User talk:Panic2k4

← Back to User:Panic2k4

If I post correspondence on your page, please answer there. If you post here, I will first reply here and wait a few days for a closing reply from you. If you don't close it, I'll move the thread to your talk page. ASK QUESTIONS If you are going to ask any question first take some time and take a look into How To Ask Questions The Smart Way ... txs REPORT BUGS If you are going to report a BUG please take the time to look at this Guide first How to Report Bugs.

Archived messages... here and in Archive. C++ Programming old discussion moved to Archive 2, Archive The user blocks saga old post moved to blocks essays How To Do Nothing

Working on it... Essay on Decision making and Community consensus on Wikibooks - (active) Other planed Essays Essay on Arbitration and it's applicability to Administrative actions - (stub) arbitrations, unblock, beyond wikiworld (real world liabilities), how to address events or accusations if you don't have prof or are not involved, great example [here] . Essay on User Blocks (best practices)- (stub) how to avoid abuses, proxys other limitations on how to make people comply if not in good faith Essay on Be Bold and restrictions- (stub) define the general restrictions (format, scope) Essay on Administrators (users on a task) - (stub) no special insight, common users on a task Essay on Authors and Contributor - (stub) Darklama/Whiteknigh view, history pages, anonymous contributions and IDs (to be extended on the another essay), real world liabilities (on copyright), Moving control toward a defined book community (see Primary Authors and argue against the Essay concept) Essay on Forks - (stub) show my divergences even with [Jimbo on the forks] (related to the C++ fork). Essay on the GFDL and copyright - (stub) Darklama/WitheKnight view, erroneous identification (or claims of abuse of copyright), history pages problems and abuses or simply as misinformation, GFDL and Documentation (not software), WMF and GFDL/FSF, Wikibooks:Copyrights, GFDL violation (only copyright holders), Copyright Law of the United States of America, Wikibooks:Ownership Essay on using back channels to promote hegemony (see also User:Panic2k4/A house with no law(n)) NOTES Leave a new message Elements of Political Communication Hi there, Since there isn't really a "peer review" process that I know of on Wikibooks, I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I've been working on Elements of Political Communication for a year or so, off and on when I had the time. At some point (though I'm not sure when) I'd like to nominate it for featured book status, but I still have a number of changes to make. I was wondering if you could skim through it and give me a few thoughts on style, structure, format, or anything else that crosses your mind. I've tried to keep it readable, printable, and most importantly, practical. It uses a new template, so that probably should be checked out for any potential issues, too. If it isn't really your thing, could you possibly direct me to an editor who might help? Thanks a ton, – Runfellow (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC) In regards to functioning and structure beyond the accepted conventions there has been many divergent views. I will gladly take a look and comment according to my preferences. I'm not a great supporter of the featured book process, but understand the validity of the goal of providing readers the more complete works. If you are after a preview of the process (by having the general community review the book outside of the featured book process itself) you could place an announcement on the Wikibooks:Reading room/Projects or you could first attempt to get an idea from those reading/editing/interested in the specific work (Elements of Political Communication has been viewed 423 times in the last 60 days) by adding a information box linking and promoting a dialog on the talk page. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC) One thing that I dislike but it is more a software limitation is having a large list of references/notes at the bottom of a page and it is one motive why I do not use beyond directly mentioning them in the text (or linking to Wikipedia where the reader can get more details and editors maintain the information). As an on-line reader I also prefer larger pages than a need to navigate across the work, especially if some of the pages have no real content in it. I have in my works attempted to join my need as an editor to have a larger view of the content with that reader preference (even useful for section printing) and attempt to provide a full chapter as a single page. Some people like it some don't but it can be done easily with wiki trasclusions and keep both sides happy (don't remember how it works out with the references/notes). I like the entry page, I would only move the search box up a bit since you provide navigation into subsections a online reader that is revisiting or someone that is just browsing may need to use it more than once and having it in the bottom of the page in todays widescreen setups is a bit bothersome. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Featured Book status obviously isn't a huge deal, just a way to spread the word a bit more and have a little fun. Regarding the references, I admit the structure is not very intuitive for more novice editors, but I think it works well for the time being as a consistent system that avoids the clutter you're talking about. On the subject of larger pages, I'll look into doing an transclusions, but a) I'm also keenly aware of the average person's reading habits online and b) the eventual goal here is to expand the content of each page, slowly but surely, with practical and useful information. I'll see about moving the search box; everything is a bit tightly packed in there right now that there's little room to maneuver. – Runfellow (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC) thanks thank you for your support. I now know that my inventions will NEVER see the light of day. If you feel like it, look at the recipe on food.com yourself. you'll see that i gave myself permission to post the recipe here in wikibooks but still they won't comment on it. in fact, they even deleted the remarks i posted showing that i gave permission to post here. but they CANNOT delete the remarks i posted in food.com. Robert Dell (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Sadly the inner working of this project tend to be highly political (requiring involvement) and personal (the perception of what you do and who you are), it makes it not very easy to face any substantial opposition especially if from someone is more experienced or established, there is no real easy way to solve this issue but you must also acknowledge that you reacted badly in a public forum. It is up to you to get the content back we are all equal here, this project can only survive if people care for it and even more for the ability to provide free content, especially in a collaborative environment. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Migration of other controversial content Hi Panic, I was thinking it might be good to migrate most of the content from NewgonWiki and BoyWiki over here. I'm not sure what the title of the book(s) would be; perhaps boylove, intergenerational sexuality, or sexual emancipation of minors, or something. This debate guide provides some interesting arguments, for instance. I'm not too familiar with the norms around here. Sometimes policy can say one thing, and practice can be quite another. Are one-sided polemics considered okay for inclusion? I figure, someone can create another book with polemics from the opposing viewpoint, so in that way, balance between different arguments can be achieved. On some Wikimedia wikis, the topic of adult-child sexual relationships is so touchy that even advocating that this type of content be included could be considered grounds for banning the user. I don't see any such policy here, but I'm not in a mood to get banned, so I thought I'd ask first. Also, even if the reaction wouldn't be a ban, I don't like to create content that's just going to be deleted. Thanks, Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 23:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) First I must confess that the subject in itself is something that I find displeasing in certain circumstances/context, but at the same time will acknowledge the need of making it visible and not hidden or made into a taboo. Humans are complex and society is often restrictive to fringe behaviors and minorities (for many reasons some bad others good). Having established that I would support the creation of a work regarding the subject if it conforms to a textbook with educational value, there are already books that could probably include this subject maybe Abnormal Sexual Psychology... As for keeping a specific viewpoint you will need to cement that as the specificity of the scope of the book and provide for a book specific community record/forum to process and approve changes and core modification so that they may be consensual and reduce interference for non-contributors. Note that due to its controversial nature there will be a high probability that someone will attempt to get the Wikibook's community in general to delete the project. It would certainly need extra care as to stay within our project's guidelines, if so then it is all up for to the value of the content and the argumentation for its existence here. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Cannot vs. can not on Singleton Pattern My apologies for the hasty edit. After some research, there does seem to be a lot of discussion on the subject, and Oxford Dictionaries states that can not is also acceptable. Cheers, Hardwigg (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC) No problem its interesting how any living language evolves and is shaped by its use. Somethings we like or see as logical and acceptable others we dislike or become annoyances by how they create exceptions to normal rules. In this case I see "cannot" as a creep of the way dialog passes into writing and as an unnecessary innovation that at best shows a modicum of laziness as I can't see any added value... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC) <dropping in on the conversation> Interesting. To me "cannot" and "can not" mean different things, and "cannot" is much more often wanted. If somebody can not do something, I understand that to mean they are able to not do it, where as if they cannot do it, I understand they are unable to do it. When someone uses "can not" to mean the second thing rather than the first, I find I have to stop and think about what they mean. Presumably, this is because I find the distinction between the two meanings useful; if I were, occasionally, trying to say the first thing out loud, I would carefully enunciate a pause between "can" and "not" to emphasize that "not" is grouped with the word after it rather than the "can" before it, and I imitate that pause or lack of pause in my orthography. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Thank you for the corrections. For the "program text" term, I want to say I read it in a few books, one of which was a concurrent programming book. It makes sense when you think about it, however it isn't a widely conjured term and may raise a copyright conflict. Thanks. Interwikis from Wikijunior Hi, there are two reasons why I usually remove interwiki links from Wikijunior: WJ is "censored" (in a way) to age appropriate material, and Wikipedia isn't. It therefore seems wrong to encourage the reader to link to Wikipedia. Secondly, given the intended readership of Wikijunior, I don't think it is helpful even if the content is suitable for them to be sent to Wikipedia - they aren't really going to find the Wikipedia article in most cases helpful. Obviously I'm not going to remove the links you re-added, but I wanted to explain why I think it is inappropriate - thanks. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) The Wikilinks in themselves aren't objectionable or guaranteed to violate the expectation of safety (if so then I would agree that they should be removed), that expectation of safety can only exist if other "censorship" is actual, as the reader is most probably using the Internet. Making that logic flawed in the sense that you are censoring content outside of Wikijunior. If we took your position further we should remove all links to other Wikibook content or even the communal areas from ever being displayed to a Wikijunior reader. The "censorship" guarantees and exists only so that it complements parental control or other intentional censorship used for the reader to stay confined to the wikijunior domain/space and other safe locations. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Any argument if taken to absurdity becomes absurd; that's irrelevant to the merits of the original argument. I agree with QU; primary text in wikijunior books oughtn't generally be wikilinked to wikipedia. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Portuguese books split Thanks for adding the TODO box here. I agree they should perhaps be merged, but did you notice as well that there's actually a three way split in these books. There's a Brazilian Portuguese book. And a book which has two bits to it Portuguese/Contents#Courses for Portuguese spoken in Brazil and Contents#Courses for Portuguese spoken in Portugal. So that's messy. It seems to me those first two should definitely be merged somehow, even if the brazil/portugal separation remains. Some old discussion here: Contents#Separate_wikibook_Brazilian_Portuguese. Very old discussion in fact. One day I should just be bold and merge it somehow. -- Harry Wood (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)