Essay on Decision making and Community consensus on Wikibooks - (active)
Other planed Essays
Essay on Arbitration and it's applicability to Administrative actions - (stub) arbitrations, unblock, beyond wikiworld (real world liabilities), how to address events or accusations if you don't have prof or are not involved, great example [here] .
Essay on User Blocks (best practices)- (stub) how to avoid abuses, proxys other limitations on how to make people comply if not in good faith
Essay on Be Bold and restrictions- (stub) define the general restrictions (format, scope)
Essay on Administrators (users on a task) - (stub) no special insight, common users on a task
Essay on Authors and Contributor - (stub) Darklama/Whiteknigh view, history pages, anonymous contributions and IDs (to be extended on the another essay), real world liabilities (on copyright), Moving control toward a defined book community (see Primary Authors and argue against the Essay concept)
Essay on Forks - (stub) show my divergences even with [Jimbo on the forks] (related to the C++ fork).
Essay on the GFDL and copyright - (stub) Darklama/WitheKnight view, erroneous identification (or claims of abuse of copyright), history pages problems and abuses or simply as misinformation, GFDL and Documentation (not software), WMF and GFDL/FSF, Wikibooks:Copyrights, GFDL violation (only copyright holders), Copyright Law of the United States of America, Wikibooks:Ownership
Essay on using back channels to promote hegemony
(see also User:Panic2k4/A house with no law(n))
Hi there,
Since there isn't really a "peer review" process that I know of on Wikibooks, I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I've been working on Elements of Political Communication for a year or so, off and on when I had the time. At some point (though I'm not sure when) I'd like to nominate it for featured book status, but I still have a number of changes to make. I was wondering if you could skim through it and give me a few thoughts on style, structure, format, or anything else that crosses your mind. I've tried to keep it readable, printable, and most importantly, practical. It uses a new template, so that probably should be checked out for any potential issues, too. If it isn't really your thing, could you possibly direct me to an editor who might help? Thanks a ton, – Runfellow (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to functioning and structure beyond the accepted conventions there has been many divergent views. I will gladly take a look and comment according to my preferences.
- I'm not a great supporter of the featured book process, but understand the validity of the goal of providing readers the more complete works.
- If you are after a preview of the process (by having the general community review the book outside of the featured book process itself) you could place an announcement on the Wikibooks:Reading room/Projects or you could first attempt to get an idea from those reading/editing/interested in the specific work (Elements of Political Communication has been viewed 423 times in the last 60 days) by adding a information box linking and promoting a dialog on the talk page. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing that I dislike but it is more a software limitation is having a large list of references/notes at the bottom of a page and it is one motive why I do not use beyond directly mentioning them in the text (or linking to Wikipedia where the reader can get more details and editors maintain the information).
- As an on-line reader I also prefer larger pages than a need to navigate across the work, especially if some of the pages have no real content in it. I have in my works attempted to join my need as an editor to have a larger view of the content with that reader preference (even useful for section printing) and attempt to provide a full chapter as a single page. Some people like it some don't but it can be done easily with wiki trasclusions and keep both sides happy (don't remember how it works out with the references/notes).
- I like the entry page, I would only move the search box up a bit since you provide navigation into subsections a online reader that is revisiting or someone that is just browsing may need to use it more than once and having it in the bottom of the page in todays widescreen setups is a bit bothersome. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured Book status obviously isn't a huge deal, just a way to spread the word a bit more and have a little fun. Regarding the references, I admit the structure is not very intuitive for more novice editors, but I think it works well for the time being as a consistent system that avoids the clutter you're talking about. On the subject of larger pages, I'll look into doing an transclusions, but a) I'm also keenly aware of the average person's reading habits online and b) the eventual goal here is to expand the content of each page, slowly but surely, with practical and useful information. I'll see about moving the search box; everything is a bit tightly packed in there right now that there's little room to maneuver. – Runfellow (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Panic,
I was thinking it might be good to migrate most of the content from NewgonWiki and BoyWiki over here. I'm not sure what the title of the book(s) would be; perhaps boylove, intergenerational sexuality, or sexual emancipation of minors, or something. This debate guide provides some interesting arguments, for instance.
I'm not too familiar with the norms around here. Sometimes policy can say one thing, and practice can be quite another. Are one-sided polemics considered okay for inclusion? I figure, someone can create another book with polemics from the opposing viewpoint, so in that way, balance between different arguments can be achieved.
On some Wikimedia wikis, the topic of adult-child sexual relationships is so touchy that even advocating that this type of content be included could be considered grounds for banning the user. I don't see any such policy here, but I'm not in a mood to get banned, so I thought I'd ask first. Also, even if the reaction wouldn't be a ban, I don't like to create content that's just going to be deleted. Thanks, Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 23:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- First I must confess that the subject in itself is something that I find displeasing in certain circumstances/context, but at the same time will acknowledge the need of making it visible and not hidden or made into a taboo. Humans are complex and society is often restrictive to fringe behaviors and minorities (for many reasons some bad others good).
- Having established that I would support the creation of a work regarding the subject if it conforms to a textbook with educational value, there are already books that could probably include this subject maybe Abnormal Sexual Psychology...
- As for keeping a specific viewpoint you will need to cement that as the specificity of the scope of the book and provide for a book specific community record/forum to process and approve changes and core modification so that they may be consensual and reduce interference for non-contributors. Note that due to its controversial nature there will be a high probability that someone will attempt to get the Wikibook's community in general to delete the project. It would certainly need extra care as to stay within our project's guidelines, if so then it is all up for to the value of the content and the argumentation for its existence here. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the hasty edit. After some research, there does seem to be a lot of discussion on the subject, and Oxford Dictionaries states that can not is also acceptable.
Cheers, Hardwigg (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem its interesting how any living language evolves and is shaped by its use. Somethings we like or see as logical and acceptable others we dislike or become annoyances by how they create exceptions to normal rules. In this case I see "cannot" as a creep of the way dialog passes into writing and as an unnecessary innovation that at best shows a modicum of laziness as I can't see any added value... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- <dropping in on the conversation>
- Interesting. To me "cannot" and "can not" mean different things, and "cannot" is much more often wanted. If somebody can not do something, I understand that to mean they are able to not do it, where as if they cannot do it, I understand they are unable to do it. When someone uses "can not" to mean the second thing rather than the first, I find I have to stop and think about what they mean. Presumably, this is because I find the distinction between the two meanings useful; if I were, occasionally, trying to say the first thing out loud, I would carefully enunciate a pause between "can" and "not" to emphasize that "not" is grouped with the word after it rather than the "can" before it, and I imitate that pause or lack of pause in my orthography. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the corrections. For the "program text" term, I want to say I read it in a few books, one of which was a concurrent programming book. It makes sense when you think about it, however it isn't a widely conjured term and may raise a copyright conflict. Thanks.
Hi, there are two reasons why I usually remove interwiki links from Wikijunior: WJ is "censored" (in a way) to age appropriate material, and Wikipedia isn't. It therefore seems wrong to encourage the reader to link to Wikipedia. Secondly, given the intended readership of Wikijunior, I don't think it is helpful even if the content is suitable for them to be sent to Wikipedia - they aren't really going to find the Wikipedia article in most cases helpful. Obviously I'm not going to remove the links you re-added, but I wanted to explain why I think it is inappropriate - thanks. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikilinks in themselves aren't objectionable or guaranteed to violate the expectation of safety (if so then I would agree that they should be removed), that expectation of safety can only exist if other "censorship" is actual, as the reader is most probably using the Internet. Making that logic flawed in the sense that you are censoring content outside of Wikijunior.
- If we took your position further we should remove all links to other Wikibook content or even the communal areas from ever being displayed to a Wikijunior reader.
- The "censorship" guarantees and exists only so that it complements parental control or other intentional censorship used for the reader to stay confined to the wikijunior domain/space and other safe locations. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Any argument if taken to absurdity becomes absurd; that's irrelevant to the merits of the original argument. I agree with QU; primary text in wikijunior books oughtn't generally be wikilinked to wikipedia. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if the argument is absurd in the first place, the idea that we should censure links from a wikipage in a wikiproject unless the content is directly objectionable in general and in particular in regards to Wikijunior. With the added trouble that it is even not a consistent and communal agreed censorship task. The only policy we have to guide content on Wikijunior mentions only "kid friendly content", I strongly believe that the Wikibooks community in general can not easily agree what "kid safety" is let alone be allowed to enforce on others and their content unwritten censorship guidelines that goes beyond a very basic level of common sense.
- So to me it seems nonsensical that links to Wikipedia be regarded differently to any other link to non-Wikijunior content that is displayed to a Wikibook reader. That was the point I was adding to demonstrate that this type of censorship is mostly pointless and ineffective since the user is already presented links to other sites on the navigational aids and "promotions" inside Wikijunior (including navigational aids, automations like clicking in an image, etc...).
- You are free to agree with QU and not wikilink to wikipedia in your own contributions but acting beyond that without any editorial regard is unacceptable. In any case I've been here for a long time and know well those that push for stronger diwikification of our content in general (to a point that I regard it as covert vandalism when not done in considered moderation and try to fix it when I detect the practice) but this is not the topic of the discussion here.
- The topic as presented by QuiteUnusual is about a generic censorship to outside links (not only wikilinks) from Wikijunior. To what I disagreed and see as futile and impractical if not targeting very specific content.
- I would object to generic, informal and overreaching censorship of content anywhere, that is an anathema to what out project(s) stand for. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the TODO box here. I agree they should perhaps be merged, but did you notice as well that there's actually a three way split in these books. There's a Brazilian Portuguese book. And a book which has two bits to it Portuguese/Contents#Courses for Portuguese spoken in Brazil and Contents#Courses for Portuguese spoken in Portugal. So that's messy. It seems to me those first two should definitely be merged somehow, even if the brazil/portugal separation remains. Some old discussion here: Contents#Separate_wikibook_Brazilian_Portuguese. Very old discussion in fact. One day I should just be bold and merge it somehow. -- Harry Wood (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide people they commuting suicide had Depression.And have not done it in purpose but cause of emotional mental disorder.
- I agree that most suicides are committed under a depressive mental state. I don't agree that depression as a singular and continued mental state exists by itself, manics (the clinical term being manic depressives) focus continually on depressive thoughts but the mania is the problem (this gets more complex if we focus on how the mania is originated it may be because of internal or external stimuli). In any case depressive thoughts are not the singular motive for suicide as the work states (I believe the work is why you are posting on my talk). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. I want to write on mental health. I have been a sufferer and medical PR and know everything about which a doctor can't or don't tell a paitent to save each other's resource and life respectively. I am self healer for many health conditions and I have in such Suicidal state many times. There is a lot which is real but never realized and there is a lot which is artifical but realized as if original. Not every depression is depression. Not every paitent is paitent. Not every medicine is medicine. Not every drug is drug. Not every disorder is disorder. Your name reminds me the attacks from which I suffered the most. Why don't you keep some another name?. I had already written many things in parts but each got deleted. Wikipedia has acted to kill me. I can prove it. I am not a doctor but I can. I am not a lawyer but I can. This thing is sustained by me not because they are right but because I am not right for choosing a war opponent and win. I had explained efferent stages of difficulty, disturbance and other stages be it disability or death. I had written on everything to make readers and doctors as well clearly understand what they haven't yet. I don't care human reaches in mars/satern or find thier in laws thir only. All are bullshit until I see Health and Education get the safe and progressive hands in the entire Earth. Right now they aren't. I protect what I build except friendship so I am not worried if Wikipedia drages me to apex juridical in USA. I know and they should know too , who is the assaulted and who is assassinator in my block/delete/murder case till today. I don't fear, Wikipedia should do though it's choice. My concern is to getting written gazate verification with each other before writing such crucial and conventional subjecs which are for good for every human being in instance. People have to understand be it a doctor or a paiten, a teacher or a student a minister or a labour , no one is in each other's opposite to attack and win. Everyone who either breath or run all living and are my winner against poor health, education, poverty, violence and 6 more. This like always got lenthy so I stop. Sorry I forgot what was my point of taliking to you. Anyways thanks for reading and not deletion without informing. 🙂 2409:4043:4E98:27B6:0:0:CCCA:7813 (discuss) 20:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little confused as to why you reverted my edit that reverted a.new.way's change of Andrada to Andrade on this page. Andrada is a real Portuguese surname, as is mentioned here. And as I said in my edit summary, we already have Andrade on the surname list. As a matter of fact, it's the first name on the surname list, in the "top 20 surnames" part. Cilantrohead (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I reverted my chance.
- Since you did not include in the edit comment the duplication I saw it as a substitution of a common surname with a less common one, as the list doesn't intent to be "complete" the edit had less value than the original. Note also that Andrada is not common today (as some other surnames already on that list), if an Author is writing something contemporaneous some of the more obscure surnames should be avoided, that is why I chose not to edit it in and simply restore the page to the previous state. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Does "I reverted my chance" mean "I reverted my change"?
- I did "include in the edit comment the duplication". As I wrote in this edit summary, "We already have Andrade". We started out with many more Portuguese surnames, but then in 2008 A.new.way made a bold edit that removed many of the surnames on the list. I'm not sure which were not really Portuguese and which A.new.way just removed because s/he hadn't heard of them.
- Also, I noticed you moved Andrade to its alphabetical space from the front of the list. Most of our surname lists start out with a list of the 10 or 20 most common surnames from that ethnicity in declining order of frequency, often followed by an alphabetical list of names 21-50, or names 21-100, or names 21-200, before continuing with an alphabetical list of the rest. Check out Writing_Adolescent_Fiction/Character_names/German#Surnames for an example of this. You will see that it starts out with the 20 most common German surnames, before going into names 21-200, and then the rest of the names. Cilantrohead (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I expressed my self badly, or well you did on the comment. As a reviewer I saw "We already have Andrade" at the same time it substituted it by Andrada as a null comment (I did not review the complete page only the names next to the edit, nor did I do a search). In any case I already said I was sorry and I restored it. As for what I take is an "unwritten ordering" of the names of the list I think that it just becomes a mess and people will probably not get it at all or comply to it, but fell free to revert my move. Now that I think about it I have that page under watch so if you have the time see in the history if I did not do any other damages... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So people won't understand how the frequency ordering works? Well, I have decided to rectify that. I am going to change all the surname frequency lists to include frequency section headings. See, for instance, what I just did to Writing_Adolescent_Fiction/Character_names/English#Surnames after fixing up the English surname list. I have also simplified the lists Writing_Adolescent_Fiction/Character_names/Girls and Writing_Adolescent_Fiction/Character_names/Boys, reducing each to a three-tier list.
- As for the Portuguese names page, I reverted A.new.way's insertion of "a few" before the statement that there are Portuguese with non-Brazilian surnames. It's not like only a tiny minority of Brazilians have non-Portoguese sornames. Cilantrohead (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Requesting your comment and guidance.
@ Wikibooks:Reading_room/General#Requesting_permission_to_host_agglomerated_editions_of_Indian_Copyright_Act_editions_which_are_not_supported_by_wikisource
Thanks and regards
Mahitgar (discuss • contribs) 06:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I need to talk to this person Panic2k4.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.217.99 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Avidly reading the wikibook and wondering where you picked up your information or what your sources are.
Thanks
Sultec (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
