Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:VFU)
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Renaming
This project page is move-protected.

Contents
Requests for (Un)deletion Archives
  • Close discussion with {{closed}}/{{end closed}}
  • RFDs should be moved to subpages at Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/FullPageName
  • RFUs should be moved to subpages at Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/FullPageName
  • Transclude subpage; remove after 7 days
Icon usage
  • {{subst:icon|info}} - important facts
  • {{subst:icon|keep}} - keep work
  • {{subst:icon|merge}} - merge work
  • {{subst:icon|transwiki}} - copy to another wiki
  • {{subst:icon|delete}} - delete work
  • {{subst:icon|redirect}} - delete and redirect
  • {{subst:icon|comment}} - neutral opinion

Undeletion[edit]

Shortcut:
WB:RFU

Wikimedia Commons logo Add a new entry

Pages and books can be deleted by administrators. These decisions are generally backed by consensus from a discussion on this page under the deletion section. No process is perfect, and as such, pages or books can be nominated for undeletion in this section. The following is the procedure:

  1. Locate the page entry in the deletion log or the archived discussion. Some deleted pages have been speedily deleted without discussion.
  2. Review the Wikibooks:Deletion policy and Wikibooks:Media. If you can build a fair case on something which wasn't considered before, you can raise the issue here.
  3. Please add new nominations at the bottom of the section. Include a link to the archived discussion (or deletion log if there was none) and your rationale for why the page should be undeleted. If the community agrees, the page will be restored.

If you wish to view a deleted module or media file, list it here and explain why. An administrator will provide the deleted module to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, emailing it to you, or temporarily undeleting it. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting modules prematurely, or otherwise abusing their tools, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Administrative Assistance.

File:25%.png, etc.[edit]

Hello,
I would like to see the complete Upload log of 00%.png, 25%.png, 50%.png, 75%.png and 100%.png, and also the different versions of the associated pages.
Thank you,
François Melchior (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why, and why the information already available is insufficient for your needs. Thanks QU TalkQu 14:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It is because the author information on Commons is inaccurate, and I try to figure from which wiki those files originate.
François Melchior (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Shortcut:
WB:RFD

Wikimedia Commons logo Add a new entry

Pages that qualify for speedy deletion do not require discussion. This section is for discussing whether something belongs on Wikibooks or not for all other cases. Please give a reason and be prepared to defend it. Consensus is measured based on the strength of arguments not on numbers. Anyone can participate and everyone is encouraged to do so.

Please add a new request for deletion at the bottom of this section with a link to the page or book in the heading and a justification. Also place the {{rfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. If you are nominating an entire book, {{rfd}} goes on the top-level page, but not subpages. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.


The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Commons-emblem-issue.svg Closed as delete. Thenub314 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Balicolor.jpg is considered as fair use because it is believed that it is the only color image of that tiger. At Commons there is a category with some black and white images and thus I don't believe that the fair use rationale is enough: a black and white image of this cat can simply replace that image and all details (even in a better quality) can still be imagined. mabdul 14:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete to be in the safe side, but it would be even better if an experienced image editor at Commons could colourise those pictures. WJ is for children and chilren prefer colour... Kayau (discuss · email · contribs · logs · count) 01:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete I don't think it's a good picture anyway. It really doesn't show how that sort of tiger differs from other types.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Visual Basic/Selected Functions[edit]

This page is not only a stub but also one with an unclear scope. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Actually seems pretty clear to me, albeit as yet unused. Basically, there are a lot of functions that you will be calling, and this is intended to be a central collection page to allow you to refer back to a function definition if you need to, without breaking up the text for those that don't. A function glossary, if you will. Chazz (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    These are selected functions. But selected how? Furthermore, there is already Visual_Basic/VB6_Command_Reference that seems to serve as a function reference. The stub only hosts "StrConv" as a heading without any content, while Visual_Basic/VB6_Command_Reference already has 28 functions, including VB6_Command_Reference#StrConv. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    Good point... keep vote withdrawn, if when deleting this page, anything that points at it is pointed at the appropriate section of the reference page. Though it doesn't look like anything much does... Chazz (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Kayau (discuss · email · contribs · logs · count) 02:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that it is little use in its present form and there is no point in having "selected functions"; it must cover everything in the book.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

IB Physics[edit]

Possibly IB Physics should be deleted. It is more a set of notes than a book. It does not relate to the current IB Physics syllabus. And it appears to have been lifted without permission or attribution from [1]. I have good intentions to work on a rewrite although am not in any position to commit the time required to complete this. --Russell E (discuss • contribs) 09:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The 'notes' does not seem to be much of an issue as a set of notes can also be a book. Updating it to fit the current syllabus may also not be that difficult. However, as it was copied from a website without any copyright statement whatsoever, I agree that we'd better play safe and delete. Kayau (discuss · email · contribs · logs · count) 12:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The link to the copied website no longer functions. A definition of something should remain the same, no matter where it is. I will see if I have time to update this book so that it matches the current syllabus. However I am working on the IB Math HL book as well, I shall see if there is anyone from my school also in IB Physics that can help me with this. --Lichking21st

12:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete if it is a copyvio. Even if the website has been taken down, that does not annul the copyright.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep I am for updating it to the syllabus, rather than deleting it. I'm up to contribute as well, but I think it will be smarter to wait for the new syllabus. IB syllabuses are updated and changed every 3 years. This examination session (May 2013) will be the last one with the 2009 syllabus, after that, the new syllabus will be announced. It doesn't seem very smart to updated to a soon-out-of-date syllabus. (UPDATE: The book right now has very little in common with the actual syllabus, after updating it to a different syllabus it will have absolutely nothing to do with its previous version, thus there would be no copyvio)Gustavoh (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Will it perhaps be easier to start from scratch, then? Kayau (talk · contribs) 06:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Transwiki: Living With a Narcissist[edit]

Living With a Narcissist has a POV and it's unlikely that it can become neutral. However, it looks like a good addition to Wikiversity. Therefore, I suggest a transwiki to WV. Kayau (discuss · email · contribs · logs · count) 11:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Why not? --ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 12:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I tagged it with the POV issue. I also think that it has a very limited chance of ever being turned into something that could be stated as a textbook (as we define them on Wikibooks).
I disagreed with some users on its talk page, just because something is funny it doesn't make morally defensible, like laughing at someone accidentally slipping on a banana peel...
Its a collection of anecdotal remarks, some funny but all largely excludent to those that may be targeted (or feel to be targeted) by the observations. I see it as an attack weapon more than a constructive or informative text, and certainly not as a textbook. I even attempted to re-frame the content in a more positive way and call attention to the danger it may represent if improperly referenced or taken too seriously. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support It certainly doesn't belong here.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cantonese/Lesson 10[edit]

Nearly all Cantonese words (excluding loanwords) are from Old Chinese except for a few Baiyue words, so it seems unnecessary to compile a list of all those words. I get the feeling the author of this module meant to say 'Cantonese words not present in Putonghua that stem from Old Chinese', but that is a) not helpful to learners and b) probably will be used to illustrate 'Cantonese superiority over Putonghua' or 'Cantonese is not inferior to Putonghua) (which is a POV), considering that nearly all of these lists nowadays are used to push this POV. I suggest deleting. Kayau (discuss · email · contribs · logs · count) 11:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't understand the point about the POV. If you're learning Cantonese, you need to learn Cantonese words, and whether they are the same as words in Old Chinese or Old High German is irrelevant unless you also know these other languages.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I have nothing against people learning words from Old Chinese, but the point is, 99% of the words they'll learn are from Old Chinese anyway. French textbooks don't have a chapter on French words of Latinate origin... Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Modern French textbooks do not, even if they would provide a broader understanding especially to speakers of other Latin based languages. Not defending a position on the discussion, only contextualizing your observation. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Aeon Shift Kit/Communal Living[edit]

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Commons-emblem-issue.svg RfD was turned into a merge. Most of the content was adopted into When It Hits the Fan/Rebuilding per discussion. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This received an RFD before, but was tagged for cleanup instead. It would be easy to do if Aeon Shift Kit proper wasn't deleted as a copyright violation, but not it only reads as a single page about living in a commune. The lack of main page makes it hard to determine the purpose of the book, let alone how it was meant to be planned. --Sigma 7 (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose moving the page to the root and renaming the project as Communal Living (the name of the existing page). There is valid content there, not hard to replicate but not really meriting a deletion, it seems a good stub for anyone to pick it up...
I even see it as a viable stub to be merged with When It Hits the Fan/Rebuilding, a project that I have attempted to improve, as part of a section discussing governing solutions. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Cascading Style Sheets/Dedication[edit]

Cascading Style Sheets/Dedication should be deleted. Wikibooks are not dedicated, and certainly not by a single editor who contributed almost nothing to the book. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

He actually made 38 edits to that book. Nevertheless, I agree with the sentiment that he shouldn't have added a dedication page.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Do we have any policies about dedications? Seems like a nice idea to me and helps personalise books a little.--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 22:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
No policy as far as I can tell. I've no problem with dedications per se but it would have to be by consensus of the book authors or at least somehow relevant. This dedication seems irrelevant to the content and not added by consensus of the authors QU TalkQu 10:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense. The other issue is that since this is a wiki, what's to stop any other editor changing the dedication to refer to someone else?--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Family Law[edit]

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Commons-emblem-issue.svg Requested by only significant contributor is a speedy criterion, so speedy deleted QU TalkQu 14:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a book I started this book many years ago. I have no interest in continuing with it and there have been no substantive contributions by anyone but myself. I am suggesting to delete it. -PullUpYourSocks (discuss • contribs) 00:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - Liam987 13:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

HTML Programming redirects[edit]

I think most people who want to learn HTML are aware than HTML is not a programming language. I think it's best not to keep them. Kayau (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep That's not necessarily the case. I think it's best to keep it. Liam987 13:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WB doesn't generally have 'similar meaning' redirects (e.g. Introduction to Lorem Ipsum wouldn't redirect to A Beginner's Guide to Lorem Ipsum) and in this case, the redirects are actually wrong... Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete OK, that makes sense Liam987 15:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Seems to be a useful redirect. There are plenty of people who would consider it to be a programming language even if it isn't and people are far more likely to search for 'HTML Programming' than the wordy 'Hyper-text markup language' (which is the actual name of the book).--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 15:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete subpage redirects, Symbol keep vote.svg Keep book redirect. People can still find it by searching for 'HTML Programming' without the subpages. --darklama 15:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I hadn't realised that there were redirects for every page of the book. In that case, any redirects other than the front page should be deleted. --ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Be aware that HTML already redirects to this book, and it is likely that those who do not know the name of the book on HTML are likely to simply type this in to the search box, instead of the full "HTML Programming" - Liam987 14:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Open Source Psychology[edit]

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Commons-emblem-issue.svg Consensus to keep QU TalkQu 16:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Book is nearly empty--Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep 'Nearly empty; is not grounds for deletion. Even the framework itself can prove helpful to future contributors. I suggest keeping. Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep There are a lot of unfinished book in Wikibooks. Unfinished means it should be finished, but not it should be deleted. Timothy G. from CA (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Very little there, but nothing wrong with what there is.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Basic Physics of Nuclear Medicine[edit]

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Commons-emblem-issue.svg Proponent asked for the RfD withdraw. Since the only other supporting positions hinged on respecting author's will over the work, there is no longer any justification for continuing. Terminated as Keep --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


Please delete this book. As the principal author I make the request on the basis that figures can no longer be provided because of bureaucratic concerns at wiki commons and the text of the wikibook is meaningless without the figures

marz (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I very reluctantly Symbol support vote.svg Support this. KieranMaher is effectively the sole author and I believe we should respect author's wishes even though we are not obligated to. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I oppose this. Its a good book it should be kept. What we have here is a stone age like behavior, which does not help in this modern world. We have to look at the real cause of this, and solve the underlying problems also this is a truly unnerving task, particularly for the main author.--Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree solving the real problem is a better option. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that the text without figures is meaningless 203.206.116.43 (discuss) 12:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The only problem with the figures is that they require paperwork. --Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Figures have been deleted already by JuTa at wiki commons and I have been warned by denniss that they will be deleting more 203.206.116.43 (discuss) 13:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • its no problem to undelete them, the only point is formal burocratic stuff. It is clear that the author is allowed to use these images in his book, or does anyone really oppose --Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe the issue is that the author needs to send the appropriate permission release to the OTRS team. I don't know why this is a problem for KieranMaher, but it appears to be QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • that's incorrect QU - its a lot more complicated. Have a look at the user-talk pages of JuTa and denniss.
"...the files were Reproduced with permission from Heggie JCP, Liddell NA & Maher KP, 2001, Applied Imaging Technology, 4th Edition. Maher KP might be identical to your useraccount User:Kieranmaher, might be not. You would need to confirm this by sending an emailto the commons support team (see COM:OTRS). I think they will ask for a permission of the Co-authors Heggie JCP and Liddell NA as well. So be prepared for that. If everything checks out OK they will undelete the files."
The minimum requirement is to send the OTRS email stating that you are the copyright holder and / or have permission to act on behalf of the copyright holder(s). As JuTa says, the OTRS team might ask for permission from the other authors but that would depend on the actual situation. If for example you are the exclusive owner, can act for the other owners, already have permission from the other owners, etc., then you can state this in the release email QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • In this case we should focus our attention on trying to persuade the copyright holder to send the ORTS Email instead of deleting the book. --Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not wasting any more time on any of this. Three images have already been deleted. That's enough for me to quit all involvement in wikiwhatever marz (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it is totally unacceptable that we loose good books and good authors, because we are not able to solve our burocratic problems, and we should really do something about that. --Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I found a solution to this problem. At least for the first 10 chapters I redrew all images in the chapters myself. So this problem does not exists for these images an we can just use them. see here. If we can agree on that I will repaint all remaining images too. --Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone explain the problem please? I see it as a copyright problem but more details would be useful. Why is this such a problem on Wikimedia projects when such simpler methods could be used?--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 20:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The images in the book were uploaded to Commons. The permission was stated as "used by permission of..." but no record of this permission being granted is recorded. The uploader was asked to provide the permission but declined (or didn't see in time) and the images were deleted. They can of course be undeleted but the uploader needs to get the permission first. I think KieranMaher, who is the uploader and primary author of the book, is fed up with the process and doesn't want to bother providing the permission. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem, I suggest, is — not the people at Commons, who I rather suspect are mostly doing their best, as in all the sisters — but the dynamics of Commons. There's a mindset over there, understandably, that tries to deal with a mountain of images submitted without adequate copyright clearance by mostly just deleting the stuff that doesn't have clearance. I've seen this especially at Wikinews, where our archive policy does not allow us to replace a deleted image with an alternative on an old article — we've got hundreds of articles in our archives with ugly redlinks (or slightly less ugly "missing image" images), and many of the missing images could in principle have been moved from Commons to Wikinews under fair use, but that would be most feasible if we were informed when the image was nominated for deletion, and we usually aren't informed even after it's been deleted. I know, from a conversation a while back, that the difficulty of liaising with the sisters that use their images is frustrating to Commoners too, but the effect continues. A while back we had the image on our number one lead article deleted — the single most prominently displayed image on Wikinews, near the top of our main page. The problem begs for a general solution, which I freely admit I haven't identified. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You partially have, and this is not the first time that the lack of coordination of Commons with the other projects comes up. I while ago I had the same debate here (and partly there). They need to change or we need to drop Commons, it falls down to that. Its a bit nonsensical to duplicate work and waste resources but the issue we are raising again is that there is no consideration on Common towards the use of their images on sister projects. At the time I proposed that they included a step to notify the other projects on their deletion policy or to centralize notifications of alterations so they can be easily monitored by the general community (IIRC I even pointed out that this would probably make their own community more active). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The project's subject and the quality and volume of the existing content would make its deletion unjustifiable and a general loss to Wikibooks. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Someone by the name of Carina Groot at Wiki Commons seems to have resolved the basic copyright issue and responded to my original e-mail messages. I, as the principal author, now wish to delete my RfD and for the wikibook to be kept. marz (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Effectively, the mover has withdrawn this by switching to vote keep.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Basic Physics of Digital Radiography[edit]

Please delete this book. As the principal author I make the request on the basis that figures can no longer be provided because of bureaucratic concerns at wiki commons and the text of the wikibook is meaningless without the figures

marz (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep for now. Other users are working on this book although I'm not sure what they're doing as recent activity seems to be deleting parts of the text. User talk:KieranMaher is the user concerned. Wikimedia bureaucratic policies are highly annoying but that's because they're an organization based in the United States (basing themselves in different and better jurisdiction would be the best move).--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 20:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Someone by the name of Carina Groot at Wiki Commons seems to have resolved the basic copyright issue and responded to my original e-mail messages. I, as the principal author, now wish to delete my RfD and for the wikibook to be kept. marz (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Effectively, the mover has withdrawn this by switching to vote keep.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Emad Kayyam Work[edit]

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Commons-emblem-issue.svg Content was moved into the user's own user-page by the author himself a tacit agreement with the RfD, that was turned into a speedy (deletion). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


Original research and not NPOV, and those are actually the nicest things I can say about it.

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Have to agree; plus the author has placed a copyright notice on it in direct opposition to the LGPL / CC notice immediately above it. Chazz (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Not much to say about this one. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 07:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Neutral point of view problems can usually be addressed without deletion. As far as I can tell, the copyright notices are just an overzealous attempt to comply with Wikimedia requirements. I think the problem is the work is an encyclopedia article about and by the person which the Wikipedia community decided didn't belong there as seen at WP:AFD/Emad kayyam, and consists of information which cannot be verified by anyone else because there are no reliable sources to check. Another concern is if there isn't a decent encyclopedia article about the person, then there isn't likely to be enough information to write an educational book about the person either that people can use to learn from. --darklama 13:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Well what I had in mind with NPOV was that his account of how he's a wonderful scintillating undiscovered scientific genius is not balanced by the views held by everyone else in the world. Do you want to start editing his pages to reflect that consensus? Me neither. Actualist (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Administrators and Editors…

Subject: Re: -"Emad Kayyam Work": requesting about 30 days more time to show the style of the book in its final shape and kindly wish if there is some hints and tips that help in organizing and formatting the wikibook titled: "Emad Kayyam Work" so it become best fit the wiki books style.

Kindly I would like to explain my view as an author to my book that I am still working on it and still not yet finish.

1- All the images and illustrations reflect my genuine opinion and view and they express my observations that I noticed between different parts of science.

2- Some of them are clearly obvious that they represent something new

3- I called my book: ""Emad Kayyam Work"" because I am not intending to classify or infringing any scientific opinion "They are purely my work and view"

4- My question: Is there any thing wrong if I want to make a color Atlas contain my own illustrations? If not so what is the exact definition of the term: Author of a book?

5- There is No Copy Right Infringement in my illustrated images, all my images are entirely my own work but a very little of them is a part of a public domain and free images that is re-produced under Wiki rules and regulation as they are already published in Wikimedia foundation and Wikipedia "the encyclopedia". This can be shown from the reference of each image as they are stored in Wikimedia Commons, and also all of them still under a re-fine and updating process in a journey of work start before thousands of hours.

6- According to the sentence that I publish in my "Acknowledgement section " I mean that I am grateful to the persons who contribute the free public domain images that are published in Wikipedia that used in some of my images" I will show that once I reach editing the part that concern the picture credit and reference, just kindly please give me more time to finish my book because I need time to read more on how to use editing soft ware instructions. Also I put this sentence because it’s a good practice to include an attribution for all images.

7- Kindly I apologize because I put the notice (Warning notice regarding derivative work) on my wiki book, I just finish reading the derivative work section (as part of my reading in the instruction for editing), and its look like that I miss understand the term and regulation that I read, I told administrator "Quiet Unusual" ((that I will delete it immediately, kindly if you find that I miss understand which section you want me to delete please kindly delete it by your self")), I agree to not apply copyright notices.

8- Also I will trying to apply my observations and illustrated images from a neutral point of view, kindly I work hard for thousands and thousands of hours on my book, and I hope the book will impress the audience in Wiki-book community.


Finally I wish that Wiki book let me finish "Emad Kayyam Work" and show them how the color Atlas I am intending to make is consisting of illustrated plates in six small chapters and judge how it will look like in its final shape when its finish.

Please don’t nominate it for deletion

Thank You Mush

Wikibookian,

Emad Kayyam

--EMAD KAYYAM (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the project was already nominated for deletion and the process is running. It is clear that as is it does not conform with Wikibooks's policy defining what a Wikibook should aim to be nor it seems fixable to match that definition.
I have looked at it and it seems to be an over extended self description of yourself, that could even be used as you user page. From your above post it seems that you intended it to evolve into an essay on your view about science (your personal opinion, that only you can elaborate and contribute and so has no real textbook value and a place as a wikibook project).
Depending where you intended to go with it we here on Wikibooks also support essays on the user space with some limitations covered in our deletion policy. Depending on the content or objective (if not directly related to the community or future work here) you could consider moving it into Wikiversity and engage the community there on the subjects it covers (or intends to cover in the future), something that our project is not aimed for (general exploration of material or ideas). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


Dear Administrator …

Subject: Request to keep my user space in wikibook and let me edit its content, and if possible hoping to move a copy of my images with there category to Wiki varsity.

Hello…

Thank you I understand your opinion and I hope if you let me edit my user page space as you thankfully administrator Panic2k4 advice me to do if binding to the limitation that is covered in Wikibook deletion policy, also I hope to a have a "COPY" of my Category (Emad Kayyam Work) on Wikiversity to open a discussion in the subject if a consensus by administrators have been made and still insisting to delete my Wiki book.

Emad Kayyam


--EMAD KAYYAM (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator nor is the title relevant. I've now tagged the project for speedy deletion as you removed the requirement to the conclusion of this RfD per your duplication of the project's content into your user-space user page (that constitutes proper and acceptable use of that type of content).
Keeping the category will not be possible (I don't think we are talking of the same thing). On Wikibooks a category is reserved to indicate a specific collection of pages that constitute a stand alone work. Since the content under discussion is a single page it does not require a category. As for the images they are on Commons and you can use them in any Wikimedia project you like without a need to make a copy of them locally. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Panic2k4...Kindly I hope you let me know if I can copy my user/collection page to my user page and start and continue to edit it. I hope you write to me the answer cause if this is possible I wish if you please do this for me ((copy the content to my user page)) cause I am afraid if I do this my self this will cause a block to my user.

Kindly I have an idea that I want to continue editing my subject in my user page for at least one month then I want to make a brief of my work from neutral point of view then I want to make a discussion again about the subject.

Emad Kayyam

User:194.50.120.247/vector.css[edit]

Please delete this page. That page can't be tagged as a speedy because it's protected. Thank you --Glaisher (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=2535676#Undeletion"