text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Welcome to the Assistance reading room where Wikibookians help each other solve problems encountered while contributing to books or otherwise taking part in the Wikibooks community.

How do I improve my wikibook, or is it impossible to improve it?
I'm curious why my recent addition to Wikibooks was tagged for speedy deletion instead of engaging me in conversation on its talk page for collaboration of improvements?

I'm also curious how I may improve it? Or, is it beyond repair? Claiming it is nonsensical displays ignorance on the part of the person who is making that claim which is either due to that person not reading it through, or requiring a tutor to help them understand it. But, no one is offering to ask questions about specific statements or sections of the text to help me make improvements. So, I'm left with the impression that "speedy deletion" is a form of acceptable vandalism?

I'm been through this before. It merely takes two people to delete something. And that requirement has already been met. And none of my objections has been countered with anything other than vague claims of: "nonsensical rouge" and "This is original research of the most egregious kind trying to pretend that the laws of physics are a fantasy. It doesn't belong here."

I've added a warning (under the section, entitled: Synopsis), yet still have not heard from anyone in response. And I've added a warning at the top of the page in the format of a preamble.

This Wikibook is not intended for anyone who lacks any background in basic electrical engineering, for it requires a familiarity with: Ohm's Law, Electrical Reactance, Complex Numbers, and their Polynomial Multiplication, basic electricity theory, and familiarity with electronic simulators. Without these skills, you'll be lost trying to understand whatever I have to say. You'll be perplexed anyway even with these skills since nothing you learned in school will have adequately prepared you for what is about to unfold...

There is no guarantee you will understand any of this. So, read through it -casually- once in a while without trying to understand. Repetition, with breaks in between, might help.

I'm assuming that they don't have to respond, because deletion is inevitable.

It doesn't look like it would be suitable over at Wikisource, but maybe it is suitable?Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not inevitable. I don't see a problem with the book but maybe the person who tagged it for deletion can share their thoughts.--Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]] [[Image:Flag_of_Ukraine.svg|15px]] talk 04:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked both of them...
 * MarcGarver
 * SHB2000 -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This one is impossible. Hoaxes are not allowed on Wikibooks. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * “This one is impossible. Hoaxes...” – Unloaded coils are well-known to exceed conventional expectations of their output. Just ask Jim Murray. {He was trained as a physicist, but switched to electrical engineering to make more money.} This expectation (of unloaded coils) is conceded by electrical engineers (according to Jim). But it took me until now to figure out how to load a coil, because using the standard technique (for loading motor coils) of adding resistance inline with the coil doesn't work (as SHB2000 remarks) since my circuits are not standard! -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 05:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said. Simulations only benefit those people who are willing and able to help themselves with serious study. To everyone else, it is mere entertainment (at best) or a hoax (at its worst). Involvement is the key-ingredient, normally missing among those people who have been duped by a hoax. Yet, involvement tips the scales of understanding in our favor since simulations are able to model the hoax using whatever parameters the hoax is based on to describe the virtual reality of the hoax.
 * To wit, ...
 * I spent $400 of my Social Security to purchase a rare copy of Joseph Newman's 8th edition of his book which he boasted would give the reader everything the reader needed to know to be able to build a successful replication of his device. I read various chapters describing the parameters of its inputs and outputs. On that advice, alone, I was able to deduce that Joseph Newman was a categorical liar since the leisurely speed (of its hand-cranked rotation imparted to his device) could not give overunity under simulation, namely: it could not achieve a gain of reversed current to travel backwards toward his battery pack to trickle charge his batteries (as they supplied the necessary high voltage to run his device). Only by increasing this simulation of ~30 RPMs of rotation to an incredible one million cycles per second would the prescribed effects materialize. I was flabbergasted. No one can achieve that rapid a rate of rotation among physical objects without breaking or jamming the axle of their machine. Yet, on the other hand, neither did I initially realize (until much later) that achieving that high a rate of vibration/rotation (call it what you will) is exactly one of several parameters I have since learned I can vary to achieve overunity in a simulated circuit, namely: capacitance, inductance, frequency, resistance, etc.
 * What I did not know, but was about to learn from an engineer, is that a noble gas (such as: helium) can vibrate and broadcast a rapidly vibrating electromagnetic frequency when subjected to a strong electrostatic charge. This satisfied my successful simulation!
 * I wanted to believe in Joseph Newman so much that I was appalled at his blatant lie. Yet, I posted my results on YouTube and elsewhere, nonetheless. Within a few weeks (or months), an electrical engineer got in touch with me and told me that he had given Joseph Newman a secret to build a better device that would become overunity (replacing the permanent magnets of his previous design with helium canisters wrapped with an open coil using PVC sewer pipe for its containment). Joseph used that new and improved model for all of his demonstrations and wowed the crowds with his ability to pump many gallons of water per minute while trickle charging his batteries at the same time that he was draining them of charge. This was a net gain of less than one ampere. If batteries could live forever, then this would have been a proverbial perpetual motion machine. Yet, they can't: especially since he was foolishly using non-rechargeable dry-cell batteries. In any event, this was quite a feat of human engineering! Yet, sadly, he kept the design for this new and improved model to himself sharing his earlier design (which never gives overunity) in his book and a similarly constructed working model for the Patent Office to examine. It's no wonder no one has replicated his efforts and he failed at obtaining a patent! What was he thinking ?...Que sera, sera. I used LTSPICE for simulating his device. You may read about my discovery on Quora. Simulations have their limitations, but so does building stuff since there is no guarantee, whatsoever, that either method will succeed. Nor is there any guarantee that we'll understand what we've built or simulated (that's much harder). Seeing is not believing. It takes practice, lots and lots of practice, to learn all of the shortcomings of either methodology and plan to avoid its unique set of pitfalls so as to not be "duped" by those shortcomings. Ergo, "knowledge is different for different people" based on each person's unique perspective and experience.
 * "...no longer logical to exclude books on video games that described strategy." -- reversal of an earlier decision to ban video strategy guides
 * "...you can use video games as a primary source" -- allowance made for primary source
 * "...A serious game or applied game is a game designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment. The "serious" adjective is generally prepended to refer to video games used by industries like defense, education, scientific exploration, health care, emergency management, city planning, engineering, and politics.
 * simulators provide an intelligent tutoring system for self-guided learning
 * "...teachers would have to become more involved in the creation and application of research." -- Evidence-based education must avail itself of research to stay current in today's world and simulators provide an impetus for research. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 05:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

, write, as I put in a very simple test at the bottom of User:L10nM4st3r/sandbox. 22:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry I forgot to ping, see my comment above. For more styling tips, see User:L10nM4st3r/Wikihelp/Styling 22:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks so much! SupremeUmanu (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Pending review request
Could someone with the required permissions review my pending change on LaTeX/Bibliography Management? Thanks! (Apologies if I'm too impatient; it has been two days since I made the edit, and I'm not sure how much time usually passes before a pending change is reviewed. I'm used to the faster editing pace of Wikipedia.) Biogeographist (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need for edits to be reviewed - with the exception of Wikijunior the latest version of the page is what every reader sees. The waiting time for an edit review can be a year or more due to the size of the backlog (currently 140 days on average, see here). MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, but the latest reviewed version of the page (from 14 October 2022) is what I see both when logged out and when logged in, not the latest version, so there is a need for edits to be reviewed! Biogeographist (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I struck my last comment because I just checked the page again and now the latest version is displayed, so it seems was right. But I swear that when I checked the page earlier today, only the latest reviewed version of the page was displayed before. Perhaps I was still seeing a cached version or I was hallucinating. Biogeographist (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Visual Editor ate my paragraph
I use the Visual Editor for all of my editing. The process of writing Pokémon Red and Blue has taken me to create a new page. I do this by first creating a redlink from the appropriate place in the Table of Contents, in this case the bottom of the “Appendices” section. However, somehow the Status template has somehow “eaten” that last paragraph. For some reason Visual Editor thinks the content of that paragraph is the content in one of the templates that is posted at the bottom of the page. (When I open the dialog box for it, It just calls the field ”wikitext” and names no specific template.) This text box is plain-text, uses wiki-markup, and has no scroll bar, and is therefore unsuitable for writing large parts of a book.

However, when I hit Edit Source, nothing looks amiss. The end-of-book templates are all separated from the last content paragraph. I have no idea why VisualEditor is thinking the way it does. I hope this isn’t a genuine bug in Visual Editor. I would appreciate it if someone more experienced than I try to root out this formatting issue in the book I am currently working hard on. SupremeUmanu (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 * @SupremeUmanu I have also noticed this. I'm not sure if it's a new problem or if it's been around for a while and I only noticed it recently. Unfortunately I'm not sure what's going on. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This sort of problem is often due to Special:LintErrors but may be due to what the developers call a "complex transclusion" (which seems to be a problem with multiple templates sort of mixing together, so that they behave like one – think about the archive top/bottom templates).
 * If you're still seeing this problem, your best bet might be to ask for help at w:en:WP:VPT, to see if someone would please check the template for possible problems. They'll want to see a link to the exact revision of the page you were seeing the problem on. Whatamidoing (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on proposed wikibook addition: textile sciences & fiber arts
I'm a competent but still rather intermediate (less than 40 years' intensive experience) fiber artist and lifelong independent student of blended textile science and library/information science. I'm not doing any primary research, but instead following in the well-worn steps of the centuries of fiber arts practitioners who have come before me.

What does make me different is skill in facilitating co-learning groups that share information and experience, as even the newest beginner will very likely have experiences that can help the most experienced expert, and everything in between.

