User talk:Dave Braunschweig/2015

Thank you for making those. Here's a suggestion (for the future), ----Erkan Yilmaz 12:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hunger_in_America - Haven't been active lately so I've been forgetting my Wikistuff. But I'll be returning hopefully today, or maybe in a few days.

Anyways am I suppose to Prod Tage articles that are copied right from there source or speedy deleted? Thanks. --Golden_burg111 14:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Use Proposed Deletion for content that should either be enhanced or deleted if it isn't enhanced in 90 days. Use Delete for content that meets the Speedy Deletion criteria, including solicitation and copyright violations. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind mentorship and support so far. I am interested in moving forward with a vote for full custodianship as is convenient. In looking over my accomplishments with respect to Custodian Skills it looks like the only task that hasn't occurred, at least not been attempted, or been handled is blocking or unblocking a user. While I am willing to do this, I think it speaks well of the mutual cooperation here at Wikiversity that I have not had to do this. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

FYI, Guy is now a probationary custodian. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dave - I looked at speedy deletions (something I know about) and found North_Carolina_World_War_I/Becky_Goins. I assume it should be deleted. Though User talk:Mississippi28 is not the author, he seems to be the professor in charge. Should I delete?

Also, where should we be having such conversations? I created a subpage User:Guy_vandegrift/Custodian that will serve as my journal for this project. We could use that page, or even its talk page at User_talk:Guy_vandegrift/Custodian. It would be nice if all my questions and answers were kept in one place.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Upon reflection, the best place to communicate is one of our talk pages. I can move the info to User:Guy_vandegrift/Custodian myself. Two "user talk pages" for one person sounds like a nightmare.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would move the article to user space under User:Rrebunc123. That's the original author. Then remove the Delete tag. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, can of worms. Yes, Rrebunc123 is the original author of that page. However, the page was copied to another page, currently North Carolina World War I/William Victor Tomb, created 15:42, 4 March 2015, by the professor. This was a license violation, technically. The pages should be merged. The current version of the William Victor Tomb page should stand, with the history of both pages underneath. This one is relatively simple because the professor directly copied the wikitext, then edited it. If Rrebunc123 wants the name used to be hidden, that can be done. Kind of a mess, though, since it's also given above. The deletion reason was not correct, the page content *was* relevant, obviously, just the name was incorrect.

This is the professor's first time on Wikiversity, so some guidance is in order. The professor should know about moving pages. Dave, I would not think of North Carolina World War I as a suitable project name. Consider a whole series of North Carolina history pages. So maybe North Carolina/World War I. Frankly, I'd more prefer something like History/Projects/North Carolina/World War I. That would provide space for a vast universe of history class projects, suitably classified. But we have never nailed down Wikiversity project structure, we have just been, gradually, moving toward better organization.

Guy, we would not routinely speedy delete a user's content from a request by someone else, even if it is the professor. Dave was correct that if we consider the project as "belonging" to the professor, i.e., the professor is managing it, we might move something outside that to user space. Move to user space hardly ever upsets anyone. Their page disappearing can. The professor could have done this move himself. In fact, the professor was accepting the content, so he should have moved it to the appropriate page name, that's all.

Great that you asked. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I haven't done this for years, but I think the way to do this is to delete the target page (the final page name) and then move the "wrong name" page over it, leaving no redirect (in this case), then unhide the deleted revisions. Because of date sequence, this will automatically leave the content in the desired state. No page editing should be necessary. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The simplest seems to be to move it to [[User:Rrebunc123/North_Carolina_World_War_I/Becky_Goins]], keeping the same slightly irregular name so people will know what it is. I will also leave a brief note and informal note reaching out to the prof and presumed student. Since all this is reversible, I will do it now. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the redirect at North Carolina World War I/Becky Goins even though we have links to it in our discussion of it. I presume that is OK.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

OOPS! I botched the move and placed on a subpage to his talk page instead of a subpage to his user page. I will use the prefix search page to make sure nothing gets left behind. Give me a few minutes to clean this up.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

This was ultimately a licensing issue that needed to be addressed. See detailed comments at User talk:Mississippi28. Now resolved. Thanks to Abd for noticing it was duplicate (copied) content. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I deleted a few pages regarding North Carolina/World War I but decided to stop just in case the deletions need to be reversed. I noticed that my Contributions page does not record these deletions. Where can I find the record of my deletins?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just found the deletion record on "All public logs". Also, I probably put this message in the wrong place, since a later thread exists in the next section. I'll get used to this eventually--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Guy vandegrift - Be proud :p http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Guy+vandegrift&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= --72.84.233.224 (discuss) 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think DCG/Community_Lab is an obvious delete, but will wait 3 days to verify before I delete. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

FYI: Whenever in doubt, I will postpone action and place a notice on the top of my user page because that is where I go whenever I log on to Wikiversity. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you wait three days on a delete, I'll have done something with it before then.  :-) There are three ways to go on things like this. 1) Delete it with a No Educational Objectives reason. 2) Add a {{prod}} and change the delete to proposed deletion. Then it waits 90 days, but if it's been here for five years, another 90 days doesn't make much difference. 3) Change it to {{dr}} and start a discussion on whether the resource should be retained. Use your best judgement, but if in doubt, it's better to err on the side of caution. To me, this one could either be a speedy delete or a prod. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict with above) Okay, while the resource is abandoned and incomplete, in fact, it is part of a much larger resource, which was explicitly moved into user space by the user.

Always check incoming links ("What links here") before deleting. There are some incoming links. If you look at the contributions of the page creator, you will also see the larger structure. Why this one page alone was moved to mainspace, I don't know, but there is a simple solution: move it back to user space, over the existing redirect.

While that user hasn't edited since 2010, here, and also has a few edits in 2010 on en.wikipedia, it is always possible that they will return, or that someone will notice and adopt the structure, moving it out of user space to mainspace -- or to their own user space. We simply leave stuff in user space, we don't bother cleaning it up, it produces no value. We do clean up unneeded redirects, which may clutter up mainspace.

So, if you have time, consider checking the pile of redirects that were created by the user. If they have no incoming links, they may generally be deleted. I looked, and there were incoming links. Sometimes I will clean these up to point to the target page, and then request deletion of the now-orphaned redirect. The edit summary for deletions of redirects should always show the redirect target. That way, in the event that someone follows an off-wiki link to a page, they will find where it has been moved. Thanks, Guy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dave, the page "Ruth Faison Shaw" is supposed to be a sub-page of North Carolina World War I" page affiliated with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I would really appreciate the help! Thanks! unsigned by Elladela 18:55, 18 March 2015‎

Y Done -- Dave fixed this. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I have responded to the message by MaintenanceBot at User talk:GastereaHCAS#Files Missing License Information. The user indicated an NC license in comments, so, then, by WV:EDP this is not a free license and a non-free use rationale will be needed. I suggested the user release his work under a free license. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dave!

Is it OK with you if I move or copy your comment from my user talk page to the resource talk page, and answer it there? JoergenB (discuss • contribs) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You control your talk page, so you can do whatever you like with that content. Yes, I agree that a discussion should be started on the resource page regarding the value (or lack thereof) in having hints in content links. Thanks for asking! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the authors and contributors to Arabic For All do not want to use the resources that were with the resource/course Introduction to Arabic. What I would like to try is to move the history and earlier versions of Arabic For All back to Introduction to Arabic where they came from. I think having at least two resources/courses on Arabic is a good thing. At the worse I can always reopen Introduction to Arabic and include the unwanted resources. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Go for it. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and paste moves for background information. I've done merges before, but haven't done a split. I also haven't tried the new Merge history special page yet. This may take some experimenting. Let me know what you learn. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I read through w:WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves but it doesn't seem that it will work. However, under w:WP:UNDO I found "The MediaWiki software sometimes enables editors to easily revert (undo) a single edit from the history of a page, without simultaneously undoing all constructive changes that have been made since. To do this, view the page history or the diff for the edit, then click on "undo" next to the edit in question. The software will attempt to create an edit page with a version of the article in which the undesirable edit has been removed, but all later edits are retained. There is a default edit summary, but this can be modified before saving." While, I'm probably wrong in my interpretation, this reads to suggest that clicking on undo after your move of Introduction to Arabic to Arabic For All will override the redirect, move the page history back along with the page at that time to Introduction to Arabic and leave the now current page Arabic For All intact with its subsequent history. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've never tried to undo a move. Only one way to find out. Try it and let us know if it did what you want. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, undo gave me the message The edit appears to have already been undone. I guess referring to the deletions by the author and creator of Arabic For All and did nothing else. I went ahead and restored Introduction to Arabic with some updating. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I used Special:MergeHistory to take the history from Arabic For All and add it back to Introduction to Arabic. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Definitely a merge was in order from the names, at least. I should look at this, I do read Arabic, at least some. There should probably be a resource on Arabic. What we have is a redirect to Topic:Arabic, and the whole Topic namespace is somewhat problematic. A resource on Arabic would cover the history, and other topics, like w:Arabic, Arabic literature, etc.. Then there would be a subpage for language study. At least that is one approach to organization. I dislike "Introduction to" in resource names, like, "Elementary Blah Blah." --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would like to have seen the content combined into a more comprehensive collection, but current development doesn't feel a connection yet. See the comment at Talk:Introduction to Arabic/Alphabets. I completely agree on a name starting with Arabic. 'Introduction to' prevents the content from being found in a standard search. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think we could try a move of Introduction to Arabic to Arabic over the redirect to Topic:Arabic. I like seeing and reading lecture/article resources on the named field rather than redirects to a Department/Topic. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I tried to move Introduction to Arabic to Arabic and received the message ""Introduction to Arabic" has been moved to "Arabic"". In order to do this the earlier Arabic was deleted by the "move" program and replaced with the current Arabic. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

When a custodian does a move and the destination is a redirect, it automatically deletes the redirect to move the content. It looks fine. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reillydog continues to upload files while not supplying licensing information. Has the course instructor contacted you so that we can better support the class? I am deleting files past their 7-day licensing deadline and Reillydog's files do make the North Carolina World War I resources better. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are two instructors. One has section 001. The other has sections 018 and 019. North Carolina World War I is section 001. I'm pretty sure that's Mississippi something. Unfortunately, the instructor did not link email, and does not log in often him/her self. I believe the images are Fair Use in this context, but Fair Use still needs to acknowledge the source. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will delete Math 021 College Algebra. Wrong name and wrong outline. The author is quite competent, so I am certain he/she planned to do something and then abandoned or forgot about the project.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's probably one I would have used {{prod}} on, but there wasn't any real educational content to save, just a template. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info. I looked at {{tlx|prod}} and guessed that it might be more appropriate. Two questions:

1. I saw that {{tlx|prod}} has a deadline. Would that be an automated deletion, or something that requires a custodian to later delete manually?
2. I also noticed that you deleted what looked like the talk page to Math 021 College Algebra. Did I forget to click a box to delete the talk page, or is it necessary to delete it separately? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 06:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

On a very similar topic, I just noticed dozens of speedy deletes. What do I check before removing them?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 06:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, I was going through the aforementioned deletes and they all seemed obvious until I came to this one, [[Talk:Women in perspective]], that had two redirects with nothing leading to them. Are these what they call "orphaned redirects"? Should I delete them as well?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs)

When you use prod, you have to do it with subst:prod. That forces the current date + 90 to be entered as the deadline for deletion. If you just enter prod, the deadline keeps advancing every day. There is no automatic deletion. Marshallsumter has been cleaning up the prod deletions when they expire.

It's easy to miss a talk page when deleting resources. There's nothing automatic for that, either. I have a script I run occasionally that goes through and looks for talk pages without matching resource pages. It's not automated, though.

An orphan in wiki terms is an article with no incoming links. So, yes, an orphaned redirect is a redirect with no incoming links. Some of those are useful, such as redirecting an abbreviation or common misspelling. Others serve no obvious purpose. While orphaned redirects seem harmless, the problem is that they appear in the search results when using simple search. So, there's no advantage to having a redirect of widget fundamentals that points to widgets. Anyone searching for widget fundamentals would find widgets as soon as they type widget. We could have a redirect on widget that would be helpful when creating links using the singular. Wikipedia has a lot of that with plural redirects pointing to the singular article. We tend to have more plural titles, because we tend to learn about collections of things rather than a single item.

You should certainly delete incoming redirects on a resource you are deleting. Deleting other orphaned redirects is a matter of using your own judgement as to whether it's useful or unnecessary. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have a tendency, of late, to prefer to leave the explicit subpage slash visible, especially in section headers, to indicate more clearly that it's a link to a subpage rather than just a section header. This may be related to my monitor being old and funky and not very bright, so that wikilinks are not so visible. Obviously, the visible slash is uglier.

I also tend to leave visible the explicit w: to indicate a Wikipedia link, to distinguish the link from our own internal links. I removed those on the page that is a list of Wikipedia links, because it wasn't necessary there.

