text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2019/December

Request from WMF T&S to review the book Suicide
I have moved this discussed from Requests for Deletion, where I originally posted it, as it isn't strictly a deletion request. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Background
In early August the WMF Trust & Safety team contacted (some / all?) admins on Wikibooks requesting a review of the content of Suicide. They noted two concerns: much of it had been created by a globally banned user in violation of the Terms of Use; some of it may be illegal in certain jurisdictions. They specifically requested the deletion of Suicide/Amitriptyline cocktail as crossing the legality line. The Terms of Use allow the Foundation to delete this content without community involvement. However, they requested instead that the community takes action, which for this one page I was happy to action pending a wider conversation (i.e., I have removed the potentially illegal content on precautionary grounds without prejudice to it being restored later). For the rest of the book we face a dilemma (as we do for all content here) - how do we ensure the content is accurate and, above all, legal when we lack the knowledge and skills to do this? If a subject is "on the border" so-to-speak, should we take the risk and allow it, or remove it? QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The community has considered this book for deletion at least twice, and has consistently chosen not to delete it.
 * Looking at recent events, Trust and Safety —as a collective entity (I've nothing to say atm of any individual person)— I do not trust, and makes me feel very unsafe.
 * Ultimately if the Foundation says we have to do something, all our principles and policies (regardless of whether supposedly shared by the Foundation) count for nothing.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * . This book is one that has been controversial on Wikibooks (see Talk:Suicide), and I remember conversing with users who were concerned about such books. That being said, I would still keep the book. This is a scientific discussion about suicide, and there is a clear disclaimer on the front page about the scope of the book. Nothing in the book explicitly promotes suicide e(and it isn't telling 'lies' either). To remove this book would be a sign of censorship on the part of WMF, and I would want WMF T&S to provide a clear rationale on why they think the book does not deserve to be here. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They have provided a clear rationale for the single page I have deleted. However as I'm on a phone editing this week I can't be bothered to try and type it all in. I will do so on Monday. For the wider issue, which I will also expand on, they have the right to delete it but have instead deferred to the community. I will expand on this next week too but for now I'd say they are being very reasonable and consultative. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * : How about adding more warning materials to hopefully stop unjustified suicides? I have added some ways.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I distantly recall a suggestion that the book can help to talk down someone who is considering suicide by speaking to them rationally about the subject, rather than patronizingly. Warnings need to not lose that scientific honesty. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 05:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That would dilute the meaning of the subject. Wikipedia's article on suicide does not have a warning, so why should Wikibooks? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A cogent point. Likewise Wikipedia's article on suicide methods. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (I see that one has an RFC about adding a hatnote.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My take is this, T&S most likely will like to prevent people from learning how to suicide. I chime in as in Chinese Wikiversity I once AFD an article on how to kill someone in an enclosed room on the basis of it being unethical. The community decided to keep it. I find similarities between my thought as per what T&S are thinking, let's not teach people to do harm. However, the arguments then presented in the AFD is that there are ways many sites out there teaching the same, the article is just something that summarize ideas out from the web. Hence, my take is this, for those contents that are original research i.e. some manner to commit suicide - I don't know is the amitriptyline cocktail is available on the web or not but these should be deleted per TOU of ensuring a safe environment. We can have a book focusing on suicide, but not to teach people how to suicide, at least not more than what the enwp article have. Regards,--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I now tried to read some of the pages and stop at 2 pages, the detail is making me uncomfortable as an adult. The main page is ok for me, but once I clicked into the methods of suicide, it makes me very uncomfortable (I have no issues reading the enwp version). I think these should be trimmed down. --Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be something sobering for a Wikibookian about the idea that it's okay to provide a shallow treatment —which is the purpose of an encyclopedia article— but it's not okay to provide an in-depth treatment — which is the purpose of a book. I'm not saying some of the book content doesn't make me uncomfortable; I'm saying that when I recognize in myself an impulse to censor, that also makes me uncomfortable. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Concurred, I dont wish to censor either. However, I'm trying to understand what T&S is thinking and trying to get a win win solution. Be aware that even if we dont agree for deletion, they could still summary delete if they wish to although I dont think they will given the recent FRAM issue. An approach will be to look up into some of the books in this category on Amazon or etc, if they cover the same content, ours should be safe to keep. I remembered something along the lines of commons:COM:PORN or Wikipedia WP:NOTCENSORED can be ways we set the boundaries of what can or what cant be included in a book. Regards, its indeed sobering and I wish we never have to discuss this kind of inclusion issue with T&S involved.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 03:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We must make our decisions based on our own ethical principles. We can listen to concerns expressed by T&S, as we would to any intelligent party raising such concerns, and weigh those concerns in the light of our ethics; but if we compromise our ethics because we feel intimidated by T&S, then our behavior is unethical.  If we consider concerns raised, make an ethical decision that T&S doesn't agree with, and T&S then decides to override us, they are violating our ethical principles but we are not, and we can hold our heads up high. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I did ping T&S (at their request) so they could see and comment on this discussion. Given their failure to do so, I will email them as we really need their input. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, this seems a fair approach. I just don't want things such as FRAM to happen here, when we hold our heads up defying them, we simply don't have the ability to do any form of civil disobedience, so my approach is to try to reach a compromise as far as possible. I seen summary deletion and even protection on zhwp by T&S, the feeling is really very bad. I seen CU rights being yanked away with superficial explanation of safety and the Ombudsmen Commission have yet to finish the report for 1.5 years leaving stewards having to do CU which is a horrendous but necessary arrangement. I have always stick to my principles and will oppose what nonsense I don't believe in (like I did on meta regularly) and will sure to do so here using an approach that will not be that sour. Is there anymore T&S share with you or just this is it? Then they should really elaborate on what their concerns are and I think we should wait for their response before discussing any further. I will also email them too.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was specifically User:CSteigenberger (WMF) who emailed and I think I have provided all of the relevant info from the email. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was specifically User:CSteigenberger (WMF) who emailed and I think I have provided all of the relevant info from the email. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Wikibook community, First of all thank you all for taking this matter seriously and taking the time to look into it. Also thank you for getting back to us with your questions. We are highly concerned that the kind of detailed descriptions given in this book, especially in the pages around methods, could create a risk of harm to readers and is not within the scope of educational content as it reads almost as a how-to on suicide methods. We've seen studies that people do go to Wikimedia projects, when researching methods of suicide, and that when they find this kind of specific information, it makes the harm worse, so these pages are a serious risk. We also have serious doubts on the educational value of parts of the book - see for example the page on “Methods/Immolation”. Another concern we have is that this kind of information is illegal in many places in the world and raises the chance of Wikibooks and other projects being blocked in those places. This kind of information hurts the projects overall and makes it more difficult for us to defend the community governance structure from harmful legislation. I hope this information is helpful to you for making an informed decision about the ongoing deletion discussion. If you want more background, feel free to ping me again and I will try to provide whatever you need to make a good decision. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 07:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Misuse of statistics is, alas, a very widespread problem. "We've seen studies that..." is hearsay; we'd need to examine the studies and assess what they actually mean, if we're to take such claims seriously.  Can you direct us to information about these studies? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, and I got the gist of T&S concerns right in my guess above. My response: Per, can we have some examples of these studies, preferably blind studies for those who read wikibooks and then committed those acts vs those who don't, in a large enough sample and random enough sampling. The demographics will also be helpful as I know we can present different content to different audiences (based on mediawiki extension). On per educational value, this is something we can discuss and improve I guess.
 * For legistration and illegal, I don't buy this. I know these firewalls personally as I interact with people living under firewall on a daily basis. I will say that if we censor our content just to make sure the censors don't censor us, we are quasi bowing down to the censors. Let it be IP Block Exemptions, paid VPN subscriptions or etc, we should use these rather to trim our contents and values to satisfy the censors.
 * I suggest we examine the entire book page by page to see how we can make sure people don't get hurt or there isn't false information. An approach can be having warnings on every page (my homewiki does this for every medical / legal article) or a landing page for people to get the warnings before diving into the books?
 * However, I would like to thank T&S for their good handling of this situation by talking and not arbitrary summary deletion as office actions. Commendable and Kudos to the team. --Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Cohaf and Pi zero,

 * Thank you both for your continued interest and the good, respectful discussion.

 * I really appreciate the idea of going through the book page by page, leaving hatnotes where it makes sense and either improving content or deleting pages, where there is no educational value to preserve. After our initial review, there are a number of concerning paragraphs that include personal advocacy, do not include reliable citations, or cite repeatedly to the same limited, unbalanced sources, and have other issues. Part of our concern about the legal and policy issues is that these articles, in their current state, do not reflect Wikibooks policies. Ensuring that potentially harmful content is treated with utmost respect and care helps us defend the projects. Do you have any idea about the time it would take to do this kind of review? --CSteigenberger (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 08:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC) I am almost tempted to jump in and help in my volunteer capacity, as several of those pages offend my professional knowledge in that field, but I am aware this would be outside our standard practice.

 * Please note, you have not yet responded to the question that I and Cohaf both asked, regarding studies. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have one study that is specifically about content on Wikipedia about suicide— There are also studies that discuss the way people consult general information resources on suicide——and the effects of media coverage of suicide-related topics— There are extensive bibliographies of research in this field available at Reporting on Suicide and the 13 Reasons Why Toolkit. I appreciate your interest in looking at this issue closely. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 07:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and, did you find some time to look at the articles I linked? If you need more time for reading, this is perfectly understandable! I just would love to continue this discussion, so please let me know when you feel up to coming back to it. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For my part, I've not yet gotten to them but fully intend to. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been there. I've had a rope around my neck. So please, listen. Every second a depressed person is reading about suicide, including methods, they are not cutting their wrists. That's a win. I'll look at the studies you linked, but it's extremely difficult to get such research right. I bet none of them will take into account how many badly informed botched suicide attempts that resulted in permanent damage were replaced by more successful attempts when better information was available. It's even less likely they will consider the ethical implications of that. If I had to guess, better information would result in some botched suicide attempts become successful suicide attempts but also some botched suicide attempts becoming no suicide attempt. But the latter is really hard to measure. Many botched suicide attempts are followed up later by successful ones. If such a succesful attempt is replaced by a botched attempt, researchers would likely consider that a win because the heart of the patient is still beating. But it's a shallow victory. All you've won is a little more time in now even more pain.
 * If you want to reduce suicide (in the US), restrictions on gun ownership would likely be effective. Guns allow for very impulsive actions. Getting a chair and a rope, tying a knot, etc. simply takes more time. Making any kind of death cocktail takes more time. Getting in your car and driving off a cliff takes more time. You wouldn't even have to ban them, putting them in a safe that takes at least 20 seconds to open would help. (but this is difficult to enforce) Even just storing the weapon and ammo in different rooms would help. WMF can't do much about this, but maybe that should be added to the book. A depressed person who reads it may actually separate their weapon and ammo to protect themselves from an impulsive decision. You might save someone. And this isn't patronizing.
 * But now, the book. If you tell a suicidal person they are not allowed to kill themselves or try to keep information from them, they'll become more suicidal. They already lost control. Control over their lives, their destiny, their happiness. People don't become suicidal because they're too lazy to fix their problems. They become suicidal because they believe they can't fix their problems. You need to respect their decision. It's a Chinese finger trap. If you try to talk them out of it, you're only pushing them further away. Don't censor the book. The information can be found elsewhere, and anyone looking for it will go there. And if you think that's a good thing, consider this: if they are reading stuff here, chances are they will make a contribution. You may think that's insignificant, but it isn't. If they become a member of this community, they will gain both some respect and control over something. (their contributions) So maybe after all there is something the WMF can do. Figure out how to reach out to people who feel depressed and get them involved in a WMF project. Let the community embrace them. And yes, this is an alternative account. You have almost certainly seen a contribution of mine. But that's how much of a taboo still exists on being depressed, even more so on being suicidal. Chinese finger trap.. Suisock (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing those thoughts. I'd sensed the discussion was lopsided due to something missing on that side of the ledger. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for weighing in and bringing your own, individual and emotional perspective.

 * However, I still think we all, staff and volunteers alike have the same responsibility here - and that is to ensure that the content we present is correct and presented responsibly in alignment with all the policies of our projects. Looking at some pages of this book, like e.g. Suicide/Firearm or Suicide/Toxification/Diazepam we doubt this.

 * Please let us discuss what we can learn from the studies linked above about how content on suicide can be presented in a responsible way. Let us discuss if the book and all its chapters can be redacted in a way that meets such criteria.

 * Please also be aware that we as WMF staff are not the only ones concerned with the book in question and the impact parts of it might have. We have been contacted by the Samaritans, a major suicide prevention organization, and they have expressed concern over several pages of this book. I really think we should listen to the experts in the field, bringing their professional expertise and either improve the book or delete it. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 10:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 * You appear to have missed some important points re Suisock's remarks and the overall situation. (And yes, I'm very aware I still have to examine the documents you recommended.)
 * Their remarks were evidently highly rational and carefully thought out. Don't stray down the road of labeling things you don't want to hear as "emotional"; I've seen institutions do that to trivialize their opponents when the institution doesn't care what anyone else says except as a nuisance to be overcome.
 * A major theme of their remarks, and a major problem for the Foundation generally for (many) years now, is that statistics are usually misinterpreted. People who claim (often sincerely) to be basing their decisions on statistics are likely to be seeing in the statistics what they want to see rather than anything actually there.  So when you talk about "what we can learn from the studies above" — what that is remains to be seen; and Suisock's remarks bear on what can and perhaps cannot be learned from the statistics; and there are things to be learned directly from Suisock's remarks, so that it's not safe to think of a decision here as being based solely on statistics.
 * A pessimistic reading of your remarks would suggest you'd force us to decide to do what you have made up your mind to require us to decide to do, and you want to be able to pretend (perhaps even to yourself) to have given us a voice in the decision. (Remember Henry Ford, offering the Model-T in any color as long as it's black?)
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Content added by Leucosticte
User:Leucosticte added a great deal of content in a very short time. Some of it appears to have been published before they added it here making all their additions suspect. For example:

