text:
Wikibooks talk:Be civil/Archive

This policy is rather simplistic, but at the same time it is easily understandable, broadly interpretable, and incredibly forgiving. I don't think we need to get much more specific then this. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this policy
This policy has been designed to replace the text of several other policies:

 * No offensive usernames
 * No personal attacks
 * No legal threats
 * Assume good faith
 * Profanity
 * Please do not bite the newcomers

Acceptance of this policy does not necessarily constitute a vote to reject any of these other policies. Because there is no contradiction between these policies, it would be perfectly acceptable to enforce this policy in addition to these other policies. Each policy proposal will be judged individually. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to Enforce
I would like to move to enforce the current text of this policy. Under Decision making, If there are no dissenting opinions by Sunday sept 17th, I would like to move this one to enforced. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Johnny wonders...: -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Do we really need this policy? I personally haven't seen much in the way of uncivil behavior on wikibooks :).
 * 2) Is there any reason we can't be civil instead? (No difference really, just more ear-pleasing IMO.)
 * 3) Can this really substitute for the above? No legal threats is a foundation thing. No personal attacks really is one of those things that needs to be clearly spelled out (because the kind of people who make personal attacks are likely the kind of people who are going to say "well, he wasn't nice to me, so why can't I call an ---hole an ---hole (how the f--- did we end up with a profanity rule??? :)). AGF and BITE are good things to be able to refer to when needed (i.e., " Johnny, try not to bite the newbies, would ya?"), etc.
 * 4) Is making a deadline a good idea? If it's by consensus, then there shouldn't be much reason to cal for a vote. (Though in this case, I'd say it should just be immediately made into a guideline, since (Policy violation →) only a big jerk would object to this rule (← Policy violation), ya know :)? IOW, I like the "policy of the week" idea in general, but I don't think a deadline's a great idea, except when it is, like in this case.

 * Excellent comments, all.
 * Do we really need this policy? Well, maybe we don't. However, whether we need it or not, this policy is proposed, and it has been here, undecided upon for some time now. At the very least, this policy deserves a decision one way or the other, and we shouldn't just leave unfinished business sitting around. If you don't think we need this policy, (and hopefully other people will agree with you), then we can move this to rejected, and never have to worry about it again.
 * The specific wording, so long as the meaning is the same, is irrelevant to me.
 * Can this subsitute for the other policies i listed? Maybe it doesnt, although I like to think that if interpreted broadly enough, it probably can. Keep in mind that the "No legal threats" policy that i listed above has already been rejected, so I don't think it's a "foundation thing". At least, we don't have a standing version of that policy here on wikibooks. Not biting the newcomers could definately be construde as "being nice" to the newcomers. I pointed out above that acceptance of this policy doesn't necessarily constitute a rejection of any of the others.
 * I instituted this deadline as per my post on staff lounge: I am going to focus my attention on one policy matter per week. If the issue can be decided (and I hope it can be), then we will have our decision without wasting much time. If the issue cannot be decided, it will stay proposed, and I will simply shift my attention to the next proposal in the line. We have alot of unfinished business and undecided proposals sitting around here and there that deserve (a) our full attention and (b) to be decided within a reasonable amount of time. Worst case scenario: We don't make any decisions on any of these policies within the next few weeks, and then we are just back where we started. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

name change
"Is there any reason we can't be civil instead? (No difference really, just more ear-pleasing IMO.)"

 * Like Johnny, I prefer the term civil - otherwise I think it's fine. --Singkong2005 07:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i changed the text of the policy to say "civil" instead of "nice". I am not going to rename the page yet, until a decision is reached. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I realize that this is a proposed guideline, not a proposed policy. That distinction may affect some votes. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There haven't really been enough comments on this one to make it into a guideline quite yet. I am going to leave this one "proposed" for now, and shift my attention to the next "policy of the week". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I prefer "nice" over "civil". Where I live, I hear people say "be nice" fairly frequently, but I can't remember the last time I heard anyone say "be civil".
 * How about "Be friendly" ? Or does "Be friendly" need to be an entirely different policy? --DavidCary 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I think civil has a more "realistic" ring to it. "Be friendly" sort of reminds me of my (very short lived) stint at a fast-food restautant as a teenager. (Same thing with "be nice"... reminds me too much of the customer service mantra of "hava-nice-day"). We're a community of intellectual volunteers, and we should feel free to disagree vehemently with ideas we disagree with (even to the point of reverting someone's presumably well-thought out contribution), but even when we're tearing each others ideas apart (which isn't nice, and would only be considered friendly when it's among pretty good friends), we can still be civil. -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep some of the old policies
I generally don't like rules we don't need, so Johnny's point number one above struck a tone. It is, however, quite slim and would be great to have in need. It does, furthermore, replace a number of pretty big ones which I like ... except for Assume good faith and Please do not bite the newcomers. Neither falls excplicitly under civil behaviour (you can be civil while criminally suspicious, and civility doesn't ask editors to be as caring of newcomers as I find WB:BITE to do) though I'd love to see the former trimmed down. --Swift 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline vs. Policy
I'd like this to be a policy rather than a guideline. I don't see any scenario at all where one is justified in being uncivil! --Swift 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You know, that does make a good amount of sense to me. There are no situations where a person should be mean (or not nice, or uncivil) to another person. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Name Changed, Enforce?
I would like to propose that we make this page an official guideline. I don't think there is support to make it into a policy, although I can't see the harm in doing so. Enforcing this guideline does not represent an endorsement, nor a condemnation of any other policy proposal. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmmm ... really? Has there been any opposition to making it a policy? --Swift 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * No particular opposition that I have seen. This mostly represents a final call for people to express opposition before I make this an official guideline. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * OK. Consider this an expression of opposition: I'd like it to be a policy. --Swift 16:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Support -- as policy. If people are violating this, they should be blocked for a day or two to cool off. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there appears to be support to make this into a policy, and I have seen no dissenting opinions on it whatsoever. I even advertised this on staff lounge, and nobody came in to dissent. I am going to make this one official. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
I just did a formatting edit, splitting a couple of paragraphs and sentences up for (what I consider) readability. I also changed the bold Be civil to an italic Be civil. I find the latter less of a shouting emphasis. --Swift 06:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Be civil/Archive


text:
User talk:Darkfire

I'm just a wanderer, yes just a wanderer.

Wanderer or not you are still....
Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be an idea if you add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Darkfire


text:
User talk:NoJonny

Be civil
Hello, Welcome to Wikibooks!

I see that you've already done some work on the Be civil policy, and I think it's great that new users are taking such an interest in pages like this. Typically, new users don't get involved in policy right away. Do you have any experience with other wikimedia projects? If you used to be a wikipedian, we have the Wikibooks for wikipedians page which can help to explain some of our rules and guidelines for you. If you are not a wikipedian, we don't have a fancy page for you, but we will certainly help nonetheless. If you have any questions, or if you need any help, please don't hesitate to ask me on my user talk page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I couldn't help but overhear your request to User:Xixtas (his talk page is on my watchlist). The Be civil policy was officially adopted on 12 October 2006. I was the one who actually made the switch, as can be seen from the history page here. Prior to accepting this single policy, there were a number of other standing rules and guidelines that were not written down, including some "policy" pages that were actually in the help namespace! This new policy has been a big help in keeping things organized. I hope this answers your question. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I will also take a look into Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikibooks:Be_civil and will be examining all the circumstances it being referred to. There are a great many areas to work on with Wikibooks, and this is but one of those areas. Thanks for your help. --NoJonny 23:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have anything ready to share as far as the essay I am working on. When I do, I'll be sure to let you know. As far as the ongoing dispute, I recommend staying as far away from it as possible. -- xixtas talk 04:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:NoJonny


text:
User:Darkfire

Currently working on unifying the Blender 3d: Noob to pro feel and look. Learning to use blender and contributing at the same time.

