Wikibooks:Votes for undeletion/Archive 1

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive for historical purposes. Do not vote or edit the content here.

Put new archived entries at the top of the list.

Contents

[edit] Biography of Nikola Tesla

I disagree with the decision to delete this wikibook. Yes, on the VfD page there were several votes to kill this wikibook, but there are other considerations to be made. Gentgeen killed this Wikibook less than a day after I posted a vote to keep it, and at the very least some more "cooling off" time should have occured before it was deleted.

I am also coming from the viewpoint of a Wikibookian who doesn't frequent Wikipedia that much (although occasionally for some source material when writing a Wikibook), and not somebody personally involved with the edit wars going on with the w:Nikola Tesla article. I've also asked the community at large through the Staff Lounge on the larger issue of forking content from the Wikipedia to get a more general concensus on this issue.

In short, I don't think strictly because a Wikibook is a fork of content on Wikipedia that it should automatically be deleted. There are a number of considerations that should go into play, and in particular Rule #5 of the Deletion Policy should be followed and unless it is going to cause harm to Wikibooks, or is just blatant vandalism, it shouldn't be deleted. I know I'm sticking my head out for something I didn't even put together, but I think this was not done properly. - Rob Horning 8 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

  • Undelete - Rob Horning 8 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
  • Undelete and update the corresponding Wikipedia article to indicate the book is housed here, and all subsequent edits should go there instead of on the Wikipedia article. Then it is not a fork, but an relocation/expansion. If Wikipedia contains a substantial article on a subject, then a policy to delete forks of that article on Wikibooks, combined with a policy to delete articles on Wikibooks which are not as complete as the Wikipedia article, will mean a book can never be written. It will always apply to one of these policies, with the exception of the case where the book doesn't have a corresponding Wikipedia entry, or the very unlikely event that a single user just happens to write a complete and original book from scratch in a very short space of time. This is an insane policy. - Aya 8 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
  • View - This seems to be contentious, so according to policy I hereby request to view the deleted pages. - Aya 17:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete - I'd love to see what this book was like and compare for myself. Biographies are not "fiction, original literature, or original research." Sj 06:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - I'd like to know why we'd have to reverse our policies to make this book so worthy of being undeleted. I haven't seen any evidence on how this can be evolved from beyond a macropedia (ie. an in-depth encyclopedia of a certain subject), making this contrary to WB:WIN. Furthermore, I do not consider a biography to be instructional material in and of itself. KelvSYC 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Firstly, the text on WB:WIN appears to define the term 'macropedia' to mean 'an article suitable for Wikipedia', which this is clearly not, or it would've been kept there. It was moved because Wikipedians felt it was too long for a Wikipedia entry. Secondly, for a site supposedly hosting educational textbooks with the intention of said books being used in educational establishments, I feel that most people would consider a biography of a famous scientist to be far more pertinent than a guide to a computer game or a guide to japanese toys such as Pokemon. Maybe these should be disallowed too. - Aya 11:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - I'm perfectly happy with the way it was deleted, because it had been listed for several weeks. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 13:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I am particularly objecting that my final vote to keep this book on Wikibooks was only one day old, with no rebuttal, prior to this Wikibook being deleted. Or the rebuttal was its removal, which seems a little harsh. If there is a sign that discussion is ongoing, action should not IMHO occur right away by admins. At least let the discussion continue a little bit when there are (and were) other wikibooks that clearly needed attention as well. --Rob Horning 23:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete I think our policy needs to start recognizing that writing a book is very different than writing an encyclopedic entry. A wikipedia article is describing something objective, so it's very easy for rapid interest and participation to reach the goal. A wikibook, on the other hand, is subjective: there is no single agreed upon way to teach material. We all know about calculus and that the mathematical definitions and truths in it are quite objective. But how to teach calculus is something else: you need to lay out a plan: How will the material be motivated? What previous knowledge is assumed? What order should topics be introduced? What topics should be used over others?
    The wikipedia gets to "punt" a lot of these questions by providing a non-linear sequence of links. But no one in their right mind is going to learn calculus reading the wikipedia: it's a reference, not a tutorial. And that's where wikibooks come in. We need to be linear: the best wikibooks are those you can just print out all of the chapters for (without too much mouse clicking, a couple of clicks per chapter tops) and then read cover to cover, without ever having to follow some link.
    Thus, it's no surprise that some wikibooks seem to be "struggling". Non-linear books like the cookbook are doing very well... but the simple matter is that tutorials take an enormous amount of time to write. Thus, it would be insane to punish books based on their lack of progress. Particularly given that this is a part-time job for everyone. (Even in the open-source world, the contributors are working full time on it-- or at least whatever aspect of the OSS project they are helping is a step on a goal to something they are working on full time. But since writing a wikibook won't really help someone accomplish a primary goal, we don't benefit from that.)
    I've also noticed that big projects work in cycles: it could be once every 4 months that someone gets motivated again to, say, enter in their lecture notes and compose new exposition to make the material sound and consistent with what else has been written. MShonle 23:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I can understand why Robert Horning might feel a bit cheated. I have nothing against allowing people to view the former content. But, I think that we do need to be careful before allowing articles that are started as raw Wikipedia forks, otherwise, we may have all kinds of junk dumped on us, just so that the authors can avoid dispites at Wikipedia. I know that VfD is about books, and not about people, but the editor that started this book is well known over at Wikipedia. They refuse to create a user account, even though they make many major edits (only signing as Anon), and they change their IPs to avoid being blocked (at the time of creation of this article, they were blocked on Wikipedia for breaking the three revert rule again). So, understandably I looked at their contribution a bit more carefully. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 00:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - I've now had a look at the deleted content, and the pages listed on its contents page makes its structure virtually identical to the corresponding Wikipedia article at w:Nikola Tesla. It would seem that any article on Wikipedia whose title is the name of a real person is implicitly structured as a biography of that person, thus, as long as this is the case, then Wikipedia must remain the canonical location for all biographies, otherwise we will end up creating two canonical locations for information on the same subject. Consequently biographies will no longer be permitted on Wikibooks, unless we make a formal agreement with Wikipedia that we should host all biographical content. This policy is what we should be discussing, not just an individual instance of it. If everyone is happy with this, then we should update WB:WIN to clearly indicate that biographies are not permitted for the reason I have given above, and not for the reason that they are not instructional, or some other subjective nonsense. I also suspect some of the Undelete votes are just from curious people who wish to see the content before making up their minds. If this is the case, then please change your vote to View, and I shall temporarily undelete the page to let you have a look. - Aya T C 19:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I do think that a larger biography would do justice here on Wikibooks, as is the case of this particular Wikibook. In particular, information was being cut from the Wikipedia article strictly because of length, and the contributors were told to "go away" and not add more content, but instead do it on Wikibooks (like the ongoing discussion I'm having about the Harry Potter book, with similar initial reaction but very different reception here on Wikibooks...slightly different circumstance however on that one). Admittedly it was just a stub, and in terms of content it was identical to Wikipedia with just minor differences. I do support the idea that biographies in general should not be on Wikibooks, but the original policy discussion I had earlier about the justification of a fork from Wikipedia being used as a stub for a much larger work still hasn't been totally hashed out either. If I ever get the time from other projects, perhaps I will make another stab at putting this Wikibook back up but with substantially more content as would befit a Wikibook as opposed to merely a fork of Wikipedia. At this point we will never know what may have happened with this Wikibook had it been left alone instead of deleted. --Rob Horning 19:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I see your point. I see three possibilites:
  • Just pad out the article on 'pedia, and to hell with with what the other editors think.
  • Delete all biographical data from 'pedia, and have it all here.
  • U-turn our policy on biographies, and allow a full bio here, and a brief bio on 'pedia.
There seems to be a policy conflict between 'books and 'pedia, so I shall make enquiries with members of the Foundation to resolve it. Please don't recreate the book until I've got an official response. This will no doubt become a landmark case for all subsequent 'pedia forks. - Aya T C 21:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
BTW Aya, I will not repost as a casual act, and certainly not as a part of an edit war. Tesla is somebody who I've always had a little facination about and I think a more exaustive work about him would be interesting. I will assure you that any reposting of content about Tesla as a biography will be months away, if not more than a year, at least by myself. I got too many other projects on the burner right now to fight this battle. I do think it belongs on Wikibooks however. --Rob Horning 22:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, we need to step back and see what the differences are between wikipedia and wikibooks. One of the fundamental aspects of wikipedia is that everything is from a NPOV. That is not the case for wikibooks! In wikibooks, we are taking up the roles as educators and instructors, not informers. We must necessarily take up our own point of views as to how something is to be taught. Naturally, it's undesirable for a book to be biased or incorrect, but that is not the same as having a point of view. For example, a biography on a vegetarian activist might be much more instructive and interesting if it also maintains a vegetarian point of view. And this basically gets me to my point: for an encyclopedic entry on a person, there is only one objective goal: describe all known and interesting facts on the person. For a biography on a person, there could be many goals, and, indeed, most interesting people have many different biographies. I want to see a wikibook on "Jefferson: The President" and another one on "Jefferson: The Slave Owner" and then another on "Jefferson: The Man." We don't need any coordination with wikipedia here. We're doing completely different things. Get this nonsense about canoncial sources and throw it out of the window. MShonle 23:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Not true. I just chatted about this on IRC with a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. The NPOV policy is universal (as is GFDL and m:Privacy policy), and thus also applies to this wiki. These are however the only policies we must obey. Everything else is within our autonomy. See also Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines for other important policies. - Aya T C 00:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Not to engage in semantics, but the Computer Science:Algorithms book takes up the Point of View that teaching backtracking (a basic technique, but is inefficient) before teaching dynamic programming and greedy algorithms is more helpful. (The reason for this is that both DP and GA are special cases of BT. And DP is typically not taught well without the BT background.) People might disagree with that POV, but that's how I've decided the Algorithms book should go (but it wasn't my idea, I heard of it first through a very noted professor-- and then it was my duty to "win over" the other Algorithms contributors that this was the way to go, they agreed). So, if anything, the concept of NPOV in the context of a wikibook must be changed.
As I've said before, I think the "Creation Science" folks should be able to write their own self-consistent wikibook, taking up the Creation Science POV. Similarly, the Evolutionists folks should be able to write their own self-consistent wikibook. The two books would disagree with each other, but, well, it's a very, very contested issue right now. And, I think both the Creation Scientists and the Evolutionists would much rather be able to write their books with their best foot forward; mostly because the strength of their teachings would be too watered down making compromises on issues where compromise is politically untenable. (Note that an appendix of the Evolution book could refute the Creation Science book. I've got nothing wrong with discussion.) MShonle 01:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As a follow up: Note another different goal between wikipedia and wikibooks: Links. For a wikipedia entry on a person, the reader is going to want to see a bunch of links and connections to other pieces. For a wikibook, we instead want to take the most relevant information from the links and change the exposition so it is a single, self-contained work. Perhaps a slogan would be better: Wikipedia is for clicking and learning about everything; a Wikibook is for learning about one single thing. We are a book project... we should be heavy on the exposition. We are not a link project: that is the job of wikipedia. So, Aya, I hope in this light perhaps you could see the aesthetic value of overlap between the wikipedia and wikibooks. It's not a crime that both sites might have entries on "Thomas Jefferson". MShonle 23:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. Maybe we should U-Turn our policy and allow 'pedia forks providing they have been reformatted as books not encyclopedia articles? - Aya T C 00:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I think a set of pasted in wikipedia articles works as a good "wikibook stub." With a wikipedia stub, it's often just a little information that grows into a lot of information. With a wikibook stub, it's more often already a lot of information that grows into better and better exposition of that information. And, for what it's worth, I think writing that exposition is very time consuming. That is one reason why wikibooks take much longer. MShonle 01:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I just modified WB:DP to allow for this. If this gets ratified, then this bio will be undeleted. Please cast you votes on its talk page. - Aya T C 02:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. (Though I might want to change the wording a little; including what it would mean to reformat as a book.) But on which page do we cast votes for what? MShonle 04:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
If you havn't noticed (the section is getting big with the flame war I admit I'm conducting) the VfD discussion on the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter is largely about this issue as well, with the added fact that I seem to have pissed off an entire community of fans (notably just two editors) over this issue. Both of these editors seem to be Wikipedia regulars, although User:Uncle G has contributed quite a bit to Wikibooks as well. A general policy about how and what can be forked from Wikipedia is going to be needed to settle this argument. --Rob Horning 22:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Undeleted - Looking at Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Archive#Biography of Nikola Tesla, there was no clear consensus for deleting this book, and the reasons for deleting it (not being 'instructional material') are subjective nonsense.

The new version of Wikibooks:About should hopefully make this more clear, but in a nutshell, Wikipedia's goals are to write encyclopedia articles, and our goals are to write books. I don't see why there shouldn't be both, providing theirs is formatted as an encyclopedia article, and ours is formatted as a book. It is inevitable that some content will be duplicated, but this is a fundamental problem of scope overlap between the two projects, which should've been thought about before launching the Wikibooks project.

I've also left a note on w:Talk:Nikola Tesla to indicate that any material they need to trim to keep their article to a managable size should be transferred to the Wikibook.

If anyone has any comments about this decision, please make them here. Thankyou. - Aya T C 02:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HPT in the Workplace

This was a wiki module that was inappropriately deleted and very arbitrary. It was created as an "experiment" in collaborative editing by an Instructional Technology class at Wayne State University, and basically it was a bunch of neophytes to Wikimedia projects trying to help each other out. It really is a sub-module to the Instructional Technology wikibook, but unfortunately instead of using naming conventions that were obvious they tended to create each module as a seperate Wikibook. I've been trying to consolodate these book modules, and there are a couple that are "orphaned" as well because of weird linking arrangements (sometimes they did a wikibooks link as an external instead of internal link) and the naming style.

When seen as a whole from the Instructional Technology wikibook, it does appear to be much more substantial of a project. The VfD vote was unanimous to keep, but was deleted anyway. Either this whole wikibook goes (Instructional Technology) or this sub-module should be brought back. Perhaps moved to submodule naming conventions afterward. --Rob Horning 02:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Undeleted - Yes I noticed this too. It seems KelvSYC (who deleted it) figured it was primary research, but after I checked (I'd never heard of HPT either), it seems the HPT is a course taught at a number of colleges in the USA. Furthermore after having checked Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Archive#HPT in the Workplace, both voted were to keep. What on earth is going on here? - Aya T C 02:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Update - Ah. Now I see the problem. It was marked as a speedy, went into a vote, but the vote evidently got overlooked. Can admins please check that speedy deletions meet the speedy deletion criteria in Wikibooks:Deletion policy and Wikibooks:About before performing a deletion. This may involve a bit of googling to check that these alleged 'primary research' pages actually are 'primary research'. Don't implicitly trust the people who mark them as speedies.
I shall be taking a look through other things in the deletion list to see if anything else slipped through the net. - Aya T C 02:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beating Season

I believe Beating Season was deleted with a total disregard for wikibooks policy. Not one person on the delete side could name how Beating Season was in conflict with the wikibooks purpose or rules. Deleting a book on the grounds of "being offensive" is not anywhere in wikibook's well documented policy, but yet, that is the sole reason Beating Season was destroyed. Instead of deleteing the book because it is found "offensive," I suggest the offended users get their wikian act together, and edit the book to make it non-offensive to them.

Furthermore, I am not sure of the exact count, but the votes were roughly 20 Keep, 6 Delete, and 1 Abstain. I surely hope wikibooks doesn't delete every book with a 20 keep - 6 delete vote count. Well, I guess I can't blame the people who voted delete, because Gentgeen, the very user who nominated Beating Season for deletion, posted very immature comments, and spammed the main page to make the keep side look bad (he posted IRON MY SHIRT Keep beating season! 500+ times). You can even see it in the pages' history. He used a couple of anon ip's to make the advocates of the book look bad.

I declare the deletion of Beating Season unjust, unfair, and extremely biased. Beating Season did not break any rules or policy, and only 6 people voted to delete it, while 20 voted to keep it. I expect better from wikibooks. Respectfully, Jm51 17:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The book was intended to be a joke, not instructional material, and therefore was not in compliance with Wikibooks mission. If you'd like to provide evidence behind your libelous statements, I'd be amused to see it. Wikibooks does not provide its users the right to a secret vote on deletion matters, and does not extend the right to vote to anons, therefore all the unsigned votes are null, and the deletion tally stood at 8 delete vs. 2 keep. All together, this was a properly deleted book, and should stay deleted. Gentgeen 18:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You may percive it as a joke, but others in other countries than your own may find it a valuable resource. Whether you will let yourself admit or not, the material outlined in the book can be useful for those who do practice. Just because it that practice is different than your culture "norm" does not mean we should be so quick to judge it, and dismiss it as "a joke." Anon users make up most of the page views on the metawiki sites. Furthermore, I reviewed the history, and the majority of them were not sockpuppets. A few valiant supports voted more than once, but given the circumstances (culturally intolerant wikibookians attempting to wipe their beloved resource away), I can't blame them. Nowhere in wikibook's policy does it count anon voters as "null," in fact, anon users often edit pages and contribute. They are part of the wikibooks community and their votes do count. Jm51 21:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
stay deleted: The "book" was obviously a tasteless joke, as much as a joke as the "keep" votes were, none of which came from anyone in the wikibooks community (except the one keep vote by Jm51). Further, Jm51: you should read up about libel law and the legal implications of your slandering. MShonle 20:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because they disagree with you, they 'must be' to be "joke" users (after all, who would dare disagree with your viewpoints?). See above. Anon users contribute and are part of the wikibooks community. Further: Mshonle, you should look at a map of the world. Not everybody lives in America. Jm51 21:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody can prove how beating season broke wikibooks' policy, I demand it be undeleted now. Jm51 23:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, obviously, "proof" is too much to ask for. Policy is a guideline; not a set of mathematical axioms by which one can reach an unambiguous decision through logical reasoning. What's more, policy is not written in stone. It's written by us, the collective contributors to Wikibooks. You, of course, are one such contributor, but barring votes which were perceived as being cast in bad faith (through sockpuppets and users whose only edits were to the delete page), the consensus was to delete. You may rightly complain that policy was not clear enough; that merely means policy could be amended, not that we are somehow required to keep the book. Wikibooks is neither just nor rule-based, as no wiki is; there is no principle of "innocent until proven guilty".
That said, let us review why this book should be deleted, and why it is inappropriate for Wikibooks, applying current policy only. Let us first dispense with the myth that it was deleted because it was offensive, or not conforming to someone's cultural bias. These are not criteria, even though everybody is allowed their personal opinion. Personally, I hardly considered it offensive, just tasteless and lacking style. There is first of all #4: Wikibooks is not a place for fiction text. As several contributors pointed out, certain things were just plain made up. Then there's #9: Wikibooks is not a place for primary research. To my knowledge, there is no previous research on "how to beat your wife". If there is, I sincerely question that it was accurately summarized in the module.
I agree that current policy is not strong enough to unambiguously decide deletion based on precedent. That's why I'd like to thank you for helping us set precedent: consensus is that this text is not appropriate. Even if we have not enunciated exactly why this is so, and how we should generalize the decision, it is nevertheless a decision. We are not required to justify our votes using current policy only to make the decision valid; that's always nice, but not a requirement.
In short: Wikibooks is a work in progress. Some of our decisions may be wrong, others may be right, but just not supported by current policy. I firmly believe we have a case of the latter. JRM 23:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Ambi 09:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cookbook:Human

I believe Cookbook:Human was deleted without appropriate consideration of policy. I also believe that the counting of votes for the deletion of Cookbook:Kenbuloga was flawed, and find it highly objectionable that Gentgeen, the very user who nominated it for deletion, was the same user who decided that the results were a consensus, which I do not believe they were, and subsequently deleted the page.

The votes at Kenbuloga were 4 delete, 1 keep, and 2 keep if verified. No evidence was provided to verify that this was a legitamate recipe, while the recipe failed a google and a yahoo test, so I took that to be 4-1, or 80% for deletion. keep deleted Gentgeen 23:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That may be, but you're still not supposed to delete something that you nominated.

For Cookbook:Human there have been no citations from Gentgeen of policy, even when requested, except that "Wikibooks is not Wikipedia", which is clear from the logo in the upper-left-hand corner of every page here. In fact, that doesn't make much sense because cookbook entries aren't supposed to be in Wikipedia anymore!

--Node ue 22:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In this decision to delete, I saw an anon IP remove the page from VfD. I checked, and the same IP had created the module, and removed the VfD tag from it. Based on the two vandalous actions of supressing a legitimate VfD listing, I decided this anon was a vandal and temp blocked the IP address. I looked at the page in question, determined it was full of inaccuracies, misstatements, and was most likely posted to be intentionally offensive, and speedy deleted it as simple vandalism. keep deleted Gentgeen 23:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "keep" votes for "Special brownies" greatly outnumbered the votes for "delete", 9-4. It was extremely irresponsible of Gentgeen to 1. remove it from this page and 2. delete the article, without further discussion of which votes should be counted, and which should not, especially since he himself had voted "delete". I request that the page be undeleted immediately. --Node ue 23:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

actually, I never voted in the special brownie debate. Of the users who voted keep, most had no history at this project, they merely claimed to be well known wikipedians. Of the actual members of this community, the vote was 6-3, with liblam, the only cookbook contributor who voted, voting to delete. keep deleted Gentgeen 23:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • ahem* hardly a consensus.--Node ue 01:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To clarify: votes for deletion can only be made by contributers to the book from which the module in question is from, or can they be made by any wikibookian? I was under the impression that any wikibookian could vote, but Genteen appears to have only counted cookbook contributers. Fugg 09:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To clairfy: I investigated the edit history of all the voters in this case, and only counted the votes of users with a history of editing wikibooks. Users whos only edits were to their user page and to VfD were not counted. This led to a 6-3 vote in favor of deletion. I thought this was a "grey area" between consensus and no consensus, so I looked at the votes cast by the users listed in Cookbook:Contributors, 1 user there voted to delete, the others (including myself) did not vote. In my mind, this pushed the article into the consensus to delete category. So, all wikibooks users votes were counted, with the "tie breaker" (although delete had 2/3 of the vote) going to the editing staff of the wikibook involved. Gentgeen 09:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I missed two votes for deletion in my first count. 6-3 in favour of delete, if you leave out wikipedians whose user pages don't link to their user pages here. Fugg 00:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Stupid criteria. I never thought to link my two profiles together, yet I'm a regular of both pedia and books, and even contributed to the article in question. You're basically just Gerrymanding the process to your own ends. Yeago 05:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "special brownies" can have a distinct undeletion request if desired; it doesn't belong here. If they are what I suspect, involving drugs, I regret to say that they are indeed a reasonably popular food. (you people must be nuts -- the special brownie makers, that is) Probably they would best be a variation though, not a distinct recipe.

Undelete. As least temporarily, I must ask that Cookbook:Human be undeleted. While I suspect that this was junk, the circumstances surrounding deletion are suspicious. If the entry was indeed junk, I'd like to try fixing it. Do note that I am in fact a major contributer to the cookbook. I have contributed over two dozen original recipes, probably a somewhat larger number of ingredients, and zillions of link fixes. I'd be happy to write a tasteful and accurate entry for Cookbook:Human. (as an ingredient with appropriate warnings, not a recipe) AlbertCahalan 16:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's curious to me, Albert Cahalan, that you claim total ignorance of the content of the Cookbook:Human entry, yet Cookbook:Placenta, an entry in which only you have made edits, includes a link to it (further, the Human entry came first, not yours-- so the evidence does not support a claim that you made a link to a not yet existent entry). How could you possibly have including a link on this topic without following it? (Further, when you made the link, no further edits to Human were made.) MShonle 21:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cookbook:Placenta includes a link to Cookbook:Human because it is an obvious link to make. (at the time, Cookbook:Human was deleted) When it came time to make the link, my thoughts were "damn, there's some sort of controvery over that, perhaps I ought to investigate before filling in the entry for human". So, while I was aware of some sort of controversy, I knew little of the nature of the controversy. I have an interest in making the Cookbook as comprehensive as possible. People eat snails, acorns, worms, rotten eggs (a delicacy in China), and even testicles (Gross!). Well, if people eat it, it's an ingredient. I apply the same logic to recipes, cooking methods, and kitchen tools. If it exists and someone is willing to put in the effort to create a proper entry, it belongs in the Cookbook. Assuming that the Cookbook:Human article was indeed awful, I'd like to write a proper replacement. (nice and short: normally illegal; for the curious, it tastes like beef; placenta may be legal; warning about disease; maybe link to the wikibooks survival guide) Perhaps you'd be willing to help write something tasteful. Please use any recently-edited meat ingredient as a template, and stick to the facts.
Sorry, but I'm going to stick with writing algorithms and programming language entries. If I come upon a good vegan recipe I'll add one, but all of the vegan recipes I use are from extant cookbooks, and cannot be put under GFDL. I think describing how to cook humans crosses the line: no college or university will bother with that, but journalists writing (unfavorable) reviews of wikibooks just love to pounce on it. This kind of shock value style of writing only hurts our credibility, and serves no useful utility to anyone other than those who like to be shocked. (And that's out of the scope of our mission here.) MShonle 22:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted It should be clear that there is no useful purpose for having this entry. It's either just a bad joke or the sign of someone with serious mental issues. MShonle 22:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not at all clear. If nothing else, the entry can satisfy curiousity. Being afraid to allow even the existance of this entry is a sign of mental issues. Why are you so afraid of it? Anyway, you are not a Cookbook contributer, and the deletion policy has been violated. AlbertCahalan 23:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted liblamb 05:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Undelete, agree with AlbertCahalan. Snargle 00:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dating ideas

Getting_a_girl_(for_guys)/Dating_ideas was the most charming page associated with the original Getting a girl, and utterly inoffensive. I had moved it with very little copyediting from that deleted book to the newer Getting a date series. I forgot to remove the redirect from the TOC of the original book (which was slated for deletion) so the page in the new book was deleted as well.

  • Undelete. Sj 09:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Ambi 09:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. There was no concensus to delete. AlbertCahalan 04:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Individual pages of this book should not be deleted unless a consensus has been reached about the whole book on VfD. -- mattrix 09:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • it was deleted as a part of the VfD'd Getting a girl, I didn't notice it was being used by the other book. Gentgeen 07:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Undeleted. 
Gentgeen 07:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cookbook:Special brownies

Cookbook:Special brownies was deleted by User:Dysprosia around 06:30 AM, 9/5/04, UTC, for being, quote, "vandalism". This article, however, was not vandalisml, unlike my other articles. This is for real - people make these every day.

The catch being "* 1/2 oz. Marijuana...Procedure ... Pour the marijuana into the butter (making sure all seeds and stems are removed). Stir the marijuana and butter mixture..." Dysprosia 06:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Duh, that's the point of special brownies. That's why they're special, get it? Wink wink, nudge nudge? -DX 07:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's not appropriate content. Dysprosia 07:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How is it not appropriate? It is, admittedly, not for children, but neither is the section on alcoholic beverages. Fugg 09:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikibooks should not encourage drug use. It's not NPOV. Dysprosia 00:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nor should it discourage drug use by censoring recipes. NPOV always works both ways. Guanaco 02:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can we have more articles on psychotropic cooking? Would it be possible to provide free samples for vandal (somebody who destoys wantonly or without due care) administrators? Just a suggested service. 82.69.58.117 20:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have undeleted this, since it was a valid–semi-valid article and was speedily deleted. It can be listed on VfD if anyone wants to get rid of it. Guanaco 02:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. Anthere 20:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Votes_for_undeletion/Archive_1"
Personal tools