Textile sciences are HUGE globally, are an area with a LOT of funds being poured into academic research, and there are literally centuries of published material and a great deal of widely-accepted and virtually uncontested facts that can be shared, as well as a great deal of ever-growing communities globally of independent learners making use of established science to implement the science in both creative and practical ways to solve everyday life problems for themselves and share those things they learn with other everyday folks. Knowledge and resource sharing is literally an almost absolutely universal value for fiber artists of all kinds, and we are almost all drawn to learning communities, very commonly those learning communities actively bridge multiple cultural, country, and language boundaries. But even 30-year-old beat-up textile science textbooks usually cost well over $150 USD, sometimes even $300 or more for less outdated textbooks. That's what motivates me to invest volunteer time and energy to facilitate the collection and collaborative curation of shared knowledge that is freely available to anyone interested in searching for it.

So, I've been looking for a platform to host co-learning resources on many common topics in textile and fabric sciences, and was already of the firm belief that a virtual common library in wiki form (like the ones that I became familiar with in college studying library and information science) would be the most successful long-term place to host a digital sub-commons of this kind. There are more specialized knowledge-sharing bbs-like platforms (the online community Ravelry is the biggest one), but that and other sites available are so specialized that they do not make room for all textiles, including smart textiles, industrial textiles, textile reinforced building structures, medical textiles, mixed textile media, embroidery, costuming, fashion design, machine knitting, raw wool and other raw fiber processing, or nonwoven textiles such as felt, paper, and fiber fusion (facilitated with flexible adhesive mediums).

I've poked around and I'm having a bit of difficulty learning to navigate help resources. Eventually, I would like to branch out after helping grow a community of acquaintances with more technical knowledge to collaborate here on an expanding wiki textbook to include Wikiversity resources, but that is so far ahead of where I'm at.

Before that, I need to get stubs and the core contents started on, while simultaneously reaching out to people I know in various countries to ask them to contribute and offer to help them familiarize themselves with the Wikibooks culture and basic skills... and to do that, I clearly need to familiarize myself with those things first.

'''I'm very sorry I'm poor at communicating complex ideas in simpler ways, and I'm very grateful to anyone who took any time and energy to read any part of this request. Thank you very much for considering a reply of some kind.'''

 * 1) Can anyone point me in the direction of video or audio resources (tone of voice and spoken English language content, at least) on becoming familiar with etiquette and culture here - history, what behaviors are welcome?
 * 2) Can anyone suggest cohesive reference pages visually organizing the most commonly used technical skills here on Wikibooks (or just for wikimedia foundation projects in general? e.g. cheat sheets? YouTube videos? Boolean search term suggestions, commandline interfaces and regex operators?
 * 3) Does anyone have any feedback or suggestions on the Textile and Fabric Sciences textbook proposal/nomination I'd like to get started on (if it's a good candidate for starting on Wikibooks? (I was a bit shocked to find that there was only a single result on Wikibooks related to all the searches I tried here on the topic: Hemp Products/Textiles & Fabrics - Wikibooks, open books for an open world. )

Grayautumnday (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi there, for me be bold and go start on your own book. I am the author of AI Art Generation Handbook when the AI Art is all the rage.
 * Here is the resources that I used when I am starting on Wikibooks. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Help:Contents . You may draft a page in your username spaces there. Cheers and all the best!
 * MrAlanKoh (discuss • contribs) 04:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this the same as Wikipedia
this is a lot like Wikipedia can someone please explain the difference Ducklan (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi @Ducklan! No, Wikibooks is not the same as Wikipedia—Wikibooks has a different mission and serves a different purpose. For detailed information, you can see What is Wikibooks?. Generally speaking, Wikibooks is for the creation of entire books with well-defined scope and aims. Wikibooks are very similar to other published books, with the added advantages of being a web-hosted medium. I would recommend reading through Policies and guidelines before you continue editing so you get a general idea of the standards here. Reach out if you have any questions! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Side-by-side paraphrase for a book in the public domain?
Hi!

I'd like to collaborate with some friends to make and 'publish' a paraphrased edition of John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. The original work is in the public domain, but the style of English is somewhat archaic and difficult to understand. For the ease of construction, I'd thought that we would work on the paraphrase in a two-column table. Is such a project as this within the scope of Wikibooks? :) JohnLittle1993 (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be in scope. Original source texts are out of scope, but an annotated text is allowed. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Why does any page from here
even if it's protected, have the option to activate syntax highlighting (codemirror) while other wikis can only be activated if oneself is not blocked? 190.242.129.62 (discuss) 03:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 * ping to @MarcGarver, It's been 2 weeks since I asked this question and nothing has been resolved, I want to know, why here any user can activate the CodeMirror option for any page regardless of whether it is protected or not? 190.242.129.62 (discuss) 15:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you link to a page that explains what the code mirror is? Ive never heard of it. Or at least, not that name. Syntax highlighting doesnt seem like a thing to stop people from using. 21:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * because of the global block imposed by Hasley, i have to use open proxies, see mw:Extension:CodeMirror and mw:Extension:SyntaxHighlight, when you click on "view source", several icons appear in the top left part of the source code box, including a marker, if you click there, certain characters change color, on the other hand if you do it in other wikis like Wikimedia or Wikipedia, that doesn't appear, how can this be possible? 108.181.71.43 (discuss) 02:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Creating African Literature Books
I want to ask if this idea fits into wikibooks. Kind Regards
 * Yes, you could write a textbook about or guide to that topic, but you could not just include the original works. If you have original works of African literature that are freely-licensed, they would go to s:. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Koavf Alright Thanks.I will be glad if you could explain better Sylvesterchukwu04 (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can write a book about African literature here. That book could be a textbook intended for students who want to learn about African literature. You cannot upload pieces of fiction or poems or other pieces of literature here. Those belong at Wikisource, but only if they are allowed to be uploaded there. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's something Greatful to share the knowledge an Eploring the vision of the Continent people.improve the Article
 * My pleasure. Coast G (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

How to get a new book on a shelf
Hello, I am kind of new here and seem to be too clumsy to get my book (Kitchen Remodel) on a shelf. How is that being done? I am also not sure on which shelf it belongs. --Stilfehler (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Thanks for contributing and asking. It can be arcane. The process is here: Wikibooks Stacks/Adding books. I think it fits in Shelf:Maintenance and repair, so that's what I added. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! --Stilfehler (discuss • contribs) 23:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Danke yourself. Let me know how else I can help and note that I rated your book as being 50% done, which was a sheer guess. Please correct it if that's inaccurate. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 50% was a very good guess. Thanks for your help and for the offer of more help in the future! --Stilfehler (discuss • contribs) 02:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Expanding an outdated book
Hi! I'm new to this project, and so don't really know the rules and norms about creating content here. I stumbled across A-level Mathematics/Edexcel during revision a few months ago and some of the existing content is quite useful. However, I have noticed it needs expansion and it also seems to be out-of-date in terms of the way the content is covered with chapters, topics etc. I'm not sure how I should go about expanding this book. This (page 9) is how the topics are presented by Pearson/Edexcel on the specification. However, this is not how the topics are presented in my textbook. How would I go about deciding which way is the best way to present things, and then the structure of the book? Creating/building on the content that is already there doesn't appear to be too difficult, if I have done it correctly so far! Thanks in advance, Ferien (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Re: rules and norms, there hardly are any. Wikibooks is a small project and in practice (if not by policy), any given book tends to be a passion project of a single author or maybe a couple of authors. So if you come across a book here that is incomplete, it's probably been abandoned by the one person who was really working on it back in 2010 or whatever. As far as policies about how to structure books, there are some actual policies about how they are done with the MediaWiki hierarchy (i.e. we use [title]/[chapter] or [title]/[subsection]), but if you want the most basic help page on how the site functions, you could start here: Help:Contributing and for the most basic intro the site, here: Welcome. In other words, feel free to remix and restructure a book if it's really necessary or you think it makes more sense, with the caveat that you're likely going to be the only one really paying any attention to that book. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Ferien and welcome! Seconding everything that Justin said. There are general best practices plus some style/content policies; but, if you're the only person working on a book, you have a fair amount of leeway. Please reach out if you have more questions or need help! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both of your help! I will be sure to reach out if I need more help :) Ferien (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For sure. And to be clear, KC is a lot more active here than I am and is a very helpful Wikibookian. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Chat GPT
What (if any) is wikibooks's ruling on using Chat GPT to write articles? (I've seen this here). --JCrue (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 * This is a good (and complicated) question with a few different aspects to consider. In terms of copyright, it's worth taking a look at w:Wikipedia:Large language models and copyright. In terms of content accuracy and overall quality, w:Wikipedia:Large language models is useful. We don't have any relevant policies here at Wikibooks, and it may be worth discussing and creating some. I personally think it would be good to import w:Template:AI-generated and use it on pages with Chat GPT-generated content so that people know to double-check it for accuracy. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging some other active folks and admins on here: @Koavf @MarcGarver @Xania @SHB2000 @MathXplore. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As someone who has used this and continues to use it professionally, there is the problem of copyright, but there is also the problem of the fact that this is not ready for prime time. Anyone attempting to publish anything of even the mildest importance or competence will have to vet and edit the nonsense that AIs spit out. So if someone is using this as a tool to go from the blank page to 20% of the final product or a nice outline with some useful bullet points, and then continues to actually write the book, then that just resolves the issue of copyright. In other words, our policy should be at minimum that AI-generated text needs to be vetted by humans prior to publication here. Note also that the AI detecting tools are not reliable enough and will have far too frequent false positives. Happy to give two more cents if anyone thinks my rambling is useful. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know an English Wikiversity custodian and other editors making chatbot-based content. This seems to be accepted because the chatbot usage is declared at the page and/or their title, and there are valid attempts to examine the chatbot outputs. Therefore, I think importing w:Template:AI-generated is a good idea to assist with clarification. Please note that Wikiversity came out from Wikibooks, different scope but similar structures exist, and that is why I think the idea is also valid at here. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a salient distinction between these two projects, as en.wv encourages this kind of real-time original research, so using AI on-wiki could be instructive for how AI works. Here, less so. Agreed that some kind of notice that substantial material was generated with AI (which tool, when, how) is a good policy to have. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What_is_Wikibooks says "Wikibooks is for textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides, and manuals.". If using AI could be instructive for how AI works, we may need to accept AI for making instructional guides to chatbots, etc. On the other hand, I think there should also be a quantity restriction for AI-generated content to reduce the risk of copyright issues. The main author of AI instructional guides should be humans rather than AI. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 03:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Illustrative examples would be fine, but on en.wv, it would be appropriate to have some iterative learning project on wiki and engage in some kind of exercise like that. Either way, clearly marking the text would be appropriate. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are similar to Justin's – it is for a similar reason why we banned it on my home wiki. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jumping in again—if I created a draft policy, would people help me outline it and put it together? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I also recommend that we coordinate this with other projects or base ours on existing ones at other projects. e.g., I have seen this discussed at c:. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just created Artificial Intelligence! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I made some edits and made up Uses AI. I was bold, so please feel free to remix, remove, etc. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Koavf! I imported Template:AI-generated a couple days ago—should they be consolidated? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. No need for two. Unless we want to repurpose one of them into a talk page template where someone includes all of the things required by the policy (when, where, how). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I boldly did that repurposing, but I'm struggling to make the parameter work correctly. :/ At the moment, it doesn't matter, but I will need to actually make it work prior to this going live. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Template not working
Sorry is this is the wrong place, but a template I made (link) doesn't work. I want the user to be able to enter the webpage name and URL (it would work something like Template:Wikipedia) but I'm not very good at wikitext and don't know how to make the template work. Can somebody tell me what is wrong/how it can be fixed? Thank you. Cintilo (discuss • contribs) 00:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 * What I have done is to make it so that now, if you insert:
 * you will get this box floating to the right:
 * which I think is what you want. Let me know if there's more to do. If that is correct, please make the template documentation page. If you don't feel that you can, please respond to this message with anything that includes and I will make it. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * which I think is what you want. Let me know if there's more to do. If that is correct, please make the template documentation page. If you don't feel that you can, please respond to this message with anything that includes and I will make it. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * which I think is what you want. Let me know if there's more to do. If that is correct, please make the template documentation page. If you don't feel that you can, please respond to this message with anything that includes and I will make it. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I get the information on my deleted page?
Hi sorry if this is not the right place to ask this but my wikibooks page called "funding and finance" was deleted yesterday due to inactivity. I was just about the put more info into it when I saw this and I do not have any backup of the information in there. Can someone help me to recover those information please. Svrmustafa (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi @Svrmustafa! The page was deleted because the scope was unclear and it seemed abandoned. I have moved the content to your user space at User:Svrmustafa/Sandbox/Funding and Finance. If you want to turn it into a book here, it will need to have its scope better elaborated. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct typos in one click not working?
The page says buttons "Replace", "Type", "Remove", etc., will appear, but I noticed that I no longer see those buttons. Is this an issue already recognized? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 05:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Why no one Contributions create or edit page?
I think no one Contributions edit on Wikibooks it almost no longer to edit. Google search main page not shown search result. 47.234.198.142 (discuss) 01:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I have no idea what you're trying to convey. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 01:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources?
Hi, I'm a new user to Wikibooks (though not to Wikimedia), and I was wondering what WB's policy on sources is. Some pages, like this one, include references, (and it looks more like a Wikipedia article rather than a book on the whole), while some pages, like this, omit them. Cheers, Cremastra (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi @Cremastra—good question! We don't have a single authoritative policy on sourcing like, for example, Wikipedia does. In fact, it looks like Citing sources just redirects to w:Wikipedia:Citing_sources—I personally think it would be helpful for us to create a more clear guideline. We do have a smattering of relevant notes in other guidelines:
 * The draft policy Original research says, "Textbooks, especially those containing information beyond what is considered "common knowledge" should contain proper citations and bibliographies. Unlike Wikipedia articles, individual Wikibooks may (at the discretion of the participating authors) forgo footnotes and instead create a separate chapter for citations and bibliographies."
 * Wikibooks for Wikimedians says, "Most books, if they cite sources at all, gather all citation references in a single biographical type page, similar to what is commonly done in dead-tree books."
 * My view is that the content in textbooks/educational books here should be readily verifiable and should have a proper chain of attribution, which is best done through footnotes and citations—many serious published educational books I read do have footnotes and accompanying bibliographies for each chapter. Hope this helps! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance


text:
Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines

This serves as a guide to the policies and guidelines that are generally accepted and considered important — even essential — by the project's founders and community. These help us to work towards our goal: Developing free, open content textbooks, manuals, and other texts. It is important to note that at least some of these policies are still evolving as Wikibooks grows and develops.

Definition of terms

 * Policy
 * A policy is a set of rules that must be followed at all times.

 * Guideline
 * A guideline is a set of rules that should be followed and only ignored in particular circumstances.

 * Draft
 * Referring to a policy or guideline, this means that it has been suggested by a user and is still undergoing discussion as to whether it should be made official or rejected. Proposed policies and guidelines may either become official or rejected, depending on the eventual outcome of the discussion.

 * Must
 * This word, or the terms required or shall, means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the policy or guideline.

 * Should
 * This word, or the adjective recommended, means 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.

 * Official
 * Referring to a policy or guideline, this means that it is currently in effect, and enforced by other contributors. A policy is a set of rules that must be followed. A guideline is a set of rules that should be followed.

 * Obsolete
 * Referring to a policy or guideline, this means that it has been superseded by a new guideline or policy. The new version should be used, and the old version is only kept for historical reasons.

 * Rejected
 * Referring to a policy or guideline proposal, this means that it has been rejected by the community for a variety of different reasons. It, along with the proposal discussion, is kept to remind people of the reasons for the rejection and to prevent it from being reproposed for reasons rejected in previous discussion.

Formulating policies and guidelines
All Wikimedia projects share a set of core founding principles.

Wikibooks policies and guidelines are formulated for the most part by habit and consensus. This takes place in discussions on talk pages, the Reading Room and the Textbook-l email list. Once a ground for consensus exists on a topic that Wikibooks would benefit to have as an official guideline or policy, a document is created and discussed in specifics.

To propose a new policy or guideline document, add a new entry to the Proposals section below. The page should be in the Wikibooks namespace. Create the new page, add the draft template and write up the proposal.

So long as the policy is proposed, other users and members may change the text of the proposal to reflect the state of the discussion and compromises about the proposal. After proposed policy has been reviewed and discussed by other users and work on it is considered finished, it may be accepted by community consensus. For specifics about what consensus means, and how it is achieved, see the decision making guidelines

Even a page which is already an official policy or guideline can be modified to keep it in line with consensus or to make it more coherent. Policies and guidelines are generally open to being edited by any established user, but controversial changes are likely to be reverted. Anyone who thinks there is a problem with an existing policy or guideline is welcome to discuss it. Still, except for non-normative edits, changes must be proposed on the guideline discussion page and accepted by the community per Decision making.

Enforcing policies
You are a Wikibooks editor. Wikibooks lacks an editor-in-chief or a central, top-down mechanism whereby the day-to-day progress on this instructional resource is monitored and approved. Instead, active participants monitor recent changes and make copyedits and corrections to the content and format problems they see. The participants are both writers and editors.

Policies
Official Wikibooks policies are identified with the policy template at the top of the page, which includes the page in Category:Wikibooks policies. The current list of official policies follows:

Guidelines
Official Wikibooks guidelines are identified with the guideline template at the top of the page, which includes the page in Category:Wikibooks guidelines. The current list of official guidelines follows:

Drafts
The following are draft policies and guidelines that still need an official community decision:

es:Wikilibros:Políticas y orientaciones fr:Wikilivres:Règles et recommandations hr:Wikiknjige:Pravila it:Wikibooks:Politiche e linee guida ja:Wikibooks:基本方針とガイドライン pt:Wikibooks:Políticas

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

title: Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines


text:
Help:Contributing

Wikibooks is an open content collection of non-fiction books (especially textbooks). You are contributing to a free, publicly usable database of information. If that is not enough reason to contribute, we have several more below. Once you're convinced, the final section details how you can get started.

Why contribute?

 * Free as in freedom
 * The textbooks on this site are all released under a free content license. That means that they are free as in freedom, forever. No one can stop you from using these materials, modifying them or distributing them. Also, the license guarantees that any works that are derived from these materials will be similarly free to modify and distribute, forever.

 * Gratis (no money required)
 * Are you really going to spend money for a textbook when you can get the same or similar information for free? Anyone can access the Wikibooks textbooks at no cost.

 * Academia meets the real world
 * Our textbooks are started by people who are familiar with the subject. Content is continually augmented by Wikibookians. This is no lone professor seeking additional income, it is a community of people who are there to learn the material in the least painful way to get the grade and be prepared for the next step. That means textbooks that make sense.