Making PDF's for Blender 3D: Noob to Pro

title: User:Darkfire


text:
User:FallenKnight

This account is a sock puppet of User:Panic2k4

"The account was created during the the block saga" --Panic 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User:FallenKnight


text:
User:Panic2k4/Decision making and Community consensus on Wikibooks

General decisions and global policies on Wikibooks can only be decided by the community in a specific and recognized way that is by "Community consensus", this requires only that no state of objection is expressed, it supports abstention and may include comments by users that may even chose not to express their agreement or disagreement with a specific proposal that is put forward for community discussion and approval, with some punctual exception that are illustrated below.

This method of making decisions and the right of equal participation are the political basis of the Wikibooks project.

Community consensus
Community consensus is an integral part and the core of the decision process on Wikibooks as stated in the Decision making guideline (there is an unstable version still to be finalized, feel free to participate) and defined there.

Community consensus or "the expression of the community will" is open to any Wikibook's user (Wikibookian) and even unregistered users, except blocked users (due to the nature of the effect of the block action, not by stated policy/guideline). There are also subjects that the Decision making states as being outside of a consensus decision making process, they are expressly defined as part (but not all) of the Low impact decisions section of the policy.

Community consensus is by default the way any decision is made on the Wikibooks project and is what Wikibookias should expect on any non regulated process of decision-making any other way to pass decisions is a direct violation of the Decision making policy. We should be careful to note that a provision is given to be bold, but any action taken on that exception should be reverted if anyone raises objections.

Consensus
The problem with the word consensus has been discussed several times before on Wikibooks. The good aspect of Wikibooks not being a democracy is that it it would turn Wikibooks into a project dominated by the active and powerful, being them an active minority or a voting majority since participation is voluntary, and only a fraction of all registered users are active at a given time, due to this facts, the best procedure for closing decisions should be based on the quality of arguments resulting in no active opposition. In any case what is important to understand is that the decision process should not consist only in applying a voting (or a substitute) mechanism. In reality, voting even if needed to establish positions, is one of the least significant parts of the process of consensus, the task of finding a common ground is, that can only be obtained by making everyone work together in good faith to achieve a desirable outcome for the group (see Assume good faith). There are many ways consensus decision-making may be applied it can even have different guidelines and frameworks (see Wikipedia article on Consensus relating to decision-making), due to historical reasons and from the text of the approved policy that defines it, the Consensus decision-making on Wikibooks is a process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also try to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision by compromise, even if the policy text gives an escape route that can cause confusion and is at times contradictory, the process has (as I will demonstrate) reasons to be strictly followed and restarted if consensus cannot be reached.

Any deviation or objection that prevents the reaching of consensus can only have two outcomes, a block or a breaking of the consensus process that will result in majority rule voting (the first can be resolved with dialog and is fostered by the Wikibook project, the last should be highly contested as it results in an illegitimate decision on the eyes of the community, unless the core rules are changed or state an exception that in itself was agreed by consensus that the opposition can be dismissed if the majority doesn't feel the opposing point as well defined or argued for, this view has somewhat redefined consensus on Wikibooks and the pure form has been re-branded "strict" consensus, not to be confused with unanimous consent).

There are many ways to run a decision-making process and consensus has his faults. It may be a very time consuming process but the goal is near Utopian, in the end all parties will be satisfied or at least appeased. I note also the consensus and unanimity aren't contradictory (they aren't the same), there can be unanimity under a consensual decision. Consensus does not mean 100% expressed or implied agreement on a specific point, but an acceptance to decision without open objections (a 0% expression of opposition to the decision), a vote by majority is defined from a 51% to 99% expression of agreement to a decision and supports active objections up to 1% to the result, more important no compromise is needed to bypass any opposition below 51% to pass (50% is a tie) in the end consensus is inclusive, majority is exclusive to participants.

 *  It takes too long...

Consensus can get delayed and be attacked as a way to reach decisions. Since the process will always be slower that any alternative, for instance in a vote for majority, opposing positions are generally discarded. In a process for consensus time has to be used to discuss minority positions, in fact slow speed in the process demonstrates the will to reach a compromise.

If the objective is to clear thing out and let contradictory views on a subject to reach unanimity or to permit compromise in consensus, attacks or exclusion of participants claiming time constrains should be addressed by proposing that a consensus on a resolution is of utmost importance even if there are disagreements, most reasonable persons would agree to abstain if shown that continued objection will result in a greater loss to all.

 *  then long term blocks are disruptive...

Disruptive behavior can be observed in regards to the use of consensus, but if participants are really willing to compromise and work for a greater objective than to just abuse of the block power they have, rewards can be greater than the problems, you will get a less accommodating participation and raise interest to the core issues, diversity can be a strength, if the time is granted for everyone to express their views, more information is shared, and better solutions can be found.

A user that is only blocking a decision without being open to compromise can only exist because he is not really willing to participate in the greater good of the overall project, with time he will tire and lose his arguments. If his position is not justifiable or can not be acted upon in the progress of the decision process, it becomes clear that he intents a permanent block, only by power of argumentation and by how the process is run, how fair it is, can the block be bypassed ("the good of the many outweighing the good of a few").

 *  but then... but if...

In no way a decision blocking user should have his opinion dismissed without the others voters stating at least justifiable reasons to do so based on the facts that would press the closing of the decision-making process, solutions should always be found before excluding a user from the process, for instance votes on sub-sections of the proposal, elaborating for instance a guiding rule that after a given timeframe of block the majority would have his way, a specific ratio of votes in favor/against, exclusion of the objecting and in favor users from a number future discussions, etc...

As should be clear the changing of the decision-making process on Wikibooks should be objected to, as it will have a very high degree of impact on users that have joined the project under a different set of rules and expectations, this second to the license used on the Wikibooks project, should be heavily protected and any changes to this policy or the decision-making process will have to be reached by consensus, it is up to you (Wikibookian) to protect your rights and the community expectations.

 *  people are pressing me... ...for information... ...to change position...''

Any decision process is a political processes (even monarchies and dictatorships) involve some sort of negotiation as it attempts to establish common ground, to change view points and influence others, any of this actions will require a good level of mutual understanding. People are not pressuring, they are attempting to be understood and understand each-others positions.

To formulate an opinion everyone requires a reason, an augmentation that they can understand. Only then can they chose among alternatives.

In a process where ones view is a minority there are tree routes: Stating that one is being pressed is a evasion, since in our project no-one has any power over the other, the value is on the arguments. It does in fact demonstrate that others are willing to address your position, the alternative would be to ignore it or a permanent block on the discussion.
 * Establish that the minority view has grater value and gather support for it.
 * Attempt to reach a compromise at middle ground.
 * Concede to a move to non-opposition.

Rough consensus and other redefinitions
Recently we are witnessing the increasingly utilization of words not due to the positive value of the idea or concept a word represents but only because of the varnish or implication it can provide to the context it is used in, this is a result of increasing levels o marketing, publicity and public relations campaigns we now face everyday, appearance is everything. Take for example the use of consensus in this new world of sharing, equality and participation, words are used not to express facts but to sweeten or to soften otherwise more hash or compromising phrases, that was mostly known as twisting the words in the past and now is more to be politically correct or to give a spin on the subject, for example take the flowing "some areas are becoming consensual among most writers" (is a contradiction of terms, I can only see this as an attempt to be obtuse since it transmits an idea of general agreement, and impart a wrong conclusion, an exact variation but not so pleasant would be "some writes are starting to agree in some areas", but this will give emphasis to the split that exists).

Recently (in terms of the time the word is used), IETF coined the term "rough consensus", it is an erosion of the word to permit a politically correct way to impart the "sense of the group" on the "dominant view", the terms is yet to be adopted into general use, the results of this type of erosion gives place to the appearance to sub/supra definitions like "genuine consensus" or "strict consensus" as a way to show a difference to the various interpretations, basically there is only a form of consensus that can exist and function from discussions from 1 to 1 to other more complex implementations (a French philosopher postulated that a limit exist, he stipulated that to be the size of a city's population, but with technology and the evolution of city sizes things have indeed changed, so who can say until it is tried), any attempt to give a level to the word can't work as the meaning is absolute, participation of all on a common accepted solution, restrictions or instructions on how we make that happen are "not included", it originally was meant to be used by people with good intentions.

Take for example a very common phrase, "consensual sex" can it survive the substitution for a decision by rough consensus? I think not, since the result to bypassing the objection would be disastrous to the objector. By eroding the use of the word the final objective is only to keep the appearance of consensus but in reality another process is used. Since sole justification by numbers is not relevant (not even on the Wikibooks context, as it should be the process that guides even user to user discussions), ultimately this kind of solution should be avoided.

Participation
By taking look at Special:Statistics (read counter is turned off) we should also take into consideration the number of users vs the number of voters there is no direct representation, sock puppets (in many guises) do exist, by using consensus we are escaping the "tyranny of the majority", how we proceed to escape the will of the minority is by strength of arguments as we already have the strength in numbers.

No one or even any group can claim to know the understanding or will of the community, as an example administrators can't call themselves representatives of that will or views.

Dodging the "vote" option
When not expressly required by policy, polling (voting) on a subject should be avoided, using it is accepting that consensus has failed...

 * Polling discourages consensus
 * Polling encourages false dichotomy
 * Polling encourages group-think
 * Polling isn't fair, either

The clear propose of asking for votes on a subject is to create a divide, build and establish a power position, majority versus minority opinion and ultimately is an attempt force an issue even if that was not the intention the result would be the creation of another barrier to the freedom of expressing divergent opinions. The best option is to clarify were you stand and what you propose and ask for objection, non constructive support will be as bad as objecting without any valid reason.

The contradiction: only one allowable voice per person, not one voice per username
Wikibooks has some technical limitations not only because of the Wikimedia software but due to other technical factors that are outside of the Wikibooks community and Wikimedia Foundation control...

The Abilene paradox
The Abilene paradox (Wikipedia article on the Abilene paradox on consensus decision) deserves a special mention on this essay, due to the specificity of the Wikibooks project, its objectives and the expectations that Wikibookians have more than other project's users (i.e., Wikipedia).

Decisions
a Wikibookian personal judgment shouldn't be the base for the application of the rules on Wikibooks, decisions must be consistent and shared by all and this is impossible on that a basic level, it should be the last way we implement and enforce policies and if contested open to reevaluation.

 * Best practices to employ on a discussion:
 * Remove obstacles so you can be understood
 * Be prepared, research, by pointing to old posts, archives, articles or web sites or even guidelines or policies you advance and reinforce your view point without restating what can be obvious to same and unknown to others, try to find inconsistencies that give credit to you challenge. You must remember that users may not share your knowledge or the history behind the problem.
 * Try to be exact and complete on the point or proposal you advance
 * If you fail to state your point correctly, other users may disagree with you due to misinterpretation.
 * Give options, don't be intransigent
 * If you provide several solution to a given problem, you will be showing you openness to compromise even if you state the weaknesses of that options, this will make it easier for others to reach a common ground with you.
 * Give a direction to the discussion
 * Avoid that participation on the discussion goes in directions beyond the intended scope, even if positive ideas are advanced stay on the topic, it is common to get news ideas from a discussion but you shouldn't try to cover all issues at once, propose that another discussion should be started on that topic (don't kill ideas without proposing to address them), this is even more important if you were not the one generating them.
 * Do no make assumptions, ask
 * Try to avoid assuming you can read the minds of the participants, even worse state what you think others feel on the subject, this can get you in a lot of trouble and extend the discussion further, just ask and get a statement you can point to.
 * Build consensus, don't split the discussion between "us" and "them"
 * Try to get what participants agree and disagree without creating groups, if groups form, getting to a common ground is harder because a group tend to support its members even beyond logic, try to get the accepted points about the topic and build bridges on what people don't agree with.
 * State who you are
 * Make your intentions clear, most people don't know each other and is pretty common to have users that never interacted before on a discussion, do not try to validate your points by intentionally hide information (if found out the value of your opinion will be affected), do not expect other to recognize you as a more important participant on the decission (even if you think you know more about the subject), who you are in not as important as what you write on the discussion.
 * Do not be picky
 * Don't attack participants on spelling or harass others because they disagree with you, ask them to validate their points don't overanalyze every statement or word, you must take things into context and people are prone to commit errors. In doubt ask but you must give some consideration to the questions you make, in doubt try to research the subject.
 * Be consistent
 * If you change your mind you should point it out, if you committed an error correct it as soon as you detect it and admit to it, remember that people if informed will also validate your opinion based on previous discussions or actions you took, what you write and do is the best introduction you can bring with you to a new discussion and to be understood, if you go from 8 to 80 and back again without any visible reason it will make it difficult for people to take you seriously.

Any proposal must be stated on Wikibooks, public knowledge to Wikibokians and should stand for at least 7 days to give a chance to get input from users, no timelimit should be assumed if not stated on the text (and validated as urgent) of the same proposal or as a clear part of the discussion to all participants.
 * Proposals

Types of discussions
There are many types of discussions going around on Wikibooks at the same time, it hard to try to participate in all, so you must select what are the points that can and need to be defended, if you can't get involved a simple word of support to a person that is defending a similar point can do a lot of good, most people tend to forget that all pages are publicly accessible and referenced.

Discussions can vary in numbers of participations and on the importance of the discussion, one thing to avoid is having discussions of specific points on the wrong forum, if that happens don't forget to point it out to participants and make a post on the best location informing of what his happening this will serve as a reference to future discussions and prevent rehashing some points by using references. (Wikibookians are selective on what pages they monitor using the Watchlist page, see also the Help:Tracking changes for more resources).

Most common discussion occur between single users on the various talk pages, on the staff lounge (or sub modules) and on specific policy/guidelines or (draft) talk pages, books with a significant participation of contributors also may have active debates (but it is not very common) there are policies that request participation on the decision process from all Wikibookinas as a way to have an better understanding of the community will on specific subjects, examples are:

 * Examples (may not be a complete list)
 * Featured books/Nominations
 * to make decision regarding books which are considered among the best of what has been written in an effort to raise standards
 * Votes for deletion
 * to make decision regarding pages/books/modules marked with for deletion.
 * Requests for adminship
 * to make decision regarding granting administrator status to Wikibookians.

 * What distinguishes guidelines from policies ?

Guidelines are things that people should do, policies are things that people must do. Guidelines are not enforcible, but that isn't expressly written anywhere, if we take in consideration Template:Enforced it makes more clear as does Template:guideline, that is the intention expressed on the voting for the proposals at least so far...

People can break guidelines if they have good reasons to but bad behavior is not a valid justification to ignore a guideline (just because you can it doesn't mean you do), by breaking a guideline you could be almost certain that someone will object to the action, if you must be clear on why you did it.

Should doesn't give enforcible power to punish or revert actions or impose the fallowing of the text in general terms it is merely a guide, if we take the text of Policies and guidelines it only defines policies as enforcible it even states them as essential (no similar regard is given to guidelines) in Enforcing policies, I think we also do this for historical purposes I never saw no one defend that guidelines should be enforced or that they have, if a guideline has the need to be it is voted as a policy.

Policies and guidelines also state: All consider the a state of good intention from the operator.
 * Must This word, or the terms "required" or "shall", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the policy or guideline. (this gives the community the authority to enforce)
 * Should This word, or the adjective "recommended", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular guideline, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. (this gives the burden of the evaluation to the one that is performing action against what is stated, the user is even given the power to ignore it and is asked to perform a good assessment of his action, and any one in the community are asked to consider any violations in light of the results being positive or not)

Policies and Guidelines have been under discussion since at least February 2005 and no stated challenge was given to this interpretation and the concept has popped up on discussion along the way, so, this is commonly accepted distinction we use.

Guidelines
A guideline by definition is a guide that has the intention to express or indicate a course of action or guidance to appropriate behavior or a common base of interpretation, it is only targeted to the user seeking information on how to proceed (in the case of Wikibooks this information is first agreed upon by Wikibookians as valid). If a guideline has the need to be enforcible it is proposed as policy or is turned into one.

Guidelines shall not be summarily dismissed or be considered irrelevant, intentionally breaking a guideline should constitute a show of bad faith and an attempt to stress the community. If a guideline is broken even if unintentionally it entitles any Wikibookians to act as to correct the issue (even if the same that originated the transgression) to initiate a community decision process to establish the validity of the action, the best location to do this is the relevant guideline talk page, and should require at least an opposition or supporting position by another Wikibookian, to give validation to the process, so to prevent unilateral redefinition of the guideline text or abuse of the same.

Policies
A policy is a rule or regulation set by Wikibookians to be enforced by all, it gives indeed power of action to all in its defense.

High impact decisions
=_= <!--

Copy paste from User:Panic2k4 talk page for later use. Ignore it

Well that is a specific case, but lets examine it carefully, should even a specific block be decided by community decision, it is my view that it should be actively avoided, for instance you don't have in your country laws that specifically apply to an single individual, and even targeting specific groups is done with some care, there are also separation of powers, executive from judiciary etc. and a trial is moved outside of a jurisdiction if justice can't be assured and other cases that address the same problem of mob justice and abuse of power. Policies on wikibooks should be generic and even avoid specific groups of users or cause differentiation among them (in reasonable cases, some specific uses are and need to be used, like, policies that only apply to administrators etc), by all means specify arbitrations or study groups, but having community decisions of very specific points doesn't help and is misleading and will only provide fodder for conflicts. (if you know how decisions are being made in the last months you would understand my objections more deeply but consider what I have said)

About reaching consensus taking to long, we can't do much about it (if we intend to stick with it) due to technical limitations and the social structure that is the best way decisions can be made on wikibooks (and other wikimedia projects) any alteration (as has been going around) to this method will only provide and erode the legitimacy of the decision, time is essential to reach consensus the only acceptable way to step outside of it is in rare cases that indecision would be by acceptable by majority (we could even use also consensus on a specific point on urgency or priority) due to time constraint that would cause grave harm to the project, works or users. (I have even read somewhere that objection to the majority could be reason to block a person on the ground of incivility due to allegation of bad faith, this is how by seeming "politically correct" decisions and use of policies is being justified)

In relation to the puppeteer or sock puppets, since you by now understand that is impossible to determine who are the puppets (we can even be talking about human puppets, lets say a group of users that work in coordination to reach a given goal), as we can't do anything why define a policy that is enforcible and will probably cause more problems than it could possible address, I would agree if you changed the text to the specific case of a blocked user, but you should have realized also by now, that this also can't be prevented (only if the puppeteer identifies his puppets) and as you have seen, no attempt to require a entire process of reaching consensus for each of the sock puppets was taken or allowed (what in my view is also wrong, as for instance how would you be able to protect innocents ?), in specific due to use of dynamic IPs by some ISPs if you block a user or a range you will be not only targeting that user but several "possible" users. --Panic 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC) --->


text: Template:Discussion Rooms

title: Template:Discussion Rooms


text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/General

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Welcome to the General reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the ../Proposals/ reading room.

Book scope evaluation: October 7th Massacre
I noticed that the book October 7th Massacre was recently created. This struck me in the context of the above discussion (Reading room/General) about whether a theoretical book titled "Infraction of Vienna Convention: The Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy" would be in scope. I think that if we say that this theoretical book is not in-scope, then October 7th Massacre would definitely not be in-scope either. Conversely, I think that if October 7th Massacre is in-scope, then the theoretical book could be in-scope. As it stands, I'm personally still not sure that either one is in-scope—since they are related to ongoing sociopolitical events, they would both need significant investment and effort to ensure NPOV and to make sure they have 1) a nuanced historical and political lens and 2) a very well-outlined set of instructional aims to be considered an instructional book in-scope here (consider what a classroom textbook on the subject would look like). Plus, October 7th Massacre seems potentially encyclopedic and redundant to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Would appreciate people's thoughts here. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Thing is, you could have a book on a massacre. The question is more of whether we can have a book on an ongoing event, and I think that's kind of untested. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A fair point! This may come down to "instructibility" criteria again, which seems like a recurring issue. I just made a proposal at Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks to get at some of these issues. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, since I have only started work on this book, that’s why it doesn’t have that much content in it yet. I don’t see how this book is worse than other history books found in Shelf:History. All of them also detail events that have their own pages in Wikipedia. The book is intended to describe the events that happened during one of the most important days in Israeli history. Also this isn’t an “ongoing event”, as it isn’t a book about the ongoing war in Israel, but a book about the October 7th massacre. Describing the massacre and the battles that happened isn’t a POV. -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I do think a lot of the books on the history shelf have issues with being "instructional" texts—like I mentioned, I go into more detail at Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks. To avoid this issue, my personal recommendation for you with this book is to include discussion questions and other exercises to make it more instructional. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, it was pointed out in the discussion you linked that instructional can also mean “intended for teaching”. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “discussion questions and other exercises”. Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks in advance, -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 09:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @D1n05aur5 4ever. My personal opinion is that instructional books should engage the reader in some way on the information given, rather than just presenting facts and leaving it at that. In my view, a good instructional book will have exercises that ask the reader to apply the information. In a cookbook, recipes are a way for the reader to apply what they've learned about ingredients, techniques, etc. In a math/science book, practice problems help reinforce the concepts and theorems presented. In a music book, there may be songs or scales for the reader to play/sing, as well as other exercises. In a history/sociology book, "why" and "how" exercises, as well as analytical essay prompts will help the reader make connections and analyze the information presented. This is not currently policy, but it is what I think makes a high-quality instructional book rather than a simple collection of facts, which can be educational but not necessarily, in my view, instructional. Happy to elaborate more on what I think would improve your book specifically. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appreciate the detailed response. I haven’t managed to come up with any questions that would actually improve the book, though I would gladly have such questions added. -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The book seems fine for me but the scope should be clearer.--Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]] [[Image:Flag_of_Ukraine.svg|15px]] talk 03:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks God WB inclusion criteria has gone under attack another time. Vagueness of WB inclusion criteria has let user create strangest books ever. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Table of Content Depth and related Template Issue
Hello everyone,

I was working on the Thesis Writing Guide when I realised the Table of Contents is 6(+?) layers deep. I wanted to change it, but realised that Template:Toclimit does not exist.

Two questions:
 * 1) Can someone (hopefully someone else, potentially I myself?) create that template? I don't want to mess with existing template conventions.
 * 2) What are said conventions, particularly on TOC depth? I'd just go from an academic / TeX perspective and reduce mine to 3-4 (Section, Subsection, Subsubsection, Paragraph maybe), but maybe there is a reason people want all sections accessible in Wikibooks - hence: Is There a convention on TOC depth?

Related: TimBorgNetzWerk (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Table_of_contents
 * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:TOC

 * Hi @TimBorgNetzWerk! I imported Template:TOC limit—let me know if this works for you. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to sell something I wrote here as an ebook or in physical copies? Also are opinions or conjecture acceptable?
I have been working on a book already, and I want to self publish it. I want to do this primarily so if somebody really likes the book they can buy it, and so that I can put it in my resume as having written such a book, without having to explain what wikibooks is. I want it in creative commons attribution anyways. Also in the one I am writing, I have instances of opinion or conjecture, so is that acceptable too, or do books hosted here have to strictly follow scholarly consensus? Immanuelle (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The site license allows you to sell the material but you must attribute it to the original authors if you didn't write the words yourself. I see you are copying text from Wikipedia. In a printed book you would need to correctly attribute the work to every person who contributed which is very difficult to do in a printed work. Secondly, you cannot place any further restriction on the book. That is, you may want to license it as CC-BY-SA 4.0, but even if you didn't want to you MUST do so. That is the restriction in the license. This also means anyone else can take your book, copy it, change it a bit and sell it themselves. Books here cannot contain original research but there is slightly more discretion than on Wikipedia in respect of following consensus. Incidentally, you would be much better to request pages are imported from Wikipedia rather than copying them. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @MarcGarver how do I request imports? Can I do it to get the history of a page that already has had substantial edits? I have used mediawiki importing earlier and know how when you import the xml into a page, it results in the revision history changing without corrupting the history (but only for one page). For example can the history here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ch%C5%8Dkaisan_%C5%8Cmonoimi_Shrine&oldid=1219658567 be imported into User:Immanuelle/sandbox/Chokaisan Faith? Immanuelle (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You request imports at WB:RFI. Once imported the history can be merged no matter how extensive the edits you made subsequent to copying here. In some cases the import won't work if the source page history is very large. In those cases we just import one version and merge it so there is a link to the original source on Wikipedia and its history there. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have imported and merged the example you gave above. You can see the full history in your copy here now. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 07:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @MarcGarver is it recommended to request import for multiple pages when they are going into one page here? That would make the history incomprehensible but have everyone's names present to my understanding. Immanuelle (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Announcing the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello,

The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote results. We are following up with the results of the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election.

We are pleased to announce the following individuals as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a two-year term:

 * North America (USA and Canada)
 * Northern and Western Europe
 * Ghilt
 * Latin America and Caribbean
 * Central and East Europe (CEE)
 * Sub-Saharan Africa
 * Middle East and North Africa
 * Ibrahim.ID
 * East, South East Asia and Pacific (ESEAP)
 * 0xDeadbeef
 * South Asia
 * Ibrahim.ID
 * East, South East Asia and Pacific (ESEAP)
 * 0xDeadbeef
 * South Asia

The following individuals are elected to be community-at-large members of the U4C, fulfilling a one-year term:

 * Barkeep49
 * Superpes15
 * Civvì
 * Luke081515

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. Follow their work on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Should multiple import requests be done simultaneously on the same page to preserve credits at the expense of readability in the history
Should multiple import requests be done simultaneously on the same page to preserve credits at the expense of readability in the history for pages which have multiple derivative pages? Immanuelle (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now on Meta

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hi everyone,

The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now up on Meta in more than 20 languages for your reading.

What is the Wikimedia Movement Charter?

The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a proposed document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

Join the Wikimedia Movement Charter “Launch Party”

Join the “Launch Party” on June 20, 2024 at 14.00-15.00 UTC (your local time). During this call, we will celebrate the release of the final Charter and present the content of the Charter. Join and learn about the Charter before casting your vote.

Movement Charter ratification vote

Voting will commence on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. You can read more about the voting process, eligibility criteria, and other details on Meta.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment on the Meta talk page or email the MCDC at [mailto:mcdc@wikimedia.org mcdc@wikimedia.org].

On behalf of the MCDC,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open – cast your vote

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello everyone,

The voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open. The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

The final version of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is available on Meta in different languages and attached for your reading.

Voting commenced on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

After reading the Charter, please vote here and share this note further.

If you have any questions about the ratification vote, please contact the Charter Electoral Commission at [mailto:cec@wikimedia.org cec@wikimedia.org].

On behalf of the CEC,

RamzyM (WMF) 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 * The voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is a significant step for the community, marking a milestone in defining roles and responsibilities across the movement. This inclusive approach ensures that every member has a voice, and the creation of the Global Council is a promising development for governance. As someone involved in a logistics company in Dubai, I appreciate the clear structure and transparency this charter aims to bring. Make sure to cast your vote before July 9, 2024, and help shape the future of the Wikimedia Movement. VerdenLogistics (discuss • contribs) 06:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is ending soon

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello everyone,

This is a kind reminder that the voting period to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter will be closed on July 9, 2024, at 23:59 UTC.

If you have not voted yet, please vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 03:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

U4C Special Election - Call for Candidates

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello all,

A special election has been called to fill additional vacancies on the U4C. The call for candidates phase is open from now through July 19, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications in the special election for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

In this special election, according to chapter 2 of the U4C charter, there are 9 seats available on the U4C: four community-at-large seats and five regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same home wiki. Therefore, candidates must not have English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia as their home wiki.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello everyone,

After carefully tallying both individual and affiliate votes, the Charter Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter voting.

As communicated by the Charter Electoral Commission, we reached the quorum for both Affiliate and individual votes by the time the vote closed on July 9, 23:59 UTC. We thank all 2,451 individuals and 129 Affiliate representatives who voted in the ratification process. Your votes and comments are invaluable for the future steps in Movement Strategy.

The final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting held between 25 June and 9 July 2024 are as follows:

Individual vote:

Out of 2,451 individuals who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 2,446 have been accepted as valid votes. Among these, 1,710 voted “yes”; 623 voted “no”; and 113 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 73.30% voted to approve the Charter (1710/2333), while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter (623/2333).

Affiliates vote:

Out of 129 Affiliates designated voters who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 129 votes are confirmed as valid votes. Among these, 93 voted “yes”; 18 voted “no”; and 18 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 83.78% voted to approve the Charter (93/111), while 16.22% voted to reject the Charter (18/111).

Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation:

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter during their special Board meeting on July 8, 2024. The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Nataliia Tymkiv, shared the result of the vote, the resolution, meeting minutes and proposed next steps.

With this, the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current revision is not ratified.

We thank you for your participation in this important moment in our movement’s governance.

The Charter Electoral Commission,

Abhinav619, Borschts, Iwuala Lucy, Tochiprecious, Der-Wir-Ing

MediaWiki message delivery (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks:Reading room/General


text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Projects

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Welcome to the Projects reading room. On this page, Wikibookians can talk about subjects related to books, book projects, and other tasks here on Wikibooks that require discussion and organization.

Wikibooks in Yoruba
Hi community, my name is Timi and I'm the vice President of Osun Wikimedia Network I want to inform you that I'm currently planning to carry out a community project on wikibooks where I and my community members would edit English wikibooks to Yoruba an indigenous language of more than 48 million people West African ethnic group who mainly inhabit parts of Nigeria, Benin, and Togo. I need your advice and encouragement in carrying out this Project.OTim75 (discuss • contribs) 09:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * this project only accepts books written in English. It can't accept books written in Yoruba. The correct approach is to request a new language Wikibooks. The place to do that is on Meta, Requests for new languages. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you OTim75 (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Book Request/Proposal
The proposal is that Wikibooks Contributors write a guide on how to use LLM generative text tools 'responsibly'.

ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 08:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Project: Physics Explained Through a Video Game
Hi there,

I'm seeking on creating a new textbook on Wikibooks concerning mechanical physics as explained through Bonk.io. To note, Bonk.io is a multiplayer physics game and runs on Box2D, a common video game physics engine. Also, Bonk.io has its user-generated content as freely licensed, making it possible a wide variety of different physical situations provided attribution.

My intentions here are to use images and videos of Bonk.io gameplay to explain real-world physics concepts, including through instructional content, labs, and detailed exercises. To note, I have a limited background on this subject as I've only taken high school leveled physics and AP Physics C: Mechanics, and I'm still in high school currently. I am curious whether others with more experience in this community would be interested in this project.

For reference, my original contributions for this project, specifically building most of Unit 1 and starting Unit 2 were written a community under Fandom, Inc. I'm seeking to move my own contributions from the Fandom website and onto this community and continue them here. To clarify, I am the only contributor of the units of which I am seeking to move.

In large part, my goal is to reach readers from outside of a niche video game community. Secondly, I strongly feel that Wikimedia platform provides a more robust editor and has a better overall user experience than Fandom.

With this in mind, I'm unsure of where to proceed. I understand that this topic may be more adequately suited for Wikiversity and I've already have spoken to koavf (a curator and custodian on Wikiversity) about the feasibility of continuing my project there. At the same time, however, I understand that there exists a greater community presence here. Also, the content of which I've written may fit better being considered as a textbook than as general courseware.

As such, I have a couple of questions:

 * Would this project be more suitable on Wikibooks than Wikiversity?
 * If so, would it be necessary to rewrite the content of which I've already written on the Fandom, Inc. community? Or would it be possible to just provide attribution for the reused content under their CC-BY-SA policy?

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

TheMonkeyEatsBananas (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 * For context, conversation at Wikiversity.
 * Wikiversity spun out of Wikibooks, so the relationship between the two is a little close or sometimes a little confusing. If your goal is to end up with a specific manual, guide, or textbook, then this the appropriate site. If your goal is to have a broader learning course that has external links, activities, online quizzes, etc., then it would belong at Wikiversity. You could have a textbook here and learning activities there as well. As far as licensing, the issues are all the same as at Wikiversity, as both projects have the same license. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for more clearly linking the conversation that we had.
 * As another question, would it be possible to have one of my filtered edits on here (Wikibooks) to be looked at? Here's the false positive request that I made.
 * To note, (though unrelated to the filter) I understand that there may be further changes necessary with this edit, such as to better meet the Manual of Style and other guidelines here. This would include needing to update the font colors and importing more of the videos/images, which I plan on getting around to. TheMonkeyEatsBananas (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I can't do that, as I don't have those permissions here. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, understood. TheMonkeyEatsBananas (discuss • contribs) 01:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks:Reading room/Projects


text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Technical Assistance

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Welcome to the Technical Assistance reading room. Get assistance on questions related to MediaWiki markup, CSS, JavaScript, and such as they relate to Wikibooks. This is not a general-purpose technical support room.

To submit a bug notice or feature request for the MediaWiki software, visit Phabricator.

To get more information about the MediaWiki software, or to download your own copy, visit MediaWiki

There are also two IRC channels for technical help: for issues about the software, and  for WMF server or configuration issues.

United_States_Postage_Meter_Stamp_Catalog/GROUP_PPS_%E2%80%93_Private_Parcel_Service_stamps
Can someone else please sit down and resolve the misnesting in this, or remove the formatting so it's de-linted? It's taken me 5 attempts so far, and the efforts still fail, leaving missing, stripped or misnested tags, despite a LOT of effort being put in. I'd rather not waste my time further. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Can some one please refer me to a referee so that I can have more than 20 hours worth of work restored that ShakespeareFan has destroyed! I have noted that I am not the first person who has noted this about ShakespeareFan, no mention is made of the monstroous amount of time that they destroyed, without any knowledge of the subject matter, sorry if I am irritated let's put this time, I am doing my best to be restrained!!!! Boris1951zz (discuss • contribs) 20:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * nOTE"Can you stop applying your "lint" change when you've been reverted once already please. I am the main editor of the book Understanding Air Safety in the Jet Age and I prefer to work on it in the style I am using, not with the non-content changes you have made. It is not good practice to repeatedly revert, without a meaningful edit summary, when the changes you are making are cosmetic and not contributing to the content of the book. Thanks - QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
 * @QuiteUnusual: Apologies. I was working from the reported lint concerns at Special:LintErrors page, I hadn't noticed that you HAD previously reverted (and nothing about the previous revert is visible in my notifications).
 * ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
 * The intended 'repair' was to resolve :
 *  Welcome to the Wikibook on

Understanding Air Safety in the Jet Age ''
 * which I felt should be Welcome to the Wikibook on

Understanding Air Safety in the Jet Age ''
 * because it is good practice that any formatting has to be nested.
 * ... is also nominally deprecated in more recent versions of HTML, and whilst it currently works, it will at some point be removed from HTML, at which point pages using it will not necessarily be presented as intended. A better approach would be define a big template that can be updated accordingly.
 * However, as you define 'repairs' like these as cosmetic, I am considering if I actually want to help improve Wikibooks if such contributions are likey to provoke concerns from other contributors. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
 * @QuiteUnusual: While the change is indeed cosmetic, the intention is good - lint errors are a huge issue that often manifest years later (as I've fixed many of the old Steward requests that had this issue). I personally think that his change was appropriate as a result, despite it looking "trivial and pointless" (the latter of which is not true in my opinion, and the former is true but not a mistake). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
 * Okay I withdraw the trivial and pointless comments, sorry. The principle problem for me was the changing of the whitespace which I'd deliberately included during editing as I find it easier to read. I will make the fixes you suggested above manually. Thanks QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
 * And to be clear @ShakespeareFan00: I'm not suggesting that the work you are doing is a problem or that you should stop just that you should watch for any feedback from editors. I doubt there will be much. I'm surprised that you didn't get a notification automatically.
 * Note, however, I do consider it a problem, a major problem!!!! Boris1951zz (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm not going to argue this, but if there was a loss of any actual content it was unintended. If someone else had undertaking the delinting earlier, my efforts would not have been needed. Can you give specific page where actual content as opposed to formatting may have been lost during the delinting process?

ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 22:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you've caused me enough concerns that I no longer wish to continue editing on this project. Goodbye.

ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 22:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've also reverted a considerable portion of my delinting-efforts. If another contributor thinks any of these were in fact good edits, I won't object to their reinstatment after careful consideration by that contributor.ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 05:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 * So it seems you eventually found the error, a comment added during attempts to delint, I should have checked for this myself, and thanks for removing it. However, if something that a calm analysis of past edits (and debugging commenting is sometimes overlooked) would have found is going to provoke claims of destroyed work, it's paerhaps better if I do not continue editing? ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the issue is? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes?
Infoboxes on Wikisource are displaying weirdly for me – the caption text doesn't appear to break, so if the caption is longer than the image, the infobox gets very wide. You can see this at User:Cremastra/sandbox (compare with the infoboxes at w:en:User:Cremastra/sandbox). Any ideas what the problem is? Thanks, Cremastra (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 * It might be related to this slew of problems on enWP. Cremastra (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


text:
Video Production/Subscribing to a Podcast in Itunes

Itunes is an application created by the Apple corporation for playing your audio and video files. A lot of people have it as now comes together with Quicktime Player.

You need to copy the address of the podcast feed. This is normally done by right-clicking the podcast / rss image (known as a chicklet) and selecting "copy link location"

To subscribe go to the Advanced Menu and Select Subscribe to Podcast

Then paste in the Feed address

The podcast channel should then appear in your podcasts section. You can set itunes to automatically download new content or you can set the settings so you click on each video / audio file to download each one.


text:
Radiation Oncology/Pacemaker

Treatment of patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs)

AAPM Task Group 34
AAPM Report No. 45 (PDF) - "Management of Radiation Oncology Patients with Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers" (Reprinted from Medical Physics, Vol. 21, Issue 1) (1994)

Recommendations:
 * 1) Pacemaker implanted patients should not be treated with a betatron (okay...)
 * 2) Pacemakers should not be placed in the direct (unshielded) therapy beam. Some accelerator beams can cause transient malfunction.
 * 3) The absorbed dose to be received by the pacemaker should be estimated before treatment.
 * 4) If the total estimated dose to the pacemaker might > 2 Gy, the pacemaker function should be checked prior to therapy and possibly at the start of each following week of therapy. Since total and abrupt failure of pacemakers has been seen at cumulative doses between 10-30 Gy and significant functional changes have been observed between 2-10 Gy, early changes in pacemaker parameters could signal a failure in the 2-10 Gy region.
 * 5) Although transient malfunction from electromagnetic interference is unlikely from contemporary therapy accelerators and cobalt irradiators, the patient should be closely observed during the first treatment with a linear accelerator and during subsequent treatments if magnetron or klystron misfiring (sparking) occurs.
 * 6) Studies to date have dealt with linear accelerators, betatrons, and cobalt irradiators only. Use of other radiation therapy machines should be evaluated on an individual basis and approached with caution.

Articles

 * MD Anderson, 2015
 * PMID 26181143 — "Radiotherapy-Induced Malfunction in Contemporary Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices: Clinical Incidence and Predictors." Grant JD et al. JAMA Oncol. 2015 Aug;1(5):624-32.
 * Netherlands, 2012
 * PMID 23176563 — "Management of radiation oncology patients with a pacemaker or ICD: a new comprehensive practical guideline in The Netherlands. Dutch Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (NVRO)." Hurkmans CW et al. Radiat Oncol. 2012 Nov 24;7:198.
 * Netherlands, 2005
 * PMID 16019095 — "Influence of radiotherapy on the latest generation of pacemakers." Hurkmans CW et al. Radiother Oncol. 2005 Jul;76(1):93-8.
 * PMID 16111598 — "Influence of radiotherapy on the latest generation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators." Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Sep 1;63(1):282-9.

 * U. Pittsburgh, 2004 - PMID 15183493 — "Treatment of patients with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during radiotherapy." Solan AN et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jul 1;59(3):897-904.

 * Royal Marsden, 1998 - PMID 9534692 — "Radiotherapy in patients with cardiac pacemakers." Last A et al. Br J Radiol. 1998 Jan;71(841):4-10.

title: Radiation Oncology/Pacemaker


text:
Turkish/Pronunciation and Alphabet/Vowel Classifications and Harmony

Like Hungarian, Finnish, and the Turkic languages (of which Turkish is a part), the Turkish language makes use of a concept called vowel harmony. The vowels in most, if not all Turkish grammatical constructs are selected depending on the type of vowel that precedes the construct. There are three distinctions that classify Turkish vowels. First they are either rounded or unrounded, reflecting the shape of the lips when speaking them. Second, vowels may be high or low, depending on the position of the tongue. Finally, they may be classified as back or front vowels, based on the placement of the sound in the mouth. The vowel classifications are summarized below.

Front rounded vowels are phonetically central-front and back unrounded vowels are phonetically central-back. Low vowels are phonetically mid except for /a/, which is wide open.

Vowel harmony
Turkish has a two-dimensional, vowel-harmony system. Vowels are characterised by two features, or rules. These rules do not apply to all Turkish words. You should, however, know the rules in order to add suffixes properly, which is based on the vowels in the word.

Backness harmony
According to this harmony, if a syllable contains a front vowel, the following syllable should have front vowel, too. And similarly, if a syllable contains a back vowel, the following syllable should have back vowel. Most of the Turkish words follow this rule but there are some exceptions, of course.
 * For example, let's say you want to add suffix to the word . Last syllable of the word contains the vowel ', which is a back vowel. Thus  changes to ' when it is added to the word, because ' is a front vowel and ' is the back version of it. For this reason,  +  should be

Rounding harmony
According to this harmony,
 * 1) If a syllable contains, ,  or ; next syllable should contain , ,  or  (unrounded → unrounded)
 * 2) If a syllable contains, ,  or ; next syllable should contain ', ',  or  (rounded → open unrounded and close rounded)
 * For example, let's say you want to add suffix to the verb .  contains only one syllable and that syllable contains ', thus the suffix  should change to . Because ' is front unrounded, its back rounded version is  and this should be used according to the vowel harmony rules. Hence  +  should be.

How to change vowels in suffixes according to the vowel harmony rules
In Turkish vowels can be,
 * open or closed
 * front or back
 * rounded or unrounded

These properties together determine the vowel. For example, open back unrounded vowel is a, closed front rounded vowel is ü. When changing vowels according to the vowel harmony rules, you change their frontness/backness and roundedness/unroundedness features, not openness/closedness. This feature remains the same. i can change into ı, u or ü but it cannot change into a, ö or o for example.

Invariable suffixes
There are some suffixes which don't follow the vowel harmony rules. In this book, invariable vowels in suffixes are shown in this color. These suffixes are:

Exceptions to the Vowel Harmony Rules
There are some words that originate from other languages, that do not follow the vowel harmony rules. If you are an Arabic speaker, you may determine when this occurs based on its Arabic form, words ending with teh marbutah harmonize with front vowels. (Excepitons like rahat and sanat do exist) If you are not an Arabic speaker, you'll have to memorize these words as you learn them.

In addition, loanwords ending with a clear l sound also break vowel harmony. These make up the vast majority of loanwords ending with l, so it's easier to memorize them as you go.
 * saat -> saatler (note the e rather than a as would be predicted)

 * hâl -> hâli
 * gol -> golü
 * rol -> rolü


text:
Video Production/Subscribing to a Podcast in Democracy Player

To subscribe to a Video Channel / Podcast / Media RSS feed you first need to know the address of the RSS feed.

To find this out you usually copy the address by right clicking on the podcast/ rss image.

Install and Open Democracy Player and From the Channel Menu

And paste in the address of the podcast.

Click on Ok

The Channel should appear in your list of channels on the left of the player.


text:
User:Colm Rice

I'm from the Republic of Ireland and work as a software developer. Interests: mathematics, physics, literature, Irish culture, Czech culture and of course - comedy. I have made contributions to the following algorithms:

 * Algorithm implementation/Strings/Longest common substring
 * Algorithm implementation/Strings/Longest common subsequence
 * Algorithm implementation/String searching/Match Rating Approach
 * Algorithm implementation/Pseudorandom Numbers/Chi-Square Test
 * Algorithm Implementation/Checksums/Verhoeff Algorithm
 * K-Means++
 * Algorithm_Implementation/Miscellaneous/Benford%27s_Law
 * Kelly Criteria
 * Min-Max Normalisation
 * SAML

Minor work on Irish verbs:

 * Irish/Vocabulary/Verbs

For my search engine work go offsite to here:
 * Apache Lucene

title: User:Colm Rice


text:
User talk:68.250.243.10

Xania talk 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:68.250.243.10


text:
Wikibooks:Sockpuppets

Sockpuppets are multiple user accounts created by a single person, for a variety of reasons. The primary account of the user is often referred to as the puppet master. There are a number of legitimate uses for sockpuppet accounts, and several Wikibookians maintain sockpuppet accounts for some purpose.

Good Sockpuppets
Some legitimate uses of sockpuppetry include:
 * Creating a second account to act as a "bot" account.
 * Reserving account names that look similar, to prevent dopplegangers.
 * Creating a second account to "escape" from hassles and stress.
 * Testing automated functions, graphical user interfaces, bots, user preferences and piping.

Bad Sockpuppets
There are, however, several uses of sockpuppets that are not allowed. This is a partial list:
 * Creating a secondary account to circumvent a user block.
 * Creating multiple puppet accounts to cast additional votes in discussions.
 * Leaving multiple comments in a discussion and thereby giving the appearance more users are involved.
 * Using multiple accounts to be uncivil, disruptive, or abusive in any way.

Violations
Sockpuppets that are created or used in bad faith can be permanently blocked, and the owner of those accounts can be seen as violating Be civil, which may come with some penalties.

title: Wikibooks:Sockpuppets


text:
User talk:64.142.91.105

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, a collection of open-content textbooks! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikibooks, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages.
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in votes and elections
 * Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikibookian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.

Xania talk 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:64.142.91.105


text:
User talk:84.86.91.251

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, a collection of open-content textbooks! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikibooks, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages.
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in votes and elections
 * Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikibookian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.

Xania talk 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:84.86.91.251


text:
User talk:68.96.2.172

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, a collection of open-content textbooks! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikibooks, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages.
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in votes and elections
 * Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikibookian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.

Xania talk 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:68.96.2.172


text:
User talk:71.39.45.182

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, a collection of open-content textbooks! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikibooks, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages.
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in votes and elections
 * Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikibookian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.

Xania talk 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:71.39.45.182


text:
User talk:Noroton

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally.

Xania talk 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Noroton


text:
User talk:Bpric006

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally.

Xania talk 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bpric006


text:
User talk:Jshaf012

I know you're not new here but I like to add this message to all user talk pages if it's not there already!

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally.

Xania talk 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jshaf012


text:
Category:Wikibooks doppelganger accounts

This category exists to keep track of "doppelganger accounts", as described at Sockpuppets.


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outdoor Industries/Poultry/Plymouth Rock

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outdoor Industries/Poultry/Wyandotte

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outdoor Industries/Poultry/Rhode Island Red

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outdoor Industries/Poultry/Orpington

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outdoor Industries/Poultry/Leghorn

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outdoor Industries/Poultry/Pekin Duck

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outdoor Industries/Poultry/Mammoth Bronze Turkey

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outdoor Industries/Poultry/White Holland Turkey

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outdoor Industries/Poultry/Toulouse Goose

|


text:
Radiation Oncology/Cervix/IA

Prognostic Factors

 * Depth of stromal invasion (measured from base membrane of cervical epithelium)
 * <3 mm (IA1): Parametrial invasion rate 0 - 2.3%, LN mets rate 0 - 5.3%
 * >3 mm (IA2): Parametrial invasion rate 0 - 3.3%, LN mets rate 1.3 - 13.8% (average ~8%)
 * Lymphovascular space invasion
 * Clinical significance is controversial
 * Strong correlation with depth of invasion and tumor volume; literature unclear if it is an independent prognostic factor
 * Nevertheless, many GYN/ONC do not consider patients with LVSI+ to be Stage IA (including SGO and JSOG definitions)
 * Tumor volume
 * Clinical significance is controversial in IA
 * Some data support volumetric measurement, but technique is slow and imprecise
 * Confluence of invasive foci
 * There appears to be no difference (FIGO vs. JSOG data)
 * Grade
 * Four studies did not find grade an independent prognostic variable

Treatment Overview

 * IA1 and LVSI-
 * Historically total hysterectomy a gold standard
 * Demonstration of minimal risk of parametrial spread and LN+, with significant morbidity, resulted in shift to conization
 * Cervical conization primary treatment today
 * Brachytherapy alone probably a reasonable option in non-surgical candidates, based on the 2 series below
 * NCCN.org:
 * Extrafascial hysterectomy or
 * Cone + observe if negative margins or
 * Modified radical + PLND if LVSI+
 * IA2 or LVSI+
 * Some form of hysterectomy to evaluate parametrial space and LNs
 * NCCN.org:
 * Radical hysterectomy + PLND +/- aortic LN dissection or
 * Pelvic RT + brachytherapy (75-80 Gy to Point A)
 * Radical trachelectomy + LND if fertility preservation desired

Surgical Series

 * Milan, 2005 (Italy) PMID 15670302 -- "Prognostic factors in microinvasive cervical squamous cell cancer: long-term results." (Raspagliesi F, Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005 Jan-Feb;15(1):88-93.)
 * Retrospective. 67 patients with IA1 treated with conization. Mean F/U 10 years
 * Invasive recurrences: 4 patients (6%)
 * Predictive factors: LVSI+, cone apical margin distance <10mm

 * Italian CTF, 2003 (Italy) PMID 14658592 -- "The clinical outcome of patients with stage Ia1 and Ia2 squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Cooperation Task Force (CTF) study." (Gadducci A, Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24(6):513-6.)
 * Retrospective, multi-institutional. 166 patients with IA (143 patients IA1, 23 patients IA2), treated with conization alone (18%, all IA1), total hysterectomy (49%), or radical hysterectomy (33%).
 * Pelvic LN status: 0/67 LN+
 * Recurrence: 5% intraepithelial and 2% invasive. IA1 recurrence 6%, IA2 recurrence 13%. Cone alone 10% (but none invasive), total hysterectomy 5%, radical hysterectomy 9%
 * Conclusion: Conization can be a definitive treatement for Stage IA1. For Stage IA2, extrafascial hysterectomy might be adequate, need for LN dissection is questionable

 * Oslo, 1989 PMID 2722048 -- "Follow-up study of 232 patients with stage Ia1 and 411 patients with stage Ia2 squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix (microinvasive carcinoma)." (Kolstad P, Gynecol Oncol. 1989 Jun;33(3):265-72.)
 * Retrospective. 643 patients with IA. Follow up 3-17 years
 * Surgery: recurrence 15/496 (3%). All salvaged with further surgery
 * Brachytherapy alone: recurrence 0/136 (0%)

Radiotherapy Series

 * Washington University, 1991 (1959-1986) PMID 1905690 -- "Radiotherapy alone for medically inoperable carcinoma of the cervix: stage IA and carcinoma in situ." (Grigsby PW, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 Jul;21(2):375-8.)
 * Retrospective. 21 patients with CIS and 34 patients with IA.
 * RT for IA: BT alone (13 patients) to average 55 Gy to Point A, BT + Whole Pelvis (21 patients) to 14 Gy WP + 23.5 Gy parametrial boost with midline block + BT to 52 Gy to Point A
 * Recurrence: 0/21 CIS, 1/34 IA in pelvis. No DM.
 * Toxicity: severe complications 6%, in those getting WPRT + BT
 * Conclusion: BT alone excellent treatment for both CIS and IA

 * Oslo, 1989 PMID 2722048 -- "Follow-up study of 232 patients with stage Ia1 and 411 patients with stage Ia2 squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix (microinvasive carcinoma)." (Kolstad P, Gynecol Oncol. 1989 Jun;33(3):265-72.)
 * Retrospective. 643 patients with IA. Follow up 3-17 years
 * Surgery: recurrence 15/496 (3%). All salvaged with further surgery
 * Brachytherapy alone: recurrence 0/136 (0%)

Review

 * Milan, 2003 PMID 14693337 -- "Microinvasive squamous cell cervical carcinoma." (Raspagliesi F, Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003 Dec;48(3):251-61.)

title: Radiation Oncology/Cervix/IA


text:
Advanced Interactive Media/Problems Encountered and Solved

The ultimate frustration for interactive producers is loss of work due to hardware or software failure. The question is not if it will fail, but when. Backups at regular intervals are essential. How often? How much is your editing time worth? When you can't afford to loose work hours, it's time for another backup.

Project Directors

 * /Challenges Related to All Interactive MultiMedia Development/
 * /Audio/Video Problems/
 * /Problems Encounted By Team Leaders/
 * /Design Team Challenges/