What do you think? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I personally am not a fan of links in headings, but that's just me. I know it's common usage in wiki edits. Regarding w:, I prefer to spell out Wikipedia:, just for the benefit of new users. I remember initially being confused by the w: links, where Wikipedia: is very clear. I use that style for other resources now, such as Apple:, Microsoft:, and YouTube:. I've updated the related resource with an alternate style. Feel free to revert if you prefer the original formatting. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nah, we'll just fork the resource. .... just kidding.

Maybe spelling out wikipedia is a good idea. On the other hand, it's more to type every time. Oh. I get it! I can type w: and you can replace it with "wikipedia." Hey, no problem! Seriously, a bot could do that, if we get consensus for it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or a bot could do it for specific learning projects when desired. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You could set up bot control pages, and a list of users trusted to control the bot. The bot would check the page history and execute commands per the edit of an approved user. This might start without approvals, you'd have to approve any command, then, as users demonstrate familiarity you could add them to the control list. Etc., etc.

However, I can see little harm in every initial w: in a link being changed to wikipedia. However, what might actually be better is display that displays that with the full name. Software change, but then more compact database. And probably not worth the attention it would take to make it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I saw some files with deletion requests, and began deleting them, trying to remember to check incoming and history and discussion pages. Then I came to this file file:Evenness_of_legendre1.png. The submitter declared it as fair use; but I see it as more like Public Domain, and think it wouldn't hurt to keep it. Some students need help with even and odd functions, and this example would also introduce "special functions". There is nothing unique about how the functions were graphed, so does that mean the graph is public domain?. If so, I will put into a collection of images I keep and perhaps use it in the next few years. What do you think?

I might add that the graph would be no trouble to reproduce if I ever needed it. But it would be nice to know what is proper because this issue is likely to come up again. And, someday the issue might come up with an image I would really want to save.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

In a related issue, I started to delete [[:File:Plan_van_aanpak_2.pdf]] until I discovered that it was also stored at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/b/ba/Plan_van_aanpak_2.pdf I don't know what to do about that, so I stopped deleting files. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

See Wikiversity:Uploading files#Fair use considerations. Our current policy is that only files in use in main space may qualify as Fair Use. For the first example (Legendre), in theory, there are two possible solutions to this problem. We can either change policy to allow Fair Use files in User space, or we can direct users to put assignments that have fair use files in subpages of some main space learning project. The advantage of having the assignments in main space is that they can be found in common searches. The advantage of changing policy would be to continue to allow assignments to be more hidden / less visible in user space.

A creative temporary work-around would be to create a learning project in main space with links to these Fair Use files that would evaluate the use of Fair Use files at Wikiversity. While studying the problem, the files could remain until a conclusion is reached. At some point it would be good to address this, as there are thousands of improperly credited Fair Use files in use in similar projects. The participants in those projects are long gone, leaving us with the problem of unlicensed content that was never properly attributed.

For the second example, whether or not there is a copy of a resource in Commons does not change Fair Use requirements here. If anything, it supports deletion, because Commons doesn't accept fair use content, so it must have a more open license there in order to be available, and that's the version that should be kept. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The earlier concern about some of the Legendre polynomials files had me pause over the Fair Use ones that were up for deletion. I was going to create a resource on Legendre polynomials using these files, but unfortunately the files were or appeared to be too specific to be used in such a resource. Since HappyCamper has returned perhaps a resource on the polynomials will appear. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity gets stronger every day; it won't be long till someone does this 'proper and legal' (as they used to say about marriage).--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I fulfilled user:BScMScMD's request for a block. In retrospect it might have been premature because the damage done was virtually nonexistent. On the other hand, it was a request for a block... --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

His wikipedia's account was recently blocked, so I guess my block was appropriate. See w:User_talk:BScMScMD.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the block is the correct response here, but your block was for 1 day rather than indefinite, as requested. I've changed it to indefinite. It will be interesting to monitor this and see what happens. The request is really that the account be blocked globally. The question with something like this is, is the request coming from the compromised user or the one who did the compromising? It's easy enough to unblock if changed later. To monitor the progression, see Special:CentralAuth/BScMScMD. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You used the template {{delete|Unused fair use file}} on File:Staticelc1.jpg when you could have deleted it yourself. Which of the following holds?

1. You wanted a "second opinion" on whether the file had any value
2. You were too busy to delete it yourself and would appreciate someone else deleting it for you.
3. You wanted to give the author/contributor time to contest your request for deletion.
4. None of the above

--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

In a perfect world, none of us would ever delete anything based only on our own perspective. If we see something we would delete that hasn't been tagged, we would tag it and let someone else delete it. But it's not a perfect world, and I often delete things that are in the speedy deletion criteria without a second opinion. But the Unused fair use content had no urgency. It had been here for a year or more in some cases, so I thought it would be a good opportunity for you and Marshallsumter to step in and process some deletions. I'd like to get to the point where things like this can be tagged by bot. I'm identifying them by bot. I just haven't written the code to do automated Delete tagging yet. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will go ahead a delete a few of those pictures. What about the pdf files that seem to exist at two locations? I seem to recall that happening, but I might be wrong. I won't delete any such files until I learn more about them.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

A good example is this pair of files:

1. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/File:Plan_van_aanpak_2.pdf
2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/b/ba/Plan_van_aanpak_2.pdf

I don't even think I have the rights to delete something on wikimedia.org, so I don't have to fuss about it. In other words, should I just delete https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/File:Plan_van_aanpak_2.pdf right now?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The file here is unused. If anything, the fact that it exists elsewhere makes it even easier to support deleting here. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

All files currently on the list are deleted. I believe you once told me not to worry about incoming links from user pages whenever I delete a file. Is that correct? (Or do I have to use nowiki on them)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I usually fix links for moved pages, but there's no advantage to changing a user's link to a deleted page. You may not want to remove a link even for a resource page. It just goes from blue to red, showing the page doesn't exist. Of course, in this case the whole point to the deletions was that the pages weren't in use in main space. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi is there a way that I could upload files & images that could be used to build the project? Ajay B Harish (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 13 April 2015 (GMT)

Files can be uploaded either to Wikimedia Commons, or to Wikiversity using the Special:Upload page. You should use Commons for self-published work so that it may be used on any Wikimedia project. Upload Fair Use content here, because they won't accept Fair Use content on Commons. If you can't use the Upload page here yet, it's a timing issue because your account is new. You'll need more edits and a few more days before all standard user features are available.

By the way, if you prefer your name as Ajay B Harish, you can request a rename at meta:Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dave! I think the redirect from Functional Programming to Foundations of Functional Programming might not be appropriate. The reason is that functional programming is a significantly broader topic than what the foundations of functional programming project is intended to address. The latter project is just intended to address issues in the mathematical foundations of functional programming, without talking about the pragmatics of functional programming, specific functional languages, or anything like that. I think it would probably be better to just leave the Functional Programming page as a stub until somebody makes it, though a link to the Foundations page would be appropriate. Morgan.a.s.thomas (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

What you have is already more useful than what was there, but I've changed Functional Programming to a landing / introduction rather than a redirect. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dave, I'm coming to the position that it is time I again serve Wikiversity as a custodian. Rather than starting a candidacy page without a mentor in place, which could create some unnecessary noise, I'd prefer to have that already in place, and that has been common in the past. I could ask Jtneill to do it again, but that's not a good idea, because he mostly has not been able to handle disruption from his probationary custodians. Including me. (i.e. reviewing and either defending or asking them to stop what they were doing.) That largely leaves you and Marshall, though there are a few other possibilities. What do you think? Any questions?

(I do not expect a repeat of what happened before.)

I don't plan to ask on the candidacy page without support in place. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you elaborate on how you intend to use the custodian tools? In the past you have mentioned that you didn't need them, because you could post a template on Deletes, etc., and the rest didn't require custodian status. I'm just trying to understand what has changed from your perspective. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would use them to support Wikiversity, as I did before. There are ready links to my custodial actions at [9]. I did not shy away from controversial issues, yet of 96 block actions, only three (two of the same user) were controversial. The first was later confirmed as within discretion by a 'crat. The second was never subject to that kind of scrutiny, it was immediately reversed without discussion. The third was also reversed immediately, but led to my desysop as an "emergency action." I would still show, if necessary, that I was supporting what had been established by consensus. I did not wheel-war, ever.

To my knowledge, none of my other actions involving tools -- 590 deletion entries, 14 protections, 9 edits to the spam-blacklist, and 8 entries to the import log, were controversial.

It is correct that for the most part I don't need sysop tools to accomplish my work on Wikiversity. I would likely be importing materials from elsewhere (especially deleted articles from enwiki where our policies and practices would allow them) if I had the import tool. I could, again, ask for custodian assistance, but it's much more complicated. But what changed? I could write a tome, but won't. Call it intuition. When I first returned to Wikiversity, I thought it could cause disruption if I had the tools. That is much less likely now, so a reason for avoiding it disappeared.

Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Many congrats, Dave, on your promotion! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dito the congrats--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

BTW Dave, I hope this is good news to you, but a bit of research convinced me that the collaboration with openstax will be through Wikiversity. I consider this collaboration so important that I would have no choice but greatly diminish my effort here on Wikiversity if that was called for. But there is no grand open source testbank out there. But I did find a way to make the Wikiversity bank far more user friendly. I will write all the details onto OpenStax College and post on the Colloquium's thread on the subject in about a day.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Congrats on your hard earned achievement! --I8086 (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, congratulations. Years of work, I assume. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

At our college, professorship is a minimum of a 13-year process covering teaching, institutional service, community service, and continuing education. We're rated on 20 to 25 different aspects under those categories by our peers, our dean, and the provost. I had a 16-page application and 124 pages of supporting documentation. Then we have a presentation and defense / Q&A session. Out of my class of 28 who started in the same year, six of us made full professor in the minimum time. Quite a diverse group. One has discovered exo-planets. One has written award-winning poetry. One leads dragonfly monitoring. One is an interim dean in student development. And then there's me.  :-) -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

As shown on User talk:Lainerraithe. Wikiversity has not always shown this. What I realized years ago was that some users, considered vandals or disruptive globally, were actually very young children. Children will usually respond to caring adults. It's not easy on-line, because the natural signals of body language and tone of voice are missing, but sometimes it works.

It takes some work to show caring. Hence I added translations into Spanish and Cebuano, just in case. If the user doesn't respond, that does not mean that we failed. It means the time is not ripe yet. So a block should be for a period to allow the user to understand what was happening. As a probationary custodian, I can assist. I did block one of the socks of that 7-year-old user. Another sock was globally locked, but I was able to prevent the global lock of the main account .... and that user is now a WMF sysop, on Wikibooks. Very quickly, the global disruption stopped. He was not trusting at first.

But the payoff was great. Dave, you have mentioned this: It also seems likely that at some point his passion for defending users whose editing habits are outside generally-accepted norms will lead to controversy.

Yes. That is actually inevitable, given the WMF status quo. However, the Wikiversity mission requires academic freedom, which always leads to some level of controversy, The only way to avoid it is to not defend freedom. I am not exactly "defending users," because I also demand of them that they stay within community norms, and have set up procedures for maintaining both: freedom and norms. In an emergency I called down the thunder: steward intervention.

This, however, has little to do with probationary custodianship, because I cannot, with the tools, violate community norms. I never wheel-warred with a permanent custodian. Out of the better part of a thousand custodial actions, I took three that were controversial. I would still defend all three, but never created process to support that because my goal was not personal vindication, but the development of a strong Wikiversity community. The three controversial actions were all immediately reversed. I would claim, if necessary, wheel-warring for all three reversals (undiscussed reversal of a custodial action). But a policy may establish that any regular custodian may reverse any action of a probationer without it being considered wheel warring. That's all. It was actually simple, and was made complicated by those who had different agendas. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

There certainly appear to be translation issues involved in this situation. The original IP is from the Philippines. You might try translating to Filipino. I support both learning by doing and academic freedom, but I would like to see more learning and engagement from the project participant. It is easier to be patient knowing that you will be directly supporting the user. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Y Done Yes, of course. Cebuano is a common language in the Philippines. Filipino? Duh! Doesn't begin with Ph! (I actually looked for that first. The ability to miss a signal in clutter is one that increases with age....). --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was going to write that this is fishing. One need not catch a fish every time to enjoy fishing, nor for it to be worthwhile, if the fish are valuable. We have three fish, maybe.

