User talk:Mu301/Archive All

Active discussions

Welcome to Wikiversity!

Hi Mu301,

Your proposed area sounds very interesting - in my eyes there could be a parallel between your project and Bloom clock project, which is about collecting data on flowers' blooming times - perhaps you could develop an ongoing database of coordinates and planetary movements? Also, you should take a look at the as yet meagre Category:Astronomy, and develop what's there or try to interlink projects/materials a little better. All the best with that! If you've any questions - about anything - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers! Cormaggio talk 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay, an astronomer! Welcome!--Rayc 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!--mikeu 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Learning to learn a wiki way

Learning to learn a wiki way Hi Mu301,

Coming from a empirical background in biological chemistry I had thought that Wikiversity wasn't suited to an empirical approach to learning. However your interest in Observational astronomy has shown how wrong I was. With access to empirical data from astronomical observations (or other published sources of empirical data) why shouldn't Wikiverstiy be a site of study for such observations. I'm very interested in how you will develop this area of learning. I think that there will be considerable cross over between the methodologies of your project and that of the learning to learn a wiki way project. This project is hoping to discover how to make the most of using a wiki as a tool for learning. Maybe you could add your thoughts and answers to the questions at the talk page at Talk:Learning to learn a wiki way. Mystictim 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll see how this activity develops as people start to use it and provide feedback. For now I'll provide some lessons on learning the basics of astronomy by browsing the sky images. Then I'll show how to analyze an image to collect scientific data. The student will learn by using the same tools and going through the same process that astronomers do. The activities could involve things like measuring the position of an asteroid as it moves against the background stars, or measuring the change in brightness of a variable star. Eventually, I could upload raw images that I've taken at the telescope and students could help process the data, and the results could then be uploaded to a database that astronomers use to pool and share observations. For instance the Minor Planet Center for asteroid observations or AAVSO for variable stars. I'll post some thought to the wiki learning page once I've had a chance to look around and get oriented.--mikeu 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mu301 and thanks for adding your learning blog to the Learning to learn a wiki way project. Have a look here at the beginning of a group reflective blog to see an alternative method of including your reflective posts in more than one place. Mystictim 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Astronomy

The crux of the matter:

  • the school of astronomy was merged with the school of physics.
  • Topic:astronomy is redirected to School:astronomy (historical reasons, I think)
  • Department is just a funny name for Topic:. It may as well be centre or division.

To me, School: and Topic: are different only psychologically. The point is to have a limited number of Schools and an unlimited number of topics. A topic may be a topic in the usual sense or an academic subdivision in a school, with whatever name you choose. --Hillgentleman|Talk 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

school and topic pages

I'm not sure if you ever saw Wikiversity:Namespaces. In my opinion, Wikiversity should make use of "School:" and "Topic:" pages as content development projects (called Wikiprojects at Wikipedia). This is a distinct function from that served by "Portal:" pages. Portals are user-friendly pages that guide browsers to Wikiversity content. "School:" and "Topic:" pages are for collaboration by editors who want to help plan, develop and organize educational resources. Schools are just broader subject areas while "topics" are more narrow subject areas. I am not aware that a good reason was ever given for getting rid of the School of Astronomy. The "long list of links to topic pages" was not a list of courses, it was a list of topics, each of which can be a content development project. It made sense to have that list at School:Astronomy. --JWSchmidt 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Blog

Hi Mike, I really like the fact that you're keeping a reflective blog. I saw that you had added a note about searching Wikiversity content and your frustrations with this (this then led me to work on Wikiversity:Searching, which still needs work.) But then I noticed you took it away - did you figure something out, or did you feel it wasn't relevant anymore? And just a query about etiquette - would you prefer me to add blog-related comments to the blog's talk page, or would you prefer me to add them here on your own talk page? Cheers.. Cormaggio talk 17:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

hi, and thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how to get myself organized and where to put my thoughts. I moved that chunk of text to Topic talk:Astronomy where I had posted some other notes about things that I found confusing regarding the astronomy pages. Then I asked for comments on those questions at Wikiversity:Colloquium. I figured the search problem would get more notice in the new location. As for adding comments, my original intent was that comments would go directly into User:Mu301/Learning blog and the page would be a collaborative authoring effort to explore ideas. But, for that I probably should not have named the page a "blog" and also not created the page in my own User: namespace... This note is starting to turn into a learning blog entry, so I'll finish my thoughts there. But, to (finally!) get around to answering your question: for now, post comments anywhere that seems convenient. I watch all these pages and will notice anything new.--mikeu 18:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

File formats for uploading

I saw your note about wanting to upload raw images that are in the w:FITS file format. Currently, the file formats accepted by Wikiversity are very limited. Robert Elliott 05:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Email me off line for more details. Click Here

Wikimedia Commons vs Wikiversity

I just answered your question about editing image desciptions. See Wikiversity:Request custodian action. Let me know if this is not clear or if I do not understand the problem correctly. Robert Elliott 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Stellarium

I've been playing around with this Stellarium program. Seems fun and intuitive. Have you figured out if screenshots are ok to upload here or should I do it on commons? --Rayc 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I went to upload on commons and found that someone had uploaded already, not only the same planet , but the same name as well, . Click the magnifying glass, type Saturn, and hit go and you've got Saturn. One more thing... do you work at w:Ladd Observatory? It would be nice if you got a picture of the observatory itself for the wikipedia page--Rayc 05:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure about screenshots. The screenshot "license" template says "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots..." Well, I see people here teaching Photoshop or sound editing and they are using more than a limited number of images, some of which are more than 1000pix in size. Same on wikipedia. It seems to be a grey area. Take a look at w:Equatorial coordinate system which is a cut and paste from the w:KStars program (which is similar to Stellarium.) The software is GPL, so any documentation is free to incorporate here and that would include the use of screenshots. Yes, I work at Ladd. I'll look around and see if I have any images that can be uploaded GFDL.--mikeu 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I seem to recall seeing something that commons has more restrictive rules on uploads. Something about the screenshot "fair use" license not being good enough. For instance, you will not find screenshots of Microsoft products in the Microsoft category or anywhere else on commons. But you will find lots at wikipedia.--mikeu 16:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for noticing this. --JWSchmidt 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncat

Hi Mike, how come you removed the category from this image (diff)? Cormaggio talk 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for the reply. I think that images from Commons should be categorised locally, since the import only takes the description, and leaves any categorisation out. People are going to be searching for all kinds of material on Wikiversity - from an entire course to a single diagram - so anything to facilitate the finding of specific resources (and categories are one such system) is a good thing, IMO. Obviously, one dream is for people to be able to search for specific resources across the entire wikimedia family, so they can aggregate different types of materials to suit their needs - I'm not sure if such a system exists, but I doubt it. Cormaggio talk 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for cleaning up that spate of vandalism today, Mike. El Hermanito is blocked now. Cormaggio talk 12:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Learning in Wikiversity

Hi Mike! I'm very encouraged by your comment, and in a read of your recent posts to your blog, I think it is possibly a good time for all of us to do some reflection on how well we're supporting the building of learning communities, and the challenges inherent in this. I definitely think the creation of content is something that anyone can just 'blaze ahead' with, without necessarily relying on someone else to participate. But, as you say, perhaps the "build it and they will come" is naive with respect to building learning communities. (In fact, I very much think this is borne out in the educational literature.) I personally feel I haven't been doing enough work here on Wikiversity (particularly in the last few months), but would love to get stuck into this discussion. In fact, I think I've always seen this question as central to my research, which I am going to be reviving into actual action soon :-) - and so I think this question, and the reflection you've started could really get us as a community to start thinking about what has worked, what might work better, and what we need to work on in order to make it work better. However, I don't think I'll be very active again here until after Christmas, but I'll certainly be keeping tabs on progress, and hoping to chip in occasionally. Thanks again. Cormaggio talk 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just another comment which I've been meaning to make to you for a while. One guy who really gets the kind of thing we're doing here in Wikiversity is John Seely Brown - he has a book chapter, which I think everyone should read, but which has some really good stuff on astronomy as a "pro-amateur" activity - this is on pages 41-45 (if you can't get around to reading the whole thing). Let me know what you make of it. :-) Cormaggio talk 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I presume your audience will be captivated by your presentation rather than being captive in a classroom. :-) And I just now responded to your comment on the Colloquium - sorry for my limp response on IRC yesterday... Cormaggio talk 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

nytimes

"Have you seen Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock?"

Sorry, no....I've registered many times at the nytimes website and none of my registrations ever seem to remain valid. Can you email me a copy? --JWSchmidt 16:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for info!

Mikeu, thanks for the message and links. I am aware of the USGS PDS system and a few other online data services for U.S.G. data. We will be using them. I will check out the specific links you provide as I have never encountered resource maps from Lunar Prospector. I put some links around Lunar Boom Town to your observational astronomy modules in case someone shows up with a CCD or camera based telescope system and wants to publish some data for us. I suspected the resolution might be a bit low for anything short of major metro planning purposes. Maybe some logistics planning. Thanks again! Mirwin 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

cc'd from [Digital media workshop] mikeu - I am interested in using some of your astronomical images as previously discussed in games and in venture planning exercises at Lunar Boom Town. I am thinking about an exercise in the teleoperated theme park rovers of starting with your photograph of Copernicus as top level planning tool then pulling more detailed closeups from the U.S.G.S. online Planetary Data System. Maybe mining assessments as well. Thanks for providing useful pictures of pieces of the universe for our use! cc mikeu talk page. Mirwin 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
mikeu, thanks for format information. In past I have used Adobe Photoshop and Priemerre, played just a bit with GIMP. A year ago I was looking at a USG NIH (National Institute of Health) open source impage processing package written in Java w:ImageJ. It may be useful integrating some features of some of our game components. Eventually I may investigate to see if there are data formats or translation routes to ImageJ from your astonomy package, very possible as it is a package written and used by practicing scientists. For now the images you and JWSurf are posting and processing are outstanding for our starting participants and processes at Lunar Boom Town I am not familar with the other data processing packages you mention. For now my focus is on open source for two reasons ... one I am personally short on disposable income ... two I wish Lunar Boom Town to be freely and maximally accessible to anyone who can gain access to internet regardless of their personal economic status. Obviously other particpants may choose to investigate more expensive options, in which case I will attempt to point them to this option to investigate. 8) Thanks again for the free astronomical data! Mirwin 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a particularly nice shot ... http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Image:Moonl.jpg The rays are clearly visible for many of the craters including Copernicus. Very instructive! Mirwin 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dropped your Wikiversity handle on mentoring candidate

Hi, Mikeu. Subsequent to your message at Colloquium I followed the link to the Wikiproject out of natural curiouslty. I spotted a message from w:user:HappyCamper stating he enjoyed following newly arrived academics around and mentoring them. Naturally I promptly issued an engraged invitation for him to help out at Wikiversity with appropriate links .... one of which was mikeu. If you feel this is inappropriate please delete the link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HappyCamper#Mentoring_Opportunity or let me know and I will remove it. Thanks for putting some time in improving our arriving academics orientation materials and efforts. Mirwin 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mikeu, I noticed HappyCamper at Wikipedia Wikiproject School outreach ... there seem to be several pages related to this ... and then I invited him to come check us out. I have not seen him at Wikiversity yet but the day is young! 8) Mirwin 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh well. He has not been editing for over a month! 8) At least I let him know that you are trying to get some action on the School Outreach or Academic Orientation or whatever exactly it is page. lol I invitation campaign has paid off. Once other user invited to allow his class to edit here until ready to transfer draft stubs and articles to Wikipedia dropped me a note to say potentially good idea and setup an account. We progress by little increments foward! 8)

Speedy

My pleasure :-) Sometimes it just happens that a custodian is around! --HappyCamper 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

featured content

 
Astronomy award

I just wanted to make sure that you know that Observational astronomy is featured content at Portal:Physical Sciences. Please make sure that the description there is coherent. --JWSchmidt 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You could be more helpful if...

...you were a Custodian :). I'd be happy to serve as your mentor if you like: seems you're doing a lot of RC patrolling these days, and the tools really do come in handy from time to time. --SB_Johnny | talk 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --McCormack 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletions and clean-up

I think it's great you are looking at all these weird pages and marking them for deletion. As part of the deletion process, we need to check what links to these pages and tidy up the links. The links need tidying first, because once the page is deleted, you can't use the "what links here" feature any more. I'm happy to help you with this if you like, but I'm waiting for you to get probationary status - I don't want to take away your chance of practising with those tools! --McCormack 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Custodianship

I've promoted you to probationary custodian. Good luck with tools. sebmol ? 12:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New Courses?

I wanted to know where I could get information on designing a course on wikiversity, I am a consumer-student-activist who is working on my doctoral thesis in clinical psychology; my rather radical endeavor is to create an alternative behavior-social science called Recovery Psychology; the syllabus for the course that I want to place on wikiversity would be: although mostly just links to other sites and internet resources that I would say constitute a textbook or course materials with explanations of how it relates to the subject at hand...for example an outline like this:

  • What is mental illness? [Sociological]
  1. What is social deviance?
  2. http://www.geocities.com/tdeddins/deviance.htm
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviant_behavior
  4. http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/intrdev.html
  5. What is conformity?
    1. Stanley Milgram Obedience to Authority about how easy the human mind bends to the will of perceived authority
    2. Solomon Asch about how people conform to group pressure and change their perceptions and behaviors
    3. Philip Zimbardo The Stanford Prison about how people fall in to assigned roles
    4. Jane Elliot: In the Eye of the Storm or A Class Divided about how people are quick to change their perception of others
    5. See Rosenhan below for a psychosocial lesson on the nature of psychiatric conditions
    6. Learned Helplessness
  • What is mental illness [Psychological]
  1. http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=160
  • Etc, Etc, Etc...

Would that be allowed? Since the subject does not exist as a subject, although my arguementum would say it does exist as a thing with in itself although not yet releized by academics. Of course I would place a disclaimer statement that this an academic pursuit of an activist, but pretty much all the things I point at will be "considered to be authorities" I understand that your subject in astronomy not psychology, but no less you are a qualified academic for advisement (particularly here) --Recovery Psychology 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) I had some of my work tagged as spam by a bot, do you think I should delete it?--Recovery Psychology 00:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Machine sound

File:Punchcardsound2.oggI am having better results in the Wikimedia media player with this new file: Image:Punchcardsound2.ogg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWS (talkcontribs) 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Venus and Mercury

If you are the one who created the pages Venus and Mercury, I added a ton more information to the pages. --km 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Meteorology

hi i am an very keen on meteorology and weather forecasting...i have no proffessional degree nor professional knowledge about it; so i am just going to follow lessons...but i have a little bit experience about forecasting using models like gfs... i can share the web sites and some basic details of wether models.

thanks for the current lessons and waiting for other lessons(including forecasting meteorology)...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by dark (talkcontribs) 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Image licensing

Hi, Mike. I saw you removed the public domain licence info on an image as a copyright violation. But now we're left with an image which has no licensing at all. So I'm wondering what the next step is ;-) (Delete; contact uploader, etc...) --McCormack 07:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Aah - your secret weapon is the User:Mu301/todo page! I felt you were up to something that had a system to it somehow, but from the edits I could see, it looked like the "unlicenced images" were just going to vanish into wiki-oblivion. Great stuff, Mike, and thank you for your excellent efforts to make WV a better place. --McCormack 07:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Observational astronomy lessons

I can't do it… I don't have the digital camera and a telescope. --km 01:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Liquid water on Europa

I could do it if I have the chance… --km 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Test edit

User:Daanschr says he can't post to your page. This is a test edit to see if I can. --McCormack 12:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons images

Hi Mike. The images from your to-do list that are already on commons should just be deleted... you should probably also resize on the page any that were uploaded for that reason (I'm still trying to find a help file on image sizing, but may end up just having to import one). I'll pick off a few if you don't have time. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here it is: Help:Media Files. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox Server

Hi mikeu,

The sandbox server now has shell accounts. I'll setup a subdomain for you -- would mu301.sandboxserver.org do? Drop me a line at draicone at gmail dot com with some basic details of what you intend to do on the server, technical-wise (e.g. setup some PHP scripts, build a bot to upload captured images via SCP etc.).

Also let me know what password you want and what username you were hoping for. Finally, put a unique subject line in and some way for me to identify that it's you; a blank edit to your user page with that subject line will do, I just don't want to start randomly handing out shell accounts.

You'll get your own subdomain running Apache loaded with PHP, Perl and (I think) Ruby, maybe even Python (don't ask me, I don't run the server, I just stand there, look pretty and pay the bills). If you'd like to build a Jabber bot, I can hook you up with an account on the jabber server as well. I haven't really gone through your project much, but if you have any special technical requirements let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Draicone (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Europa

I edited the liquid water on Europa page. Thanks for the advise ☺. --km 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to computers

I finally got your notes [1], sorry it took me so long to notice. I am teaching a class, and I am trying to get them to check and document the copyright state of materials. I will pint them towards Commons. Andrew 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Astrophysics

Sorry, I've been caught up with offline work that I had forgotten to check these pages. I'm hoping to check back periodically. I agree with you about not separating Astronomy into both a School and a Topic. I belive it should be under the School of Physics (joint school). However, I still maintain that Astronomy and Astrophysics should probably be in the same topic page.

I agree that many people may be interested in Astronomy but I'm not sure if wikiversity is supposed to have the scope to cater for high school level and university level. Although, given that astronomy isn't taught at any high school (that I know of), I can see good reason for starting with very basic lessons.

Too many sub-topics on the current Astronomy topic page are 1) redundant and 2) heavily physics based. Could we just merge Astronomy with Astrophysics, kill the redundant place markers (courses/topics) and include a set of pre-university topics/lessons? Well, I know we could but I'm wondering if you or anyone else would agree with that line of logic. :-) Augustus 00:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Living on Earth

Hi! Can you please drop me a note, when the story about Ladd Obs. will be made and available online? I want to hear it, but as I know myself, I forget to check for it at radio's website. :) Thx! --Gbaor 06:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedian Demographics update

Hello Mu301. I'm writing because you requested a reminder about progress on Wikimedian Demographics. For the time being these will be about once per month.

Speaking of reminders, it turns out the template question isn't the most efficient way of coming up with a mailing list. If you want to recieve this message on another of your talk pages (or don't want them at all), please edit the list on Wikimedian Demographics/Reminders.

To update on progress so far, there have been somewhere around 50 respondents over the past month, with more trickling in slowly but steadily. There are 7 major surveys (or 12, depending on how you count them):

  1. The basic survey (about your participation in Wikimedia)
  2. The "geography" surveys (actually 6 of those, for each inhabited continent)
  3. The Operating System survey (still stubby)
  4. The Wikipedia survey
  5. The Commons survey
  6. The US presidential elections survey
  7. The sexuality and relationships survey

Only the geography surveys have had any major modifications since being originally posted (more countries were added to those).

Several new surveys have been discussed at Talk:Wikimedian Demographics, as well as other places within Wikiversity. A few that might be ready sometime in February include:

  • A survey about Women in Wikimedia
  • A survey about Wikibooks
  • A survey about Wikiversity
  • A survey about administrative issues (including cross-wiki topics such as CheckUser and "global blocking")
  • A survey about environmental issues
  • A survey about religion
  • A survey about international trade

If you have ideas for more surveys, please share them on Talk:Wikimedian Demographics. Thanks for your participation thus far, and we hope to see you soon! --SB_Johnny | talk 11:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

us currency

I don't know why, but I felt like adding pages about the currency of the United States of America. Take a look @ it.

Since I am a seventh grader, I go to school five times a week and another school on Saturday's so I have a lot of homework everyday. I don't have time for anything unless I don't have the homework. So that means I wouldn't be able to be doing the experiments on the Observational astronomy page. All I can do for now is to read the page.

-km 12:10, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Mu301 (full custodian)|custodianship

custodianshipThe 5 days period is over now. Did one of the b'cats contact you already about making you full custodian ? ----Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Bloom Clock!

Bloom Clock Hello, Mu301, and thanks for signing up as a contributor to the Bloom Clock!

