User talk:Swift/Archives/2009

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search
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

2008 -> 3008

To prevent achievement of an unclosed issue... --Panic (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Should that be "achievement" or "archiving"? --Swift (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 :) Sorry archiving, I tried to alter the undo so to state that in the comment but failed (it also seems the software ignores duplicate undos, even if the comment is altered, with no warning message, it silently discards the edit).
Since I was the proposer of the action, achievement is the goal :), I blame my spell corrector and my inattention for this one...
Just a further note, I don't think it is a good idea to have a bot archive that discussion page, since even if admins aren't obligated to accommodate request, pending and valid requests (in compliance with Wikibooks practice, policies and guidelines) that aren't acted upon shouldn't be discarded, such issues should only be closed by human intervention. I have in my todo list to see if mine was the only pending request that was automatically archived. --Panic (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Being Bold

Just wanted to say a little about being bold, the assertion of one's opinion is always welcome, equally fair input from others which disagree's is a necessary for any bold person that is going to assert their ideas as representing any truth value. The value of disagreement is that helps improve upon the assertion. Different opinions are maintain the truth, basically said the truth is only what two or more people say it is.--recoverypsychologist (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what prompted this. Nor really what it means... --Swift (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A portion of what was in the Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Recovery was moved in to A Textbook on Recovery Psychology I was the primary contributor there; Now Psychiatric Rehabilitation is an actual academic subject at Boston University, University of Illinois in Chicago, University of medicine and Dentistry New Jersey and Internationally ...although as you may have already figured; I feel that instead of being the discussion of social work (Psychiatric Rehabilitation) it should be the discussion of psychology (behavior science); the work I did on this was also messy; however it was never nominated for deletion. Can the text be set back...same as another is deleted? Since psychiatric rehabilitation is not an innovation of any sort; and an already existing discipline.--recoverypsychologist (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're talking about. Are you still on the topic of "Being Bold"? Could you reword your thoughts or put them on a more plain form? --Swift (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude, but I hope to enable productivity. For what I understand of the conversation the user is requesting a un-merge, I don't see any problem with the request, but I also don't understand the need for the request, I've examined the Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Recovery and all content is there in the edit history, but it depends on what he is really requesting... --Panic (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If only requesting the recovery of the content previously visible on the Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Recovery project you can do it yourself (page by page), just go into each page edit history and see what version you want to restore, select edit click edit and click submit and you will perform what is simply a content reversion.
I've checked a previous version of the project main page and all content seems to be still there but blanked, when the merge was performed it missed the step to request a deletion of the old pages, so you don't need an undeletion (available only to admins), if you wish all pages on that project namespace to be reverted to a specific state in time I don't know if Swift can do that with some admin tool but he will tell you about it here if that is what you are after (be sure to check what time you want to rollback the pages...
Avoid duplicating the scope (as you expressed above), and extensive duplication of content across the two projects (a probable result of a simple restoration, with no major rework and restructuring). If you wish to undo the move (remove all content from the destination) A Textbook on Recovery Psychology you should propose that on that project talk page first and give participants a chance to object or advance other solutions... (even if you are also the single or active contributor to that book) --Panic (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was under this understanding that a wiki was first multi-user; that leaves room for it to be democratic, So I preceive it to have checks and balances, the ethos of good faith, that when people are cooperative...If you are famillar with psycho-sociological concepts such as group think or conformity etc; particularly self-censorship...I would think that being bold is about not having any fear to learn-teach as writer on a wiki...and that fallacies, errors, inconsistencies could be addressed by others in fair educational and objective manner...since each writer is equally an editor...so when I am anywhere in a wikimedia and read the basic concepts of the wiki, I was under the impression that if I am to assert a new way of thinking...that would be a way which such thinking is perfected; by the benefit of objective criticism (from other wikiusers)...that was my intrepretation of wiki ethos--recoverypsychologist (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, nope. I'm still can't make much sense of this. What are you trying to get at? --Swift (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If I could also be bold in suggesting what recoverypsychologist is getting at? I believe this is a reference to the VfD for Recovery Psychology, where I suggested it was all original research (it is a synthesis of existing ideas to create a new one). So, to paraphrase: "...I was under the impression that if I am to assert a new way of thinking [i.e., write some OR] that would be a way which such thinking is perfected [i.e., by other editors "improving" the OR] ;by the benefit of objective criticism (from other wikiusers)...that was my intrepretation of wiki ethos". It seems he / she thinks that this is place for us to work on developing something new, to publish original thought. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If so, he's wrong. --Swift (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay--recoverypsychologist (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Combative? Interesting! I certainly did not want to present as such...Maybe I will have to see what I can learn in Wikis on debate and communication. I wish nothing but good intent for all! I do not wish to present any arguementum like a politician in a campaign; but as a person who truly believesin things which are possible for others to understand. Recovery to all...and well wishes to yourself likewise! Keep smiling; if your not...please start!--recoverypsychologist (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The preceding comment seems to be in response to this comment. --Swift (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