• Special:Contributions/Lainerraithe‎‎, Special:Contributions/Lahha 33 and Special:Contributions/Hackxelle. All have edited the Playspace pages, which is great progress. All editing Wikipedia, blocks possible there. Hackxelle was blocked briefly on enwiki.
• There is some indication these may be friends with common interest rather than a single user socking. From the Hackxelle enwiki user page, the location given, the language -- besides English -- would be Cebuano. So I'll toss some more Cebuano in.
• We don't care about the possible socking if it doesn't become disruptive here.
• I will welcome the two new, and caution them. I could also advise them about how to edit Wikipedia, but I'm not going to go there unless they want it. Basic rule they don't know yet: communicate, then cooperate. Wikipedia is much more difficult. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I don't think these are children, as such. They may be students at a college in Camiguin, Mindanao, Philippines, sharing internet access, very common in some countries. A Wikipedia checkuser appears to have identified them as socks; however, WP checkusers will tag as socks any users sharing access (such as a classroom or library computer). I'm researching it. The language is Cebuano for sure, at least for the newest, she has a Facebook page. One user gave age as 27.
• I propose moving the pages back to mainspace, as a student project under Volleyball. I'll do this if I conclude there really are multiple users here.
• A goal will be to encourage them to work here, because if they keep working on en.wikipedia, there could be steward action locking accounts. Right now, not a problem, not enough cross-wiki activity, but I've seen it happen with very little. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I support your proposal in terms of enabling collaboration, but I remain concerned that we are not getting any cooperation or response from this group, and the educational value of the content being created is extremely limited. It does not meet my interpretation of "learning materials" from a Wikiversity mission perspective. It seems to me that they would be better off with Google Sites pages, free, and easier to create the type of content they are developing. They could also use PBWiki or other, similar sites. But without communication, without educational objectives, and without a learning materials approach, I'm having trouble understanding why this content is being supported here. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not the content, Dave, it is the process of "learning by doing." I've now looked at the whole family of accounts blocked as socks on enwiki. They occasionally interact, but not in a way that would be considered collaborative with the community, and they are sometimes disruptive. If we can encourage them to focus on specific pages here, and draw them away from Wikipedia -- where accounts are now being blocked on sight, with no edits -- we can reduce disruption elsewhere at little cost here.

I have been unable to determine definitively if this is one user or many. They have behavioral similarities, but also differences. There are a lot of apparently real names given. One placed a link to a Facebook page, and that's a long-standing page of a young woman, same name as the account. Same location in the Philippines as this family of accounts. However, the user could simply be using names of friends. Indications are that the user(s) are female, at least all accounts seem that way.

Dave, we have developed a tradition of allowing non-standard learning. At the same time, we require certain discipline, restricting how the users operate. So far, they are mostly staying within what has been set up. That is cooperation. Especially if there is more than one user, we can expect them to make mistakes. That is how they learn.

If I become a custodian, I'll handle this fully, as I did in the past, with success. I moved and guided and also blocked and deleted, all designed to encourage cooperation.

Lanierraithe may need a warning and possibly a block if it's ignored. I want to get all these pages into one space. One user or many, if they are working in one space, it will be much easier to handle. It may take time to establish communication. There are some users who never communicate, even with high positive contributions globally. It's dangerous, but it happens. One just got blocked on Commons. Many Featured Pictures uploaded, still being awarded to him while he's blocked. Why blocked? Didn't respond to some objections over his voting on Featured Pictured Candidates. No policy violation, just lack of communication when someone objected. I suspect he doesn't even look at his talk page.... When a one-week block expired, he immediately started doing the same thing, blocked for a month. I looked at his home wiki, es.wikipedia. Same pattern. Warned, blocked, never any communication, finally just didn't do the same thing again, and it's been years with high contribution and low problems. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Lainerraithe has now created two pages directly in her user space. Progress. She also removed a speedy deletion tag. That's a small progress, it is participating in process. Still deleted, so I told her she can request undeletion, but she already seems to have recreated one of the two pages tagged, in user space. So far, so good. Thanks for deleting the pages, it was appropriate given the history. No harm is done if the user will communicate. That's the point. It is not exactly to force her to do anything, but to make it easy and obvious and useful from her point of view. If she responds to warnings by stopping the behavior, that's enough. However, if she learns to communicate, she will be much more greatly empowered. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Further progress.

1. The family of users is now routinely creating and editing pages under Sport/Volleyball.
2. Hackxelle wrote "thank you" in two places. That's a communication.

• However, obviously, mistakes are still being made. Were I a probationary custodian, I'd be routinely handling this, and it would be much easier. Moving all those files to a single namespace, for example, would have been done without leaving redirects needing deletion. I suppose I could have RCA'd mass move, I'll do that in the future. This is proceeding at a pace that I could personally tolerate. I do not know why it seems to be so difficult, but I'm suspecting cultural issues. In a word, Shy. So one step at a time. If my suspicions are correct, urgent to avoid blame. No blame, but natural consequences, and always offer to support, and praise for progress. (The evidence I gathered implies user in her twenties, or several of these sharing access, it's unclear, so this is not a child. But the evidence could be misleading. The level of wiki expertise is a mixture of high and noob.)

I am also concerned about the flooding of Recent changes, because of the habit of making very many individual edits. But that's not uncommon, and we can address that later. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please address the template creation issue, particularly copying templates from Wikipedia which must be imported instead. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did, with [10], yesterday, and [11], today. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Mind undeleting that? This appears to be the context: User talk:Vandalismterminator. Just for the record. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Undeleted based on your request. However, I would argue that, after seven years since the incident and six years since any problems from this IP, it is offensive to anyone from this college to edit by IP and see this ancient history that is without context to them. Some of them weren't even teenagers when this occurred. In this case, it seems much more beneficial to me that Wikiversity provide a welcoming or neutral environment than it is to preserve the discussion. Please consider blanking it after your review. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I moved it to a subpage of the apparent user talk. There was an explicit incoming link, the case of this IP was mentioned on 8:00 class which is an interesting piece of history. Wikiversity was very active at one time. Then Stuff Happened. There was also an incoming link that was the URL of that page. That's what I'd seen. All fixed now, redir tagged for deletion. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dave! I have done a few edits on Wikiversity, and I was wondering if you could take a quick look, when you have some spare time, at them to ensure I'm on the right track. Thanks again! --Spyder212 (discuss • contribs) 02:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I plan on adding references as I expand on the material in the School of Medicine. --Spyder212 (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Content looks great! I want to encourage you to consider two things.

1) Organizationally, we're trying to be more like Wikibooks than Wikipedia. Except for a very few specific topics, we don't seem to have a high demand for users dropping by looking for a particular lesson. We get much more interest from larger learning projects that might encompass an entire course rather than an individual lecture topic. By adding the lectures under the larger course topic, we can cover both, and make the content much easier to find and navigate.

2) An extension of that is links to content. I noticed it on Cardiovascular system. We really don't want a main page on each aspect of the cardiovascular system. No one would teach a course on Mediastinum. But we would welcome a subpage for each, created as [[Cardiovascular system/Mediastinum]], or similar if you wish. This puts all of the content together in a single, easy-to-navigate learning project. Also, subpages within a project can be linked / accessed using a shortcut notation of [[/Mediastinum/]]. If the content doesn't currently exist, it's probably better to just link to Wikipedia instead, as that content will be much more complete. You do that with either [[w:Mediastinum]] or [[Wikipedia:Mediastinum]]. I prefer the second choice if users will see the link, as new users have no idea what w: means. They figure it out eventually, but there's no advantage to confusing them to start with.

I made some changes on the pages you had been working on. Take a look and see if you have any questions on why I did what I did. And, keep in mind, I'm just one opinion. There are certainly other ways to approach things if you are convinced that a different approach would provide a better learning outcome for your audience.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Dave! I will try to put those points into application! --Spyder212 (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was working on some lesson's under Topic:C and I've noticed that a lot of them are in mainspace or under a different namespace. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to reorganize this resource. --I8086 (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Content should not be in the Topic: namespace. The Topic: space is not searchable by default, meaning those titles don't appear if you type in the search box at the top right. Topic: should be used for discussions about content organization rather than the content itself. Feel free to reorganize or let me know how I can help. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clarifying the use of the Topic: namespace; I never really understood its purpose. If the organization gets out of control I'll let you know. --I8086 (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

In the early days, when Wikiversity organization resembled a more traditional university, the Topic: namespace was used for Divisions and Departments. That organization still exists, but hasn't been well-maintained. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, so that would explain the disorder, a period of poor organization, right? --I8086 (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Multiple authors, different visions, and often not active in the same time windows. Some people want to organize, start at the top and design containers. Others want to present content, start at the bottom, and design individual learning resources, typically sharing lecture content. Still others would design a collaborative space to share ideas, with little structure at all. The best quick advice I've seen on content design is based on William Horton's Absorb - Do - Connect approach to Contextual Learning. It's a very simple model of how to provide information, provide opportunities for engagement, and then provide opportunities for reflection or application. It's really simple, but really effective. We have too much content around here that is absorb only, and some other content that is Do only, with very little application or reflection. But we are making progress, thanks in part to your efforts. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Contextual learning is probably the best way to learn. I'm not sure if I write contextual learning oriented resources, although I *think* I do. But yes, progress is being made and I try to help, even though my efforts aren't as large as others. --I8086 (discuss • contribs) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Does this message reach you?

Hartwig Poth

Yes, this is the way to leave messages for individual users on Wikiversity. You can also respond directly to the discussions on the pages that interest you by clicking on the Discuss tab for the given page. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is hardly possible to publish much more details in wikiversity about my theories, as the the epubli book company has the copyright. But there is a possiblity to do that in particlar through google books as the entries at google books come from the epubli company. Therefore my question:

Can I add to my entry for the four potential gravitation "More details can be seen from https://books.google.de/books?id=5Q5aBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartwig+poth&hl=de&sa=X&ei=4X1XVf-jAsn1UPS9gOAN&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hartwig%20poth&f=false and http://www.epubli.de/shop/buch/Four-Potential-Gravitation-amended-Hartwig-Poth-9783737505819/39511."?

And to my entry for the scalar gravitation "More details can be seen from https://books.google.de/books?id=xAl63tniPhMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartwig+poth&hl=de&sa=X&ei=W39XVdyUGMO6UeOEgIAN&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartwig%20poth&f=false and http://www.epubli.de/shop/buch/A-new-Theory-of-Gravitation-and-its-Quantization—Version-11-Hartwig-Poth-9783844246544/24163."?

Hartwig Poth

It would be better to add whatever detail you can and then specify these books as references without links, rather than encouraging readers specifically to those books with links. Otherwise, the content appears to simply be a way to sell books, and that usually results in either deletion of the links or deletion of the articles entirely as solicitation. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good catch and sound policy, Dave. Hapoth, yes, you may specify the books as references. It should be very clear that these are your books, not independent books supporting your work here. Linking to pages offering the book for sale are not appropriate, though an exception might be made if those pages allow full download of the book without payment being required.

Otherwise you may contribute whatever content you wish here. If that content duplicates what has been published under a non-free license, and is extensive quotation, it might be required that explicit permission be given through the OTRS system, because whatever is used here will be consided released under a free license. Ask for help if you need it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

From Hartwig Poth: I have made a minor amendment at the end of 'Essays and Studies' in Gravitation/Scalar_theories for sake of clarity. And I intend to add some more details about the theories, when I have time.--Hapoth (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the update. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

From Hartwig Poth: As to the remarks from Abd, my books are freely accessible for example at or from the German National Library. I intend to send copies to the Library of Congress in Washington DC, from where they should be also freely accessible.--87.142.233.43 (discuss) 18:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry, it appears that I should have been logged in. Here my confirmation --Hapoth (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Hartwig. Those sources are useless to us without URLs. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

From Hartwig Poth to Dave Braunschweig: I have sent you copies of my scalar and four potential gravitation; you should receive them next week by letter post, however without any accompanying note. For the time being some more details are given in https://hpoth.wordpress.com/. --Hapoth (discuss • contribs) 06:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your attempts to contact me off-wiki are unsolicited, unwanted, and unwarranted. Please desist. I have no interest in this topic beyond the discussion of whether or not the articles are top-level main-space resources, and that question has already been resolved. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I suspected such. Perhaps User:Guy vandegrift will be interested in the books. Hapoth, administrators do not generally make content decisions, as administrators (beyond "spam" and "vandalism" and complete nonsense). Admins will look for consensus among users. We avoid controversy here (i.e., edit warring); we allow original research, including "fringe," and the only issue that comes up, then, is where to place it. ("Fringe" does not mean "wrong." It means "not yet accepted by the mainstream.") If you disagree with placement decisions, feel free to discuss them. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree. This material should be welcome at Gravitation/Scalar_theories/Poth. It is a good place to post alternative theories to GR, and we have a number of pages in namespace where "essays" and other contributions are included as subpages. This is an important distinction between Wikiversity and Wikipedia. But we at Wikiversity are not specialists who can referee these contributions. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

From Hartwig Poth: I beg all of you for your pardon. Apparently I have little or no knowledge about the Wikiversity rules. If I behave wrongly, don't hesitate do correct me. --Hapoth (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, we are not quick to take offense. We are highly inclusive, but we manage that, while remaining neutral, by how we place things and how we frame them. This is impossible on Wikipedia. It's easy for us. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think I understand when and when not to use topics, but I just want to be sure I'm doing it the right way. I'm going to create a resource/topic that will including a little information about the BASIC language followed by a list of BASIC dialects that link to other resources here on Wikiversity. So my question is, would this be a resource or a topic? --I8086 (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

This would be a resource. A topic would be a page where you and other like-minded developers would get together as a department to discuss and plan how different programming languages should be organized and presented at Wikiversity. Think of topics as more inclusive, and with more content capabilities than simply having a Discuss page on a Programming resource of some type. If it is content for users/learners, it's a resource. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Now I'm sure I understand the difference between topics and resources. --I8086 (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

maybe earning money can be redirected to business. however, maybe it would be good to have some main space resources that use simple language for younger learners or those who just can benefit from simpler language. then when they are ready they can move on to more complex and nuanced ideas and terminology. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Great thinking. There was an idea that resources would be created here and on Wikibooks for very young learners. It was mostly neglected, and when very young kids showed up here, they were sometimes blocked as vandals. We can do much, much better, and we have been. More than just some special pages, it takes a body of users who will welcome possible young learners, show them the ropes, help them when they make mistakes, as they must, and guide them supportively. So we need a project for this.

