Author pages and authors vs. contributors

In regard to your comments and my unresolved dispute with darklama, I have posted some definitions that I would like your input on please see GFDL and Authorship on the WB:OWN discussion page, the concept of authors vs contributors, txs. --Panic 07:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change or evolve your comments on my talk page on those subjects also. --Panic 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding, Panic. WB:OWN and WB:WIW/Unstable have been undergoing massive discussion and, due to lack of time to commit to this, I've stayed out :-(. I'll try to have a look today (GMT), but cannot guarantee anything. If you would like me to look at anything in particular, let me know and I'd be more likely to find time to squeeze it in. Cheers, --Swift 08:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll restrain myself in providing you a filter to the discussion :), I could be accused in being partial to my cause, humm, if you are using firefox get Context Highlight ( http://www.cusser.net/extensions/contexthighlight/ ) and mark the relevant words (author and contributor) and select the ones with have more hits for reading... --Panic 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Kkawohl

There is a VfD for another "work" in progress at present Transcendentalist Theology. I was wondering whether to list this one too (if you read the other you may see why) - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Culling on a talk page?

I saw that you removed some discussion on Talk:Star Trek Starships. While I agree with your sentiment, removing something like the comment made there as if it was never put on there in the first place, when clearly you aren't the person who made the comment, just smacks as almost a vandal attack.

This is also something that is likely to drive away new contributors to Wikibooks.

Please be careful and try to consider that the suggestion to make a coffee table book was something made in good faith. At least try to explain why it might be a bad idea, instead of treating the user like they never existed in the first place. --Rob Horning 08:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you please look again. I only added a header, an {{unsigned2}} and replied to the comment. Thanks for the concern and bringing this to my attention, though. --Swift 08:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. Something must have happened when I was looking at it.... I really don't know what happened here. I swear that I saw the content without the contribution by the anonymous user, which is why I rolled back your "contribution". Maybe I'm getting very old here and starting to see things by spending far too much time on Wikibooks...... Really, I am very sorry about this. I thought you had deleted the remark, and I swear my browser didn't display your reply, although the official history doesn't seem to show that. --Rob Horning 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for re-rolling back. And I really do mean that I appreciate your actions and that you brought it to my attention. It is good to know that we aren't allowed to get away with what you saw happen. Cheers, --Swift 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but I saw the same thing it seems User:Swift edit took a bit of time to become active, I saw it also as a simple discard of an non signed post about a image book, I thought that User:Swift had simply deleted the post as "nonsense", I noticed User:Robert Horning post about the problem wile I was posting the other message here, it was a not a very small interval. No one seems to be at fault it was only a infrastructural problem :). --Panic 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That VfD

High on my list for today - sort of wish I hadn't put it on hold but I'm trying not to be deletionist - catch it/you later --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm at work so this will be a bit brief. I think I'll close it as delete as nothing has happened to it (sadly to a point). I see the previous votes as standing and so Xania is in a real minority (equally on WP I was reading that advice is the "quality of argument rather than the mere numerical votes" should be considered (??). If you are "off" off I hope it's great for you. If you get a minute I'd value your opinion on the very undeveloped idea here and . I won't bore you with further now and if you don't have time I wont hold it against you! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with - I hope you agree reasonably and with rationally. Enjoy the travels and come back refreshed. I'm not keen on asking but should you wish to help me out I only require 1 further vote for checkuser - should you not wish to I assure you it will not worry me. I have sent you mail BTW. Best wishes --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• reset

Hum - well I put a message on the page asking for it to be left and asked for opinions on the admin noticeboard (you'll see it in the history). However another admin ignored the message and deleted it - sorry. Hope the trip was good. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to volunteer as a potential member of editorial boards?

See Wikibooks:Volunteer_editors

Also Wikibooks:Editorial board,Wikibooks:Wikipublish and the discussion in the staff lounge. RobinH 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Chemical synthesis