text:
Announcing/Articulation

Announcers need to speak clearly in order to communicate effectively.

Four Vocal Components
Your voice is made up of four parts:

 * Breathing
 * Phonation
 * Resonance
 * Articulation

A skillful announcer will learn to effectively use all four.

Breathing is the Foundation
Fundamentally, your voice is made up of exhaled air. When you are relaxed and quiet, the time you spend inhaling and exhaling are about equal. When speaking, inhalation is much quicker, and exhalation is sustained and controlled.

Phonation
As you exhale, air passes through the larynx (voice box). Stretched across each side of the larynx are thin flexible muscle tissues called vocal folds (cords). During phonation, the vocal folds are brought close together, so air pressure causes them to vibrate.

Resonance
The sound produced from phonation is weak…no more than a whisper. Resonance amplifies and enriches the weak phonated sound, by extending the vibration of the vocal folds to surrounding body tissues in the throat, chest and head.

Articulation
The critical final step in voice production is articulation, the “packaging” of individual sound segments into meaningful utterances. The three primary articulators — tongue, lips, and jaw — shape and delineate the phonated tones into distinct speech sounds.

Three Types of Speech Sounds
There are three types of sounds in Standard American English speech: Vowels (pure phonated sounds) Diphthongs (vowel combinations) Consonants (phonemes)

Vowels
You may have been taught that there are five vowels: A, E, I, O and U. Actually, there are at least twelve distinct vowel sounds in Standard American English speech. The differences between vowel sounds is largely due to the placement of the tongue.

Front Vowels
Five vowels are produced with the tongue toward the front of the mouth: EE (beet, eat, see) [high, tense] IH (bit, did, sit) [high, lax] AY(ate, bait, pay) [mid, tense] EH (bet, get, end) [mid, lax] AAH (at, bat, cat) [low, tense]

Back Vowels
Five vowels are produced with the tongue toward the back of the mouth: AH (alms, bomb, on) [low, lax] AW (bought, off, saw) [mid, lax] OH (boat, oak, own) [mid, tense] OOH (book, cook, foot) [high, lax] OO (boot, oops, move) [high, tense]

Middle Vowels
Two vowels are produced with the tongue in the middle of the mouth: UH (bun, sun, the) [low, lax] ER (bird, her, sir) [mid, tense] The unstressed UH, or schwa sound, is one of the most common vowels in American English Speech.

Making the most of Vowels A vowel sound is the only kind of speech sound that can be held indefinitely without changing. Vowel extension refers to the elongation of vowel sounds, especially in the final syllable of words and sentences. A bit can be pleasing; too much is distracting.

Vowel Deviations
Lazy tongue placement can lead to vowel deviations, where one vowel sound is used in place of another. Many common mispronunciations are due to vowel deviations. Consider whether you may be guilty of the following vowel deviations…

EH for AY

For some, the AY sound is difficult to say when it is before an UL sound. Try saying PAY and PAIL. Then say PAY and PELL. Does the AY sound in PAIL sound closer to the sound in PAY or PELL? Practice JAIL, FAIL, MAIL, WAIL.

EH for AAH

Many will substitute EH for AAH, especially in unstressed syllables. Try saying BAT and SHALL. Then say BAT and SHELL. Does the AAH sound in SHALL sound closer to BAT or SHELL? Practice MARY, PARIS, TARRY.

EH for IH

A fairly common vowel deviation is EH for IH. Try saying BIT and MILK. Then say BIT and ELK. Does the IH sound in MILK sound closer to BIT or ELK? Practice SINCE, FILL, THINK.

AH for AW

Some people fail to distinguish the sounds AH and AW. Say ON and BOMB. Then say ON and BAUGHT. Does the AH sound in BOMB sound closer to ON or BAUGHT? Practice DON and DAWN.

IH for EE

Like AY, the EE sound is difficult to say when it is before an UL sound. Try saying WE and MEAL. Then say WE and MILL. Does the EE sound in MEAL sound closer to the sound in WE or MILL? Practice REALLY, DEAL, HEAL.

Diphthongs
A diphthong is a sound positioned between two vowel sounds, where one vowel sound glides into another. Some speakers with lazy articulators (jaw, lips, tongue) fail to make a distinctive glide between vowel sounds in diphthongs.

EYE

The EYE sound, or long I, is a glide formed from the AH and IH sounds. Practice these sentences: Try my fine pie. I like my bike. Why try to lie? My sly guy cries at night.

AU

The AU sound, as in how, is a glide between the AH and OOH sounds. Practice these sentences: How can a brown cow be loud? A mouse is now in my house. Our town’s gown is around a pound. The outside outlet is grounded. OY

The OY sound, as in BOY, is a glide between the OH and IH sounds. Practice these sentences: His toy made Roy a noisy boy. I employ an oily coin. I like soy on my boiled oysters. I annoyed Floyd by joining Troy. YOO

The YOO sound is a glides formed from the IH and OO sounds, typically with a soft Y sound at the beginning. Practice these sentences: I refused to use or abuse the few. Tuesday’s news was useful. The beautiful view imbued with hue. You can tune some new music in June.

Consonants
While vowels and diphthongs carry most of the sound in language, consonants carry most of the meaning of language. It is thus important for announcers to clearly articulate consonant sounds to ensure the meaning of copy is clear.

Voiced vs. Unvoiced
Consonants can be classified as either voiced or unvoiced. Voiced consonants are always combined with a vowel sound, like B, D, G, V, Z and hard TH. Unvoiced consonants are distinct interruptions between vowel sounds, like P, T, K, F, S and soft TH.

Plosives and Fricatives
Plosives are formed by the sudden release of air. Plosive consonants include P, B, T, D, K, and G. Fricatives are formed by the friction of air flowing through restricted air passages. Fricative consonants include F, V, TH, Z, S, SH and ZH.

Nasals and Affricates
Nasals employ resonance in the nasal cavities. The nasal consonants include M, N and NG. Affricates combine a plosive with a fricative. The affricates include the unvoiced CH and the voiced J.