As to resources, what came to mind was a set of resources for beginners on Basics. So Basics/Money would address money, and Basics/Money/Earning would cover how someone can make money, with a particular focus on kids. "Business" is just a bit off this purpose. Starting a business is one way kids can earn money, though. Working in a business is another. "Business" for this purpose can be very broadly defined. "Buy cheap, sell dear" is an old slogan with the idea, but some kids will think that is cheating, because they may be selling to their friends. So some reframing is necessary. "Buy cheap, sell convenience" i.e.., there you are, you bought this stuff at a great price for a dozen, they need one, and you have it. Will they happily pay you a fair mark-up? Yes. They will, and you just made some money, for the work you did and your investment, the risk you took. But, then, there are many things to look at. Taxes. Law and legal reality. (Nobody is going to go after you for $20 you made selling lipstick. Or even $100. But if it starts to get into real money, you'd better be prepared.)

Could be a great project. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

That could certainly be a good project. I just want to be careful not to duplicate Simple English Wikipedia. It needs to be an actual learning project rather than basic information on the subject, and we would be wise to look first at Simple English Wikipedia for language choices. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dave,

Before I learned that Wikiversity hosts pdf files, I was posting solutions to Wikiversity quizzes as handwritten pdf files here:

http://www.wright.edu/~guy.vandegrift/openstaxphysics/quiz_solutions/quiz_solutions.htm

These will eventually all be ported into Wikiversity. As far as I know, OpenStax still wants me to do their Physics and Astronomy testbanks, something I think is good for everybody.

Here are my two questions: Many of my posted solutions are of low quality, and requiring that each student produce 4 high quality solutions (for a grade) will improve the situation.

1. Can I post a handwritten PDF file to Wikiversity if the student writes at the bottom of the last page: "I release this to the public domain"?
2. Is there a better way to do this?

Only high quality work will be posted, and while I urge all students capable of such work to register as editors, many chose not to. Also, I will not require that students release these documents; refusal to release will not affect their grade. If they do choose to release, I will advise them to "sign" with a symbol only they know. And, if for some reason they are interested, I will instruct them on using creative commons licenses.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Quality isn't the issue. That can be whatever it is. The issue is ownership. If they release to you as public domain, then you can repost it. If they release it as CC-BY, you'll need to credit them by name when you post it.

Is it possible to have them post their own materials? There are a couple of other colleges that have taken this approach in the past. Due to upload restrictions, they will need to create an account a few days in advance, but that might be a good learning experience. Otherwise, yes, they can release to you and then you can post, consistent with the license they used in the release.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info. To answer your question, having students register and post themselves is always my preferred option, and at least four students have already registered and contributed to Wikiversity/Wikipedia. The wait period for pdf posting is no problem because I can make the pdf files immediately available through our course management system. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see you've moved a bunch of Derenek's stuff around but why would you let his pseudoscience stay? He's spamming it here, WikiSource, Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Commons. I've tagged everything I can for speedy deletion cause well just look at his CV on his user page. He claims a PhD from a diploma mill and a BS after that, as well as being in the "Imperial American Army" or whatever.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity's mission is to create and host free learning materials and activities. The 'activities' part makes Wikiversity unique in that we recognize not just the quality of materials as being educational, but also the creation and potential debate of those materials as also being educational. Pseudoscience may be tagged as such, but is not deleted simply because it is not widely accepted. You are welcome to comment on the Talk page of articles that concern you, or to create a companion rebuttal page if you wish. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Dave. I have warned User:Ryulong over this; there are signs of harassment elsewhere. This edit also appears to be outing. The named person is indeed likely Derenek, acknowledged on Commons through attribution of authorship on a pdf file Derenek uploaded in 2014 (see Derenek talk on Commons for the file names, they will probably be deleted). That file was uploaded in 2014. I have been unable to find any global ban for Derenek or the named person. As is common, Derenek probably did not understand local policies about original research, and deletion as out-of-scope is likely on Commons, but Derenek would not be blocked there for what I've seen so far. While Derenek may upload the pdf here, I would, instead, recommend that he develop his resource in wikitext, all framed to maintain our neutrality. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did not out or dox Derenek. He had his full name on his user page before he deleted it and it is all over his uploads at the Wikimedia Commons. I do not know enough about the weird physics and pseudoscientific shit that Derenek has been posting here and on the English Wikipedia and RationalWiki for whatever purposes he has. It's his personal essay and original research that he can't get into a journal for whatever reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This guy is rather rude. If you check my edit list, you can see it has all been formatting stuff. Uploading the paper to wikicommons is the purpose of that site. As for being pseudoscience, that's more an ad hominem attack than anything else. (you can tell because of his posting in a public spot insults to my person and just calling my work garbage, insulting my service in the US Army and he wars I fought for this country... Rather troll-like) You quite rightly placed it under nonstandard physics, but the math checks out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derenek (talk • contribs)

Derenek has been globally banned for cross-wiki spamming his original research.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

He is presently editing as Special:Contributions/98.242.38.75.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Personal attacks are not welcome at Wikiversity. Please debate the merits of content pages, or lack thereof, on the specific article Talk pages. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Right. Derenek has now been unlocked. Derenek, read meatball:DefendEachOther and consider it. "Rather rude" is marginal, whether or not I'd agree. Stop on the red and go on the green and watch out for Mr. In-Between. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a use of locking for content control, it violates the spirit and general practice of lock policy. Derenek is not blocked on any wiki, only globally locked, and he is not banned, per global ban policy. So this is what I recommend for Derenek. Register another account here. Explicitly connect the accounts. Let Dave know, on this page. Use that account only here, do not use it cross-wiki until the smoke clears. It will not be possible, then, to claim what was claimed for your lock: global cross-wiki OR spamming. Account locks are *not* bans. They do not, for example, stop new account registration, and if a new account does not offend, it should be unmolested.

Derenek, 98.242.38.75 (if that's you), if you edit with the IP, and especially if you edit elsewhere, it can be globally blocked. If the new account is molested, we can then address that as a Wikiversity independence issue. Be patient. These things take time. If you also edit other wikis, follow a similar plan. Do not attempt to conceal your identity with Derenek, because that, then, can lead to blocks for sock puppetry. I recommend you do your work here, where it is welcome as long as you maintain civility and support neutrality policy, and we handle "pseudoscience" and the like by framing it so that it is not presented as accepted by the mainstream. Avoid controversy on other wikis at this point. Good luck, and I'm sorry this happened to you. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have requested that the steward lift the lock.[12] Because there is no discussion of this lock that I have been able to find, I'm suspecting an off-wiki request. Theoretically, that should not happen, but it routinely does. Dave, if you support that request, there, it could help. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Y Done account unlocked. Derenek, at this point, I highly recommend you avoid any possibly controversial editing on other wikis. Once this kind of attention is raised, response can become hair-trigger. Establish some history here, help develop Wikiversity or just work on your own ideas, you may be able to move elsewhere, a bit. I have also voted to keep your pdfs on Commons. They might still be deleted. If that happens, and you still want to link to one or more of them, then you may upload what you need here. Again, welcome to Wikiversity. Sorry for the mess. Oh, and don't revert war. Discuss and seek consensus and, if needed, support from other users. We will help you -- and we will also help other users. Usually, it is possible to find full consensus here, because of the flexibility we have. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much. I didnt realize people would be so hostile, but I'll definitely think of you as the boss!Derenek (discuss • contribs)

I have to say thanks again. Your community support gave me the time I needed to upload my video evidence to show that my research isn't just in my head, but also has real world application. You're the man!Derenek (discuss • contribs)

I learned that Wikiversity hosts pdf files only recently, as a result of becoming a probationary custodian. Today I discovered that Commons also hosts pdf files. (This is perhaps the only downside to us all working through the internet; if we all worked in the same building I would learn such things at the proverbial water cooler.) Now the question is whether to host my quizzes on Commons or Wikiversity. I much prefer Wikiversity. Is that OK? I prefer Wikiversity for a number of reasons:

1. I have custodial powers and am familiar with the rules and here. (Deleting files on Commons is really weird)
2. I have already begun here (although its not too late to transfer everything I have done so far)
3. Namespace is less occupied here. This is a big deal for me because a unique protocol for naming files has permitted me to automatically index by category; see for example, Quizbank/Index#Astronomy_pdf_files.

Thanks --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

From time to time in the past there is evidence of a push to move Wikiversity file content to Commons and only keep Fair Use files here. That has not happened in the last couple of years, and both you and Marshall prefer having your content here, so I don't see that changing any time soon. It probably doesn't make much difference. On Commons it could have a wider audience, but without explanation or control. Here it gets explanation and control. I'm also starting to see Wikiversity content come up on Google searches, so there is hope that the audience will grow. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree that Wikiversity is a rising star, very slowly rising, primarily because we are accustomed to the speed at which for-profit entities grow. Wikipedia is filling with articles that are good enough not to be replaced or heavily revised, but that fail to fill all needs. Many of their physics articles are too detailed for most undergraduates, for example. Parallel efforts at Wikiversity will fulfill those needs. I will continue to post pdf exams, their study guides, and solutions on Wikiversity.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This does not require your attention (immediate or otherwise) because I am correcting the problem, but I recall your deletion of This topic involved a check that there were no incoming links from Wikipedia (maybe I misunderstood?). Here is one that your bot apparently missed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_power&oldid=668208320#External_links --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity:Sister Backlinks shows a link from Wikipedia: Nuclear power to How things work college course/Nuclear power quizzes. The intermediate link to This topic doesn't seem to be a correct use of the template, and the bot wasn't written for that usage. If you think there are more of these, let me know and I can scan specifically for it, or pull a copy of all the template text for review. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Don't waste time tracking this down. I was just concerned that your bot was working improperly, but now understand that "This topic" was a link embedded in prose and not a sister interlink. The problem was that I didn't know how to use the template to control the text. I will fix all the bad links within a few days as I transfer all the quiz links to Quizbank format.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Now that have you, I assume that a user can delete his or her own user page, right?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

They can blank it. They can request that it be deleted. That would be author request. It is more common to see those requests now, because having no user page redirects to the meta user page. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I began to delete Wikiversity files as per requests based on the fact that the file exists on commons under the same name. I stopped when I realized that I don't understand the redirects. My guess is that Wikiversity links to a Wikiversity file if the filename is present in both Wikiversity and Commons. If that is the case, I don't need to fuss with incoming links when I delete. There are 22 files up for deletion on Category:NowCommons that should be deleted. Two questions:

1. Am I correct in assuming that incoming links are no problem if they go to the same name commons?
2. Am I correct in assuming that it is a good thing to process the pending requests on Category:NowCommons ?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, deleting a local resource that has the same name at Commons shouldn't have any impact.

Yes, there's nothing wrong with deleting content here that is duplicated at Commons. The only problem is if that content is later deleted at Commons. That has happened to Marshallsumter in the past, but I wouldn't expect the ones currently on the NowCommons list to be deleted over there.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

What will happen if the Commons file is deleted is that a Commons delinker bot will come here and vandalize remove the link. It often is not noticed. So the resource is damaged. We can host files that Commons cannot host. There is Fair Use. As to WMF policy, there is no difference between free licenses and NC licenses, but my opinion is that fair use should be easier with NC licenses, they are perfectly legal, there is no issue as long as they are tagged as WMF policy requires. ("Non-free rationale") We may want to look at our Exemption Doctrine Policy, which was written many years again without regard to our specific needs. In particular, our mission is not confined to mainspace, and it would seem odd that a user cannot draft in mainspace what would be acceptable in mainspace...

I have not verified what happens if a file is hosted here and on Commons. Which version is shown? Commons files may also be changed, and a local user who uses the file, perhaps uploaded it, will not be notified. They also are not notified of Commons deletion process. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The immediate reason I wanted custodian tools was to be able to handle users like the Volleyball crew. My basic goal is to develop communication with them; at least one of them should set up email, to be notified of user page notices and edits to their resources. I do not see these users as intending harm. I suspect that a user yesterday intended to ask for deletion of a page created accidentally, and didn't find a "deleted" template, and so created one. I strongly suspect there is more than one user. As socks of a single user, the behavior makes no sense. Rather, I suspect a number of girls or women at a school in the Philippines. They love volleyball. And they can learn wikitext and working with the Wikiversity community. There were some signs of response, back a while.

