User talk:Kittycataclysm

Talk Page Archives
2022	2023

I noticed you have autoreviewed and reviewer user groups. Autoreviewed is deprecated if you have reviewer. Seeing as you are a temp admin, would you get into trouble if you removed it? If so, don't bother. I don't even know why I bother tbh xD. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 10:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @L10nM4st3r! I wouldn't feel comfortable modifying my own user rights, especially as a temp admin. Is there any problem specifically with having both rights? Or is it just somewhat redundant? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Its just redundant. Actually happens a lot. I had my autoreviewed right removed when I became a reviewer. See WB:autoreviewed users. I think it says something about this as well. But its not a problem really. Or you could ask a permament admin. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 08:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@L10nM4st3r: and Kittycataclysm: Done as the autoreviewer right is simply redundant. While there isn't a problem with having both rights, it can make things like Special:ListUsers a bit more confusing (have had similar issues on my home wiki before another admin removed a bunch of redundant rights from various users). SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha, thank you! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you do not become a permament admin, I made a script designed to quickly report bad/suspicious users. It won't work if you are an admin though, which is a design choice I am unlikely to change.

It is at User:L10nM4st3r/ReportUser.js.

For if you need it. Or if you want it globally. Support for different wikis is currently very low, but if you request a wiki (hopefully English), I'll add that one first. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 22:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe a more heavily vandalized one? One that needs it the most? ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 22:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, simplewiki is a heavily vandalised wiki, but they already use Twinkle to make such requests. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will take a look at some point anyway. But it's my birthday today, so I'm not entirely sure when. (btw now I'm 17... or will be just before midnight.) ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 05:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

An early happy birthday to you, L10nM4st3r! You'll be 17 in 3 hours where I live tho (AEDT/UTC+11:00) ;-). Even then, it's going to be midnight in the Line Islands in 31 minutes. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Its 10AM where I live. And I'm ruining my birthday cake xD! Lets hope I can stop eating biscuits like mad before dinner.. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 09:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I use twinkle global, but it doesn't allow fast, easy reporting of users. So I made the script. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 05:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Kittycataclysm. For similar page-creation vandals like Mohamed James Wang, in the future, you can use Special:Nuke to delete all the pages a user creates that appears in Special:RecentChanges but in a single click. Just a tip. Best, and thanks for handling that vandal :-) --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 08:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000 Thank you, this is super helpful! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Also I hope I didn't go too far trying to get him to do something else. Advice? The whole thread is on my talkpage. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 22:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

No worries @L10nM4st3r! You didn't do anything drastically wrong or anything. I personally recommend not engaging with suspected vandals and, more broadly, anyone who seems to be baiting you or is otherwise not engaging in good faith—it's very rarely rewarding and usually just creates more fodder for them. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think it was at least worth a try. Had you not protected my talkpage, I'd have probably ignored anything they posted after. But I guess less work for me :) Oh and I was not interested in their "help". I'd actually be more interested about how sewing machines work. Which actually bore me (geddit? Spoiler in a comment: ) xD^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 23:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Odd, has he just suddenly stopped vandalizing? Or is he being sneaky about it? Then again ive been away for a week or two, so what would i know, but wow, did i just cause a troll to give up? ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 21:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pls can you give me my page back? I'm using it as a template for some chemistry stuff. Thanks... Ema--or (discuss • contribs) 01:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Ema--or: mind you, Wikibooks is not your personal web host. If you're using it as a template, then use an application off-wiki. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Kittycataclysm, I've changed this user's block from 1 week to indef. as this user has vandalising various other wikis (including my home wiki). Just letting you know since you initially blocked them for a week. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 07:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, thanks for letting me know @SHB2000! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe Special:Diff/4242333 might be your 10,000th edit on Wikibooks; regardless, congratulations on reaching this significant milestone on Wikibooks. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000 Yes, it think it was! Thank you :) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Kittycataclysm

Good day,I saw you were reverting my edits on the article Algerian Couscous ,I would love you to explain the reasons or probably the mistake I made while editig.I will encourage you to also tell where I'm wrong,corrections and way forward. Kindly treat as urgent Thanks for your work towards the growth of the Wikimedian foundation.

Warm Regards Sylvesterchukwu04 (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Sylvesterchukwu04! Based on the revision history of that page, I don't see any instances of me reverting your edits. I did add the {{Incomplete recipe}} template because the recipe you added was not complete. That template can be removed whenever a recipe is completed, and it looks like you did so. Let me know if you have any other questions! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'd like to get the reviewer right here. In practice, I have all the rights of the reviewer user group, except and only except review and I'd like to get that remaining bit. There are a lot of old edits out there that have yet not been reviewed and it would be good to be able to help wherever I am able to. I also have similar patrol/review rights on a bunch of wikis. Regards, --Svartava (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Svartava! Requests for permissions should be made at Wikibooks:Requests for permissions. Additionally, I am not an official administrator, so I do not have any power to change people's user rights. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thanks for directing me to the appropriate page. Cheers! Svartava (discuss • contribs) 03:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, it looks like I am not far from being autopromoted, so it's probably not much needed. Svartava (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava: I realise that this may come across as un-admin-like behaviour (for me), but I'd suggest copyediting a few random pages here and there with a unique edit summary for each edit – you should be autopromoted after a few copyedits, provided that you fulfill the rest of the criteria. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000 That's an interesting idea. However, after reading Wikibooks:Reviewers#Automatic criteria, I'm not sure I completely fulfill the rest of the criteria especially the 8 edits are spaced 2 or more days apart from each other (which takes at least 14 days, if you edit every 2 days) which I find quite vague to be honest. Svartava (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava I believe that criterion means that out of your total body of edits, there must exist a set of 8 edits that have 2 days between them. If someone were starting from scratch, it would take at minimum 14 days to fulfill this requirement. My understanding is that this is to make sure a user is editing regularly and consistently before being granted the reviewer right. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

