text:
Wikibooks talk:No personal attacks

Long overdue policy adapted from en.wiki. Poll started below to determine consensus. -- LV (Dark Mark) 19:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * "No personal attacks, and move personal debates to email" is currently a guideline at Policies and guidelines. An example of a personal attack is at Talk:A Neutral Look at Operating Systems (and User talk:AlbertCahalan). I think that a good step would be to label this page as a guideline in lieu of a policy.

 * Before I joined Wikibooks, I read English Wikipedia. However I made no edits to Wikipedia, today I have an account but make few edits. Though I became aware of major policies like "neutral point of view" (because of those NPOV dispute markers), I never became familiar with, and still am not familiar with, most of the English Wikipedia policies.

 * If we do have a "no personal attacks" policy, then I would prefer that it start as a small part of some existing policy. --Kernigh 21:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I change my position. We should get a "no personal attacks" policy now; we might need it later. I still oppose the current version because it has references to things which exist not on Wikibooks, such as the arbitration committee. --Kernigh 21:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Ummm... it is an important policy. Personal attacks make editors feel bad, and drive people away from the project. Overall they create an atmosphere where no one wants to edit. This needs to be an enforced policy, not just some little addendum somewhere. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, so it has some extra stuff... but that stuff will come later too. Maybe not ArbCom, but some of the other stuff. I'll go remove that, and you can change your vote. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * To clarify, I do not think that red links are a problem in an enforced policy. The problem is if the enforced policy references a red link as if it already exists. The policy should not instruct me to read the "dispute resolution process" when that is a red link. --Kernigh 04:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Is there anything else that can be said about NPOV when editing? A lot of book-related material needs to encompass multiple points of view and I think disagreement over POV is what brings about the largest amount of personal attacks. -Matt 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Added bit about prevention from POV debates. Heading in the right direction? -- LV (Dark Mark) 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Threw one more sentence in there. Throw it out if it's a problem. I like it either way. -Matt 23:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I have no issue with that. It makes sense. -- LV (Dark Mark) 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Poll to enforce
Should the proposed policy, No personal attacks, be enforced?

Yes
 * 1) Long overdue. Personal attacks are not acceptable. -- LV (Dark Mark) 19:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with this, in spirit. I will cast a yes vote now, with the understanding that we can clean up the specifics, after the policy is in place. -- 21:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a wiki and nothing is ever completely set in stone. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize that it isn't set in stone, but i'm not the person who is going to fix this policy, or to rewrite it to be more clear, etc. I would rather put up a conditional vote now, as opposed to putting up a "no" immediately, and then forgetting to ever come back and change my vote. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  LV  made some improvements, so I will support enforced on the current version. --Kernigh 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely. Textbook material needs a fair unbiased environment even more than other wiki material due to the educational value the pages hold. -Matt 22:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Gerard Foley 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) JMRyan 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) RobinH 10:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) An essential policy. We are here for the content.
 * 6) Dragontamer 15:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC) See above. I think we also should have a "three revert policy" as well, but that is out of this page's scope (and yeah, I'm checking out that page)
 * 7) Derbeth talk 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Doiçt 16:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Ultimadesigns 01:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support How about one to reflect civility too, or would that be overkill? — Nathan (talk · contribs · en.wiki) 04:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No
 * This lengthy page should only be a guideline for now. Kernigh 21:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? So someone can go around personally attacking people, and not have any repercussions because it was only a guideline and not policy? That's absurd. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * After posting, I changed my position. In fact, I entered an edit conflict because you posted the above comment. --Kernigh 21:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Policy currently has references to nonexistant things. --Kernigh 21:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"The problem we are seeing, again and again, is this attitude that some poor victim of a biased rant in Wikipedia ought to not get pissed and take us up on our offer of 'anyone can edit' but should rather immerse themselves in our arcane internal culture until they understand the right way to get things done. I do not know what is going to change, but something BIG has got to happen and SOON about this issue, because the amount of time it is consuming for some of our best editors is getting way out of control."
 * 1) Personal attacks are not acceptable, but the policy can still use some work. I agree with Kernigh that the policy should not reference things that do not yet exist.  I also would like to understand what about a "policy" makes it more enforceable than a "guideline".  Rs2 03:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) It's never a good idea to phrase suggestions in terms of "don't do this". One of the easiest ways to get people to think about something is to tell them not to think about it. If we need a policy on acting civilly towards each other, that should be Always act civilly (or something of that ilk), Jguk 23:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Before we make ourselves little dictators of our virtual domain, perhaps we ought to think about the ramifications. Systems of crime and punishment are a failure state. They are an admission that we weren't able to work congenially as co-editors on a common project — that our little Animal Farm couldn't exist without making some of us "more equal." Do we really want to duplicate the system of punishment and vandalism that exists at Wikipedia? Is their instruction creep working for them? Perhaps we could learn something from our founder. --Zephram Stark 03:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ''~Jimbo Wales May 3, 2006 WikiEN-l
 * You have added identical text to other policy votes. The vote here is about whether this policy should be enforced rather than whether "policies" are a good idea. RobinH 10:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Okay, a guideline is just that, something that guides people on a certain issue. It is not set in stone, it is merely a strong suggestion. A policy is something much more concrete. It can be cited as policy and should never, never be violated. That's why it's a policy and not a guideline. -- LV (Dark Mark) 15:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Exactly. Ideas are what should be critisised, never the person personally. I think the policy should include the "fine line" area. Most of us know the difference between a personal attack and critisism of the idea, but the page doesn't state that precisely right now, a potentially dangerous situation. --Dragontamer 15:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Implementing poll
The poll is clearly in favour of enforcement. RobinH 10:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * So how does the enforcement policy happen, exactly? we have a solid majority, let's do whatever we need to do, slap a enforced on there, and call it a day. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you've forgotten that WP/WB are not a democracy and we don't implement things based upon # of votes. I am tending towards casting my vote against, and you may have just convinced me to do so. Kellen T 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Is it right to vote NO on this issue because you disagree with another issue? Please notice that the poll has not been implemented and the issue has been reopened. Also notice that the possibility of implementation was raised on the Staff lounge before implementation and the implementation rolled back because of the desire of Jguk to debate it further.

 * What is the point of a poll? If you disagree with polls why not open this separate debate at the Staff Lounge? RobinH 09:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

 * If I were to vote no, it would be because I was convinced by the opposition. We're not suffering from lack of policies here; people can and are banned because they are disruptive, make personal attacks, etc regardless of whether this is tagged as enforced or proposed.
 * The point of a poll is to gauge consensus. What you have here is 3 of 12 people opposed (25%), one of them an admin. That shows that the community has not truly come to consensus about this policy. Kellen T 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The problem with consensus, in its normal meaning, is that it entails 100% agreement. In a large group this is impossible. We need a measure of consensus such as a voting procedure and a policy that accepts that n% is sufficient consensus (See General voting rules). Those who disagree with the 'sufficient consensus' would then attempt to respect it, despite their disagreement. If we use 100% consensus as the agreement required for any action then no actions will occur on issues that involve more than a few users. 100% consensus also means that one dissident, disturbed or insane person could prevent any action. For instance, suppose the vote here was 14:1, the one person could simply block this policy for ever by demanding 100% consensus, even if the vote became 100:1. Would this be right or good for Wikibooks? If not then what is the acceptable 'sufficient consensus'? RobinH 10:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I cover this in my recent reply in Staff Lounge. Kellen T 10:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it appears that User:Rs2 hasn't edited since last November, so perhaps his position no longer carries as much weight. Kellen T 14:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Zero tolerance
This policy is critical for the maintenance of a pleasant working atmosphere. I would like to propose that this policy has a "zero tolerance" clause. Contributors should be warned on a first offence, suspended on a second offence and banned on a third. RobinH 11:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be a bit harsh. We should be stern, but three times is not bannable material, IMO. -- LV (Dark Mark) 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * We do need a definite statement of how often this behaviour might be permitted otherwise determined individuals will just take the micky. What would you suggest? RobinH 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Lord Voldemort. Stern, but not "instant ban" after 3 offences. When we get into stuff like that, there will be flame wars whether or not something should be interpreted as a flame or not, because the stakes will be so high. I suggest we do things as usual here; talk it over with both parties and try to find a resolution, or at least take the flames off Wikibooks. --Dragontamer 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a personal attack
Direct attacks

1 subject is a (derogatory term) - derogatory terms consist of terms such as "fool", "insane", including types of insanity and diagnosis, "genocidal maniac" etc.

2 relations or associates of subject are a (derogatory term)

Snide attacks

3 Anyone who had (any type of ability) would not produce the subject's work. ie: Anyone who had an intellect would not produce the subject's work. Anyone who had a (qualification in...) would not produce such substandard text.

4 The (article/part of article) could only have been produced by someone with (derogatory term). ie: The article could only have been produced by someone who is brain dead.

RobinH 15:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Supporting pages
Dispute resolution is little more than a stub, and there is also a red link to Blocking policy. These are the only links in the "Alternatives" and "Remedies" section, something that gives the policy as a whole a bit less "teeth", and is something that should be expanded to support the policy as a whole. Probably the closest thing to a "Blocking policy" I've seen is on this page (which, by the way, isn't even linked to by WB:VIP, even though it has more information on VIP than VIP itself), and there's extensive discussion in Staff Lounge as far as dispute resolution goes, so it's not as if the material isn't there, it simply needs to be implemented in the proper areas. --Xerol Oplan 16:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * This has been discussed in the Staff Lounge. I initially suggested something not far short of an Arbitration Committee but, given the lack of bad behaviour and the small size of the Wikibooks community, support Ad hoc administration committee. RobinH 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Enforced from 14 April to 23 April 2006
The policy was set enforced by Robin H at 14 April 2006, but set proposed again by Jguk at 23 April 2006.

The poll above suggests that this policy should now be enforced. Did I miss something? --Kernigh 17:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * What happened was that RobinH made this move, which I accept was entirely in good faith, despite Rob Horning's pertinent comments on Staff Lounge. In the past, my understanding is that on Wikibooks we operate by consensus, and at the very least that would anticipate that there was some discussion about the points raised by the two (one of them was me) who had voted against this proposal. Neither of the "no" votes is advocating that wikibooks should tolerate personal attacks, but there are concerns that should be addressed about the wording before it (or any alternative) goes live.

 * I agree with Rob's comment on the Staff Lounge that before any proposed policy becomes "enforced" it should be preceded by a well publicised discussion and a well publicised approval process, as we say with the Naming Convention policy.

 * I have seen this type of policy become a welcome refuge for editors who harrass (ie they drive dedicated editors to breaking point, the dedicated editor makes some personal attack in the heat of the moment after being subjected to many personal attacks on themselves, and then leave the dedicated editor to face punitive sanctions if the matter ever comes before ArbCom). I know that is not the intention of those who support this proposal, but I have serious concerns that, as written, it benefits the long-term harrasser over the harrassed. Even if you disagree with me here, I would suggest the point is worth discussion before the text becomes "enforced", Jguk 19:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * You archived the discussion of this item on the 24th then changed the policy to proposed again! See Archived discussion where no one demurred from the policy being enforced. RobinH 08:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Benefits the Long-term harrasser over the harrassed
Jguk said this in the previous section. I do not follow, sorry. Perhaps you can offer an explanation here? Basically; I see it like this: The only time a personal attack is warrented, is if there was a personal attack from some time before. Fortunatly, this policy prevents that as now no one can give a personal attack in the first place. Heck, my definition of a long-term harrasser is someone who gives personal attacks in the long term. --Dragontamer 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think anyone is saying that making a personal attacks is acceptable etiquette. The question is really whether we need to say more as a policy than that message that appears every time you try to edit a talk page: "Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice." I'm not sure we do. After all, if someone doesn't do that, what will happen? Do they make one solitary personal attack and that's the end of it? If so, then we let sleeping dogs lie. Do they continue? In which case someone will probably give them some friendly advice to calm down. Do they then continue despite friendly warnings? I've never seen it get this bad on Wikibooks - but if it did get this far I imagine an admin would give a warning together with a note that there would be some short block to allow matters to calm down. Continue then? Well, something sensible would happen - maybe an indefinite block accompanied with an undertaking to unblock if the user gives a guarantee not to repeat the offending behaviour. Or to put it another way, something sensible woud happen.

 * What's the benefit of being explicit, and also giving people lots of ideas of nasty things to do? Would those here to cause trouble necessarily think about doing all the bad behaviour listed under "Examples" if you don't put the ideas in their heads? Do we really want to highlight lots of possibilities for disciplinary actions, whereas really Wikibooks is quite a friendly place, not plagued by the problems we've probably all seen in various wikis?

 * Maybe we do need a behaviour policy for the record, and let's face it we have many, many current candidate policies covering behaviour: Assume good faith, No legal threats, No offensive usernames, No personal attacks, Ad hoc administration committee, Editing disputes policy. Whereas really how much more than "Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice" do we need? Jguk 18:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think we need enforced policies and an enforcement policy. At the moment there are few cases of serious disputes but they can happen. Laying down clear guidelines is the best way to stop them happening. The vote was clearly for this policy to be enforced. Jguk, you are one of the two dissenters, should you really stand in the way of it becoming an enforced policy? RobinH 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of two who has raised questions about this approach, and I do think our concerns should at the very least be addressed before any move to "enforced". You say that laying down clear guidelines is the best way to stop serious disputes happening - but I don't believe there's any evidence to support it. Compare Wikipedia, which has plenty of guidelines, but which is riddled by disputes. Also, you do not say why a simple policy of "Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice" is insufficient, Jguk 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * We have a good example here of why being nice is not always good enough. A vote has been taken on "No personal attacks" over several months that has shown a 4:1 majority in favour of enforcement. Yet one of the two dissenters from that vote has insisted that we should open the issue again to determine whether the vote should be enacted. Surely votes work on the basis that those taking part respect them, that they act in good faith once the vote has been taken. Is what you are doing good faith? RobinH 08:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Jguk wrote about the process of dealing with attacks: "Do they then continue despite friendly warnings? I've never seen it get this bad on Wikibooks - but if it did get this far I imagine an admin would give a warning together with a note that there would be some short block to allow matters to calm down. Continue then? Well, something sensible would happen - maybe an indefinite block accompanied with an undertaking to unblock if the user gives a guarantee not to repeat the offending behaviour. Or to put it another way, something sensible woud happen."

 * There are two main points here.

 * How bad can it get? I suggest that we look at Wikipedia. On Wikipedia some users make a habit of always starting comments with "It would take a moron to..." and continue to "wind up" the opposition with "Only a fool would..." finishing with flourishes such as "This whole article is (...)". Personal attacks of this level go uncorrected. Users must advance to "You nazi (....)" or similar before the process of correction may or may not be activated.

 * Who gives the friendly warnings? As far as I can see there is no enforcement apparatus in Wikibooks except the Staff Lounge. If a vote is taken at the Staff Lounge one of the admins could simply archive the discussion before any move for enforcement is introduced. We need enforced policies and an enforcement apparatus such as Ad hoc administration committee.

 * RobinH 09:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RobinH, Wikibooks, like Wikipedia, is ruled by discussion (except when our benevelent dictator visits us once in a blue moon :) ). A comment against an action being taken should have more weight than a simple vote of "support." Jguk's comments at the very minimum deserve to be adressed before enacting a policy. --Hagindaz 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that discussion is important but it looked to me like this proposal had been decided by a vote over several months. That said, I am happy to go with the discussion, see above. RobinH 12:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Avoid having too many policies
Here again are the "policies" that Jguk enumerated: Assume good faith, No legal threats, No offensive usernames, No personal attacks, Ad hoc administration committee, Editing disputes policy. There is an 8th proposal, General voting rules.

I supported enforcement of No personal attacks because I thought that it would be a good idea, and that we could always write a better policy later. I prefer that we have only one policy to deal with user behaviour (limiting insults against users, implementing consistent voting rules, resolving various disputes) instead of creating so many pages. I think that I would vote "no" concerning the other seven policies, but I might support a policy that merges the eight. --Kernigh 01:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I would whole-heartedly agree with that statement. No sense having too many separate policies, especially when there are a number that deal directly with the topic of user behavior. Most users (myself included) aren't going to take the time to read 8 different pages about the do's and don'ts of behavior, before we go out into the wiki-world with our keyboards blazing, making all sorts of mistakes. I don't have the time this week (or in most upcoming weeks) to write a unified policy of this nature, but if somebody else does, i will certainly cast my measly vote towards it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. I think that General voting rules is not similar enough to be merged with the other policies, and that it is an important policy in it's own right. enough so that we should keep it separate. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Although it may be a good idea to develop a merged policy this should constitute a separate project. The introduction of such a project now seems premature, lets get this policy enforced and progress from there. RobinH 17:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do think that we only need one merged behaviour policy. However, as an interim measure and to help resolve the impasse, I will look to get to a version of this formulation of the idea of "being nice" (and rephrase this to something better if you want).

I have edited out the bits that I found most problematic, namely:

 * The over-emphasis on not doing negative behaviour (I believe we should concentrate on encouraging positive, respectful behaviour)
 * The repetition of similar points by looking at the same points from ever so slightly different angles
 * The length (after all, the underlying idea is very simple - it can be expressed in just three words after all)

The changes I have made can be seen here. I am willing to agree with enforcing the policy post my amendments - although I note (1) a single merged behaviour policy should still be our aim, and (2) others will no doubt wish to comment on the revised draft and may have their our suggested amendments, and time should be allowed for this to happen before this proposal gets "enforced" status, Jguk 19:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Jg, you gave me one of those moments. I thought "No! how the hell can he just change a text that is undergoing a vote!" and reverted it. I then had a cup of tea and put it back again.

 * What am I doing trying to push a policy review? Three things, firstly ascertaining which policies are key policies, secondly establishing a bare bones constitution for Wikibooks so that it can never be the place where gangs hang out, thirdly tidying up.

 * I have left your amendments in place but have restored the examples of personal attacks as an appendix and have added a sentence that stresses how enforced policies impose duties on administrators. The added sentence also transmits some of the force of the original policy before your changes - personal attacks are simply not acceptable.

 * I am happy with the wider project of developing a single behaviour policy but feel that this could take a long time to get consensus support. The wider project will be much easier if there are some policies that are clearly accepted. These can serve as the kernel of your wider plan.

 * Your change to the text looked like a delaying tactic which was why I was so irritated. I will contact all those who have voted for the policy to note that the text has changed and to invite them to comment - it might change their vote to a "no". RobinH 09:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I object to the addition of a "remove personal attacks" section to this policy. RPAing does nothing productive; it is better to let the record stand and take people to task for their actions rather than trying to mask them. Kellen T 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The paragraph has been changed to address your concern (see below). RobinH 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'd agree. As long as it wasn't too egregious, it should stand (with obvious exception that the atackee can remove it if they want). -- LV (Dark Mark) 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) A "No personal attacks" policy is essential in a Wikimedia environment. I fouled up my response to Jg's change by loading the policy with yet another contentious issue. I have replaced the paragraph with:

Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikibooks and this policy imposes a duty on Administrators and Users to stop such attacks should they occur.

This is just emphasising the fact that this is a policy. It is not something that administrators and users can just ignore. Jg's re-write took the bite out of the policy; my intention in putting in this paragraph is purely emphasis. It does not change the policy. RobinH 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * If no-one objects then the policy should be moved to enforced by 1st June 2006. RobinH 10:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to Enforce by June 1, 2006
I agree with User:RobinH that this policy should become enforced by June 1st, barring any serious objections. User:Jguk made some changes to the policy recently that seem to keep the same spirit, but attempt to use better, "more positive" language. This section can be used for expressing concerns or objects. Barring any such objections, I agree with User:RobinH's motion that this policy should become enforced by June 1st. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * First, can we slow down. I have just proposed a significant amendment to the policy and Robin has suggested an amendment to the amendment which, as far as I'm aware, for the first time sets out an actual obligation for Administrators (so that if an Admin did not, for any reason, make a positive action, then they would be in breach of this policy). Additionally, Kellen, with LV in support, has raised a new objection to the bit about "removing personal attacks" (which admittedly has been in the draft a long time). All these points merit discussion. By all means encourage the discussion along, but let's not have a fixed cut-off date - after all, if we're all talking to resolve any differences, 1 July (just one month later than your proposal) is not an unreasonable target date.

 * I do find myself largely agreeing with Kellen and LV. Except in a situation where the personal attack was extreme (eg possibly libellous or plainly outrageous), I see no harm in keeping the personal attacks. I would add to this that I do believe that a user has the right to edit his userspace largely how he likes it, and I'd have no difficulty with a user removing a personal attack from his own talk page (as long as in so doing he did not leave a message that misrepresents the views of the original poster - removing an edit in its entirety would always be acceptable).

 * I then find myself again getting worried about having a rules-based policy. OK, we maybe can agree a rule that works reasonably in almost all cases (eg do not remove personal attacks), but then I quickly see that there are exceptions to that general rule which take us on to further objections. In fact, staying totally silent on the matter is better here - silence is an invitation to do something reasonable in the circumstances. We should not get too hung up about which reasonable reaction out of a whole gamut of possible reasonable reactions we have.

 * I do think that Robin's addition ("This policy imposes a responsibility on Administrators to assist in the removal of text containing personal attacks wherever it appears in Wikibooks and to explain to offenders that such text is not acceptable") needs amending. The first part, as noted above I do not think appropriate (and it seems Kellen and LV are of the same view). As far as the second part is concerned, I do not like the idea of forcing a duty on Admins to explain to offenders that such text is not acceptable. Any reader can explain this. But you should also use your judgment. If someone has used bad language once two weeks ago, just let it pass. Only if it seems a wikibookian is persisting in objectionable behaviour, or if you feel it would be useful to explain the situation in a currently active dispute, is it really appropriate to intervene.

 * As far as the appendix is concerned. I do not think we need examples of what constitutes a personal attack. Would anyone really argue that a death threat is not a personal attack? Also, I believe it indicates that some behaviour that I would not find acceptable is acceptable - for example, the phrase "Spurious threats of legal action" implies that we would have no problem at all if there was an actual threat of legal action (or an writ actually being issued because of what has happened on wikibooks). Again, silence is best here - either the person making the comment knows they are doing so in a negative spirit or they have made a comment which they do not mean to be taken with offence that has inadvertently caused offence. We don't need a list of what this may be - and we certainly don't need to offer suggestions to those who might want to disrupt Wikibooks, Jguk 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I was just motioning for haste, I certainly can't inforce it myself. I think that wikibooks is lacking because we don't have the policy base that wikipedia does. Because we have fewer definate policies to ground our actions, wikibooks feels more like a free-for-all, and less like a community. I agree in spirit that User:RobinH's addition of a duty for admins is not necessary, but I do not beleive that a small detail such as that is grounds not to instate a general behavior policy. It should be known officially that personal attacks and bad behavior are not acceptable here at wikibooks. The specific measures that should be taken in the event of a policy breach are inconsequential in comparison to the statement of expectations. Maybe we don't need to enforce any stated punishment or recourse because we can leave it to admins and general users to deal with innappropriateness themselves, so long as we have a solid policy stating that it should be dealt with in some fashion. We can still make all sorts of changes now or in the future, but small details should not be an excuse not to enforce this policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * In the interests of preventing yet further delay to the implementation of this policy I have changed the offending paragraph to a paragraph that simply emphasises that policies impose duties on the whole community. This should answer Jguk's first point. On the second point, Jguk might note that it waters down the original text that most users approved. In the original text it stated that "Threats of legal action" were not acceptable. If someone is really breaking the law then a threat of legal action is appropriate, it is spurious threats that are no more than personal attacks.

 * As Whiteknight says, we need some basic policies or we are wide open to abuse. I feel exposed as a contributor to Wikibooks because, as things stand, anyone can come in, be insulting, uncooperative and deconstruct any book without any defined process for preventing or even disapproving of their actions. Jguk says that enlightened admins will prevent this from occurring but without guidance in the form of policy the admins cannot know just how severely a particular case should be treated. A list of what constitutes a personal attack was always part of this policy until Jguk's re-write of a couple of days ago and it helps to provide guidance. RobinH 08:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made a minor change (from "Administrators and Users" to "Wikibookians"), which I trust is not controversial. It seems the remaining live issue (subject to new ones arising) is whether the Appendix stays or goes. Please let me know whether you wish to aim to make this "enforced" policy without the Appendix (in which case publicise it everywhere and then promote it in a fortnight if there are no objections) and then later argue for the Appendix should be included. Alternatively we can have the "include or exclude" the Appendix discussion now, which would delay making the policy "enforced", but would make the policy more complete when it eventually does become "enforced", Jguk 11:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The advantage of the appendix, and the reason why the original authors included the list, is that it makes it clear that any sort of personal attack is not allowed. Anything from "anyone with half a brain.." to "you nigger jew" is not allowed. Wikibooks is about content, not personalities. Without the appendix anyone intervening might be in some doubt about whether a given personal attack is severe enough for action; the appendix shows that any personal attack is not allowed and must be withdrawn. It also shows that insulting a person's religion etc. is encompassed by the policy.RobinH 12:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Does an appendix really matter. I think people can figure out what is a personal attack or not. If they complain, a neutral admin can step in and decide how severe it is (if it even is one) and take the appropriate action. So it doesn't really matter to me if it's in there or not. Thoughts? -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think it's unnecessary and an artifact of how the WP policy developed. Kellen T 20:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I briefly toyed with the idea of replacing the list with a sentence such as "Any personal attack, whether it is a snide comment or a direct personal insult is covered by this policy." But then I noticed that in the list it included racial attacks, religious attacks and political attacks. For instance, "Jews are all fools" is not obviously a personal attack - the other person may or may not be a Jew. It is however totally inappropriate for Wikibooks and would be a personal attack upon a jewish reader. The list makes it clear for admins and users that any personal attack is not allowed. Without the list there would be debate about whether an attack was really "personal" or really severe enough to be covered by the policy.

 * That said, in the interests of compromise, I have inserted my sentence and removed the list. RobinH 10:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to enforce
The new, compromise wording has been in place for a week without objection. I propose to move this policy to "enforced" tomorrow. RobinH 13:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Although I myself do not object to the new wording becoming "enforced", I do think that this move should be republicised on the staff lounge with a note that the wording has changed, and only moved to "enforced" once any comments raised in response to that have been dealt with, Jguk 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

New Move to Enforce
Actually, this is the same move, I am just bumping this page to the top of the RC list, in hopes that this movement will draw more attention then the last. It is my intention, as per the previous community discussion, to move this proposal to policy within the week. If there are no dissenting opinions on the matter, I will do it soon. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd like to object on the grounds that Be civil covers this adequately (along with Profanity). I'd like to see this proposal rejected. --Swift 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * This policy is central to creating an atmosphere of congenial behaviour at Wikibooks. The move to enforce was indeed publicised on the staff lounge and not opposed. As far as I was aware it was already accepted for enforcement after protracted discussion. Whiteknight says "Actually, this is the same move" ie: it was already accepted as enforced and tagged as enforced. Why has Whiteknight reopened the debate? Do we have to go over every policy endlessly? Perhaps there should be a moratorium of at least 1 year between debates otherwise determined individuals can slowly dismantle any constitutional structure. If Swift thinks the policy is part of "Be civil" and acceptable in this context then there is no objection to the policy as such and it should be left in place. RobinH 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Well shoot, i must have mixed up my pages. This one already is enforced, and this new nomination is unneeded. Sorry. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Cheers. Sorry I got a bit aerated but this was almost the only policy that was finally accepted back in May! RobinH 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, this may actually be my fault. When preparing this weeks Proposal of the Week, I looked through the list on Wikibooks talk:Be civil to see the status of each and thought that this was still a proposal, so I put it up on the week's plan for rejection. That may have been what shaded Whiteknight's memory.
 * Sorry about that guys. --Swift 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:No personal attacks


text:
Water Resources Directory/USA/Projects

List of State Water Plans

 * 1) Idaho
 * 2) Nevada

List of Drought Management Plans

 * City Drought Plans and State Drought Plans (Richard Palmer website)

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

title: Water Resources Directory/USA/Projects


text:
User:Mahanga/Sandbox

Graphs
A graph is a generalization of the tree structure, where instead of a strict parent/child relationship between tree nodes, any kind of complex relationships between the nodes can be represented. A graph (G) is a collection of vertices (V) that are linked by edges (E). Each edge, sometimes called an arc, consists of a pair of vertices, which are adjacent to one another. Typically, a graph is shown as a set of circles for the vertices, appropriately labelled, which are joined by lines (edges). The two most common representations of graphs are directed and undirected graphs are the two most common representations of graphs.

We will begin with directed graphs, also known as digraphs, which have the easiest to understand representation, and then undirected graphs and finally weighted graphs.

Graph Terminology
Before continuing, some knowledge of graph terms is necessary. The order of a graph is the number of its edges, i.e. |V(G)|. A common problem is trying to find the length from one vertex to another. This is called finding the path between two vertices. A path is a sequence of vertices in a graph where each vertex has an edge from it to the next vertex until reaching the final vertex. The length of a path is the number of edges used. A simple path is similar to a path, except it cannot visit the same vertex twice. A graph cycle is a path that starts and ends at the same vertex, thus it cycles back.

Graphs are an essential part of Computer Science and play a significant role in real-world applications. For example, a graph can be used to describe the airport system. For example, what is best flight, in terms of total distance, from one city to another? One can use vertices to represent airports and edges to represent the connections between any two airports. In this case, one would most likely use directed graphs with a weight or cost assigned to each edge. Weighted graphs will be explained at the end of this chapter.

Graph Representations
[TODO: picture of directed graph]

Directed Graphs
The number of edges with one endpoint on a given vertex is called that vertex's degree. In a directed graph, the number of edges that point to a given vertex is called its in-degree, and the number that point from it is called its out-degree. Often, we may want to be able to distinguish between different nodes and edges. We can associate labels with either. We call such a graph labeled.

 Directed Graph Operations   Create a new graph, initially with no nodes or edges.

 Create a new vertex, with the given value.

 Create an edge between u and v. In a directed graph, the edge will flow from u to v.

 Returns the set of edges flowing from v

 Returns the set of vertexes connected to v

[TODO: also need undirected graph abstraction in that section, and also find a better set of operations-- the key to finding good operations is seeing what the algorithms that use graphs actually need]

We can use graphs to represent relationships between objects. For example, the popular game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon can be modeled by a graph, in particular, a labeled undirected graph. Each actor becomes a node, labeled by the actor's name. Nodes are connected by an edge when the two actors appeared together in some movie. We can label this edge by the name of the movie. Then the problem of finding a path from any actor to Kevin Bacon in six or less steps easily reduces to the Single Source Shortest Path problem found in the companion Algorithms book. The Oracle of Bacon at the University of Virginia has actually implemented this algorithm and can tell you the path from any actor to Kevin Bacon in a few clicks.

Adjacency Matrix Representation
An adjacency matrix is one of the two common ways to represent a graph. The adjacency matrix shows which nodes are adjacent to one another. Two nodes are adjacent if there is an edge connecting them. In the case of a directed graph, if node $$j$$ is adjacent to node $$i$$, there is an edge from $$i$$ to $$j$$. In other words, if $$j$$ is adjacent to $$i$$, you can get from $$i$$ to $$j$$ by traversing one edge. For a given graph with $$n$$ nodes, the adjacency matrix will have dimensions of $$n \times n$$. For an unweighted graph, the adjacency matrix will be populated with boolean values.

For any given node $$i$$, you can determine its adjacent nodes by looking at row $$\left( i, \left[ 1..n \right] \right)$$ of the adjacency matrix. A value of true at $$\left( i, j \right)$$ indicates that there is an edge from node $$i$$ to node $$j$$, and false indicating no edge. In an undirected graph, the values of $$\left( i, j \right)$$ and $$\left( j, i \right)$$ will be equal. In a weighted graph, the boolean values will be replaced by the weight of the edge connecting the two nodes, with a value of zero indicating no edge.

The memory use of an adjacency matrix is $$O(n^2)$$.

Depth-First Search
[TODO: depth-first search -- with compelling example]

// Search in the subgraph for a node matching 'criteria'. Do not re-examine // nodes listed in 'visited' which have already been tested. GraphNode depth_first_search(GraphNode node, Predicate criteria, VisitedSet visited) { // Check that we haven't already visited this part of the graph if (visited.contains(node)) { return null; } visited.insert(node); // Test to see if this node satifies the criteria if (criteria.apply(node.value)) { return node; } // Search adjacent nodes for a match for (adjacent in node.adjacentnodes) { GraphNode ret = depth_first_search(adjacent, criteria, visited); if (ret != null) { return ret; } }  // Give up - not in this part of the graph return null; }

Breadth-First Search
[TODO: breadth-first search -- with compelling example] [TODO: topological sort -- with compelling example]

Undirected Graphs
In a directed graph, the edges point from one vertex to another, while in an undirected graph, they merely connect two vertices.

Weighted Graphs
We may also want to associate some cost or weight to the traversal of an edge. When we add this information, the graph is called weighted.

title: User:Mahanga/Sandbox


text:
Video Capture, Transcoding, and Authoring/Converting AVI to MPEG-2 with AviSynth and TMPGEnc Xpress

This is a how to guide for converting (transcoding) Windows AVI video files into high-quality DVD-compliant MPEG-2/AC3]format with AviSynth and TMPGEnc Xpress. Resulting MPEG-2/AC3 format files can be readily authored]and "burned" to DVD recordable. Founded by John Navas.
 * TMPGEnc Xpress can be a very good choice for transcoding, because:
 * It produces high quality MPEG-2 video output (e.g., smoother than NeroVision Express with 23.97 fps]video).
 * TMPGEnc Xpress supports high-quality AC3 audio encoding (2-channel as of this writing) as an optional plug-in for version 3, built-in to version 4.
 * AC3 (Dolby Digital) is a more compact and efficient audio format than the alternatives of Linear PCM (WAV) or MPEG-1 Audio Layer 2 (MP2) format (leaving more room for higher-quality video at a given file size).
 * Transcoding of audio into AC3 with other MPEG-2 encoders usually involves demultiplexing, separate transcoding, and remultiplexing, which can be a painful and problematic process.
 * However, TMPGEnc Xpress alone can be problematic:
 * It chokes on certain input formats; e.g.,
 * It incorrectly detects XviD video at 23.97 fps (and at 29.97 fps) as 30 fps, resulting in transcoding problems.
 * Its filters aren't as plentiful, powerful, good, and flexible as those for AviSynth and VirtualDub.
 * AviSynth frameserving of source material, with optional assistance from VirtualDub, can overcome these problems.
 * Note: TMPGEnc Xpress is a relatively slow encoder.

Essential

 * AviSynth (free) : Use version 2.5 (or higher).
 * AVSEdit (free) : Edit and preview AviSynth scripts.
 * TMPGEnc Xpress (commercial)
 * Plug-in AC-3 (commercial)

Codecs

 * Which codecs you need (in addition to those bundled with Windows) to have installed depend on which codecs were used to encode the AVI file you need to convert (transcode). (See Codec Utilities below)
 * XviD Free, excellent codec for a number of MPEG-4 formats (e.g., XviD, DivX) that are commonly used to compress video. Can be downloaded in ready-to-use install packages from:
 * Koepi's Media Development (Recommended)
 * Nic's XviD Binaries

Optional

 * Codec Utilities : Useful for detecting which codecs were used to encode a given AVI file and if compatible codecs are installed on your system.
 * AVIcodec (free)
 * GSpot Codec Information Appliance (free)
 * AviSynth Filters : A wealth of powerful tools.
 * Media Player Classic (free) : A good way to test your AviSynth script.
 * Nero (commercial)
 * NeroVision Express (DVD authoring)
 * Nero Express (DVD burning)
 * TMPGEnc DVD Author (commercial) : Commercial alternative to Nero.
 * VirtualDub (free) : Powerful tool that can be used to manipulate and modify AVI files
 * VirtualDub Filters : A wealth of powerful tools.
 * decompress : Part of avi2vcd; decompresses audio into a resulting AVI file that can then be processed by other tools which can't otherwise handle the audio.
 * VLC media player : In addition to playback, can be used to extract audio and/or video files.

What Is Frameserving and Why Use It?

 * Frameserving is using one program (the server) to decode (read) a video file and then sending it (serving) to another program to encode (write) a new video file. The program doing the 'serving' will typically generate a small (usually only one or two frames) dummy .avi file which is then loaded as the video input of the encoding program. The server sends the decoded frames one at a time to the dummy .avi file, essentially making the encoder think it's working with the original video file.

 * For example, we could decode a DVD Vob file using Flask Mpeg and then use AVISynth to 'frameserve' it to another utility such as TMPGEnc Xpress and convert it to an SVCD or a VCD. Or we could frameserve it to VirtualDub and add filters and effects before we encoded it into another format such as DivX. Frameserving is the holy grail of video converting because it allows the user to choose what encoder to use without the need to convert their video file into a huge uncompressed AVI format first!

Why Not Use VirtualDub Alone?

 * GUI-based VirtualDub is easier to use than script-based AviSynth, but normally isn't able to frameserve directly to TMPGEnc Xpress -- although TMPGEnc Xpress previewing works, TMPGEnc Xpress transcoding (conversion) fails with an error (although there may be a way to solve that problem - see this forum thread, particularly posts by bunyip).

 * On the other hand, VirtualDub is able to frameserve to AviSynth, which can in turn frameserve to TMPGEnc Xpress, so it is possible to use VirtualDub with TMPGEnc Xpress thus:

Cleanup of Noisy Video

 * VirtualDub can be particularly useful for cleanup of noisy source video files (e.g., VHS video). Two VirtualDub filters that are both easy to use and effective on cleaning up noise (when used in this order) are:

 * Dynamic Noise Reduction by Steven Don (MMX version) Try the Noise Threshold as high as 24 (or more) on really noisy sources.
 * Smart Smoother High Quality by Klaus Post Try a Threshold of 100-140 on really noisy sources.

Basics

 * Sample AviSynth script:

file = "SampleXviD.avi" # use actual filename AVISource(file, audio = false) frate = Framerate DirectShowSource(file, fps = frate)
 * 1) source XviD AVI file
 * 1) source XviD AVI file
 * 1) open AVI video-only to get correct frame rate
 * 1) save correct frame rate for DirectShowSource
 * 1) reopen in DirectShow for better audio compatibility
 * }

Normalize audio

 * To ensure that audio volume isn't too low and/or to roughly match the audio volume of different clips, add the following to the Basics script:

Normalize(0.98)
 * }

Correct Audio Sync Errors

 * Audio can be out of sync with video if:

 * The audio starts too early or too late. To fix this (e.g., delay audio by 0.25 seconds):

DelayAudio(0.25) # float seconds; negative is earlier
 * }
 * The audio playback speed doesn't exactly match the frame rate of the video. To fix this (e.g., stretch audio by 0.01%):

TimeStretch(tempo = 100.015)
 * 1) less than 100.0 slows/stretches
 * 2) more than 100.0 speeds/shortens
 * 1) more than 100.0 speeds/shortens
 * }
 * Troubleshooting Audio Sync
 * If AviSynth complains about source audio compression, or if audio is difficult to sync, especially when source audio is in AC3 format, it may first be necessary to decompress (and possibly fix) source audio. Options:
 * VirtualDub, either frame serve to AviSynth (see Why Not Use VirtualDub Alone?) or write a new (proper and much larger) AVI file (File → Save as AVI) with direct stream copy of video and full processing mode of audio. Note that you must have an appropriate codec installed or VirutalDub will complain about not being able to decompress the audio.
 * Audio skew (audio early or late) can be adjusted (under Audio → Interleaving) if necessary.
 * Advanced filtering may be needed for more difficult audio problems.
 * decompress (part of avi2vcd). Simple and easy, but not as effective as VirtualDub.

Extracting WAV audio

 * To solve difficult audio sync or other audio problems, particularly with AC3 audio, it can be helpful to extract WAV audio from the AVI, which can then be multiplexed with the video using AviSynth or VirtualDub. Note that the WAV file will be relatively large due to decompression.

 * Extracting WAV audio with VLC media player

 * One way to extract WAV audio is with VLC media player, which does a good job of handling difficult audio streams. The downside to using VLC is that it only works in real time (i.e., slowly). Sample commandline:

 * Extracting WAV audio with VirtualDub

 * A faster but less universal way to extract WAV audio is with VirtualDub:
 * Load the AVI video (File → Open Video File)
 * Under the Audio Menu select Full Processing Mode (Audio → Full Processing Mode)
 * Under the File menu select Save WAV... (File → Save WAV...), and choose a name and location for the WAV file.
 * VirtualDub will pop up a status window as the audio track is rapidly extracted and converted to a WAV file. Note that you must have an appropriate codec installed or VirutalDub will complain about not being able to decompress the audio.

Adding Subtitles (Permanent)

 * Adding permanent subtitles to output MPEG-2 video can be done by merging the .AVI video with text subtitles from a separate file in .SRT,  .SSA, or other subtitle format. This can be done with the TextSub plugin (named VSFilter.dll) for AviSynth; e.g.,

LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\VobSub\VSFilter.dll") # program location TextSub("subtitles.ssa") # merge subtitles
 * }

 * Notes:
 * Subtitle sync errors can be fixed with the included SubResync utility. (It may be necessary to separately install VobSub in the standalone VSFilter package for SubResync to work.) To modify on-screen formatting (e.g., font, text size, color) of subtitles, use SubResync to Edit... as desired.
 * More serious subtitle editing is best done with free Subtitle Workshop.
 * When  converting PAL to NTSC (as described below) with subtitles, place TextSub before AssumeFPS to ensure that subtitles stay in sync.

Convert PAL to NTSC

 * Any conversion of PAL framerate to NTSC framerate will inevitably result in loss of motion smoothness (jerkiness). However, smoothness can be preserved by playing 25 fps PAL video at the NTSC film framerate of 23.976 fps by means of AssumeFPS, slowing action by about 4%, a difference so small as to be unnoticeable, and using 3:2 pulldown to achieve an NTSC playback framerate of 29.97 fps. Use audio_sync true on AssumeFPS to keep the audio in sync. That will slightly change (lower) the pitch of the audio, but again the difference is so small as to be unnoticeable, although you can correct that with TimeStretch as shown in the following example:
 * Method 1

AssumeFPS(23.976, true)
 * 1) Play PAL 25 fps video at NTSC 23.976 fps WITH audio sync
 * 1) Play PAL 25 fps video at NTSC 23.976 fps WITH audio sync

TimeStretch(pitch = (100.0*25.0)/23.976)
 * 1) Restore correct pitch (OPTIONAL)
 * }
 * Method 2

AssumeFPS(23.976)
 * 1) Play PAL 25 fps video at NTSC 23.976 fps WITHOUT audio sync
 * 1) Play PAL 25 fps video at NTSC 23.976 fps WITHOUT audio sync

TimeStretch((100.0*23.976)/25.0)
 * 1) Restore audio sync (ESSENTIAL)
 * }

Transcode MPEG formats

 * To frameserve various MPEG formats with AviSynth, use the DGMPGDec package, which includes the DGDecode plugin for AviSynth. (Supported formats include elementary streams, program streams, VOBs, VCDs, SVCDs, PVA files, and transport streams.)

 * Before frameserving, run DGIndex (also included in the DGMPGDec package), and use File→Open and File→Save Project to extract audio to a file (.wav, .mpa, etc.) and create a .d2v video index file. Then load video and audio in AviSynth, and dub them together. For example, for AVSEQ01.DAT (VideoCD MPEG1 file), processed with DGIndex:

LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\DGMPGDec\DGDecode.dll") # Location of DGMPGDec package video = MPEG2Source("AVSEQ01.d2v") # video index file from DGIndex audio = MPASource("AVSEQ01 T01 DELAY 21ms.mpa") # audio file extracted by DGIndex AudioDub(video,audio) # Dub video and audio together
 * }
 * Notes:
 * MPEG2Source is used even for MPEG1 formats.
 * For .wav audio, WAVSource would be used instead of MPASource. Other forms of audio must be handled with AviSynth plugins.
 * To convert PAL to NTSC, the above method can be used:

AssumeFPS(23.976, true) # play PAL at NTSC frame rate with audio sync
 * }

Testing

 * A good way to test an AviSynth script is to play it with Media Player Classic.

Troubleshooting

 * Video problems


text:
Georgia Water/Policy/Issues/Ground Water

Chapter 2. Water Policy
 * 2.4.3. Ground Water Policy in Georgia

Policy Issues

 * Limit total allowed withdrawal (from all users)
 * Manage aquifer recharge
 * Consider ground water pumping effects on spring flow

Example policy from other states

 * Idaho -- "It is the policy of Idaho that average withdrawals from an aquifer should not exceed the reasonably anticipated rate of future recharge to that aquifer." | (p.3)
 * Idaho -- "It is the policy of Idaho that managed recharge be encouraged, pursuant to state law. Comment: Managed aquifer recharge may enhance spring flows and maintain desirable aquifer levels." | (p.4)
 * Idaho -- "It is the policy of Idaho that the hydrogeologic relationships between ground water supplies and spring flows continue to be quantified to allow for the determination of optimal development of the water resources. Comment: Spring flow is part of the natural discharge from an aquifer. Pumped ground water withdrawals from an aquifer change the original recharge-discharge relationship and affect spring flows. Where this relationship exists, it must be sufficiently quantified to allow for optimal utilization of the ground water supply while protecting established senior rights which depend on spring flows discharging from the aquifer." | (p.4)


text:
User talk:KHatcher

Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * Check out our help page if you need additional help.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Templates can save your time
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask us a question, visit Study help desk or join our IRC channel: #wikibooks in FreeNode network.

Good luck! -- LV (Dark Mark) 20:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Water Resources Planning and Management in Georgia book
The Water Resources Planning and Management in Georgia book has a bad naming convention, and I am going to go through and fix it, eventually. We usually require that all pages in a given book have the same prefix, such as "Georgia Water", or "Georgia Water Management", or something like that. Then, every subpage of the book would be named "Georgia Water/Georgia Water Law". I'll go through and do all the dirty work for you to make this book more acceptable under current policy, if you would like. Feel free to give me any suggestions/requirements that you might have for this process, so that I don't make you unhappy with it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I've gone though tonight and added Category:Water Resources Directory and Category:Water Resources Planning and Management in Georgia designations to a number of pages in your book, but wasn't able to tag them all tonight. I will go through and try to finish the job tomorrow or next week. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply! I don't think the VfD issue is going to be a problem, it's based off the conception that because the word "directory" is in the title, that it isn't a "textbook". As a civil engineer, I think that you should be well aware that books of that nature can be used as textbooks in CE classrooms. If you can use this project to attract other contributors to wikibooks--especially expert contributors--I can't imagine anybody turning that down. Also, I would like to point out that the Engineering bookshelf is in bad shape, and could use additional help from a team of professional engineers (should they have some time to spare). Come down to the VfD vote, and cast a vote for keep, and possibly explain what you explained to me about this book, so that other people understand. Good luck, and I'll talk to you later. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Water Resources Directory
I've gone one better and closed the discussion. Whilst one user, hagindaz, has concerns about its suitability, it is clear that no-one shares them (or at least no-one has chosen to declare that they share them). As the last comments on that nomination were some time ago, and as, I confess, I agree with you that the proposed content is suitable for wikibooks, I thought closing the debate was the best way to go. Good luck with it! Jguk 07:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Water Resources
I came across water resources for georgia while trying to fix double redirects and making sure they really were redirects. I goofed and moved pages to Georgia Water instead of Water Resources Directory when I decided to also try to fix the remaining issues with the wikibook name as I saw on one of the pages. So everything else I could find that hadn't already been moved to Georgia Water got moved there. I goofed because I didn't see until I had finished moving pages, the new suggested name for the wikibook. For that I apologies for any additional trouble that may have caused.

Luckly nothing within Water Resources Directory was moved in the process of my moving pages. I moved some pages from Georgia Water Laws into Water Resources Directory/USA/Georgia/Laws as that was all I could follow of the book structure. I'm willing to help finish what I started in moving twords having the entire book listed under one bookname with flat / tree structure, if you need/want it and if you can tell me where things should go.

Since I notice you are still actively contributing to the wikibook, could you double check my changed? I've fixed broken links on pages, but perhaps not all. I might of moved laws that may not have been state specific and so may of been better off placed in Water Resources Directory/USA/Laws/. I've also requested speedy deletion on a ton of pages that were turned into redirects that are no longer refered to from my fixing links to refer directly to the correct page. There are still however pleanty of pages under Georgia Water and Georgia Water Law that probably need to be moved to Water Resources Directory/USA/Georgia, because I'm uncertain if the current structure of Georgia Water is meant to be used there or not.

I don't know anything about water resources, so other then trying to help move parts of the wikibook under the one name and (hopefully) correct book structure, I can't be of much help with this wikibook. Let me know on my talk page, if I was helpful, unhelpful, any other critisism you may have or if you would like my help to finish what I tried to start. :) --darklama 18:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Water Resources page moves and Georgia Water Law
Thank you for your note on my talkpage to explain the page moves. The Georgia Water Law book just needed to be added to the new book list, not put under a subsubsubpagename. The intention is to invite attorneys to contribute material for the individual laws which are listed under the Georgia Water Law book title. I think that the attorneys might be less willing to contribute to a sub-subsubsubpagename (Water Resources Directory/USA/Georgia/Law/NameOfLaw), but might be willing to contribute to a book called Georgia Water Law. Also, the two law school students who organized the Georgia Water Law book might like to cite it on their resumes with the title used to create the book, rather than citing it as a subsubsubpagename. So it would help if you could please put everything back as it was. Then OK to list the Georgia Water Law book on the bookshelf. Thanks very much. I notice on your userpage that you have programming skills, and hope that you might help me with some page and table layout questions in the future. I appreciate your help. -- KHatcher 13:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I might of misunderstood what SBJohnny was saying about it needed more work done and tied together. The only pages concerning Georgia Water Law I've marked for speedy deletion are ones that look like they might of been created by accident and had been fixed. Georgia Water Law/ LawName moved to Georgia Water Law/LawName. I may have also moved some pages from Georgia Water/Policy that looked like laws (I don't remember).

I may have incorrectly assumed that Water Resources in Georgia and names simular to it, Georgia Water and Georgia Water Law were all meant to be part of the same wikibook from issues with naming policy, decisions regarding what was needed to prevent deletion as was decided as part of its Votes for Deletion and comments left here by other people. There seems to be a bit of an overlap between them all which probably added to my own confusion. Like Georgia Water Law looks like it is/was a chapter within Georgia Water which in turn looks like it is/was part of Water Resources Directory/USA/Georgia. Sorry about that. Have you mentioned these differences on SBJohnny's talk page in addition to repling to him on my talk page? He may not notice your reply on my talk page.

Am I correct in assuming you don't have a problem with Georgia Water being moved as subpages of Water Resources Directory/USA/Georgia, just with Georgia Water Law? --darklama 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the work you did on these pages the same day. It would appear these are all meant to serve as redirects for the same book, more or less. Is that correct? I'm a bit confused on what all you need me to undo to put things right. Just undo my moves on Georgia Water Laws and fix links on Water Resources Directory? --darklama 02:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please make a comment also... txs
We are discussing GFDL and wikibooks and book communities, rights and what nots in "Call for comments" a future policy could and probably should emerge from that discussion in not only to clarify things to all users.--Panic 17:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is everything supposed to be, actually?
I've been ignoring the speedy deletion requests surrounding this book, as I'm not sure what you actually want done. Are they supposed to be under "Georgia Water"?

I'm not sure darklama can undo what was done (admin tools might be needed, and he's not an admin). Currently I'm not even sure where everything is, but let me know if there's anything we can do to get it back on track. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks Newsletter, Volume 1
(Wikibooks gazette home | Discuss | Bulletin board | Subscription list)

This is a short newsletter that is being distributed to all active wikibookians. You are getting this message because you are recognized as an established contributor to the project. This newsletter will be distributed on a regular basis to help share news, information, and tips. It comes from a bot account, User:The Staff. User:The Staff is currently operated by a team of wikibooks admins, the complete list of which is available on the user page of the bot. If you would like to not receive this newletter anymore, please remove your name from the list at Active wikibookians.

The work you do at Wikibooks is greatly appreciated. However there are plenty of other opportunities for you to get involved and help us to create a thriving Wikibooks community. We are sure that there are things we can do to help you and your understanding of Wikibooks and similarly there are certainly things you could do to help Wikibooks become a better place.

We would like to ask all wikibookians to add the Bulletin Board to your watchlists. The Bulletin Board is a fast and easy way for wikibookians to communicate important news and events to the entire community. If you have important news to share with the community, you can feel free to add your own entry to that page.

If you have general questions or comments about Wikibooks, you are welcome to post a message on The Staff Lounge, a free discussion area. Your input would also be welcomed in the Votes for Deletion and Requests for Adminship discussion pages. These pages are all active discussion areas that help to shape the Wikibooks community as a whole.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that the Wikibooks community is much larger and more diverse then the people who work in a single book, or on a single bookshelf. Hopefully, together we can all make Wikibooks a better place, and a more valuable educational resource.

The Staff 04:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:KHatcher


text:
Futurology/Introduction

Futurology (or Futures studies) is the analysis of cause and effect trends for the purpose of predicting possible, probable, and prescriptive outcomes to present day scenarios. While industry and liberal arts have the luxury of dividing historical perspectives into distinct disciplines, Futurology examines the necessary intertwining of advancements and expectations in economics, sociology, engineering, mathematics, biology, pedagogy, and many other disciplines.

Possible Effects
Futurology can be used to warn society of a possible undesirable future for the purpose of avoiding it. In regard to predictions of widespread chaos associated with the Millennium bug, for instance, futurologists claim that society heeded the evidence presented and took steps to avoid the catastrophe. Yet in cases of successful futurology warnings, it is impossible to prove through direct evidence the difference between a catastrophe averted and an incorrect prediction, even after the fact.

By the same token, popular futurologists like Ray Kurzweil (The Singularity Is Near) predict futures that exceed our expectations. In doing so, they are often accused of creating self-fulfilling prophecies. Kurzweil's books generally review predictions from previous writings to show their accuracy, and then make forecasts for the future. Since the popularity of these books cannot help but raise people's expectations, they are sure to create a demand for the technology that is prophesied. As a result, to some extent Kurzweil is not only predicting the future, but also creating it.

Nature of the Future
Even if we knew everything about our current universe, even if the future didn't also depend on the quantum random element, and even if technology didn't change the future ramifications of historic events, predictions only have a practical effect if they somehow alter our actions in the present. Of course, any differing action in the present will also change the future, thus affecting the prediction. For these reasons, futurology uses a unique set of theoretical models and deductive methods for describing the likelihood of an event and the conditions under which it is prone to occur. This textbook investigates these models and methods, and explores the practical applications for their use.

—TABLE OF CONTENTS—

title: Futurology/Introduction


text:
Wikibooks:No legal threats

Don't make legal threats against other users of Wikibooks. Apart from being incivil, doing so causes a number of serious problems:

 * It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikibooks remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systematic bias in our modules.

 * It causes bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the Wikibooks community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently and with an assumption of mutual good faith.

 * The Wikimedia Foundation has had bad experiences with users who have made legal threats in the past, and by making legal threats, you may damage your reputation on Wikibooks.

 * A legal threat may lead to you being blocked from editing (on a case by case basis), so as not to exacerbate the problem through other than legal channels.

Instead, first attempt to resolve disputes using the dispute resolution procedures. This will oftentimes lead to a solution without resorting to the blunt tool of the law. If the dispute resolution procedures do not resolve your problem then you can use the law in the knowledge that you have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the situation amicably.

But, if you really feel the need to take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we ask that if you do so then you do not edit Wikibooks until the matter of law is settled, one way or the other, to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.

If you do decide to proceed with legal action, you should deal with it privately with the user by e-mail. Do not thrash out the issue in a Wikibooks forum or talk page; you may find that other users take the side of the other party. (Would you really want to sue a group of users if that happened?) If your issue involves Wikibooks itself, you should contact Wikibook's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation.

NOTE: "No legal threats" does not mean, of course, that claims of copyright infringement are not to be made. If you are the owner of copyrighted material which is on Wikibooks, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. Copyrighted material not licensed for Wikibooks (with very limited fair-use exception) is not welcome on Wikibooks.

Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikibooks; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikibooks, or its parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and legal threats cannot be used to have points of view enshrined in an module.

title: Wikibooks:No legal threats


text:
Wikibooks talk:No legal threats

Adapted from en.wiki. In an effort to protect Wikibooks or the Wikimedia Foundation, I propose this policy be enforced ASAP. A poll to determine consensus is below. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * First off, you absolutely need to change references from "wikipedia" to say "wikibooks". How can we vote on a policy that doesnt even reference this project? Next, while i understand what you are saying about threats ruining the whole atmosphere, at wikibooks, we need some threats, because we can't have users violating copyright to post information here. In fact, we should never need legal threats, because everybody should always perfectly follow all applicable laws. Of course, this isnt the case. If a contributer here posts copyrighted information, the entire wikibooks project could land in hot water for hosting it. I vote no to this policy, for those reasons. -- 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Good call on the Wikipedia references. Not really sure what I was thinking. As to your other point, did you not even see the big "Note:" on the policy page? It specifically allows for people to claim copyvios. Duh, what kind of policy would that be if we allowed copyvios to go unchallenged? -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * What i dont understand is what other kinds of (plausable) legal threats could there even be here except for copyvio threats? -- 21:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Threatening to sue Wikibooks or the Wikimedia Foundation for modules or remarks made about a certain person or thing. Or a threat of legal action if a module is not removed from the project. Or between editors threatening to take another editor to court for something they have written. There are quite a few possibilities, and like I said, it might be more for liability protection than for actual deflection of legal threats. -- LV (Dark Mark) 22:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I suppose that makes good sense, I'll change my vote for now -- 22:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Poll to enforce
Should the proposed policy, No legal threats, be an enforced policy?

Yes
 * 1) Liability protection. -- LV  (Dark Mark) 21:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) It seems reasonable enough to me. I'm not much of a legal-minded person. -- 22:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks good to me. Odd bloke 15:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I would support enforced on the current version. --Kernigh 22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No "The problem we are seeing, again and again, is this attitude that some poor victim of a biased rant in Wikipedia ought to not get pissed and take us up on our offer of 'anyone can edit' but should rather immerse themselves in our arcane internal culture until they understand the right way to get things done. I do not know what is going to change, but something BIG has got to happen and SOON about this issue, because the amount of time it is consuming for some of our best editors is getting way out of control."
 * 1) * For the reasons listed above. -- 21:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) People can take legal action if they want to and they should be able to warn people if they are considering it.  Otherwise you get people out of the blue suing people.Dolive21 17:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (adding on to my previous comments from here) Peoples the world over have decided to allow people to seek legal redress for their greivances.  Such a system exists in just about every country of the world.Dolive35 11:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I guess I'm weighing in on this matter now.  To have this page as a guideline, I would support.  This is more common sense than something that could be used as justification to ban a user... presumably the reason this should become an enforced policy.  If we need this as liability protection, we should add to or modify General disclaimer instead.  If you make a legal threat and don't follow through, it is illegal and you can be sued for barrity as a counter-claim against you.  In other words, if you try to pull legal manuverings and threaten all kinds of legal action, you had better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is, and make sure you have actually read the applicable laws to make sure you have a reasonable chance to succeed.  You could in theory also have criminal charges pressed against you if you make a legal threat improperly.  In other words, making legal threats has legal consequences and there is no need to make a disclaimer policy that is likely to screw things up further if you have to go to court.  In addition, I don't know of a specific instance on Wikibooks where this is needed, although this is famous last words and the last time I made a comment like that I found myself eating my own words.  I just don't know why a policy like this is needed on Wikibooks at this time.  --Rob Horning 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) This isn't Wikipedia, and hopefully will never become as divisive and abrasive as Wikipedia. I don't think we should be looking to copy our policies from there. That's not to say I would welcome someone coming here and making lots of legal threats, it's just I don't think we should have a policy that gives people ideas. One of the easiest ways to get people to think of something is to tell them not to think about it! Jguk 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Before we make ourselves little dictators of our virtual domain, perhaps we ought to think about the ramifications. Systems of crime and punishment are a failure state. They are an admission that we weren't able to work congenially as co-editors on a common project — that our little Animal Farm couldn't exist without making some of us "more equal." Do we really want to duplicate the system of punishment and vandalism that exists at Wikipedia? Is their instruction creep working for them? Perhaps we could learn something from our founder. --Zephram Stark 03:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ~Jimbo Wales May 3, 2006 WikiEN-l

6 Can we really ban people for raising legal issues? If they have a case they must be able to raise it here. RobinH 10:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This is an enforced policy on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, and Jimbo himself said this policy should be in place here as well. -- LV (Dark Mark) 17:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

How many votes do we need to lable this one enforced? -- 00:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * We just need a good idea of general community consensus. Since it is a policy and not just a small little poll, perhaps a few more people expressing their opinions (either way) would be nice. -- LV (Dark Mark) 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Move to "rejected" status
The poll is equivocal and a consensus is not being achieved. See discussion in staff lounge where the move to rejected was unopposed. RobinH 11:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I only found this proposal thanks to Robert's link to current proposals. I know I'm far too late to vote but I am glad that this was rejected. Xania talk 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:No legal threats