I understand that it might be frustrating. It is pretty clear to me that simply blocking them and deleting the resources won't help. They would return to more disruptive behavior. I strongly suspect they are using one computer. What I'd hope for is that one of them will take responsibility for communication on behalf of the group. They are probably all blocked with autoblock, but we could give one of them IP block exemption, perhaps if the user will enable email. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to work with users such as these with or without custodian tools. But for the scope of project they seem intent on developing, they will need to learn to communicate with someone, somehow, who will intercede on their behalf, and they must learn from their mistakes rather than continuing to repeat them. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Right. If there is more than one of them, mistakes might be repeated without an individual repeating the mistake. In any case, the process I know, that has worked in the past, is to engage with them. It can involve some carrot-and-stick, but if the emphasis is on the stick, and if they are young, they will ignore it. Much easier to just create a new account.

By the time serious measures are put in place, if they are, they can cause collateral damage, and it can be too late. One of the templates you deleted was important to a series of pages, I think, Template:Infobox FIVB TOURNAMENT. I'd hoped they would communicate with you about that. So far, they have only responded to positive measures. So ... would you please undelete that template and place it in the Sport/Volleyball subspace, and I'll fix the usages. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can't undelete it, because it was incorrectly copied rather than imported to start with. I have imported what is likely the original source instead at Template:Infobox FIVB tournament. You can redirect their name to that, or move that to their name, or correct their pages. Or, better yet, make it a subpage of the project and then correct their links, as its use will be limited to that learning project. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That should do the trick. I will move it to the project pages and correct links when I find time. It's harmless as it is. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Y Done. Template moved to Sport/Volleyball/Infobox FIVB tournament, all incoming updated to parallel subpage link. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• [13] You poor thing, I had no idea. . I asked you about a drip, and there was a flood. Shall we say, this is a learning project? And, yes, it's about communication.

• By the way, your repeated claim that Wikipedia content must be imported rather than copied was incorrect, and created a need, if that was to be followed, for far, far more custodian work than the simpler solution. Attribution to the source page is enough, and is superior in other ways, especially for templates. (Attribution does some weird stuff with user names, though SUL unification has probably fixed that.) That attribution may be in an edit summary or on an attached talk page, or on the page itself. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

[14]. That was a great move, blanking suspected copyvio. However, if you identified the source, it would have been useful to specify it. I have removed the copyvio tag from that page you blanked, because the blanked page is not a copyvio. This solution, blanking, was brilliant, because the WMF has no policy about avoiding copyvio in page history, and it is routinely left in place. That allows students to collect material here, though what you suggested, linking, is preferable.

I have removed the copyvio template you placed,[15] because as blanked, no custodian action is needed.

Routine practice has been, instead, to speedy delete a page for this, as you have done. I think you now see a better way. If a page might be useful, or might easily be fixed, it is quicker all the way around to blank it. Indeed: Template:Blanked copyvio.

Some level of copy and paste is routine and fully acceptable. For example, I routinely copy abstracts from published papers, it can make understanding what a link is about much easier. While the papers, including the abstracts, are copyrighted, and while there is no specific permission to copy them freely, and while an abstract is itself an original work, it is universal practice, one will find the abstracts all over the internet, including on highly responsible government web sites, etc. I don't know that there has ever been a test case of copyvio for an abstract where the original publication was linked, thus it was fully attributed. It actually serves as an advertisement for what a publisher may be selling, as distinct from what they routinely offer freedly for reading without payment. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

These are not the intended purpose of our Speedy Deletion criterion, which reads:

Discussions about deleted resources where context is lost and becoming an independent resource is unlikely.

The pages are a record of user interaction with IP editor. Most of these are not going to be useful, except when there is occasion to research such things. If they are deleted, research becomes impossible for ordinary users. My sense is that the effort spent in deleting these pages is wasted, it generates no value for the wiki. Such pages are normally kept on en.wikipedia. They show a history of interaction with the IP users. I have frequently found this of high utility. When the pages are deleted, the contributions, if any, do not show in global contributions any more. It makes history less transparent.

As well, when a page has been deleted, I can find, if the IP talk page is not deleted, reference to it. There is then a showing that process was followed, author was notified -- or not. From the deletion log, I generally cannot tell who created the page, so if I need to know that, I'll have to ask the deleting admin, and, in fact, I don't know if the knowledge is useful unless I see the page. So deletion doesn't save any work, but can increase work.

I'm suggesting that you ignore these pages unless a positive reason for deletion appears. I've been seeing this for some time, and I'm sorry I didn't call attention to it sooner.

I hope that I have custodial tools soon, so if there is cleanup to be done as a result of my ideas and requests, I can do it myself instead of burdening another!

If you like, I can start a deletion discussion on this, but I hope we can handle this without that. Thanks.

We've already had a discussion on this a year ago. The posts I'm deleting are outdated, having "lost context for discussion". They dissuade casual anonymous users from participating. Removing them adds value, but you are welcome to start an undeletion discussion on this if you wish. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have forgotten that earlier discussion. There is an easier way that does not involve deletion. You have been misinterpreting the deletion criterion. The Wikipedia version goes into much more detail and specifically excludes user talk pages. I just edited our Deletion guideline to remove that criterion, which is unnecessary, in fact, in general, and I've explained that on the guideline talk page.

The easier way is to replace the page content, after a time, with a generic template that this is a talk page of an anonymous user, perhaps shared IP, and that it has been blanked to hide old communications, which can be read in history. This should be done by bot, and we can create standards for it. Less work for you, Dave, not more.

If you remain opposed and want to continue, know that at this point I will be promptly requesting undeletion, absent consensus, for any more of these. Because there is no emergency, I will wait for the smoke to clear before handling the old deletions, or will go to RFD if necessary. Let's keep it simple, Dave. Speedy deletion is for uncontested deletions, uncontroversial, and I'm raising an objection that happens to be policy-based. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your objection is noted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's been very hot here and the cooling effect is appreciated. Meanwhile, I'm noticing that the idea of custodians tagging for speedy deletion, in the absence of clear need for immediate action, has been dropped, and direct deletion is becoming routine, sometimes with some, ah, strange "reasons" or none. Many times I've bragged about Wikiversity having this 2-step process in place, because it can avoid so much disruption. I think this may require some discussion. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I sense your frustration, but we need to find a way to bring the community into discussions rather than scaring others off. If you truly desire for everyone to be able to participate at Wikiversity, find a way to make it safe for them to share their opinions, not just their content. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Dave, but I'm puzzled. Who is scared off? I'm reviewing history and discovering what definitely drove away some users. In hindsight it's obvious, and a common error that I had thought we had learned to avoid. I was wrong.

Who isn't safe to share opinions? Could you be talking about a new IP user, where a prior user was, say, warned? I don't see that as being likely to scare off a user from "sharing opinions." However, a standard warning, not clearly for an IP user, would be off-putting, for sure. It would use "you" for what the user might not have done.

We have mostly stopped warning IP users from single edits or a very few in a short time. If the IP persists for a while, with multiple edits, then, yes. Vandalism- and spam-fighting takes some sophistication, and we need to be very careful about collateral damage.

There are far simpler solutions than page deletion that could be applied by bot or any user, it doesn't require admin privileges, that would not lose the availability of history. So, yes, we need to find a way, not just assume that what we have done is the best way.

I searched and could not find our discussion "a year ago." Do you know where that is? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

No one else is commenting on anything from a community perspective. We've got two votes for a custodianship, other than your vote. The previous custodian vote was four votes. No one is responding to the Topics: issue at all. My perception is that people don't want to get involved at Wikiversity because they are scared off by the sheer volume of rhetoric. It's clear that, historically, people at Wikiversity had time and interest for long debates on issues. That is no longer the case. I appreciate your incredible intellect and attention to detail, but we have to find a way to stop and let others into the discussion in order to move forward. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've seen this argument for years, Dave, long before Wikipedia, even. If you think my comments excessive, collapse them, reformat, refactor. I did this on en.wiki with high success, creating consensus. The avoidance of deep discussion is a basic aspect of the wiki problem. We must find a way to foster it. Massive community participation in discussions actually makes things worse, not better. What works is when a few effectively represent the community, when the community does see the discussions and does not oppose. They will speak up if the context is friendly and people are not attacked for disagreeing. So one of the jobs for custodians is maintaining civility, and when that breaks down, as, too often, it does, the damage is high.

Consider that custodianship page. Is there excessive verbiage there? Is there some "sheer volume of rhetoric"? There are three votes, besides your support as mentor, in one day. That is fine. Opposition is extremely unlikely. The site message is too small, text size, it is very easy to overlook. Please fix that, I would, if I had the tools. Our policy has the voting be open one week. Given that the probationer already has the tools, there is no need for any rush, and these things have often been kept open longer, if we'd like to see more votes. The fact is that most users have little clue on these things. Asking users to vote on something that they know nothing about is not really a good idea. It invites various pathologies. I see one of the functions of Wikiversity as being a test bed for new ideas, we can try things out, and if we have users with high experience participating, we won't go too far off the rails.

I've encountered the idea that I should not express myself many times over the years. There was a mailing list for an advocacy group for Approval Voting, and the list moderator basically didn't understand most of what I wrote and the connection with the topic. So he objected, and list members spoke up and said that, no, what I was writing was on-topic and very useful. So how did he respond?

Well, next time he thought I was writing too much, he put me on moderation, and rejected the posts he didn't like, and ... lost them, and didn't notify me, he was not an experienced moderator. Then, having set himself up as needing to read all my posts himself, instead of trusting other list members to tell him if there was a problem, he became thoroughly frustrated and just banned me. The result: I went to another mailing list that had been started in the field, was welcomed, and worked extensively with the owner, who also had a web site, and I authored many articles there. This was academic, and complex, and math was involved .... The original mailing list essentially died, traffic went to almost zero. Years later, my major supporter became a moderator and I was unbanned, since I was probably the most effective supporter of Approval Voting to that point. Much of the understanding of the system can be traced to my work. That other mailing list developed a core of people who then created an advocacy organization that incorporated and that is being effective.

So .... tl;dr is fine, because nobody is required to read anything. People can look at an issue and if they want to vote on it, are not required to read all the other arguments. We can refactor discussions, however, to make them more accessible. However, the entire way that wikis are accustomed to making decisions is ingrown, inefficient, and unreliable, starting with the habit of voting immediately, instead of first collecting evidence, creating and comparing arguments, and *then* proposing questions to be considered and voting on them, i.e., voting to ask the question including the wording, with amendments, etc., and only *then* voting on the Previous Question, it's called, and this is what organizations have known to do for hundreds of years, but Wikipedians had no clue, for the most part. Or believe that all that is bureaucratic nonsense.

You are concerned that verbosity will drive people away, but how about coming upon a discussion where a substantial number have already voted? Are you aware of the social phenomenon called a "cascade"? The "scientific fiasco of the century," as it was called in an academic publication, was the result of a cascade, where prior comments then lead later commentors and those who follow to agree. The lost opportunity cost I estimate as 25 trillion dollars and counting, at about at trillion dollars per year.

Humans do this! And that is why discussion and debate precede voting, why questions are not presented to assemblies by some member, and then every member stands up, sequentially, and votes, why debates will often be arranged so that POVs alternate, where possible. Yet we think this new process is normal, and we wonder why participation is often low. It is always low. It used to be that a hundred votes in an RfA on Wikipedia was very good. However, millions of users! It is assumed that those who vote are representative of the users, but that is actually preposterous, rather, the same people vote over and over in those discussions and they are not an unbiased sample. It could all be fixed, and easily, but I watched, over the years, how every reform effort was crushed, and that word does not fully express the vehemence expressed. Wikis can be vicious.

The Topics issue is very difficult, and has been for a long time. Lack of response in a day or two means very little. There are ways to handle this, there are systems and procedures than can be created or used. Really, what it takes is two users who agree to work together, who develop proposals and refine them, then bring in larger numbers, always seeking to expand consensus, until an issue is presented to a community for ratification. When this is done, genuine consensus is developed. It works especially well if the two users are not peas in a pod, but are diverse in opinion. And the working group can be larger. But two is enough.

By the way, you might notice I separated the discussion between Koavf and I off from the Topics section. I also considered collapsing it. Koavf, though, I thought important to introduce to the community. This is one of the most famous Wikipedians, he is still young but obviously thoughtful, and that he is expressing support for Wikiversity is fabulous. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dave - I am becoming aware of the need to choose names in namespace carefully. What about template names? I just made this template:

= {{Write}} can be used to identify quizzes. I like the pencil because it is nearly horizontal. I might try to substitute a different icon so that it takes up less vertical space. I won't use it much till I hear from you. One thought I had is that we need a category of templates consisting of image icons (if one doesn't already exist-- I noticed the {{Done}} template family.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll answer from a developer's perspective. Naming is mostly about recognition and conflict management. We want to choose names that people can ultimately remember and/or find easily, and at the same time choose names that are unlikely to conflict with other names and other uses. When I look at template names, I first look at what names are already in use here, and then I check what names are in use at Wikipedia. So far, so good. Write is not in use anywhere, and it could be considered consistent with other names in use. So, the next question is whether this would be likely to conflict with future use. Would Write have any other uses, or is this the best use of that name? If you are thinking of a collection of icon templates, will there be future naming conflicts with those? I personally might consider WriteIcon, but that may not be obvious to others. Write is fine if it works for you. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will change it to Iconwrite because I think other such icons would be nice. By putting Icon first we can do a prefix search. See for example this search for Template:Wri: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Template:Wri&namespace=10.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you archived the Colloquium in July and put the content in the June 2015 archive. Then, today, you moved that content together with other newly archived Colloquium content to the May archive. I've done a lot of research into material in archives, and it's often a bit of an issue to find it. The solution generally is to see when the original edit was made, then look for later archiving, and it is generally assumed that archiving happens sequentially. In this case, the edit would be found that moved the material to the June archive, but if one then looks at the June archive, it's not there, being moved again all they way into August.