What I fail to understand is that, if interpreted that way it would actually not happen in 14 days. With 2 days between each set of 8 edits, in 14 days you'll just have 64 edits, right? (wait, I actually just got the right with this edit, lol!) Svartava (discuss • contribs) 10:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll admit that I don't really know the full details of this, and I find that statement vague too (but my interpretation is similar to Kittycataclysm's). I'm only an admin here for anti-vandalism purposes, FWIW. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey again - I have a question as a new reviewer in the team. Once an edit has been dealt with or reverted, should it be marked as "checked"? For example, this edit which I reverted. Is the review button treated similarly to the patrol (as you find on other wikis)? Like, a rollbacked edit is automatically marked as patrolled. Svartava (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Svartava! As far as I'm aware, the review feature performs a slightly different function to patrolling; edits by non-regular/inexperienced users are visually flagged as needing review to highlight that the edit has not been double-checked by an experienced user. Unaccepting/rolling back an unreviewed edit does not mark anything as "checked"—it just unflags the page for review. On the other hand, accepting an unreviewed edit both unflags the page for review and marks the edit in question as "checked"; I believe this is to let other users know who reviewed the edit. Does this answer your question? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply, I do get my answer. By the way, I'd also ask why this edit of mine does not get autoreviewed? Svartava (discuss • contribs) 05:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava Unfortunately the link you asked about is broken, and I couldn't figure out which edit you're referring to :/ —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm: Actually, there is yet another such edit: Special:Diff/4243911/4243928 by SHB2000 who is an admin. Yet the edit wasn't autoreviewed?! This seems really strange. Svartava (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava Because you've already checked that edit, I can't get a closer look at the details. However, I suspect what's happening is that people are rolling back specific edits without approving the entire edit chain. A reviewer can, on a page's history, select "rollback *** edits"; however, if they are just returning to a previous unreviewed edit, it will not automatically review those previously-unreviewed edit(s). This allows reviewers to, for example, revert an instance of obvious vandalism without assuming the responsibility of approving unreviewed edits they are not confident about. Hope this helps! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right, thanks, that makes sense! Svartava (discuss • contribs) 02:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Could you mass delete pages by Special:Contributions/111.65.45.229 and Special:Contributions/Sacrsdra? I can seriously not believe how such trash edits persisted for so long here. Anyone with knowledge of chess is able to tell that these are just blunders and rubbish moves and not any real gambit. This is pretty much vandalism in my eyes and this is greatly disruptive as well as misleading since popular chess sites like lichess.org (see analysis board) show what we have on our pages. Svartava (discuss • contribs) 04:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also @SHB2000:. Svartava (discuss • contribs) 04:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done (and that IP is an insult to chess players ;-)). You might receive a faster response on WB:AN, though. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 06:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you @SHB2000! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I want to change the pages for copyright violation, only you can help me in this matter. Also, how can I get permission for copyright. Please stay updated and guide me. thank you Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You will not get permission to use copyright material. You need to write in your own words, not copy other people's work. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia Per Wikibooks' copyright policy, "if you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license" and "if the material, text or media, has been previously published and you wish to use it under appropriate license, you will need to verify copyright permission". This means you would need to secure explicit permission from a copyright holder to publish their material on Wikibooks under our license and terms. A template message exists to help people secure permission. However, few copyright holders are willing to relinquish their content, and it can honestly be more trouble than it's worth. As such, I also strongly recommend you write in your own words. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm@MarcGarver

You mean that I have used a source, I must guarantee it to you and confirm it according to the copyright license. Well, I fully guarantee and confirm these sources that I use.

Is this enough for copyright? Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia No, that is not sufficient. You must reach out to the copyright holder asking for permission under the Wikibooks license and terms. If you get permission, you must prove and submit it in writing on Wikibooks, linking it to the page in question. For example, if you are copying and pasting from Encyclopedia Britannica (which you have done), you must submit proof that Encyclopedia Britannica officially gives us permission. However, I highly doubt that will happen. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It allows me because there is no error. Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, how do I find the copyright holder? Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (discuss • contribs) 09:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (discuss • contribs) 09:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You don't. As per Britannica's terms of service, the entire encyclopedia is under an "all rights reserved" license. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 10:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello to kittycataclysm,

I am writing supplementary mathematics and I need another author to help me with writing this book. Do you know an author who is active and skilled in mathematics? Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who would be suitable. I recommend posting in the projects page to let the community know you're looking for more authors. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do not remember that I have been involved in such discussion. Soul windsurfer (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Soul windsurfer! You were not involved in the past discussion—I am soliciting feedback from active and experienced members of the Wikibooks community, and you're among these people. If you have feedback to provide on the issue, that would be great! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I'm impressed, it is not typical. You know that I'm not the expert in this topic. How can I help you ? I have read discussion pages. Can you point to a specific problem I can help you with? Soul windsurfer (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello!How are you?

I want to write questions about the texts of the pages to add more readers to the supplementary mathematics book. what do you think? Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Germany Poul Ah! Unfortunately, I don't understand what you're asking. What do you mean about adding more readers and writing questions? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

no,I want from texts of the book,Design questions. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 03:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Germany Poul Ah I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. You'll have to clarify what you want. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello how are you?

I wanted to know where I should see the statistics of additional Supplementary mathematics book visits? Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Germany Poul Ah. When you are on a page, there is a link in the left-hand navigation bar under the tools section called "Page information". You can see page views from the last 30 days here. You can also try the pageview analysis tool for more detailed information. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

I have noticed, that You have put a line "{{Query}}" into my article West-East Notation & Bin Notation". I tried to find in Wikipedia what does it mean, but I failed. Should I do now anything?

MusJabłkowy (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @MusJabłkowy—thanks for your question! This template is often added to pages/books whose scope or purpose is unclear. In the case of your new book West-East Notation & Bin Notation, the scope and purpose was unclear to me. Books on Wikibooks should have a clearly-identifiable purpose and structure so that others can learn and contribute; if this book does not show signs of being well-developed in this manner, it may be deleted. I hope this is helpful! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello,How are you!?

First of all, thank you for the copyrite that you told me, secondly, I am alone to write a book and I am looking for a few people who are new and experienced, I also applied but it didn't show up, can you tell me what to do? Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 03:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Germany Poul Ah! Thanks for taking care of the copyright issue. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I also applied but it didn't show up". Regarding getting people to help you write a book, it's a bit tricky. Wikibooks currently has much lower activity than some other wiki projects (like Wikipedia)—this means we have fewer editors and contributors overall. You could try posting in the projects page to let the community know you're looking for more authors, but we just don't have many people who might respond. You might have more success talking to people you already know to see if they would be interested in helping. Cheers! Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

___

Hello, please.

So you are saying that I should give a notice that (I need help to write my own books)? But let us tell you about one thing. The statistics estimated the number of users of wikibooks to be almost 400 people. The number is not small. I can find at least 8 of the 400 users of wikibooks who have intellectual genius for mathematics. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's true that 400 people may seems like a lot, but the community engagement is fairly low. Still, you are more than welcome to reach out to specific users to ask them for help! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm: Hello dear user, instead of using English sources to write the book, I decided to use Wikipedia and English sources from Wikipedia and German, French, Arabic, Persian, Italian, etc. to write the book. What do you think?

In this way, copyright is not violated much. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 10:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Germany Poul Ah—I apologize for my delayed response. Are you asking if it's allowed to copy verbatim from other wiki projects? It is not appropriate to copy verbatim from other projects without leaving a "trail" to maintain edit history. If you wish to take content directly from other wiki projects, you should request an import of a page into Wikibooks, then move/dewikify/translate that content in your book as appropriate. If an import is not possible, then you should preserve the edit trail by linking to the original page in the edit summary. Does this make sense? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I also apologize. I was angry. I thought you had a disagreement with me and did not want to talk to me.

But in the end, we shouldn't take it seriously. So, thank you for answering me. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 02:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, @Kittycataclysm can I request permission to copy and edit the English sources that I want to write with? Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the meantime, @Kittycataclysm how do I apply for permission to sister projects of Wikibooks and other Google projects? Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 02:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If there's a page from another wiki project that you want to import, you can make a request at the Wikibooks:Requests for import page. Does that help? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this helps a lot, thank for you. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Kittycataclysm, how are you doing? Yayyy, it’s me again, we e-met sometimes ago when we held the Nigerian Cuisine event which saw the cookbook been enriched with a lot of Nigerian cuisine, thank you so much for your support throughout the project.

This is to bring to your notice that we have initiated a follow up project called African Cuisine - AfroCuisine - Meta (wikimedia.org), to drill down into some more African cuisine and specifically improve and clean up some of the articles created during Nigerian Cuisine.

We will commence training the new and existing editors on 17th, June 2023. 

As always, your support would really be appreciated. Kind regard B.Korlah (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nice to see you again @B.Korlah! I'll keep an eye out for this—let me know if you need any help. As a refresher for new editors, I am linking Cookbook:Policy, Cookbook:Help, Cookbook:FAQ, and Cookbook:Policy/Recipe template. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for this, I really appreciate. I’d let you know if I need any further assistance. If there’s anything, feel free to ping me B.Korlah (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @B.Korlah! Could you please make sure contributors from this project are fully matching the cookbook policy and the recipe template? I have had to make significant corrections on many recipes, including spelling, formatting, linking, and more. Thank you! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much @Kittycataclysm. I can see all the works you’re doing and I am also following up on them. You’d see changes soon.

Regards. B.Korlah (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi@Kittycataclysm.I used this German link to expand the parallelogram article, some of its sources are in English, and I edited it and mentioned the source. Is this acceptable?

Here is the link:https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelepiped

I was afraid to write with another source after that blocking. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 05:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Germany Poul Ah! Yes that's fine. Just please put the link to the original wiki article in the edit summary. You could say something like "added content from German Wikipedia (*link goes here*)". No need to make an inline citation. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Kittycataclysm: how are you doing? I'm reaching out to an administrative person here on Wikibooks Cookbook, tried reaching out to Mrjulesd who was really helpful when I started editing here on Wikibooks but I haven't gotten a reply yet.

But I'm reaching out to bring to your notice that a follow-up project called African Cuisine which is basically the 2.0 of Nigerian cuisine would be starting on the 17th of June, this project aims to add more African cuisines to the Wikibook cookbook and specifically improve and clean up some of the articles created during Nigerian Cuisine.

Your support would really be appreciated.

Kind regards,

Richard.

Hello and thank you for the heads-up! I will keep an eye out for these edits. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Edriiic (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I did not copy from English Wikipedia and I use German, French, Persian, Arabic, Italian Wikipedias and sources along with English and I copy and Use some of them (except English Wikipedia and sources), did I do something wrong? Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Germany Poul Ah As I have told you, if you take content from any other Wiki project (even translated from other languages), you must maintain the chain of attribution by importing or linking to the original in the edit summary. If you do not continue the chain of attribution, it is a policy violation. I have explained this multiple times, but you continue to violate policy—further violations will result in a block. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If I cite the source and edit it in the summary, is it a solution? Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, I have a thought My opinion is to make the book again and delete all the content at once. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Germany Poul Ah Yes, putting the link to the original Wiki article in the edit summary is acceptable attribution. I don't know what you mean regarding deleting the book. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I meant to delete the contents, which I stopped working on. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello,I apologize for bother me,I'm not know from politics of wiki books.Now You Tell me That What am I must doing?

I am very concerned about book authoring and wikibook policy.

Where should I read the Wikibooks policy for copyright protection, correct book writing, etc.? Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Germany Poul Ah. You can read Wikibooks general policies here, and the policy on copyright here. Is this what you wanted to know? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Kittycataclysm, just an FYI that we've had a lot of issues with that user's incompetence on the English Wikivoyage – see voy:User talk:Grace789 and voy:Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2022. It might take a while to get that user's attention (it might not even happen), so I'm letting you know in advance. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Got it, thanks for the heads-up! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, dear user, I found a text from a site where the text of Wikipedia 2007 can be placed, can I use it?

  This is the 2007 Wikipedia text

Euclidean geometry is a mathematical well-known system attributed to the Greek mathematician Euclid of Alexandria. Euclid's text Elements was the first systematic discussion of geometry. It has been one of the most influential books in history, as much for its method as for its mathematical content. The method consists of assuming a small set of intuitively appealing axioms, and then proving many other propositions ( theorems) from those axioms. Although many of Euclid's results had been stated by earlier Greek mathematicians, Euclid was the first to show how these propositions could be fitted together into a comprehensive deductive and logical system.

The Elements begin with plane geometry, still often taught in secondary school as the first axiomatic system and the first examples of formal proof. The Elements goes on to the solid geometry of three dimensions, and Euclidean geometry was subsequently extended to any finite number of dimensions. Much of the Elements states results of what is now called number theory, proved using geometrical methods.

For over two thousand years, the adjective "Euclidean" was unnecessary because no other sort of geometry had been conceived. Euclid's axioms seemed so intuitively obvious that any theorem proved from them was deemed true in an absolute sense. Many other consistent formal geometries are now known, the first ones being discovered in the early 19th century. It also is no longer taken for granted that Euclidean geometry describes physical space. An implication of Einstein's theory of general relativity is that Euclidean geometry is only a good approximation to the properties of physical space if the gravitational field is not too strong. Germany paul whq2 (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Germany paul whq2. Could you please share the link to this revision of the Wikipedia page? Thanks –Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

hello this is it= https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/e/Euclidean_geometry.htm --Germany paul whq2 (discuss • contribs) 06:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Germany paul whq2 This is not a Wikipedia page—it is a separate website that has taken, modified, and rehosted text from Wikipedia. You should not copy content from this page. If you want to take material from Wikipedia, you should take from the original page and then link that revision in the edit summary on Wikibooks. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, no, no, I wanted to know if that source can be copied and edited on it Germany paul whq2 (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

excuse me Excuse me, I have a question, where should I make a robot, and if you know someone who knows how to make a wiki electronic robot, can you introduce me to it? Germany paul whq2 (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Germany paul whq2 No, you may not "copy and edit on" that source. I do not know much about using bots—you may want to ask @JackPotte or @Leaderboard. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, by the past my bot has already imported thousands of pages, but it's a long dev for each source. It means that it's not interesting to import less than 100 pages by bot, even more if it's just copy-pastes. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

well,I use this from bot,can i do use for writeing my books this from bot? Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Miraheze volunteers created a wiki-based cookbook: The Miraheze Cookbook.

This wiki is a crossover between wikiHow and Wikibooks cookbook.

The link is https://cookbook.miraheze.org.

Would you like to contribute to the wiki? Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Xeverything11—thank you for letting me know. I will stick with Wikibooks, but best of luck. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here are the recipes on The Miraheze Cookbook volunteers of Miraheze created: Scrambled Eggs and French Toast. What do you think of the recipes on The Miraheze Cookbook? At the writing, there are 2 recipes on The Miraheze Cookbook compared to 3,000+ here. If you want to contribute to The Miraheze Cookbook, follow the policy, especially the Manual of Style, and go ahead, contribute! Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Xeverything11 I will not be contributing to this project. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for making all the good cookbooks, keep it up! Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the book of the Shiite religion, as the name suggests, this book is for Shiites. But you say this article should be unbiased. Why?

This article is for Shiites and should not be written impartially.

been gone for a few weeks, what a transformation!😮 Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Germany Poul Ah. I said that the book should be written from a neutral point of view because of the wikibooks neutral point of view policy. My understanding of the policy suggests that a book on Shia Islam should be educational about the topics and beliefs in the religion (i.e. a description of the faith) without necessarily espousing those beliefs. Much of the content you have added can be considered educational, but I think it needs to be edited accordingly for neutrality. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, it is good practice to cite the sources of your information. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, of course, but since the book is about Shiites, it should be based on the beliefs of Shiites.

Also, don't worry about the source

I write like "Wikishia" Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Germany Poul Ah. You are correct that the book should be about Shiite Islam and the beliefs of Shiites; however, it needs to be written from a neutral point of view per the policy. I understand that NPOV is difficult to achieve as a single author, so I may be able to help edit for neutrality to at least show you what I mean.

Regarding sourcing, I can't "not worry about the source". It is important to have a minimum of sourcing for educational books, especially for those based in historical/cultural events like this book is, and this too is policy. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm hi Well, don't worry about the source, I will make them Generalization with an article. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm Hi,I did not understand the definite opinion, I can write based on the opinions of Muslims or speak impartially.

But my opinion is that this book should not be written impartially because I don't can to write impartial things as a Muslim. Please guide me, I am completely confused. Germany Poul Ah (discuss • contribs) 04:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, one user who wanted to send a message to you, wrote their message on your user page, so I reverted it. Please check page history for details of the message. Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am a big fan of cookbooks here, and I just wanted to thank you for your work on improving and adding cookbooks! Wikiuser13 (discuss • contribs) 00:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that's very kind :) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Greg L. I took a look at the materials you linked and at your note at User talk:Mrjulesd. As it stands, I feel like it would make sense to incorporate it into an existing book, rather than creating an entirely new book around it. One-off articles are more out of place here than on Wikipedia. Can you take a look at Shelf:Physics and see if your work could be incorporated into one of the books there? In the meantime, working on it in your sandbox is completely fine. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, Fuzzball (string theory) would best belong as a book #7 under 13. Black holes at General Astronomy. Yes? Greg L (discuss • contribs) 01:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

can you please stop doing what you are doing by removing what people edited and adding your own false recipes it is really not helping 41.116.238.216 (discuss) 11:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No idea what recipies your adding, 41.116. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 16:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you please be more specific? I don't know what you are referring to. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I followed your edits it led to me burning my kitchen i followed your citations the led to a virus that costs me $200 for me to repair 41.116.216.82 (discuss) 18:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikibooks editors are not liable for something you did. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

are you kitty Kat sir or mam 41.116.248.36 (discuss) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

41.x, why would that matter? --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 08:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stop answering questions that are not directed to you mister or whatever you are 41.116.195.45 (discuss) 06:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Remember to be careful with links, I feel as though this should be known already by somebody using the internet. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 09:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shut up boob face 41.116.198.58 (discuss) 15:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kittycataclysm,

I just checked my watchlist and I see that you deleted a redirect I created yesterday. I would like to apologize for creating additional work for you. My intention was to help, not to increase your work load.

I will refrain from making any more changes to the cookbook from now on. Sorry to have troubled you. Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ottawahitech Please don't worry about it! It's not a big issue, and you are welcome to continue contributing. It's a learning process :) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm: Thank you for your gracious reply.

Since we have not interacted before I would like to explain why I posted this in the first place. I have been part of the Wikimedia movement since 2007 (yes, I am ancient:), first at enwp exclusively until about 2012. After I was shunned from enwp in 2017 I have participated quite extensively in other sister-projects, perhaps a bit less enthusiastically than my first 10 years.

Since I joined the movement I have had trouble with my contributions being deleted, not reverted or undone, but deleted by admins. Many of these deletion were carried out "silently", as in without telling me about the deletion. I have therefore become very sensitive about this. Deleted contributions disappear from the contribution page of participants, so for someone who only participates sporadically and uses their contribution page to refresh memory this is a real issue, especially if many of the contributions they make end up being deleted without notifications.

I hope I am making sense? Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can definitely understand how that would be frustrating! If helpful, I can make sure to alert upon page deletions. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for the gracious offer. I just tried to explain the way things look like from the POV of a low-key, low-input, good-faith contributor, but please do not go out of your way to treat me differently than others are treated at WB. I will continue to try and help whenever I get a chance. Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kittycat sorry for everything i said your editing helped a lot please forgive 41.116.190.118 (discuss) 12:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, your move of the "zuppa toscana" page to "zuppa Toscana" is incorrect, please read these three conversations: wikipedia:Talk:Pecorino romano#Requested move 19 November 2023; wikipedia:Talk:Pecorino romano#Requested move 19 November 2023; wikipedia:Talk: Caffè americano#Requested move 19 November 2023. However, the title case page states: "When using title case, all words are capitalized, except for minor words (typically articles, short prepositions, and some conjunctions) that are not the first or last word of the title."; "toscano" is and adjective. JackkBrown (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @JackkBrown. Wikibooks is not Wikipedia, and its stylistic conventions do not necessarily apply here. As I noted on your talk page, the stylistic conventions of the cookbook here are such that recipe titles are in title case, with English (not Italian) capitalization conventions and major words capitalized. It is worth noting that each book here may have different stylistic conventions, but this is how titles should work in the cookbook. Thanks —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm: great! Forgive me. JackkBrown (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It largely unclear to me what clarifications you’re asking for, and I feel a bit pressured, to be honest. (Like I need to guard my content against deletionists or something.) Early on after I started publishing here, I tried to document the vision I was working towards concisely, yet accurately and in detail, on the main talk page for any potential co-authors. Did you notice that at all?...

I’m trying to do a kind of innovative history book that is easy to engage, with bite-sized information that fits between two sips of coffee, e.g. to be consumed daily at breakfast or as login MOTDs. I feel like the biggest chunk of work and research is done and it’s provisionally already somewhat functional: You might not realize at first glance how much work it is to find a topic/story for each day of the year. While quality of the topics could surely be improved here and there, this work has reached a provisional conclusion. – Now all that remains is to write the stories, and that should be much more straightforward in comparison and easier to participate in.

For an idea of one thing this can be, to the right there’s a photo of the first paper prototype, e.g. for the breakfast table. You are very welcome to leave point notes on individual stories, find the single best media piece for further study of a topic, work on good complementary illustrations, flesh out a story, give any actionable feedback, or come up with a better title.--Reseletti (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Reseletti and thanks for the information! I queried the book because it seemed mostly abandoned for over a year, the handful of random pages I clicked on only had one sentence each, and I didn't fully understand the concept based on the talk page. It seems like a lot of the pages still need to be fleshed out (I imagine maybe a paragraph each to reasonably form a book?) Just out of curiosity, do you plan on resuming the work on the book? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also I like the little feature to navigate to today's page! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added Champorado. I didn't copy paste it from a ready made recipe. I asked my mother on how to cook it. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 06:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jay Bolero yes that recipe is totally fine, as is Cookbook:Pinakbet. But, where did you get Cookbook:Lechon Kawali (Chili-Honey Glazed Filipino Pork Belly)? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I accidentally saw that recipe. It was originally named Chili Honey Glazed Filipino Pork Belly (Lechon Kawali).

I moved the name into

Lechon Kawali (Chili Honey Glazed Filipino Pork Belly) Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't make the recipe of Lechon Kawali. It already existed in the Cookbook. I just improved it and placed it in the list of Filipino cuisine. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I made the Cookbook:Calamansi.

Calamansi is one of the important ingredient in Filipino cuisine. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great, thank you :) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The last Lechon Kawali you marked as copyvio is not actually a copyvio. It has no Glazing needed. It does not need an airfryer to be cooked. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This one is not a copyvio Cookbook:Lechon Kawali (Filipino Crispy Fried Pork Belly) Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 07:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

That recipe didn't violate any copyright. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 07:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Chili Honey Glazed is the one that violated a copyright Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The two versions of Lechon Kawali recipes are different from each other. That last one is not copy pasted from an existing recipe. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 07:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jay Bolero you can see my response on your talk page. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wrote two books on Wikibooks entitled Bikol and the other one is Learn Baybayin. You might want to review them. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 08:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I have stumbled upon this bot which seems to be inactive. However, it also seems to have released its source code. Can I run this bot to update the authors lists? I will create a separate account for this. -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for missing this @D1n05aur5 4ever! Are you asking whether you're allowed to create a new bot account with the source code in order to fix the inactive bot? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is what I meant. D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why not! @JackPotte @Leaderboard I know you both run bot accounts, so is there anything they should know before doing this? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Kittycataclysm: mainly

• test the bot first - the Beta Cluster or test wiki are good places
• ask for the appropriate permissions so that it does not bother patrollers. This would normally be autoreviewer if the bot is low-volume, or the bot right otherwise.

Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, actually last year I had launched User:AuthorsAndContributorsBot/source_code on four pages (ex: https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=World_Cultures/Authors_%26_Contributors&diff=prev&oldid=4285894) and it worked fine, but I've stopped because it needed to maintain User:AuthorsAndContributorsBot/blacklist and User:AuthorsAndContributorsBot/List of books, or even better: to make them dynamic. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! What do you mean by maintain the pages or make them dynamic? Thanks in advance, -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm and @Az1568, I don't quite understand; why was this tagged and deleted? The criterion cited says Template:Tq, but I'd argue there was a decent amount of content in the few deleted pages. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @1234qwer1234qwer4! I believe I initially queried it while sorting through old abandoned books because the scope and future of the book were unclear to me, and I couldn't see a way forward for it. It turns out that queried books end up in candidates for speedy deletion after a certain period, which I think is how it eventually got deleted by @Az1568. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yep that's correct. The book has appeared largely undeveloped since 2018, and unfortunately, there were no attempts to oppose the initial query left on the book itself, nor were there attempts to expand on its content. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

So how exactly is this reflected in policy? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @1234qwer1234qwer4! So, I went back to take a look at it. The book consisted of two pages, with no introduction or clarification of scope/aims/educational relevance. It seems to just have been some mathematical definitions with no accompanying educational/instructional material. It was also abandoned for several years. I only intended to query it, but it did seem to meet criteria for deletion at Wikibooks:Deletion policy. Notably, the policy says to "delete stubs that are too narrowly defined or do not have a decent definition of what they are about", which I do think applied to this book as mentioned. It's possible that it should have been a RFD instead of a speedy deletion, but I do think overall it makes sense according to policy. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am patrolling Miraheze's recent changes and noticed there is username Kittycataclysm in recent changes in that wiki. Did you create this account on that wiki? Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Xeverything11. Thanks for asking. No, I do not have a Miraheze account, and I am not active over there. Whoever is operating under the username "Kittycataclysm" there is not me. Since they've copied my entire user page, I assume they are impersonating me for some reason. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking into that account's CentralAuth, it had made a total of 24 edits at the writing - 19 are from Cookbookholic, 3 are from Miraheze Meta, 1 is from Miraheze Login Wiki, and 1 is from Amazing YouTubers Wiki. What is that account doing? Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 07:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No idea. I'm not going to get involved over there, since this is my home wiki. But, since you have an account there, it might be nice if you could let them know that this person is an impersonator. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I think you may have blocked the wrong user. A different user made their talk page. Please check their local and global contributions. Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh gosh, thank you for letting me know—that was a mistake on my part. Should be fixed now! Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just want to ask, why you deleted my page "Jumarkese" on Wikibooks? And how I can revive my page? Jumark27 (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wanted to say thanks for all the work you do on Cookbooks. Have a good one! :) Aekrinine (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that's very kind! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your talk page is cluttered. I recommend implementing archiving. 98.115.164.53 (discuss) 17:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

They are free to do what they want with their talk page (as long as it's under 2 MB). --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 07:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have misnested bold formatting. When using ''' you can't have soft-line-feeds in between the ''' markup. If you want a line-feed use
, and removes the soft-line-feeds. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @ShakespeareFan00 and thanks for reaching out! I think there was a misunderstanding of what I wanted the template to look like—it looked correct based on the preview after making several adjustments to the template, but the quotation marks ended up in a sloppy location. At any rate, I think I understand what you were trying to do, and I've fixed the markup positioning. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The script I use to identify Lints also note that you have <strike>...</strike> tags in this talk page, These are nominally deprecated. Please consider using {{strike/top}} and {{strike/end}} in preference.

ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 07:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You may be interested in helping look for unclosed italics elsewhere -

I made a list of everything with missing tags in ns0: https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/4407/books.txt

The more that can be cleaned up the better.. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have noticed your edit in October 7th Massacre/Sderot. Could you please explain why you found in necessary to remove 2,462 bytes of content? I have noticed that you have not only changed the style and the grammar, but have also removed many details that would help the reader understand the events better. Thanks in advance, -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @D1n05aur5 4ever—I am happy to explain my edits! They were based on the following:

• Style: Wikibooks uses a neutral educational style, and NPOV is important. The initial style of the chapter was less like a neutral informational text and more like storytelling, with embellishment and attention drawn to certain details in a more literary way that evokes specific images and emotions. I removed content that I felt detracted from the desired NPOV style or that I felt was otherwise distracting, etc.
• Caution: Because this book revolves around a very recent and polarizing event, the surrounding conflict of which is still ongoing and the details of which are still hotly discussed, I think it is especially important to aim for neutrality.
• Iteration: Because Wikibooks is a collaborative project, books develop from an iterative process to refine the content—it's not just a place to self-publish one's own book. You contributed the initial version, I iterated on it, and so on.

If you have specific questions about specific changes I made, I am happy to explain and discuss those as well. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kittycataclysm. Thank you very much for the the detailed response. Maybe I haven’t made that clear in the initial message, but I didn’t ask why was it necessary to iterate on the text. I asked why it was necessary to remove such an extensive amount of details. I don’t feel like I have written the original text with “embellishment and attention drawn to certain details in a more literary way that evokes specific images and emotions”. Of course describing a massacre does evoke emotions, however I don’t see this as a reason not to describe the events of October 7th as they happened. -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha. In terms of removing content, I removed details when I felt they met one or more of the following criteria:

• Overly wordy/inefficient/clunky language (e.g. "They ran to the shelter, which was locked" --> "They ran to a locked shelter")
• Indicative of subjective/non-neutral experience that is not necessary to understand the larger events that took place (e.g. "He understood on the first alarm that something isn’t right", "She was used to alarms", "it took her a while to understand what is going on", "“We behaved like in the story of Anne Frank”", "When she understood the electricity won’t come back", "The kids panicked and even told “We don't want to die, we are too little”", etc).
• Excessive detail that is not necessary to understand the larger events that took place ("her husband, who works as a warden, had to go to work", "elderly people, including Holocaust survivors", etc).
• Loaded language (e.g. "slaughtered" vs "killed", "terrorist" vs "attacker"/"assailant", etc)

In some cases, I reworded things in a way that made them more concise, which decreased the overall content. Whenever I assess a sentence, paragraph, etc., I always evaluate its purpose and its effect, as well as whether it accomplishes the aims of the book and the Wikibooks project.

Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response! I have a few problems with it:

• About the locked shelter part, I think the best way to word it would be “they ran to the shelter only to find out that it was locked”.
• I don’t understand why the book can’t include the experiences of the witnesses. I would argue that the part saying “She was used to alarms” does indeed help understand the larger events (in that she was used to alarms since she heard many alarms before that). I didn’t really understand why a book on a massacre shouldn’t include these details.
• Again, please elaborate what you mean by “larger events” and by what extent an event has to be “large” in order to be noteworthy.
• Feels for me more like factual language than loaded. I’m not sure why calling terrorists “terrorists” is against NPOV.
• Thanks in advance,-D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 06:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Xania:, what is your opinion on the topic? -08:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @D1n05aur5 4ever—my apologies for the delayed response! Here are my responses:

• Locked shelter: Here I would ask why you feel that is the best way to word it. I made the change I did in order to convey the key facts (locked shelter) in the most concise and neutral way possible. I'm curious why you don't think it is appropriate.
• Witness experiences: I do think witness experiences can have value here. However, I think they must be used judiciously in order to best serve the purpose and scope of the book—a near infinite number of facts, statements, details, reports, etc could be included from the events, but not all of them need to be included in this book. It is challenging to make a blanket statement about what and how many witness experiences are relevant here, and it must instead be evaluated continuously through revision. I also think it's important to make it obvious that you're citing someone else's perspective when including it (e.g. "they said", "they reported", "according to ***") rather than narrating from their perspective.
• Event and detail inclusion: Again, it's hard to make a blanket statement outright on what details out of the many merit inclusion, and whether something is relevant is typically determined by book scope, revision, and consensus. I would argue that for this book, it doesn't make sense to spend words describing things like what shirt someone happens to be wearing, details related to their everyday life, their detailed personal perceptual experiences, etc.
• Loaded language: It may be helpful to take a look at these resources on loaded language, as well as w:Loaded language for context and overall guidance. Regarding the term "terrorist" specifically, w:Terrorism#Definition may be helpful as well—note its status as a charged and disputed term with strong non-neutral connotations. The term "attacker" still correctly describes the events taking place without inadvertently inserting strong connotations and leaning into political territory.

Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply!

• My problem with “locked shelter” is that it kind of makes it sound as if they knew the shelter was locked when they ran towards it.
• I think I made it clear that I’m citing other people’s perceptive, however if not, I’m willing to edit the text.
• Details about personal lives of people were only included when they helped the reader understand the events. We can’t assume the reader to be familiar with the frequency of alarms in Sderot. That’s why I think it’s necessary to explain that while she was used to alarms, this event was unprecedented. Such details help the reader understand the event better. In my opinion such an unprecedented event such as the October 7th massacre deserves a detailed book describing the events that took place.
• I’m not convinced that the word “terrorist” is a politically loaded word. I still think it’s simply a factual description of them, though the word “attacker” is still technically correct.

Cheers! -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am currently on working on Cookbook: Honey Mug Cake. Any advice or anything to help? I can't help but feel something is missing from it. Soapyduck (discuss • contribs) 09:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I went through and made some edits, which you can see in the revision history. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The structure you chose for Cookbook:Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (Black Forest Cake) II has the unfortunate side effect that people can't link to the first four subsections in ==Procedure==. Cookbook:Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (Black Forest Cake) II#Cake will take them to the first. Do you have any ideas about how to make these later sections accessible to everyone? WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 06:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @WhatamIdoing—thanks for checking in! In order to link to a second identical heading, you just use an underscore plus an index. So, to link to the second cake heading, you would use this: Cookbook:Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (Black Forest Cake) II#Cake_2. Hope this helps! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's nice for the few of us who know that trick, but it doesn't help the 99.9999% of readers who aren't experts in MediaWiki's quirks. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not ideal, but it's also the best we can do for now. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The original structure for the page had no duplicate section headings. Perhaps we should go back to that. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @WhatamIdoing. I definitely understand your concern. However, the changes I made were to bring the recipe into alignment with the recipe template and all other recipes in the Cookbook. It is also a very common current standard for recipe-writing in English. Moreover, I think this kind of linking is actually very simple and very easy to teach/communicate—much more so than some other common MediaWiki features—and it is not unreasonable to expect editors to learn editing tips and tricks like this over time from more experienced users. You asked, and now you know a simple new trick to help with editing :) As an aside, I'm also not sure how often linking to subheadings like this is even used in the Cookbook, so I don't think it's a very big issue at the moment. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, if the standard recipe template creates accessibility problems for blind readers, we should have a better recipe template.

BTW, I've been editing for about 18 years now, so unlike you, I was around when that "simple new trick" was introduced to MediaWiki. I know how it works. This is a problem for readers, not for me personally. The problem isn't when an editor wants to put a link to the section (which happens on the talk page more often than in the cookbook). Imagine that a reader wants to ask a friend about this recipe. Think about a social media post that says "I'm confused by the directions in Cookbook:Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (Black Forest Cake) II#Cake ". That won't end up where the reader expected it to go, right? And while people who (like me) have made more than 100K edits at Wikipedia will probably know what to do, a reader is not going to be able to fix it. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing I definitely agree with you that web inaccessibility is a problem! I'm just having a hard time understanding this particular case. I find it hard to imagine someone who is savvy enough to know that you can link to specific subheadings by hashing, but isn't savvy enough to know about the indexing system to modify it. Have you seen this come up as a problem before? At any rate, I've modified the headings here so they are specific enough to not need the indexing. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it happens sometimes. That's one of the reasons why enwiki requires unique section headings. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 00:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I saw your comment on Wikiphilosophers. Indeed, the whole idea of it is that people can put their own philosophical ideas on a subpage of their own. I discussed the proposal for the project on Meta-Wiki (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiphilosophers). There it was suggested that the project should first take shape on Wikibooks, if before becoming its own project. Personally, I think a own platform for Wikiphilosophers is also best, but I don't know how else to do it either? I look forward to hearing from you! Kind regards, S. Perquin (discuss • contribs) 03:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @S. Perquin! Thank you, and I read through the discussion you linked. Unfortunately, based on your envisioning of the project, I'm thinking that Wikibooks isn't the best place for it. You can take a look at WB:NOTMETA, and generally Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks? for details. Specifically, Wikibooks is for creating instructional books based on preexisting documented knowledge, which Wikiphilosophers doesn't really match the way you've described it. I'm thinking that if any existing WMF project were to host this, it would be Wikiversity. I'd recommend checking out Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? and Wikiversity:Research, as well as asking there if your project could have a home there. Hope this is helpful! Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I will post a message in the Colloquium! Kind regards, S. Perquin (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have permission to continue working on my project there. I have transferred all the information from Wikibooks to Wikiversity. All pages on Wikiphilosophers can therefore be deleted on Wikibooks! Could you take care of this? Kind regards, S. Perquin (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excellent—I'm glad to hear your project has found a home! I will delete any residual pages here. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The edit is partially correct and partially questionable. For example, せんせいい is an obvious typo (せんせい is accurate), and でんしゃ is the correct reading for 電車. However, converting 行（い）きます to いきます can be disputed (this can be considered as simplification, but others may prefer the usage of 行). I'm not sure if the IP editor is a native speaker (the ISP is in the UK), so I think we need to keep an eye on this page. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I thought providing furigana for 'to go' might be an oversimplification but it's also there for other basic verbs like 'to eat'. Why is this person rejecting edits on a language they don't speak anyway? It would have taken 2 seconds to verify them with a dictionary. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:E1D4:C6B3:2E:3919 (discuss) 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both for the information! Because 1) there is often vandalism by IPs in non-English content and 2) Wikibooks lacks enough users to do detailed vetting, I tend to be very conservative regarding this kind of edit when not accompanied by an explanation in the edit summary. I am happy to restore the initial edit since an explanation has now been provided. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

hello!I noticed that you deleted the edits I made to Lesson 12 of the Chinese textbook. Please give it back to me， and undo your deletion so I can continue working. 见水思源 (discuss • contribs) 05:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @见水思源. I deleted that page because of the following reasons taken together:

1. It seemed very much out of scope with the rest of the book.
2. It was written largely in a non-English language, beyond what would be expected for a language-teaching book.
3. It was created by an anonymous IP.
4. There have been multiple bad page creations for that page.

Could you please explain how your page contributes meaningfully to the book in its current scope? Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, here are my answers :)

1. I don't think it's out of scope, just like Lesson 11 of the book, it's a quoted Chinese text, designed to let students learn how real Chinese people speak

2. This lesson does use a lot of non-English language, but that's because I decided to take a break and wait until the next day to complete it (including the supplementary English part)

3. Like you mentioned, this is indeed created by an anonymous IP. The interesting thing is that this IP is mine, I'm a newcomer, and this is my first time contributing to the wiki. After I sent my work, I realized that I needed to create an account to save my work

4. There is indeed a lot of vandalism on this page, and I saw it. But this doesn't mean that what I wrote is also meaningless text

Like I said, that IP is mine, and I decided to finish my work the next day. But when I opened the page, I found it was deleted. I was angry because I spent a lot of time to finish it. So I hope you can give it back to me and let me finish the unfinished part.

I am new here, which means I don't have a lot of experience, and I look forward to your suggestions on my work, thank you! 见水思源 (discuss • contribs) 06:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@见水思源 thank you for clarifying—I have restored the chapter. Please make sure to incorporate it into the rest of the book. For example, please change the chapter title to match the other chapters, include it in the table of contents, and use the same formatting and structure as the other lesson chapters. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@KittycataclysmI'm glad to see them back, your advice is spot on. I noticed that the chapter headings don't seem to match the main table of contents, I'll make them fit by modifying the title text and body content appropriately。Thank you！ 见水思源 (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the whole book, I think I have filled a blank page, and I think after I fill it, this page must be more meaningful than a blank page. 见水思源 (discuss • contribs) 10:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm currently building Physics Explained Through a Video Game which you recently reviewed. As a question, is the inclusion of numerous video examples for the content I've written (such as for the existing materials in Unit 2 of my book) problematic? I feel that it provides a more intuitive explanation of many of the discussed concepts and may be more engaging for my target audience (high schoolers). However, I'm concerned that it's making the pages overly cluttered.

Aside from this, are there any other ways that I can improve the existing content for the project?

Thank you in advance. TheMonkeyEatsBananas (discuss • contribs) 05:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @TheMonkeyEatsBananas! From my cursory look at the book, the formatting seems generally quite reasonable. I don't have the capacity at the moment to take a detailed look at the specific construction to assess optimization. But, I don't think you have anything to be worried about. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply