User talk:Guy vandegrift/Archive 8

On the formatEdit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Archived comments from the statement section at Wikiversity talk:User access levels

click to view what has been said on this topic

I am archiving this to my own talk page. I have collapsed most of my ideas on this section, but will keep them because I like this format. Having the two on the same page (Traditional and Statement oriented) is a good idea (but not my idea). The Traditional page removes the objections by Dave regarding the integrity of the decision making.

On the format of this page (10/6/2015)

[[User:Dave Braunschweig]], If you don't like the format of this page, it is welcome at Wikiversity:Discussions

I propose that we experiment with a different way to discuss this. I feel the usual wiki way of speaking and rebutting creates circular discussions that resemble two sided debates. I'm a writer, not a debater. Let's try putting our thoughts down, and then editing them in view of what others write. This paragraph will be deleted if there seems to be consensus on this. I propose that:

We place the topic in the lede that led to the creation of this page, namely a special access level for instructors.
Individuals who wish to discuss do so under their own heading (created with the wikitext ==Statement by ~~~).
While placing comments inside other people's space is permitted, it should not be done often. And the user is expected to delete.
All things being equal the statements are sorted in decreasing order of length. All such rearrangements require a consensus, and the expectation is that exceptions will be routine. Irrelevant short statements should go at the bottom, for example. And there is no reason to sort among statements of roughly the same length.

Aside on format of this page: I will delete or collapse the above section if a consensus appears that we should focus only on the "Teachers" role. I already collapsed the section that follows because I believe Dave pasted it here from the original page, which I interpret to be an endorsement of the format. (As you can see above, we can have both)

The advantage of collapsing instead of deleting is that someone else might want to revisit a topic. I do believe that it should be possible to edit our statements. Consider this anology: A democratic society has the press, where things are said and forgotten, and the government, where policy is made. A democracy needs both.

Is it ok to write under other peoples headers? The answer is obvious. The user may or may not address that question at the top of his or her space. We don't want rules on how we maintain our spaces.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Your block of User:JESAAS11 was flawed.Edit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

resolved

click to view what has been said on this topic

Actually, I thought you were considering a block based on licensing failure with respect to the unlicensed templates. The user has only been creating templates for their resources and editing their own resources since about 27 September (I haven't checked back further than this so far). I don't believe their behavior qualifies as disruptive editing. If you are willing to agree this is actually for failure to license templates, I will concur. The resources this user has been adding to are not Wikipedia copies at least per title although there may be text within that has been copied and may require citation. I've checked each using sisterprojectsearch. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you would, can you link to the policy, or guideline, of disruptive editing that you believe this user has violated with at least one example. This is following the procedure used by Dave when blocking Abd. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: there will be no hard feelings if you revert my block of User:JESAAS11. I just need to communicate with this person. Even though this individual did nothing wrong, my intent was to send a strong signal that we must comply with CC-by-SA. The instant he/she responds, he/she should be unblocked. This is my first block, and I discussed it with Dave. I think (but am not sure) that I was following his suggestion. Either way, don't hesitate to unblock. You and I are in no danger of getting into an edit war over this.

I moved your comment to my userspace because I was concerned about overloading the user with information. I will look over the options and see if I can change the reason for the block. I see no reason to ask this person to read a policy statement, he/she is a newbie and we should be guiding them on policy. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem for now! Let's see if it works, but maybe a short and specific statement like "This block is for licensing violations." I'm a bit nervous that stating "disruptive editing" could have unintended consequences. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of one matter that has been bothering me. Template:!! is used on Wiktionary without licensing to its source of Wikipedia Template:!!. There may be some sort of okay to copy templates created on one WMF project to another without licensing requirements. I have no idea how to check on this. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I won't argue that there isn't a lot of copied unattributed content. Perhaps we can start cleaning it up as we have time. However, I am concerned that JESSAAS11's efforts are both current and extensive in scope. We need to first ensure that the problem doesn't get worse before we can agree on how to make it better. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Could you step into this conversation. This is my first block and I don't know what I am doing. I value Marshallsumter's opinion highly and I think we both need your wisdom here. I know I do.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of the block is that you wanted the user to communicate with you, the user instead continued to edit the content in question, and you believed that communication was necessary before additional edits were made. Marshallsumter is concerned that JESAAS11, if acting alone, has not been adequately warned before the block occurred, and the block language may be offensive to this user.

There are two ways to consider the situation. If we believe that JESSAAS11 is a sock of the other Volleyball users, the block is appropriate, as the user has already been warned, and the edits continue to be disruptive. If we believe that JESSAAS11 is unrelated to these other accounts, the user would have no way of knowing their edits were inappropriate, and the block would be invalid.

A safer way to approach it might have been to warn first that any additional edits needed to first resolve licensing issues before new content was added. But if you were convinced that further edits to Wikiversity by this user were simply going to add to the disruption, you acted in good faith in your role as custodian.

There is additional information on this situation available at w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hasfie/Archive. I have requested a CheckUser of JESSAAS11 at meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser#Hasfie.40en.wikiversity. Hopefully, this will help us identify whether we are dealing with the same user or someone new.