It is not important, and not feasible, often, that the material match the archive date exactly. Generally, I will look at the last dated edit and place the material into the archive indicated by that date (which seems to have been your idea), but if archiving has not been done, for a time, I might place material in a later archive with other material. Mostly, I'll prefer to archive sections separately, because it is far more transparent than bulk edits (edit summaries automatically show the archived section), and it is easier and less vulnerable to error to make section edits rather than massive edits that chop up the Colloquium. But the archive bots make bulk edits, and people are used to it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

May is in May, June is in June. Nothing is in July. Double check if you wish. Then, please review Wikiversity:Assume Good Faith. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Uh, Dave, why should I review AGF? Did I not assume good faith somewhere?

I'm suggesting something that, perhaps focused on some sort of idea that I think you acted in Bad Faith, you might have missed. I never think that. However, you seem to have become peevish, and this is having an impact. It's a common symptom of burnout, which happens when admins develop the idea that they are personally responsible for maintaining the wiki. For a time, you were pretty much on the spot for that, and I don't recall you being peevish at all. However, something has shifted. You have more help now. What's going on?

As to this situation, maybe you will look again. The issue is archiving process. We had a bot and the page still says it is archived by bot. The bot shut down and has not been replaced, so we manually archive, and I've seen it done in various ways. I described how I do it. What I never do is to reverse sequence in archiving. To have material placed in the May archive, in August, when it was first placed in the June archive in July, and then later moved back by you, is difficult to follow. Archiving procedure should be clear and hopefully consistent, so I have simply raised the issue. I'm suggesting that archiving not go backwards.

I noticed this because I have seen archiving errors. Stuff can get lost. So I look to see that what was removed matches what was placed in the archive, in byte count. I was looking at my Watchlist. See [16]. In my watchlist changes, the removal from the June 2015 archive was not visible, so you can see why it looked very strange. It took me some time to figure out what you had done, remove discussions with last edit in May from the June archive. Frankly, I expect that, commonly, such discussions may be in the June archive. (They often would be from bot archiving.) When I can't quickly find the archived section, then I look at edit history. I would not be looking for a transfer from the June to the May archive, as if that archiving were a mistake. It was not a mistake. It was done in July, actually. It would be normal to use the June archive. One could also use the July archive. Many archiving schemes do not use a fixed, predetermined set of pages. See WV:Requests for Deletions/Archives and Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive. I think the Colloquium archiving was designed for the bot. It creates many more pages that might be needed.

This was a relatively cumbersome edit. It doesn't need to be that hard! I'd suggest that discussions be archived into the page with the current month, unless perhaps all discussions are older than that, in which case the earlier month might be used. There is no need to separate out the earlier month, especially if it was archived before. What would never be done is to archive a discussion with a last edit date in, say, June, into the May archive. But the reverse is quite okay. The removals should correlate in edit history with the additions, that is what got messed up here. I will generally also save any addition before saving the removal, having both windows open. That way if I'm interrupted, the harm is a duplication, not a disappearance! There was a Wikipedia bot that did not follow that, and apparently it was interrupted, and a discussion vanished. I spent a perfectly good IP sock to point that out! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Dave how was your day

Samantha charmaine davis (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Like most days, it had 24 hours in it. Some were used wisely, and some less so. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dave: I looked at one of these broken redirects and saw no incoming to the incoming link. Should I delete such redirects?

https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BrokenRedirects&limit=500&offset=0   yours truly, --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, those would be Orphaned / broken / unused redirects. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am flailing around with this merger. When I did it to establish competency as a custodian I merged two artificial pages in my user space designed specifically for this exercise. That allowed me to fearlessly delete and then undelete a file. You have two options regarding this merge of histories:

1. Simplest for you is to let me get it right. Just to be safe, I will create Parenting/temporary foster page and document enough there so we can reconstruct the pages.
2. Or you can do it. I will create two practice pages and experiment so as to give you time to answer.

Go for it. The only caution I have is that in the past I have had to purge (clear the server cache) in order to see the results of the undelete. Until a week or two ago, the Purge gadget worked great. It hasn't displayed since then, but there is a {{purge}} template you could add temporarily to force the page to purge. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Simply creating a temporary foster page will not allow recreating history. Rather, export both files (select export with history) to your computer. Then, if needed, you may import them and the new imported files will have complete original history. Export is quick and creates no on-wiki mess to clean up. Wikipedia doesn't mention it, I suspect, because they don't want to depend on administrators to be the custodian of those files. In fact, files could be also be recovered from backup (the published dumps), but that could be onerous.

Dave, we should have crystal clear documentation of procedures, we have How to be a Wikimedia sysop and I suggest that out of this exercise could come some documentation. I could write it off the top of my head, or from research, but I'd prefer to be able to test whatever I write. Ahem...

The ordinarily-irrevocable action to be careful about, is the merge. Deletion is not a problem, nor is undeletion, they are straightforward (except for the server cache problem, which I've been noticing a lot lately. I save an edit and the original page shows. I also just saved an edit, saw no edit conflict warning, and there couldn't have been, because the edit would have been shifted to the second edit window, and it trashed another user's edits. Double plus ungood, the edits were those of a newbie, who might have been seriously offended.)

In this case, no harm will be done, as long as all the edits are unhidden. If it is the "wrong version" that can then easily be fixed, by an ordinary user. Like me. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Another wrinkle is this Wikiversity page: w:Wikipedia:Merging#Full-content_paste_merger They say NOT to merge the histories. Instead keep the old page with it's history and (I think) use a redirect. I am still playing with subpages of Parenting. It's a nice place to practice because most of them are my experiments.

That is an option but it's much more work. It requires selecting the good content from the redirected article. Which version? I'd say keep it simple, use the admin tools to empower ordinary editors. The linked WP information page does not seem to think of value in the history in the redirected page, though it does leave it in place. If the redirected page has no incoming links, though, it might later get deleted. Hence it really ought to have warning text on it. I've done a ton of Wikipedia research, and admins there often make it cumbersome to figure out what happened. Or nothing can be found, unless one knows exactly where to look, and it is all buried in a flow of millions of edits. Often outrageous actions by administrators pass unnoticed. (I've found them years later, when even raising the issue is considered disruptive -- and I agree.) The Pure Wiki Deletion proposal went nowhere fast. Wikipedia quickly abandoned the original wiki ideals. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I should explain. Content paste merger is used when an article is merged to a subsection of another article, sometimes as a substitute for deleting the article. It is vastly superior to simply copying the content and deleting the original. Often, reviewing AfDs, I find a merge conclusion. Then I look at the redirect, and the original article was deleted and replaced with a redirect! Missing the point. The deletion discussion now makes no sense, it's impossible to see what the original content was without having it undeleted. There would be a way to prepare a list of revisions that would create links to the prior article. All the revisions still have the same revision number, so links to the merged article that are sorted according to it will still show each revision as it was. So a tool could be created that would automatically take two pages and create the links. Basically, it would be the history of each page with links, as displayed in a browser, this could be edited from browser data. It would be a combined history page of the two original pages, merely sorted by which page the edit occurred on.

Deleting pages hides page history, which then prevents a user from seeing what they did in their Contributions display. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Out of desperation I did exactly what Dave suggested a few weeks ago. The description at w:Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves#An_easy_case, except that the essay was written for a Wikipedia user who requires an administrator to delete at step 1. We need a better explanation on Wikiversity. I will put it at User:Guy vandegrift/Merging history pages, after I have cleaned up Parenting--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

While this may have been in French, this was apparently part of art studies, see Art practices/Metagraphy. Please undelete so that I may review this and see what may be used. The user did not know to create detail pages as subpages, [s/]he's being educated in that. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Y Done. Note that your choice of pronoun is offensive in this instance. See Multiple-use name/Tae Ateh. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

An error, an unnoticed assumption without foundation or offensive intention. Offensive to whom? Thanks for undeleting, this is a useful page, to be history-merged with Art practices/Metagraphy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dave, a number of user conflicts have developed recently, the most notable, causing the most disruption, being between you and I. How do you suggest we address this? I think WV:Community review is premature. I am considering filing a WV:Custodian feedback but prefer to begin with a direct conversation between you and I, on-wiki or off-wiki. We are among the most active users on this wiki, perhaps we should set an example. What do you think? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

At this point, I would prefer to have additional perspective from our trusted community members before addressing this directly. While I agree that there are multiple conflicts developing, I sense a consistent theme across those conflicts, indicating to me that additional perspective is necessary. The implication that you will file for custodian feedback unless I respond appropriately is not helpful, and does not bode well for the example you wish to set. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dave, you and I are the most trusted community members. We have others chiming in with no clue. For example, it seems that you and I agree that there are issues, "multiple conflicts developing." Another has said there are no issues, that it's my fantasy. You sense a theme, and so do I. However, the existence of a theme does not necessitate the involvement of others, unless we attempt to resolve the issues and fail -- or one of us refuses. I have not come to that conclusion yet, but if you have, you are free to decline to waste your time. And, yes, my next step, by the process set up by this community, if "appropriate" response is not found -- your word -- would be Custodian Feedback. That's not a threat, and demonstrating the appropriate use of our dispute resolution process is indeed an example that I wish to set.

Some of the issues will require broader discussion, eventually, but standard process suggests seeking small-scale consensus if possible, before escalating.

At this point, you have already filed a Request for Custodian Action regarding my activity. That is more disruptive than a Custodian Feedback filing, for the latter is aimed at facilitating consensus (even if some have used it in other ways.) "Disruption" is not Bad. Sometimes it's necessary; however, you based that filing on a situation that appeared while I was asleep, that I had no clue about until this morning, and had, until seeing it, no opportunity to respond. It as trivial to address the situation, took a couple of minutes. In any case, if it is your choice that we are done, that we cannot resolve this directly, then I assume you would know the next steps. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You clearly over-estimate my influence and under-represent the influence of others. And I wouldn't go so far as to suggest the exchanges of the last 24 hours have defined a sense of trust in your efforts, either. If they had, you wouldn't be here asking me, twice, to respond.

You don't get to have things both ways. I posted a very neutral request on your talk page asking you to stop canvassing. It was canvassing, and has been recognized by others as such. You exploded. Your approach toward 'helping' Dx has been completely disruptive to their efforts. But if I can't comment on your page without an explosion, I will ensure that others are aware of the problem so they can address it. They are now aware, they have addressed it, and their response leads me to believe they will continue to do so.

I do not accept the assumption that disruption is either good or necessary, and I will continue to oppose any efforts to the contrary. If you can't play well with others, I don't want to share a playdate. The choice is yours. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Dave, your response shows that you believe your interpretation of events is the truth. This is how conflict arises, that belief.

• I did not canvass, and an analysis of the Colloquium discussion will show that there is no agreement that it was. But you are in a state where you are taking any agreement from anyone as proof you are right, as seen by your claim here.
• Your description of my response as "exploded" shows that you are mind-reading. Wikitext does not convey emotional state, often. I can show, if needed, that Dx's confusion arose from several actions, including your unnecessary deletion(s?) and Leutha's intervention. Complicating it was Guy's activity. All of this could be educational for Dx as to wiki process, which Dx clearly needs help with.
• If your "comment" on my talk page was not a "warning," with an implied block coming if, in your opinion, I continued to "canvass," you could easily have said so. However, I do see, in all of your activity with respect to this, a belief that what I did should be sanctioned, stopped, prevented, and thus that it should be blocked. You went to RCA with a request. For what? It's obvious, Dave. You think I should be formally warned and blocked if I "continue."
• The Colloquium discussion, my alleged explosion, was about that. Consensus there is not clear, and CR might be needed on "canvassing."
• How has the issue been addressed? Leutha just claimed on User talk:Jtneill that "the situation is rapidly deteriorating."[17] You very properly have recused (though discussion on my user page remained and remains open. It was a warning that could be seen as a threat that was questioned, not discussion. You did not discuss, you concluded and acted based on your conclusion, and you continue to hold to that conclusion). Leutha claims you shouldn't recuse, showing that Leutha has no concept of recusal policy, and is therefore unqualified to be a custodian. He's probationary, and would be expected to be especially ready to receive and consider criticism. He's not. And you are not helping.
• So, your last comment is "If you can't play well with others, I don't want to share a playdate." While stated conditionally, in context it is accusatory and ambiguous. "Playdate or not"? The choice is yours. You actually gave no choice. "(If I "can't" I can't. Not a choice. However, I can. Then the question devolves to what "playing well" means. How about among adults, in real life?)

• However, this was now your second apparent decline. I will treat this as a refusal to engage in interpersonal dispute resolution, unless you respond positively. Thanks for all your work for Wikiversity. One more possibility. I will email you my phone number. A call would be welcome. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I cannot support offline discussions as an example for others to follow. It takes away the transparency you often express concern for. But if you can play nice with others, I would urge you to do so. Posts such as [18] make negative suppositions about another user and need to stop. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Rakibhasan786/sandbox was proposed for speedy deletion as spam. User: Musamies made the deletion request. Not knowing who Musamies is, or what I should do, I converted to a deletion request and placed a note on User talk:Musamies--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you select User contributions for each user, you'll see an SUL link at the bottom of the page. That will give you a quick overview of the user's status and contributions on different wikis. In this case, the contributions by Rakibhasan786 appear to be cross-wiki promotion for external gain, rather than an attempt to inform users of each wiki about the contributor. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I forget, but there was one operation where it is necessary to also move/delete the talk page. Was it for speedy deletions?---Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is a speedy delete available for discussions about deleted resources. Often, it makes sense to delete the corresponding talk page if a page is being speedy deleted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The issue about talk pages should be whether or not the talk page has any value (including value in researching wiki activity). Usually speedy deleted non-talk pages have no talk page, or the discussion may be completely moot.

I did investigate this case. This is not necessarily spam. The user had placed a personal bio on their talk page here. I moved it to User:Rakibhasan786, and then welcomed the user. The user is not blocked anywhere at this point. Antispammers often call things "spam" that are not, at least not with the ordinary meaning. Some wikis routinely delete such content on a User page. We do not, ordinarily. We welcome the user. Once in a blue moon they actually show up.

I've seen substantial harm from the deletion of talk pages. In this case, no harm from deleting the two pages you deleted, Guy, they were duplicated by what is now the User page.

As to the user's intention, I've spent some time looking. What is see is common newbie behavior. Created an article on himself on enwiki. Oops!. Moved it to his user page (perhaps the original intention?). Redirect deleted (completely proper, even better if he'd have requested it himself, but ... noob.) He can be seen flopping around in the log displayed [19]. This user may be blocked at any time. See w:User talk:Rakibhasan786. Wikipedia used to be very welcoming and you had to make a lot of mistakes to be blocked. The disruptive action he's threatened with a block for? Putting that material on his user talk page, and many newbies think they can do this, and why not? I can say why not, but noobs won't think of it. Now, where is the welcome that genuinely cares about empowering him? That carefully advises him? What I see is a pile of warnings. English is a world language, it's used, now, by people from many cultures. There is no sensitivity about this. Just the way it is. (It's similar to the issue of women participating on Wikipedia.)

Will this user become a "productive user"? I don't know. However, the "welcome" I'm seeing will probably create "No" as an answer. The user may be young. I find commercial interest not impossible, but unlikely. m:User:Rakibhasan786 is now supposed to be a global user page. Notice that on enwiki they created a stub to prevent it being displayed. The meta deletion reason? Out of scope. Meta inclusion policy is cited. That is about meta content, not user pages! It is quite normal for users to have autobiographical material on users pages. So what's going on?

Dave, if you have seen evidence for violation of the TOU though undisclosed commercial interest, please let me know. The remedy, though, is to disclose the interest. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The page Bell's theorem was given subpages named after two users. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of forking such pages with capital letters (A, B, ...) because the titles look better when viewing on screen and printing as pdf. Is there a policy on using usernames as subpages? Should there be?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of such a policy. I'm inclined to suggest that naming subpages after users isn't helpful to anyone except the user. If the most distinctive part of a page is who wrote it, it probably belongs in user space rather than as a subpage of a main space article. One potential exception would be a class main page with student subpages. However, most of those have also been handled by naming the subpage after the content rather than the user. A and B are aesthetic improvements, but don't add informational value.

A note to others. This page is not open for policy discussion. There are other pages for that. Questions and comments in this thread from anyone other than Guy will close the thread and remove it from discussion. If you must comment, do it elsewhere. Thanks for your understanding.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will rename it as soon as I can settle on a name for it. An alternative is to create a new resource called "Bell's theorem calculations" or something like that. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The problem at Bell's theorem seems to be resolved. An entirely different problem arose at User:Guy_vandegrift/sandbox/01/Presidental_sandboxes, where I set up a community where students could simultaneously work on one project. As you can see, I had 12 parallel efforts by IP editors on subpages (we also had a screen that provided the entire class to see one subpage). A few of the subpages would "freeze": The students could read but could not edit. We surmised that this was a protection that was triggered in order to prevent a group of people overwhelming the system. Is that correct? Is there a workaround? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is a feature that limits the number of IP edits on a resource in a short period of time. See mw:Manual:$wgRateLimits. The workaround would be having each student create an account. My class found they had to register by mobile device to have a different IP for account creation, and then were able to access and edit. There's still a limit on the new accounts, but spread out across each account rather than applied to the IP as a whole. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Y Done Problem solved. I just helped register an editor in front of the class. He/she used a campus computer IP address, and did not give an email address. The only people who could possibly trace the identity back to the user were the people in the room. I will have no trouble coaxing them to register. Thanks for taking the time to help me with these questions. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for deleting the vandalism content. You hid the revisions using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion, correct? Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, per 'Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material'. Thanks for checking. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am a simple-but-abstract type of person, and am overwhelmed by all the discussion on the Colloquium (Speedy deletion of templates and Deletion of Sport/Volleyball ) and have begun to jot ideas at User:Guy vandegrift/A. What do you think of posting an invitation on the Colloquium for all interested parties to discuss the issue at User:Guy vandegrift/A? A related question is what do you think about holding this discussion somewhere in mainspace instead? I just don't the the Colloquium is an appropriate place to hold this discussion. My intent is not to exclude anybody, but to make the Colloquium and announcement page that would better invite people into discussions.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've also been thinking about it. The best I could come up with is a similarity to the {{No license}} 7-day notice. While that template is specific to files missing copyright information, the situation here is the same, with unlicensed content that either needs license information or removal. A similar template could be created, or that one could be adjusted to recognize when it is on a file page and when it is on a content page. To me, the place for discussion is the RfD, but we could also create some sort of Wikiversity: content page if need be. But I don't think anyone is excluded at this point. I think no one wants to deal with it. The 7-day notice would be an easy way to let contributors know they need to properly license content by providing attribution, and eliminates the need for decisions by custodians if the content goes past 7 days without attribution being provided. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Two questions: (1) Can users import templates import/move from Wikipedia (and thereby fully satisfy by-sa) or do they need our help? (2) If users can import/move, is a permalink acceptable in response to the {{No license}}, or are we going to demand that they import/move?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Users cannot import. They can request import at Wikiversity:Import. They can also satisfy WikiMedia interpretation of CC-BY-SA requirements by properly crediting (linking to) the source. The link would be sufficient, because it would allow an import later if we choose, and meets the requirements of a WikiMedia source if we don't. We could also create an Import template that could be used for this purpose. It could work like {{import|w:some title}}. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is also a {{Copied}} template that can be used, but that one goes on the Talk page rather than the resource page. The down side of providing attribution on the Talk page is that the attribution is lost when the content page is printed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

What would like me to do with all the templates at Special:NewPages? Let me make an uninformed suggestion: Warn the user not to do whatever they did again, and ask them to begin to reverse the damage by fixing the templates one at a time on a very slow schedule (they can pick the schedule as far as I am concerned). That way we are "working on the problem". I have no idea what to do if they don't respond.

I just noticed that User:JESAAS11 did something two days after I attempted to contact them. Should I block for 3 days?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think warning and asking them to begin fixing the problem is an excellent idea. I might even suggest that they need to begin fixing before any new content is added. If they comply, we're making progress. If not, it's probably necessary to block until they respond. If this is the same user, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, they will simply wait out a day-count block and then continue. That's why previous blocks ended up being indefinite. Indefinite is not infinite. It's just until the situation changes, usually as a result of effective communication. If that makes sense to you, let's try that before addressing the templates and other pages ourselves. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will do just did an indefinite block. The only extra box I checked was to watch their user and discussion page. I will next write a brief note on their user talk page. @Dave Braunschweig: please respond to let me know I did it correctly.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The block is correctly set so they need to respond in order to edit anything but their user page. It will also keep them from creating new accounts on that IP address. Hopefully, they will respond and engage in discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned that there seem to be no clear instructions telling the user to go to their talk page and edit it. The user page simply announces the block. Should I change that?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The instructions you have left on the user talk page seem clear enough. I suspect you aren't seeing any response because this isn't simply a user who doesn't understand the process. Quite the opposite, It is an organized effort to ignore, bypass, or disrupt rules across MediaWiki projects. See meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser#Hasfie.40en.wikiversity. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I thought you had started the page Wikiversity:User_access_levels and then abandoned it. This is what happened with the those Neoism people. Go ahead with your page. I will copy paste my ideas elsewhere.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just not enough time and too many other priorities. But I'm fine with the idea. We have a page for the policy and a page for the proposals. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The real reason I want to set up a different type of discussion is that I have a very complex proposal cooking that will require both support and action by the Wikimedia Foundation. It's not ready for prime-time, but a half-baked cartoon version of it is at user:Guy vandegrift/A. The one article I placed in <big>[[A]]</big> space should have been deleted, and that mistake might have influenced the decision of an expert in the field to become inactive on Wikiversity.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Does this require WMF action? Wikipedia now has an approval process for new topics, and Wikbooks has an approval process for content changes. The software already supports restricting edits by namespace using mw:Manual:$wgNamespaceProtection. Note that namespaces have a colon, so your example should be A:. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please clarify: Can "exile" a well-intentioned but disruptive user to A-space? Or can we protect all articles that are in A-space from certain users? Or can we do both? I will experiment right now--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Both, as far as I know. It's the same setting either way. Which namespaces a user group can edit and which ones can they cannot edit. It's not a setting we can manage, but should be configurable through a Phabricator request. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can create pages with A: or anything else you like. It won't cause problems unless that namespace is designated on the server. That, also, is a phabricator request, something the community would need to support. So, you can experiment with having pages start with A:, but it wouldn't be a namespace until there is consensus. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was going to archive the Volleyball discussion but I've noticed you've removed the content. It is not in archive 18. How do you archive this resource? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the question. You mention RCA, but Volleyball was never an RCA discussion. Volleyball was an RFD, and is still there, collapsed by Guy. Please feel free to archive it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Neither did I. Without realizing it, I was actually asking about the closed discussion on Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. I was going to archive this. Should we wait for one month first, or can I archive it? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd say archive it. Anyone who wants to can read it there. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good block. Keep up the good work. He poisoned so much and chased away so many people. He was encouraged by a group who wanted to destroy Wikipedia in general, and felt that destroying Wikiversity was a first step. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dave,

I am currently working on a course called MATLAB essentials. I have uploaded 3-4 screenshots so far to Commons, and I want to make sure that I am not violating any copyright laws. I noticed in MATLAB's Wikipedia page, there is one screenshot. Also, there are several screenshots in Commons for MATLAB, but I think they are different from what I have uploaded. Please take a look at the pictures in this page, and tell me if I am breaking any laws.

Thank you. --Gtouchan94 (discuss • contribs) 01:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The two images you got from Commons should be fine. The two images you added to Commons yourself are going to be a problem. MATLAB isn't your program, so you can't release pictures of it as your own work. Screenshots are considered copyrighted content of the person or organization that created the software, not the user who takes the screenshot. I suspect that someone will get around to deleting your images at Commons in the not-too-distant future.

What you can do instead, completely legal, is upload the same images here at Wikiversity, but upload them as Fair Use. You are creating a lesson on MATLAB, and this is fair use of the images to teach users about MATLAB. It does not diminish the value of the program. You should, however, consider using a slightly smaller resolution on the first image, perhaps matching the resolution of the second. You could do callout labels rather than labels in the windows to make this easier.. Reducing resolution is one way to keep Fair Use legal. It doesn't apply as much in this case, but is very important for something like a copy of a painting or picture.

If you do upload the images here, you might tag your own files at Commons for deletion, as they do not accept Fair Use files there. One other note, when referencing WikiMedia pages, use double brackets for internal links rather than single bracket HTML links. It helps with What links here references. Please ask any other questions as you have them. Thanks!