Extreme Consonants
Announcers need to be careful of the extreme consonants that can be distorted by microphones: The “popping plosives” P and B The “clicking plosives” K and G Excess sibilance from S and Z Excess nasality from M, N and NG

Steeling Consonants Most people are sloppy articulators of consonant sounds, especially the final T and D sounds of unstressed syllables and at ends of sentences. Announcers should practice “steeling consonants”—striving to make them crisp, clean and clear.

title: Announcing/Articulation


text:
User:Blackrim

graduate student in ecology and evolutionary biology

programmer

http://www.blackrim.org

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

title: User:Blackrim


text:
Announcing/The Disk Jockey

Radio announcers who introduce musical selections are often called "disk jockeys," or DJs.

title: Announcing/The Disk Jockey


text:
Talk:Phylogenetics

blackrim (081306) definitely leaving the introduction alone for a while moving on to trees and heuristics

title: Talk:Phylogenetics


text:
Visual Basic/Windows Dialogs

Windows dialogs are useful when you would like to retrieve information from the user, as in asking where to save a file, letting the user to choose a color or font and what settings to use when printing (copies, what printer to use, ect.). This saves you from a lot of unnecessary work reinventing the wheel - as redesigning and making dialogs can be quite time-consuming - but is also essential in establishing a standard user interface across applications. Standardization of different aspects of the user interface, both in terms of normal widgets as well as common ways of combining them, ensures that applications are intuitive - i.e. that once someone has learned to use an application, this knowledge can be employed to other applications as well.

The easiest way to access these controls is to use a component called Microsoft Common Dialog Control 6.0. To add this component to your project, choose Project - Components, and mark it in the controls list. Subsequently, a new control should appear in your control toolbox. Choose it, and place the control onto your form (note it's only visible in design time).

The control allows the use of the following dialogs. The flags mentioned is different values that can be set to the Flags property, changing the behaviour or design of the different dialogs.

Open and Save dialogs
ShowOpen shows a dialog that lets the user choose a drive, directory, file name and file extension to (presumably) open a file.

The save dialog is identical in appearance and function, with the exception of the caption. At run time, when the user chooses a file and closes the dialog box, the FileName property is used to get the selected file name.

Before displaying the dialog
Before you can use these dialogs, you must first set the Filter property to allow the user to select a file extension (set default extension using DefaultExt). The filter property is a string with the following structure: description1|filter1|description2|filter2|

Here, the description is the string that shows up in the list box of all the available filters to choose from. The filter is a file glob expression (otherwise known as a wild card expression) that does the actually filtering, for example, "*.txt", which disallows any file extensions but TXT. It is important to recognize the difference between expressions of this kind and regular expressions which are much more powerful but also more complicated, see ../Regular Expressions/.

Color dialog
The color dialog allows the user to select a color from both a palette as well as through manual choosing using RGB or HSL values. You retrieve the selected color using the Color property.

Font dialog
The Font dialog box allows the user to select a font by its size, color, and style. Once the user makes selections in the Font dialog box, the following properties contain information about the user's selections.

Before displaying the dialog
To display the dialog, you must first set the Flags property either cdlCFScreenFonts or cdlCFPrinterFonts (or cdlCFBoth, if you intend to let the user choose between both screen fonts and printer fonts).

Print dialog
The print dialog box allows the user to select how output should be printed. Options and properties accessible to the user includes the amount of copies to make, print quality, the range of pages to print, ect. It also allows the user to choose another printer, as well as configure different settings regarding the current printer.

Before displaying the dialog
Before showing the dialog, feel free to set the appropriate print dialog properties to set the default values to use.

title: Visual Basic/Windows Dialogs


text:
File:Communication Theory printable version.pdf

/Images


text:
Evolutionary Biology/Phylogeny

The basic context in which evolutionary biology works is phylogeny, a system of classification based on evolutionary relationships rather than phenotypic similarity. The central tenet of evolution is that all life is derived from a single common ancestor, and all life is therefore related. The process by which living things have diverged to the staggering diversity on this world is through the divergence of populations into separate species, which in turn give rise to more distant cousins through time.

We express the relationships among groups of organisms through diagrams called cladograms. If the common ancestor is known and included in the depiction and the depiction includes an axis of time, it is referred to as an evolutionary tree.

title: Evolutionary Biology/Phylogeny


text:
User:Raliaga

Real Name: Raul Aliaga Diaz, currently studying Computer Science and Mathematics at Universidad de Chile, Santiago-Chile.

Feel free to leave comments below (at least leaving your name) :-P.

title: User:Raliaga


text:
Wikibooks:Categories

Wikibooks uses several methods of page organization, the easiest of which are categories. This page discusses how to categorize pages properly.

Purpose
Categories achieve three main goals in the organization of books:

 * 1) Categories serve as "book binders"; holding all pages or chapters of a book together in their own category.
 * 2) Categories sort books by subject matter. Thus, the "book binders" of all books on a subject will appear in a particular category. This allows navigation through all books from general to the most specific subjects.
 * 3) Categories serve to identify problem areas so that people can help improve books and the Wikibooks project.

Categories also allow automated lists of related pages to be compiled, because any changes to a category will cause any lists depending on the category to be updated as well. The most common example of this is in the construction of subject pages.

The sections below explain how to categorize books using the different methods to ensure books can be easily found.

Books
A book category is a category that indexes all pages, templates and media of a single book. Each book should have its own book category.

 * What to do:

 * For each page of the book, other than its main page, just place BookCat at the bottom of the page. Alternatively, place BookCat inside any template intended to be used on all pages of the book, which takes care of all the pages that use that template.  It does no harm to do both, and no harm if BookCat ends up on the main page of the book (which might easily happen by accident if a template containing BookCat is also used on the book main page).

 * How it works:

 * Book categories use names based on the name of the book itself, with a prefix . For example, the book category for a book titled "Cryptozoology" should be "Category:Book:Cryptozoology". Books and book categories should be categorized by subject using all the same subject categories (we'll discuss subject categories next).