buggy external editor

I suspect there is a bug in the external editor you use.
What can I do to get that bug fixed, other than whine to you about it? :-)
details:
I reverted an edit you recently made[1] to the previous version you had made.
That now-reverted edit made no sense to me. It seems to consist entirely of replacing many spaces with underscore characters ("_") and deleting the "reflist" at the end, neither of which seem to improve the page. (Was there some other change I missed in my quick skim of the diff?)
The comment on that edit mentioned an "external editor".
I'm guessing a bug in that external editor caused those mystifying changes.
--DavidCary (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey DavidCary. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!
Actually, these edits were actually conscious decisions rather than an editor bug. The {{ref}} template creates HTML id attributes and sets them to the first variable passed to the template. These tokens cannot contain spaces. The target anchors won't work if the names aren't well formed. --Swift (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. I see now. The links created by each {{ref}} template don't work in the version I reverted to. But they didn't work before I reverted, either, because there is not yet a corresponding {{note}}. The links created by things like <ref>Fred, 2009</ref> (the "ref" tags, not the "ref" template) didn't work just before I reverted -- because there was no <references /> tag or {{reflist}} template. But "ref" tags now work in the version I reverted to.
Using what I recently learned while exploring this, I've added a few usage notes to the {{ref}} template -- including a link to a Wikipedia style guideline that seems to prefer the "ref" tags over the "ref" template.
Do you have a preference for the {{ref}} template over <ref></ref> tags in that Wikibook? --DavidCary (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There were no {{note}}s because the text didn't have the full citations, only the references. I put these in so the book contributor could easily add the notes and thus have a properly referenced module. This was part of the discussion on the deletion of that book.
As for usage, see: Help:References. I guess I should have linked to that page from the relevant templates.
I'm not sure if I have a preference. I've used both, but neither often nor consistenly. The ref-tag is easier to add and it orders the list automatically. The template might be more useful for multiple citations to the same reference.
Let me know if you're going to work on this. Otherwise I'll have a look myself. --Swift (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Thanks for fixing Help:About. Could you also have a look at the other pages vandalized by Big Fuk? (In particular Template:Departments, Subject:Major Subjects, and Wikibooks:Contact us.) I'm unable to access and/or move these pages. --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here! I've been trying to access them, but can't seem to be able to. :-S I thought it might be my connection, but I seem to be able to navigate and edit other pages without problems. There might have been some nasty stuff left for us on those pages...
I hope to get this done before bedtime. I'll be on IRC until then. --Swift (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like this latest guy, Gunther Borglum, is using the same garbage text as Big Fuk; perhaps he sneaked in the same way? thanks for blocking him, by the way... Chazz (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for helping to clean up.
The funny thing is that there is nothing in the user creation log. Maybe it doesn't go back far enough. --Swift (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Curious... it looks like Big Fuk doesn't appear in the user creation log either. Perhaps someone has found a hole in the SUL code?
I note also that you have blocked 92.43.64.87, and it looks like he was simply continuing the destruction started by 92.43.64.78, which remains unblocked. Is there a reason for that? Chazz (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Big Fuk goes back a long time. The first edits go back to 2005, but then nothing (including deleted contributions) until last month. There are some logs that only go back as far as December 2004. If he made himself a bunch of accounts years ago, then they might not be logged. You really have to pity him.
As for the IP, are you asking why the IP changed or why the latter is still unblocked? --Swift (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
More why it is still unblocked. It looks to me like this is a school with a block of IP addresses, and a bunch of yobs who are getting their jollies by competitive vandalism in a computer class. Chazz (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I see that 92.43.64.77 is also part of the same pattern of destruction... Chazz (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll go check if I can block 92.43.64.*... --Swift (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I suspect it's a smaller range: not 92.43.64.*, but 92.43.64.64/27 which would cover from .65 to .95. Chazz (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That saves me from revising netmasks after reading up on this. For those interested (and me later on): mw:Help:Range blocks. Wikibooks:Administrators talks about blocking only open proxies with indef. I haven't been able to find a working tool to check for open proxies. Thoughts on that? Perhaps blocking the full range for a short while might do the trick. --Swift (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
As an IT geek, I have learned the shortcuts to finding netmasks. The first three octets are identical, so you have at least /24 (add 8 for each identical octet). 77 in binary is 01001101, 87 is 01010111, the initial three bits 010 are the same, so add 3 more for /27. 01000000 is 64, so the block starts at 64 and goes to 01011111 = 95; .64 and .95 would be reserved. As for open proxies, I think you'd have to check with your fellow admins; I'm a mere editor. Though in my wanderings, I have heard it suggested that anything from an hour to a week block is usually done on this sort of thing. As in this case we're probably blocking an entire school, I'd think maybe a day at most... but then, they are likely to have another computer class later in the week. Hmm. Were I in your shoes, I'd go for a week. But I'm harsh. Chazz (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • reset