Regarding procedural questions, we don't have a wv:blocking policy that would support failure to respond to a custodian as a reason to block. So, this falls under the "net negative effect" item with a quick consensus that persistent license violations with this high volume of editing are having a net negative effect on Wikiversity. I agree with Marshallsumter. Let's see if it works.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. I changed the block's reason to "Minor error in moving template needs immediate correction". Dave seems to support the block, but at the last minute said "I agree with Marshallsumter. Let's see if it works."

Let's see if what works? @Dave Braunschweig and Marshallsumter: Don't hesitate to unblock or ask me to unblock. I would unblock now, but I don't think any of you asked me to unblock. Of course I acted in good faith. It is my position that these sporting pages belong on Wikiversity.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Archiving RCA VolleyballEdit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

argh! Again?

click to view what has been said on this topic

I was going to move this latest discussion to the monthly archive or do you think we should wait until the month is past? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes please archive as soon as you wish. Thanks for doing it.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

DrawingEdit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

user:Pondnotwho's idea about energy flow and Malus' law

click to view what has been said on this topic

I feel I have a very good idea to show the diagram. A flow chart. It will show the flow of energy and I think it is exactly what we are looking for.(The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pondnotwho (talk • contribs) )

Can't wait to see it. About the missed class today. For the past 5 years my office was my lab, and I got in the habit of not looking at the clock if I knew exactly what to do in a class. Today my laptop was broken (fixed now) and had to use my desktop. Sorry.

If your flow chart is a good idea you should make a pencil sketch that I will convert to an svg file for you to upload on commons. I don't know the rules about uploading on commons. You might have to be something called an "autoconfirmed editor", meaning that you have made enough edits. Go to Bell's theorem and make some minor edits. Or put something on the Discuss page. Even if your edits are bad, I will modify them to make them good.---Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about protecting image files on Wikiversity that mirror unprotected Commons filesEdit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

includes discussion with Dave Braunschweig and Marshallsumter about protecting and quizzes on Wikiversity

click to view what has been said on this topic

@Dave Braunschweig and Marshallsumter: I endorse the practice of not protecting files without cause, and am asking this in case that my effort to create an open source bank of exam questions ever proves fruitful. At the moment, there is no need to protect.

But someday we might find Wikiversity hosting open source banks of exam questions for students and teachers. The teachers can protect by posting permalinks to the practice exam questions. Unfortunately, a dedicated saboteur could go in and edit the images. Perhaps someday we could put all such images in the Wikiversity file system and routinely protect them.

Would that be feasible? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

 — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] — continues after insertion below Test

P.S. If this is not feasible, we could probably convince Commons to create a small category of protected images that are on quizzes. We would make this request after the bank of exam questions is used extensively. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume the images would all be on your watch list. If an image is altered to compromise the exam, all could be protected with cause. I think you'll have better results protecting here than at Commons, but I haven't spent much time there myself. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I just verified that I could protect/unprotect an image file on Wikiversity. This solves the problem. I will not use this protection as long as I am the only one using these quizzes, a situation that will remain for the indefinite future.

@Dave Braunschweig: Quizbank is not protected under cascading protection. I thought that meant that subpages were protected, but I just protected Quizbank/Index through an IP edit. What is cascading protection?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I get part of it. According to w:Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items this has something to do with transcluded text. I don't think I need to learn about that yet. That means I have answered all my questions. Now all I need to do is get the quizzes to a high enough level that others will want to use them.

If Google can drive a car through Los Angelos, I see no reason why the bulk of college teaching cannot be done by computers. Having said that, I am convinced that the only reliable way to test is on-site exams that can be properly proctored. The old-fashioned paper-printed exams are here to stay, I think--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of companies now doing effective at-home proctoring for a reasonable fee. They use the computer's webcam, monitor the student and their desktop, etc. I agree on the necessity for proctoring. I disagree on the need for paper or to go to the proctor. Proctors can now come to the tester. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

All a computer proctored test-taker needs is a person standing behind the computer with a sign to show the answers. The test taker could be pretending to stare into space, not always looking in the same direction. I agree that paper tests could be replaced by properly locked computers at a testing site. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The proctors start by making you use a mirror or turn the computer around to show the whole room. Then they watch eye movement to verify test takers are looking at the screen, not past or around it. They can stop the exam and have test takers use a mirror again and show the room. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That would work.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

calcphys amEdit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Includes list of new users in my Phy24000 course

click to view what has been said on this topic

[[User:Guy vandegrift/sandbox/03|Phy 2400]] .... [[OpenStax_College/University Physics]]

Add your user name to this list (never disclose real identity is a good policy)

MATLAB essential.Edit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Quality matlab page by new user Gtouchan94

click to view what has been said on this topic

Hello Guy,

I have sent you an e-mail several days ago, but I have not heard back from you. If you did not get my e-mail please let me know and I will copy and paste it here.