 * Historically, book categories didn't have a prefix, so the book category for title "Cryptozoology" would be "Category:Cryptozoology".  We are slowly converting to the new naming convention; many pre-existing book categories on the site use the old convention.

 * The BookCat device automatically deduces, from the name of the page it is on, what book it's in, files the page it is on into the book's category, and sorts the pages inside that category by the portion of the page name following the name of the book. As a result, the book category provides an alphabetical index of all the book's pages.

 * Template BOOKCATEGORY produces the name of the book category of the book associated with the page on which it occurs; or, you can provide it with a page name as a parameter,, and it will produce the name of the book category of the book associated with <page name>. Currently, BOOKCATEGORY can detect whether a given book uses the old or new convention for book-category names; and it would also presumably handle any future change in the naming convention (if such a thing should ever happen).

Subjects
A subject category is a category that groups together books on a related topic.

 * What to do:

 * On the main page of each book, place at the bottom of the page, replacing "..." with one or more names of subjects, separated by "pipe" characters (the vertical bar, like the one just before the "..." in the example:   ).

 * Books should only be added to subjects as specific as possible. For example, the book Music Theory is located in Subject:Music theory, but not in Subject:Music, because musical theory is a more specific topic than music. Most books only belong to one or two subjects; use multiple subjects only to aid in finding books that are legitimately important to several subject areas and not used to simply advertise new books.  Subjects are used to help make finding books easier, so proper filing of books in subjects is important.

 * Examples: at this writing, book Modern History has, while book HydroGeoSphere has.

 * How it works:

 * Subject categories use names based on the name of the subject, with a prefix .  Subject names use sentence casing because, unlike books, the name of a subject is not a title.  For example, the subject category for Subject:Music theory would be :.  A subject should only be created when there are multiple books that can be added to it.

 * Each subject has three pages associated with it:
 * a subject page, called "Subject:<name>", which is the primary place to go for topic <name>. The subject page explains what the subject is about; says what other subject or subjects this one is contained in, and what other subjects are contained in this one; lists books on this subject by how complete they are; and lists featured books on this subject.  The book lists include books in subsections as well as books filed directly in that subject.  The very biggest subjects, like Subject:Mathematics, list subsections but not books, because the list of books would be so awkwardly long.
 * a subject category, called "Category:Subject:<name>", which contains just those books that are filed specifically under that subject. This page echoes the information display from the subject page.
 * an internal category, whose page is not meant to be publicly viewed, called "Category:Subject:<name>/all books", which contains all books filed under the subject or any other subject contained within it.
 * The subjects template on a book main page knows what subjects the book should be filed under. Each subject page has information on it naming the one or two parent subjects containing that subject.  The various pages share information between them automatically to populate the internal categories, which enable the subject pages — and the subject categories — to list books in all subsections as well as books filed directly in the subject.

Projects
A project category is a category for associating several related books with a particular project. For instance, all books written for a single course curriculum (science, math, and language books). For these situations, you should add all the related books into the necessary project categories.

Organizational
Wikibooks uses a number of other organizational schemes, such as an Alphabetical listing and a Reading Levels system. Each of these organization systems use categories to produce lists of books.

Subcategories
A subcategory is a category that links to one or more other categories through the use of the category system, effectively creating a parent-child relationship. All categories should be a subcategory of one or more other categories, except for the root category. By using subcategories, we can all navigate through the category system faster and more effectively to find the book, page, image, or template we are looking for.

Subcategories should only be created as needed, such as dividing a large subject or book category in order to find books or pages more quickly. Any new category created for this purpose should have a good descriptive name that shares some common characteristics with the larger category name. For example, Category:Subject:Music theory is a subcategory of Category:Subject:Music and effectively describes a common relationship between the two categories. Another example is Category:Subject:Algebra and Category:Subject:Mathematics.

Book subcategories are also sometimes used; for instance, if a book is not using a flat structure and consists of several chapters with many subpages in each one, can be placed on the pages of the book or in a template placed on those pages to create subcategories of the form. Then simply add BookCat to those subcategories to automatically place them in the root book category of the book.

How categories work
Pages are listed in categories by adding a category link on pages (usually at the bottom). For example, this project was listed in Category:Categories by adding:

The subpagename magic word helps organize category pages by sorting pages by name. This can be particularly useful for books since all pages begin with the book name.

Now say you were looking for information on animal behavior. In this case, there is only one distinct path to find books on the subject:

 * Category:Categories (organizational category)
 * Category:Subject:Books by subject (organizational category)
 * Category:Subject:Science (subject category)
 * Category:Subject:Biology (subject category)
 * Category:Subject:Zoology (subject category)

If you wanted Animal Behavior to be found here, you would need to add BookCat to the bottom of each page, add to Animal Behavior, and add BookCat to Category:Book:Animal Behavior. (In this case, BookCat figures out that the page it's on is a book category, and looks at the book's main page to see what subjects it belongs to.) By now you should be starting to understand how Zoology is added to Biology, and so on.

In general, categories go from the most general to the most specific category. You can link to a category by adding:

 * display text

title: Wikibooks:Categories


text:
Urdu/Transliteration

Transliteration external is a mapping from one system of writing into another. Transliteration attempts to be lossless, so that an informed reader should be able to reconstruct the original spelling of unknown transliterated words. To achieve this objective transliteration may define complex conventions for dealing with letters in a source script which do not correspond with letters in a goal script. Romaji is an example of a transliterating method.

title: Urdu/Transliteration


text:
User:Pronoun~enwikibooks

Same me.

title: User:Pronoun~enwikibooks


text:
User talk:Pronoun~enwikibooks

Talk to me...

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Pronoun. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Pronoun~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pronoun~enwikibooks


text:
File:OpenDialog.png

Summary
Screenshot of the standard open file dialog in Windows XP (here using the Luna theme).

title: File:OpenDialog.png


text:
File:ColorDialog.png

Summary
Shows the standard color dialog in Windows XP (using the Luna theme).

title: File:ColorDialog.png


text:
File:FontDialog.png

Summary
Depicts the font dialog in Windows XP (when using the Luna theme).

title: File:FontDialog.png


text:
File:PrintDialog.png

Summary
Shows the standard print dialog in Windows XP (Luna theme).

title: File:PrintDialog.png


text:
Nature/Ethics

Basics of an ethic for nature

Introduction
Nature is rather immoral from a human view, since it worries little about our conceptions of good and bad.

If one wants to set up such a thing like an ethics for nature, then this is a cultural achievement. The term ethics for nature is used thereby equivalently to  ecological ethics  or  environmental ethics . The ethics for nature tries to specify the correct way of human acting in relation to nature.

How can an ethics for nature look like ?

Basics of an ethic for nature
Basis of each ethic for nature must be the survival of nature and mankind. If humans become extinct, also each ethics is redundant. Therefore the most important set of an ethics for nature are the following:

 * You must support survival of life on earth .
 * You must support survival of mankind on earth.
 * '''You should avoid everything, which makes survival of life and mankind more difficult.

If you do not want to follow these rules, you do not have to. But sooner or later you will notice, that it is easier to live with nature rather than against it.

Laws of nature can be bent only with difficulty. If one fires for example enormous quantities of fossil energy, how we do that today, one does not need to be surprised, if the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere rises and it becomes warmer and warmer.

A change of the goals in order to save fossil energy and for the use of renewable energy sources is thus inevitable.

The ethics for nature are not a “natural right” or a “natural moral”. The rules come from humans. Humans and life will die out anyway sometime. The concern is to keep this unevitable end as far away as possible. Exactly like each one of us should live in good friendship with his body in order to live as long as possible without unnecessary diseases. Although nobody can escape from death as good and healthy he tried to live.

The ethics for nature should not be an exaggerated love for nature. A “general love for all creatures” like Albert Schweitzer demanded it, is not possible. Where do the loved creatures begin and where do they end. Albert Schweitzer surely exterminated malarial parasites with large devotion, although they are organisms too. Reasonably he did not love them, but fought against them, even though this contradicted his own ethical principles.

How nature will force this kind of ethics?
The conception of a punishing nature is scientifically unreasonable. There are however consequences of human acting, which work like punishments, because they bring substantial and predictable disadvantages with itself.

Thus the population growth will be stopped by different factors:

 * Mankind will run out of food
 * Mankind will run out of water
 * The dense population leads to aggression and war.
 * Diseases lead to premature death. They are easily spread by worldwide travel.
 * Ecological damage leads to a fast or creeping death by poisoning.

The waste of energy will be reduced by the following factors.

 * The carbondioxid production leads to a rise of the carbon dioxide level in the air. *Die atmosphere heats up. Storms and inundations increase.

On the other hand many disasters have an natural cause and are not man made. The Tsunami in Southeast Asia in the year 2004 was a natural catastrophe. Naive humans may regard therein the punishment of a higher instance of nature or an angry God. Scientifically these opinions are unreasonable.

Why is an ethical behavior to nature important for us?
The necessity of ethics for nature is quite clear today. From the long list of the environmental problems there are mentioned some:

 * Ecological damage by industrialization, traffic, tourism and agriculture,
 * Growth of garbage, exhaust gases and waste water,
 * Sound - and light contamination
 * Radioactivity by atomic energy and nuclear weapons,
 * Climatic change, ozone hole
 * Loss of species and habitat destruction
 * Monocultures, pesticides, overfishing,
 * Waste of energy and resources

Already in the interest of the today living persons, and even more in the interest of the coming generations the long list of these negative consequences of todays developed life will force a change and will limit the human freedom of action.

Ethics for nature practical view
From the rather generally formulated principles of the ethics for nature the practical application leads us to environmental protection. By appropriate laws, their control and forced application ethics for nature will become a part of the general system of necessary laws. The most difficult laws will handle global environmental problems for example the carbon dioxide problem, because it is not so easy not enforce them. In addition, here the increasing heating up of the atmosphere forces all states to introduce obligatory volume controls in order to achieve the generally accepted goals.

 * environmental protection
 * nature protection

Many environmental organisations help to contribute their part to the preservation of our natural environment and help to implement environmental policy.

title: Nature/Ethics


text:
User:Whiteknight/Thoughts

{| class="WKBackground" style="width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

Summaries

 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

One-Liner Guidelines
Here are some things that aren't necessarily policy, but that I think are as good as policy:

 * 1) The books are the most important thing.
 * 2) People are here to write books, not to deal with drama or bullshit. See #1.
 * 3) You may be responsible for more drama and bullshit then you realize. See #2.
 * 4) Don't start fights, see #2.
 * 5) If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
 * 6) If it is broke, fix it.
 * 7) If it can't be fixed, toss it out.
 * 8) Keep things simple
 * 9) Wikibooks isn't all things for all people. We are making no attempts to correct this.
 * 10) Sometimes, the best thing you can do is leave.
 * 11) If you don't know, ask. If nobody knows, draft up a version.
 * 12) We aren't on a schedule. If you are, there will be stress. We make no apologies for this.
 * }

title: User:Whiteknight/Thoughts


text:
User:Andrew Whitworth

Hello! My name is Andrew Whitworth, although most users here on Wikibooks will better know me as Whiteknight.

This username represents a legitimate front to my Wiki persona. My main account, User:Whiteknight will be used for the bulk of my edits and contributions. My puppet account, User:wknight8111 will be used primarily in conjunction with my bot to perform automated cleanup tasks. This username, while used rarely, will likely be used on other projects such as the new New York City Chapter and the Wikimedia Chapters committee. I also use my real name on mailing lists and other forms of extra-wiki communications.

About Me

I am (under my other user name) a bureaucrat and checkuser here on en.wikibooks. I have accounts on other wikis as well (see the list below), but they are all mostly inactive.