 * "meaning that it can poison several different systems in the body, although the nervous system is most affected. The toxicity of H2S is comparable with that of hydrogen cyanide" can be found in this source from 2010 http://www.silverspringvfd.org/apps/public/news/newsView.cfm?News_ID=40&Print=1

 * "NMS is caused almost exclusively by antipsychotics, including all types of neuroleptic medicines along with newer antipsychotic drugs" is copied from Wikipedia without appropriate attribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuroleptic_malignant_syndrome&oldid=214303194

 * This edit was made a minute after there prior one and added more than 16,000 bytes of text. It is unclear if the emails that that page contains were released under an open license.

Additionally the content is not really educational in nature. Together with that and the copyright concerns I believe we should delete their contributions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

( Moved it here as it is relevant to the deletion discussion going on here. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
 * 100% agreed. Nathan has some serious issues that he needs to work out in a venue other than our wikis. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Who's Nathan? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The person we were just discussing. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, is there a potential copyright issue with some of the material? If so, that ought to be removed first so we can contemplate what remains without that complication. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Pi zero The thing about picking up copy and pasting is it is not always easy to detect especially years later. If a number of a users edits have concerns and they are adding text faster than a human can reasonable write such text than based on the cautionary principle IMO it is reasonable to simple delete it all. Expecially when you add in the fact that the contributions are not educational / are fairly unsavory. Seriously Wikibooks should not be a "how to guide" on how to die by suicide. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, that's clearly mixing the issues; I was especially hoping to separate them, so we can get a clear reading on each. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have redirected this due to copyright concerns.. Here is the archive of one of the sources it was copied from. Have also redirected a couple of others of there pages. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines for adding a new subject
I have been adding information to Wikipedia about "Enthronement of the Sacred Heart" under the subject "Sacred Heart". I was told some of the material I have would be more appropriate under Wikibooks because it is more about how to actually do an Enthronement as opposed to information about an "Enthronement of the Sacred Heart." After talking about how to, I also have manuals that I would like to include. I have 26 edits under Wikipedia, so I was thinking I can create a new section. What would that section go under? We have copyrights to the manuals.Shenaw2016 (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are "we" and what are the copyrights you are discussing? It is not sufficient that you are the copyright owner. You must release the work under the Wikibooks CC-BY-SA license and you will need to prove you are the copyright holder. I'd also say this really doesn't look like an educational textbook and I'm not convinced it is in scope of Wikibooks. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a page "How to Enthrone the Sacred Heart". The article still needs to be reviewed.  Let me know what you think.Shenaw2016 (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If I am editing a problem in a book, do I also need to make the same edit to the solution page?
Hi Wikipedians,

I am working on editing our text for Linear Algebra as I work through the book for my own studies. Most of the minor edits I'm making are to the wording of problems.

If I edit a problem, do I also need to edit the solution page?

I ask because I know that edits go up for review, so perhaps those edits are handled by a bot, I do not know and I did not see a question on this page. Thank you!

Fantasticawesome (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Fantasticawesome. Yes you would need to edit the solutions too; bots do not update the solutions. Edits may be reviewed and reverted, but this should only happen if the edits make the page worse. Hope this helps. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


text:
Practical Electronics/Atoms structure

Matter
Matter refers to any physical quantity that can be measured and has its own physical and chemical properties.

Physical Properties
All matter exists in one of three states, called the classical States. They are: solid such as an ice cube, liquid such as water and gas such as water vapour.

All matter has mass, volume and density. Density is equal to the ratio of mass over volume.
 * $$D = \frac{M}{V}$$

where
 * M, Mass measured in Kilogram kg
 * V, Volume measured in m3
 * D, Density measured in Kilogram kg/m3

Chemical Properties
All matters are made up of one or more chemical Elements.

Each chemical element is made up of atoms. An atom is the smallest part that makes up an element.

As of 10 April 2010, there 118 confirmed chemical elements known to mankind, organised in what is known as the periodic table, which lists each element''s chemical symbol, atomic number and atomic mass.

 * m
 * E
 * z

Where
 * m, Mass
 * E, Element
 * z, Atomic number

Sub Atomic Electric Charged Particles
Further study of matter has shown that atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles that carry electric charge. There are three kinds of charged particles, as far we're concerned here.

 * Electron
 * Electrons carry negative charge has a symbol e- and a mass of 0.005 a.m.u

 * Proton
 * Proton carries positive charge has a symbol p+ and a mass of 1 a.m.u

 * Neutron
 * Neutron carries no charge has a symbol n0 and a mass of 1 a.m.u

Nucleus are formed by combining protons and neutrons together but they could not carry electrical charges. In spite of the neutron's no charge, it is attracted to protons when it is bonded closely together.

