text:
User talk:Mfinney

Redirects
Hi, Welcome to Wikibooks. Please don't create redirects from the user and user_talk namespaces into the main content namespace. Thanks. Gentgeen 10:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not that big a deal, although it did mess up your talk page. (You should have not used your talk page as a sandbox.)  It's perfectly fine to work on a module in one's user space and then rename it into the module namespace when it is ready.  It would be a big deal if you had created a redirect the other way, from the main namespace into the user namespace. That is very much frowned upon. Uncle G 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming policy
Please read our Naming policy and rename the chapters of your modules in line with our policy. Please don't create any more chapters that are not sub-pages. Uncle G 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You only needed to rename the existing chapters, not to create duplicate pages with copy and paste. I've performed a history merge for you.  Please check each chapter's edit history to ensure that the current version is the most up-to-date version.  (This is not always the case after a history merge.) Uncle G 01:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to e-mail
For unknown reasons, my e-mail was rejected by your mail server so I will respond here to your message.

> Hey thanks for making the adaptions to the website for Fire Officer IV. Now it is starting to make sense. One of the issues I am running into that you may be able to give me some insight on options is:

> What I am looking at developing an avenue for firefighter training and certification curriculum to be delivered in a low cost or free format. This way training academies can reduce overhead and in turn reduce costs to the students (firefighters.) The courses I am developing are based on National Fire Protection Association standards (NFPA). For example, if you were to go to the NFPA standards and look for the Fire Officer Professional Qualifications... you would find Fire Officer I, Fire Officer II, Fire Officer III, and Fire Officer IV. Under, for example, Fire Officer IV, you would find the categories listed on my ebook. For a student or an instructo looking to teach such a course, they are going to look for the title listed and the headers for the sections or modules... any other will be confusing and probably won't recieve the support to add to this that I am looking for. Any thoughts on what I can do? You can add your book to a bookshelf - see All bookshelves > Finally, is there a section in Wikibooks that I can go to to research ways to market this to the general fire service community? You mean you want to spread information about this book and don't know how? There's no special place for such tasks at Wikibooks. If you want to discuss something, you can always use Staff lounge --Derbeth talk 15:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

community for learning
If you have time, please drop by Wikiversity/Modified project proposal and add some comments about the importance of making a Wikiversity an academic community. --JWSurf 18:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

fire portal on wikipedia
I only know of the wikipedia fire portal. Is that the site you are talking about? Timothy Clemans198.104.0.100 18:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of Ground Ladders/Ground Ladders
You seem to have blanked Ground Ladders/Ground Ladders, that is, you apparently deleted everything from the page. Is there some reason why you blanked it, or was it an accident? --Kernigh 04:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Different information will be added to this one, more consistent with NFPA standards. Please don't delete this page.--Mfinney 12:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that P-18 Training/Cognitive Applications/P-18 Test One and P-18 Training/Cognitive Applications/P-18 Test Two are also blank. Is Wikibooks to delete these pages, or revert them to their text before the blanking? --Kernigh 04:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Please delete this page. Formatting issues caused us to go with a .pdf upload rather than cutting and pasting inormation. Sorry for doing that.--Mfinney 12:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Response
Mfinney, I was led to believe that the bot, which is used by another user, User:tsca.bot would preserve all internal links. Can you give an example of where it went wrong. I'd be interested to know its limitations? Jguk 08:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Offhand Thoughts Regarding Formal Organization of "Wikiversity"
I think success in my terms is feasible without formal organization locally. I also think formal organization achieved by some publicly formulated and rigorously followed method which a larger fraction of potential participants trust and buy into would greatly speed progress locally to critical mass. Without formal organization forking is much more likely. Discouragement and fast fade in face of conflict is also a well known phenomenon. Neither is necessarily a bad thing but neither is helpful to immediate speedy development of high quality free online materials effectively delivered to participants world wide. Massive projects require large groups of people working together concurrently somehow if one wishes enjoy the fruit of the effort. Forking assures diverse approaches but dissipates potential concentrations of locally effective participation, ease of initial advertising, and access to adequate mindshare for visible irrefutable results. Perhaps this is the hidden agenda of the stacked Board or our illustrious leader. Protect the initial mutation or paradigm prototype while the seeds sown have time to propagate and flourish. Perhaps they merely wish disgruntled participants would take their experiments to wikicities.com and make them some money while flourishing there. Easy to toss around wild allegations or coldly evaluate opportunity, history or risk matrices. Difficult to prove beyond any reasonable doubt and expensive to force change. So here we sit with the status quo.

Unfortunately, in my view, there is no current ratification procedure beyond "Jimmy says ...". He initiated the Wikimedia Foundation via a private cabal or uniliaterally. Larry Sanger assured the mailing list they were discussing it over a period of months, so probably the TINC method is most descriptive of actual process. He publicly announced his intention on the community mailing list to stack the Board and then proceeded to do so. This has not been a large problem for Wikipedia since an evolutionary selection process of volunteers was already in play. Few people other than actual troublemakers and vandals will choose to stick around after being labeled and lynched by an existing "community".

Much might be accomplished by simply eliminating sock puppet uncertainty in straw polls. I have seen no real efforts to improve these so I assume the current stacked Board and owner is satisfied with results from processes developed to date. We volunteers are clearly satisfied as we are still here. Who cares how much effort goes into partially validating sock puppet votes if one can simply ignore the results and pick own methods by fiat? Uncertainties regarding consensus can be debated ad infinitum on the mailing lists until desirable options are available for selection and announcement. If regular influx of newcomers exceeds steady state loss of experienced volunteers then the community is golden, right? In my view, this does not mean Wikiversity is bound and doomed by precedent.

Wikimedia software users and expertise even to the developer level is propagating ever more rapidly and it is just a matter of time before various groups of educators, volunteers, students, other participants fan out to establish alternatives and then fan back into specific environments percieved as successful. What Alexi and Google give, a better mousetrap can swiftly divert. For example. It would not surprise me to see your Fire School migrate en masse to a server controlled by a local fire department somewhere. Even if much counterproductive and delaying nonsense remained; it would probably usually be nonsense less destructive to the fire fighters' community's common interests in qualifying its pool of volunteers or professionals. The local (en.wikibooks.org/wiki/wikiversity) remaining fire school/learning portal, to retain any credibility at all, will need to point to other going concerns. A departure of even a significant minority of local expertise should inevitably be pointed at if it successfully spawns an effective online resource to the remaining community. The "Spanish Fork" might provide data regarding such a case. Maveric149 is familiar with the history of the fork, speaks Spanish, and has participated at Spanish Wikipedia so he would be a good source of information if you ever get interested in forking phenomenon.

Volunteer fire departments in the rural/small town areas of the routinely raise and spend hundreds of thousands if not millions on equipment. It is no stretch of the imagination to assume eventually somewhere an internet capable volunteer (or paid professional network administrator) willing to learn enough to establish and support a "Wikiversity" environment adequate and eventually perhaps even augmented for your Fire School will emerge. The original wikipedia.com attracted a couple of volunteer administrators. I am unclear on whether they were associated initially with Bomis or Nupedia.com. Perhaps after a couple of valuable volunteer fire fighter candidates or departments get tired of excessive nonsense or chaos or delay in pursuing their educational goals at Wikiversity; a fire chief or city council somewhere will view a few thousand dollars for a starter server and bandwidth as valuable outreach to the local community as well as fire fighters worldwide. I advise you to suggest a trial fork period if contacted privately. After someone proves they can provide sustainable reliable web access with a minimal oversight hassle from the top, bottom or sideways; then you can stop updating the less effective community site. Simple evolution. Tourist towns might be particularly interested. Name recognition is lucrative in some industrial towns. Perhaps local high schoolers not allowed to particpate at actual fires could find satisfaction supporting the server and associating with responsible role models. It would take little effort for such a budding virtual organization to support additional potential schools. The biggest hurdle is adequate initial infrastructure and keeping that infrastructure online reliably.

For example, two local schools districts with a couple of hundred computers apiece routinely limit student internet access on those computers to reduce virus contamination which teachers performing other duties as assigned or expensive staff specialists or consultants must repair. BOINC screensavors are not allowed to enhance research efforts worldwide despite systems left idling overnight to reduce thermal shock failures. If a forward thinking, frugal, or innovative fire chief proposed to help reduce the high school's operating expenses, or better ... enhance its effectiveness, by organizing responsible volunteer administration of school student computers by day (or simple mentoring regarding how to fix student enabled disasters and reduce future risks) Wikiversity Grid by night machines might become available. Given proper system architecture and software, a single set of participating high schools in each English speaking timezone could in theory exceed the reliability and capacity of Wikimedia's existing centralized server farms and mirrors. I doubt a "Jimmy says ..." approach to formal organization would be adequate long term to address public concerns about manipulation of knowledge base issues such as propagation of personal bias, institutional bias, technical bias, etc. An arbcom operating in accordance with documented policies and procedures reporting to a duly elected Board of Directors by delegates of responsible community groups such as Fire Chiefs, Police Chiefs, Principals, Education Boards, etc. might be viewed as a better approximation of useful "NPOV" than "Jimmy says" selection and finalization on all controversial issues. Or perhaps we would fork into "The School Board says ...." or "My lawyer says .." etc. Perhaps each new wikimedia site will start with an "owner says" or the "adminstrator says" unless forced to evolve something else (or pretend to evolve something else) by the local participants. Personally I have a lot of faith in both evolution and the scientific method (try it and find out). If God can use it to evolve slime from quarks or neutrinos, and us from local strains of slime, I see no reason to think that monkeys typing cannot evolve the singularity. Might take a while. Might take a lot of participation.