Here's Gunther back again, now calling himself "Gaylord Twink". Fitting, methinks. Chazz (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed. But not before Qu and Darklama took care of it. --Swift (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

a teacher

Hi Swift, Thank you very much for the swift reply :) I think that your suggestion about the wiki books is the better idea. A question, after I have studied things up, would you "see" a question more easily here or in my talk? Thanks a teacher 3 feb 2009A teacher (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As you probably noticed, once someone leaves you a notice on your talk page, you get a message notifying you of that at the top of every page you load until you visit your talk page.
That said, I'm one of those who prefers discussions all taking place on the same talk page (while some prefer always replying on the other person's page) so that discussions are easier to follow and others can join. I watch talk pages where I leave messages. A very useful page is Special:Watchlist (there's a link in the top-right on the default skin). --Swift (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Splash screen on Mapudungun book

Hi swift, thank you for your comments on my talk page. Im a beginner on wikibooks and I chose to use a splash screen because I looked at the spanish wikibook and took the structure from that book. I agree however that a splashscreen is not the best way to go and have been thinking of changing it, I just havn't had the energy to find out how to change the structure to something else, for example the structure you have in your japanese wikibook. Maybe you can help me change the structure or show me where to read about a way to do so.

When it comes to the categorising of subjects, again I only looked at the spanish wikibook. Whichever system for categorizing as the wikibook community finds best ill use. Thank you again for taking an interest in my wikibook Edelstam (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment copied to User talk:Edelstam#Lanaguage book structure and replied to there. Please reply on the talk page where the discussion started to make it easier to follow.

A little help

I managed to get inkscape working and I have made a diagram (in SVG) and uploaded it to Commons See here. How do I include images from commons into pages here? Thanks. Thenub314 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I got it! Thanks again about the tips regarding inkscape and svg.
You're welcome. Glad to help. --Swift (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Just recieved an image copyright violation?

Hello Swift,

You just sent me an image violation and i am not how to correct this. I retrieved both of my images for my ECI article from WikiCommons which I was told I would not be violating copyright by using these images. I was even more careful and used images which were provided by the U.S. Government and therefore (as far as I understand) in the public domain. I am new to Wikibooks and need further instructions as to what i need to do to keep these images which have boosted my grade. Thank you for your time. Monique Dunham Mdunh002 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC) ECI 301 Foundations of Education and Instructional Assessment; article 5.4.1

If the images are already on Wikimedia Commons, you don't have to upload them. You can already use them on all Wikimedia Foundation projects. Please read Help:Uploading Images for more. --Swift (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Message from Laura Wahl

Hi,

I just recieved a copyright violation for a photo found on flickr.com. I hope I am not violating copyright. If so what should I do to correct this? Do I need to remove it? Thanks for your time. Laura Wahl article 6.4.3 ECI 301 Foundations of education and instructional assessment. Lwahl001 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Laura Wahl,
Please see Help:Uploading images for the necessary details. Hope that helps. Please let me know if this page is unclear or doesn't answer your questions. There are lots of people having trouble with copyrights and I'd really like to make this process clear so as to save us all a lot of time and effort. --Swift (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Message from Kbroo025

