Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
| General Discussion | Books & Projects | User Help | Announcements |
|---|---|---|---|
| General | Projects | Feature requests | General | Technical | Administrative (Usurps/Renaming) | Bulletin Board |
|
|
[edit] Request for administrative action
|
Request the reposition of the C++ Programming/TOC1 into the C++ Programming location in accord with the adopted book convention that defines that the "Cover page will display the historical book index..." the discussion of the subject was opened in 13 March 2008, closed 19 July 2008, in the meanwhile a reassessment was done on a related issue (the deletion of another page), but again no opposition was stated. Since the issue is still a pending action, I take the chance to make a note that the original talk page of the "cover"/entry page to this Wikibook is located in Talk:C++ Programming but the original project page and its edit history was moved to C++ Programming/TOC1 when proceeding with the requested action don't forget to join the two again (project/talk). --Panic (talk) 01:28, 1 September 3008 (UTC)
I am saying that discussion must occur first before this change will happen. Its adoption is blocked by lack of of a consensus discussion. Lack of discussion could mean that people are fine with how things are now besides you, that people are too busy to discuss the matter right now, people have said all they want to say about it and see no need to discuss it any further, or could mean any number of other things. The protection exists because an admin felt that the response to a disagreement was inappropriate, trying to assign blame is not going to resolve the issue. The only way this issue is likely to be resolved is by discussion occurring, and no admin is likely to take any action before then. --darklama 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is little point in you addressing any interpretations. There is no logic involved. What actions are taken and how any policy or guideline is applied can change with the situation, the people involved at the time, and what the general consensus is. In this situation your going to need contributors to that book to participate in the discussions, voice opinions on what should be changed in written form on wiki, and come to some sort of consensus, before anything changes, regardless of any individual's interpretation. The issue won't be considered resolved until people participate in the discussion and consensus has been reached in the way that the people you are asking to take action agree with. This is a viable solution because it does and has worked for other situations. Participation is always voluntary on Wikibooks for all situations. Every admin could also choose to no longer discussion this issue with you until you've done as has been said, in effect ignoring your request completely until its been done, or even choose to ignore any request you make completely, as any action at all is voluntary. --darklama 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
|
[edit] Vandalism
I wish to bring to your notice the disruptive edits of 216.104.143.49. He/she has made 4 edits and all of them have been disruptive. Have a look at this-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up and reverting the anon's edits. The user seems to have stopped (after four edits), so a block may be unnecessary. --Swift (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Foundations of Education and Instructional Assessment
I've been requested by some of the teachers of this project to add some boiler plate text to several hundred talk pages for students to use to review each other's work. The first chapter's worth is already visible in the RC feed, and there are about a dozen more chapters to go. I'm going to give myself the bot flag temporarily while I do this task, to help keep our RC list from getting more flooded then it already is. If anybody has any questions/comments/objections let me know ASAP. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The project is done, and I have removed the flag. Let me know if there are any questions. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- We might consider using m:Meta:flood flag configuration to cover this sort of thing instead... — Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking that exact same thing myself, but I was under the impression that the flood flag extension wasn't ready for prime-time yet. Maybe I need to learn more about it. Considering that this type of thing doesn't occur very often (you and I might be the only people to really use it, Mike) I don't know how the community would feel about installing an entire extension for the purpose. We can pursue it though, if you think it's right. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not an extension, just a configuration setting. Even I could do it (if I had shell access :P). I don't think it would cause problems, and it would be a slightly better way of handling this sort of thing. Rather than using temp bot flags (which you need a 'crat for) it simply lets admins set the flood group on themselves only (ie you can't set it on anyone else). 'Crats can remove it from anyone who has it though (in case someone forgets to turn it off, for example). It's worked well so far on Meta (though it's not been there for long - perhaps a week or two) - I don't see any reason it wouldn't be a good idea here as well. If there's interest beyond WK and I it would probably be worth pursuing. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking that exact same thing myself, but I was under the impression that the flood flag extension wasn't ready for prime-time yet. Maybe I need to learn more about it. Considering that this type of thing doesn't occur very often (you and I might be the only people to really use it, Mike) I don't know how the community would feel about installing an entire extension for the purpose. We can pursue it though, if you think it's right. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- We might consider using m:Meta:flood flag configuration to cover this sort of thing instead... — Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Implementing Flood flag and a bot policy
Given that administrators can move subpages (ie rename a whole book at once) and this creates a flood in RC, I'd like to have this implemented here.
Since some books are big, we can't necessarily move them all in one go. $wgMaximumMovedPages = 500; now -- one can imagine the mess in RC if someone moves 500 pages all at once. Using flood flag for that makes an awful lot of sense, and would also allow "temp-bot" tasks of the sort WK (and I, but without flagging myself, and others) have done in the past and will be doing in the future.
Being active on Meta, I've used it there, and seen it used. We haven't had problems with this configuration, and I don't imagine it'd be any different here. I'm happy to answer questions and provide clarification as required. If there's agreement, I'll make a local version of the page at Meta so we can refer to it here. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-
- The proposal is open for vote in Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote/Bots --Panic (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
[edit] The Big Unit
I'd like to draw the attention of the community to The Big Unit. The book declares no scope and is in its entirety written by anonymous contributor(s) that also seem to have a keen interest in US History. I've already deleted three of the pages for blatant copyright violations from online sources. --Swift (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm about to delete the rest. I would have preferred to have the authors clean up the copyright violations, however they seem totally unconcerned. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright infringement?
Not clear where to post this, hopefully someone here can act on this. Does http://www.italki.com/knowledge/wiki-Italian%20Pronunciation%20.htm count as copyright infringement of your wikibook on Italian? Thanks.
- Where, specifically, did you see the infringement in that book? I couldn't find it immediately. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Flat lists
Hi - I copied the Template:Flatlist template bits from wikipedia to wikibooks, but it doesn't work. Reason is that the "horizontal" CSS class has no effect over here, whereas it does on wikipedia. Could I request that someone with the relevant ability adds this feature? Obviously not a umungous priority, but let me know if you think it seems reasonable. Thanks --Mcld (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I don't think this is any kind of a problem so I added it. If you wouldn't mind, could you add maybe an example to the page at Template:Flatlist to show how it renders? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! There already is an example on the template page (transcluded from Template:Flatlist/doc), but since I simply copied-n-pasted it's a load of redlinks at present. I'll make it nicer. I specifically wanted this feature for the page at Cookbook:Cuisine_of_the_United_Kingdom, which I think looks much nicer now --Mcld (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- PS I have also updated Cookbook:Table_of_Contents which was using simple comma-separated lists. I think this approach is better because the markup is semantic (i.e. the underlying HTML knows that these things are lists), recommend using it... --Mcld (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! There already is an example on the template page (transcluded from Template:Flatlist/doc), but since I simply copied-n-pasted it's a load of redlinks at present. I'll make it nicer. I specifically wanted this feature for the page at Cookbook:Cuisine_of_the_United_Kingdom, which I think looks much nicer now --Mcld (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware that the IB Chemistry Syllabus currently being studied (for examination in May 2009) has changed quite significantly from the one you have on your IB page.
[edit] Clojure_Programming "Flagged Rev"
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Clojure_Programming Has been given a "Flagged Rev" which is preventing subsequent changes from being displayed. This page is being improved from quite a wide community so this is undesirable. Can the flag be removed?
Timothypratley (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that page's latest version is sighted. Furthermore, you can see the draft version at any time - sighted or quality versions are shown by default for anonymous visitors only. If that's not the case, then something is wrong. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mike! What is the process for having a version 'sighted'? The concern from the Clojure contributors is that if there is a significant delay updating the changes then it reduces the value of the wiki, as additions/changes are regular. It seems that the versions get sighted quite quickly automatically, so perhaps this fear is unfounded. What are the requirements to become a 'sighter' (ie: so member of the Clojure community could 'sight' the pages)? Also in this case if we were to have sub pages could they be free of the review process to some extent - would this be desirable?
Timothypratley (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- All editors meeting the requirements will be automatically promoted by the system. It requires a certain number of edits, your account must be 30 days old, you must have an email confirmed in Special:Preferences, etc. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the clarification Timothypratley (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Sighting" basically is a way to review the content of a page, and make sure that nonsense and vandalism aren't being shown to new readers. People with +editor permission can review a page. You can request this permission at WB:RFA. Also, if you don't want to request it, the system will give it to you automatically after a certain amount of time (or, it should, as Mike pointed out). This tool is not a problem and it's not a big deal, so any active contributors who want it should feel free to request it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