I graduated in May 2006 with a BS in Electrical/Computer Engineering, and in May 2008 with an MS in Electrical Engineering from Temple University in Philadelphia, PA. My research interests include embedded systems, digital signal processing, computer architecture, and digital control. As a former TA, I have teaching experience in the areas of Communication Systems, Circuit Theory Embedded Systems, Robotics and C Programming. I have worked with the CSNAP Laboratory on research projects ranging from satellite control systems to data fusion and image processing and the SCDC Laboratory working on System-on-Chip and PGA design.

I write real dead-tree books as well: ISBN 0977920127

This page will contain some basic information about myself and my editing habits here, as well as ways to get in contact with me if needed.

My Name
I am not the only Andrew Whitworth in the world. There is an American NFL player and a British college professor with the same name that I know of. Both of these individuals are likely to show up in a Google search just as prominently as I do, if not more so.

My Contributions
Contributions under User:Whiteknight can all be attributed to me under this username, and I will likely use this username to sign myself as an author in books to which I contribute. This account will not ever be used for casting votes or participating in discussions. This account will never be used in conjunction with a bot or any automated editing tool.

Here are some dates:
 * Primary account created: 24 Aug 2005
 * Became Admin: 12 Oct 2005
 * Became Bcrat: 8 Aug 2006
 * 10,000th edit: 22 Aug 2006 (bot-assisted edits aren't included)
 * 10,000th main-module content edit: 24 April 2007
 * 20,000th edit: 17 May 2007
 * 30,000th edit: 17 October 2007
 * 1,000th page delete: April 2007
 * 100th user block: May 2007
 * Became Checkuser: 28 August 2006

Some Stats: (As of 10 August, 2007)
 * Days as a Wikibookian:
 * Average edits/day: 34
 * edits/day (not counting weekends): 47

Admin and Bureaucrat
My other username, User:Whiteknight is a bureaucrat here, and can be contacted for all matters concerning admin or bureaucrat tasks. I do not have, and do not want, admin privileges for my other usernames.

Contacting Me
I can be contacted through email at Wknight8111  gmail com.

I may also be contacted on AIM at screenname wknight8111.

I am available on IRC occasionally, on Freenode and irc.wikimedia under the usernames "Wknight8111", "Whiteknight", "Whiteknig", or "codenight", listed in order of descending probability. When I am away, i will usually be listed as "wknight-away". My bot will usually have the name "wknibot", or something similar.

I can also be contacted by phone, although I will not list my number here on wikibooks. If you would like to talk to me via phone or in person, send me an email first.

List of global accounts:

 * User:Whiteknight (primary global account, owned everywhere except en.wikipedia)
 * User:Wknight8111 (secondary global account, owned everywhere)
 * User:Andrew Whitworth (tertiary global account, owned everywhere)

List of some projects where I might have a user page, or where i have edited, or whatever:

 * Wikipedia:User:Wknight8111
 * Wikipedia:User:Andrew Whitworth
 * Meta:User:Whiteknight
 * Meta:User:Andrew Whitworth
 * Commons:User:Whiteknight
 * Wikiversity:User:Whiteknight
 * Wikisource:User:Whiteknight
 * Wikiquote:User:Whiteknight
 * Wikiquote:User:Wknight8111
 * Wikinews:User:Whiteknight
 * es:Usuario:Whiteknight
 * w:de:Benutzer:Wknight8111

Although the best place to reach me is on my Wikibooks talk page.

SUL
I own the global accounts to User:Whiteknight, User:Wknight8111 and User:Andrew Whitworth. Edits under any of these names on any WMF projects are by me.

Blogs
I maintain three blogs, one that contains news about wikibooks, one that contains information about Wikimedia Foundation chapters, and one that is more personal. These can be found at:

 * http://wikibooks.blogspot.com
 * http://wikinortheast.blogspot.com
 * http://wknight8111.blogspot.com

I am always interested in submissions or collaborations on the wikibooks blog. Let me know if you have anything you want me to share.

Copyright Info
The following information is to be used for purposes of enforcing copyright only. Additional information can be obtained directly from me via email, if necessary.

 * Name: Andrew Whitworth
 * Place of Residence: Pennsylvania, USA
 * Year of Birth: 1983

All textual contributions made by myself under the screennames User:Whiteknight and User:Andrew Whitworth (with some exceptions, see below) are released under the terms of the GNU FDL V1.2 or any later version, the text of which is located at GFDL. Text to which I am a contributor may not be released with any invariant sections, front cover texts, or back cover texts beyond this version of the GFDL. I waive my right to be listed as an author on the title page of any book to which I have contributed under Section 4(b) of the GFDL.

Textual contributions made by my bot User:Wknight8111 are released into the public domain, where possible, the GFDL v1.2 or later otherwise.

Images that I produce or upload may be licensed under a variety of copyright schemes, all of which are described at User:Whiteknight/Images.

 * Exceptions: In the case of books which are being donated to Wikibooks, and I help to upload them, my contributions while uploading should be considered released under the licensing terms specified by the donor. Where I help edit a book upon explicit request of the author(s) of that book, my edits will be released under the specific terms of that book. Books that I edit about open-source software programs, such as Parrot Virtual Machine are implicitly dual-licensed between the GFDL and a license which is compatible with the software itself. Edits of other contributors to these books might not be likewise licensed.

title: User:Andrew Whitworth


text:
Wikibooks talk:Categories

Trying to get a start on this. I'm approaching this from a "set-theoretical" point of view, stressing elegance and minimalism. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do like the text of this, but I worry that some of the language is almost too convoluted to understand. However, i note that there probably isn't an easy way to describe what you are trying to say. You might want to include mention of some categories, such as the root category (Category:Main Page), the category for things specific to wikibooks (Category:Wikibooks), and some other categories of note. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's definitely explainable in easier language, I'm just using a mathematical shorthand to describe the structure before translating it to plaing English. What might be nifty is to have diagrams (circles in circles, etc.), but I'm not much of a whiz at graphics editors. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Case against categories
I want to re-establish my case against broad wholesale categorizing of all pages on Wikibooks. For me, I think it is foolhardy at best and damaging to absurdity at its worst.

Mind you, I am not against the use of categories within a given Wikibook, as a tool for the authors of that Wikibook, but I am against working to make sure that each and every page of every Wikibook is put into some category page. The main reasons are as follows:

 * It is a waste of time. Not only to category arrangements change over time, so do structures of the book itself.  Active Wikibooks users who want to go through the 20,000+ pages could be more useful doing things like culling orphaned pages, fighting vandalism, and other more useful tasks.  While my priorities might not be yours, this certainly can be considered quite a low priority item by most objective views.
 * It might be a waste of time for your particular purposes, but not for others, such as keeping track of things. If Special:Uncategorizedpages is kept empty, it would then provide a good place to go for those seeking to make sure new modules are well-seated and easy to find. Working through the backbone structure of wikibooks might not have the thrill of marking things for deletion and stomping on vandals, but there are constructive ways to improve what's here, as opposed to the destroying of clutter. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Categories encourage "Wikipediazation" of Wikibooks. There already is a strong criticism that many Wikibooks end up being merely collections of articles, or that there is a strong "look and feel" from Wikipedia here on Wikibooks.  While I don't have a strong objection to two different Wikibooks "sharing" the same chapter to be developed concurrently, it is an exceptionally rare practice.  I will repeat the often said mantra:  Wikibooks is not Wikipedia.
 * That's not a mantra, it's a truism. Wikibooks doesn't need to go out of its way differentiate itself from other wikimedia projects (Wikibooks is not commons, either). Rejecting every idea that might incorporate wikimedia technologies in a way similar to wikipedia does nothing other than give the project a hostile feel for any well-meaning wikipedian who might want to contribute (and by the way Robert: I reverted your rather nasty edits to the wikibooks-related templates on wikipedia... I would have brought you up on w:WP:ANI (for trolling and violating w:WP:POINT) but you seemed to have disappeared so I let it go). It's time to lose the attitude: the sky is not falling. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Category maintainence eventually fails. Almost all classification and ontological schemes eventually break down, regardless of how you deal with them.  The category system of MediaWiki software certainly is a little more useful than some other systems, but it still has problems in trying to find content.
 * Of course :). The only way to describe a book fully is to photocopy it (or in our case print it out or mirror it). Perfection is an ideal goal to aspire towards, but not a realistic goal to set. It's a step in the right direction though. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While I am against categorizing each and every page, I do support placing the "Main Page" of each Wikibook into a category so you can try to locate related Wikibooks of similar topics. It is just that once you have already been to that main page, the navigation of content in that Wikibook should be sufficient to then get to wherever you need to go from there and further categorization is no longer necessary.

And example of how categorizations are useful within a Wikibook, the Cookbook is clearly a very good example. But in this case it is more an execption than a classical case of a book with an orderly table of contents or index.

I am not talking about "turning off" categorizations of Wikibooks pages, just that it should be done judiciously and not on absolutely everything in sight. --Rob Horning 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The point of this proposal is to come up with a reasonable and systematic way to categorize. I'm not proposing that things that aren't categorized should be deleted (the more acclimated I've become to the delete buton, the less I like it's existence in some ways), but rather adopting a systems of standards for categorization so that it doesn't end up getting done in 20 different ways. If you don't care about categories, then they won't cause you any harm by being there. If individual users go about categorizing everything without a systematic approach, than the categories will be useless: it's a meta-language for describing books (and therefore doesn't detract from the freedom of authors to write in their chosen style), and since it's a "system-wide" conversation being held in this language, it seems a good idea to talk about ways to adapt it to wikibooks, rather than using it in the wikipedia way. Unless you're willing to ban categorization of every page, it's probably a good idea to come up with a good system for doing it, because sometimes Special:Uncategorizedpages comes in handy (I'm currently trying to empty it far enough so that the last remaining uncatted wikiversity pages will appear, since those that were imported already were auto-categorized through M2wv and its related templates).

 * The last person to try to do this (Jguk) did not discuss it, and ended up employing some unnecessarily convoluted systems that made it very hard for me when I was trying to track down, organise, and in some cases cull the material in the how-to category. The system I came up with took some trial, some error, and a lot of thought about how the category system could be adapted to wikibooks, and how it could be structured in a sensible way that makes it easy to get around both within a particular book as well as between pages of related books... the latter use could be a good path for sweeping up the small stubs into semi-organized books or scrap collections that will be ready for the day that a knowledgeable author comes by who will be able to restructure it and make something great. If there's no way of structuring the stubs, they might as well just be deleted, because no-one will ever find them as they are now. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(arbitrary section break)
I agree with both statements here, to some degree. I do agree with Rob that a haphazard, whole-sale categorization of all pages is not necessary. We do not need to apply categories to pages just so they won't be listed as "uncategorized". However, I also agree with Johnny that categories are used, and when they are applied to pages, they should be applied correctly. Applying categories in a non-helpful way is actually counter-productive, and we are better off not categorizing pages then to categorize them incorrectly or sloppily. With that in mind, I would like to see this proposal become a guideline, as opposed to a policy: Pages do not need to be categorized, but when they are categorized, it should be performed correctly. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh definitely a guideline... I don't think people should be forced to categorize, I just want to have a good category structure defiined so that if people want to categorize, it can be done in a consistent way throughout the project.
 * I do think just adding an unobtrusive category tag is much nicer than adding the big "WHY DIDN'T YOU LIST THIS ON A BOOKSHELF? WHAT ARE YOU, STUPID???" tag :-). Categories are a lot easier, and if there's a good systematic structure, it will provaide a way for more experienced wikibookians to help do some of the organizational work for the new authors. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The bookshelf system has broken down somewhat, and is not being as actively maintained in part because it isn't nearly so prominent of a feature on the main page of Wikibooks any more like it was eariler. There was a presumption that the author of the Wikibook would be best suited to determine where the book ought to be classified with in terms of what bookshelf.
 * There are merits for categories because of the self-organization aspects of them. At the same time (and a major drawback of the category system) is if you want to "push down" a bunch of pages that have been categorized on one level but you want to reorganize them into subcats, it takes an edit on each and every page to make that change.  Something like the bookshelf system only takes a half-dozen edits to make the full change, even if you put the "sub-cats" onto completely different pages.  In extreme situations like I've seen on Commons where I've seen hundreds or even thousands of pages on an overstuffed cat, pushing content into subcats can be the equivalent of a major Wikiproject, with even whole teams of helpers working on it.  And this is something that is difficult or even nearly impossible to automate with a bot.
 * One of the advantages that Wikibooks has in this regard is that the categorization heirarchy is a very late addition to Wikibooks, so there is much more content to try and assess in order to come up with the initial heirarchy. The bookshelf system needs an overhaul, but competing proposals have all but shut down any attempts to realistically fix the situation.  I am, however, trying to point out that the bookshelf and category methods of classifying content are essentially two versions of the same basic idea:  Trying to find some content within Wikibooks that you want to locate.  This was one of the goals I had in mind when I set up Card Catalog Office.  --Rob Horning 22:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 * You know what? I didn't even know we had a card catalog office :). I guess that's just part of why I like the categories: they're familiar, coming from a wikipedian history. I don't think the 10,000 members of a category is much of a problem for us... the only book coming anywhere near that is the cookbook, and the category system of the cookbook is doing exactly what it should, and is actually quite useful (I've used it a couple times when looking for recipes... I don't write there much, but I certainly read there!)
 * I'd really like to redo the bookshelf system too... I'm planning to do an experimental version on the how-tos category one of these days, but I seem always to be otherwise occupied (primarily with writing). I'd like to see them presented in more of a narrative, annotated structure, that asks the reader what they're interested in, and gives them a "blurb" about books that might fit the bill (many of our books have front covers, but when I'm in the bookstore, I look at the back cover and the inner flaps).
 * The how-tos bookshelf is a good example of how I'd like the cats to work: use the categories to organise the materials and make an "outline" for the overall structure of wikibooks, and then go back to the bookshelf and create the narrative. I understand to an extent the resistance to categories: pigeon-holing in some ways seems a mean-spirited approach to such a serious endeavor as a book, and categorising here on wikibooks is not at all the same thing as categorising on wikipedia. But I think the baseline of my suggestion (having the entire book in one category, or for larger books a collection of subcategories within one large category) makes it easy to think about what the book is about, and how it relates to other books. I'm currently having a very hard time deciding how to categorise the various books and stubs related to camping, fishing, wilderness first aid, wilderness survival, etc..... but the important thing is that it's making me think about how all these things fit together, and in the end that will help me write the good narrative on the bookshelf. But the first step is to actually categorise, and I think it's important to have a "baseline standard" for categorising wikibooks as a whole (subcategories within a book category should be left to the authors, and it should be made clear that people who aren't contributors to a particular book shouldn't go around messing with a book's subcategories. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Tag a Book"
If all that is needed to categorize all pages in a book is to categorize the cover page/TOC, why are pages like Algorithms/Find_maximum considered uncategorized when Algorithms is? Hoogli (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 * That is a bit confusing, isn't it?
 * Each book has its own special, unique category -- a category that has the same name as the book.
 * For example, the special category for the Algorithms book is Category:Algorithms.
 * The page you pointed out is considered "uncategorized" because it has not yet been tagged with the category that tells us which book it is in. --DavidCary (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed by adding  to Algorithms/Find_maximum. --DavidCary (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of book categories
The text currently says "Book categories should be categorized by subject using the same subjects categories as the book (see below)." On the other hand there are also categories such as Category:Languages textbook pages, Category:Computing textbook pages, Category:Engineering textbook pages, and Category:Science textbook pages for this purpose. Moreover, User:Adrignola suggested a classification of book categories using where X is the subject category to separate book categories from subject subcategories. Thus, there are currently three different approaches. Which of them should we use? Do we need consistency at all? Who cares? --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I realized that I actually don't understand the current text. Does it mean that each book category should be categorized in all subject categories of the corresponding book title/cover page? --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes that is what it means. --dark lama  16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 * But it doesn't include organizational categories such as Category:Featured book, Category:Books with print version, etc., does it? Looking at featured books such as Ada Programming, Arimaa, Chess, Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Communication Theory etc. it appears to be current practice to categorize the book category only in one subject category even if the book is categorized in multiple categories. --Martin Kraus (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Those title pages are all overcategorized compared to the title categories, placed into categories that aren't part of the subject hierarchy or that might need to be added to the subject hierarchy, or filed into both a higher level and lower level category in the same branch of the tree. That's yet another thing I was working on correcting. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Featured books, Books with print version, etc. aren't subject categories though. I don't think categories were considered when deciding to make any of those books featured. How things are categorized is constantly evolving as well. If we stick with how things were rather than focusing on how things should be, the category system will be slow to improve. As things are people do end up working against each other, so writing things down and trying to be consistent can help bring some focus to what the goals are for the category system. --dark lama  18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Talking about how things should be: I think categories of the kind "X textbook pages" are a good idea for book categories because they avoid that book categories "pollute" the hierarchy of subject categories. When browsing the category hierachy, it is difficult to distinguish between book categories and subject categories. Putting all the book categories away into a few high-level categories of the type "X textbook pages" would avoid this problem. --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I disagree. I think "X textbook pages" should continue to be eliminated. The names are grammatically incorrect and isn't what is categorized anyways, should be named "X books", "List of X books", or "X by book categories" at least, but than there are already categories like Category:Library of Congress and Category:Dewey that are more helpful for that purpose. If all book categories are hidden away, then people would be wasting there time searching through related categories only to find what they were looking for wasn't there or where they expected them to be. Categories like Category:Languages would be pointless to have because they would contain a bunch of categories that lead people nowhere. I know that would annoy me and piss other people off. People would fix the situation so that the categories don't lead to dead ends and other people could find what they had difficulty locating, and that is exactly what people have done and what people continue to do. Also when browsing through categories why would anyone really care if a category is a book category, a subject category or something else? I don't think there is any difficulty in distinguish categories anyways because most book categories use title case, while most other categories use sentence case, and there is information like "x cats, y pgs, z files" included with each category. --dark lama  13:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Subject categories should certainly include the corresponding books, i.e., cover pages. Thus, they are never empty. (I'm not sure I understand what you tried to say. Actually, I'm not sure whether we refer to the same thing when talking about "book categories". See Categories for the definition I am using.) I usually get to book categories by finding the corresponding cover page in one of the subject categories and then clicking on the book category, which should be listed on the cover page. This should always be possible. When browsing through the subject hierarchy I usually look for books and that means I'm not at all interested in clicking on a book category, which just gives me a list of pages of a specific book. Also, when I look for a book in a subject category, I'll have to look through the list of cover pages of this subject category and all its subcategories. This search is just slowed down when I have to skip all the book categories while going through the subcategories. I assume that many users have difficulties to distinguish book categories from subject categories based on their names. You cannot say whether Category:English is the name of a book category or a subject category. The information about the number of subcategories, pages and files might give you a hint, not more since there are many books which consist of just one page and there are book categories with subcategories for templates etc. --Martin Kraus (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I am using the same definition for "book categories" as you are. If I am browsing the category system without being aware of what books exist I am more likely to see the categories before I see what else else is in the category, so I am more likely to find the book that way. If the book isn't in the category than I would have to scroll down to see what pages (book title/cover pages) are in the category, click and load a page and than click and load another page just to look at the corresponding category. Two clicks instead of one, and two pages loaded instead of one. I am not at all interested in having to browse to a book first just to find its book category and there are likely other people who feel the same as both of us. If book categories were kept in separate categories people would not only need to remember to change the categories a book and book category uses, but any book lists as well. For people who have a slow Internet connection, who use a PDA or who use a cell phone to browse Wikibooks, looking at long lists of book categories or having to load multiple pages instead of one, would be a waste of time and bandwidth. If book lists were further divided to keep categories small there would be those to maintain as well. I don't think Wikibooks has enough people willing to maintain such a system to bother with that. I think Wikibooks has enough people willing to use and maintain a simple organizational approach though. Some categories can be renamed to remove the ambiguity associated with it. Like there is Category:English language which has more in it so Category:English can be removed to reduce confusion about which category to put books in. --dark lama  17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 * You ask if we need consistency and if anyone cares. I've seen book/title categories filed under certain subjects and their title pages filed under other subjects. I've seen subject categories under Category:Main page and under other top-level categories different from where their corresponding Subjects are filed. It wasn't until I pointed out the issue that all the items shown in Subject:Major Subjects were actually filed together under Category:Books by subject. Many subject categories are still filed they way they were organized on the deprecated bookshelves rather than how they're organized in the new Subjects. It's true that a Subject can pull from any Category and the subjects can be organized completely differently than categories and most of the time title case versus sentence case is a moot issue, but I was of the mind that consistency in general is beneficial. I saw book categorization at Maintenance_Projects as a sign that it was a priority, regardless of how we eventually decide to handle the issue you've brought up above. My comment on that issue is in the next paragraph.

 * I was using or  where X is the parent subject category to separate subject subcategories from book/title categories by placing them first in the listing. Book/title categories were being tagged with  or  as usual on their title pages and book/title categories. See Category:Fine arts for a demonstration.  On the issue of "X textbook pages", the guideline you mentioned in your follow-up would contradict the existence of "X textbook pages".  Someone filing their title page in Category:Languages of Africa would likewise file their title/book category in Category:Languages of Africa and not Category:Languages textbook pages.  Thus, I am against "X textbook pages" because they cause inconsistency with the current guidelines at Categories and CCO Resources.  It's a "do as I say, not as I do" situation right now.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Adrignola, please make yourself familiar with Policies_and_guidelines. As far as I know, neither of the pages you cited is a guideline nor a policy. --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While its true there not guidelines or policies, the same is true for any argument for the "X textbook pages" approach. In the absence of a policy or guideline there is being bold, compromise and consensus. There are more book categorized in subject categories then there are "X textbook pages" type categories. Only a small percentage of book categories even use the "X textbook pages" approach when they do exist. Any "X textbook pages" categories that do exist are several years old, all created and categorized by one person from what I've seen, and no new ones have been created. I think consensus through people's actions have shown a clear demonstration that the "X textbooks pages" approach is ignored and therefore unwanted. --dark lama  13:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Happy classifying! :) --Martin Kraus (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Add a featured book to a Subject: page?
I am from Wikiversity where I constructed a of open source resources on Physics that includes the featured book FHSST_Physics and Subject:Physics.

Oddly, your list of books on Subject:Physics fails to list the featured book FHSST_Physics. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 * FHSST Physics is, according to its main talk page, no longer a featured book. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (To clarify: The subject page uses dynamic page lists, so if the book were a featured book it would be listed.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Categories


text:
User talk:Andrew Whitworth

Use User talk:Whiteknight for contacting me for matters concerning admin/bureaucrat tasks, or my contributions under that username.

Old messages will be deleted, not archived. All messages are saved in the history. I will delete messages here periodically, to keep this page clean.

Leave a new message

title: User talk:Andrew Whitworth


text:
Reconstruction/Mold Treatment/Safety

'Mold Safety'

 * Read and understand all that your getting into.
 * Wear a dusk mask for air protection.
 * Make sure you use strong safety goggles, while working.
 * Provide air flow in house by opening windows.
 * With mold debre dispose of it into trash bags away from housing
 * Use an mop, an mild detergent to clean area when finish.

title: Reconstruction/Mold Treatment/Safety