--Gtouchan94 (discuss • contribs) 02:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay. I do know a bit of Russian, but not nearly enough to even think about translating a web page. When Russian friends post of facebook I need to use Google translate to help me understand what they wrote.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome TemplateEdit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

use {{subst:Welcome}} to make the ~~~~ sign the welcome

click to view what has been said on this topic
When using the {{Welcome}} template, use {{subst:Welcome}} to make the ~~~~ sign the welcome. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This wiki and a All sports wikiEdit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

DonLandry2

click to view what has been said on this topic
what can i do to help this wiki? and i would like to create an all sports wiki. --DonLandry2 (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC) I started Denver Broncos i dont know if it helps but its a start. --DonLandry2 (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity OrganizationEdit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Dave's idea about organizing schools and department as per Library of Congress Classification

click to view what has been said on this topic

I've been thinking about how to organize Wikiversity content. There are too many schools, and most of them haven't been updated for many years. This evening I came across Wikipedia: Library of Congress Classification. There are some issues with it taking a very American viewpoint on History, for example, but most of it seems to provide a logical way to organize content. Thoughts? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

My first reaction was to like the idea. Now I love it. Remember my A: space? I keep it just in case an a highly qualified newbie ever complains about a bad resource. But a much better plan is yours. A few ideas:

You probably already know that we should use slashes instead of colons so as to not confound interlinks (e.g., outreach:Main page)
Instead of using schools to organize resources, encourage users to create page-lists in their own userspace (Commons does this with image galleries). This way, everybody is the dean of their own school. How democratic is that?
I still don't know what to do with parallel efforts. I am not much of a fan of subpages for this purpose, unless the subpages are to be considered chapters of a single resource. I suggest individual titles.
There is another catalog system libraries use, but I have no idea which we would prefer.
We can start now, but do it gradually and tentatively by making the system voluntary: encourage users to create/move a few new resources under this system. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia: Dewey Decimal Classification first and didn't find it to be nearly as effective for what we do. I've always had a problem with us having more than 100 schools, but hadn't found the right way to slim it down. I think this provides an appropriate way to structure schools and departments. It's also a good way to nest / structure categories. I don't think I would move any content itself based on this. Learning projects seem to work well for that. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on two points and take "neutral" positions on three others.

Agreement:

All Universities that I know use the Library of Congress system. I haven't seen Dewey Decimal since the 1960s.
There is absolutely no point in placing the catalog in namespace. I very much like your LCC category idea, e.g., Category:QC for Physics, or even Category:QC 350 for optics.

Neutrality

I think our schools and departments are hopelessly unstructured. This is not our fault. Wikipedia and Commons are so badly organized that I almost always use Google (wiki in the name for Wikipedia and site:wikimedia.org on images). Wikipedia and Commons lack a critical mass of volunteers willing to organize. It might be possible to organize Wikiversity because it is smaller, but I hope (and expect) Wikiversity to someday grow. But my position is neutral because I would never oppose an attempt to reorganize.
If and when Wikiversity grows to the point where we need schools, I think it is important to have parallel schools, so I stand by my believe that anybody should be able to organize a school. The understanding that parallel efforts are acceptable are what separates Wikipedia from the two sisters Wikibooks and Wikiversity. Wikipedia attempts to merge parallel articles. Wikibooks and Wikiversity need to find ways (preferably different) to sustain parallel efforts. There is no need to argue this point because nobody is currently requesting a parallel school. But keep in mind that a school is nothing more than a collection of links. No brick, no motor, no software.
We don't want to catalog using messy namespace structures. Attaching the call numbers inside the document, e.g, with a template like {{callnumber|QC_409.342}} would also be a recipe for disaster. Instead, we would list table of links to the resources, next to the call numbers and any other information that might seem relevant. There is no need to do this in the near future, and we may never need to do this.

Why long term thinking is important today: We need the long term plan in mind to help others understand that Wikiversity is likely to grow into a large and useful parallel-resource platform. I sometimes get hints that Wikiversity has a poor reputation. This has not happened, but if pressed to explain myself, I would respond that I am not helping to build the Wikiversity that we see today, but a much larger Wikiversity that the future will bring. Moreover, I think it would be a bad idea for Wikipedia to evolve into such a parallel-resource platform because the risk of unintended consequences for an established encyclopedia are too great. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't even going that far in terms of using QC. Just using the LCC text descriptions would be an improvement in terms of consistency and a way to minimize some of the clutter. But we could implement the codes as redirects for those who know the code they want. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You will need to go one level beneath the subclasses QC, TK, ect. I noticed that TK was "Electrical engineering. Electronics. Nuclear engineering". At this point you hit numbers, and I have yet to find a listing of how those numbers work. I think all the categories should be named with words, and have category redirects using the letter/number system. The redirects can be added later. In the long run, I think it's worth the effort.

Here is the link I found for the numbers: https://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/classification/lcco/

More investigation indicates that we can, at best, use only a subset of these numbers. Perhaps it would be better to use a Wikiversity-created subsystem of our own-but keep it simple. I think unique call numbers are out of the question.

--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's worth the effort. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Message from sock to user in mock course regarding names of journals and logsEdit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Guy -- I think you should rename the two journals-call one a log and the other a journal.--Guy vandegriftSock3 (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)