solved, probably fixing the toc, adding the note and providing the welcome information to the editors helped, no more pages outside of the book namespace...

You can reply here, I'm watching the page. --Panic (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WB:VFD

While your close in this case is approximately correct, closing VFDs is generally left to the administrators. While you're not forbidden from doing so, please bear that in mind in the future. Thanks,  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To be exact the close was well performed (30 days after the last post without any opposing position). I have done plenty of closings of VfD discussion myself, any help is welcomed if done right. --Panic (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WB:RFP

My only request before you get +patroller would be that you welcome users and explain to them any problems you see with their work & help them along. In a few instances, you've tagged stuff {{delete}} but the user still hadn't been welcomed, and you didn't explain your actions to them either. As long as that sort of communication is consistent, I think you'll do a good job.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding sources

Myself as a author, I avoid making reference to sources and only do if the concept can't be explained in full on the book I'm working into or it isn't covered by the scope, everything else if there is a need to mention demonstrations or piratical applications goes in a special section at the end of the book (adding footnotes doesn't work very well in multipage books anyway). This should be a requests not a demand nor is it an obligation by the contributor (regarding a post of further info I saw by you, if we push new contributors to strongly they will faster quit than address or learn how to cope with requirements). --Panic (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I strongly feel that there should be references or at least some external links in order to establish that "it is a concept". Well, if there is no reference, it could very well be original research. As for the content, yeah, I agree with you. The author provides his own work after all. But I feel that the author should provide some reference or link on the topic.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, what I was attempting to state here is that we shouldn't demand (even if you feel that it should be added, request it, you can even work out a proposal to make it a requirement if you feel it is indispensable), there is no policy or guideline at the moment that puts that obligation upon the contributor. Especially with new users we must take care on the wording and requirements we use, even in minor vandalism we should attempt to apply something on the lines of Wikibooks:Assume good faith, to educate and avoid alienating people, even with the best intentions this is a very difficult task and time consuming.

As for the requirement of sources, they can be useful and important on particular situations but if the topic is well known and non controversial the importance is not that great (besides those specific points I gave on the other post), consider the recent NPOV violation I made to South Ossetia War, you can even find sources that contradict themselves and books can cover topics that don't have any sources but aren't original work... --Panic (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never contributed to Wikipedia (when I think something is missing/bad I use the talk page there) but this is probably one of those things that are diferent. Help:Wikibooks for Wikimedians "As a general rule, Wikibooks modules don't contain as many links as Wikipedia articles. This is because a book is supposed to be a self-contained resource with a contiguous narrative. Links to all sorts of outside places can, furthermore, serve as a distraction. Links to other resources should usually be placed in a separate resources or bibliography section at the end of the book or module.", I share this view but try to add a link to the wikipedia article when first introducing a concept, new keyword, etc... --Panic (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't feel as if I was being too harsh. Indeed, I feel that we need atleast one or two references to check if the subject of the book is not a complete hoax or original research. Else, we might end up having something like Lo Langesi. As for your concerns about sourcing in Wikipedia, yeah, those kind of policies do exist in Wikipedia. And I do follow them in Wikipedia. However, I haven't created any such sort of content in Wikibooks with links (both internal and external) or inline citations. In fact, you will observe from my book on Iranian History that I've created a separate bibliography page with the required references for each chapter and provided links from that particular chapter in the book.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• reset