Rutherford's Model
In 1911, Rutherford propose a model of matter consisting of charged particles such as Electron, Proton and Neutron. Due to advance technology and understanding of the science today have advance, Rutherford's model are not considered anymore as accurate representation of atoms.

According to Rutherford's model,
 * 1) All matter has a Mass M a Volume V and a Density equals to the ratio of Mass over Volume exist in one three states Solid like Ice cube, Liquid like Water, Gas like Water vapor
 * 2) An atom consists mainly empty space with electrons orbiting a fixed, positively charged nucleus in set, predictable paths.
 * 3) All matter made up from Charged Particles the smallest indivisible part still has matter's characteristics
 * 4) All matter has a Nucleus made of Proton and Neutron in the center and Electron's orbits circulating around the Nucleus
 * 5) Number of electrons in the orbits must be equal to number of protons in the nucleus . Atomic number in the Periodic Table indicates number of Protons in the nucleus or the number of electrons in orbits.
 * 6) Only Electron in the outermost orbit can participate in reaction
 * 7) The size of the nucleus of an atom is very small in comparison to the total size of an atom.

Bohr's Model
In 1913, Bohr proposed that
 * 1) Each electron's orbit has a quanta of energy correspond to an Energy Level Number n.
 * 2) There are 4 Energy Level Number n = 1 ..4 .  n = 4 has the highest energy level . n = 1 has the lowest energy level
 * 3) The energy level is depending to the size of orbit, the smaller orbit, the smaller energy level it is
 * 4) When electron moves from High Energy Level to Low Energy Level Electron will emits Electromagnetic Light Wave
 * 5) En-1 - En = hf

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

title: Practical Electronics/Atoms structure


text:
User talk:Richardceberhardt

Welcome
Welcome to Wikibooks, Richardceberhardt!

 First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.

You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can easily change most books. Please introduce yourself, and let us know what interests you.

If you already contribute at other Wikimedia projects, our Wikimedia Orientation should quickly get you started. (Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

  Getting help   Made a mistake?   Goodies, tips and tricks
 * Read the Using Wikibooks book for a friendly introduction to the project, or our help pages for more information.
 * You can get friendly help from the community in the user assistance room or our IRC channel.
 * Upload freely licensed files to Wikimedia Commons. You may request permission to upload fair use files locally. Please include author and source information and a non-free use rationale for non-free files.
 * You can restore a previously saved version.
 * Pages should follow the  naming convention.
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (is available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To request a page be deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * Was a page you made deleted? Please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the RFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:RFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing ~~~~
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!

--Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Richardceberhardt


text: Jánua Linguárum Reseráta/Vestibulum/Caput 4


text:
User:Scott.beckman

I am a professor of engineering and am creating books that I can use in my classes. At this time I have worked one two books, the first is [| Electronic Properties of Materials] and the second is [| Overview of Elasticity of Materials].

title: User:Scott.beckman


text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2019/October

Raising rollback limit
Hi all, as raised at Reading room/Assistance, it seems that and I occasionally run into the rate limit when using rollback. As the vandals go page hopping instead of sticking to a single page, using mass rollback is the easiest way (for me) to revert their nonsense after they are blocked. However, the rate limit forbids us to rollback after a number of edits, probably 10 edits within a 1 minute time frame. As such, I would like to propose that the rollback limit be increased from 10/min to 60/min (1 rollback/second). If the concern is that some editors might misuse rollback with a bot (as mentioned by Mrjulesd), the second best option is granting the account creator right to a use at the discretion of the admin. 大 诺 史 ( Talk/留言/토론/Discussion ) 06:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support, but I took a look at the configs and you should already be at 90/min... --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 07:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless WB isn't using the default values, I believe that is for edits only, not rollback. 大 诺 史 ( Talk/留言/토론/Discussion ) 07:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

// Page edits 'edit' => [ 'ip' => [ 8, 60 ], 'newbie' => [ 8, 60 ], 'user' => [ 90, 60 ], ], ... ... ],  // Page rollbacks 'rollback' => [ 'user' => [ 10, 60 ], 'newbie' => [ 5, 120 ]
 * Well, I was wrong; the number I gave was for edits; the number for rollback is 100/min as a result of T228708 - where are you looking for those configs? I'm in InitialiseSettings --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From mw:Manual:$wgRateLimits. 大 诺 史 ( Talk/留言/토론/Discussion ) 07:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the default for unconfigured mediawiki installations. On wmf sites, the defaults are --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 07:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

// For expanded rollback permissions... 'rollback' => [ 'user' => [ 100, 60 ], // T228708 'newbie' => [ 5, 120 ], ],
 * Then I can't seem to find any reason why rollback can't be used sometimes. 大 诺 史 ( Talk/留言/토론/Discussion ) 08:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * *Another approaches to solve rollbacks
 * If the rollback settings are limited for now, how about edit the configurations so that each IP or new user (not auto-confirmed user) edits are allowed only 1 edit per 1 minute. The root cause of this problem are due to new user/IP edits are abusing the current edit limits (which I believed are unlimited ). I believed this approach will greatly reduce the vandalism. As from what I seen so far, IP edits and also the new user edits are so far vandalizing the pages way more than constructive edits.
 * Also, I believed that there are no way that new user will need to edit multiple pages in one minute except perhaps for vandalism.Remember the monkey pics vandal, repeating contents vandal, blanking vandals, and now the nonsense content vandal....
 * Adding my two cents thought by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Will the notice message help you out? 大 诺 史 ( Talk/留言/토론/Discussion ) 08:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then if possible, slot an edit into User:大诺史/sandbox 大 诺 史 ( Talk/留言/토론/Discussion ) 08:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 * , seems to be "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators." + sometimes, the rollback button doesn't appear. 大 诺 史 ( Talk/留言/토론/Discussion ) 08:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any other user group listed? --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 08:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. 大 诺 史 ( Talk/留言/토론/Discussion ) 08:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Where you clicking rollback from a dif or the history page? --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * both + RC. 大 诺 史 ( Talk/留言/토론/Discussion ) 08:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is bigger than just rollback. See T234744 and parent task --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 09:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input . What I strongly suspect is that the $wgRateLimits hasn't been updated to the new WMF defaults per T228708, i.e. we are using here the old default values for $wgRateLimits as listed at mw:Manual:$wgRateLimits.
 * It very much feels like rollback is ratelimited here; and as only admins have the "noratelimit" right, it makes sense that admins are not affected by this "bug" (may actually be a feature) as suggested by their comments at the previous thread. To fix T234744 all that may be needed is an update to LocalSettings.php to bring $wgRateLimits to the new WMF defaults.
 * Hopefully a sys admin will opine at phabricator, for as far as I know LocalSettings.php can't be viewed on the web interface, so we have no way of knowing for sure that this is the cause of the problem. But I am fairly certain by my editing that some sort of rate limit is being applied to my use of rollback, as if I wait for a period of time the rollback becomes operational again. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Autopromotion
Based on my observation, the autopromotion might have some issues too. & should have been auto promoted by now. + I had to request reviewer rights from, and was manually promoted by  too.
 * However, I suspect that this has little to do with any software issues but rather having this criteria "5 or more edits are in recent changes at the time automatic reviewer promotion is checked." which delays the auto promotion due to the spam. 大 诺 史 ( Talk/留言/토론/Discussion ) 14:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well its not perfect how autopromotion works. But its not much of an issue as rights can be requested or given instead. Encik Tekateki & Hasley should request the right if they fulfill the criteria (I haven't checked myself) and want it. -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 20:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


text:
User:PantheraLeo1359531/sandbox

Spielwiese von PantheraLeo1359531
Mandelbulber

Intro
Mandelbulber is a fractal generating program that renders 3D objects.

Export
JPG PNG EXR TIFF STL FRACT/TXT

title: User:PantheraLeo1359531/sandbox


text: Jánua Linguárum Reseráta/Vestibulum/Caput 5


text:
Talk:Compiler Construction/A recipe for writing a reusable grammar

In fact I have intentionally made it without a namespace in article name, because I have inserted a link to it into more than one book.

KOLANICH (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, I see this is now a page in both Introduction to Programming Languages and Compiler Construction. Are there any others I missed?
 * This kind of thing is common in traditional printed-on-paper books.
 * Some people on Wikibooks use "transclusion" to implement this sort of "same information in several books".
 * For example, many engineering books have exactly the same table of Fourier transforms in some appendix.
 * I see (from https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Engineering_Tables/Fourier_Transform_Properties )
 * that many books here have "transcluded" exactly the same table of Fourier transforms.
 * (Other common tables, such as ASCII tables, are also available in Engineering Tables).
 * --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 00:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


text:
User:Mayes-tang/sandbox

=Calculus/Disease Models=

Vocabulary and Notation
Given the variables S, I, and R, we are able to create three basic models for disease spread. S = the number of susceptible, the people who are not sick but who could become sick

I = the number of people who are currently infected with the disease

R = the number of recovered or removed (have been sick and can no longer infect others)

The SI Model
The assumption behind this model is that people infected with the disease do not ever recover. This means that among the population there are only two type of people: people who are susceptible(S)and people who are currently infected with the disease(I). The relationship between S and I is: dI/dt=-dS/dt (i.e. when the rate of people getting the disease is increasing, the rate of people becoming susceptible will be decreasing.)

The SIS Model
The assumption behind this model is that people infected with the disease can recover but also can become susceptible again.

This assumption can be represented by the box model shown to the right:

In this visual, susceptible individuals are represented by S and infected individuals are represented by I.

The SIR Model
to be added

Example: 2020 Coronavirus
to be added

title: User:Mayes-tang/sandbox


text: Template:!xt/doc

title: Template:!xt/doc


text:
User talk:Ceeyah

Road of life

Is a goal you want to accomplish or do in life

In my understanding i believe thaty goal in life iwant to be independent one day i want to be something in life and i want to be a marine biologist because i want to finish my dad's dream and i want him to be happy also want to be it because i would love to be a scientist

title: User talk:Ceeyah


text: Jánua Linguárum Reseráta/Vestibulum/Caput 6


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/167 - Right to counsel and representation by a designated representative.

IRPA Section 167
The legislative provision reads: Right to counsel 167 (1) A person who is the subject of proceedings before any Division of the Board and the Minister may, at their own expense, be represented by legal or other counsel.

Representation (2) If a person who is the subject of proceedings is under 18 years of age or unable, in the opinion of the applicable Division, to appreciate the nature of the proceedings, the Division shall designate a person to represent the person.

Commentary
While subsection 167(1) of the IRPA sets out the right to be represented by counsel, the right to counsel is constrained by section 91 of the IRPA which provides, in effect, that only those lawyers, notaries, or immigration consultants who are “in good standing” with their regulatory body may represent or advise a person for consideration in connection with an application or proceeding under the IRPA: Canadian Refugee Procedure/91-91.1 - Representation or Advice.

For a discussion of the right to counsel and issues that arise related thereto, see the commentary under the RPD Rule on Counsel of Record: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 14-16 - Counsel of Record. For a discussion of issues related to designated representatives, see the commentary under the relevant rule: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 20 - Designated Representatives.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/Guideline 4 - Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board

Women and girls constitute 51 percent of refugees and asylum-seekers globally. The adoption of guidelines for protection in cases of gender-related persecution has been described as an improvement in the implementation of the 1951 Refugee Convention by academic commentators. Canada's guidelines are part of an international trend to implement such guidelines or to legislate sex as an additional cause for recognition as a refugee, as as been done in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

The Guideline
The text of the relevant Guideline is available on the IRB website.

The guidelines may only be applied where gender is at issue in the proceeding or claim
In Agaman v. Canada, the court held that the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 could not be applied in the case because a fear of persecution based on gender was not alleged and there were no facts to support such persecution or other difficulties specific to the female applicant’s gender: Les demandeurs ont également fait valoir que la SPR n’a pas « bien pris en considération » les Directives numéro 4. À cet égard, ils affirment qu’étant donné qu’ils n’ont plus de statut permanent au Brésil, ils devront retourner en Haïti. Ils soutiennent que la SPR aurait dû examiner si la demanderesse bénéficierait d’une certaine protection en Haïti, celle-ci étant ciblée par les partisans de Lavalas en tant que conjointe du demandeur. Ils reprochent à la SPR de n’avoir posé aucune question à la demanderesse sur le sujet et de n’avoir fait aucune mention des Directives numéro 4 dans ses motifs. La Cour estime cet argument mal fondé.

La demanderesse n’a jamais allégué une crainte de persécution fondée sur le sexe et il n’y a pas de faits tendant à démontrer une telle persécution ni de difficultés spécifiques liées à son sexe. Les Directives numéro 4 ne trouvent pas d’application dans toutes les situations où une femme demande la protection. Il faut que le sexe d’une demanderesse joue un rôle dans sa crainte de persécution. La crainte de persécution en l’espèce est exclusivement basée sur son association avec le père du demandeur et à son passé politique. Il n’a pas été question de persécution ou discrimination fondée sur le sexe. Par ailleurs, la Cour n’a relevé aucune insensibilité à l’égard de la demanderesse.

Not mentioning the guidelines will not be fatal to a decision where the record demonstrates compliance with them
The Guidelines are intended to ensure that gender-based claims are heard with compassion and sensitivity. Even where the RPD has not mentioned the Gender Guidelines in its reasons, the RPD will not have erred where it has respected the intent and spirit of them in the case at hand. One RAD panel reaching this conclusion commented: "I note that the Appellant does not point to any evidence that the RPD was insensitive or inappropriate in its questions, or that it conducted the hearing in a way that was insensitive to the Appellant’s emotional state or her well-being." As such, the RAD held in that case that despite not mentioning the guidelines in the original decision, this was not a basis on which to overturn the decision in and of itself. The failure to specifically mention the Gender Guidelines does not mean that they were not considered. On appeal to the RAD, a claimant should point to a specific issue regarding the RPD’s application of the Gender Guidelines and explain how the alleged failure to consider the Gender Guidelines led to an erroneous finding. In contrast, however, where a panel has not meaningfully applied the Gender Guidelines, the decision should not generally be considered a reasonable one and the courts have frequently returned matters to the Board for redetermination.

The Board can consider the Gender Guidelines where a claim involves the "secondary victims" of gendered persecution, such as parents
The Refugee Appeal Division has concluded that "Although the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 addresses the primary victim of rape, I find that the secondary victims, in this case the parents, must benefit from a certain sensitivity and appropriate understanding on behalf of the decision-maker when he questions them about this". That was a case in which the primary victim of the gendered persecution was not a party to the refugee claim, but the RAD nonetheless, on the basis of, inter alia, insensitive questions that had been posed to these parents, remitted the matter to the RPD for reconsideration and ordered that "The RPD must take into consideration the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 in the adjudication of this case."

The Division is required to consider the guidelines where there are inconsistencies in testimony and the applicant has suffered abuse
If a woman has suffered abuse and has inconsistencies between her testimony and her BOC narrative, the RPD is obliged to weigh the evidence with the Gender Guidelines in mind. It is a best practice for the Division to show that it has considered the guidelines while it is making credibility findings, and not to simply consider them in a separate section at the end of its reasons. In Okpanachi v. Canada, the Federal Court found that the Board had erred when it did not do so:"Here, the RAD did not even refer to the Gender Guidelines in its credibility analysis, let alone assess why the omissions cannot be explained by the factors set out in the Gender Guidelines, before accepting the RPD’s conclusion on credibility based on the omissions. As such, I find the RAD has not taken into account the Gender Guidelines “in a meaningful way” when it adopted the RPD’s credibility finding based on the omissions in the BOC."

A medical diagnosis is not required for gender-related factors to be relevant in explaining a claimant difficulties in giving evidence
Footnote 31 of the guidelines states that "In R v. Lavallee, the Court indicated that expert evidence can assist in dispelling these myths and be used to explain why a woman would remain in a battering relationship." That said, nowhere do the Gender Guidelines state a medical diagnosis is required for gender-related factors to be relevant in explaining a claimant’s difficulties in giving evidence. If a panel refuses to take into account the guidelines and gender in assessing a claimant's evidence on the basis that they have not provided a professional diagnosis, they will have acted on the basis of an irrelevant consideration.

Section 6: Intersectional approach
Section 6 of the Guideline describes intersectionality and states that Members should apply an intersectional approach in all proceedings to which this Guideline applies, based on the evidence of the proceeding. That said, the Federal Court has indicated that the RAD cannot be criticized for not assessing whether an RPD analysis was insufficiently intersectional where the RPD conclusion was not challenged before the RAD.

Section 7: Credibility, implausibility and demeanour
Section 7.13 of the Guideline notes that women from certain cultures where men do not share the details of their political, military or even social activities with their spouses, daughters or mothers, may find themselves in a difficult situation when questioned about the experiences of their male relatives. The Federal Court has upheld a RAD finding that this portion of the guideline was not relevant where an applicant never claimed she was unable to specify her son’s political activities and instead testified that her son had never been politically active.


text: Template talk:Retired

title: Template talk:Retired


text:
User talk:Kallol2020

I am very curious about god.i want know what my vision ,what I am in this vast world even i totally confused about reality and imagination,i  also don't know what I am  said this at this time,,,,who am I?

title: User talk:Kallol2020


text: User talk:189.202.76.152

title: User talk:189.202.76.152


text:
User:Don Quixote AWC

Shucks, gee, I don't know what to say right now. Gimme a couple days.

title: User:Don Quixote AWC


text:
English-Hanzi/When the human body is upright

When the human body is upright, the heart must push the blood circulation to overcome the gravity effect of the blood. Moreover, when people are exercising upright, the lower limbs are the main active organs, blood will be more distributed to the lower limbs, and the blood supply to the heart and above organs will be reduced. In contrast, the lower position of the heart and above when crawling is beneficial to blood circulation throughout the body and has a positive effect on the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases.

人体直立时，心脏要推动血液循环，就要克服血液的重力影响. 而且人在直立运动时，下肢是主要活动器官，血液会更多地分配到下肢，心脏及其以上的器官血供减少. 与此相比，爬行时由于心脏及其以上部位位置的降低，有利于全身的血液循环，对防治心血管疾病有积极作用.


text:
English-Hanzi/When crawling, the head often sags and blood flow increases

When crawling, the head often sags and blood flow increases, which can effectively improve blood circulation in the brain.

爬行时头部经常得以下垂，血流量增加，能有效地改善大脑的血液循环.


text:
User:Chelnik

PostgreSQL fan.

title: User:Chelnik