text:
User talk:Robert Horning/Archive1

Proposal for policy overhaul
As an interested user in the direction of Wikibooks over the Biography of Nikola Tesla debacle, you might be interested to know that I've started to think about changes to existing policy and project scope so that policies are more clearly defined (as suggested by User:Aya, who claims existing policies to be ambiguous) and more open (as you suggested). I've made a post on textbook-l as a result, please reply to my talk page for feedback. KelvSYC 05:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping out with fixing the recent vandalism. BTW, I moved your alert to the top of the list where it's supposed to be.;) It's a bit confusing, because the link spam section has its newest entries added to the bottom (that's to save space), and the ass puss section is only really a summary. If you want to get the administrators' attention, then it's best to do it by the book.

Oh yeah, thanks for supporting my nomination for adminship.:) I thought that I only needed at least four votes for to one against to succeed. But, it looks like it needs to be at least 8 for to 1 against and one abstaining. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 09:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Muggles' Guide
I'm responding here even though you wrote me at Wikipedia. Hope that's okay.

Anyway, believe me, no harm done, especially personally, on all our discussion. I'm not despising you or anything. We just disagreed on how to implement things. I see no problem in being friendly. Personally, I'd rather work over at Wikibooks and may shift here for the bulk of my editing. Wikipedia has millions of people doing millions of little things and a lot of stuff turns to garbage. I welcome your instruction on how to restructure the book. I'd like to get some quality work going and not just have a jumbled mess of articles (with only a WikiProject for organization) like on Wikipedia. Please explain over on my Talk page if you can about how you see the structure of a Wikibook. Uncle_G is who designed the structure to begin and I just went with it. I see how it can become a Macropedia and that's no good. -Matt 13:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much for the orphan page, Robert. Means I have to write one less page, I suppose!! :) - Serge 07:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikiversity
I was just re-reading your post on my talk page, and noticed a bit which I must have missed before:

''Wikiversity has been an integral part of Wikibooks from the beginning and was one of the parts of the original proposal for Wikibooks. Indeed, Wikibooks was supposed to be the adjunct auxiallary "library" for Wikiversity, essentially Wikibooks was a sub-project to Wikiversity, not the other way around. Wikibooks, on the other hand, was easier to implement in the beginning.''

I can't find anything which would suggest that this is the case. Perhaps you could point me to the right place? - Aya T C 22:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You might try the central mailing list in the six months to a year before it was broken up into various lists to ease the traffic volume. It seems to me there was some discussion along these lines. Lazyquasar 20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Muggles Guide true home
Hi, thanks for getting back. Why do I feel I am drowning in politics when all I wanted to do was find out what had happened to the larger part of the content of the articles about HP? I do not know what is going on at ‘pedia. I was not particularly concerned about HP to begin with, just read the book, looked elsewhere to see what other people thought about it, and then looked to see what wiki had got. Noticed some factual details which I suspect are important to the overall plot were incorrect. Noticed that the long plot descriptions had disappeared. What the fuck? People were being asked to remove details, certainly details that were not absolutely cast-iron, and were not interested in complex discussions. So then what? Zap! A VFD on the stuff which was dumped here.

Before my few posts I knew nothing about wikibooks, not that I know the rules of ‘pedia either, though I am beginning to get a feel of the politics. So I don’t really know whether ‘books considers something HPish to be appropriate. The situation would seem to completely contravene the rather short rules you have. Any book is either going to have to reproduce what is already on ‘pedia, or operate in partnership with it. To the extent that it reproduces ‘pedia, it will certainly be an encyclopedia itself. It may even be a better encyclopedia if it gets organized and cross referenced properly. Or it might become the appendix/speculative part of the HP articles on ‘pedia. Neither of these seems to fall within your rules.

Against this, I have looked at a few of the books about fiction you already have. They are not very impressive. If this worked at all, it would be massively bigger. Any logical extension of one of these smaller articles would inevitably drive it towards becoming what I understand by the use here of ‘macropedic’. It seems to describe a book which has detailed articles on every facet of something. Which is what such a commentary must logically become. You would have to start by defining the realities of the book (such a character appears here, does this…) and only then can realistically go on to discuss why he might have done that, how it fits with other characters, and so on. So I think you realistically have to create a macropedia structure first. And ultimately would still end up with one. Where is my understanding of macropedia incorrect?

So despite the VFD and this book still existing, I am a little bemused at working on something which strikes me too as being outside your apparent rules. (yes, ok, I mean you plural). It seems I agree with you (singular) on this. I noted some other posts about altering rules, so maybe someone is thinking about this? But it still feels like the entire thing could disappear in a month or two, when the nice encyclopedic content from ‘pedia has been integrated.

Parallels with witchcraft, and sources which JKR may have drawn on might be interesting, but I think it would be very much harder to find editors competent to talk about that, than those with excellent knowledge of every page of the books. Sandpiper 22:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your nomination for adminship
You have been nominated on Requests for adminship. You should indicate your acceptance over there, that's so that we can begin voting.;) Geo.T 03:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Whoops. I should've left a note here myself. But maybe it should have been a test of Rob's vigilance to see if he noticed himself. ;-) - Aya T C 03:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity project proposal
I've been trying to find the objections/problems people had with wikiversity that you mentioned- are they all on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity on meta? Meta is a bit of a mess to find anything, I'm afraid. I don't think many of them are too bad, many of them are 2 years old. But to allay them anyway, I wrote a Wikiversity about similar to wikibooks about, and put it up on the wikibooks talk page. If there's no objections to it, I plan on referncing it in a few days on meta. The about page can be found at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity:About

I'm a little lost at whats going on and who needs to be convinced at Meta, and I'm unfortunately time limited for a few weeks as well. Is there anything I can do or anyone I can talk to to help out?

--Gabe Sechan 07:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you need the voting page translating into French, just drop me a note at (English) Wikipedia. Physchim62 04:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Printable wikibooks
Hello, I'm interested in making wikibooks printable and I noticed that you made a PDF version for wikijunior solar system. That's really good and I'm glad to see that sometone is making an effort towards that direction. I would like to automate the process and I think I will right a program to do it. Did you convert the wikibook manually, or idi you use some software to achieve it? Thanks,

Sideris 15:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Serial Data Communications
Thanks for your comments on my editing style. I am new to the Wiki tools and the Wiki community. I was thinking of sort of scrawling in the margins without messing up the "reading" view. But questions go in discussion. I'll pick up more on standard practice, and on preferences of projects' progeniters and core groups.

Anyway, I like your response to one of my questions -- simple, direct. "Educational Environment" = "University Course" (not in-house training or a course from a vender, etc). If the books out there don't cover the subject "soup to nuts", or are poorly written, it sounds like this is a thouroughly needed book. Or three, to judge from the contributed content.

I am not an expert in Serial Data Communications. I think I can help improve readability. What I did to your book was a little bit of "drive-by editing". Which was only a bunch of questions since I didn't know the answers. I'm sure that can be annoying. Please let me know if you think I am not helping to move this book toward your vision for it.

--SV Resolution 12:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Help
Umm, I don't know if this is the best place to ask for help, but you're one of the authors of the 'wikijunior ancient civilization' book, so I thought i'd ask you. I just wrote some stuff for the egyptian section titled 'what did they eat?', but the font sizing is all wrong and I was wondering if you could please fix it. It's 3 in the morning right now and I can't seem too figure out how to do it myself. Time to hit the sack, I guess :) (Also, I got all the info from 2 websites. I didn't copy and paste, but I also did not know all these things beforehand. I just researched the info and wrote on it, like I would do for a school report. Is that ok? Or do I have to cite my sources??) Thanx. --EnaamA 07:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I've taken care of it. Geo.T 11:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

NeoRandom Chess
Robert thank you for your positive response. I don't have any intend to fight as you might think. With NeoRandom Chess addition I just wanted to point it out that there are some flaws in your(?) NeoPolicies :). I see problems in paragraphs nr. 1., 2., and 9. I think such additions mentioned there just needs to be marked with the proper Category and later moved as mentioned in paragraph nr. 4. It's funny to read discussions about articles like The Manual of Crime where I break more rules with my chess variant. I will not rename or move NeoRandom Chess WikiBook, but I will use NeoRandom name for this chess variant now and in the future. You want to try NeoRandom Chess? Well, now you can, even in new MediaWiki! Think about this! With respect. --Popski 13:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior name vote
Please go to Wikijunior project name and vote for a name in the Wikimedia children's project. -- user:zanimum

Wikiversity vote
Well, its Nov 1, the wikiversity vote should be closing. Are you in charge of counting the votes? Ignoring the link in you user page rule, we have an easy 75.5%. Including that rule, we're actually a close call at 68.9% (111 valid ayes to 50 valid nays). I did not actually look at everyone's user page, I just subtracted those with red user name links. Anything I can do so far as publishing the information or next steps go?

 * Bleh, both months have a ber in them, whats the difference? :) Besides, I use the Julian calendar, I don't cotton to that August thingy you guys use.

 * Sorry, write it off as anticipation. I can think of one thing I can do(and will do later this week when I have time).  Chances are that the Ayes without names use the same user name at either wikipedia, wikibooks, wikinews, or wiktionary.  I can leave messages for them there telling them their vote won't count unless they fix it, and how to do so.  If we can pick up 10-20% of the striken votes like that it would be a nice padding. Although I am sure the board will take into account the striken votes at any rate, it wouldn't hurt to have it. Hmm, maybe I can write a perl script to do the messaging for me.--Gabe Sechan 22:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel the Magic
I've taken it upon myself to finish the Wikibook. Would you consider changing your vote? - A Link to the Past 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, no worries. I have plenty of experience with the Wikipolitics over at Wikipedia. I've contributed a good deal in order to feature five articles (and improve many others), and hope to make a "featured wikibook" if there is such a thing.
 * Also, what do you mean, publicize? As in, you'll be making actual cook books/guides/etc.? - A Link to the Past 05:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"About gravity, mass, and weight" module in Wikijunior Solar System book
Thank you for your response to my request for comment on this module and the contributions you've made since. Would you mind if I proposed on the talk page that you or someone other than myself or Metric1000 use it as the basis for the module? I see you've already made contributions to the wikibook and may not have the time to do so yourself at present, so I don't want to assume you will or put you in the position of having to say "no" unnecessarily.

I realise my suggestion might be in vain as it appears Metric1000's additions to the talk page continue to be unconstructive in both content and manner. I would at least like, however, to indicate that your approach may be a way forward.

Thanks, David Kernow 13:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Rob. I tried to acknowledge Metric1000's point about usage, history and law in more than one of my replies on the talk page, but this seems not to've worked - or, at least, I did not do this sufficiently strongly. Given the manner of his posts, however, I decided especially calm and circumspect reponses were needed.

In the module itself, I hope I only removed his preaching that there's no difference between 'mass' and 'weight' rather than engage in reversion. If it appears to be outright reversion I apologise and take note. As regards my contributions not being technically accurate, I am aware of this but at the same am aware this is meant to be a module in a book for children. I just wanted to point out that science has distinct uses for the terms 'mass' and 'weight' and that their weight according to a bathroom scale would change from planet to planet or the like. I'd say that as most of us aren't practising scientists we don't use the word 'mass' that much in our everyday life on Earth, so all the more reason to confirm that what we think of here on Earth as 'weight' changes if we're on other planets etc or moving in certain ways, such as the example of orbiting. I don't believe being comprehensive or especially accurate matters here; just making the point that something - 'weight' - changes.

This is why I'd like to propose your approach as a solution. Yes, perhaps I may've been more creative in my attempts to point out to Metric1000 that changes in weight occur from place to place in the universe. I certainly hope, however, that I haven't been engaged in - and, most of all, haven't appeared willing or happy to engage in - an edit fight.

Thanks again for your involvement, David Kernow 16:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikicurrency
Hi Robert. I really appeciate your posts on the wikicurrency debate page. I've been out of it all for a little while due to illness and of course it has all fallen due to that absence. Its also been removed from pump and the proposed projects section! Anyways you said "Each alterantive currency system can have its own Wikipedia article, with a common portal to tie everything together as a coherant package. If you need help to set this up, I would be willing to work with you on that." so if you're still keen we can start something. I still need to contact various alternate currency users and then it can start but in the meantime I'd like to setup a template that they can copy for their currency for when they start their own page. Any other thoughts on the idea would be appreciated. Thanks Cyclotronwiki

Thanks for responding on my Costa Rica question.
I did put that material on Wikitravel. You deleted nothing. Thank you for responding.

I do have a question I am trying to put into the discussion section on a wikibook user friendly instructions on how another person might use a template to add information in a parallel form to some I have added. In order to do this, I need to know how to set off my entry into the discussion page as a remark in programming. Otherwise, where I use an example of code to enter, the discussion page calls the template at that point rather than allowing me to show the code.

I am aware of the "

 * Thanks again for the response on the meta-discussion. Frog One 13:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Internet Eras
Can you verify the internet eras I've delineated? They look right but I probably missed something and I get the impression you were there.

And if you know some book or even a measly article that I can cite on the issue of eras so that my divisions no longer qualify as "original research" (bloody statements of the obvious if you ask me), then I'd be grateful for that too.

(http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Computer_Revolution:_A_Timeline/The_Internet_Revolution#Eras) 24.200.176.92 06:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm watching you closely
In what way was my VfD for Social Postulates out of line? I'm mostly familiar with Wikipedia, where articles with "patent nonsense" or "original research" are fair game for deletion. Does Wikibooks have a different policy? --D'Arby 17:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Future of Wikibooks
Initially I was strong supporter of strict textbook-only policy introduced by Jimbo. This was because I'm sometimes fed up with lots of materials with very low quality and not much sense we can see at Wikibooks. I was also scared by some suggestions that Wikibooks should be closed (it made me even fall into cleanup fever ;-). But when I realised that large, interesting books with relatively huge community of contributors will be deleted (like Unicyclopedia, America's Army: Special Forces - it was even BOTM candidate) I began to think. Making Wikibooks home for only "real" textbooks will IMO create "Wikiversity II" and I'm afraid that we would loose many of our contributors and visitors.

On the other hand, I would never accept Cookbook:Human and I don't think Jokebook should stay here. All in all, I'm very confused now and don't know which option should I support.

BTW, can you use User admin on your user page? It may be useful for other users. Derbeth 09:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Future of Wikibooks...
Okay, I really did get here at the wrong time. When Jimbo comes in to say something like he did, I assume he speaks for the entire Board. Unless another member of the Board comes in to refute Jimbo, I will continue to assume that this is the way the Wikimedia Foundation wants Wikibooks to go. I will not fight for something that I cannot see a good point fighting for. There is just so much crap here. Even the mailing list couldn't provoke a Board member's opinion on the matter. I am just so fed up with all this crap. I do think that you fail to assume good faith on Jimbo's part by saying it may be financially motivated. I just hate all this infighting and can't really keep it up. But until there is a definite ruling, I can't completely give it up either. I am so torn on this issue. And I am not sure that the community at-large can "overrule" Jimbo on this matter either. If we overrule him, why wouldn't he just say, "Okay, there is no more Wikibooks. Sorry. Shoulda played by the rules." and then just shut it off? Who knows. I'll be back later I guess. This whole thing stinks on ice. -- LV (Dark Mark) 16:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Settle this!!
You guys (Horning and friends) appear to be about as close to the center of decision making as we peons can access. I have't figured out how to contact Mr. Wales. At this point I almost don't care what the decision is about what is allowed and what is not, but I think in fairness to everyone, we need a decision and a clear definition of where lines will be drawn and enforcement from day one. Any other way, we get people like myself wasting our time. What can I do to press for a decision???? Frog One 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Rob: Thanks for your note. You are welcome to post my note anywhere you want.  I am also puzzled about where the real decision making authority lies.  Does Mr. Wales have veto power over everything or does the board that I read about have final authority?  I am also curious what the actual policy change was that I see comments about. From the context I have a general idea, but I'd like to know exactly what policy is in effect right now.  I do now see how to get in touch with J. Wales but it looks like you have conveyed my message. I have appreciated your help on several occasions. Thanks  Tom Croke aka Frog One 18:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your addiitonal note, Rob. Very helpful.  17:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal apology
Robert,

I would like to personally apologize to you for any wrong that I may have done to you or anyone else. I believe that you and I have the same interests in the future of Wikibooks and that, perhaps because you don't know me well, you are making some assumptions about my intentions and actions that you would see in a different light if you would stick around for another week or so (at minimum) to work with me for a positive resolution of these issues.

It is your right to leave, of course. But please know that I take your concerns very deeply to heart, despite you calling me such names as "fascist", because I care deeply about the importance of quality people in the community.

--Jimbo

Request for de-adminship
I've removed your request at Requests for adminship. If you really want to have your sysop access removed, you can make a request at Requests for permissions. I would wait a week or two for things to cool down before deciding to request de-adminship. Also, please try to assume good faith when dealing with Jimbo. He's not trying to give orders, nor is he trying to personally attack anyone.

I hope you decide to stay and continue contributing to Wikibooks. Guanaco 18:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Heaven and Earth
Bob, I'm moving Heaven and Earth to try and get Big Cats finished by the 10th. Making time, I might add, that I don't have. Let's all pull together on this as a team and it will get done. John Burkitt 11:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Big Cats deadline
It looks like the dealine was selected by User:Zanimum, who it looks like will be coordinating the printing. User:Lord Voldemort has already asked him about it on his talk page. — Laura Scudder | Talk 20:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The whole way this has played out so far is just completely disconnected. It seems like there is absolutely no communication between the people who talk to the Beck Foundation and those actually doing the work.  I'm not really sure how Zanimum appointed himself in charge of deadlines, but it's hard to know what's really going on when you're not even talking to the people in charge of the money.  I asked the Wikimedia Grant Coordinator, m:User:Danny/w:User:Danny, to drop by and clear stuff up, but he seems rather non-communicative, too.
 * If this is what it's like working with outside grants, I'd rather we try to be self-sustaining without them. We're making a lot of progress on Big Cats now, but I agree that we're not going to get a quality result in two days.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 05:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, I made the mistake of clicking on the revert button on the PDF when I thought I could somehow get a diff of the content as I was checking out the PDF. It should be fine but it's listed with my name in the logs. Sorry for the trouble. I'd always like to know how the PDF process is streamlined because I'd like it to happen to other books around here as well. Talk back to me if you have a response. -Matt 04:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Marbled Cat
It is correctly considered a big cat, though it's the size of your average house cat. More closely related to the leopard than the cougar, it's really quite an oddity. I added it in a hurry. You can still smell the tire skid marks where I rushed to get this one in under the wire. By all means take a lookie. John Burkitt 02:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing Words
There are several words missing in the PDF I downloaded. Not edits, missing words. As in "A saved is a penny earned." Oops. Please catch this before distribution. John Burkitt 11:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
I just want to assure you that if granted sysop rights, I will try and be very patient. I know I will have to go slow at first. I know certain aspects of the job can be rather unrewarding and stressful, but I think I am up to the task. Thanks for your support. -- LV (Dark Mark) 16:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas Break
Just to let you know that after the massive edit I did today I'm taking a Christmas Break from Big Cats. See you in a few. John Burkitt 03:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Emulation Wikibook
This is a reply to this: This is just a heads up about this Wikibook and a contribution that you made there. I posted a VfD discussion about aquiring ROMs for different game consoles, and the overwhelming concensus was to delete this content from Wikibooks. I want to thank you for your contributions, but I hope you understand that we can't condone illegal activity here on Wikibooks, even indirectly. The unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content is illegal and could potentially shut this whole project down if we didn't act swiftly on things of this nature. I hope you understand and don't take this as a personal insult. --Rob Horning 17:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Thats too bad, but I understand your decision. I don't really think emulation is illegal, just the same as it is perfectly legal to rip cds and into mp3s play them on your computer. There are plenty of legal ways to buy roms today and run them on your platform of choice. I more wanted a single good source here for information on how to play those roms on whatever platform you liked. --Rob Kohr 24 December 2005

Non-commercial use only
It seems that Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted matirial that is allowed for non-commercial use, but I can't figure out why this decision was made. Isn't Wikipedia a registered charity, and therefore non-commercial? --Arctic Gnome 21:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia wants to create freely reusable material. Matter which can only be used on Wikipedia but not elsewhere is not freely reusable. Rmhermen 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are discussions about this all over. Basically there's currently a jihad against most copyrighted photos. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use. I don't believe Rmhermen's citation of Wikimedia goals is correct (at least, he provides no link to policy). Wiki policy when it comes to copyright is decided by users and consensus, like all other policy issues, and there's not been any consensus made at all when it comes to certain kinds of copyrighted non-comm images like promotional photos of people.--Jeff 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No this is the official straight-from-Jimbo reasoning on non-commercial media: mailing list post Rmhermen 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It's useful and informative. I see Jimbo didn't directly address the issue of promotional photos of people though. I still think non-comm promo photos should be allowed. Jimbo only cites inanimate objects as examples of non-comm images that should be deleted. That I don't have too much of a problem with. --Jeff 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Followup. Rmhermen, you may be interested in a reply to Jimbo's post by Erik Moller, a Wikimedia board member. . In it he states clearly that there are such things that should be whitelisted fair use, and that includes publicity photos. Therefore, one could guess that Jimbo's intent was not to eliminate fair use publicity photos. --Jeff 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I found that neither useful nor informative. It was just Jimbo ranting about how much he hates non-commercial-use-only images and how we have "tolerated" them for too long. He never gives a reason for why a non-commercial web site can't use non-commercial-use-only images. The examples he gives are images where it would be easy to get a free alternative, but what about for non-commercial-use-only images that would be impossible to replace, like images of dead people? For those, why does Jimbo want us to fall back on a fair use justification when we are aloud to use them as much as we want according to the copyright holders? --Arctic Gnome 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What it seems to basically signify is, because WP content is licenced under the GFDL, we're warranting that it can be used by anyone, for any (non-defamatory) purpose. if we host material that's subject to copyright restrictions, then we can't make that assurance on our content, which limits what Wikipedia material can be used for in an arbitrary way that's hard to police internally, and will invariably lead to conflict externally from time to time. So where possible, material licenced for non-commercial use is to be replaced by material that is licenced for all use; when this isn't possible then questions get asked around "do we really need it", "can it be shown some other way", "is there a fair-use justification" and so on. Hope that helps. FT2 (Talk 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply put, I disagree with what you say. First off, Images are almost never licensed under GFDL. Most of the time, if an image is freely licensed, its creative commons. Images and Text are wholly separate. Secondly, I disagree with your rationale for why Wikipedia can't host copyrighted images because it's dismissive and I think you're just wrong about what it will lead to. It's very easy to establish straightforward, simple policy on the subject that is clear cut and easy to police.--Jeff 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I would like to point out that while images don't have to be licensed under the GFDL, they do need to be licensed somehow that is compatable with the GFDL. If they can't be used that way, they really can't be hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. There is the exceptional rule of fair-use images, but that is something very exceptional and not justification for using non-commercial use only images freely within Wikipedia. Text and images are not seperate issues here, BTW, as they are both covered under the same part of law. I will admit, however, that the issues with images seem to be much more problematic. --Robert Horning 10:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks, FT2, that explains a lot. Nevertheless, in the back of my mind Jimbo's rant against non-commercial-use-only images makes me think that he's planing to make Wikimedia commercial one day and get rich off of our work. --Arctic Gnome 02:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The cool thing about "making Wikimedia commercial" is that he can't have a monopoly on the content if he does that. There are people such as Gracenote, who used a community donation system to build up a free music album and track list database called CDDB. That they went "commercial" and then closed off their database to people who had contributed to building this database in the first place. If there are worries about what Mr. Wales might do in the future, it is certainly tainted with this experience and others like it. Fortunately, the GFDL protects against that, together with copies of the content database that are free to download, giving the opportunity for 3rd parties to come in and set up a fork of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects that would remain available in essentially the same form that Wikipedia can be accessed today.
 * BTW, there is nothing stoping you from "making a profit" off of Wikipedia right now, if you wanted to go through the effort. But making the effort to "publish" Wikipedia, put it on CD-ROMs, and other similar projects is exactly what it would take. What is important here is that nobody has exclusive arrangements for the usage of Wikimedia content. --Robert Horning 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, while I can't speak for Jimbo, I'm strongly opposed to a more relaxed fair use policy and use of non-commercial images. This has nothing to do with wanting to make wikipedia commercial in the future, but more to do with wanting to keep wikipedia 'free' content. Non-commercial use (& no derivatives) and fair use is not free content. There may very well be just cause to print or make available wikipedia e.g. to poor people in Africa. Non-free content complicates this matter given the great project itself is non-commercial, it's likely to be a mess). While non-commercial use may seem better then fair use, it's still not free. We greatly restrict fair use and by banning non-commercial, we ensure these restrictions apply to non-commercial as well. By having these restrictions, many people including me believe we encourage people to find replacaments and discourage people who have the content from licensing their content restrictively and thinking that's enough. It's your content and you can do what you want with it, but we don't your restrictive content unless we it fulfills our fair use criteria. If people still choose to restrictively license their content, that's sad but in the end we haven't really lost that much, but when people see the light, that's good! Nil Einne 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Support
I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for supporting me on my RFA. Thank you for your encouragement.--Mfinney 06:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (with tentative apologies...)
Thanks so much Rob for your quick and thoughtful replies to my many posts in the staff lounge. I hope I'm not stepping on too many toes (or at least not stepping on toes with too much force.

My personal project is to get some good how-to books about gardening. I'm just at the beginning of it, and am trying to recruit friends to help from various web forums I visit... essentially we are writing FAQs about particular gardening topics, but a bit more than just the FAQs, if you get my meaning (I'll put more details about it on my user page). I guess I'm just feeling a touch of paranoia about the stubby nature of the things I'm writing. There is a lot of deep, practical knowledge shared by web forum communities, and I think getting it into wikibooks will be a good way to preserve it! Johnny 17:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Wow, thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply to my query here, too! I didn't think you were shooting me down, just worry about the possibility of confrontations with more "conservative" editors... I've bumped into them on the 'pedia, which is part of why I want to work here, more than there, because I want to write more on how to do things than what things are.

 * As for moving images around, I really don't know how to do that. In fact, I don't even know about how to upload images onto the commons... I have 1,000s of botanical and gardening photos I'd like to upload, but so far I've been more motivated to get the text information out than to figure out images. Part of the problem for me is that I have a very nice camera (5mpx), and don't have the time to cut them down to size (nor do I know what size I should cut them down to). Johnny 17:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm going to call on a local political forum to see if they can stop their trolling and collaborate with myself to make the module you saved. If it's not in full bloom by late April or so, i'd say it's been a failure and would likely ever be further developed, so then feel free to get rid of it.

Thanks again, Karmafist 20:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A Quick Opinion From You
Thanks again for your welcome, the book you helped saved is coming along, I have been able to get one other person, but I have a few questions that i'd like your opinion on.

 * 1) What's the standards on templates around here? There are alot of thugs over on Wikipedia de-templatizing everything.
 * 2) On another book i'm doing, I thought of changing the title from "Being a Real Estate Agent" to "Gimme Shelter! A Career In Real Estate". I'm not sure if I should use either, and the subpages have screwed things up. What do you think for a title? It's ultimately a guide i'm writing on how to be a Real Estate Agent from all the trials and tribulations that i'm going through trying to learn this business.
 * 3) And speaking of which, subpages or sections? I might go to subpages later when the sections get large enough. Karmafist 14:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I Think I'm All Set
Although the Real Estate book is quite a mess right now. Once i'm done with the old redirects, i'll slap the equivalent of whatever CSD is over here on them. Karmafist 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

One More Favor
I'm not sure about the redirect rules you have here, but I made a simpler one for a smaller web address http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/mtmsvg, to get some more traffic and edits onto the page, currently it's mostly just me editing there. I hope this can become a great resource for our town's voters, but I don't think people will use it if the web address name is too long and they're unfamiliar with Wikis. Karmafist 12:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No Edit Wars
Not a problem, I hope to avoid edit wars as well. If that does occur, do you mind backing me up in trying to reason with the other admin? Hopefully, such a redirect can bring many new users to Wikibooks, one of the main efforts along with educating fellow residents about the election is to also get them hooked on Wikis, I find them to be an astoundingly good information resource. Heh, at this rate, give me a few months and i'll be an admin on here too. Oh, that's a long story in regards to Wikipedia...Karmafist 12:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Question on potential broadening
My work has been put up on vfd before being completed again, i'm wondering if I should broaden it into a guide of all Merrimack politics(a more textured and nuanced thing that would seem, reaching back for 200 years), which I could make into a featured module if I could just get my fellow townspeople to work on it rather than bickering with each other...Let me know what you think. Regardless of the vfd, i'm going to find a way to salvage this thing. Karmafist 16:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments about Main Page
Hey Robert, I left you some comments there on the Talk:Main Page at the bottom. Thanks and have a great evening! --Karl Wick 01:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A Couple of Questions
Hey Robert, I was going to start importing information from Wikipedia into Organic Chemistry to flush out some of the content. Is that OK to start right now or should I wait until your work on print version prep is finished?

Also, was there a threat a while ago that WikiBooks would be shut down? And you were threatening to leave because of a difference with Jimmy?

Where did the Jokebook content go to? I actually saw that the content had been moved to a "Delete" page but thought that it was there on a permanent basis, as sort of a joke or something, but I saw it was eliminated. I'm kind of sorry about that because there were some great jokes there that I found.

I totally appreciate your work here and would like to support you in any way I can. Have a great day! --Karl Wick 20:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity course 'ownership'
Hi Robert,

This is just a heads up - this guy, User:Gh0st is, I think, trying to stake ownership of two Wikiversity courses in Political Science, Pos 1000 and Pos 1001. I appreciate his interest and enthusiasm, but what he's asking and doing is too much and not in the current spirit of Wikiversity. I said as much on his talk page and he simply deleted my question - he had also deleted a similar question previously, and reverts anyone who says he is not the sole 'professor' of the course. He's pretty new, so it's best to be patient and explain, but he's advertising his course to begin in a few days time, involving timetables, mandatory attendance and pass/fail rates. I think that, in the long run, if he continues like this, it might make for a few bewildered and/or disgruntled students, and might turn some people away. What's your take on this? (You can reply here - I'm checking Wikibooks regularly now, and I'll add your page to my watchlist.) Thanks. Cormaggio 01:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks Robert, I answered on my talk page, as you just had written so much text there, I had to refer to it as I was writing my response ;-) Cormaggio 14:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Robert Horning
I need your help checking my entiries... 169.244.143.115 14:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Help with German Wikibook
Hello I was wondering if you like to help with the development of the German Wikibook, it need much help and more activity, and since you a good at German, would you like to help?

--German Men92 17:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I would like to brush up a little bit more and help out there, given some time. I've been doing some housecleaning for Wikibooks in general, so I'm kinda stretched thin at the moment.  Yes, I do speak a more or less advanced beginner level of German, or just enough to find my way around Germany if I didn't meet any English speakers there.  Or more importantly I can navigate my way around the German Wikimedia projects without looking like a total fool.  That I why I listed myself as having a level "2" of German knowledge, and I certainly can do a somewhat reasonable translation from German into English (at least on the written level).

 * So, yeah, I'll try to stop by and offer a little bit of assistance. Just don't count on me becomming a major contributor for the next little while.  --Rob Horning 17:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank very much, I was kinda of worried about asking admins, becuase of how busy they are, but thanks a lot, just leave a message at my talk page if you have any ouestion about the german wikibook.

--German Men92 19:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see that this site isnt ran by a computer
Hey Rob;

Finally,a site that isn't ran by an admin that just does nothing but delete things! Now, on my talk board, you said, at one point or another, something like this would be like pouring gasoline on Wikibooks. My page(s) are not intended to promote vandalism or graffiti. Although you dais I should keep a neutral point of view, take a look at graffiti this way: What if, instead of on a wall, the artist did it on a large canvas and sold it to millions of people? What if graffiti were an art form? Well, to most artists, it is an art form. My two purposes for writing the book is to promote the art form and discourage vandalism.

However, if you still feel the book is suggestive in anyway, tell me and delete it.

Thanks for your concern, C.A.ONE

Wikilanguages, etc.
Rob

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. On the specific point on Wikilanguages, I have now restored the book - but please note that the vfd had gone on for 11 days with all the votes being to delete when I removed it. I appreciate you take a different view from me as to whether the vote should have been acted on this early, which is why I am happy to restore it following your comment, although I will note that you yourself have deleted something that's been on VFD for only four days where you have seen a clear consensus to delete. I suppose my point here is that it is clear that we are both here to improve wikibooks - whilst we may disagree on some points, I trust that this overriding aim will help us work together in maintaining wikibooks as a useful resource.

On the more general issue, when I came to wikibooks, it was clear that it had an identity crisis, which had seen a number of splits - the cookbook, wikijunior and wikiversity in particular had all been split off in some way. There was no standard naming convention, so each book looked separate rather being as part of a whole. There were many remnants of former days as a multilingual site, a lot of latent vandalism (eg a number of pages still needing ass pus or still having been damonized), and serious difficulties navigating to find what books are actually worth reading. This, through the efforts of a number of editors, is improving (although I'm sure not as fast as we'd all like).

There is still some way to go - personally I very much do see wikijunior and wikiversity as being part of the remit to host and develop textbooks, and I would love the rifts to disappear. The Cookbook namespace should disappear too. Hopefully making wikibooks look like something to be proud of will bring them into the fold. For me, we also need to resolve textbooks such as Knowing Knoppix and Gardening, which have already been published, but which are clearly textbooks that would not be out of place here had they originally been started here. To my mind wikibooks is the wikimedia project you look at for textbooks (and if it isn't, it bloody well should be). They are not appropriate for wikisource (which does not appear to cover things even remotely looking like textbooks), yet provide a welcome addition to wikibooks.

Other issues to resolve are to make things more user-friendly. I have already changed the Wikibooks portal (along the lines of what is done for other wikimedia projects), though this probably deserves more work as it is the first thing many first-time visitors see. I have started to redraft the Help namespace content using modified wikipedia content - this too needs to be completed. The main page, no doubt, can be improved further.

In summary, there is much to be done to make wikibooks look like a good place to develop new textbooks - but that is the noble aim. If we can succeed, we can help bring down the cost of textbooks generally, which will greatly help education throughout the English-speaking world. All the best, Jguk 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you so very much. I was just expressing a level of concern is all, and I hope that I did that.  I was actually from a school of thought that believed Wikibooks can and ought to be more for "any non-fiction topics and content that can maintain a NPOV and be verifyed", aka no original research, but some other minor restrictions as well.  Jimbo really stirred up the pot here by jumping into the mess and and pushing for a stronger emphasis on textbooks, which has given way to a strong "textbook only" philosophy here as well. As can be seen by my comment on this page (see archived discussion about Wikibooks hosts instructional resources if you can't find it), the whole issue over what other sorts of non-fiction material besides textbooks still hasn't been completely resolved.

 * I would like to point out that if you think Wikibooks is a mess now, it was in horrible shape before I became an administrator. I'm not saying that I am personally responsible for all of the changes that have been made, as there have been many other very good editors.  There was a problem where new administrators simply weren't being made for many reasons, which unfortunately seem to be happening again right now with much higher standards being put into place for who becomes an administrator.  We elected a bureaucrat to help clean up that roadblock and give us some access to even clean out the deletion bit, which hadn't been emptied for a several months.  With only one real active admin, and a great many tasks left undone.  I've been slowly trying to resolve those issues, but it has been a problem to even try and find where the problems are at.

 * My book organization scheme is of importance as it can help to identify the content which really belongs on Wikibooks instead of being pure cruft. As I'm going through the process of examining each book, I also do a quick test to see if it fits Wikibooks policies and I don't hesitate to throw a VfD on it... especially for older content.  There are a great many areas to work on with Wikibooks, and this is but one of those areas.  --Rob Horning 13:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Natural Taoist
Thank you for the comment. I agree completely with it. Wikibooks is more for text books that are no longer under copywrite protection. Wikireason is ok for the time being but what we really need is a wikipub for publishers and writer like myself. I love writing on wiki because I can cross reference material which helps the reader to understand it better.

Kudos
I like you Rob, you are very eloquent. --Hapa 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WEC restoral
Thanks for the quick restore. No hard feelings; I do think that Wikibooks could use more active cleaning; and more active etiquette police :-) Cheers, Sj 04:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thank you for fighting vandalism
And a thanks to you too. I don't do too much with vandals, hardly track Recent changes, but sometimes they just mess with the wrong space. Have to confess, I'm mostly concerned with the content side of the equation and getting Chinese into up to a gold standard of quality, but maybe I'll have a look around Wikibooks maintenance from now on.

I've seen you around. Thanks to you for helping create the environment for progress, even with the relative lawlessness inherent out here on the Wiki frontier.

— Everlong 06:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

ps - Perhaps you should look into archiving these discussions. After all, "some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb" and you're twice that.

 * You are welcome. I've been thinking of what sorts of guidelines I'm going to use for archiving this page, as well as a couple of different methods that have been proposed for doing so as well.  The Archive subpage system is just one of those methods, but not the only solution.  Since this is "my" page, I'm giving this a little more through before I'll act.  Section editing should avoid the 32kb limit for most users.  --Rob Horning 13:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Intimidation
This is nothing, my friend. Don't worry about it. With calm and focus, all else is irrelevant. Karmafist 15:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi from a new user that stumbled in from WikiP! I never got to my WikiWork today as I browsed through the staff lounge and saw a familiar theme from various wikipedia archives, this time, in time to make a timely contribution. Fabartus//[[<font color="green">User talk:Fabartus</font>]] 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (I wish I knew how to fix this sig!) Got any ideas being a software guru?  Fra nkB  is what it's supposed to look like, with the green a link direct to my talk page as is common over at WipiP.)

Deleted module from Wikibooks
I have been a regular user of Wikibooks.Being a professor of science,I regularly referred to TOP 1000 SCIENTISTRS FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME TO 2000 AD by Barker(which appears on Wikipedia as well).To my surprise I find it deleted and cannot see the deletion log.I am keen to find out the reasons for deletion.(Vr 05:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

 * Note that this was deleted because it is a fork of Wikipedia content, and is being maintained on Wikipedia while it was falling behind on Wikibooks. Also, Wikibooks is not a project to place original source materials that have been written by somebody else, that you don't want to see modified.  The Wikipedia article can be found here:  w:Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD

 * Please note that we deleted this content because Wikipedia and Wikibooks in this sense are really just one and the same project. There is no need to duplicate the content on Wikipedia again on Wikibooks.  In addition, the Wikipedia article has links to biographies on almost all of these scientists, something that would take quite a bit of time to research and come up with on Wikibooks.  And this forking is against Wikibooks policy.  See WB:WIN for some more details.  --Rob Horning 05:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

speedy deletes
I've thought that replacing the text with the template was standard practice, but you're right that it makes more sense to leave it. I'll do that in the future. Thanks for cleaning up. Kellen T

Help with Business Writing
Rob, you suggested that I add my book "Business Writing" to the bookshelves. I'm afraid I've failed at the process, and I would be grateful if you could direct me to a page that provides guidance on how to do this.

I tried adding the book to the Business - Management sub-category. However, I succeeded only in creating a new sub-category of Management with no content. Unfortunately, I have been unable to delete that empty sub-category.

I later found that someone had added the book to the How-To section. It's fine there. However, is there a rule that would prevent it from being listed under Business - Management as well?

Any guidance that you can offer would be most welcome.

Rob Parkinson

 * I know that you deleted this message, so you aren't anticipating an answer. I'd like to point out that the bookshelves are currently in a bit of shambles, and some policy changes need to happen, including allowing you to list books multiple times.  Indeed this may be something that we are going to have to do in the future.  Some books already are listed on multiple bookshelves, and I think this is a good idea, but not widely encouraged.  --Rob Horning 12:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response, Rob.

Rob Parkinson

Your untagged images
Recently I copied some code from Commons:MediaWiki:Extra-tabs.js to User:Kernigh/monobook.js and started experimenting with the examination of Wikibookians' file uploads. Thus I found that you have some untagged images from 2004.

Could you provide copyright license and source information for these images? Thanks, --Kernigh 06:27, 17 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 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I am going to add that for myself, my primary dispute in the past has been with User:Jimbo Wales, and as such is beyond the scope of this policy. Wheel warring (where administrators fight each other with repeated reversions of delete/undelete options and other admin functions) is perhaps a bit worse.  I've done that with one other user, including adding information to talk pages demanding a rationale to why a page was deleted when I strongly disagreed, only to get the talk page deleted.

 * Still, I appreciate any effort to try and put some sanity into a process of resolving significant disputes. --Rob Horning 06:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Rob, I saw your response on the staff lounge to implementing policies. I did try setting No personal attacks to enforced, after a period of warning at the staff lounge, but Jguk set it back to proposed unilaterally. How do we get past this problem? RobinH 12:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It looks like this is going to be a very significant problem. I am not at all pleased with what User:Jguk has done with Wikibooks, and IMHO has done far more damage to Wikibooks than anybody can possibly imagine.  I will be the first to admit there was a bunch of cruft that had to be deleted, but this user has gone in and done much more than that.  Significant content has been deleted without even a VfD (it appears as though he finally is admitting there is a VfD page) and as you have pointed out he is wheel warring now on an even higher level.  Remember that your opinion on things is just as valid as his, so the only real way to fight him is to not back down.  I guess you and I have done just that and conceeded Wikibooks to Jguk.  --Rob Horning 12:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bookshelf reorganization
I have tried to revive discussion about bookshelf structure. Please see Wikibooks talk:All bookshelves. I've offered a new proposal in which I've focused on combining our current bookshelfs with academic disciplines, and would really like to hear your thoughts on it. Thanks and regards, haginძaz 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Video Game guides
I see you're still fighting for Video Game guides to stay at Wikibooks as can be seen from this.

 * "I would like to prove both Jimbo and the rest of the anti-gaming guide people that they are not only wrong but flat out wrong about the removal of content simply because of the topic, not because of the content."

My user page is full of video game links so I am not one of the "anti-gaming guide people", however I have been active in moving video game content off the site. I started my own wiki shortly before this command from Jimbo after w:Wikipedia:Censorship failed to pass. I was sick of fighting silly Censorsip debates again and again. I took the news of the video game ban as just another reason to leave and go it alone. I have since moved most of the guides I wrote myself over but because of licensing I cant move the others to my site (so much for free content!). It's pointless to try and reason with Jimbo, as he simply issues his commands (sometimes in the form of "I wonder" http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales#I_wonder... ) and then leaves. Just letting you know there are other sits available. My wiki aims to include every thing Wikipedia and Wikibooks have, plus the other WikiMedia projects. IMO there is simply no need to divide every thing up. If like me you don't wish to continue the fight then you are welcome to have a look at my wiki. It's not held back by any encyclopedic/educational goals. Thanks, Gerard Foley 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The one thing that the alternate sites don't have is affiliation with Wikipedia, which IMHO is something valuable. Also, I believe that eventually Jimbo will either grow tired of this whole business of trying to randomly and indiscriminately on whims censor content, or actually get a clue as to what long-time regulars have been saying about Wikibooks.  This was an exciting website, and some neat things that have happened and are happening right now.  New users do come in from other Wikimedia projects, and I also think collaborations with the other Wikimedia projects are very fruitful.

 * The damage has been done, but I don't think it is irrepairable. Eventually some of most of this content will come back in one form or another, and the mission of Wikimedia will change... or a successor organization built along similar lines.  By tightening his grip, Jimbo is just going to loose more followers and eventually lead to the demise of Wikimedia, or adapt and change to acknowledge that problems are happening.

 * I was involved heavily with the Open Directory Project, and I rather enjoyed it (to cite another free content project). It is still available, but the "management" of that project became incredibly overbearing and expected far too much from its volunteers... and shows.  The ODP is falling apart now and they barely keep up with a consistant number of active users participating, even though it seemingly is still fairly strong.  Due to some wheel warring there, I quietly left on hiatus and when I tried to come back I had to deal with so much red tape to get my account back that I felt it wasn't worth the effort even.

 * I see similar problems with Wikimedia projects, and I do feel for Jimbo in the sense that he is having to answer to a whole bunch of people over a whole bunch of issues. Jimbo, however, openly admits that he hates the talk pages on MediaWiki and prefers e-mail conversations, or even telephone conversations.  Unfortunately for Wikibooks, most of the community discussion is on talk pages, and I believe that it was through e-mail discussions by anti-video game guide people that got the game books removed.  The same thing is now happening to the How-to books, which have been specifically mentioned as not only useful but a kind of content wanted on Wikibooks for most of its lifetime.  I fail to see how it is now considered unacceptable.

 * I've gone into a limited hiatus right now (aka Wikibreak) and I simply want to wait my time to see where the chips are going to fall for the current run of the admins who like to delete everything. Eventually they will leave or get burned out, and then I can try my own hand again at what is going on.  Unfortunately the negative aspects of Wikipedia have also begun to infect Wikibooks, and that is too bad as well.  --Rob Horning 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not willing to give up on Wikibooks yet either :-p (Sorry, I got this page on my watchlist btw... dunno why). Honestly, I think we need to make a true policy decision before we go ahead and delete a vast majority of content here. There truely is a balancing act that has to go on here; but there are some issues that I feel that have no rhyme or reason behind them... Fortunatly, I think here, in wikibooks, we are small enough a community to be able to actually correct this issue. There are few admins who are doing the work here, and I'm sure talking it over will eventually make us come to a concensus. --Dragontamer 04:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Say it ain't so
I understand your frustration with Wikibooks but hope you will stick around. I tend toward deletionism, and I find your voice most valuable—indeed it is precisely because you are an inclusionist that I, as a deletionist, find your voice particularly valuable. I see a VfD, I vote, and am confident I haven't done too much damage through shortsightedness. My confidence results from knowing that others will vote too and that some of those will disagree with me. If I've been short-sighted, I'll likely be called on it. It is the confidence of knowing that I am just one vote. I need to hear from the inclusionists (and others) to help keep me from going goofy.

I, like you, have seen the sharp turn toward deletionism in recent months, and I am not completely comfortable with it. That is in spite of my own tendency toward deletionism. The new deletionism seems to have occured for two reasons. One, newer admins are more familiar with the letter of the policy and less familiar with the de facto standards. They know that the deletion policy says this or that, but they don't know where we've been tending to look the other way. Second, ther newer admins seem more eager to honor Jimbo's fiats than older ones—and Jimbo has been issuing some deletionist fiats lately. It is especially important on both counts to see older admins with significant institutional memory. Further (and this is the source of my discomfort), this has happened very little policy discussion. Whether we are to host gaming guides and how-tos is very much a who-we-are issue. What our relation with Jimbo is to be is very much a who-we-are issue—or rather many such issues. As such, they needed more discussion than they got. I consider myself a non-supporter of gaming guides and wishy-washy about how-tos. However, policy changes, even in de facto standards need discussion.

Wikimedia is sometimes conceived of as a sort of utopian community effort. Power to the People; Peace, Love, Tie-Dye; etc. I'm sorry, but that's all balderdash. The reason why Wikimedia (usually) works well is the same reason that democracies (sometimes) work well: checks and balances. Any one can edit; that is a source of trouble but also a source of correction. We have multiple administrators that can do damage or keep things from going too haywire—and that can undo each other's administrative actions. This can be a recipe for disastrous anarchy. But it can also serve as one large self-correcting mechanism. Fortunately, the latter predominates. But for all this to work, we need participants and administrators with varying points of view. Too much groupthink, and the the self-correcting mechanism falters. Indeed, it is especially important that we not lose those whose take on Wikibooks is not in fashion at the moment.

Your passion for and hard work on behalf of Wikibooks has been highly valuable. I very much hope you will stick around. --JMRyan T E C 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

wikimedia clarification
Hi Rob; Jimbo obviously takes one view of the purpose of wikibooks which doesn't always jive with what wikibooks contributors want. The only way to settle this matter finally seems to me to be to request an explicit clarification from the whole wikimedia board. I strongly suspect they'll return the same view as Jimbo, but it would clear up any remaining abiguity and allow us to get on with actually writing books here. What do you think about doing this? Kellen T 16:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 * See below. RobinH 10:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Manuals without courses" bookshelf
A textbook is a manual for a course of study. This gives us a headache. Can we host manuals that have no courses?

Having searched the net I could find courses on zen tango, homeopathic aromatherapy, mind altering drugs and mysticism. So textbooks on these subjects are acceptable according to our charter.

I could not find clear courses on gameplay in individual video games, on the maintenance and servicing of quantum computers, on running an Iter series fusion reactor, on using heat pumps with domestic thermal reservoirs etc. etc. However, these subjects may well deserve a course in the future

People have been getting quite exercised about the problem of manuals without courses. If this is really so problematical then my suggestion is that if authors cannot provide evidence of a course for their manual/guide it is placed in a "Manuals without courses" bookshelf. There are still problems however, for instance, "Servicing the Triumph Bonneville" classic motorcycle might end up in this section whilst "Servicing the Honda Shadow" modern motorcycle would go in the main library. So, would a "manuals without courses" section need an entire replica of the cataloging system? Or should we just let manuals without courses into the main library? RobinH 09:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I have covered this in numerous places and several times, that it is making my head ache. Not only are there game course, but there are degrees that are granted for video game design and playing (yes, playing).  And by very reputable schools, not just fly-by-night psuedo schools either.  In addition, there are indeed courses given on individual gameplay that are outside of a formal teaching environment.

 * I don't see what the real problem is here. The whole point was discouraging video game walk-throughs, which I whole heartedly agree don't belong on Wikibooks.  The problem is that it never got to that issue, and instead the entire Video Game bookshelf was eliminated because of a perception that video games couldn't be used in instructional learning in any form what-so-ever.  This very topic has been forbidden, and I think unjustifiably.

 * In this regard, the whole debate over video games missed the point entirely, and that instead of trying to eliminate these books, that the standards over what was in the content of the books about video games should have been raised. They should not have been driven from Wikibooks at all.

 * More to the point, when "Jimbo says..." was invoked, a knee jerk reaction to simply elminate all Wikibooks on this very topic were deleted, without even the possibility that perhaps Jimbo was speaking about a certain narrow topic (video game walkthroughs) instead of the broader implications that perhaps other solutions could be worked out. No community discussion was done, nor was any previous discussion on the topic considered either.  This is not the way that administrators should act, and IMHO the election of some of these admins was both too hasty, and damaging to Wikibooks.  Certainly a few admins have taken over (I won't name names here, but you know who I'm opposed to here if you've followed my comments) that don't make community concensus before huge policy changes.  Certainly no community concensus was achieved on the decision of removing video game Wikibooks.

 * I will admit that when I joined Wikibooks, that it was about trying to write textbooks, and perhaps some of that emphasis was lost. And as Jimbo pointed out (without really helping Wikibooks, unfortunately), Wikipedia has been dumping content on Wikibooks simply because they couldn't find a better place to put the content and they didn't want it on Wikipedia.  This is the source of some of the trouble, but unfortunately it didn't really solve the problem because it damaged Wikibooks far more than it really addressed the issue of dealing with Wikipedia.  If the problem was with Wikipedia, the solution should involve decision makers on Wikipedia as well so no new content will be dumped on Wikibooks in the future.  That sort of policy making has not been done.

 * Other content such as Wikijunior, and the Wikimania proceedings have even further dilluted Wikibooks to emphasis more the books rather than textbooks angle of Wikibooks. This was done with the full compliance and knowledge of Jimbo, even though efforts have been made to remove both of them.  I have been a critic of how Wikijunior was started, and even though it is a good draw of people into Wikibooks, it never really should have been here in the first place.  It is a seperate project, and should reflect that view with its own domain as well.  So long as new projects like these are started on Wikibooks, the view that Wikibooks is only for textbooks is incredibly short-sighted and hippocritcal as well.  Wikiversity is another example of not only non-textbook view of Wikibooks, but even a non-book view of Wikibooks as well.

 * It is this view, together with the fact that although Jimbo is forcing policy, but not really a major participant on Wikibooks, that really taints my attitude toward this whole mess. Consistant and fair policies should be discussed, and the anti-video game book policy is far from consistant.  This excludes content strictly on the basis of its topical nature, and there are many other topics that I would rather consider much more important to exclude if you are going to mention topics explicitly.   Notably Pornography (currently not explicitly excluded on Wikibooks) and planning somebody's murder.  Discussion about these topics has taken place, and it was felt that other existing policies dealt with these topics in a sufficient manner that there was no need to be more explict that these were forbidden topics.  For example most porn has copyright exclusions that would not permit their inclusion on Wikibooks for copyright reasons alone.  Why should video games, something much more benign, be considered a sudden exception?  And yes, video games are being excluded explictly because of the topic, not the substance or nature of the content.  --Rob Horning 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I grow tired of debate now. The issue at hand is that current "defacto" policy, whatever it is (for it is obviously not written into WB:WIW yet) is, IMO, paradoxical, confusing, ambiguous, and almost based on opinion alone. There is no concencus on WB:WIW anymore; this project has been blasted back into the Wiki-stone age. This kind of policy debating should not be occuring this late in the Wikibooks project, and puts a bad rap on the Wikibooks name.

 * I just wonder why Jimbo thinks this is for the betterment of Wikibooks, when all I've seen so far are respectable contributors with great textbook or textbook-like content grow tired of all this deletionist crap that has been going on.

 * This is definitly not good for the long term reputation of Wikibooks. But I just can't stand another debate on the issue :-/. I'll ride it out for a while; maybe I'm wrong and Wikibooks will become better, But I just don't have enough trust in the Wikibooks policy to stay here and contribute. It feels that even when I'm working on policy, it doesn't count at all either. (Game_manual_guidelines). --Dragontamer 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dewey Decimal Classification
Are links supposed to be listed on this page or on subpages (such as the page for 000-099)? I noticed that you changed the subpage listing to headings in this revision. I also ran into problems when I tried clicking "edit" links within classification pages. Sometimes I see a blank page when I click "edit" and sometimes I see the following section. I think this is due to HTML being used instead of MediaWiki formatting. Would you mind if I change Title to ===== Title =====. By the way, are categories such as Category:Dewey:537 being used? I would like Infoboxes to automatically categorize the title pages of books into Dewey and Library of Congress categories, but I'm not sure how deep into the classification hierarhcy each category should be. Thank you for your work on this project, hagindaz 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * This whole thing was in a flux, and I was going to try and set up some standards until User:Jguk decided unilaterially that this page simply didn't belong on Wikibooks and shouldn't be maintained. As a result, I have abandoned it, and largely Wikibooks as well for the most part except hoping against hope that some people with real sanity might come in and try to take back this project.

 * Point fingers aside, there are some issues that need to be addressed with the DCC (Dewey Classification Codes), including a very vague issue of copyright status on the numbers. The original classification codes were copyrighted, but that copyright has expired due to the amount of time that has passed since Mr. Dewey established the codes.  I also think that if push came to shove, that the codes would be declared in the public domain due to substantial amount of government assistance in the generation of the classification codes (it is done at the Library of Congress in an office inside the library itself).  The Wikimedia Foundation though should not be pushing this legal envelope, however.

 * Related to this is that getting anything beyond the basic 3 digit major category level of classification. For our purposes on Wikibooks, however, I think this would be more than sufficient in terms of broad general categories for grouping books.

 * I was trying to depreciate and potentially even delete most of the sub-pages for the Dewey classification pages. The list of all Wikibooks seems to load just fine, and I don't see any real reason to put the subsequent sub-pages into this mess at the moment.  It is also easier to do quick searches if you can do a glance at related categories all at once.  I've tried a few experiments for different ways to try and get at categories of books, and I'm still not sure which way is going to work out best.  Feel free to do more experimentation as well.

 * As far as the HTML formatting is concerned, this is a very old page and predates some of the Wiki-markup syntax that is used now with MediaWiki software. Feel free to cull this old cruft out as much as you can and bring the syntax more up to date with current page formatting techniques.  It is easier to read and easier to maintain via the Wiki interface.  Anything I did using that HTML code was mainly for consistancy, not really because it was needed.  --Rob Horning 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob, that's somewhat unfair to me - I opened up a discussion on VfD about whether the CCO was worth maintaining. Listing it for discussion (as with any VfD nomination) is unilateral. Doing this also seems to me to have sparked an improvement of the CCO. I still think the Dewey and LOC bits are not suitable for wikibooks (although I do appreciate you have put much work into them), the rest of the CCO looks good, Jguk 07:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The Unilaterial actions were to remove it completely from the navigation sidebar and to make it effectively invisible from any other links within Wikibooks, making it essentially a deleteable page anyway and something that is not obvious to any new Wikibooks users that it even exists. I'm not openly wheel warring on this point, in part because I want to take the time to substantially improve the CCO page even more than it is... if my heart can even get back into serious editing on Wikibooks.  I do believe this is something that should belong on the sidebar, in part because it is to be the focus point to begin a search of Wikibooks to find a book through means other than a word search.  It is also to be a place to recruit new users to help with classifying books and organizing the content of Wikibooks.  --Rob Horning 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * One of the nice things about DDC is that it's the system in use in most middle school libraries in the US, which means that there are a lot of potential users and contributors who are familiar with the work. It makes sense for places with hundreds of thousands of books to use LOC references, but DDC is good for thousands of books and tens of thousands of books.  I'm going to devote some of my time to classifying books in DDC, since I'm semi-familiar with the system.  However, we have a LOT of technical books, which means some sections are going to wind up looking overstuffed. -Andrew Watt 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing disputes policy
This policy needs a few more people to take a look at it and vote. Any help would be most useful.

p.s. It should be possible to get the "What is Wikibooks" policy straight. There seems to be lessening opposition to the idea that Wikibooks is broader than standard school textbooks so that it includes manuals and gudes, even game guides. RobinH 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikijunior United States Charters of Freedom
As to your message on this book's talk page, do you have any suggestions then? As I have attempted to tone it down already.

Would you like to help then?

I'm confused.
I must say, I'm a little lost as to what I can send to Wikibooks and what I can't. The inclusion policy seems too vague, and I'm getting conflicting answers. I'm quite sure recipes are eligible for Wikibooks, but what about how-tos? Guides? Video game guides? I would very much appreciate some clarification. TheProject 19:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I have been arguing that very point, and am very confused myself, even though I've been a participant on Wikibooks for a fairly long time and have been elected as an "administrator" with the privilege of removing unwelcome content. Right now I'm fighting the current top admins (by their actions, not necessarily any ranking) to get this clairified, and have suggested that far too much has been deleted than should have been.

 * There is no reason to remove How-to books from Wikibooks at all, and the decision to do that has not really even been discussed within the Wikibooks community. Consider that only a threat at the moment and something not to really worry about.

 * Video game guides are going to be under attack, and that is something where the standards for what is a Video Game Wikibook need to be raised. Please see Wikibooks talk:Game manual guidelines for more of my thoughts on this topic.  --Rob Horning 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser (and another matter)
Many thanks for your nomination for me for CheckUser rights, although, for the reason outlined on WB:RFA I have decided to decline. As noted there I would be happy to support any currently active admin [including yourself], if they were nominees. Kind regards, Jguk 18:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity Proposal Tasks and Schedule
Hi Roberth,

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

ps:Nice status or end of the year report you are drafting. I suppose I should get a little more professional or polished if you are going to be hanging around Wikiversity much. `8-/

Big Cats Print Layout PDF is Layout Done!
I have finished the Big Cats PDF Print layout. It is a first edition, and I have excluded any cat that does not have enough information about it. As always, if anyone would like to edit it, I will email the source file to them. Also, I have published it with Lulu.com, with zero commission going to me, so you can download it (free) or buy it ($11.13 + S&H). See it at http://www.lulu.com/browse/book_view.php?fCID=346504 --Munchkinguy 04:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

UK Constitution and Government
UK Constitution and Government has been nominated for Book of the month again. Thought you might like to vote.Dolive35 10:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for defending my wikibook
I was the author of the CFA Level III study guide that was deleted due to an alleged copyright violation. I strongly believe there was nothing there that violated fair use of copyrighted material--in this case, a simple listing of the study sessions of the exam. Thank you for asking for alleged copyright violations to be investigated before wikibooks are deleted. -VivekVish

 * Thanks for your help. Do you see a resolution to this anytime soon? -VivekVish 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikijunior on Lulu
Thank you for your support. I want to make it clear that I am not collecting any royalites from the sale of these books. The PDF download was free, and the print format only costs as much as the printing company chages; it is "at cost". --Munchkinguy 20:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply attributed the copyright to the Wikimedia foundation because thats what the copyright info said in the PDF when I found it and started adding to it. --Munchkinguy 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As of tomorrow, I will be in Florida. In Florida, I will not have any access to computers or internet. I will be there for ten days. As a result, if there are any changes that need to be made to the copyright info, could you please tell me today? --Munchkinguy 16:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So, do you think if I re-upload the PDF without any mention of the Wikimedia Foundations, everything will be fine, or do I still have something to wait for? --Munchkinguy 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I fear that some people percieving me as a 'renegade' who acts against the wishes of the community. That wasn't what I was trying for. Oh well, as they say "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Maybe the contreversy will attract attention to the Wikijunior project. --Munchkinguy 21:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo! I just found out that my flight is acutally on July 8, which gave me an extra day to sort all this out. I sorted out the legal problems with Brad Patrick, and book should be back up on Lulu.com at the end of the day. --Munchkinguy 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Brad said something a bit cryptic in his email: "I would note that to avoid any further future concerns, I have applied for registration of the Wikijunior mark, so there is no question of what ownership interest Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has in any of the projects or individual works." I'm wondering if this means that I cannot distibute it under the title "Wikijunior Big Cats". --Munchkinguy 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The cover on the other hand... ...does not say "Wikijunior Big Cats", but rather "Explore the Big Cats", with "Wikijunior" on the side. --Munchkinguy 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm back from Florida. Wikijunior Big Cats can be found at. http://www.lulu.com/content/346504. As always, if anyone would like any changes made, I will be happy to provide them with the CDR file (or in some other format if nessecary) --Munchkinguy 03:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Algebra to SEWikibooks
I think moving it over would be a great idea, but the contributors would have to move with it, we have a very small group of editors. Someone on Meta has already nominated SEWikibooks for closure (in fact, it was an SEWikipedia editor) but the vote's going great and it looks like it'll stay. I'm not sure how an SE bookshelf would go down over here, I think there may be considerable opposition. simple:User:Archer7 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories
A number of reasons:

 * It should be possible to drill down to every page using the category system;
 * The category system, by allowing pages to be listed under numerous categories, would make it easier to see linkages between books - and also books on similar subjects;
 * By categorising every page in a book, every page in a book can easily be found - along with related book pages (admittedly the prefix function can do this in part already);
 * By using the "related changes" toolbox item, you can easily see all recent changes made to pages listed within a single category, thereby allowing for easy monitoring of all pages in a book, including new ones;
 * By seeking to categorise every page methodically, it is also possible to weed out pages that don't belong - an anon who has created a page with the content "ddddddddddddd" is unlikely to categorise it;
 * Categorisation may also help identify which book pages do not belong on wikibooks;
 * Finally, and this is a side benefit, not the purpose of the exercise, we do end up with a more realistic module count (although the Cookbook does not even count as one module, so this will still not be accurate even when complete)

Jguk 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I guess I consider this to be non-essential, but if you want to go through the effort, I guess it "keeps you off the street". I don't think you really need to "drill down" to every page using the category system.

 * Every book can be found through alternative approaches anyway, which is why we have the bookshelf system. The categories were invented to help organize Wikipedia.

 * As far as monitoring new pages in a book, I disagree that it would help out. That means a contientious new user would have to add the category as a part of the first edit.  I don't think that should be manditory and would be very difficult to keep up in all cases.  Yes, Wikipedia does a good job of categorizing pages, but like I said, I don't think it is strictly that necessary and there are bigger fish to fry here on Wikibooks than to keep up the full category system.

 * I do advocate and support category pages within a Wikibook that supports grouping items together, such as is done with the Cookbook. That should be something that is optional and a part of the debate and discussion regarding the development of an individual Wikibook.  It should not be something forced upon a Wikibook by outside participants.

 * All that is needed is enforcement of WB:NP, and we as Wikibooks particpants have been doing that. --Rob Horning 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks talk:Inclusion criteria/Proposal
Could I ask you to respond to my query to you on this proposal. Essentially I am inviting you to say how you think the inclusion criteria in the proposal need to be expanded so as to cover books you think we should allow but which would not fit under my formulation. All the best, Jguk 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

VFD and transwiki
Hi Robert. Thank you for taking the time to comment on my VFD listings. But I think you have misunderstand my intentions and rationale (sorry, I'm not a great communicator), and I was a bit shocked to read your perception of me. As I have said on the VFD, I 100% agree with your comments. I am not here to delete other people's work. I respect those who are willing to share their knowledge with the world. As with you and everyone else here on Wikibooks, I strongly believe in the project's goals and want to do what I can to help make those goals a reality. I look forward to reading your reply so I can learn more about the project.

By the way, I would like to hear your opinion on the Water Resources Directory VFD. (Just for clarification: The author of the book intends to make it a listing of water resources by region.) Should I instead ask on the staff lounge whether directories are to be included on Wikibooks (or has that already been decided)? Thank you for all the work you have done on Wikibooks. --hagindaz 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that almost everything transwikied from Wikipedia can be added to existing books. You only need a user willing to perform the merger. Since transwikied pages are essentially forgotten without that action, I want to get pages out of transwiki limbo, so they can be usable and read (rather than stay forgotten in transwiki limbo indefinately). I have tried to add as many transwikied pages to existing books as I could. Pages I did not feel comfortable merging myself I listed on the Staff Lounge to encourage others to do so. There were only a few pages that I couldn't think of any book which they could be part of, which I have listed on VFD. --hagindaz 00:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I want to make this perfectly clear: These are not stubs. I think stubs are great. Wikibooks would not have gotten very far if we had always deleted stubs, and we should definately keep them. These are complete guides, at least that's what I think. The VFD was supposed to decide whether I was wrong in thinking these are complete guides and if we can turn these pages into books. I thought I made that clear. Did you read my two responses on VFD? Thanks for your response, hagindaz 16:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to remind you that I would like a reply (an answer to my question and whether you agree with me or not) to my responses on VFD. I want to make sure that these things don't go into long off-topic discussions again. I understand if you're busy and can't reply at the moment. Thanks in advance, hagindaz 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If at all possible, can you reply sometime this week? I have also asked a question on Wikibooks talk:How-to textbook guidelines, and await your reply.

By the way, can you offer some advice regarding Water Resources Directory? I've added a clarification to spam so others don't make my mistake, since the template is no big deal. Can I add that into the enforced WB:WIW? I don't want the same discussion to happen again and again, so would it be acceptable to codify something that is generally accepted?

One more thing - since you have more knowledge of legal matters than I do, could you take a quick look at my recent PDFs to make sure they are GFDL compliant?

Sorry for asking so much out of you at once! If you have some time, I would really appreciate your help and advice. Thanks! --hagindaz 23:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A technical question
Hi,

I do not want to get you involved in any way in this Moldovan Wikipedia conflict, which tires almost everyone around here. As you seem to know the way things work around the Wikimedia Foundation and the Board of Trustees, I would like to ask you two questions.

As far as I am aware, the position of a lot of Wikipedians (Romanian and Moldovan mostly) that Moldovan Wikipedia ought to be closed arose a problem that wasn't seriously touched before: closing an existing project. Even currently there is no extensive policy on this point.

This discussion flamed all over Wikipedia and the Wikipedia-I mailing list till, after a vote [1], steward Anthere provided the community with a decision [2] that supported the closure of the Moldovan Wikipedia. This decision was backed up by stewards Angela and Jimbo. It was supposed that steward Brion implement the given decision in the briefest delays. For reasons unknown to me, this didn't happen.

As the decision wasn't implemented, here are the few technical questions that arise for me:

1. Was this decision made by those who have the authority to do this? That is, does this decision mean anything for Wikipedia?

2. Is this decision still valid? That is, is it still implementable (taking into consideration that the main reasons for closing down this project didn't change and the voting results of the potential contributors didn't change either, *and* considering that the current vote on Meta develops in the same way as the previous one)?

I am not for the closure of this project. However, the reticence of the decision makers to accept any compromise solution ([3], for example) that would modify the status quo - the existence of the Moldovan Wikipedia *and* on the mo.wikipedia.org domain -, leaves the closure as the only alternative to somehow dissipate the confusion that planes over the mo.wiki domain.

So, before making any more attempts on the mailing list, I would like to have a clear view on this given decision.

Thanks in advance, --Landroni 18:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I would like to point out that if Angela, Anthere, and Jimbo have agreed on a course of action, that is by defalt a majority of the board of trustees, and that they were acting in that capacity, not as simply stewards. So to "freeze" the Moldovian Wikipedia, yeah, they had the authority.  And there is no body of appeal shy of taking this to U.S. Federal District Court and causing a lawsuit against the WMF Foundation (IMHO something that a person would lose as well, BTW).
 * As far as is this something valid? I guess that depends on how you view this whole issue.  Brion created the Moldovian Wikipedia simply as an experiment to create a bunch of Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects in a bunch of langauges simply because they were viewed (from some notes he had) as legitimate languages and likely to be approved almost automatically if a request for those projects were made.  The wisdom of that action has proven to be fairly accurate, as native speakers of many of those languages (beyond just Moldovian) have indeed become involved with the development of these more obscure languages and indeed have given a good name to Wikipedia as the most linguistically diverse set of written content anywhere in the world.  Besides translations of the Christian Bible, I don't think you can point to anything that has been translated into more languages than the front page of Wikipedia.
 * So Modovian was created simply because according to some list Brion had, it was considered a language. Apparently one user in particular, meta:User:Node ue, who has also added content to other relatively obsure Wikipedia language projects and is also clearly not a native speaker of Romanian or "Modovian", added considerable content to the Moldovian Wikipedia.  That a few additional people viewed this added content as a legitimate Wikipedia is really where the current status of it is at.  No formal voting process was done to create the Modovian Wikipedia, and it is unfortunately viewed by many Wikimedia users (based on the Meta poll alone) as a major mistake and should never have been created in the first place.  Because this voting process never took place, the same authority to create it (none other than simply having root developer access to the Wikimedia server farm) can also be used to remove it.
 * For myself, I think the mere act of creating this language version of Wikipedia is making a political statement that the WMF should stay out of and away from. I don't know how you can create a NPOV Wikipedia in a language whose very existance is expressing a political point of view.  Explictly, that the Moldovian people were somehow a distinctly different people from Romanians before WWII and were liberated from Romania by the USSR.  Now in terms of what happened after that war and the fact that people in this region treated this as not just a dialectical varient of Romanian but rather a distinct language unto itself is something that should have some weight on if this language edition is to be allowed.  Of course you have to explain why American English vs. British English Wikipedias are not set up either (there are some cultural issues there), as well as other similar project proposals like European Portuguese vs. Brazilian Portuguese.  I would assert that there is more difference between those two dialects of Portuguese than between Moldovian vs. Romanian, but that is something best left up to native speakers.  The whole Latin script vs. Cyrilic script just adds more fuel to the fire and more reasons for contention.  Of course this was by design by the Russians when the whole thing was created in the first place, and unfortunately why this is a protracted political fight dating back to just before WWII.  --Rob Horning 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, in my previous message, I failed to provide you with the appropriate links: here are the vote summary, the decision and the example of a compromise solution or an already working still under construction coversion script. If there are any other links you would need, please let me know.

 * Now, finally some good news. Basically, we have a decision on the closure of the Moldovan Wikipedia taken by the majority of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is valid with respect to the similar way this Wikipedia was created (no formal voting involved).

 * Here is the next question that arises:
 * What could be done for this decision to actually get implemented? Apart for Brion to modify the permissions on the Wikimedia server.

 * I would like to know this because, for the Wikipedia-l list the mere sight of a Moldovan-linked thread provokes some kind of an allergy. It is quite normal a reaction, in my opinion: everyone got saturated with the subject. This decision was metioned at least twice in the latest June-July discussion. Still, no one seemed to give any suit to it. Thus, in my understanding of the situation, the Wikipedia-l mailing list is not so suitable a way to solve this issue. At least not at this moment.

 * In your opinion, would it be appropriate - for me, for example - to contact Brion, Anthere, Angela or Jimbo directly? The decision is already ready, and the current Meta poll gives it only more legitimacy.

 * What concerns your personal thoughts, I couldn't have put it clearer than you did, although I have tried several times on the mailing list. Appart from the lacking Neutral Point of View of the Moldovan Wikipedia, it brings about a serious confusion over the language/script currently used in public life in the Republic of Moldova. In my opinion this is the main reason why there are so many dissatisfied persons; Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians alike.

 * I had the curious opportunity to get my hands on a "Le Larousse pour tous" that was published somewhere between 1906 and the end of the First World War (my guess would be closer to 1906). I quote: "Moldavie, ancienne principauté danubienne, qui forme actuellement avec la Valachie le royaume de Roumanie." I am not sure about your proficiency in French, so this would mean "Moldavia, ancient Danubian principality, which currently constitutes together with Wallachia the Kingdom of Romania." In other words, this states that at that time, in the Western world, Moldavia was considered an ancient Romanian province, with all the logical consequences: history, culture, language, and probably others. (It is worth noting that at that same time Bessarabia was part of the Tsarist Empire.)

 * Presently, treating Moldovan as a distinct language is a very courageous approach. There is one contemporary "scientist" promoting it. In this manner, he attracted for himself public disgrace (both in Moldova - I can consider myself an eye-witness - and in Romania). He even published a Moldovan-Romanian dictionary, that no one understands in what circumstances to use, other than writing an article on it in the newspaper or just having a great time amusing yourself finding out what other words you - as a native Moldovan, hence Moldovan speaker - have never ever heard or seen in your life. By the way, even this chef d'oeuvre promotes Moldovan written in Latin script. As a native Moldovan, I can say that the Moldovan spoken in Moldova is a bit quite different from the Romanian in vocabulary, pronounciation and lack of proper style, all of this making it a dialect of the Romanian language. The spoken dialect is not writeable. The formal, written "Moldovan language" (with respect to the Constitution and with some minor differences) is the Romanian language. Let me just mention that for creating official Governmental documents the "Romanian Explanatory Dictionary (DEX)" is used (again, eye-witness). While the content of mo.wikipedia.org is written in a script that represents a reality of the past, roughly from 1930 when it was invented for MASSR till 1990 when Moldovans demanded for the script to be reverted to Latin (except certain schools in Transnistria, which are forced to). So here is where the confusion is evident: people get on mo.wikipedia.org and cannot understand what Cyrillic Moldovan has to do with Moldova's (present time Moldova) domain and on the Moldovan Wikipedia. They do not understand what is the point of having a Moldovan Wikipedia and written in Cyrillic. They thought they got rid of Cyrillic once and for good. They just stand and stare. Like I did, once, one or two years ago. So that under these circumstances, I believe that the current content is not as legitimate as it could have been.

 * As a Moldovan I can difficultly accept that my country be so incorrectly represented on Wikipedia. This is why I would accept any alternative solution: moving content to a certain mo-cyr.wikipedia.org or installing a conversion script on a same certain mo-cyr.wikipedia.org. User mboverlord (if not mistaking anything) told on the list that the existence of mo-cyr would offend to existing conventions, and thus this solution not be viable. Would it be possible for you to explain me whether his reasoning is correct? He didn't find it necessary to explain how would it offend and to what conventions. If it is the naming conventions he was talking about, I believe that such conventions could suffer a bit in order for the confusion over an entire Wikipedia section be dissipated. And for the political statement of the mo.wiki would disappear. The Cyrillic Moldovan language would be treated as an artificial language that once existed, and not as a language inherent to Moldavia/The Republic of Moldova/Moldovans.

 * In my opinion, the domain mo.wikipedia.org ought to disappear, so that no other meaningless confusion be made in the future. Any content present on this domain would be a political statement. Furthermore, if mo.wikipedia.org would contain content written in Latin script, the obvious question about the need of the existence of two separate Romanian language Wikipedias would arise. It would probably be incorrect to install the conversion script on ro.wikipedia.org, as even though - according to Wikipedia policy - the Romanian Wikipedia represents the Romanian language, it also represents the country Romania. And Romania, as a country, had never had to deal with this Cyrillic Moldovan script. If it were a conversion script of the historical Romanian Cyrillic to be installed on ro.wikipedia.org, my position would be different.

 * However, as I said the previous time, I wouldn't want to involve you in all this Moldovan debate, so that please feel free to ignore everything that goes beyound my questions. Otherwise, I would be pleased to know what you would have to say regarding my arguments. --Landroni 09:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will suggest that if you plan on trying to involve the WMF board in this matter, it would be wise to try and get this issue put onto the agenda of the next board meeting. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that directly and easily, as the suggested approach was to add some items onto a page on Meta, but that page hasn't been updated for more than a year.  I suppose that e-mailing a member of the board directly might be a good idea, as at least the issue can be brought up.  Between all of the votes that you pointed out and the community sentiment from within Modovia itself and Moldovian speakers, I think this is something that does deserve at least a discussion between board members.
 * As for Moldovian being considered a distinct language independent of Romanian, I will have to defer here to linguists and the people who live there themselves. Pre-WWII Moldovia was a part of Romania, and was taken by Russia in a clear act of hostile agression and imperial expansion.
 * Europeans all speak local dialects (or have spoken) simply because people didn't move around that much in the past and major national languages really are something that is a more modern construction. You can find this even in Germany, France, and England, where many local languages used to exist but are being pushed aside with the national languages instead.  In a few cases locals are fighting back such as in Wales and Cornwall (for England) trying to push for their local dialect to be recognized, but the national language still is what is used for legal proceedings, daily commerce, and religion.  That Moldovia became an independent country allowing this local dialect to grow and develop on its own, even with Russian support and influence, should be something of note.
 * As I said, this whole thing is really a relic of Cold War politics, and unfortunately that taints all of the discussions here as well. It would be nice to be able to group the native Modovians together to see what they think, and try to remove the sock puppets and imposters trying to push a political agenda.  That both Romanians and Russians are getting into the argument shows just how political this whole thing has become.  I wish it were just a matter of simply saying that yes, Moldovian is an established and independent language without all of this other BS coming into the picture.  --Rob Horning 14:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Roberth, honestly, I am feeling quite pleased to have found someone that has a cool view on this entire matter, and someone who can actually indicate me what can reasonably be done. Next week, I will most probably e-mail Anthere to ask him to put the Moldovan Wikipedia onto the meeting agenda. He was the only one who got out the shadow. I will allow myself to refer to this current discussion.

 * What concerns the dialect/language argument... As I said earlier, it is currently a very courageous approach for any scientist to treat Moldovan as a language. I will quote user AdiJapan: "The so-called Moldovan language is the Romanian language. Even the loudest defender of the Moldovan language concept, Vasile Stati, has agreed that Moldovan and Romanian are identical in their literary forms." Present day Moldova (or Bessarabia) is - historically speaking - part of a Romanian region, Moldavia. And as all Romanian regions, it has its own specific dialect. It would be incorrect to believe that independent Moldova allowed the local dialect to become a full-blown language used in public life. The situation is quite different from Welsh, for example. The Moldovan dialect, rudely put, is a poorly spoken Romanian with the random use of regionalisms, russisms (I want to designate the words of Russian origin that became in public/mass belief Moldovan/Romanian words) and, sometimes, Russian words. This dialect cannot subsist as a language. It would be reasonably idiotic to push the Moldovan dialect on the television, in the newspapers or in the law making process. On any formal occasion, like a public debate, television appearance or newspaper article, people strive to speak/write a correct Romanian language. It is especially true about the written part. Presently, the formal language used in Moldova is the Romanian language. The State official propaganda can only push for the name of "Moldovan language" to be used instead of "Romanian language". Nothing else. And they do it quite poorly, I would say, as even if the Constitution pleads for a "Moldovan language", my public school always taught Romanian and I received my Baccalaureat diploma describing my proficiency in "Romanian Language and Literatture". In order to look at this matter from a Western point of view, one could probably take a look at this material collected from western academic, neutral sources.

 * It wouldn't be so difficult to see what native Moldovans think on this issue. The talk page of the Moldovan Wikipedia Main Page shows clear consternation of users and organisations that have seen this content for the first time (knowledge of Romanian would most probably be necessary). Speaking about organizations, this newspaper article criticizes the Moldovan Wikipedia. This should take care of the position of non-Wikipedians.

 * There are reasonably quite few - in absolute numbers - Moldovan Wikipedians who took a clear position on this matter: on mo.wiki talks, en.wiki talks, Wikimedia talks, Wikipedia-l mailing list, and on the previous vote and the Wikimedia poll. For clarity sake, I will try to decypher the votes only.

 * The previous vote contained six Moldovan's votes supporting the closure: Moldovan Wikipedia users Pavel, Furculita, AndersoN, landroni, Argos and TS01D. Oleg Alexandrov abstained. Although indifferent to the project's future existence, the latter is for a move of mo.wiki content to a certain mo-cyr.wiki.

 * The current Wikimedia poll... I do not have the time and possibility to make a complete research. I can say that users TS01D, Pavel, Landroni maintained their vote. Wikimedians Greier, Dmitriid, Basarab, Dacodava, kalatorul (the latter two-three are possible puppets, in my eyes) are also Moldovans. I believe there may be more Moldovans who took part in the vote, but I currently have no means to check it. All of these voted for the closure of the Moldovan Wikipedia. I cannot say much about the votes against the closure, apart from the Moldovanest of Moldovans, aka Mark Williamson. Anyway, except Dmitriid who during time was balancing between the supporting/opposing, he finally set for supporting the closure (under the condition that a conversion script be implemented), I do not recall any Moldovan being for the existence of the Moldovan Wikipedia. Moreover, as it was noted before, Moldovan native speakers never asked for the creation of mo.wiki and neither did they appear around before doubtful content was added by user Node_ue, aka Mark Williamson. And when these appeared, they mainly asked for the deletion of mo.wiki. And as time passes and people find out about mo.wiki, more and more Moldovans are asking for its closure.

 * So that, generally speaking, Moldovan non-Wikipedians, Wikipedians and Wikimedians are against the existence of the Moldovan Wikipedia. On the mailing list, there was not one Moldovan to plead for its existence. As you suggested, would there be any mean to actually group the mentioned Moldovans (and others I am not very aware of) on a special talk page and see what they have to say about this? By the way, there was one interesting Russian vote supporting the closure: "Support, because no moldavanian opposes this. And I see many russian nationalists voting in oppose, so they only want to subdue moldavanians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)".

 * You also expressed your regret towards the fact that Romanians and Russians get into the debate: while Russian intervention is clearly politically driven, as in its origins Moldavia has very little to do with Slavic influence, Romanians have some kind of legitimacy. They are directly concerned with the Moldovan Wikipedia, as part of the historic Moldavia is part of Romania and as mo.wiki is written in the Romanian language using another script. However, I would agree that for clarity sake and for keeping out of political agendas, Moldovans only ought to be consulted on the matter.

 * It should be noted that closure alone is not sufficient to get rid of the confusion over the domain and of the political statement mo.wiki makes. IMO, mo.wiki ought to disappear. Content should either get moved or deleted. A conversion script may get installed somewhere around.

 * At this moment, I just hope that the Board accept to put this issue onto their agenda and that it take a decision with respect to common sense arguments and the position of Moldovans. --Landroni 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

General voting rules/Proposal
I am planning on calling an actual vote on this policy sometime within the week, and I would like to ask all active wikibookians (or at least the few that I can name off the top of my head) to come in and give some last-minute comments on it. I know that you still have some outstanding criticisms, and I would like to try and address them here: It's no particular secret that I am pushing hard recently to formalize some policy discussions, and I see this policy (in any form) as being a requisite cornerstone to our policy foundation. Any help/comments/suggestions from you would be much appreciated. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think this needs to be a guideline, because it is intentionally vague. It does, however, specificy that votes are determined by concensus, and not by majority rule. The methodology of concensus-driven decisions is one that should be written into official policy.
 * 2) You mentioned that 6 weeks is an ideal waiting time to get everybody involved. I think that 6 weeks might be even a bit too long, but to rectify the situation, I altered the policy a little bit to say that the voting should "last long enough to get everybody involved", and that concensus must remain uncontested for at least 1 week before the vote can be declared. I think these two guidelines will work together to draw out votes to an appropriate length of time (and if we find they dont work in this manner, we can vote to alter the text of the policy to include a set timeframe).

Re: Publication of the Month
I've left some comments on the talk page that might clear up my intent throughout the whole thing, and some things that Brad Patrick said. --Munchkinguy 02:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Wikiversity comments
Do you genuinely believe what you said on the en.wikiversity IRC channel regarding Wikibooks and deletion? Please don't just mark this off as some unpatriotic anti-Wikibooks attack; I'm truly puzzled as to how someone could possibly have such a view on what has and will transpire on Wikibooks. --hagindaz 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, yes I do consider much of what has happened on Wikibooks over the past year to be massive culling of content on this project. To the point of extreme behavior, of which I did fight back against it.  And I believe that in time even more of this type of behavior will manifest itself on Wikibooks until several users get together and draw a line in the sand saying "to here and no more!"  Wikibooks used to be a much more open place for content development over what it has become, particularly with those that strongly insist that Wikibooks is for textbooks only and no more, with the definition being a textbook for an accredited university-level course that goes in depth for a particular topic.  Wikibooks wasn't always this way, and those who are only occasional visitors to Wikibooks are shocked and dismayed at the current tone of this project, especially if they were early contributors to Wikibooks.
 * While this is lamenting perhaps, I also am very much disappointed in an apparent anti-new user philosohpy that has also prevailed lately. I know this is something that takes patience and effort, but it is an attitude that is not common at the moment.  My above comments about this matter pretty much speak for themselves.  --Rob Horning 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I just don't see that ever happening, and believe it's largely imagined. If I did, I'm sure I would be as upset as you are. Would you mind going into detail on each point? Here's the way I see it:

 * Extreme bahavior
 * Could you please provide an example?
 * Video games in particular - To the best of my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong), you believe that video game design/development/programming books are fine on Wikibooks, but video game walkthroughs and manuals are not. I believe you have also said that some users have tried to delete video game design books, and I agree that that would qualify as extreme behavior. But I don't think that anyone other than yourself has even brought up video game design books or considered deleting them. Am I wrong?

 * "massive culling of content"/"the best efforts to delete everything in sight"
 * Most/soon to be all video game walkthroughs and manuals have been culled, yes. But that didn't extend anywhere else. Agreed?
 * No. It extended well beyond just the video game walk throughs, as even Chess was strongly suggested to be culled as well as other Wikibooks, including the How-to guides.  Only when I started to challenge the reasoning behind that did anybody stop and wonder what was going on.  I could list many, many other things that have been removed from Wikibooks as well over the past year, including some stuff that I will openly admit needed to be removed.  And much of this was done without VfDs.

 * "those that strongly insist that Wikibooks is for textbooks only and no more, with the definition being a textbook for an accredited university-level course that goes in depth for a particular topic"
 * Who has such a stringent view on Wikibooks' scope? I can't think of anyone. I believe the concensus is that all educational books are acceptable, including how-to books. Even Jimbo has said that the "books must be on subjects taught at accredited institutions" policy should be treated as liberally as possible. That would include much more than "university-level" books or what is considered traditional school textbooks.
 * I am demonstrating absurdity here by being absurd. The point I'm making here is that Wikibooks being defined as only textbooks is a slippery slope when there is no clear definition, and to delete content under the rationale that "it is not a textbook" (this has been done via speedy delete BTW, and I can cite individual cases) allows admins to delete just about anything they don't agree with from a strong POV on the part of the admin.  I believe this to be abusive admins who do this, which is why I explictly have demanded that deletion of content on the grounds of not being a textbook must be offered as a VfD instead.  Even then, my votes on the VfD page speak for themselves.

 * "Wikibooks used to be a much more open place for content development over what it has become"
 * On foundation-l one year ago, you said, "Certainly Wikibooks is drifting away from the "pure textbook" philosophy that it started out as, and is becoming more of an original non-fiction book repository." Would you agree that it has gone a tad too far? To the best of my knowledge, everyone related to this issue believes that Wikibooks should include much more than traditional "pure textbooks" but not all non-fiction works. Do you not think that we are headed towards that middle-ground?
 * No. Jimbo deliberately set up some sort of very obscure and fuzzy definitions for what should be and should not be on Wikibooks.  This fuzziness is exactly what is causing the problems here, as no two people can possibly agree on that definition, and Jimbo doesn't want to referee the issue either.  I am attacking that fuzzy definition itself, even though there are many individuals who are not willing to stand up against Jimbo but instead are capitulating and then using the name of "Jimbo says..." acting and enforcing ideas that aren't even policy.  Some of this is also a huge reluctance on the part of the WMF to setting up alternative projects like Wikiversity, even for very well thought out ideas that have a clear scope to them.  Wikibooks in the past has been used repeatedly as a sort of "seed wiki" for testing new ideas on how to use a wiki, and that attitude was encouraged for some time.  The experience with Wikijunior and Wikimania prove that even "people who should know better" (read board members here) are willing to use Wikibooks as a seed wiki and ignore the textbook-only idea as well.  With the Incubator Wiki now up as a seperate project, I think that will be more a thing of the past, but we still have remenants of that philosohpy here.

 * "an apparent anti-new user philosohpy that has also prevailed lately"
 * Really? I'm especially surprised by this statement. Where did you get that idea? I personnally have done everything I could think of to encourage new users to contribute (and I'm planning on soon proposing a new books page/resources center with less confusing explanations similar to this page, btw), and I don't think anyone else has cared about or done anything relating to new users recently, positive or negative.

 * Again, if all of this were true, I would be as upset as you are. Thanka in advance for responding to all my questions. --hagindaz 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robert Horning/Archive1