To conclude on a very positive note: At least one credible authentic open source developer previously selected and approved by the stacked Board as a Wikipedian capable of performing community activities responsibly is publicly pondering porting the Wikimedia Software to Java. This should greatly increase the potential pool of Wikiversity type servers and qualified supporting personnel. Later dude. Lazyquasar 04:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your query about my opinion of Wikiversity's chances
Mike, in answer to your query. I think success with the Wikiversity concept is inevitable somewhere on the public internet within a few years. Roberth has assured me there is more activity on Wikiversity than is easily detected or obvious (presumably unless one uses the site monitoring tools effectively). This makes the site look dead to casual traffic and discourages newcomers. Personally I do not track individual users and I have esoteric interests so perhaps I have an unduly pessimistic current impression. There are some very good Wikibooks and modules in demanding arcane subjects such as advanced physics and Computer languages so some specialized/advanced expertise in addition to yours has found us, us construing Wikibooks as the Wikiversity library/publishing/bookstore as any typical drop in traffic would assume. Your fire school is the first organized effort with specific achieveable goals attracting obvious (to me) external interest and new participants that I have seen. I consider it likely that when you succeed your efforts will be pivotal in inspiring others locally. I think this is true whether your fire school succeeds here or at a fork using similar or different web technology. In first case, Wikiversity is validated as feasible. In the second there would be a firestorm of re-evaluation. Why did the fire school succeed elsewhere from scratch without the supposed advantages of an existing community and potential pool of participants and proven technology and word of mouth advertising to attract initial web traffic?

Consider how a simple implementation of JWSurf's genious in proposing assisting scholarship/research/citation at Wikipedia guarantees Wikiversity positive exposure. It is work many of us would do anyway as introductory background material and preparation for drafting lesson plans. May as well get credit for it with Wikipedia community. Besides, how can it fail to benefit Wikiversity when in the middle of a debate/discussion or rephrasing a POV argument someone cites a list of links at Wikiversity page such and such, provides a best link as a citation and proceeds to "NPOV" your best argument into obscurity or irrelevancy or flat out incorrectness which must be deleted? There is no recourse. Wikiversity must be visited to at least look over the list of available links, data, and analysis or one must go do one's own research/scholarship. Or that fate worse than death, admit error or simply lose face via a silent fast fade later excused as having gone on vacation or sabbatical. Exposure could even be throttled if we collected some basic stats and graphed them. Do we get .00001 or .1 student/participant edits per edit/citation on Wikipedia? If Amazon can track and count links to books surely we could do the same in our custom citations, then aggregate anonymously and graph? Pick critical threshold to snowball desired participation in desired time frame, do the initial seed scholarship, draft initial materials at whatever initial level desired for desired retention rate, go make the estimated number of Wikipedia edits (productive improvements all, we are not spam linkers .... ok one NOT! I find desirable in Wikiversity policy, if someone else demands freedom! I can live with avoiding grumpy Wikipedians victimized by Wikiversity spam linkers; maybe even do my fair share of appeasing apologies to help calm the victim) then go back and play around at the course in work.

Who knows what we (Wikiversity community participants) would figure out as a result of your impending successful learning community migrating to a more responsive, useful, productive environment focused on your communities' learning needs? Well, join you and your team at new location if possible; obviously, if your solution fits well with specific personal goals. I personally suspect different schools or bodies of knowledge will need different approaches to propagating knowledge and participation over the virtual environments we are building on the internet. People trying to responsibly assist others with experimenting with DNC machines driven by files from the internet will need a different approach from allowing a kid to play with source for a graphics editor in a math or computer science course. A computer crash is a lot less dangerous to a neophyte than a tool bit fracturing under inappropriate speeds or loads. Likewise, people working with a single home system depended upon for food budget critical income, kids homework and/or family email ... will need different download and installation procedures or helpful advice than a computer professional working with a network of diverse operational and experimental machines. When I start aggregating information at a free engineering site for fun or profit an initial service will undoubtedly be some reviews of various free software tools as well as recommended avoid lists. It will save everyone a lot of time to distribute the load, evaluate, rebuild cycle some of the crappier advertised stuff available online involves. Risks are different and sometimes subtle. The personal opportunity cost/risk and cost of recovery or salvage efforts will be different, resulting in different reasonable options for participation in free projects.

Likewise JWSurf appears to me to have awesome potential as a founding community participant. An experienced academic scientist with complete resources and credentials and willingness to work with any comers. Initially I mean. Rapid ejection should be more appropriate at Wikiversity if some version of effective forking prevails over the "there can be only one" philosophy of knowledge chunks and truth. All his portals are missing is effective advertising to divert appropriate traffic to him. And some basic Wikiversity procedures, examples, and SOP. If he must do all marketing (and rudimentary mentoring) himself, and then do it again when the URLs change due to "community" indecision or Board diversions, and gets no coaching assistance from mutual aid factions within his participant base or learning portal community, then what does he gain from FDL'ing his materials here at Wikiversity? Authority to proceed with a stable namespace is fundamental to any kind of method of generating web traffic. I do not know him personally from elsewhere. I suspect he is in a holding pattern until approval is received and/or basic policy established to make participation here worth his effort. With his experience, credentials, communications skills, and willingness/ability to smooth ruffled feathers and attempt to mediate agreements; I suspect he can single handedly initiate the local biology/neurology activity (and probably wide range of associated skillsets and schools) with active traffic as soon as he feels it an appropriate investment of colleagues, subordinates, personal and student time. I further suspect he has access to better collaboration facilities at his job than wiki can provide at moment but is interested in wide effective outreach to the general public worldwide via grids. (As you have probably noticed Wiki interactivity reaches out and grabs some people even though they fear it initially. There was an excellent reason for Wikipedia's edit boldly policy concisely advertised on the front page initially.)   It also looks to me like he has sufficient credentials and resources to productively receive and implement grant money if he becomes convinced wiki learning communities can assist with achieving any of his professional goals. If he expresses any interest we (a group of interested willing volunteer Wikiversitians) could team wiki some grant proposal prototyppes, charter, basic procedures, etc. etc. and he could sign and mail custom tailored proposals whenever they were likely to generate our seed money. Obviously he would need to coach us after acquiring intelligence regarding likely funding sources and qualified application and also regarding what resources we would need and constraints his academic employer would levy on the servers, software data and bandwidth .... peronally I would rather go after Homeland Security money and setup an independent NGO. Iraqui war, education issues, taxes and deficits are all coming to a head. We could be the next well funded straw grasped. Maybe our military advisers this time around will be restricted to safe U.S. bases and telecommute. If so they might find FDL'ed educational materials a useful tool in the War on Terrorism currently scheduled for completion under existing strategic policies no sooner than 2250.

OTOH For all we know a college or high school somewhere has already been experimenting privately or publicly with Wikimedia software and either google will so inform us during a random search, a human interest new article will catch someone's eye soon, or a passerby will put a link on our front page. So far the links I have followed have lacking somehow in my view. If you now tell me to just set it up myself, it is the hacker way, we may be enemies for life. 8( If I had thought it would take a couple of years to begin a couple of years ago I might have approached the small business administration, some funding philanthropist organization, some P'hd buddies in education or former colleagues in mysterious black programs for seed funding.  However, I do not have the expertise or credentials to run a real university and I do not want to be holding the bag on a couple of million dollars worth of nonresults as a result of bad timing when Wikimedia or a real university or government agency decides to proceed with the obvious.  Surely there must be a philanthropist, entrepreneur, bureaucrat, or politician somewhere who sees some potential in establishing mutual aid societies across the digital divide?  Where are the political conservatives advocating fair cost effective welfare?  FDL'ed materials are given fairly to everyone.  Perhaps Howard Dean would be willing to cough up seed money if we posted a notice encouraging U.S. citizens to register to vote? He has been claiming the internet will revolutionize politics. Maybe he needs an FDL'ed political science class functioning online to help prove this in the next set of elections? Is it necessary to wait ten years for the conflicted Board members to achieve billionaire status off of wikicities.com before anyone anywhere else with access to web servers and bandwidth will experiment with wikimedia software or equivalent? It makes me wonder if the U.S. military budget should be cut in half and the Education department by two thirds just to get some "civil service" attention. Maybe we could invite Hillary to swing by and host/moderate or answer questions at an asynchronous global village meeting? Oops! Nope. We would have to announce a permanent URL so the world could find us over a period of months whenever it was convenient.

Maybe we should send an email to Stallman or the EFF.org proposing a GNUversity.org or .com or a Free Electronic University. You know it is possible we could do some cool interactive firebug simulations. Might need some study to verify it decreased fire hazards more than it inspired arsonists. Maybe you could get some funding for a server and supporting computer consultants from the Forestry service. Any idea how much they spend on TV advertising with their Smokey the Bear campaign? Last time I checked the Wikimedia Foundation's total budget was under a half a million a year for all the server's, bandwidth, and a couple of employees. A server farm might be good addition to your local firehouse. Makes good trickle heat in winter, you could partner and trade off with a fire station down under to impress local eco/recycling enthusiasts with your efficient dual use of electricity. Never mind the cost of dual manufacturing unless they bring it up. Reduced load from summer air conditioning might justify it anyway. Your staff could probably also build and support local hazard databases. Here in Oregon they mandate that be done at a State Government level and have made about zero progress getting timely information to the official emergency response crews. The local gas company has started building their own private database of hazards in private residences when you inquire about connecting to gas lines.

In conclusion to your original question. I just do not know. It is intensely frustrating. A few years ago I thought the Wikiversity concept was obvious and inevitable awaiting only widespread public notice of a successful encyclopedia to spawn millions if not thousands or at least hundreds of competitors as every other U.S. cow college raced to allow their students to compete with MIT's open course ware initiative with little or no special effort required on the part of the general faculty. Not to mention "outreach". Oregon State must have ten or twenty outreach offices. They have one here locally (town of 5,000 county seat' probably 50,000 total in Coos County) competing with the local community college. Both colleges are tax supported. Where is the benefit to increasing overall costs, raising costs and reducing remote participation in outreach programs vs. using existing assets on the mother Campus efficiently during off hours to reach worldwide audiences at no additional cost to Oregon taxpayers while providing unique research opportunities for Oregon State students and faculty? At the weeder courses at OSU's Engineering Physics program we were encouraged dramatically to form study teams and work together to understand the material. Failure was an option and no B.S. conferred if you failed 400 level Electromagnetism, Mechanics, or Quauntum Mechanics. After a week or two of homework sets the advice took effect. We ignored loose women at drunken parties to form alliances, studied in mass late at the student memorial union, consulted archives of secret notes established at frat houses and handed down between domitory acquaintenances, sought out esoteric examples in old texts at libraries, purchased extra reference texts, purchased higher level graduate course level texts, anything to grasp this bizarre dense material we were drowning under. Half of us washed back or out each year. Has this changed? I doubt it. So where are the misfits needing extra help in one senior level course when everyone else has moved on to the next class or homework set? Surely there should be some evidence of their passing at Wikiversity in the last two years if there is any merit in studying collaboratively via the internet. Perhaps the firewalls block us or the illegal MP3 downloads saturate their bandwidth at critical times when desperados would be finding Wikiversty help desks and asking questions? Know anybody with college kids you could ask about this bizarre mystery? Most of my friends kids are just at the high school stage.

I still think it is obvious and inevitable but if this is correct where is it? Wikipedia is near the top twenty of overall internet websites by traffic. Every other high school, well maybe one in three or five, in the industrialized world has sufficient assets: computers, a computer club, alma maters and parents with computer skills and some of them want high SAT scores. Wikimedia's resources could easily be matched by any PTA or Alma Mater to establish a generic Wikiversity. They (wikimedia developers, Bomis, Wikipedia community and Wikimedia Foundation) have successfully done the heavy lifting of software development and project prototyping. They have Encyclopedia Britannica and Microsoft Encarta on the defensive in public interviews for God's sake! All a new organization needs to do is be friendly, honest, and clear regarding community goals and motives to internet participants to build an expanding community. Wikipedia has even prototyped much of the heavy lifting associated with that, although I think large improvements are possible. Clearly I have slipped back into the twilight zone. Maybe the black helicopter guys have routed me into their private supercomputer web servers again. Gotta go get some sleep.

If I get my Verizon DSL to talk to Fedora Core Linux in the next few days I may be getting a domain and light commercial bandwidth (probably near half a mb both ways) soon. If so, I will probably attempt a free engineering specific site of some kind and divert other interests to other wikis. Failing that perhaps a Java version of a content tracking wiki will become available within a few years. Even I could setup a single button installation of a Java based wiki server under Windows and run it a few months to see it it is reliable enough to trust with a few million man years of semi random human effort donated over the internet. Or I could cheerfully assume when the effort becomes valuable somebody else will download it, thus acting as an offsite backup to my local PC based seed server.

What is your best guess regarding local (Wikiversity) low levels of action and possible impending failure to achieve Board approval? Can you see fundamental flaws in people cooperating via available wiki tools to deliver free educational materials to each other? I mean if internet collaboration works with operating systems, compilers and nested apps layers and mutually antagonist proposed standards ... some of the most complex finicky aggravating work ever discovered or created by humanity ... vulnerable to a single bit rot event or a script kiddy with internet access ... is there a fundamental reason nobody will develop, download or use free educational data or participate at a development site for the same? Besides having no stable place (URL, namespace, whatever) to put it I mean. And marauding screaming meemies shouting Wikiversity is NOT %put random pet peeve% here? Perhaps if you, Derbeth, JWSurf or some other valuable looking member of the community with no previous adverse interaction with the Board asked politely on the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list what the holdup is we could get some reasonable (timely, specific, useful) feedback. Do not mention my name or use my wording, idioms or slang. The stacked Board ... well the old nonexistent cabal anyway, is well aware of my potentially inflammatory opinions regarding benevolent dictators with potential conflicts of interest soliciting public donations of resources under false pretenses. Sorry about the book. Guess I am bit more frustrated than I thought.

What is your opinion of Wikipedia? Would you let your kids use it online after adequate periodically recurring basic internet safety briefings and occasional unadvertised field tests or restrict them to a CD offline? You know. Basics. Never meet without parental permission (and escort?). Uncle Mike will never arrange by email to meet you anywhere he will come to the house or school only in person, never send a friend of his to pick you up. Give out no personal data. No escalating arguments with nuts, simply discretely move on. Etc. If so, at what rough age or school/mental development level? In your view, is the Wikipedia community likely to degrade and collapse in a few years when when they run out of large volumes of web surfers noticing it for the first time or are they retaining and developing applicable community collaboration skills faster than people get bored (or trolled or lynched) and move on? Is it a fad or a fairly steady state fact of the internet accessible future that future projects and training plans can responsibly be budgeted and built around?

This whole surreal experience is like a microcosm of Fermi's question regarding extraterrestrial life. To paraphrase: If vast hordes of intelligent social learners exist on the planet (homo sapiens) with viable internet access (300 million and counting up?).... then .... where are they?

I think Wikipedia's past procedures imply we are nonexistent. When there is a link to wikiversity.org on the main portal project advertisements people will start showing up and the policy debates can all start over. And when they are done we still will not have any routine ratification method beyond "Jimmy says ", the "stacked board" says, or the committee chairs selected by Jimmy and the Board says,

Eventually various schools and portals will find that they need local policy, which must be tailored for their circumstances, and for which they must await review and approval from some appointed committee somewhere who knows nothing about local specilized issues ... and so then to form a useful local committee with authority to enforce local safety issues the locals will find they have to fix the entire committee system which was never formally ratified by the Board because a legal question got lost pending review or vote on a secret (non-public) committee mailing list.

Cloning Esperanza is not the answer. At least not in my view. There is no way for typical users to verify the sockpuppet counts. No verifiable consensus. When new faction participants figure this out it only further erodes whatever confidence they had in the legitimacy of the existing stacked Board. Like it, fork it, or just leave is the standard response when somebody gets grumpy about this inability to modify or question past decisions handed down by Jimmy or with whatever his political machine decides. Most people in disagreement with this process simply leave. Life is short. Let someone else argue about how to get across the digitial divide or whether the sky is blue blue light blue or blue light blue blue with annoying people.

If you mean setup an organization that can and will leave when faced with the ultimatum of detrimental consequences from compliance or inability to act pending Board approval not forthcoming .... sure we could do that. We could even setup a secure verifiable voting system for the group. Either gnome or debian have one that looked ok to me a few years ago that we could review, tweak for infallibility and auditability, and implement. It is not really useful or necessary unless one is attached to the local community and wishes to succeed on Wikimedia Servers under the control of "Jimmy says" or a new social contract emerging from improved bargaining position. Such as group can apply little useful pressure because there is no verifiable count of the constituency of the Wikimedia community. Is it 50 key participants who wrote 90% of Wikipedia whom Jimmy must appease? Do they know who they are and this power they have to influence Jimmy? Are there 300,000 significant contributors now? I think I saw a number of 500,000 registered accounts but that could be faulty memory. What is a semi qualified vote count of 268/300 sockpuppets or verified users in the face of 500,000 plus or minus uncountable users, donors, stakeholders? Jimmy is a good guy, founder and former owner so he must fullfil his sacred trust and do as he feels is best to represent the silent/noisy majority and the people/organizations he has pitched for cash donations. Most of the people who stick around can get along with his hand picked "leaders". Natural selection in progress. There will never be a viable local constituency to oppose "Jimmy says". When he feels it is appropriate for whatever reasons there may be changes or perhaps he will face revolution in the ranks or perhaps the outside experienced leadership the Board is contemplating bringing will revise matters with all due respect for phenomenal success and shining leadership skills displayed to date.

Why am I still here occasionally? I am still learning and making contacts. I am confident the Wikimedia software and the various types of online communities it is capable of supporting have a large role to play in our nearterm future on this planet. I intend to catch a wave soon. Lazyquasar 13:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity is very much alive
Hi Mike,

I'm sorry I haven't been more active in helping along your course (which is looking great, by the way), but I just want to counter the perception that Wikiversity is not going anywhere. I have been asked to join the Special projects committee, one of whose tasks it is to set up Wikiversity as a fully-fledged Wikimedia project. The above perception of a "hand-picked" "stacked board", and the notion that Wikimedia can only do what "Jimmy says" is, quite frankly, absolutely ridiculous - one of the board members, Anthere, has been consistently supportive of the project, and I think others are positive about the project, providing it has a clear and practical mission to start with as per the board's decision. I don't know exactly what time frame we're talking about before it's set up, but I'm looking forward to working with you on this, and finally getting this show on the road! (It's probably better to message me on my meta page.) Talk to you soon. Cormaggio 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Great to hear back from you Mike, thanks! (By the way, I'm checking Wikibooks regularly now so you can reply here (even here on your own talk page - I've added it to my watchlist).

 * So, basically the situation with Wikiversity is this: The board has set up a Special projects committee, which I have been asked to join. We are currently setting up our modus operandi, and one of those things will be to set up subcommittees on individual projects, such as Wikiversity. This subcommittee is the "core initiative" - we'll be (hopefully) voting on that tomorrow. When that's in existence, we (the subcommittee - that includes you ;-)) have a few weeks to at least report on our own procedures, if not actual recommendations to set up Wikiversity. So, like I said, I don't know how much time this will take, but if we all put in the work, it could be quite soon indeed :-) And, of course, I'll keep you informed. Take care - and great to hear about the feedback on your course - it's really encouraging. Cormaggio 14:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, and PS: my research has been dithering a bit over the last few months, but I've finally found (rediscovered) what I'm looking for - Wikiversity! Cormaggio 14:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Great to hear your research is going to be on Wikiversity. I'd be curious to see what pans out from it. My dissertation is on web-based learning, so your study would be interesting to my findings. Let me know what you need for the Wikiversity project... I will be glad to help out. Also, really glad to hear this is moving forward.--Mfinney 04:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I knew your research was on the same lines, and that's great, because I think what we'll need to do is to give some sort of background to learning online, what's been done, what works, what doesn't etc. Incidentally, the subcommittee I mentioned was approved last night - no more details as of yet - but we exist (and you're the first to know)! Cormaggio 12:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * AWESOME NEWS! I'm glad to hear it was approved. I agree with your thinking on initial steps, there seems to be so many variables going on within Wikiversity that early steps should be pulling it together. Also, some type of definition of "learning online." The term carries so many definitions, we should look at them to see which applies to us. --Mfinney 16:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Nod. I'm going to set up a page on Meta where we can work on things like a definition of learning online and how it applies to us etc. I've done a recent literature review of wikis in education, but it needs to be tweaked - have you done anything similar yourself? (Maybe even link to one paper/article you think is useful for now..?) But we also need to be pragmatic here - are we suggesting we set up Wikiversity as an e-learning centre? I don't think that will work or be accepted - it has already been rejected. We need to be specific to our context, but first we need to specify what that context (ie scope) is. Cormaggio 19:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I would say we do a transition (slowly). Begin with a resource for learning materials and things like that. Create an online collaboration to get the teachers and faculty comfortable and we will find there is less resistence to something like this. We are a resource for the current colleges and universities that are out there. Begin to add resources for students as well. Create avenues for (again) collaboration and networking. From there, the transition is much easier to an online environment. Online courses can be an easy step then. It also allows us to build credibility. One of the things we could do as well is begin building research. Create a storehouse for whats going on in the universities. Again, easy step from there into our own research (I know I know... frowned upon.) What we are talking about here though is a complete change in paradigm for education... we don't want to let the Laggards (Geoffery Moore reference) hold us back because we want to be the cutting edge technology... but we don't want to leave our wounded either... what are your thoughts? --Mfinney 21:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm absolutely 100% behind you here - and on research too. I've been arguing for quite some time now that Wikiversity needs to be allowed to host original research - that way we can truly build learning communities. You're right we need to start small and manageable and look to who we can work with, including universities etc. But look at all of the other Wikimdia sites that could benefit from Wikiversity. We can have a school of translation, where material gets reused across language projects. We can set up projects to find and discuss how to go about researching and writing a balanced encyclopedic article on a given topic. We can even start an initiative to write MediaWiki code to help the developers. It's all good! JWSchmidt and I have been discussing Wikiversity almost as a service provider to begin with (have you been following any of the discussions on Meta?). It will probably be a lot more, yes, a paradigm shift, but yes, the focus now needs to be on what will give it the best possible start. Cormaggio 22:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I would love to see the discussion you guys have been having onthe service provider. Where is it? Should we begin to set up a page to begin pulling all the past discussion together and begin bringing in the focus?--Mfinney 07:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, the sheer volume of text about Wikiversity is intimidating (hence, I feel, the board's confusion). You're right - what we need to do is synthesise and distill this into a shared vision, and then supplement this with background theory. If you want to catch up on these conversations - I'd recommend selectively reading the following:

 * Wikiversity chat 04Nov2005 - IRC conversation between myself and John Schmidt (JWSurf) - see also Talk:Wikiversity:About for background to this
 * Wikiversity/Modified project proposal - current state of proposal and discussion about this (ie ok, but slightly confused)
 * Wikiversity (for background) - outdated, but talk page has ideas if you're interested
 * m:Talk:Moving Wikiversity forward - content page has been cocked up slightly
 * And if you're looking for a theory of wiki-learning

 * Learning community - talk page page has idea about service courses
 * m:Wikiversity:Learning - newer page, still in construction, similar idea
 * Phew! Good luck! Cormaggio 15:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow...looks like you guys have really been doing a lot of work. I DEFINITELY agree with the concept that whatever we come up with for online courses... it definitely needs to be interactive... not just a bunch of stagnate pages. The only issue I see is that the pages seem to be the center point for the wiki projects. However, I am finding that such components as the IRC are a little too complicated for the average computer user. As well, doesn't seem to offer the capabilities of delivering a robust interactive class online. What are your thoughts?--Mfinney 18:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, yes, I think that materials need to be interactive - hey, we're a wiki. But still, one proposal is: let Wikiversity host lesson plans, teaching aids etc, but no actual courses/activities allowed. That word, "courses"; it really has been an issue, and we need to be clear about what we mean by a course and an activity - at the outset at least. My take on this, is that the materials hosted need to be used to prompt discussion, work, possibly research (another word which causes problems). So, for example, we have a coursesheet on how to critique an advertisement, examples, questions etc. But then we need to have a link - possibly on this page's discussion page, or maybe more usefully on a discussion portal for this topic. This is where the community who are interested in advertising hang out and this is where questions and answers are tossed around. It's a lot less focussed than Wikipedia or Wikibooks, which is about finding/selecting what is right or appropriate for this page; it is more about learning through questioning and evaluating the material that we find. That's (partly at least) my vision for how learning takes place on Wikiversity.

 * I think IRC has a place in this, as a logical 'real-time' complement to wiki (asynchronous) discussion. I think some people could start to tutor through IRC, but that this shouldn't be the only way in which courses/activities take place. For one, as you say, there are technical dimensions to this - some people might not like it, and some people might not be able to manage it. There is one such case at the moment, Pos 1000 (and Pos 1001) that I am worried about about, and though that concern is a kinda separate matter, it still does raise the issue of whether an IRC delivered class really serves the interests of the interested community - look at the comment on the talk page about not being able to participate, due to connection speed. Still, I think overall we shouldn't be looking at providing for "robust interactive classes online" just yet. I reckon we stick with the basics for now - wiki-based materials and related learning communities - and the rest will develop of its own accord (whatever "the rest" turns out to be). What do you think? :-) Cormaggio 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I would tend to agree with you. I think as well the "talk" pages will be helpful as well since it will build discussions and so forth. I think the benefit we can show in the immediate is the ability for online collaboration. From a curriculum development standpoint that really opens up some incredible possibilities. That is some of what I was thinking with the Fire and Emergency Managment page. Start by looking for ways to begin collaborating. --Mfinney 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Building Structure
I was just reviewing my squad email tonight when i came by a powerpoint presentation illustrating a new gusset-free truss consturuction that is nothing but finger jointed lumber glued together. This incredibly unsafe design feature reiterated to me the importance of building construction in evaluating safety of a given evolution. I think a piece overviewing the basics of building construction would be beneficial to the collaborative project. Do you think this would be best organized as a list of structures or a procedure for analysis? Shaggorama 06:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think both would be good. Thinking about it though... there is a lot on list of structures... but now a lot on procedure for analysis... I would find it interesting if you took the procedure approach.--Mfinney 13:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy review
Policy is not the most exciting subject at Wikibooks but we do have some major unresolved issues.

The most important issue, in my opinion, is Dispute resolution which starts by declaring that:

"Currently there is no official organized process to resolve disputes between users"

The suggested remedy for this is: Ad hoc administration committee which puts into place the absolute minimum in terms of an enforcement apparatus.

The second most important is No personal attacks where a vote has recommended the policy be enforced but it still languishes as "proposed".

The third policy that is needed and which will prevent edit disputes from getting out of hand is Editing disputes policy.

Other policies that need consideration are at: Policies and guidelines.

Please spare a minute or two to peruse these issues and add a comment and/or a vote. RobinH 12:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity Proposal Tasks and Schedule
Hi Mike, I am surprised you have not erased the wikiversity essays yet to free up some space for other visitors,

I have asked Cormaggio specifically when the Wikiversity proposal is going to be submitted to the Board for authorization to proceed with permanent dedicated URLs and wiki space. I get nothing back but vague generalities. Mr. Wales has indicated on the public Foundation mailing list in response to queries that to the best of his knowledge Wikiversity (within some appropriate initial scope) has overwhelming support from every single Board Member. The only holdup on its approval and activation is the complete lack of any information from the Wikiversity community/proponents in response to the Board's fairly minor inquiries. In view of this information do you have a feel for what specific tasks need to be completed and when they be finished? Is this a manpower issue or coordination issue between the appointed members of the activation committee? Is it a matter of final technical editing of wording such that a majority of the five acting committee members agree it is ready to go? I, and possibly others, would appreciate some specific information if it is available on how we can proceed immediately as there has been no visible action for months in the public space. Thanks. user:lazyquasar

title: User talk:Mfinney


text:
Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Characters/Marietta Edgecombe

Overview
Marietta Edgecombe is one of Cho Chang's closest friends and a member of Dumbledore's Army.

Order of the Phoenix
Marietta was first introduced to us when Cho Chang brings her, somewhat unwillingly, to the first meeting of Dumbledore's Army. She is present at the meeting at the Hog's Head, but says nothing, and we do not even learn her name, she is "Cho's friend".

We see her again at the first full meeting of Dumbledore's Army; here, she and Cho are practicing the Disarmament jinx, and Cho is so flustered by Harry's presence that she ends up setting Marietta's sleeve on fire.

Shortly before the Easter break, Professor Umbridge learns about the existence of Dumbledore's Army. Harry, forewarned by Dobby, manages to engineer the escape of the rest of the group, but is himself caught. In Professor Dumbledore's office, Harry finds that Marietta had reported the existence of Dumbledore's Army to Dolores Umbridge. (It is only at this point that we learn her surname; Professor Umbridge introduces her as part of her exposition of what has been going on.) As a result of this betrayal, a charm that Hermione had set on the parchment that all DA members had signed, had covered Marietta's face in purple pustules that spelled the word "sneak."

Marietta's blemishes make it very hard for her to show her face in Dumbledore's office, particularly as one of those present is Cornelius Fudge, the Minister for Magic. With her robes up around her face, her responses to questions put to her by Umbridge are answered generally by whimpers and gestures. Before she can actually give much testimony, Kingsley Shacklebolt, there as one of the Auror guards Fudge has brought with him, modifies her memory surreptitiously so that she no longer remembers that the DA had been meeting regularly. Marietta's changing her story almost incites Umbridge to violence against her. Harry recognizes the glazed look in her eye as being a symptom of memory alteration, though it seems nobody else there, with the possible exception of Dumbledore, does. Though she remains in Dumbledore's office until after Dumbledore's departure, Marietta plays no further part in affairs, simply standing there.

Afterwards, Harry and Cho get into something of a fight about Marietta, with Cho saying that Marietta is basically a good person who had made a mistake, that she had felt she had to because her parents work in the Ministry, and that Hermione's charming the parchment to do that to Marietta's face was sneaky. Harry, on the other hand, points out that Ron's father also works in the Ministry, and he isn't going around with the word "Sneak" on his face. He goes on to say that he thinks Hermione's charm was brilliant. This fight basically ends their relationship.

On the Hogwarts Express back home, Harry sees Cho and Marietta walk past; Marietta has apparently not managed to hide the word on her face, as she is wearing a balaclava.

Half-Blood Prince
It is mentioned in passing that Marietta's face still showed signs of the purple pustules, though she tried to cover them with make-up.

Strengths
Marietta, as a member of the DA, presumably has learned some degree of defensive magic from Harry and the other students. It is notable that, until the DA's final meeting, Marietta was in attendance (if a little reluctantly). As a result, readers can conclude that she has gained the same amount of knowledge as the rest of the DA.

She is a Ravenclaw, we me must assume she is at least a little intelligent.

Weaknesses
Marietta is very sensitive, particularly about her looks and reputation. She is incredibly distressed when Hermione's jinx takes effect and reacts by barely talking.

It is implied that she is a little distrusting, only signing up to the DA due to Cho's enthusiasm for it, and eventually providing evidence to Umbridge to reveal the existence of the DA.

Relationships with Other Characters
Marietta is Cho Chang's best friend and has her best interests at heart. At one point, not wanting to leave Cho alone with Harry, she pretends to be adjusting the strap on her bag. We are led to believe that she is also a friend of Mandy Brocklehurst, another Ravenclaw girl.

Despite what happens later in the story, she remains best friends with Cho.

Analysis
It may be notable that Marietta's betrayal proved how much information one must share to effect the jinx Hermione put on the contract they all signed. Initially Marietta only reported the location of the Room of Requirement; it was only when she went on to mention "some sort of meeting" that the pustules began to appear.

Questions

 * 1) Was Marietta's punishment by Hermione fair and proportionate to her 'crime'? If not, then was it necessary? Should her 'betrayal' of the DA have been punished by possibly-permanent disfigurement? Why or why not?
 * 2) Marietta's father is mentioned to work for the Ministry of Magic. Might this have been a factor in her choosing to place trust in Umbridge?
 * 3) Marietta is not mentioned in the final book. Might she have taken part in the final battle, as Cho did?

Greater Picture
The author has stated that, although Marietta's disfigurement would eventually fade, there would be a small amount of residual scarring. Evidently this has not happened by the time of Half-Blood Prince. As we never see her again, we are not to know when this happens. The scarring may serve as a reminder of her betrayal, as Harry's is a reminder of his survival.

Although Marietta's action is seen as an overwhelmingly negative thing, and many characters (specifically the Trio) have many bad things to say about her, calling her a "sneak", nothing about her beforehand suggests that she may be the one to eventually reveal the DA. )The reader is led to believe that Zacharias Smith, an overwhelmingly dislikeable character, is probably the source, although he turns out to be a loyal member of the DA.) She merely appears to be another of Cho's friends, and a relatively weak character. The reader may be blindsided by her sudden importance to the story.

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


text:
User:LM

I did not lock it. what is wrong?

title: User:LM


text:
User talk:Bookworm2007~enwikibooks

Image:Images.jpg
Why did you mark this image as public domain? It's clear that it is public domain. Also this image isn't used at any site - do you plan to use it in the future?

There is a clear warning at upload page so be careful in the future with upload images. --Derbeth talk 07:31, 2 December 2005 (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 Bookworm2007. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Bookworm2007~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 23:04, 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) 04:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bookworm2007~enwikibooks


text:
Physical Activity/Running a Marathon

Welcome!
As legend has it, the ancient Greek messenger Pheidippides ran from the plains of Marathon, Greece, to deliver the good news that the Greek army had successfully defended Athens from the invading Persian army. He successfully delivered his message, but at the cost of his life, collapsing no sooner than he had uttered, "Rejoice! We conquer!"

Since the first modern-day marathon race was run in the 1896 Athens Olympics, the marathon has earned an air of mystique. It's the classic distance, and the ultimate test of endurance (although some runners run even longer than that). Before the running boom of the 1970s, only the truly athletic or foolhardy would dare take on the 26.2 mile marathon course. But since then, the sport has truly grown, and marathons that drew only a few hundred runners in the early 1970s draw tens of thousands today.

And now, as more people complete marathons, many people make it a goal to run one at least once in their lifetime. That you're reading this Wikibook means that you've decided to take it on, or are considering it. What's stopping you?

In this Wikibook you'll learn the basics of how to plan for and complete a marathon, learn time-tested tips that will keep you going to the finish line. If you're a seasoned veteran, this book will also outline some tips for getting faster, so that your next marathon can be your best.

Once you cross the finish line of your first marathon, there's no turning back. So, prepare to go on the journey of your life. Rejoice! You're about to conquer!

Getting Off The Couch

 * 1) Stick both legs out.
 * 2) Rise from seat.
 * 3) Go up to your bedroom.
 * 4) Stick on some kit.
 * 5) Open front door.
 * 6) And off you go...

Wasn't hard, was it?

Plotting Your Course
It's worth it to give some thought as to what you want to accomplish in your first marathon. Making a plan gives you something to aim for as you train.

Choosing your marathon
When choosing your first marathon, you'll probably want to take several things into account.
 * Size. Marathons generally range in size from a few thousand to about 40,000 runners.  Some are so popular that there is either a first-come-first-served limit on entries (in the case of the Chicago Marathon and many others), or even a lottery (in the case of New York and a few others).  Running in a small marathon may appeal to many people, but in general, many first-time marathons choose larger marathons with full amenities and crowd support.  When doing your first marathon, crowd support will prove to be critical.
 * Climate and season. In general, choose a marathon in a climate that you're used to.  In general, warmer courses are more difficult than cooler courses.  Also take in to account the season.  Most marathons are held in the spring and fall when temperatures are moderate; running a summer marathon may not be a good first choice.
 * Lead time. As you'll see, you cannot just jump into a marathon and expect to be successful.  You'll need about four to six months to train for a marathon.
 * Homecourse advantage. If your local marathon is a large marathon that meets all these requirements, it probably would be an ideal choice.  The Honolulu Marathon is a warm tropical course with several hills making it rather difficult.  But a resident of Honolulu who knows the city and is fully acclimated is likely to be at an advantage over a mainlander, all other things being equal.

Starting Out
While much attention is devoted (understandably) to the actual running of the marathon, the training and preparation before the race is even more important for a runner to successfully complete a marathon. The training for a marathon can be broken down into three stages:
 * Base Training Base training, also known as pre-training, involves building solid fitness. As the name implies, base training is the building of an athletic base that leads to the actual marathon training.  Often overlooked, it is important because it makes prepares the body for additional training and lowers the likelyhood of injuries.
 * Marathon Training The marathon training is the actual training regimen that prepares a runner to run 26.2 miles. It involves increased mileage, long runs and speedwork, to name a few components.  This is the heart of the training, and it generally lasts from 15 to 25 weeks. This stage can be further broken down into additional parts:
 * Long Runs Long runs are runs, generally done weekly or bi-weekly, that prepare the runner for 26.2 hard miles by building endurance. The longest long runs in a training plan generally range from 18 to 26 miles, though for elite marathoners, they may be over 30 miles.
 * Easy/Recovery Runs Though training is done by repeatedly stressing the body, runners must allow themselves to recover and heal. This is done by either taking complete rest, or by doing short runs of only a couple miles.
 * Speedwork Though the marathon is certainly an endurance event, many runners will benefit from doing speedwork, that is short, high intensity intervals.
 * The Taper The taper lasts from approximately 3 weeks before race day to the race itself. It involves a deliberate decrease in training volume to allow the body to recover from training and become stronger, a process known as "peaking".  The goal of a taper is to peak on race day.

The first action an marathoner must take is to announce to their family and friends that they intend to run a certain marathon. Not only does this let them know that they should be supportive and encouraging, but it also commits the marathoner to complete their training and the race.

Creating a Training Plan
Be careful not to increase your mileage more than 10-15% Per week during training.

Having chosen a marathon and made the commitment to run it, the runner should create an organized, written plan that defines their training, in detail. Though this doesn't have to define every daily workout in advance, it should, at minimum, give weekly mileages for the three stages of training, the distances of each long run and the duration of each stage.

Preparing for Your Race
Be sure to go to the toilet (and do both types of business) before the race. Eat lots of carbohydrates which will add energy needed during the race.

After Your Marathon
Be happy! But also be cautious, your body is going to be extremely exhausted after running 26.2 miles. Make sure to stretch out and drink a ton of water/sports drink. The most effective way to recover after a run like this is to have a big glass of chocolate milk, it will help you muscles recover much faster.

title: Physical Activity/Running a Marathon


text:
Fencing/Electrical Equipment Repair

NOTE TO READERS: This book assumes the reader has general knowledge of the sport of Fencing and the associated equipment.

Electrical fencing equipment has entirely replaced the old jury system in all levels of competitive fencing. All of the equipment - the box, reels, wires, strip, and weapons - is for the sole purpose of determining the arrival and validity of touches.

At Foil, hitting the opponent's lamé with your weapon's tip causes the colored light on your side to go on, indicating a valid hit. Hitting anywhere else will cause your side's white light to come on, indicating an off-target hit. However, hitting your opponent's weapon or the conductive strip (if used) will not cause either light to come on.

Additionally, scoring machines have two small, usually orange, grounding lights that come on when either fencer touches their weapon to their lamé. On modern machines, this extends the lamé circuit to the weapon, causing a hit on the weapon to register as a valid hit. It also usually prevents the affected fencer from scoring.

At Épée, only the colored lights are used, the white lights are not used at all. Hitting anything except your opponent's weapon or the conductive strip with your weapon's tip will cause your side's colored light to come on. The grounding lights are still used, they indicate a hit on the strip or your opponent's guard. However, hits made on your opponent's tip in a way that depresses both tips (an extremely rare occurrence) should result in double touches if the internal springs are the same.

At Sabre, like Épée, only the colored lights are used. The white off-target lights are used only to indicate a problem with the circuitry. Touching any part of your weapon (not just the tip) to your opponent's lamé or conductive mask will cause your colored light to go on. For obvious reasons, hits made with the guard of your weapon (rather than the blade) are not allowed.

Touching your weapon to your lamé at Sabre has the same effect as at Foil - hits made on your weapon will register as valid touches and you will not be able to score. This is a much more common occurrence at Sabre for two reasons:
 * The valid target area includes the arms, bringing it very close to the weapon.
 * The entire weapon (not just the tip) is "hot", i.e. able to score. If one fencer's weapon is touching their lamé, any blade contact will cause a hit to be registered.

= How it works =

Foil
The foil Bodycord has only two prongs, current flows in one and out the other to make a circuit. The tip closes or turns on the circuit in the default or undepressed position, when depressed, the tip breaks the circuit. If the circuit is broken the scoring "box" checks to see if another circuit is closed. The second circuit is made up of the lamé or metallic jacket worn by the fencer. The lamé is grounded into the box and current flows out of the tip of the foil in the depressed position. If the tip is depressed while in contact with the lamé a hit is counted. If the tip is depressed on anything else then a white "bad hit" light goes off and the bout is paused briefly.

Épée
In épée, the body cord has three prongs on either end. The two prongs closest two each other are the A and B lines, the far prong is the C line. The A and B lines are used to determine when a touch has been made. When the tip is depressed, the A and B lines are connected completing the circuit and causing the light on the box to go off. The C line is used to ground the bell, preventing hits scored on it from landing. The barrel at the end of the épée contains a tip and two springs. The small spring is the contact spring, preventing the circuit from closing until the tip has travelled a certain distance. The larger spring is the pressure spring, to make sure the circuit isn't closed until the force of a 750 g weigh is applied to it.

Sabre
Sabre is the simplest of weapons and has only one (bayonet) or two (standard) prongs in the Bodycord. Fencers wear lamés that are grounded into the scoring box. The whole sabre blade is electrified and acts like a giant switch. The box does not do anything unless current is flowing through the grounding wire, then a hit is counted.

= What goes wrong and how to fix it =

Foil
The point won't support the test weight

This is the easiest problem to fix, and can be set right between bouts. All you need is a jeweller's screwdriver.

Take the tape off the tip just far enough to expose the set-screws. If your foil has a Leon Paul tip, unscrew the set-screws just enough to allow removal of the tip. Make sure the tip doesn't fly away when you undo the second screw! (It helps to hold the tip in the depressed position while undoing the screws.) If your foil has an Allstar tip, you must completely remove the set-screws in order to remove the tip. Be careful not to lose them, and hold the tip while removing the screws. If you are not sure what kind of tip your foil has, ask another fencer. Take out the tip and fish out the spring with the point of the screwdriver, if necessary. Stretch the spring out a bit (you want it to be about a millimeter or two longer than it was when you took it out). Then, put it back into the barrel, put the tip back in, and secure it in place with the set-screws.

If you have an Allstar tip, there's a trick to putting the screws into the tip. The tip has a brass collar with threaded holes for the set-screws. These holes must be lined up with the holes in the barrel. To do this, depress the tip, and if the holes aren't lined up, put the blade of the screwdriver into the screw-hole in the barrel and turn the collar until the two holes are lined up. Then, while still holding the tip down, put the screw in position and tighten. If the threads don't take hold, turn the screw backwards until the threads are lined up. Once the first screw is in, the other one will be no problem.

Be sure to replace the tape on the barrel before using the weapon in combat. Otherwise, you may ground out your opponent's electric jacket - the scoring circuit would pass from your tip to the electric jacket and back through your uninsulated barrel - and the apparatus would fail to record your valid on-target hits.

If you have the opportunity, you should test your weapon before taking it onto the piste with you. You may not have stretched the spring enough!

The off-target light registers when you haven't hit anything

This problem is caused by the closed circuit breaking when it shouldn't. Fortunately, it is often very easy to correct. Sometimes, it isn't even the fault of your equipment.

The first thing to find out, if possible, is what you are doing when the problem occurs. If it happens when you advance or retreat at a given spot on the piste, the problem is very likely in the reel. There could be a "dead spot" on the contacts - two dead spots at the same time, actually, since the reels have two sets of contacts - the reel would have to be replaced.

If the weapon fires when struck sharply (like when you do a beat or parry), your problem could be one of three things. First, the barrel could be loose on the blade. See if the barrel can be "wiggled" from side to side. If it can, grip the barrel in a pair of pliers and tighten it (clockwise, looking down at the tip) carefully but firmly. This can be done while on the piste, without even unhooking the foil from the body cord. If this is not your problem, you will have to use another weapon for the bout.

The second possible cause is if the set-screws have worked loose, causing the circuit to break between the tip and the barrel. You will have to take the tape off the tip to find out, so you can't check it out on the piste. The cure, of course, is to tighten the set-screws.

The third possible problem is a break in the wire which parts (cutting the circuit) when the blade is vibrated. You can check for this by bending the blade up, down, and sideways. If bending the blade causes the light to fire, you probably have to rewire the blade.

It may be that the light goes on if you jostle your sword hand. This happens mostly with Leon Paul guard sockets. First, try tightening the screw on the very end of the body cord plug. If it is tight, try scraping the centre of the brass contact disc inside the guard socket, and shaking in some graphite lubricant to enhance electrical conductivity. Failing this, change your weapon (because it is easier than changing your body cord!). If that fails, change your body cord, and inspect it later for bad or broken connections under the plastic boots that cover the plugs at either end.

Your weapon will not register a hit at all

This means a short-circuit that closes the circuit behind the point, so that breaking the circuit at the point has no effect. First, unplug your weapon. If the scoring box does not show a white light, the problem is not your weapon. Start unplugging equipment, starting with your body cord and working back, until the light comes on. The last unit unplugged is the one at fault.

If your weapon is at fault, you are going to have to look for the problem after the bout. Hook into a personal test unit, and then loosen the pommel (or hex nut, for an orthopedic handle) while keeping the point depressed. If the tester's light comes on, the wire was probably pinched between the handle and the guard. Take off the handle and check for a spot not covered by the plastic "spaghetti" tubing. If this looks like the problem, carefully slide the tubing over the problem area. Then, tape the wire to the inside of the bell so it goes away from the grooved side of the blade at a right angle. Finally, slide the handle back on, making sure that the notch in the handle goes over the wire. (There had better be a notch in the handle!) Tighten the pommel or hex nut, making sure the handle doesn't twist and attack the wire again. Then check the weapon to see that it works properly.

If this isn't the problem, you probably have a bare spot in the wire somewhere along the blade or in the tip. Just to be sure, though, try this test before giving up and rewiring. Take the tip out of the barrel. Then, hook up a test unit. If the light goes on, the blade probably has to be rewired.

If the light doesn't go on, inspect the spring - it is probably bent out of shape, and is shorting against the barrel. In any case, the blade shouldn't need rewiring.

The weapon registers all the time

First, unhook your weapon and short out the body cord plug - hold both contacts against your guard. (On a Leon Paul body cord, the contacts are the screw at the end of the plug, and the spring-loaded disc behind the metal bar.) If the scoring light ceases to register, the weapon is at fault. If not, pull your body cord out from the reel plug just far enough to short it with a screwdriver. The plugs to short out are the centre one and the one farthest from centre. If the box stops blinking and making a racket, the problem is your body cord, which you must change. Otherwise, it is the President's problem to solve.

If the problem is your weapon, you may have lost the tip. Don't rip the weapon apart before you check!

If the tip is still present, the problem is almost always a broken wire. If you are lucky, the break will be at the connection with the guard socket. Just lift the pad and see if the wire is still hooked on. If it is loose, it should be an easy matter to cut back the "spaghetti" tubing, scrape off the insulation, and reconnect it. You should need less than a centimeter of bare wire to make the connection.

title: Fencing/Electrical Equipment Repair


text:
Ada Programming/All Operators

= Operators =

= Operators: & =

= Operators: ** =

= Operators: * =

= Operators: - =

= Operators: /= =

= Operators: / =

= Operators: = =

= Operators: abs =

= Operators: and =

= Operators: >= =

= Operators: > =

= Operators: in =

= Operators: <= =

= Operators: < =

= Operators: mod =

= Operators: not =

= Operators: or =

= Operators: + =

= Operators: rem =

= Operators: xor =

= GNU Free Documentation License =

| /Print version

title: Ada Programming/All Operators


text:
Category:Soundbite requests

The following pages could use soundbites from a native speaker. To list a page in this category, add need soundbite to the page.

__HIDDENCAT__

title: Category:Soundbite requests


text:
Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Jokebook

I moved this discussion here, because it was getting rather long. This is not an archive, and the topic can be discussed normally. -- 15:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Jokebook
Jimbo Wales has listed this as one of the articles he plans to delete. The speedy deletion policy is being developed, and I don't feel this should be a candidate. I have no vote on whether it should be deleted through the VfD process, but it definitely shouldn't be speedied. Guanaco 22:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I now vote keep . Guanaco 22:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Any reason for your vote? Wikibooks is collection of manuals and textbooks (we now discuss whether to narrow this classification, but IMO there's no doubt that Wikibooks should serve moreless educational purpose). Jokebook is completely odd, does not serve anything and is completely useless. If we decide to leave Jokebook here, we also invite here all jesters from the Internet to create their own nonsense "books". --Derbeth talk 22:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Jokebook has potential as a guide to telling jokes. In its current form, it does not meet its potential, but that's why this is a wiki. Other humor-related books can be judged on their own merits. Guanaco 23:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It has a potential... Well, if we take such approach, we shouldn't delete any module. Yes, it may become guide to telling jokes (very practical, isn't it?), but it would require complete rewrite (there's nothing about the way of telling jokes now). If this book needs to be written from scratch, why don't we delete it? It's moreless the same. --Derbeth talk 23:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my vote to transwiki to meta, or failing that, move to Wikibooks namespace. This is original "research" but has significant value to the Wikibooks community. Guanaco 22:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but delete all jokes without annotations. WB:WIW: Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia/macropedia. This book lists jokes, but it never instructs me on how to use them. I would vote to keep an annotated joke book, though. Delete all of the jokes except the few that have annotations. --Kernigh 23:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep entire book. Let us annotate the entire thing and make it an annotated text. (I am too busy to start on it now, though.) Also, some of it (including Jokebook:Lightbulb) was moved from Wikipedia, probably because their articles had too many examples. WB:WIW: Wikibooks includes books based on Wikipedia articles. Another option might be to transwiki it to Meta as "jokes by the Wikibooks/Wikipedia community", though maybe they would not like that... --Kernigh 01:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You cannot make Jokebook an annotated text - it's against sense of such texts! You probably haven't read the article you linked: The goal of an annotated text is to facilitate reading and comprehension of the source text, especially in a classroom environment, or even for private study, but especially in preparation for formal examinations. Jokebook is completely useless, does not serve any educational purpose (so it can't be annotated text) and can even be considered original work (I don't think we can say it's research) or even fiction - how do we now how many jokes were invented by visitors? IMO even if there is no strict policy against Jokebook, it should be deleted because it doesn't follow Wikibooks philosophy. Wikibooks like Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we don't have to have a paragraph for any policy violation. Wikibooks does not include books from every Wikipedia article, it's complete nonsense. --Derbeth talk 09:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jokebook can be an annotated texts. Jokes are not "source texts" like Hamlet, but it remains possible to "interweave" annotations. The "educational purpose" is to learn about joking. However, some of the jokes are original work (Jokebook:You have two cows claims this) or copyright violations (when copied from a different joke collection without permission). Jokebook:Lightbulb is a good example of what to keep. It does not have per-book annotations but it has some annotations. (If we delete Jokebook anyway, then the entire book becomes eligible for inclusion in WB:BJ or WP:BJAODN.) --Kernigh 23:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete from main namespace. I still like the idea of an annotated, educational joke guide, but the current Jokebook has too much useless content. I recently noticed the existence of Jokebook/How To Eat - A parody of Wikibooks. "How to eat" is completely inappropriate for Wikibooks (though potentially useful if someone moves it out of the main namespace, like to Meta or WB:BJ.). I am not planning to create the joke guide that I wanted, but if I did, then I now think that I would not use any content from the existing Jokebook. --Kernigh 23:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete after move to Lollerpedia --Kernigh 00:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for no reason at all...It's so quiet here...are we deleting a "Guide to proper graveyard management" or a "Jokebook" here?...again misplaced sense of humor I actually would agree if it was Deleted --Gnomz007 04:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this a vote to keep, delete, or neither? --Kernigh 05:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is definitely some nonsense, I'm fond of speaking, just to break silence, it was a delete, not sure if I count, with my level of contribs anyway Gnomz007 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't a texbook, and it never will be. Also, Jimbo specifically mentioned the Jokebook as a book that needs to go. I recommend the contributers find a new home for this book, because it will probably be deleted soon. --Whiteknight T C E 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I always wondered why this book is still on Wikibooks - it's just ridiculous. --Derbeth talk 19:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a harmless diversion to have some fun by participants on Wikibooks, and until Jimbo's recent pronouncement was not against Wikibooks policy. --Rob Horning 19:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. Old policy stated that Wikibooks is collection of textbooks (liberally interpreted). Jokebook will never be a textbook or even something similar to a textbook. I think that Jokebook should not exist at any Wikimedia Project. Authors can join Uncyclopedia or create Nonsensebooks. --Derbeth talk 20:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, speaking of diversions, do you have any sort of w:en:WP:BJAODN here, yet ?--Gnomz007 02:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And even if it wasn't strictly against policy, it is now. -- LV (Dark Mark) 20:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Other than Jimbo blatantly saying that any Wikibook named Jokebook is against Wikibooks policy, what specific Wikibook policy is this book violating? I know this contradicts what I'm saying in the Naturalism Wikibook section, but Jimbo was out of line to come in and make this not only a VfD, but he made it a speedy delete candidate.  Wikibook users correctly challenged that decision and forced it into a VfD vote, which if nominated by anybody other than Jimbo would have been laughed out completely.  I don't have a time machine, but had this been entered as a VfD even a week earlier without Jimbo's comment I don't think there would have been a single vote to delete. --Rob Horning 14:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly not, but one cannot have one's cake and eat it. Editors who outspokenly and repeatedly deplore the keeping by mass acclamation of books that they assert do not belong by a narrow definition of what should be included here, cannot at the same time welcome the keeping by mass acclamation of books that cannot be justified as belonging by even the broadest of definitions of what should be included here.  My opinion is that your hypothesis as to what would have happened is improbable, and that it is far more probable that in that hypothetical VFD debate the same editors who vociferously complain about "Wikipedians dumping stuff here" would have railed against this in exactly the same way for being "a collection of jokes dumped upon us by Wikipedians", and that the only reason that they aren't doing that now is because it is Jimbo that wants the book deleted, and railing against Jimbo has a higher priority than railing against Wikipedians.  ☺ Uncle G 21:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * WB:BJ --Kernigh 01:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It has never met any definition, even the broadest ones, of what is included at Wikibooks. It fails to satisfy even the "non-fiction book" criterion. Uncle G 21:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not because I like the book or think it should stay, but out of protest against Jimmy's sudden categorical exclusion of material from this site on completely arbitrary grounds ("not a textbook") without consultation with the community. — Timwi 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not arbitrary. That is what Wikibooks was set up for, not jokebooks, etc. -- LV (Dark Mark) 22:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. This is not a place to discuss if we love Jimbo or not! There are serious objections about this "book" and we are discussing if it is proper for Wikibooks. BTW, I see you have 100 minor edits here at Wikibooks, have you at least read some policies like WB:WIW..? --Derbeth talk 22:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete as much as I love jokes. Mikkalai 18:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is my favorite book on Wikibooks.
 * Keep. I've never really bothered with it, but removing it would take some of the fun from wikibooks. Fun generates interest.  Simply as content, I think it should only be moved, or hidden, rather than deleted.  Ricky Clarkson
 * Keep Its broad enough to be a book, but not too broad to be crazy. Wikibooks doesn't need such strict guidelines as wikipedia or wikinews, and Jokebook ain't going to start any political firefights.  Plus, we need to tell Jimbo no occasionally.  :)  At minimum, we should make absolutely sure speedy deletion guidelines never include things like Jokebook. - Nyarlathotep 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep - I can see it as an annotated text or a a guide for telling jokes - It needs mome time to develop. --Krischik T 11:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC).
 * Move to Wikifun - Well my english is not very well - ignore the mistakes :-)... I'm the founder of Wikifun. This project is concerned with the collection of jokes and funny pics. Before the Wikifun-Project i've collected the jokes in a german jokebook which was located in the german wikibooks. Then i've realised that the stuff don't fit to the other "learning" books and it would be more easier to handle the joke-articles in a separate project. So i've started a new project on Wikicities. Up to now Wikifun is a german issue, but there is the possibility to request for an english version: Start a new Wiki. - Achgro 07:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have offered to transwikify this module's content to another wiki that will accept it, as long as that wiki has the HTML access methods that MediaWiki has, is publicly accessible, and is GFDL licensed. Uncle G 21:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV and not a textbook. Yann 20:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "POV" is apparently some slang from Wikipedia. I have no idea what it means. --Kernigh 03:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Not adherent to the neutral point of view". Uncle G 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As with Useless Information above, this is entertainment, not instruction or education. It's that simple.  "It's a book." is not sufficient for Wikibooks.  Wikibooks is for specific types of books. Attempting to justify this as an annotated work is stretching the idea of annotated texts beyond the point of ludicrousness.  As Derbeth points out above, there is no underlying work to be annotated.  Similarly, this is not a teaching resource.  Yes, good work has been done on Jokebook:Lightbulb.  But there is no attempt whatsoever in this book to teach people to be comedians, or to aid them in some hypothetical study of jokes, in that chapter or elsewhere.  It is, in places, a well-presented collection of jokes, but it is still just a collection of jokes. This is not the sort of book that one would expect to find in the non-fiction section of a university bookshop.  One would expect to find it in the Humour section.  Indeed, this is not the sort of book that one would expect to find in the non-fiction section of any bookshop.  This book does not even meet the broad "non-fiction book" inclusion criteria that some editors espouse.  In truth, this book has never met any Wikibooks inclusion criteria.  It has been tacitly accepted because it has been useful in practice.  But when push comes to shove and the issue is actually raised, there's simply no way of defending the book's inclusion here. Where this content belongs is another matter.  Out of all of the Wikimedia Foundation projects, only Wikipedia and Wikiquote seem even remotely suitable.  But Wikipedia discourages large lists of unsourced (and possibly original) jokes, and Wikiquote would restrict the content to actual quotations.  And Uncyclopedia concentrates upon satire specifically rather than upon jokes in general.  There are, however, Wikicomedy, and (as mentioned above) Wikifun, which might be suitable.  Uncle G 21:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because it is clearly not a textbook and I doubt if there will be enough enthusiasm to turn it into an annotated guide, --kwhitefoot 21:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Uncyclopedia has a stated mission too, jokebook violates just as much as it violates any wikibooks policy; although uncyclopedia would end up being more tolerant.  Quality should trump the text book rule.  Nyarlathotep 12:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment We should delete it, someone has started moving it to another page - Lollerpedia. After whole content is moved, we can safely delete it. --Derbeth talk 12:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As a library which contains lots of books, having a wiki-jokebook is bringing people that wouldn't want to come to wikibooks explore the site and maybe get interested in the project. Lincher 12:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, keep deleted, never undelete... once moved of course . This is the worst example of a textbook we may have. It took me awhile to vote on this, but I couldn't stay quiet any longer. We have the opportunity to have great advances made here at Wikibooks, but modules like Jokebook deter that from happening. Some of the jokes there are funny, don't get me wrong, but that is not the issue. The question we need to ask ourselves is, what is the purpose and intent of Wikibooks? It is not a place for random jokes (many of which violate multiple policies). I urge all others who want to make Wikibooks a serious, booming project to vote delete. -- LV (Dark Mark) 14:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a textbook Gerard Foley 17:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment If the lightbulb jokes don't belong here, where should they go? It was thought that they shouldn't be in Wikipedia, that's why they were moved here.Evrik 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks is not a junkyard for things that don't fit in wikipedia. I hope that point is very very clear. Things that do not belong in wikipedia rarely, if ever, belong in wikibooks. Most likely, it belongs in wikicities. -- 21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an oft-repeated falsehood, a belief that isn't supported by reality. Many things are moved to here from Wikipedia and do belong here. Uncle G 03:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone will doubt that lots of stuff is moved here from WP, I think the question is, Should the stuff from WP be moved here? But yes, some stuff that is transwikied does belong. -- LV (Dark Mark) 14:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how it would be a falsehood. The only time content that is inappropriate for wikipedia should be moved to wikibooks is if the artical in question is too much like a textbook, and not enough like an encyclopedia. Barring that criteria, I can't see why anything else should get moved here. If it doesn't work on the 'pedia, for almost any reason, i can't see why it would automatically be made to work here. -- 14:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Several things that were at Wikipedia, for example Transwiki:Useful unix command, satisfy that rule. Soapboxes, original work, and undocumented jokes never satisfy that rule. --Kernigh 18:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwikification can be (badly) done by any editor, even an anonymous one. It requires no privileges.  So there's no way to stop editors from transwikifying junk.  That's how the Body parts slang dictionary got here.  But the transwiki regulars work quite hard to ensure that junk never arrives here in the first place. Uncle G 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And many things are moved from Wikipedia to here for that very reason. Uncle G 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When I first examined Jokebook, I (accidentally) first looked at Jokebook:Lightbulb. This module actual explains the concept of lightbulb jokes. Most parts of Jokebook only include the jokes. If you want to store lightbulb jokes on Wikibooks, you should (1) not put them in Jokebook (2) explain the concept of lightbulb jokes (3) explain each individual joke (4) exclude any jokes which are original work by wiki contributors. See WB:WIW. Jokebook:Lightbulb only met (2) and possibly (4), but failed (3). --Kernigh 18:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Could someone please explain where the lightbulb jokes are being moved to?Evrik 19:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably that Lollerpedia or the comedy Wikicity. I am not exactly sure if only one will have it. -- LV (Dark Mark) 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of my favourite wikibooks.  I find the parts on different types of humour educational.  Please let us keep this book!
 * I vote keep, it's not like it's hurting anyone by just being here after all, and besides, joke do serve a purpose; lightening the mood.
 * Whenever you find yourself making the "It's doing no harm." argument, you are arguing that Wikibooks should be a free wiki hosting service for any content that editors care to write, as long as it "does no harm". Wikibooks is not a free wiki hosting service.  It is a project with a broad, but specific, goal.  The "It's doing no harm." argument is as unacceptable here as it is at any other project.  Uncle G 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote count as of 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I tried making this table to count the votes. Note that this is my first attempt to count VFD votes, and I am not an administrator. Note that Timwi, Ricki clarkson, and Gnomz007 also have relatively few edits, though not all edits are equal. --Kernigh 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Unlinking Jokebook from Wikipedia
Though there is significant opposition to deletion, most users seem to support deletion. Meanwhile, Lollerpedia has forked the Wikibooks Jokebook; I was copying some edit histories from here to there. Lollerpedia does not include some jokes added in December by users who never otherwise contributed to Wikibooks. I am guessing that these users followed links from Wikipedia.

Because it seems that we will delete Jokebook, I will unlink Jokebook from Wikipedia. I intend to replace each Jokebook link with a Lollerpedia link (but only where there is an existing Jokebook link). I will not change links from Wikipedia to Uncyclopedia. --Kernigh 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:OsvaldoGago

 To talk with this user, please use his talk page on Wikimedia Commons. Thank you.

title: User talk:OsvaldoGago


text:
Cookbook:Bête Noire (Flourless Chocolate Cake)

 * Desserts

Bête Noire is a rich flourless chocolate cake.

Ingredients

 * ½ cup water
 * 1 ⅓ cup white granulated sugar
 * 4 oz (120 g) bittersweet chocolate, finely chopped
 * 8 oz (230 g) unsweetened chocolate, finely chopped
 * ½ lb (225 g) butter
 * 5 beaten eggs

Procedure

 * 1) Heat the water and sugar together until fully dissolved.
 * 2) Melt butter in a large saucepan over a low heat.
 * 3) Add the chopped chocolate to the melted butter, and whisk until smooth.
 * 4) Whisk in the sugar syrup and allow to cool slightly.
 * 5) Add the eggs and whisk until well blended.
 * 6) Pour the mixture into a greased and parchment-lined 9-inch (23 cm) springform pan.
 * 7) Cook in a bain-marie at 350°F (180°C) in an oven for 25–30 minutes.