 * Up-to-the-minute changes
 * You will never have to wait months or years for another edition to come out that incorporates the latest changes in the field. The very minute a discovery or advancement is made, the text can be updated to reflect that change.

 * Built-in feedback
 * Every textbook page has its own associated talk page where students can ask each other questions and help each other with the material. Each page can also receive reader feedback through an interface at the bottom of the page.

 * Global access to educational materials
 * Learners from around the globe who have access to the Web can find quality educational information, regardless of financial status, local/regional educational restrictions, or proximity to an educational institution.

 * Educational flexibility
 * No time constraints. You can contribute and use the content at your own pace.

Who contributes?
Anyone is free to contribute. One of the best ways to learn about something is to teach it to someone else. Challenge yourself to see how well you really know the material. This site gives you the chance to use and work on a textbook devoted to the subject you are studying. And it's free!

 * In just a few short years and entirely through volunteer efforts, Wikipedia has become one of the leading encyclopedias on the web. (Wikipedia has more traffic than Encyclopedia Britannica online!) Wikibooks seeks to replicate this success in as much time.

 * Humanitarians
 * All of the material developed on this site is released under a license that guarantees that the information remains free forever. Leave behind a tiny legacy with each bit you add to the open textbook project. It really is about giving back to humanity and helping yourself as you help your fellow human beings.

 * Teachers
 * You know the times when you could have presented a topic better than the author of the textbook you are using. At Wikibooks teachers have the chance to take an active hand in how that information is organized and presented, and make a lasting contribution to the students in your classroom and around the world.
 * Teachers should also consider making the development of a textbook a class project. Students learn not only the subject matter at hand, but also the art of collaboration, and they establish contacts with other students from around the world. This is also a great learning activity for teachers themselves in that they can gain valuable insights into the ways that students perceive the topic.

 * Engineers
 * Tired of searching for elusive reference texts scattered around the organization or budgeting for a new round of reference data every few months to years depending upon the volatility of your field? Material placed here and eventually crosschecked by many users is now only a click away if you have good Internet access.  Unlike your physical reference library, it may also be viewable on your portable computer during field excursions.

 * Industry leaders
 * You need today's students to be prepared for tomorrow's workplace. Help get that knowledge into their hands today, and it will be stored in a place that they can always go back to refer to it.

Why not to contribute?
Sometimes, there may be reasons not to contribute. These might be:

 * Legal reasons
 * If you are not in the position to provide material that can be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GNU Free Documentation License, you can't contribute. You should own the copyright to the material you contribute or it must have a compatible license or be public domain. See Copyrights for details. Never submit copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner. (public domain is considered out of copyright).

 * Legal problems can come from areas where you wouldn't expect them. For example in some countries, like Germany, an employer has the legal right to all inventions done by an employee—even if done in the employee's spare time, and outside of the field of expertise for which the employee has been hired. This right prevents publication of ideas without an explicit agreement from the employer. Such things are often not mentioned in work contracts, because it is the law.

 * There is also an ugly trend in some countries and professions to require employees to sign some code of conduct or code of ethics. Having to adhere to some ethics in business is not a bad idea, but these codes often sneak in some restrictions of what (if anything at all) an employee is allowed to publish without an explicit (written) agreement from the company (e.g. the company's legal and PR departments).

 * Financial Reasons
 * If you want royalties or the exclusive right to profit from selling a book, do not contribute. Anyone can make money from selling textbooks available at Wikibooks as long as the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GNU Free Documentation License are followed.

 * Control
 * If you want to retain control of your work evolution, distribution and use, do not contribute. Wikibooks is about collaboration, not ownership.

Starting a book
 Books, chapters and pages can be created, rewritten, altered, renamed, and improved by anyone. Chapters can be changed in order, added, and deleted. Books should conform to the definition of What Wikibooks is about.

Please check Wikibooks Stacks/Departments to see if your work could be part of an existing book, before starting a new one. Perhaps it is better to add the text to a related page (especially if the text is not very long); that page can always be split later, after it has grown.

Basic considerations

 * Redundancy
 * Does the world really need the 1001st introduction to some topic? If the web, library, and other documentation projects are already full of free information about a topic, is there really a need to have yet another document? Maybe the time would be better spent to support an existing project, or start (and finish) something truly original?

 * Triviality
 * Is your effort really well spent on some trivial piece of "book"? In the extreme case, if the yellow press (or what amounts to the equivalent publication in a certain area) has already covered the topic extensively for years (and they even got it right), is there really a need for such a book? Wouldn't your effort be better spent on some less trivial task?

 * Lack of Perseverance
 * Does your perseverance not last longer than setting up a "wish list" of chapters? Are you not in a position to regularly spend time to ensure some coherence in a book, and is there no reasonable expectation that you will find other contributors? Then maybe your time is better spent contributing small parts to an existing book than rushing out to set up the structure for THE ultimate book about some subject, and then abandoning the book.

No complex rules
You can learn how to create a good book and find new ideas by analyzing existing ones. Wikibooks doesn't have strict policies determining the shape of a book so don't be confused if you find books that are designed completely different. Generally, it's a good idea to look up some featured books like Using Wikibooks and How To Assemble A Desktop PC.

 * Review the book naming conventions.
 * Choose a book title carefully. Names are important, undoing mistakes can take time, so it's always a good idea to do it right the first time.
 * Once you have a few strong ideas about a new book, write a few paragraphs and lay out an outline for it.
 * Decide on a writing style and how to format contents. See Manual of Style for ideas.

Defining an outline and scope
Wikibooks are all about working with others. To help others contribute to a new book, it helps very much to define and publish the concept, layout, and scope of the book right from the beginning. This serves as some kind of contract and can avoid long discussions of what should or shouldn't be in the book and how the book should look. Please be aware that there is really no such thing as "your" book on a wiki like this—it is up to early contributors to demonstrate the writing and leadership for other contributors to accept them as the "lead authors" for a book. Some books have no lead authors, and develop organically over time.

Some questions you want to answer in defining the book:
 * What type of book will it be? Reference, textbook, self-study course, tutorial, experimentation instructions, travel report, etc.
 * Who is the target audience? How old are its constituents?  What is their background?  How advanced are their reading skills?  Are they children or adults, students, hobbyists, or professionals, researchers or scientists?  An advanced level for a hobbyist is quite different from that of a researcher.
 * What is the scope of the book? How much you want to cover -- in terms of topic, history and/or audience level -- helps determine where you start, and where you end.  This also determines what to leave in and what to leave out.

Publish this information at the beginning of the book and on the discussion page, so people can decide if this is the right book they want to read or contribute to.

Write the first page
Read the naming policy on how to arrange and name your book. Visit Help:Pages for details on creating a new page for the book's table of contents. Choose a title, something short and descriptive without abbreviations. Create the page the way you want it, and save it.

When creating pages it is also good practice to run the text through a spell checker before submitting. You may find it more convenient to take a copy of the original page, work on it, then paste the edited copy back in. Creating brand-new topics is a great way to help Wikibooks increase its breadth (and depth).

Show the book to the public
Make the book available to other users. Of course, people can see it on Recent Changes, but its visibility on that list is not permanent, so you need to properly categorize it. Put the shelves template on the main page to put the book into an appropriate category. If you are not sure what shelf to put your book on, you can browse Wikibooks Stacks/Departments, or ask at the projects reading room. Place on the main page to indicate the book's new status and adjust in increments of 25% as the book develops. Add your book in the correct category (if applicable) in alphabetical order with alphabetical. Readers will find your book in no time!

Create printable books
If you want people to read your book as continuous text, in a PDF file etc., it is worthwhile maintaining a "collection" and/or "print version" from the start.

Note changing stages of development
You can mark which chapters are finished using development stage marks. You should similarly show how much of your book is ready next to its entry on the pages for its parent bookshelves.

Suggested chapters and appendices

 * Forewords and Postscripts: You can create "Foreword" or "Introduction" or "Postscript" chapter explaining the scope of the book and how to read it.
 * List of authors and manual of style: It's likely that other people may edit your book. There should be a page listing most important contributors to the book. It can be named "Authors". It is also good practice to create a local manual of style for the book—explaining how it should be written, which templates are used, etc.

ja:Wikibooks:新しいページの作り方 tr:Yardım:Nasıl kitap yazılır? uk:Довідка:Як створити вікікнигу Usando o Wikilivros/Iniciando um novo livro

title: Help:Contributing


text:
Portuguese Grammar/Pronouns

I - Eu You - Tu (informal in Brazil / informal in Portugal) / Você (informal in Brazil / formal in Portugal) He / She / It - Ele / Ela We - Nós You - Vós (formal in Brazil / informal in Portugal) / Vocês (informal in Brazil / formal in Portugal) They - Eles / Elas

Me - Me (without preposition) You - Te / Você (without preposition) Him / Her / It - O / A (without preposition) You – Vos / Vocês (without preposition) Us - Nos (without preposition) Them - Os / As (without preposition)

With + me - Comigo With + you - Contigo / Com você With + him / her / it - Com ele / Com ela With + us - Conosco With + you - Convosco / Com vocês With + them - Com eles / Com elas

To + him / her / it - Lhe To + them - Lhes

Me - Mim (with preposition) You - Ti / Você (with preposition) Him / Her / It - Ele / Ela (with preposition) Us - Nós (with preposition) Them - Eles / Elas (with preposition)

Of / From + her / him / it - dele / dela

 * It's separated the preposition from the pronouns when the pronouns are the subject: I like her doing something – Eu gosto de ela fazendo algo.
 * It uses a hyphen when the pronoun is after the verb.

title: Portuguese Grammar/Pronouns


text:
User talk:Ennui~enwikibooks

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally.--Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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 Ennui. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ennui~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 23:08, 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) 04:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ennui~enwikibooks


text:
User:Karrollea

Hi, I'm totally new to Wikipedia as an active participant but I'm excited about wikiversity, wikibooks and cookbook for myself and wikijunior for my DD.

If you any questions/suggestions/comments for me relating to something I wrote, feel free to drop me a line!--Karrollea 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)karrollea

title: User:Karrollea


text:
J2ME Programming

Welcome to the J2ME Programming book at wikibooks. This book not only covers the MIDP device programming; but, also the full J2ME Platform.

 * Introduction

Getting Started
Here you will find tutorials, tool listings, and etc.
 * Statements
 * Device Databases
 * MIDP(Mobile Information Device Profile)
 * MIDP Device Databases

API(Profile) Summaries
Generally, the APIs of a family of devices is an API(Profile) or APIs(Profiles) on top of the language definition(configuration profile). The Profiles(APIs):
 * MIDP1.0
 * MIDP2.0

JVM Features
In J2ME small devices performance of the JVM also contributes to how the language definition is implemented. For a clear picture view this article:
 * Java Virtual Machines in MIDP Devices

Consumer Platform Technologies
Often, in order to understand what optional APIs are used with specific devices we need to understand the underlying consumer platform in which our J2ME technology is in fact implemented. For example, if you know the SymbianOS version of a SymbianOS powered device than you have a clear idea what optional J2ME APis are included on that device.

As Mobile Operating Systems and CPUs merge than it becomes important to also know what CPU is in the device or even what cellular network or network infrastructure the device is connected or interfaces with in its operation. thus, this section covers operating systems, CPUs, and network infrastructure as it relates to J2ME programming and J2ME application development.

 * Operating Systems
 * The J2ME Platform on SymbianOS
 * The J2ME Platform on Qualcomm Brew
 * The J2ME Platform on PalmOS
 * The J2ME Platform on MS Windows Mobile
 * JVMs by OEM
 * IBM's J9 WEME
 * Esmertec's Jbed
 * Tao Group's Intent
 * Aplix's JBlend
 * Access JV-Lite2
 * Aromasoft's mTea AROMA-WIPI
 * Beijing ZRRT Communications Technology UniJa-VM
 * Philips J-Ware
 * Motorola JVMs
 * Hardware
 * Cellular Network Technology

Appendices

 * The J2ME Platform
 * JVMs in MIDP
 * MIDlet Preverify
 * Connected Limited Device Configuration

Authors and Contributors
This wikibook has been written by:
 * Fred Grott (Contributions)
 * DJ Clayworth (Definition reworking/editing when this was a Wikipedia set of articles)

To contribute read Contributing

J2ME

title: J2ME Programming


text:
Talk:Linguistics/Evolutionary Linguistics

A nice start. Check out wikipedia for more though, maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_Behavior_%28book%29

Biased and outdated?
In my view, this page contains a very biased/eccentric viewpoint, based on several dubious and unsupported statements.

- BF Skinner's view of language acquisition is not accepted by any contemporary linguists of note - it is not in any way a valid contemporary theory. - The idea that a model of language acquisition can be based on treatments used with non-verbal autistic individuals is totally unreasonable. - The assertion that language is 'too young to have been a product of evolution' shows a dmisunderstanding of both language and evolution. Evolutionary changes can work extremely fast; in any case, key genes relating to language have been discovered in neaderthal DNA, showing that it is an ancient ability dating back to a period of major species change and quite possibly earlier. - The page is also very simplistic and contains no detailed explanation. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


text:
User talk:75.6.139.21

Hello. Please don't make copy-paste additions of wikipedia articles without attribution (oddly enough, this is actually a copyright violation). see WB:RFI to request a full copy of any given article. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:75.6.139.21


text:
Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem/The Theorem

Edited for concision.

title: Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem/The Theorem


text:
Greek Mythology/Stories/The Minotaur

The Minotaur was a half-man, half-bull imprisoned in the labyrinth on the island of Crete. King Minos was very fond of bulls (most likely due to the fact that his mother Europa was courted by Zeus in the form of a white bull). Minos came to own an extensive collection of bulls and one of the finest was a white prize bull. His wife, Queen Pasiphae was a beautiful woman who loved Minos very much and was fond of the compliments he offered her concerning her beauty. She boasted once that she was even lovelier than Aphrodite, the goddess of love and thus incurred the wrath of Aphrodite. Aphrodite cursed Pasiphae by sending her son, Eros, to make her fall in love with King Minos' prized white bull with one of his magical arrows. Pasiphae was struck and fell violently and passionately in love with the bull. She resisted her urges all she could, but eventually she could resist no more. She requested the aide of Daedalus who was currently a servant of Minos to help her. Daedalus built Pasiphae a wooden cow which looked remarkably realistic. It was hollow on the inside so that Pasiphae may fit inside it and it had wheels under the hooves so she could roll toward the object of her affection. At nights Pasiphae would approach the bull to quench her passion and all went well until she became pregnant and gave birth to a monstrosity. The infant was covered in short dense fur with beastial features. Its eyes were beady, its nostrils smushed and flared, it had hooves for feet and atop its head were two protruding knobs which would soon turn into great horns. Rumor spread throughout the kingdom of this beast and it became known as the Minotaur, which means Minos' bull. King Minos, enraged but rational, had Daedalus construct the labyrinth and promptly imprisoned Pasiphae, the Minotaur and even Daedalus within, for he could not forgive Daedalus for building Pasiphae the wooden cow. There the Minotaur grew and grew, more ferocious and powerful each day. Minos forever jaded by the shame became cruel and sadistic. After defeating King Aegeus in war Minos compromised that the city of Athens would not be conquered so long as Athens sent seven of the best young men and seven of the loveliest young women as sacrifices to Knossos at the hands of the Minotaur. Henceforth, the Minotaur devoured the sacrifices that were forced into the labyrinth annually from Athens. That is, until Theseus came and slew the Minotaur

title: Greek Mythology/Stories/The Minotaur


text:
User:Dietmar Lettau

Hello, my name is Dietmar Lettau, I contribute mainly to the German Wikipedia.

Hallo, ich heiße Dietmar Lettau, und arbeite an der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia mit.

Have fun :-)

title: User:Dietmar Lettau


text:
Radiation Oncology/CNS/Glioma/Randomized

In process of being cross-linked from the Glioma chapter

Adjuvant RT Dose

 * Intergroup NCCTG/RTOG/ECOG (1986-1994) -- 50.4 Gy vs. 64.8 Gy
 * Randomized. 203 patients. Age >18. Included low grade astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, or mixed oligoastrocytoma; pilocytic astrocytomas were excluded. Randomized to 50.4 Gy vs 64.8 Gy. RT technique: 2 cm margin around preoperative tumor volume, 1 cm margin for boost after 50.4 Gy.
 * 5-years; 2002 PMID 11980997 — "Prospective randomized trial of low- versus high-dose radiation therapy in adults with supratentorial low-grade glioma: initial report of a North Central Cancer Treatment Group/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study." (Shaw E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2002 May 1;20(9):2267-76.) Median F/U 6.4 years
 * 5-year outcome: OS low dose 72% vs. high dose 65% (NS); time-to-progression 58% vs. 52% (NS). Failure within field 92%
 * Toxicity: more often and more severely in high dose arm (2.5% vs 5%)
 * Poor prognosis: astrocytoma, age >40, tumor >=5 cm (5-year OS if <40 and oligodendroglioma 82% vs. >40 and astrocytoma 32%)
 * Conclusion: No benefit for higher RT dose

 * EORTC 22844 (1985-1991) -- 45 Gy vs. 59.4 Gy
 * Randomized. 343 patients. Age 16-65. Included astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, mixed oligoastrocytoma. Excluded completely excised pilocytic astrocytoma. Surgery first. Randomized to low dose 45 Gy vs high dose 59.4 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fx. RT technique: 2 cm margin around enhancing tumor to 45 Gy, reduced field 1 cm margin to 54 Gy and minimal margin to 59.4 Gy.
 * 5-years; 1996 PMID 8948338, 1996 — "A randomized trial on dose-response in radiation therapy of low-grade cerebral glioma: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Study 22844." Karim AB et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996 Oct 1;36(3):549-56. Median F/U 6.2 years
 * 5-year outcome: No difference in OS (58% vs 59%) or PFS (47% vs 50%)
 * Predictors: Age, size, neurologic status, amount of surgery
 * Conclusion: No dose response above 45 Gy

Adjuvant vs Salvage Radiotherapy

 * EORTC 22845 (1986-97) -- Adjuvant vs. salvage RT
 * Randomized. 314 patients. Age 16-65. Supratentorial low grade astrocytoma, low grade oligoastrocytoma, or low grade oligodendroglioma. Excluded small completely resected pilocytic astrocytomas, optic nerve gliomas, brainstem gliomas, third ventricle gliomas, and infratentorial gliomas. Surgery first. Randomized to early radiotherapy with 54 Gy (1.8 Gy/fx) vs delayed radiotherapy until the time of progression. CT with contrast every 4 months until progression. Technique: preop CT + 2 cm margins to 45 Gy, reduced field to 1 cm after 45 Gy.
 * 2005 PMID 16168780 — "Long-term efficacy of early versus delayed radiotherapy for low-grade astrocytoma and oligodendroglioma in adults: the EORTC 22845 randomised trial." (van den Bent MJ et al. The Lancet Volume 366, Issue 9490, 17 September 2005, Pages 985-990.) Median F/U 7.8 years
 * Outcome: Median PFS early RT 5.3 yrs vs delayed RT 3.4 yrs (SS). 5-year PFS 55% vs. 35% (SS). Median OS 7.4 vs 7.2 yrs (NS). 65% of pts in control group received RT at progression, 4% in early RT received salvage RT.  At 1 yr, better control of seizures in early RT group (25% vs. 41%, SS).
 * After progression: survival early RT 1.0 years vs. delayed RT 3.4 years (SS). ~70% transformed to high grade tumors, regardless if they had RT or not. Most recurrences within field
 * Toxicity (compared at 1 year for patients still tumor free at 2 years): No difference in cognitive deficit, focal deficit, performance status, or headaches.
 * Conclusion: Early RT lengthens PFS and controls seizures, but doesn't impact OS
 * Comment: tumor planning off CT, central path showed 26% were high grade tumors but balanced between arms, no QoL analysis

Adjuvant RT +/- Chemotherapy

 * RTOG 98-02 / INT (1998-2002) -- RT +/- PCV
 * Randomized arm + observation arm. 362 patients, WHO Grade II supratentorial astrocytoma, oligoastrocytoma, or oligodendroglioma
 * High risk LGG (age >=40 or STR/bx; 251 patients): Arm 1) RT 54/30 alone vs. Arm 2) RT + PCV x6 cycles. RT given T2 + 2 cm block-edge margin
 * Low risk LGG (age <40 and GTR; 111 patients): Observation only
 * 6-years; 2008 ASCO Abstract 2006 -- "Final report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 9802: Radiation therapy (RT) versus RT + procarbazine, CCNU, and vincristine (PCV) chemotherapy for adult low-grade glioma (LGG)." (Shaw EG, J Clin Oncol 26: 2008 (May 20 suppl; abstr 2006)) Median F/U 5.9 years
 * High risk outcome: 5-year OS RT 63% vs. RT + PCV 72% (NS); PFS 46% vs. 63% (p=0.06). In years 0-2 no difference, beyond 2 years significant benefit for RT+PCV. HR for death 0.52, for PFS 0.45
 * Conclusion: PFS but not OS were improved with addition of PCV. Beyond 2 years, OS advantage, and decreased risk of death by 48%
 * Low risk outcomes - 5 yr OS 93%; PFS 48% (Shaw et al J Neurosurg 2008)

 * 10 year results(Buckner et al, NEJM 2016)
 * SS OS and PFS benefit; 10 yr OS 40% RT alone vs 60% with PCV; PFS 21% vs 51%. Median OS = 7.8 yrs RT alone 13.3 years RT+PCV, p 0.03
 * IDH mutants - median OS 13.1 yrs vs 5.1 yrs irrespective of treatment (prognostic)
 * IDH1 mutants better outcomes with PCV - 10 yr OS ~50% RT alone vs 75% RT + chemo(predictive)

Adjuvant RT +/- Chemotherapy

 * EORTC 26951 (1996-2002) -- RT +/- adjuvant PCV
 * Randomized. 368 patients. AO and AOA (>25% oligodendroglial elements). Median age 49. Surgery followed by RT within 6 weeks 59.4/33, then Arm 1) observation vs. Arm 2) PCV (procarbazine 60, lomustine 110, vincristine 1.4) x6 cycles. Adjuvant PCV discontinued in 38%; 80% of RT arm received chemo at progression. RT PTV1 = T2 + 2.5cm to 45/25, then PTV2 = T1 + 1.5cm to 59.4/33. Primary endpoint OS
 * 5-years; 2006 PMID 16782911 — "Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas: a randomized European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trial." (Van den Bent MJ et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jun 20;24(18):2715-22.). Median F/U 5 years
 * Outcome: median OS RT+PCV 3.4 years vs RT 2.6 years (NS); PFS: 1.9 years vs 1.1 years (SS)
 * 1p/19q Analysis: Combined deletion in 25%; 5-year OS 74%; 5-year OS RT+PCV 74% vs. RT 75% (NS); PFS 69% vs. 50% (NS). Comparison of 5-year OS 1p/19q deleted 74% vs. 1p/19qWT ~30%
 * Conclusion: Adjuvant PCV does not prolong OS, but improves PFS. Patients with 1p/19q deletion have significantly better outcome, though not impacted by addition of PCV

 * EORTC 26882 (1988-2000) -- RT +/- adjuvant BCNU/DBD
 * Randomized. Stopped early due to slow accrual. 193/212 patients, anaplastic astrocytoma. Two cohorts: 58 anaplastic astrocytoma patients from original EORTC 26882 cohort + 135 patients from extended accrual focusing on AA only. Arm 1) RT alone vs. Arm 2) RT + concurrent BCNU/DBD followed by adjuvant BCNU/DBD x1 year. RT 60/30. Primary endpoint OS.
 * 2008 PMID 18248979 -- "Adjuvant dibromodulcitol and BCNU chemotherapy in anaplastic astrocytoma: results of a randomised European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III study (EORTC study 26882)." (Hildebrand J, Eur J Cancer. 2008 Jun;44(9):1210-6. Epub 2008 Jan 14.)
 * Pathology: At central path review, 53% of AA cases couldn't be confirmed. AA 35%, AOA 8%, AO 2%, GBM 25%, low grade glioma 23%, other diagnosis 7%
 * Outcome: median OS RT 2.0 years vs. RT + BCNU/DBD 2.3 years (NS), no difference in PFS
 * Conclusion: No benefit in OS or PFS with addition of BCNU/DBD

Adjuvant RT vs. Adjuvant Chemotherapy

 * NOA-04 (Germany)(1999-2005) -- RT 54-60 Gy vs. PCV vs. temozolomide
 * Randomized. 318 patients, supratentorial WHO Grade III glioma. Arm 1) RT 54-60 Gy in 6 weeks vs. Arm 2) CCNU 110 mg/m2, vincristine 2 mg, procarbazine 60 mg/m2 x4 cycles vs. Arm 3) temozolomide 200 mg/m2 x8 cycles. Primary endpoint time-to-failure
 * 2008 ASCO Abstract -- "Randomized phase III study of sequential radiochemotherapy of oligoastrocytic tumors of WHO-grade III with PCV or temozolomide: NOA-04." (Wick Wolfgang W. J Clin Oncol 26: 2008 (May 20 suppl; abstr LBA2007))
 * Outcome: median TTF RT 3.6 years vs. PCV/Temodar 3.6 years (NS), median OS 5+ years vs. 5+ years (NS)
 * Predictors: oligo component (oligodendroglioma or oligoastrocytoma), LOH 1p/19q, MGMT+
 * Toxicity: Grade 3-4 hematologic significantly higher for PCV than temozolomide
 * Conclusion: No difference in TTF between RT and chemotherapy (PCV or temozolomide)

Sequential chemo->RT vs RT alone

 * RTOG 9402 / INT 0149 (1994-2002) -- Sequential PCV -> RT vs. RT alone
 * Randomized. 289 patients with supratentorial AO and AOA (>25% oligodendroglioma component), KPS >=60. Randomized to PCV x4 cycles prior to RT vs RT alone after maximal surgical resection. Arm 1) PCV (procarbazine, CCNU, vincristine) x4 cycles followed by RT vs. Arm 2) RT alone. RT given 59.4/33/ PTV1 = T2 + 2cm, PTV2 = T1 + 1cm
 * 2006 PMID 16782910 — "Phase III trial of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone for pure and mixed anaplastic oligodendroglioma: Intergroup Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trial 9402." (Cairncross G, J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jun 20;24(18):2707-14.) Median F/U 5.1 years
 * Outcome: Median OS PCV->RT 4.9 years vs. RT 4.7 years (NS). PFS 2.6 years vs. 1.7 years (SS).
 * Toxicity: Grade 3-4 induction PCV 65%, RT after PCV 8% vs. RT alone 5%
 * Chromosomes: LOH 1p/19q combined in 46%, AO 57% vs. AOA 14% (SS). Lower risk of tumor progression PFS 4.0 v 1.3 years(SS), and median OS not-reached vs. 2.8 years (SS). No effect of treatment on survival
 * Conclusion: No impact on survival. Improved PFS but at significant toxicity cost. Patients with 1p/19q deletion have significantly improved outcome

Temozolomide

 * Greece (2000-2002) -- RT vs. RT + TMZ
 * Randomized, Phase II. 130 patients with GBM, KPS >=60. Biopsoy or surgery. Arm 1) RT 60/30 vs. Arm 3) Same RT + concurrent TMZ 75 mg/m2 1 hour prior to RT, then adjuvant TMZ 150 mg/m2 x6 cycles. RT CTV1=T2 + 2 cm margin to 46/23, CTV2=T1 + 2.5 cm margin to 60/30
 * 2005 PMID 15800329 -- "Randomized phase II study of temozolomide and radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme." (Athanassiou H, J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr 1;23(10):2372-7.)
 * Outcome: Median TTP RT 5.2 months vs. RT + TMZ 10.8 months (SS); 1-year PFS 37% vs. 8% (SS). Median OS 8 months vs. 13 months (SS); 1-year OS 16% vs. 56% (SS)
 * Toxicity: Grade 3+4 leukopenia 3%, thrombocytopenia 5%. One death from sepsis
 * Conclusion: TMZ combined with RT more effective than RT alone

 * EORTC / NCIC 26981-22981 (2000-2002) -- RT vs. RT + TMZ
 * Randomized. 573 patients with GBM, s/p biopsy or surgery (GTR 40%). Arm 1) RT alone vs Arm 2) RT with concurrent daily temozolomide (T) 7 days/wk followed by six cycles of adjuvant T given 5 days monthly. RT given 60/30, CTV = GTV + 2-3 cm margin. Temozolomide dose was 75 mg/m2 concurrent and 150-200 mg/m2 adjuvant.
 * 2005 PMID 15758009 — "Radiotherapy plus Concomitant and Adjuvant Temozolomide for Glioblastoma." (Stupp R, New Engl J Med 352(10):987-996, 2005.) Median F/U 2.3 years
 * Outcome: median OS RT 12.1 months vs. RT + T 14.6 months (SS); 2-year OS 10% vs. 26% (SS). On subgroup analysis, no benefit if biopsy only or if PS = 2.
 * Toxicity: Grade 3-4 toxicity 7%
 * Conclusion: Addition of temozolomide resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant survival benefit, with minimal toxicity
 * 2009 PMID 19269895; "Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial." (Stupp R, Lancet Oncol. 2009 May;10(5):459-66.) >5-year med. fu
 * Overall survival was 27·2% (95% CI 22·2—32·5) at 2 years, 16·0% (12·0—20·6) at 3 years, 12·1% (8·5—16·4) at 4 years, and 9·8% (6·4—14·0) at 5 years with temozolomide, versus 10·9% (7·6—14·8), 4·4% (2·4—7·2), 3·0% (1·4—5·7), and 1·9% (0·6—4·4) with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0·6, 95% CI 0·5—0·7; p<0·0001).
 * A benefit of combined therapy was recorded in all clinical prognostic subgroups, including patients aged 60—70 years. Methylation of the MGMT promoter was the strongest predictor for outcome and benefit from temozolomide chemotherapy.

BCNU wafers (Gliadel)

 * Multinational (1997-99) -- placebo vs. BCNU wafer
 * Randomized. 14 countries. 240 patients, malignant gliomas (86% GBM). At primary surgical resection, Arm 1) placebo vs. Arm 2) BCNU wafers. All patients received RT 55-60 Gy.
 * 2003 PMID 12672279 — "A phase 3 trial of local chemotherapy with biodegradable carmustine (BCNU) wafers (Gliadel wafers) in patients with primary malignant glioma." (Westphal M, Neuro-oncol. 2003 Apr;5(2):79-88.)
 * Outcome: median OS placebo 11.6 vs. BCNU wafer 13.9 months (SS); 29% reduction in risk of death. BCNU also improved time to KPS decline and neuroperformance measures decline.
 * Toxicity: comparable, except CSF leak 1% vs. 5%, intracranial HTN 2% vs. 9%
 * Conclusion: Local chemotherapy with BCNU wafers is well tolerated and offers a survival benefit to patients with newly diagnosed malignant glioma

 * Turku University (Finland)(1992-1993) -- placebo vs. BCNU wafer
 * Randomized. 32/100 planned patients with high grade (Grade III-IV) glioma. Closed prematurely as carmustine became unobtainable. Arm 1) Surgery + placebo vs. Arm 2) Surgery + carmustine polymer
 * 1997 PMID 9218294 -- "Interstitial chemotherapy with carmustine-loaded polymers for high-grade gliomas: a randomized double-blind study." (Valtonen S, Neurosurgery. 1997 Jul;41(1):44-8; discussion 48-9.)
 * Outcome: median OS placebo 9.2 months vs. 13.4 months (SS); for GBM 9.2 months vs. 12.3 months (SS). At end of study, 6% vs. 31% alive
 * Conclusion: Locally applied carmustine polymer at time of primary surgery has benefit on survival

RT vs. Observation

 * France (Association of French-Speaking Neuro-Oncologists) (2001-2005) -- supportive care vs RT
 * Randomized. Trial stopped early due to superiority of RT. 85 patients. GBM (96%) or AA. Age >= 70, KPS >= 70. Surgery or biopsy (50%). Arm 1) Supportive care vs Arm 2) RT 50.4/28 (CTV = GTV + 2cm)
 * 2007 PMID 17429084 -- "Radiotherapy for Glioblastoma in the Elderly." (Keime-Guibert F, New Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356(15):1527-1535.) Median F/U 4.8 months
 * Outcome: By 5 months, 90% of patients died. Median OS supportive care 3.9 months vs. RT 6.7 months (HR 0.5, SS). Median PFS 5 weeks vs 15 weeks (HR 0.3, SS)
 * Toxicity: No difference, though both groups worsened over time
 * Conclusion: RT in elderly results in modest improvement in survival without adversely affecting QOL

RT vs. Temozolomide

 * NOA-08 (Germany)(2005-2009) -- RT 60 Gy vs. temozolomide week on-week off
 * Randomized. 412 patients, age older than 65, KPS 60 or higher, anaplastic astrocytoma and glioblastoma. Arm 1) 100 mg/m2 temozolomide, given on days 1–7 of 1 week on, 1 week off vs. Arm 2) 60 Gy in 1.8-2 Gy fx, gross tumour volume (pre-op MRI) plus a 2 cm margin. Cross-over to other arm in case of progression. Primary endpoint overall survival. Non-inferiority trial.
 * 2012 PMID 22578793 -- "Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial." (Wick W et al, Lancet Oncol. 2012 Jul 13(7):707-15). Median F/U 25.2 months
 * Median OS 8.6 months in TMZ group, 9.6 months in XRT group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·09, 95% CI 0·84–1·42, p (non-inferiority)=0·033)
 * MGMT methylation found in 35% of pts. MGMT methylation associated with longer OS. EFS was longer in patients with MGMT promoter methylation who received temozolomide than in those who underwent radiotherapy (8·4 months [95e% CI 5·5–11·7] vs 4·6 [4·2–5·0]), whereas the opposite was true for patients with no methylation of the MGMT promoter (3·3 months [3·0–3·5] vs 4·6 months [3·7–6·3]).
 * Conclusion: TMZ is non-inferior to XRT in elderly patients. MGMT helps guide treatment choice.

WBRT vs. Observation

 * SGSG, 1981 PMID 6164465-- "Combined modality therapy of operated astrocytomas grade III and IV. Confirmation of the value of postoperative irradiation and lack of potentiation of bleomycin on survival time: a prospective multicenter trial of the Scandinavian Glioblastoma Study Group." (Kristiansen K, Cancer. 1981 Feb 15;47(4):649-52.)
 * Randomized. 118 patients Grade III/IV randomized post-op to 1) 45 Gy WBRT + bleomycin, 2) 45 Gy WBRT, 3) support care
 * Median OS: 10.8 mo vs. 10.8 mo vs. 5.2 mo (SS)
 * Conclusion: RT dramatically better than supportive treatment. No effect of bleomycin

 * BTCG 69-01 -- BCNU vs RT vs RT + BCNU vs Observation
 * Randomized, 4 arms. 303 patients, anaplastic gliomas, treated with surgery and steroids. Arm 1) BCNU alone, Arm 2) RT alone, Arm 3) RT + BCNU, Arm 4) best supportive care. BCNU was given on days 1-3 q6-8 wks. RT was 50-60 Gy to whole brain.
 * 1978 PMID 355604 — "Evaluation of BCNU and/or radiotherapy in the treatment of anaplastic gliomas. A cooperative clinical trial." (Walker MD, J Neurosurg. 1978 Sep;49(3):333-43.)
 * Outcome: median OS OBS 3.2 months vs. BCNU 4.2 months vs. RT 8.1 months vs. RT + BCNU 8.0 months (SS)
 * Toxicity: Acceptable thrombocytopenia and leukopenia
 * Note: This trial established first evidence for post-op RT over supportive management

Dose

 * Canada Multi-Institutional (1996-2001) -- RT 60/30 vs RT 40/15
 * Randomized. 100 patients. Age >60 years, KPS >50 (RPA Class IV 11%, V 45%, VI 44%). Arm 1) RT 60/30 over 6 weeks vs Arm 2) 40/15 to PTV1 over 3 weeks. Standard RTOG fields, start within 6 weeks of surgery
 * 2004 PMID 15051755 -- "Abbreviated course of radiation therapy in older patients with glioblastoma multiforme: a prospective randomized clinical trial." (Roa W, J Clin Oncol. 2004 May 1;22(9):1583-8.)
 * Outcome: Median OS standard 5.1 mo vs. short 5.6 months (NS). Fewer patients on 40/15 required corticosteroids, and more completed RT (90% vs 74%). No difference in KPS
 * Conclusion: reasonable treatment option for older patients

 * Australia (1990-1996) -- 60/30 vs 35/10
 * Randomized. Closed prematurely due to poor accural. 68 patients, anaplastic astrocytoma (excluded age <45 and ECOG 0-2) or glioblastoma multiforme. Median age 59. Arm 1) 60/30 to tumor volume + oedema with 3 cm margin vs Arm 2) 35/10 to whole brain
 * 2003 PMID 12885448 -- "A randomized trial comparing 35 Gy in ten fractions with 60 Gy in 30 fractions of cerebral irradiation for glioblastoma multiforme and older patients with anaplastic astrocytoma." (Phillips C, Radiother Oncol. 2003 Jul;68(1):23-6.)
 * Outcome: Median OS 60 Gy 10.3 months vs. 8.7 months (HR 1.5, NS)
 * Toxicity: No late toxicity per protocol, <30% completed QoL questionnaire
 * Conclusion: No significant difference, but wide confidence intervals due to small number of patients


text:
Template:Chechen/Header

 Chechen  — Содержани | Чудигар | Нохчийн абат | 01 | 02 | 03 | Талламанболх 1 | 04 | Хаархаттар

title: Template:Chechen/Header


text:
Chechen/Introduction

Чудигар

Introduction

Welcome to the world of Wikibooks' language guide to learning the Chechen language. You are here either because you have an interest in learning this wonderful ancient and modern language, you are either Chechen or have Chechen blood, you have a passion for Chechnya and/or languages, you are planning to travel to Chechnya, you have Chechen friends and would like to speak to them in their mother tongue, you want to understand Chechen music and culture, or you just want to learn Chechen for the fun of learning a language and just interested. Whatever the reason, you are here because you want to learn Chechen and we are here to help.

Chechen is a Northern Caucasian language language of the Nakh family. It is the mother tongue of over 1.3 million people all over the world. It is also the vernacular language of the Republic of Chechnya, located in Southwest Russia in the Caucasus and north of Azerbaijan and Georgia. Chechen is a rather old language, and first was written in the Arabic alphabet. It was then written in the Latin alphabet right after the Soviet Union formed. Since 1938, Chechen has been standardised in the Cyrillic alphabet, though some Chechens prefer to write in the Latin alphabet. This book will teach Chechen in the standardised Cyrillic alphabet.

You probably have never heard any language remotely close to Chechen. The closest language to Chechen, and mutually understandable, is Ingush. Another language similar to Chechen is Avar. Chechen is a language composed of strong consonant sounds with a tendency to skip and ignore vowel sounds. (Although, the vowel harmony is somewhat similar to that of Finnish or Turkish). There are many unusual sounds that a speaker of any Indo-European language might be unfamiliar with, or even be taunted by. There are also many influences from Arabic, giving sounds that have an equal counterpart in Arabic (such as хь and ح  ).

The grammar in Chechen is also really challenging. The verbs do not conjugate like most European languages do. Instead, verbs conjugate according to class and number. The class is a fundamental part of Chechen grammar. This is composed of four different sounds and letters, but we will cover all of this in this book. Do not be turned off by the challenges that await you, just remember that every language is complex, and that when you accomplish the goal of obtaining language knowledge, especially that of Chechen, the feeling is overwhelming.

Read more about the Chechen language

How to use this book
This book is a free content open source guide in learning the Chechen language. Though it can be edited by anyone, it is also being monitored by the authors and administrators of this book and Wikibooks to strive for 100% accuracy and verification. Do not be discouraged if you want to use this as your primary or even secondary resource in your studies of the Chechen language.

The book is set up in step-by-step lessons which will introduce the language like a classroom setting and similar to a textbook style tutorial. It will commence with the basics of the language, and gradually introduce grammar aspects of the language, rather than give you a bunch of grammar explanations and a massive list of vocabulary to learn on your own. The book is set up accordingly so you can go at your own pace whether you are a fast learner or prefer to take your time.

Use the navigation header above to navigate to the next lesson, a previous lesson, or the pronunciation guide. Also at the top will be audio files for you to use at your discretion. These are very useful if you want to get a hold on hearing and speaking the language, rather than just learning how to read and write.

At the end of each lesson will be small little practise exercises to test yourself on the knowledge you've gain and accumulated in the previous lessons. Do not be tempted to skip over them! It is very easy to just say ''Oh! I have done enough, I know the answers, no problem at all''. Try to work on each question and check yourself. This will only improve your knowledge of the language.

Learning a language is a tough challenge, but with this book, we will try to make it as informative, fun, and motivative as possible to help you learn the Chechen language. A good way to practise is reading the Chechen Wikipedia! Listen to Chechen radio too at Chechenyafree.ru live. You can also listen to daily broadcasts from Radio Free Europe North Caucasus. Аьтто хилла иншАлла!

title: Chechen/Introduction


text:
Radiation Oncology/CNS/Glioma

Glial Tumors
 * Pilocytic Astrocytoma
 * Optic Pathway Glioma
 * Brainstem Glioma
 * Low Grade Glioma (WHO II)
 * Anaplastic Glioma (WHO III)
 * Glioblastoma (WHO IV)
 * Glioma Randomized Evidence

title: Radiation Oncology/CNS/Glioma


text:
Java Programming/Nesting Exceptions

When an exception is caught, the exception contains the stack-trace, which describes the error and shows where the exception happened (i.e. where the problem is and where the application programmer should look to fix the problem). Sometimes it is desirable to catch an exception and throw another exception. If the new exception keeps a reference to the first exception, the first exception is called a nesting exception.

The above code is an example of a nesting exception. When the  is thrown, by passing in the   object reference as a parameter, the   is nested in the newly created , its stack-trace is appended together. When the  is caught, its stack-trace contains the original  's stack-trace.

This is a kind of exception conversion, from one exception to another. For example, calling a remote object using RMI, the calling method has to deal with  which is thrown if something is wrong during the communication. From the application point of view,  has no meaning, it should be transparent to the application that a remote object was used or not. So the  should be converted to an application exception.

This conversion can also hide where the error is originated. The stack-trace starts when the exception is thrown. So when we catch and throw a new exception, the stack-trace starts at when the new exception was thrown, losing the original stack-trace. This was true with the earlier version of Java (before 1.4). Since then, so called cause facility capabilities were built in the  class.

A throwable contains a snapshot of the execution stack of its thread at the time it was created. It can also contain a message string that gives more information about the error. Finally, it can contain a cause: another throwable that caused this throwable to get thrown. The cause facility is also known as the chained exception facility, as the cause can, itself, have a cause, and so on, leading to a "chain" of exceptions, each caused by another.

A cause can be associated with a throwable in two ways: via a constructor that takes the cause as an argument, or via the  method. New throwable classes that wish to allow causes to be associated with them should provide constructors that take a cause and delegate (perhaps indirectly) to one of the  constructors that takes a cause. For example:

Because the initCause method is public, it allows a cause to be associated with any throwable, even a "legacy throwable" whose implementation predates the addition of the exception chaining mechanism to Throwable. For example:

Further, as of release 1.4, many general purpose Throwable classes (for example,  ,  ) have been retrofitted with constructors that take a cause. This was not strictly necessary, due to the existence of the  method, but it is more convenient and expressive to delegate to a constructor that takes a cause.

By convention, class  and its subclasses have two constructors, one that takes no arguments and one that takes a String argument that can be used to produce a detail message. Further, those subclasses that might likely have a cause associated with them should have two more constructors, one that takes a  (the cause), and one that takes a String (the detail message) and a   (the cause).

title: Java Programming/Nesting Exceptions


text:
Find File Professional/General Preferences

The general preferences are three

 * Enable Tooltips for hidden filenames - will show you tooltip with the full name of the file if it is long enough not to fit in the File name column.
 * Don't Add single Letters - will not add single letters to the memory of the program. For example if you search for 'a' it will show you the results but won't add it ti the auto-complete memory.
 * Allow loading search path from the clipboard - will set up the startup path during app load to the contents of the clipboard if it contains valid path.

List view options
The List view options control the way the list will results look. Preview is updated after changes. Each colorbox coressponds to the color of the found file's type e.g. system, hidden. When you click on a colorbox a color dialog will appear. Select the color you want and click OK.


text:
Find File Professional/Search Advanced Preferences

The thread number controls the maximum number of threads that may be used in a search. The automatic option sets this number internally depending on the size of the used HD space or the available processors (when you have Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD X2 CPU). When it is checked the slider on the right is grayed and no longer available.

The Fast start option is trying to optimize the program for better user experience during the first search. Try to turn it off and compare performance. If it is better you can leave it unchecked.

Index Searches option can vastly improve performance for frequently searched patterns. Maximum number of searches to index is 500.


text:
Find File Professional/Misc Preferences

Here you can control the way auto-complete acts. You can turn it off by unchecking Complete words as you type. The second option allows you to delete a selection from the auto-completed text and search for the rest. For example, if you type 'annual' and the auto-completion brings you 'annual report' the ' report' will be selected so you can delete it or if you have the option for non selected text the program will delete ' report' and search only for 'annual' upon Enter pressed. But if you don't have this option turned on then the search pattern will be auto-completed to 'annual report'.

The option: Activate main window on... is useful when you are using the Special selection windows. When you move the mouse outside them to the main window (and have the option on) it will activate it without the need of a click.

title: Find File Professional/Misc Preferences


text:
Talk:English for B2 Students/Unit 10

Untitled
She either must not smoke in here (emphasizing it as though she would have to go to jail for it) or guests are simply not allowed to smoke in the room. I have never heard anyone saying someone mustn't do something. The words must not imply much emphasis (as opposed to shouldn't) and words are not being contracted in this case similarly to cannot. Applystudy 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:English for B2 Students/Unit 10


text:
Find File Professional/Open With dialog for single file

If you have checked the 'Open ...' check box the program that is selected in the list above will be launched with the file that is enclosed like that: 'chess.bmp'. If you supply any other arguments they will be added too but do not delete "%1".


text:
Find File Professional/Open With dialog for multiple files

Instead of this command I recommend using drag & drop functionality. The command is available when you select several files in the list with results and then right click them and choose Open With ...

Here you specify the program you want the files to be opened with and additional arguments in the textbox labeled Arguments: The '&files' will later be replaced by the sequence of the files that have been selected (ex. &files = " "document1.doc" "document2.doc"").

Found bugs: You cannot open more than 50 or so files with this command. Use drag and drop instead.


text:
User:Bigmanadil

bigmanadil genetic engineering

title: User:Bigmanadil