I received your message asking for clarification on my photos. The images from my user page were taken by my family on my personal digital camera. My mother took the first one and my sister took the second two. I consider myself the author because I set up the shots (I am an aspiring photographer.) and then just asked them to push the button for me. Kbroo025 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kbroo025. Whether you consider yourself the author doesn't change copyright law. I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, it is not the person directing or commissioning the work who is the author, unless the person who creates the work explicitly release their work to them. I suggest that you just ask your siblings if they're fine with multi-licensing these under GFDL + CC-BY-SA 1.0-3.0 and cite them as the authors.
For more help, see Help:Uploading images. Please let us know if this page is unclear. I'm trying to reduce the problems people are having with these licensing issues. --Swift (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nandesu ka?

Anata wa nihongo o hanashimasu? --Bullercruz1 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

うん、ちょっとわかる。ジェレミくんは？ --Swift (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments

I would love some feedback about the images at Calculus/Volume if you have some spare time. Thenub314 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Thenub,
These look pretty good. I recompiled Inkscape with LaTeX support, but couldn't get it to work. Your's look really good. I'll have to spend some time on that later.
If I were to make any suggestions:
All in all, the page looks quite nice. Good work. I hope this helped. --Swift (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Swift. Thanks! I never got the native LaTeX support working in Inkscape, but I recommend the tex text package for inkscape, that worked out of the box with my existing latex and inkscape installs. I agree with you that there needs to be a lot more with Riemann sums and images with dx, but there needs to be the corresponding change in the whole point of view of the text. I am hoping W3asal and I will can get the text in decent shape, and then tweak the images a bit further. (For example I think a pyramid would be far better then a cube so all our cross sections are not circles. The thinker lines were cased me me scaling if inkscape. If your careful to stretch only in the direction of the brace (or make the size correct in latex) then you don't end up with thicker lines but I had the image of the circular cone handy. I have touched up the images to take the first two suggestions into account, I will make the third chage too after the text involves Riemann sums a bit more. Thenub314 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments from Pmw57

Hi Swift, I would like please too, to jump on the bandwagon and ask if you could pass your eye over some extensive changes that I've been making to parts of the JavaScript book. For example, there is the page about the script tag from before the changes and after the changes. It's a big difference but it was arrived at by a series of gradual improving changes. Pmw57 (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry it took so long. The change is definitely an improvement. Keep up the good work. My main point was going to be to add syntax highlighting, but you've already done that in the current version. Nice work. --Swift (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It's pleasing to know that I'm on the right track. I certainly feel better now about progressing with further work on here. Once again, thanks. Pmw57 (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank for the welcome! (Excuse me for my English)--Aslan (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope you have a good time at Wikibooks. --Swift (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Congratulations!

Thanks for the newbook congratulations template ;) Theunixgeek (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope the comments I made on the talk page may also come in handy. --Swift (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Import

Being that the page has already been put there, should I still ask for an import or should that be kept in mind for future moves? Theunixgeek (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if you asked for an import and merge. That way we'll import the WP article and splice the edit histories together. It's a bit of a kludge but works. --Swift (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File uploads

Moved to my talk page ... Suomipoika (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you very much. I hope to learn a lot about editing and stuff here.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for checking

Hi, Thanks for checking on the screen shot licenses. The three books we are creating we want to all conform to the Creative Commons Sharealike 3.0 With Attribution license. I though that we did this for our images. Can you tell me if we now are required to changed to BSD like the example you did? Also, how do I run a report of all the image licenses in the book?

Thanks for all your help! --Dmccreary (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

do not bite newcomers (wiki policy)

User:Ricardoramalho felt unhappy with how I greeted him here at this project and contacted me here with the following comment. After a reply there as well as here, the user removed the section. In a later discussion in the assistance reading room, he again voiced his feeling of having been bitten so I figured a few links for the back-story might be useful. --Swift (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say you did bite me: not only with your defensive reply, I believe you do not have the right to edit my first comment by adding my signature (!) in the Dutch book discussion, I was logged in, and my contribuition signature could easily be found in the page history. No user is forced to sign contributions. I would apreciate if you could undo that edition in my first line. Now if you want to delete out this comment from your page it is okay. Let´s forget about it. (Do you even speak Dutch? Are you really interested in that book matter? Now I know why assume good faith and do not bite newcomers are there for... Ricardoramalho (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, Ricardoramalho. I'm happy, however, that you also see the value in assuming good faith. While you may feel bitten, my reply to your comment on Talk:Dutch was neither intended as defensive or spiteful.
While I believe one should avoid editing other people's comments (a good rule of thumb to avoid misunderstandings) it is standard practice here on English Wikibooks to sign comments and mark unsigned ones with the contributor and a timestamp. I don't remember there being a case of a user not wanting to sign their comments and can't really think of a case where this might be benefitial. If there is an argument for that, I'd be interested to hear it.
I don't speak any Dutch but I do work all over the place (mainly cleaning up) and try to keep an eye on the language books. They don't get the attention they need and most have been abandoned.
As for my defensive reply, please see my second reply on the Dutch talk page. Take care and happy editing. --Swift (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Swift, thanks for your kind replies, and for listening to my position. I was a bit worried about where this conversation would take us. I will try to be as kind as I can: as you know, Wikiprojects encorages people to contribute with their knoledge, people don´t need to be identified, or registered, although identification helps to discuss topics between editors. I prefer sometimes just to leave a track to me, that is why I was logged in (and could be found in the history page).

In some cases identification is not necessary, example: If someone writes an article that is an apology to nazism, and editor could feel unconfortable to correct it, and to be identified. Regarding the edition on my comment the "standard practice here on English Wikibooks to (...) mark unsigned ones with the contributor and a timestamp" seems not to be a policy, and I find it incorrect, because the editor is exposed by force. I didn´t like also the link to my contribuition page in that edition, it felt like an attempt to disqualify my comment, as my contribuition page is almost empty in the English Wikibook. There are many small details that made me fell bitten, as you can see: you called my comment "criticism". I was critic, but criticism can be interpreted as a bad habit of repetitive negative critic comment, which was not the case. So, to finish this long letter, because of all that, I concluded that you took my observation personally, when it was not, and that your motivation, and reaction, was apparently not related to the Dutch language development, but to teach wiki good manners. (You told me to be bold, suggesting me to edit the Dutch page, without knowing my Dutch or editing skills)(and since you don´t speak Dutch, as confirmed, you could not even verify if my bold edition would be correct). All that constrainment perceived, (that I might be exaggerating, and if yes I am sorry about it) is aggravated by that fact that you are notoriously a powerful, experienced and skilled wiki editor.

I believe we, editors of complicated projects like wikibooks and wikiversity, should focus more in the user, and cooperative relations, as ours, and treat internal affairs carefully. Okay, I am feeling much better now. Thanks for your leadership and hard work. (a cleaner can be really scarry, when my wife starts cleaning...)  :^) We keep in touch. Feel free to delete this entire section Ricardoramalho (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

reviewed pages

Hi Swift, One of the pages (chapters) of the book my students have been working Cultural_Anthropology/History_of_Anthropological_Theory on is somehow tagged for sighted revisions. I do not see any markup on the page that sets this status. Because it is set as in need of review for the 106 changes recently made it does not seem to display properly unless one is logged in. Could you instruct me on how to remove the 'reviewed' status or how to approve changes (a link?). The last 'reviewer' was Panic2k4 who I noticed you had some disagreements with in the past so I thought I would ask you rather than Panic2k4. I finally got to a page that offered Edits will be incorporated into the stable version once an authorised user reviews them. The draft is shown below. 106 changes await review. - but who is an authorized user. --Paul James (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul (sorry to intrude here Swift), an authorised user in this context is an editor or reviewer (see Wikibooks:Editor). As you are a lecturer working on a class project, I've added you to the Editor group. You should now be able to review the changes yourself. Thanks. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey to the both of you. This really isn't such a big deal. Yes, users who aren't logged in may only see the out-dated version, but since the work is still in progress, and the editors are all logged in, this isn't really a problem. Contributors should get promoted in due course. We're working on lowering the criteria for the system to do so automatically. That would the proper solution and the best one in the long term.
Qu: Originally, manual editor status was supposed to require WB:RFP. I personally think that the practice of granting it too freely does more harm than good in the long term. It really isn't necessary, and we loose a valuable insight into the shortcomings of the automatic system. *sigh* FlaggedRevs, and the way we've handled it so far, is starting to be more hassle than it's worth...
Does it? I read this "All contributors will receive the editor flag automatically once they meet the criteria. Requests should be made here only if you cannot meet the requirements (for example, you have been blocked in the past). Administrators may use their best judgement in granting the editor and rollback flags. All other tools require community consensus, as determined by a bureaucrat." and presumed it meant consensus was not required - although I guess it should have been posted to RFP (although I note nobody else is following this process, check the user rights log!). FlaggedRevs autopromotion, basically, doesn't work properly - still hasn't promoted me and their are stacks of other contributors who seem to meet the criteria who it doesn't promote. I don't think we should give up though. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 08:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you've by now noticed the lack of consistency in certain parts across Wikibooks. The bit you cite implies that a user who wishes to get expedited editor flags cannot request the flag there unless they won't ever be auto-promoted but can ask an administrator personally. Then there isn't much use in the RFP to begin with. This phrase was inserted well before the problems with auto-promotion became apparent. The system was originally supposed to handle this completely. I don't see the bit on "best judgment" intending to mean admins should flag users as editors aside from the RFP. Similar to WB:RFIs, the process just doesn't need the same scrupulous discussion and consensus but has a clear process.
As for people ignoring processes, I haven't checked the user rights log for a while. Last time I checked, Whiteknight had been flagging a bunch of people. Despite my differences with Panic and thinking little of his conspiracy theories (though it's true that some would love to see him leave, chased away or blocked), I do recognise that the way certain things get done here don't exactly inspire those who may disagree with certain decisions to have faith in the fairness of the process. Some admins believe "common sense" should prevail over "pedantry". The former is too often confused with "my sense" and the latter as ambiguous as "prioritising". As we now have over a thousand people who've edited Wikibooks in the last 30 days, I think there is value in forming a streamlined process that guarantees that people get treated equally.
That aside, none of this poses a threat to Wikibooks. I'd bring it up if I had the time and thought it would go anywhere. I don't know if I'm in a minority view on this and, were it one, whether it would simply be incorrect but/or one that should be advocated. For now I've got other things to occupy my time. --Swift (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing with you. I genuinely read that phrase on the RFP page as meaning +Editor was an admin discretion thing. Having re-read it following your comment here, I can see that I was wrong, and I shouldn't have made the change. In future, if anyone requests it I'll ask them to request it at RFP. Process is important, otherwise it's unfair anarchy. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 16:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Paul James: Thanks for the nudge. It's time we got this in order. Feel free to contact us again if you have any further questions, comments or problems. There are also the assistance- and project reading rooms if you want to cast a wider net. --Swift (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Swift

Dear Swift, thanks for your attention on the How to do nothing book. I will keep working on it. Sorry for any inconvenience. Best wishes, Ricardoramalho (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar, Arithmology, And Isopsephy

It isn't quite clear what, exactly, this is. Could you clarify that a bit better, please? For the scope of this project, please see Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks. Cheers, --Swift (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is mainly about analyzing texts by using numbers traditionally assigned to alphabet letters: for example, gematria, notarikon, temurah are standard in the Zohar. More general examples may exist but probably require the most advanced noesis on the divided line which many/most people do not easily recognize exists and even then, few experience it. I guess the book is secondarily about numbers' symbolism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dchmelik (talk • contribs) 03:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Dchmelik. Could you please make a note of this in the book introduction.
I did some formatting on the book. I'm not sure how to set the table of contents counter to start at zero, but it may well be possible.
Most find MediaWiki markup fairly simple. See Help:Contents and mw:Help:Contents for more. For references you may be interested in Help:References. --Swift (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point...

Swift, I very much agree with the idea of a Blender 3D Portfolio of Images located somewhere on wikibooks, be it in it's own book of images or a derivative link aboard the Blender 3D: Noob to Pro book. I am still studying on copyright, the odd portion being I know about the free-software copyright attribution license (redundant? maybe....) but have yet to update my images, I apologize and will get right on that (I have been busy with preparing for college, please excuse the tardiness). Now my only concern is...a portfolio of Blender 3D Images is general and should have it's own book, BUT I've noticed that myself and others rarely look at any other Blender books on WikiBooks except for Noob to Pro, even if we see the other books, so I would rather have the portfolio of Blender 3D Images be a subset in the index of Blender 3D: Noob to Pro as it will get more attention. What do you believe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bullercruz1 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had categories in mind for such portfolios/galleries. Pages and files can belong to multiple categories so there could be book-specific portfolios as well as subject-specific ones. Contributors' guides are probably the best place to alert contributors to this resource. --Swift (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Help please : )

Dear Swift, how are you? I belive the How to do nothing book can be "released", it doesn't look unfinished, and can still be edited and expanded. I am trying to put it in two categories How-tos, and Health and Wellness (but it is not working, Health is not a category... ).

Quality Street 1.jpg

Can you please check that, and maybe include more categories that you find appropriate? Thank you. You are a fine administrator. Please accept this chocolate box, as a gift, Ricardoramalho (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sentence Case

Hey Swift, how are you? I was wondering about this edit and others like it. I had been converting subject names to Title Case from Sentence case in a few places. I don't know which way should be preferred, but if we're both working to implement a consistent solution we should probably make sure we are both working in the same direction. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good you caught this in time. I guess this is a good sign that we need to communicate better on project wide work. I prefer sentence case for any category other than book categories as it reduces clashes (that way the book category Category:Modern Physics goes in the subject category Category:Modern physics). I've made a note of this on Wikibooks:Subject pages.
Let's discuss this in Wikibooks:Reading room/General where more people can see it. --Swift (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploading images to commons

Hallo Swift,

I have a question regarding the upload form for images. If you just follow the upload link you will upload the images on en.wikibooks. I think there should be at least a prominent note, that the images should be better uploaded to commons.wikimedia. Is there a page for a proposal like that?

Regards --SoylentGreen (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You can find the text at MediaWiki:Uploadtext. Discussions belong probably on the talk page. If you'd like a wider audience, bring it up in one of the reading rooms.
I agree that this could be cleaner and clearer, but haven't found the time to submit my suggestions for improvements, yet. --Swift (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ups, I've just noticed that I see a different upload text because I have German in my user preferences. The English text is OK, but the German is not. I would like to translate the English text. --SoylentGreen (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Swift Advice

Hi Swift - I am still learning my around Wiki. I have reviewed Wiki policy and posted comments & questions pertaining my WikiBook A_New_Model_of_the_Atom on the discussion page Talk:A_New_Model_of_the_Atom. I would appreciate your comments when you have time. Thanks << Pcfjr9 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Dchmelik: Grammar,_Arithmology,_And_Isopsephy

It isn't quite clear what, exactly, this is. Could you clarify that a bit better, please? For the scope of this project, please see Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks. Cheers, --Swift (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk and the book's; may I add/continue our conversation in the book's discussion page as a formal addition?--Dchmelik (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick Start Japanese

I put this on my talk page but pasted it here to make sure you notice it! Cheers

Hey Swift, I guess I should put this on your page too since you maybe wont stop by here again soon. Yes, I plan to polish them up soon and publish them here. I have sounds and dialogs, I think it would be quite useful for the community. I have just been busy these days :) Nesnad (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your reply. I look forward to seeing your work. Remember that you don't need to polish anything before uploading it here. The wiki is a good place to work on things. --Swift (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Recovery and Rehabilitation

I check back and still see debate or what looks like debate I wanted to call somebody's attention to my responses --recoverypsychologist (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you're referring to this. I'm sorry that no-one has replied to your comment, but I suspect that it's because, like me, no-one has seen how this is relevant. You seem to arguing for keeping the book, but have voted to delete.
As for the discussion, I don't think it'll progress much. I'll close it soon.
By the way, there is a tab near the "edit this page" link up top to start a new topic (rather than editing the bottom topic of the page).
Take care, RP. --Swift (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki of Datamining Your Intuition

Since the community obviously rejects this book, I am going to look into transwiki-ing it. However I don't know what is involved. Do you know enough to explain the process to me, or to direct me to someone who does?--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no time to reply now. Not to worry, I'll get around to it later. --Swift (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. First off, the community didn't so much reject your book, as reply to you request for clarification of what original research meant. Furthermore, wikibooks have to fall under the scope of the Wikibooks project to be even considered here. No matter how good the prose or content is, it won't be kept if it is original research. As was mentioned, some Wikibookians are active in original research and publish original works. They just don't do that here.
As for importing works to Wikiversity, please see v:Wikiversity:Import. I hope you find the best forum for your contributions, and that you'll think of Wikibooks as a good place to collaborate on authoring educational works. Happy editing. --Swift (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Clock and data recovery

I've gone ahead and deleted the pages that were tagged for speedy deletion. They were the only contributor to the pages in questions, so I don't think a merge was necessary. --darklama 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for letting me know. --Swift (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Swift/Archives/2009"