I had seen some pages of the Iranian History project but only now taken the full picture of the work, great work.
Yup the use of a Bibliography is important especially when dealing with historical events but consider a math book if they aren't covering something new or extremely complex (that the description they include doesn't suffice to illustrate it) adding sources is difficult, this goes for some technical books also if not rewriting something that has been said before...
As for the wording I was referring also to the time line and tone. If we place ourselves on the skin of the contributor we can imagine something like this:<r> - I just made my first contribution. Heck this is like Wikipedia.
- I got a tag on my the page, darn. It states the I probably made it as resulting from an error or on the wrong place, the dude even posted something commenting on my work on the talk page. Fantastic, everyone is a critic.
- Ho it was was fallowed by another post asking for sources stating that my writing is confusing, jeez, why do I bother, I'm probably a very bad writer.
- Ho finally someone placed the welcome information, I was looking for (this site is very confusing), let's see what I did wrong.
- Darn another post asking for sources, I quit...
This can be a probable outcome if we consider the timing of our simultaneous interventions and the tone we used. Highlighting the negative aspects without balance with positives can be depressing to one that is contributing time and work freely.
If we look Talk:Three Domains of Life (I've got a reply) my comments even if asking for action aren't negative and propose solutions or alternatives, that was all I was attempting to say (this not always works and I've had my dose of problems and been misunderstood often). --Panic (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I get your point. You are right. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Textbook upload on United STates history

I've described my situation in the reading room,

basically the image came from wikipedia. Right or wrong, I had assumed most work from that sister site was available as images for the history book.

there is also a wikibook commons area, and I don't understand how to search it or use it. (I've had some people help me find some of those images). my thread in the reading room is here; [1]--JoliePA (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unable to verify clovis_man licensing, so I have used another file from the Wiki Commons.

Feel free to delete clovis_man. Sorry for any inconveniance I may have caused. Thank you,--JoliePA (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How To Build A Pykrete Bong

Hi Ravichandar84, Since your vote on Wikibooks:Votes for deletion#How To Build A Pykrete Bong I've commented on your argument and wanted to bring that to your attention. --Swift (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism

Hi Ravichandar84, thanks for the feedback, we are pretty new to this, and trying to do this book as a group project in a class. So we have 5 groups each working on a chapter, and they will also peer assess their writing. Can we have this approach rather than a strict wikibook, as this is meant to be wikibook class projects? Thanks. Paulpen

[edit] Welcome to the team, patroller!

Thanks for agreeing to help with new page patrol. There are several scripts you may be interested in using to make patrolling faster. Both can be enabled on the Gadgets tab of my preferences:

• Twinkle Speedy
• AJAX patrolling

As well, you may wish to join us in IRC at #wikibooks for work and play. If you need help with the tools, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Science

What are you up to?

I've only just started to add content to this new book and you're requesting its deletion. Please could you just hold on a minute? Or maybe write your explanations (Challenging NPOV? What on Earth for?) before you put your tags on?

Ewen (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not tag Bad Science for deletion. If at all you desire to build a book, fine. You could expanded the page, create new ones and remove the query tag which I posted there. I feel that the page is more relevant for Wikipedia than Wikibooks. Well, it appears more like a advocacy of something and one-sided. It needs cleanup for sure. Cheers-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 11:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of sneaky to change your comments on my talk page like that, don't you think? Perhaps if you considered what you were saying before posting it...?

Anyway, as it happens I have Ben Goldacre's permission to copy this work of his onto a wikibook. He originally asked on his blog if anyone would be willing to do this and he confirmed by e-mail that I could go ahead.

Ewen (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be calm. I did not place those messages which I removed. They were placed there automatically. Oh, very well. :-) In that case, I'll remove them. But please try to improve upon your work. We cannot allow that book to remain here for long in the present condition. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 11:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] seven days

Dear Ravichandar84,

Thank you for making many excellent improvements to Wikibooks.

Allow me to point out a (perhaps new?) Wikibooks policy:

The current Wikibooks policy says that we must wait until a new Wikibook "has existed on the system for more than one week ... give the Wikibook some time to develop before the VfD discussion even takes place" before slapping the {{vfd}} on it. See WB:DP#Votes_for_deletion.

A bit annoying that I can't slap that on there as soon as I see it, since in a week I'll probably have forgotten all about it.

But you know. It's policy. --DavidCary (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder to use common sense - there might well be exceptions to that. Also, speedy deletions needn't wait!  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)