Welcome!

Hello Marshallsumter, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 04:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Most Active Wikiversity User for January 2013Edit

  The Learning Cycle Barnstar
Most Active Wikiversity User for January 2013

Marshallsumter, I was reviewing the list of active users for this past month and noticed you had by far the most edits in January. Keep up the good work! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!Edit

  The astronomy barnstar
Thank you for the massive edits on astronomy! Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 18:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help with Research in programming Wikidata! -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (discusscontribs) 05:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

See alsoEdit

Use of PDFs in WikiversityEdit

@Marshallsumter: What do you recommend for people who want to include a PDF in a Wikiversity article?

I ask, because at my request, an attorney, User:Henry M. Stoever, created an account and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons two PDFs, which he wrote and submitted as part of a legal preceeding.

However, those PDFs were deleted from Wikimedia Commons for reasons that are not at all clear. A couple of days ago, I found the deletion notices with comments referring to some jpg file whose copyright status was being challenged. I found that one of the files had been deleted by User:Arthur Crbz, so I asked about that on Commons:User talk:Arthur Crbz/files by Henry M. Stoever deleted. I was then asked to "Please post the undeletion request on this page : COM:UDR. Don't forget to mention the name of the affected files." I did that. After I pointed out that the justification did not match the documents that were deleted, the justification was deleted, but the files were not restored. User:Jameslwoodward then acknowledged there was no copyright problem, but opposed the undeletion on the grounds that Commons has very few PDFs. User:Gone Postal then supported restoring the files, noting that Commons has "many media which have gathered zero media coverage, and that is never an appropriate reason to delete something."

I used those PDFs in Fifteen anti-nuke protestors tried for 2019 trespass on the Kansas City Plant. I created that article based in part on the history of our interactions, believing that you would likely consider this to be a reasonable use of Wikiversity.

If you feel that this kind of material should be allowed on Wikimedia Commons, I'd be pleased if you would so state on "Commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests/Undelete two files posted by their author". Otherwise, I'd be pleased if you'd tell me what you think would be appropriate in this case. (That Wikiversity article on "Fifteen anti-nuke protestors tried for 2019 trespass on the Kansas City Plant" is an approximate partial transcript of that trial in the Municipal Court of Kansas City, Missouri. Since that court is not a court of record, it seemed sensible to me to create this approximate partial transcript, as I did. The case has some modest international significance, as two of the 17 people arrested were Europeans, who did not return for the trial and will have to face prosecution should they ever decide to return to the US. In addition, of course, this documents an act of civil disobedience relating to other material I've published on Wikiversity.)

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 23:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As I recall the pdf was released as Public Domain or CC comparable so Commons may delete it if they do not consider it within their scope. Here it can be uploaded as Public Domain or CC comparable as long as it's in use say as a reference for your essay and is so cited. Unused files are usually deleted after some time. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC).
@Marshallsumter: How do I upload them here?
The two PDFs are cited in Fifteen anti-nuke protestors tried for 2019 trespass on the Kansas City Plant. When I click on the first link, which worked until someone deleted it, I now get "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.ed/e/ed/City_v._17_Defendants%2C_Trial_Brief%2C_4th%2C_Ct._F%2C_trial_Nov._1%2C_2019.pdf".
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 09:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The Upload file link in the left column should work fine! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 15:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 22:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Notes" behavior changed in "Nuclear weapons and effective defense"Edit

@Marshallsumter: The "Notes" heading is not displaying in the article on "Nuclear weapons and effective defense", and the items are not numbered.

What can you tell me about this? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 22:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If you remove "<:!-- McNamara and Blight (2003) Wilson's ghost"}}" the Notes reappear! This "<:!-- without the colon is the beginning of a comment but it doesn't end correctly. }} isn't right. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.
What should I have done to have found that myself?
Obviously, I should have looked more carefully at the results after I added "<:!-- McNamara and Blight (2003) Wilson's ghost"}}".
However, if I didn't catch the error when I made it, I could have first looked at another Wikiversity article to see if that had the same problem. Eventually, I noticed that this problem did NOT appear in another Wikiversity article. Now I know to search for "<:!--" to find one without a matching close.
Anything else? Thanks again, (The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidMCEddy (talkcontribs) 15:08, 22 January 2020‎‎)

Partial BlockEdit

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia:News and all main space pages for continued violation of community consensus regarding Draft: resources. See [1] for the most recent evidence and reason for the block. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The resources included in Wikiversity:News are ready for learners. What I would like to do is move them from Draft:Original research/Fringe sciences to Original research/Fringe sciences, Draft:Original research/History to Original research/History, and Draft:North Sea continental shelves to Original research/North Sea continental shelves.
The resource Geochemistry to produce Widgiemoolthalite is an original research effort to determine the geochemistry behind the conversion of nickel sulfide to Widgiemoolthalite and can be moved to Original research/Geochemistry to produce Widgiemoolthalite. It is not a lecture. I can include a series of hypotheses that will be tested. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The community review is still open. See, in particular, the last paragraph. Regarding moving draft resources to main space, see Wikiversity:Drafts. You cannot move these resources to main space yourself, and at this point, any moves would be counter-productive, as you would no longer be able to edit them. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Enough is enough. You have gone too far in moving resources. This needs to stop. Your continuing justifications are too much. I highly support this block to prevent you from continuing to defy community norms. --mikeu talk 04:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with mikeu and Dave Braunschweig. Constantly re-litigating resolved issues wastes too much time. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Just FYI litigating or "re-litigating" is only done in a court of law. That is not what is going on here! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

sitewide blockEdit

Per Wikiversity:Community Review/Marshallsumter you have been blocked from editing sitewide for the next 3 months. When this expires the indef partial block on mainspace resources and Wikiversity:News will continue indefinitely. I would suggest (and urge) that you to take this time to reflect on your behaviour and the severe negative impact that it has had on the Wikiversity community. Your evasive responses and failure to take responsibility for your actions was a large part in my decision on this closure. Any further trangressions after the expiration will result in sitewide blocks of equal or longer duration. --mikeu talk 02:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern expressed in: "This is a difficult call to make as there is such a wide range of opinions on what response is appropriate. It is clear that neither extreme of suggested sanctions has community support. The question is how to split the difference. The current block on mainspace and Wikiversity:News has been in place for some time. I'm going to make the call based on the input above that this is insufficient. A full block on editing Wikiversity for 3 months is needed to send the message that this behaviour was inappropriate and damaging to our community." May I ask you to be exactly specific as to what "behaviour was inappropriate and damaging to our community." that this current block, or if it helps, what the previous block, is for? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you serious? Are you so clueless that you can't honestly see the severe damage that your actions have caused? You've enabled and encouraged someone who has viciously harassed a valuable contributor here. This will not be tolerated and I will not waste our community's time expalaining blatently obvious outcomes to someone who refuses to recognize the errors and adverse results that we've had to deal with. Please explain to us why we should continue to tolerate your flagrant abuse of our community norms. --mikeu talk 03:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response! The individual you describe was charged in 2011 and 2016 with Electronic Harassment (EH) and acquitted of both! I believe the individual you're referring to ("a valuable contributor here") is user:Vermont. While I haven't seen the Court records, I believe the reason the individual who electronically attacked Vermont was acquitted of EH is because the Court was made aware that most if not all cell phone users and computer users have spam filters, which are a consistent and an effective counter to unwanted electronic messaging. If Vermont or their family suffered emotional damage they are free to sue the perpetrator; however, if I'm right as to why the perpetrator was acquitted the result may be the same in such a suit. User:Vermont may not have been aware of the possibility of using a spam filter, but the burden of proof of suffering emotional harm begs a question none of us are qualified to answer. As to "You've enabled and encouraged someone who has viciously harassed a valuable contributor here.", that individual was apparently EHing before and after my intervention demonstrating that their boxing facts were correct. In short, no change in behavior except for the brief period of about six months after I entered the supporting boxing facts, where they stopped EHing. So, I neither "enabled" nor "encouraged", but ironically stopped the perpetrator's behavior for about six months. Subsequent harassments here and elsewhere, as before have been dealt with by using "only Auto-confirmed users may edit." The easiest way to prevent any efforts on my part to help any user here who enters statements that prove factual is to have someone trustworthy here to consult with first; for example, user:Jtneil, which I'm happy to do, in case there's more to the user than was available. As I've stated, I have to follow USA law! If you have what you believe is a "community norm" and it may violate USA law, then it may be your "community norm" that needs to be re-examined. It also appears to be the case that you may be violating a fundamental USA legal principle of double jeopardy. From your statements above it appears you are blocking me twice for the same apparent "offense"; that is, the matter of the EHer. I thought the first block was for something else. You may be thinking about two different "community norms". The effort to block regarding the EHer was effectively opposed so no consensus exists now for such a block. Can you be specific regarding what the first block "community norm" was for? Please try to understand that "double jeopardy" is a serious federal offense and is not a "community norm". As you've used the word "behaviour" which is the UK spelling, I'm guessing you are probably from England where I don't believe they have a "double jeopardy" principle, but we have it here! As I've made clear to you before this is not wikilawyering but required informing! If you need time to cool off please take that time before responding! I hope this helps! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Your response is so confused, out of touch with reality, and ridiculous that it makes no sense to even try respond to it. Wikiversity is not a court of law so double jepeordy has no releveance. My personal opinion is likewise irrelevant. You have been blocked for behaviour that is inappropriate. Deal with it. Let it sink in. Take this seriously. Your block has been extended to one year to give you time to comprehend the damage that your actions have caused to our community. My statement that you should take responsibility for you actions is not a suggestion. It is a requirement. --mikeu talk 04:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I have and always do take full responsibility for my actions! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

SemioticsEdit

Hi, would you like help with the Semiotics article?

--Perkwus (discusscontribs) 03:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)