Wikibooks:Simple talk

From Wikibooks

This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikibooks

Shortcut: WB:ST

Ask a new question

[change] Books have pages

This is something that has been bugging me even on regular English Wikibooks. Why are all the pages called modules/articles/whatever? It would be much more simple if it were just called a "page". There is already a tab that says "change this page". Am I missing something? --Ezra Katz 03:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Module isn't a simple term. (Px)Ma 03:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I will go ahead and changes this. (Px)Ma 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrific. --Is is 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just made the change you suggested, Ezra. It took me a while to find the right message in Special:Allmessages, but I finally did. I decided that "book page" is less ambiguous than "page", since there are many pages: project pages, user pages, talk pages, etc., etc. If everyone thinks that just "page" would be better, we'll change it that way, though. :) Oh, and I agree with you, Ezra: books have pages. LOL! Happy editing! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "page" is best. Ideally there should be many more regular pages than special ones, and it doesn't seem right for the Main_Page to be labeled "book page". --Ezra Katz 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But other projects call the Main Page an "article", so I don't think that works all the way. Technically it is a "project page", but there is no way to differentiate that currently, and many people might not understand what that means. You're right that it doesn't really go on the Main Page (because it is in the (main) namespace), but "page" could mean anything, and it makes it sound like "user page" (for example) is a subcategory, which it certainly is not. They are distinct types of pages, which is why they are in different namespaces. I'm not saying (and hopefully it's obvious) that we can't name it "page" (as if it were my decision, which it's not), I'm just trying to point out the other side of the coin, so to speak. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently made the switch that Ezra mentioned. I still think "book page" was better for everything but the Main Page, basically. The good thing is that we can always change it back. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the box named "links" say "Show any book" instead of "Show any page" to prevent confusion?

No, this button doesn't show books. it shows any random page of any random book. --Is is 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[change] New project idea

I had an idea that just like software projects have maintainers, a book should have a group of people committed to the progress of the project. It wouldn't be in the wiki spirit of things for these people to have any special power or authority over the content of the book. It would be nice, however, to have some sort of public commitment to a project and a way for people to quickly identify who is taking an active interest in a book.

I suggest we try to get a group of "Helpers" for each book, who would commit to maybe 1 edit per week in a specific book.

I created two templates for this idea. We also need a set of Soft Rules.

This book needs people to help it grow.
You can become one of its helpers.

	These people make this book better by being helpers.
	username1 username2

. --Ezra Katz 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. The fact that the helpers would be the same on all of the books is kinda sad, though, since we have so few active users. --Is is 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I know there is very few people here, but I wouldn't expect someone to sign up for more than one or two books. It's kinda pointless to list yourself everywhere, and I personally couldn't keep up with more than a couple at a time and give them the proper attention. --Ezra Katz 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for this idea, too. It is a bit like a general Wikiproject. I'm thinking we should probably make a page for it somewhere like Wikibooks:Wikiproject Helpers. I'm going right now to sign myself up as a helper on the English book. I don't know if I can do one edit every single week, but hopefully I'll do more than that some other weeks so that the average is near there. I'm so excited that there's at least a small community here now! Keep it up! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Didn't see that there was already a page. I still think it should be made into an official Wikiproject, though, and that it should be moved to the page I suggested. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[change] Algebra book

Now that Special:Import is working here (I requested it recently for all SE projects), I'll be happy to start the move of SE Algebra. I'm sorry that's taken so long. I was actually interested in doing it some time ago, but I had to figure out how first. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you hold off a few days on the import? I'd like to contact the person who initiated the project over there before it gets copied over. I'll leave a message over at the discussion page of the algebra book as well. The Algebra Book has been poorly attended as of late and there is a lot in its structure that could be made into simpler English. Would it be easier to make batch changes to the book before it's imported? I'll let you know when or if I get a response. --Ezra Katz 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I can wait a few days. The only fear is that I'll get occupied with something else and forget to come back to it when the time comes. But really, it shouldn't matter what is wrong with the book, since I can import the history as well, and we can revert any changes that aren't constructive or make any other changes once it's here. I'd prefer to get it here first (since it is an entire book) and fix it afterward, but if all of you want to wait, that's fine, too. I'm just glad that it will finally be moved! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing urgent, unless you are going to be gone for several weeks. What happens to the book on en Wikibooks when you import it? There should be some "moving page" notice so it doesn't just disappear without discussion. It wouldn't help any if we had two copies of the same book floating around.--Ezra Katz 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's check my schedule...take over the world on Friday...try that new flavor of unmentionably delicious ice cream on Sunday...Nope, doesn't look like I have any sudden and long disappearances planned. I must admit that next week the summer course starts where I teach, so I will be somewhat more restricted in my internet use, but hopefully I'll still have some time to be around to stir things up! :)

As far as what happens on an import, that's easy to explain, even though it seems to have no relation to the explanation on meta. Importing something (I think I'll have to do it a page at a time) just copies the page from one wiki (with the most recent 100 or so edits of its history if the admin so chooses) and puts it on another wiki. Talk pages are moved separately, it appears. The usual policy is to put a delete template on the source page, explaining that it has been moved/imported/transwikied into the other wiki. I would say "exported," but exporting is a different action that seems to have nothing to do with importing, help pages to the contrary. That's how we avoid having two copies: having it deleted on the other wiki after we move it. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Ezra has talked to the people on the project over there, and they're okay with the move, I'll start moving pages soon. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Has it been moved? ~ Wikihermit 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[change] Bot

I created a bot account, HermitBot. Hopefully I will be able to use the bot to help us out with boring task. You can take a lot at it at its user page. Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, an archive bot, HermitBot II. ~ Wikihermit 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Two more. I'm done for now (with creating bots) :-D. HermitBot IV, which welcomes new users automatically, and HermitBot III, which fixes common spelling mistakes and typos. Thoughts? ~ Wikihermit 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. :) However, on simple wikipedia (and others, I'm sure) they don't welcome users until they have a few mainspace edits. But since this wiki is so small, maybe there should be an exception... --Is is 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[change] Milestones

Today, 15 Aug 2007, we just passed 100 book pages during the importation of part of the Algebra I wikibook from EWB. Congratulations, everyone! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[change] RFA

Is the current RFA successful or not? It's been up for over 1 1/2 months now, going on two. I think it's time to close it. I'd personally close it as unsuccessful since it's been so stale and the user hasn't been too active since, but they could give it another go if they wanted to. ~ Wikihermit 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow, it should definitely be closed. I don't understand why it should be unsuccessful, though. If everyone got a chance to vote, then there's nothing we can do about it. Sure, only four people voted, but isn't that about the size of this community? --Is is 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe not unsuccessful. Either way, it needs to be closed. ~ Wikihermit 21:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm still around. I've been a little busy lately with moving and starting a new job. I'd say it's the job of an admin to put the final stamp of approval/dissaproval, as I haven't withdrawn the request myself. --Ezra Katz 15:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually a 'crat will close a RfA, but since we don't have any... :-| ~ Wikihermit 16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just voted on the VFA. Surely it should be closed now? If there's no administrator or Beaurocrat around then a request should be made on meta I think. Xania 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My slowness to act earlier is basically without excuse (except general busy-ness), but once the merger idea came up, I wanted to know whether Ezra was planning to stay. Now that he has told me that he does, I have made the appropriate request on meta (since it requires a bureaucrat to give sysop rights). Once they grant his status, I'll close the request and move it to the archive. If I'm a little slow in doing so, feel free to send me an email to remind me. :) --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[change] Help!

Help is needed with moving the simple algebra book to the proper titles and an admin needs to go through the deletion category and clean it out. ~ Wikihermit 01:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[change] Format

How are we going to format the books? I thought we were using the following format:

Main Page with Image/Content/Chapter One/Pages/Pages/ect
     ^                  ^         ^
     |                  |         |
Page with image         |         |
                       TOC       Pages w/ info

Or should we use:


Main page with TOC/Chapter One/Page/ect

Either way we go, we shouldn't have a cover page like Chess/Cover. Thoughts? I personally like the first one because when a reader searches for something like Chess, they'll cover upon the main page with the image and it's like opening a book, starting with the cover. ~ Wikihermit 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone here? ~ Wikihermit 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the first page should be the cover page. I think it would simplify things to have the contents page at the same level as a chapter i.e. Book/Contents and Book/Chapter One. --Ezra Katz 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it with the cover as the first page. --Is is 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[change] Merge this project with en.wikibooks?

OK, please hear me out here... I'm a multi-project person who is interested above all in making sure that the right people are enabled to create the right content for the right audience, and I know full well that the prospect of closing a small project in favor of merging it with a larger one will cause some stress. Let me make it clear that my only interest here is to make sure that good contributions are honored and preserved: I am an administrator on commons (the project that exists to serve all projects), an administrator, checkuser, and b'crat on English Wikibooks (the project that I'm suggesting this one be merged into), and an administrator and checkuser on English Wikiversity (a project that is the target of at least as much griping as simple.wikibooks is).

What I'd like to propose is that the simple.wikibooks projects be merged into the en.wikibooks project. Here's a few reasons why:

Looking over the RC feeds, simple.wikibooks seems to have about as many vandal contributions as it does "real" contributions.
en.wikibooks isn't the chaotic and grumpy place it once was: in fact it's rather well maintained and watched, and is being organized slowly but surely.
en.wikibooks no longer adheres to the "one subject, one book" policy.
en.wikibooks has experienced checkusers, a vandalism watch channel on irc, and all the other tools a serious project needs to let serious contributors feel comfortable.
en.wikibooks now has Special:Import enabled, so we can bring everything over in the proper way.

What I'd like to offer (and I'm absolutely certain that my offer is legitimate) is the following:

If the simple.wikibooks community feels it necessary, we can get a "Simple:" namespace created (I'd advise against this due to some mediawiki software problems, but I'd have no problem with it if that's the way you want to go)
A "simple english" link on the "navigation" box on the left-hand side of the pages.
Active administrators on this project will of course be given the tools on en.wikibooks.

Again, I know this project means a lot to those who contribute here, but we can take care of the content better on en.wikibooks (looking at the current RC feed, you seem to be relying on wikimedia stewards to watch over you, which isn't as good a place to be in as having wikibookian administrators who are more familiar with your project). And again (again), I know all about what it's like to be part of a small project that's under pressure from a larger one (I'm more a Wikiversitan than anything else, and am often in the position of having to defend the project that is so dear to my heart). BUT: this is a marriage that makes sense. The en.wikibooks community would love to add your energy to ours, and the en.wikibooks has a few battle-scarred, all-business folks (like me) who can do the boring work of watching over the simple-english books so that the authors can devote themselves to writing rather than vandal-patrolling. This is almost certainly a case where a merger of two collaborations can do more than either of the two could do by themselves. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I

Support this. There are a few problems though. First, there really aren't any active administrators on this wiki. Two, there aren't any active contributors. And three, I believe the simple namespace would be best, to keep everything simple (oh the irony), easy, and separate. Sounds good, I have no objections. ~ Wikihermit 23:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Logs show two admins, User:Cromwellt, and User:Michael. Recent changes show at least that User:Cromwellt is active. There is an RFA on User:Ezra Katz, the results of which could be honored as well (ie he could be made into an admin on en.wb if he's elected so here). There are a few active contributors but my main concern is that these few, while very energetic and dedicated, don't represent the critical mass needed to maintain an entire project. Any project needs people to write content, edit content, patrol vandalism, cleanup, etc. There are a few super-users here who really try to do a little bit of everything, but a few super-users arent enough to make an entire project succeed.

Another thing to point out is that en.wikibooks already has several books written in simple or simplified engligh. Also, it's our policy so far that we don't delete books if copies exist on this project as well. That means that we still have our copy of the Algebra I book that was recently imported to this project. If we did merge, none of the content of this wiki would be lost, there would be a larger library of simple-english books to work with, more contributors, more administration, etc. I just feel like it would be a big help to this project, giving it all the tools and powers of the larger en.wb project, while allowing the users here to continue their good work. --Whiteknight 23:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat opposed to simply giving admins here the tools on en.books. The policies and procedures are different on english wikibooks. I think an RFA for those users is better, since it can show the en.book community who they are, and those users will be able to link back to this wiki. Also, this topic should also be noted at en.wikibooks and meta. ~ Wikihermit 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been feeling for a while that this project really doesn't have enough merit to stand on its own, especially after reading some of the arguments presented when the Algebra I book was being moved from en WB. I see a problem with the Simple English projects in general that they are essentially English speakers creating simple english content. It would be very difficult for a person who didn't speak fluent English to participate fully in the projects because all the discussion pages are in regular English. Having a separate project is fine for SE Wikipedia and Wikiquote because their content is essentially parallel to the regular english content. For SE Wikibooks I see no point in continuing this effort. The only way this project differs in scope from en WB is that it is supposed to make contributions from non-native speakers easier. There are no contributers that I know of who fit that description here and none of the discussion pages are in simple English. Additionally, this site is a target for vandals and an unneeded burden to maintain properly.

The best transition I can think of would be to set up a Simple English Bookshelf on en WB (no new namespace needed). There could be instructions there in simple english about how to contribute and a directory of all the simple English books available. Is there some way to set up a skin that would translate the navigation links to simpler terms?

Personally, I can do without the responsibility of the day to day maintenance of a wiki at the moment. I only requested adminship here because there was a need. I definitely do not think that the RFA here should usurp the normal process at en WB.

Count me in for a transition over to en WB. --Ezra Katz 02:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Johnny and I tried to make clear above, this isn't any kind of hostile take-over. What we are most interested in is consolidation: consolidation of manpower, consolidation of readers, etc. To that extent, if it is decided that the two projects be merged, we at en.wb will go to the necessary lengths to make the transition an easy one. We could make a new bookshelf, we could make new categories, we could make new policy pages, copy over basic english word-lists, etc. We would even have the flexibility to differentiate between different simplified english variants, such as w:en:e-prime, or even the "BE850" list that you have here. We can keep track of all such books automatically using some of the DPL tools we've developed. If people agree to a merger, all we need to know is what we need to do to make it a smooth one. --Whiteknight 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support I have no objections to a merge. I do believe some form of clear separation between regular English and Simple English should be implemented though. Michael 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been over a month now (I don't know how long it normally takes for decisions to be made here, but I want to give plenty of time), and everybody who has responded has done so positively. Of course, there are still one or two users who I would consider to be "active" users who haven't responded. Also, in this last month, there have been very few "constructive edits", and I sincerely hope that this thread of discussion hasn't played a part in that.

That said, if the general mood is positive, I think there are a few steps that can be taken to start a merger:

Everybody here create an account on en.wikibooks (if you haven't done so already).
Start browsing en.wikibooks to see the kinds of things that we have available, including our discussion areas, organizational methods, etc. Start making up a plan of what kinds of things will need to be changed/added or whatever to facilitate a merger. In short, what kinds of things do you want to see at en.wikibooks to make it feel more like "home"?
Start posting notices and links to en.wikibooks, so that new users and contributors can be directed to that project. Possibly, we can create a "Simple Portal" that we can direct users from this project to, as a central landing point.
We can maybe start a discussion at meta, asking the foundation and the developers what would be the best way to go about the merger from a technical perspective. We likely wouldn't want to close the project entirely, but we might want to lock the database to ensure all edits are made at en.wikibooks and not made here. We might be able to do a mass-merger of the databases.

These are just suggestions, and steps like these can be taken very slowly if needed. People here should definitely come introduce themselves at b:en:Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance, so that we can start the process of becoming one community. --Whiteknight 00:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I did not write here until now. (It is true that sometimes decisions take a long time here.) I knew about this talk, but I was not able to write until now. I want to say a few things. Most of the points said here (above) were used in the vote to close this project. The vote result was to keep. It is true that this is a nicer way of closing this project than closing against our will and without importing to another project (though that might have happened), but if the meta vote to close did not work, in spite of well-meaning (and in some cases, not-so-well-meaning) people voting to merge, then I must disagree with a merge. What was the point of the vote if later it doesn't mean anything and we close the project anyway? This project is not only about making it easier for simple English users to contribute. It is about making textbooks that only use simple English. We would love to have SE contributors, but that is not the only thing that separates the project, nor is it the main point of this project. If EWB wants to link here (a link to this site on the EWB main page would likely help us a lot!), or have a simple English bookshelf that copies our material, that is fine, but that should not preclude this project, which is dedicated to a more specific audience: those who do not know English well. Besides, if we close this project after its survival of the vote to close, that will set a negative precedent which may well be used by some people to support the closure of the other SE projects involuntarily. I'm not a slippery slope believer generally, but I'd like to avoid giving opponents that chance. As was previously mentioned in the unsuccessful closure vote, this project serves a specific audience that could have a lot of difficulty finding their way around the EWB site. On the other hand, this site is exclusively dedicated to them. Admittedly, it needs a lot of help, especially trying to make it easier for our audience to become our editors by making all discussions in simple English, etc. I agree that a few super-users is not enough to make a project a success. However, the WB concept itself was not a success when it started out, and there were many users who were against it. We have over 200 pages here, which is significant content. We don't have many users, but where did Wikihermit, Ezra Katz, and Isis come from? As far as I know, they came from the other SE projects, especially SEWP, which is thriving. In the same way that EWB was a slow-starter compared to where EWP was at the time, but was able to draw from the success of its older sister, this project can still grow, drawing slowly on the success and users of its sisterprojects. If Ezra stays on here, I think it would be a very good idea to make him an admin (having rethought, I regret that I've slowed that down at all). I really appreciate the work that Wikihermit, Ezra Katz, and Isis have done here, and I hope that if this project is not closed, that they will consider continuing to help here even if they mainly work over there at EWB. The point is to keep working. I appreciate English Wikibooks, and I appreciate the good intentions of those who have suggested this merger. But I really feel that this is a separate project for a reason, and with its survival of the close vote it has shown that it deserves a chance. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the previous attempt to close this project, so i'm sorry if i'm resurrecting a beast that was already killed. I also want to reiterate that my goal here was not a "closure" in the sense that the database is locked to prevent future contributions, but instead a merger where people from here are redirected to en.wb. In such a situation, there could be many potential uses for the simple.wikibooks domain name, such as a host for read-only copies of completed simple-english books (similar to what we are tryint to accomplish with www.wikibooks.org), a portal for simple-english readers to navigate en.wb more easily (and other projects also, such as en.wv, en.source, etc) and other ideas. This page could still serve a purpose and still help the simple-english audience.

Much of the content that this project has now has come from en.wb originally. It's difficult to argue that this project is doing anything for the benefit of simple-english speakers when this project is not creating the content, but rather importing and hosting copies. If anything, the trend of importing content to this project from en.wb en masse is a demonstration that this project is less capable of creating that content then en.wb is. En.wikibookians are coming here to monitor and clean vandalism. En.wikibookians are also watching for vandalism on this wiki on dedicated IRC channels such as #cvn-wb-en. I am inclined to believe that if this project is already dependent on en.wb for new content, monitoring for vandalism, and attracting new contributors through advertisements, that a merger of sorts is already occurring. I think it really is worth asking what this project does for simple-english readers that en.wb does not or cannot. Besides the simplified link names in the sidebar, or the use of the word "change" instead of "edit", I am hard-pressed to find anything. Even the various discussion pages tend to stray from simple english (and this discussion is obviously an example of that, so I apologize for adding to the problem).

Of course, I stand by my word that if anybody from this community opposed the idea I would drop it entirely, and so I will. This isn't anything hostile, so there is no sense with any argument: the reasons for merger are either self-evident or they are not. I was hoping that because there was so much dependence on the en.wb project that people here would be more open to a combined effort. --Whiteknight 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Support the merger. Is there really a point to this wiki? Basically, the simple projects are for people learning English. Let's keep things simple so they are the same project.

It only creates unnecessary divisions to make things separate. Would a beginner in English really care about reading English textbooks? Does it not just cause extra complications in controlling 2 different wikis with the same purpose but separate for some odd-ass reason?

I actually think this is somewhat like Nagorno-Karabakh or Confederate States. Not like Tibet or Chiapas, but a nation trying to succede from something else. It just creates stupid annoying borders to separate. There is no reason to make Confederate States a nation, and it will create huge problems.

If a child does not understand the English used in a certain WikiBook, ze should ask for clarification. If an adult does not comprehend because English is not their native language, then ze should use the wikibooks in their native language. This is inane. SEWp can be useful for people trying to test what they know, or a place where one could understand the English being spoken. At least that peoject is active.

On the other hand, there is no purpose of this wiki except to annoy wiki users with a useless, inactive project. --68

Strong

Oppose. This is a crazy idea and not the right way to go about making such a change. This Wikibooks project exists for a purpose and not just because people thought that Wikibooks EN was a bit grumpy. Simple English projects must continue and cannot exist if merged with Wikibooks English. Its not just the books themselves which are in Simple English but the help files, buttons and everything. In addition a vote has previously been held to close this project and the vote failed. Wikibooks Simple English isn't just for kids or non-native speakers '68'. It is useful for those who have problems reading in English (native or non-native) also and that is why a simplified version of the language is used - this version is not used for books aimed at kids. Xania 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Less activity doesn't sound like a good reason to close a project down or propose a merger. What's needed is more motivation and more writers. If anything needs changing, what about expanding the focus of this project? Like becoming multilingual? Include books written in simple French, simple Russian, etc. as well as simple English, or allow different forms of simplified English to be used. There are far less active Wikibooks languages, should they be closed or merged as well? -- darklama 19:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

An expansion of focus would be a good idea too, and for what my vote is worth, in lieu of a merger this project should probably pursue that goal. What I don't want is to see this project fade away and stagnate slowly. It appears to me that this is the path the project is currently on. --Whiteknight 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose please. no. SEWB cannot. be. merged. Per above. --Is is 23:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral While I feel that this wiki is way too inactive and small (in which under meta, should be merged or locked-out), I also feel that this wiki has a purpose to stay. Snake311 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I came here from en wikiibooks and would leave this project if we went back to en --Anonymous101 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Logo Selection

Logo selection processes for Wikibooks and Wikijunior have started on meta. All Wikibookians are encouraged to join the discussion and help to select new logos for these projects. --Whiteknight 16:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

how toimprove english? can i get the desired job if i command over english?

[change] Stewards policy rewrite

You may wish to vote on the rewritten Stewards policy. The vote is at meta. As a project where stewards are active, this policy change would affect you. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[change] User:Mike's bot account

I operate the same bot (flagged) on en.wb and en.wv. It is harmless - runs pywikipediabot and AWB to do common tasks. I'm going to request a flag at meta, and begin a run now. Mike's bot account 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see planned functions on the bot's userpage. Now is the time to ask questions or comment on this bot. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[change] Bot flag request for User:Computer

Bot operator: User:White Cat (Commons:User:White Cat) - En-N, Tr-4, Ja-1
List of botflags on other projects: Bot has a flag on wikimedia (meta,commons) wikipedia (ar, az, de, en, es, et, fr, is, ja, ku, nn, no, ru, sr, tr, uz, simple...) (See: m:User:White Cat#Bots)
Purpose: Interwiki linking, double redirect fixing, commons delinking (for cases where commonsdelinker fails)

-- Cat ^chi? 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[change] rms value

what does rms value of any quantity physically mean?

are there ways to make cnversation with any specialist in english literature throughout this wib site ?

Wikibooks:Simple talk

From Wikibooks

Contents