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have a confession. I am getting paid to vandalize wiki's projects by this man named Steve Lindberg. Steve Lindberg is mad at wikipedia for blocking his account and now he is paying me and many other 10 dollars per day to vandalize wiki's projects. I have been part f that since January, when he emailed me with the offer, but this isn;t right. I cannot continue doing these things, it has been selfish of me to do it. I think this group accounts for a good 50% of all wiki vandals. Illinoisboy18 (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sharing. To help you out, I'll block your account here so you won't have to vandalize Wikiversity as part of your efforts. You may respond on your user page if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Already blocked on Wikibooks for this confession, notified Wikivoyage about this already. It's safe to block this account imo Dave as an only-vandalism account. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Y Done -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a fascinating subject that specialists in the field have just started to wrap their collective minds around.

If you want to help me, I would like to present my theory of Atlantis and how it sank under the Ocean in the area of the Azores.

So what do you say, Dave? Want to take this one to the History Channel?

John Garner PhD... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYLEIGH22 (talk • contribs)

P.S., I don't mind this being here, in fact I love it. However, I may write a book or two about this and I don't have the time to read the agreement about creative license. So let us share, what do you say?

I may FINALLY have the money to make a significant contribution to wikipedia and wikiversity.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYLEIGH22 (talk • contribs)

I'd be happy to try to assist you if you have technical questions. I have no personal interest in this subject, and no time available beyond what I have already dedicated to my own learning projects.

I would encourage you to make time to read the license before contributing further. There's nothing in there that would prevent you from publishing your own materials, but there's also nothing that would prevent others from publishing them as well. You would need to share credit anyone who works on the project with you. That may be an important consideration. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I do not care who uses this work that I have done on Atlantis, just as long as I get some credit for starting this and clearing up the exploiters of the legend of Atlantis. If they want to make money, they can write a fiction book about it. RAYLEIGH22 (discuss • contribs)

This page is not the place to share views on resources. Please use the appropriate resource's talk page for that. If you need assistance using Wikiversity, please let me know. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Dave! I have a question
How do I get a powerpoint to be avaliable for people to read on Wikiversity that I made on my school computer (through PowerPoint)? Thanks! --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I recommend saving it as a .PDF and then upload that as a file. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dave!

I noticed you wrote "Add the ability to add users to the Curators group". Do we also want to phrase this as "add or remove" or do you think that is implied with "Add the ability to add users"? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Y Done -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, HIV swing effect should be deleted, this user is spamming nonsense content since years [20]. Akeron (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your interest in Wikiversity content. Original research, no matter how sensical (or not) it might be, is allowed here. But, in this case it is also tagged with a Fringe science label so that others understand it does not have wide acceptance. If you are an expert in this field, I would encourage you to contribute to the article. The main page can provide a neutral introduction, and we can have separate subpages for and against the subject. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have seen this user spamming nonsense to French Wikipedia for years, he also tried French Wikiversity [21], I just wanted to warn you, it doesn't seems possible to communicate with him, on French Wikipedia we are using automatic filtering to block him. Akeron (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I found the French history in trying to identify the correct name for the project. He did eventually communicate here, although it was a very slow process. Blocking his efforts on an encyclopedia makes sense. At en.wikiversity, (so far) the community has decided to accept these types of learning projects, as long as they contain some type of notice/caution to the reader. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is this wiki about? I might be able to contribute? --DonLandry2 (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikiversity! See Wikiversity:Mission. In a word, Wikiversity is about learning. When it works well, it is learning ourselves as we help others learn about something we want to share with them. If you'd like to contribute, find a page that interests you and then start editing to help others learn about that subject. If you want additional information on how to design effective lessons, etc., let me know. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

What if I wanted to start a page on a location example Boston, Massachusetts? How would I format it? --DonLandry2 (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia already has a page on Wikipedia:Boston. So does Wikivoyage:Boston. If you're going to create something here, it has to be more than just about Boston. It has to help users learn about Boston. I would recommend starting by reviewing the other two resources and deciding what you think is missing from those that would help users better learn about Boston. In terms of designing a learning experience, I recommend Contextual Learning as an approach. Provide readings and multimedia resources for background information, provide activities learners can complete to experience their own learning, and then provide some type of reflective activity to help them apply that learning. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I started a page on the Denver Broncos. I dont know if it will help? --DonLandry2 (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for starting American Football. --DonLandry2 (discuss • contribs) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can move your Denver Broncos page to a subpage of that project whenever you are ready. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dave - My physics 1050 collete course, "How things work" is a one semester 5 credit hour lower division course physics and technology. We are supposed to include computer technology, I presume because computers are so much more relevant than physics to most people. I cover the Wikipedia article on w:Computers and also include a How things work college course/Turing machine quiz . Have you written any self-contained units that last less than 2 or 3 weeks I can use? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not specifically with this approach in mind. I would encourage you to start with Computer Skills, and particularly the link at the bottom of the page. That outlines the skills people should have at the primary, intermediate, and secondary school levels. Then look at IC3. That outlines widely accepted college-level digital literacy skills. There's also IT Fundamentals, which specifically focuses on the technology aspects.

In terms of how technology works, some of the IT Fundamentals content is probably the closest to what we would already have prepared. If I had 3 weeks and 5 contact hours a week to do it, I would combine Hardware and Peripherals, combine Operating Systems, Virtualization and File Systems, and then combine Networking, Internetworking, and Security. That covers how computers work, how operating systems work, and how networking and security work. They are mostly at a practical level rather than an engineering level, but it wouldn't take much to add those types of activities to the existing lessons if you wanted to. Let me know how I can help. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I permalinked your response for my Wikiversity To Do list and will get to it before January 11 when the semester begins. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dave,

Not sure how to go about this but somehow the references on my Atlantis topic in Wikiversity has had the reference footnotes messed up. I noticed somebody added a reference to that poorly done History Channel documentary claiming that Satorini was Atlantis. The reference was added to the place where the statement was made that Aristotle said that Plato made up civiliazitions and then destroyed them to make political statements or something like that.

Is there a fast way to fix this? I tried today but it didn't work so I just started poating the web addresses in the textm but this is time-consuming and it looks sloppy.

So, basically I ended up leaving the thing the way I found it except for a few website posts in the text.

I could not find who did it. Maybe you can, but it would be better just to fix it by going back and restoring the text of Thursday or Friday. I have made no changes since my post on the weekend that added the "Rayleigh" wavefront research into the abnormalities of the caldera near to the MAR or mid atlantic rift. The science here is amazing. Talked breifly to Jake Lowenstern of the USGS and head researcher at Yellowstone 2 weeks or so ago via e-mail and he is of the opinion that I have to show a EFI 8 or better eruption of the Azores plateau volcano before I can claim it sank like the mountain range in Yellowstone did 650 thousand years ago during that last BIG eruption. Following is his quote from my e-mail.

The record of Holocene eruptions is pretty well determined. There is a VEI 7 known in Greece (Santorini). The largest Holocene eruption known in the Azores is a VEI 5, which would form a pretty small caldera and could hardly be responsible for a lost island. So unless you can cite studies of Holocene eruptions in the Azores that are potentially linked to this catastrophic event, I think you will have difficulty convincing anyone as to the veracity of your hypothesis. Few would consider the Azores to be a supervolcano. It is certainly active, and like Yellowstone, is located on a hotspot with a melting anomaly in the mantle. But the scale of eruptions there are smaller than those found at volcanoes dubbed "supervolcanoes" that have been shown to host eruptions of VEI 8. Sorry I cannot be of more assistance.

Jake Lowenstern

I am thinking hard about the geopulsation and rifting parallel to the MAR. It's still evolving, but I am sure Atlantis is in the Azores, under billions of tons of rock and water, completely destroyed and BURIED...

Thanks. John Garner

The History Channel reference was added 20 June 2013. See https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantis&diff=next&oldid=1040743 . I've cleaned up the references from a formatting standpoint. If you would prefer to go back in time instead, click on the View history link at the top of the page. Then click on the date and time you want to go back to. Then click on Edit source, and then save that edit. That will revert to that content as the saved content. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would like to create a new page called Wright State University Lake Campus and create a mock course with you and a few other active editors as mock students. The plan is for this page to hold one subpage for each course that is taught through our small campus with roughly 2,000 students. Judging from some of the discussion I have seen on Wiki_Ed, this might be a good idea. Also, you might be interested to know that so far, I see very little that this extension does that we cannot do by carefully with carefully designed course pages. IMHO, the main reason for getting Wiki_Ed extension onto Wikiversity is that the publicity will bring educators.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Two things to consider. 1) I would think there are two options for student contributions. One would be in their user space. The other would be a sub-page of the course. It depends on whether content is intended to be shared. 2) The VisualEditor may be a better option for table editing than using Excel for some users. Particularly if there is a starting page template they can borrow from. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

On item 1). One motive for using campus subpages is that we can reward quality efforts by moving them to a Wikiversity resource subpage. But there are other reasons for making the campus subpage the default: There is no one-to-one correspondence between Wikiversity resources and campus-courses. I teach a conceptual physics course that can intersect with with Astronomy, Physics, Computer science, and even History (the latter because non-experts are unable to master physics beyond Galileo, yet should know something about the modern physics revolution). Moreover, we need to think long-term and plan for a much larger Wikiversity in which multiple campuses use the same Wikiversity resource. The Wiki_Ed policy of separating the courses is a good one that we should emulate. 2): Thanks for your VisualEditor tip. It belongs in the "how-to" resource on course management. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

If I activate the visual editor on Wikiversity and Wikipedia, there is zero chance that a cookie or anything else will get into my operating system that cannot be reversed by de-activating visual editor through my Preferences bar at the top of this page. Right?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Separate issues. Cookies are local and can be managed by deleting the cookie. Wiki preferences are server-based and managed using Special:Preferences. There is no risk to turning on VisualEditor. When it is on, you get both Edit and Edit source links on any page that supports VisualEditor. While in VisualEditor, you can switch and Edit source. Eventually, you'll also be able to switch back. The only thing I've had problems with is editing a section and then switching. That edited the section only, and deleted everything else when I saved it. But for the average user, VisualEditor will be much easier and they aren't likely to run into issues. For those who know WikiText and are good at it, I find the VisualEditor only occasionally convenient, but it never gets in the way. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

While I have your attention, I should report that I am having second thoughts about the utility of w:Wikipedia:Wiki Ed on Wikiversity. It's a fine program that works especially well if a large number of medical students are writing advanced papers on Wikipedia. I change my mind a lot, but my current plan is have my 25 Astronomy students edit quizzes using Wikiversity as per Wright State University Lake Campus/Mock Course 1010. I plan to have only 4 students in another course write an article on w:Draft:Bell's theorem paradox using

w:Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Wright_State_University/Introduction_to_Astronomy_(Spring_2016)

I am tempted to not even bother the Wiki_Ed people with this change in how I plan to use that Wiki_Ed course extension. They seem to be very busy sorting out issues with students polluting Wikipedia space. Most of the time, the issue seems to be caused by the instructors failing to prepare the students to handle the Wikipedia cultural norms. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's unfortunate that they don't see Wikiversity as a solution to those issues. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Eventually we should get some form of the Wiki_Ed extension onto Wikiversity, but our first priority is convincing them that Wikiversity is not being run by wikt:dufuses.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is [[Wright State University Lake Campus/2015-9/Phy1060]] an acceptable name for an astronomy course? (FYA-Later changed to Wright State University Lake Campus/Phy1060-2016-1)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I avoided the word "astronomy" so that it would not show up in search engines (instead we might create a page called "Astronomy courses taught through Wikiversity". If all colleges used such names, instructors would have the option of putting student work as a subpage of the institutional page (i.e., Wright State University Lake Campus), or having students contribute to standard wikiversity resources. If the expected outcome is poor student writing, instructors should be encouraged to use the institutional subpages.

I chose to place the year/semester in front to better organize a given year through subpage lists.

I have recently spent a great deal of time talking to people on Wikipedia about w:Wipedia:Wiki Ed. Theey havetheir hands full managing the Wikipedia projects and dealing with irate Wikipedia editors. This is not a good to pester them with a request for a Wikiversity installment of the WikiEd extension. For that reason, I am pushing forward with what I started at the mock course--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Naming is up to you. If you want others interested in astronomy to be able to easily find the course, it might be Astronomy/Wright State University/Phy1060/2015-9. If you'd rather keep your university separate, then the title you have is fine. Having it on subpages, I don't know that quality is an issue either way. Both naming structures tell me that it is student work.

Yes, putting the semester in the path makes sense. The only question I would have is whether you want course/semester or semester/course. To answer this question, think about what happens when you personally have multiple courses here, and you convince colleagues from your college to do the same. Which way will make more sense to you and your students?

Regarding installation at Wikiversity, the incentive to them is that it eliminates the irate Wikipedia editors. Our mission is to handle this type of learning. Content could be completely developed here, with a copy of the Wikpedia article as a starting point, and then they could work with the Wikipedia editors when the revised content is finished. No intermediate irritations.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

File:Plogs_theory.jpg is credited to Plog 2001, which I found at http://tourismdomain.weebly.com/tourist-typologies.html

1. Are these images sufficiently different?
2. Is Plog 2001 sufficient attribution?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 06:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's probably better to focus on Fair Use than copyright in this instance. Tagging as Fair Use would allow the image to remain. The reference should be more specific, such as the one at the bottom of the link you found. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply