User talk:Mike.lifeguard

Archives

---

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20

Info for new users

Starting your first book

Help:Starting a new page or book is a good resource. If you need specific help with something, ask at WB:HELP.

Reporting vandalism

Report vandalism in progress on-wiki or in #wikibooks. Say !admin@enbooks in IRC to get attention. You can fix most vandalism yourself because this is a wiki. Users who fight vandalism may ask for rollback access.

Why did you delete that?

Check the deletion log for the reason (read any linked pages for details). Read the deletion policy. Check the VFD archives if applicable. If that doesn't answer your question, then ask. If you want it undeleted, ask at WB:VFU.

What does {{query}} mean?

This means that the page doesn't seem like the start of a textbook. Please leave a comment on the module's talk page if you are planning a textbook. If not, please replace {{query}} with {{delete|reason for deletion}}.

What do {{no license}} {{bad fairuse}} or {{no rationale}} mean?

All files uploaded to Wikibooks must have a license template and source; without that information, the upload will be deleted after 7 days. Please use {{information}} to provide this required information. Fair use images must have a {{fair use rationale}}. To add templates, do not re-upload the image. You must edit the image description page directly, the same way you do for other pages - click the edit this page tab. Wikibooks:Media has all the information you should need.

Contacting me

I've retired, so there's probably no need to do that.

If you want to help

New Pages

New pages are sometimes vandalism, mistakes, copyright violations, nonsense, or otherwise not suitable for Wikibooks. For vandalism, nonsense and test edits, mark pages with {{delete|reason}}. For copyright violations, use {{copyvio|source}}. For mistakes, use {{query}}. For content that belongs on another wiki, use {{transwiki|Wiki}}. Users with experience patrolling may request patroller rights.

Uploads

Look through the recent uploads for copyright violations and media without license information. Add {{copyvio|source}} to copyvios; warn the uploader with {{subst:nothanks|page|~~~~}}. For media without license info, add {{subst:nld}}, and use the template code provided to warn them.

Vandalism

Look for vandalism in RC; fix it and warn the user. Large or tiny additions or deletions, replacing the page, and strange or offensive edit summaries are giveaways. Anon users are often the worst vandals. If there is repeated vandalism by one user, or lots of vandalism from many users, tell an admin on-wiki or in #wikibooks (say !admin@enbooks to get attention). Experienced vandal fighters may request rollback rights.

Redirects

To fix double redirects, make the first in the chain point to the last in the chain. All redirects should point to the current location of the content. To fix broken redirects, check if the page at the location that doesn't exist was moved elsewhere; if so, redirect to that location. If the target page is gone, or if you can create an orphan while fixing double redirects, then tag the orphan redirect with {{delete|orphan redirect}}.

RETIRED

This user is no longer active on Wikibooks.

Archives

---

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30

re:Small wikis

Thank You both :) --birdy _{(:> )=|} 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

:D — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Deletion

I'm referring to the one about making and running a games website. I would just like to know why you deleted that. It seemed interesting and I would've liked to edit that. Oh, and would you leave the reply on my talk page? Thanks,~VNinja~ 03:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The one I deleted was a redirect to a deleted page. That page was deleted because it had no meaningful content.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Give information

I have done my best. I'll thank you if you attempt to reason with him and better explain it (or see if he sticks to the point), since you took the initial step, it is only proper that I ask you to attempt pass along the reason for the VFD (to what I agreed to fallow trough). Sorry to drag you into the pot, but ultimately you put me there first. --Panic (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you ever thought that deletion would be a speedy - it doesn't even come close to meeting the requirements. As there is no consensus to delete, I have SNOWed the VFD. Please discuss this with contributors to the book, and come to a consensus with them regarding what to do on this issue. Until that happens, no action will be taken as far as I can see. Whiteknight is acting in a perfectly reasonable manner, and he already understands perfectly why this ended up at VFD.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There was consensus since the only persosn that would object did state that he didn't care (a statement of non objection). I call upon your attention that James even if he states now an objection is doing it on other grounds also note that DL hans't as yet stated his objection.

As for the WB:SPEEDY point 6) A page that has been nominated for deletion due to a general reorganization of the book by the contributors. In this situation, please note the location of the relevant discussion that occurred regarding the page cleanup. is valid so a speedy is in order and proper I only assigned the request to WK since he as the acting Admin at the time be the one best informed of the situation and able to restore the pages status.

Since you initiated the VFD I took that you even not understanding the full situation saw that the response provided by WK hadn't solved the issue and agreed that the VFD was one of the valid options. (Thats is why I agreed with your move)

If you agree with point 6 as a reason to speedy delete you can take care of it upon confirming DL position, if you are extending special consideration to James newly stated position I agree that the user should be able to validate his views and the best way to do that is the VFD, were other several position were already made. --Panic (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'll take objection to your SNOW action (as keep) on the grounds that at this time no valid reason was given on the keep votes statements, that is, any justifiable and substantial argument to keep the page, even if you don't agree with the SPEEDY (WK didn't raise an issue on those grounds) the VFD is valid and should continue running. In fact the only resulting effect of that would be moving the discussion to another page, even if the discussion is getting out of the scope it was initiated. Do you agree, disagree or can see another approach ? --Panic (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If there were consensus among book contributors to delete, SPEEDY would apply. There is not. Saying there is consensus does not make it so. There is no point letting the VFD run - what is needed is consensus among contributors to the book about what to do. You are not going to steamroll this. I don't care what the outcome is, except that there is consensus among book contributors. So go figure it out with them.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 10:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there isn't a consensus NOW (depending on how you see the validity of the recently stated objections) but at the time there was no objection, even getting in contact with DL on his talk page (that I was not obligated to do), resulted in statement of non objection.

Saying there is consensus does make it so if no objection was made at the time it reaches a decission and the discussion was properly known (that is how we make decisions here). In Wikibooks what has prevailed is the majority consensus (given the argumentation made). In any case the discussion was initiated [in 13 March 2008] with establishing rules setting the closing date 7 days (after the last contribution) 18 April 2008 + 7 taking no action at the time to close it it stood open, since another Wikibookian requested that the subject was addressed I directly and by my initiative (there is no real obligation to do it) contacted Darklama informing him of the decission and if he wished to object to it in any way, the user did state that he didn't care about the page, a non objection), decission reached and validated, that satisfies point 6 of a SPEEDY request. I could agree in readdressing the issue again but still no objections were made that validates keeping the page in question. Can and should we invalidate decisions because we didn't participate at the proper time ? Was I sneaky in any way ? What justification do you give to label it steamrolling ? --Panic (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously a controversial deletion; I don't understand how you could possibly think otherwise. There is no consensus to delete, so it is not being deleted at this time. Please work with other contributors to the book to come up with a course forward that is acceptable to all of you. I am not the person you need to convice!  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• reset

I'm not attempting to convince you, but you are now dodging to comment on the events and restating something that we agree, is it intentionally ? If so I'll live you alone on the subject. I made a reply on the rational for the SPEEDY (at the time the action was initiated, no objection was made to the deletion). Since you initiated the VFD, did you at the time shared the view that DL was objecting to the decission (not the proceedings, he does indeed rant on how it was reached but historical it was always done in that way, so the argument is moot), if so I don't understand why you thought the VFD was a good idea, and promoted it as a reasonable solution and how ending it will help the situation (the only positive outcome is calming things up)... --Panic (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I turned the speedy to a VFD because it didn't meet the speedy criteria. I closed the VFD because there is obviously no consensus to delete. I still question why you thought it would be an uncontroversial deletion suitable for {{delete}} - that was an error in judgment in my view.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your base to claim that the requirements for a speedy were not met? Do you read DL reply as an objection to the decission ? To me "I don't care" suffices as a statement of no interest for the outcome, an expression of non objection, the user was free to participate and even go to the place were the discussion was completed and clarify his position. (there was a proper time and place to do it properly) But again if you shared that view what was the point for the VFD? You could have stated it next to WK post or ask DL to be more clear. (Invalidating the speedy action, since the direct contact I made to him was objectively not an attempt to steamroll the decission)

If your concern is the expressed opinion of Jammes then I share your view, but the discussion was completed, even so his newly expressed objection didn't address the issue at hand (did not provide a reason for keeping the page, nor a commitment to improve it), Jammes merely states that he doesn't like how the issue was resolved, but he was always free to act, sadly he only did it after WK refused to act. But I can't be expected to contact every person that has contributed to the work as when we vote on WB guidelines or policies, we make an announcement and provide time to people to intervene if they wish to, no one is forced to, on other books I'm working mostly alone (only editor) and I take the steps to ask for input (even if I expect none) --Panic (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstand Darklama. Furthermore, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of consensus. I don't fault you for this, but please recognize your errors rather than turn this into an issue regarding myself, Whiteknight or anyone else.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention on causing you problems and I think I understand what you are saying in between the lines and we should best drop the issue of the VFD completely I only raised and called you to intervene since WK clearly made an erroneous public statement on that regard, as if it was my intention to cause any conflict my action clearly prove otherwise. In any case we are just talking it is not my expectation that you get more involved on the subject, but silence will never promote understanding.

I can be a bit combative when I defend some points when I think I'm right, but I'm always open to compromise and to re-analise the issues. I don't read DL statement as seemly you do also, but in any case the user was free to intervene if you check the timeline. I gave ample time for anyone to clarify positions before I acted if indeed it was his intention to object he clearly had the opportunity even until today he has remained silent (he was present on the project when WK stated his refusal)

As for consensual decission I understand the concept very well. I have all intentions to promote even a more deeply use that the one has been used on Wikibooks (since the last revision), dropping completely majority rule voting (or consensus by majority if we take in consideration the argumentation provided) that is no decission would be passed until a a valid block exists, so I have a tendency more inclusive than the actual practice.

On the item at hand that is not the problem, and I'm open to address any objection, the issue is that up till now the reason not to execute the action was not substantiated by the claimed opposer and new objections haven't dealt with the issue under discussion, more the only way we have to evolve on a consensual decission process is to establish rules for the discussion that is establishing guidelines to the procedure and limitations may it be credentials, actions or timelines to validate any reached decission. In this case the discussion was transparent, in good intention and inclusive since the proceeding would be valid by common practice even if hadn't contacted DL.

My divergences with DL and WK are more complex and that is why I thread a thin line each time I have to interact with the users, one quick example was the "correction" DL made to my post here about GFDL+Extensions (correction that was wrong, I dropped the issue so to avoid conflict as it wasn't very relevant to the other user).

The thing is that WB doesn't use the standard GFDL it includes some exceptions 1) the stated exclusion of Invariant Sections (if this was the only difference then the exception word could probably be argued as an overstatement since the license clearly covers this standard option out, but requires it to be expressed) but 2) no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. could be but aren't defined as invariant sections, that is why the copyright notice clarifies it, those are indeed exceptions (anything excluded from or not conforming to a general rule or classification), the understanding of this fact (that some strongly object to) makes it clear that not all GFDL documents can be merged (historically we only raise problems when the original work has any of those excluded parts) but when you accept the use of works that originally don't have those stated exclusions we create the problem or relicensing the work beyond what the copyright holder (not necessarily the author) intended. That could cause future problems at least I claim so. I don't have any intention of calling wolf but I do state my objections when this information is not transmitted to people that are asking and porting works into the project (the simple request that they also agree to the exceptions would suffice). This is one examples of things put me on the bad side of some Wikibookians. --Panic (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

voting to keep a book

Optimal Classification was originally published in the Wikipedia in May of 2007. It contained an unwikified primary reference that was wikified as an inline reference, along with several notes. It had two minor typo's, which were corrected and wiki graphic tables which made it larger than necessary. The graphics were converted to images and the size reduce. Currently references and notes are being expanded and text added to clarify the theoretical and empirical separatory equations. It is a work in progress.

It was moved from the Wikipedia to the Wikibooks because Wikipedia user Jiuguang Wang read a Wikia article by the original author of the Wikipedia article which he rejected due to his being raised in Chinese Communist Beijing as an atheist prior to moving to Atlanta in 2000 when he was 12. The Wikia article uses logic to both define and support the existence of God.

In line with his rejection of the Wikia article he rejected the Optimal Classification article as a hoax and nominated it for deletion on the Wikipedia. Proof that the article is not original research can be found by reading the primary reference while the notability of the subject can be verified by reading the references the primary reference lists.

I am contacting you because user Jiuguang Wang along with a Wikipedia administrator have now nominated the Optimal Classification book for deletion as a continuation of their harassment and personal attack against the Wikipedia author and since I have never been through a nomination for deletion experience I do not know how to post a vote to keep this book from being deleted. Your help is needed and will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Typative (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, this comment should be made at WB:VFD, not here. I'll move it there now if not already done.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca's SUL

Heyas Mike. :)

I couldn't find the place to request SUL-related usurpations here, so hopefully they'll fail to draw and quarter me to ask you for some help. Rebecca (the ombudsman) doesn't have a unified account yet, and Cary asked for some help on that special global groups page on meta.

Hence my asking you if you'd be willing to either do her rename or properly file on her behalf. :D

Any assistance would be appreciated. Let me know if you have any questions! Kylu (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Done - the account will be automatically created when she next visits Wikibooks while logged in under her merged account. Alternatively, she can create an account and merge it with all the others simultaneously.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)