To get started, all that you need to do is keep your eyes open for flowers on plants growing outdoors. Then, depending on how well you know plants, you can either try to find the plant using the global keys, or just check the master list where plants are listed by their scientific names.

Assuming you find a log page for the plant you saw, all that you need to do is click [edit] above the list of signatures, and add *~~~~ on a new line below the last signature and above the line that begins with <noinclude>, which will make your signature appear on the profile page.

If you don't find a log page, just add an entry for the plant to the Master List using {{bcp|Scientific name|Common Name}}. Someone can then show you how to create a profile and log page for the plant.

If you don't know the name of the plant you saw, try asking on Bloom Clock/Unknown Plants using the template there. Photographs are very helpful, but if you don't have a digital camera, just give the best description you can and hopefully someone can identify it for you.

After you've logged 10 or more plants as flowering for your location, another bloom clock contributor will help you set up the categories and templates used to construct a key for your region, and try to match up your region to the global keys.

If you have any questions, ideas, or need something explained, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can!

(Apologies for the long-belated welcome message... finally got around to writing one!) --SB_Johnny | talk 09:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Teaching with Technology

Thanks very much for these links, Mike! I had a very quick look (more deadlines to catch up with) at some of the work of Mark Tribe - some very interesting stuff there. I'd like to talk with him - perhaps a group voice chat session might be in order? Also, I taught a session a few weeks ago on wikis in education, in which I wanted to give an up-close look at Wikipedia, the result of which is at Inside Wikipedia (my slides are on LeMill for the moment). There are some readings in that page that might be relevant to your upcoming sessions - including a nice article on using Wikipedia to develop students' media literacies. In fact, this is something we could easily develop a pretty good course on... Cormaggio talk 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

I've removed the deletion tag, however though is there a chance if you could tell me what I need to improve the content, or change. Terra Welcome to my talkpage 07:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on being successfully elected "bureaucrat". --McCormack 08:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Username Change

Hi, Is it possible for you to change my username from User:Reedy Boy to User:Reedy, as i am having it changed on the english wikipedia, and want to get the rest of my accounts inline for the single user login

Thanks


Reedy Boy 14:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, if you put your request at: Wikiversity:Changing username also other bureaucrats see this faster. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks - Wikiversity:Changing_username#User:Reedy_Boy_to_User:Reedy Reedy Boy 14:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Rename is done. --mikeu talk 16:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Reedy 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Licensing

If you'd like some input regarding Wikiversity talk:Licensing policy, I'm probably not the person you want to do it as I'm not intimately familiar with Wikiversity. As for the bot, I can probably be more helpful there. The state of your images (as of when my bot last finished operating) is that the untagged ones are categorized in Category:Images with unknown copyright status, and all uploaders have been notified. If there's something more you'd like done to them, just let me know. Best of luck. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Test file.gif

This is tagged for deletion as Copyrighted material, in the edit summery you've stated that it shouldn't be deleted, as with copyright and other copyright status all images must provide the copyright status so that we know whether it is allowed on this site, if it isn't copyrighted please say so and use the correct tag. Terra 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How to use R/Tutorials/Introduction

How to use R/Tutorials/Introduction Looks like I made a bit of mess in terms of losing the trail with that import, sorry. I was semi-conscious at the time of leaving a gap in the editing history, but not quite sure what to do. The content has subsequently been split into different tutorials (loading and plotting), so maybe on this occasion we can live with it. Had I thought through it more, it probably should have been imported to How to use R/Tutorials rather than How to use R/Tutorials/Introduction, then the sub-directory structure would lead to the content. Not sure if its possible to somehow redirect the import for wikibooks history to How to use R/Tutorials. But thankyou, because this learning experience will definitely help for next time. If you have any other thoughts on how this could/should have been done, please let me know. -- Jtneill - Talk 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I've added a note to explain at the top of each of the subpages which can be shifted to the talk page once the content evolves. Yes, WBs wanted it left there, so they might expand. -- Jtneill - Talk 00:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios in Design for the Environment course

Hi Mike, I'm going through the many copyvios in the Design for the Environment course, and I noticed you added and then removed a copyvio flag on one image - how come? Cormaggio talk 16:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - I thought as much. :-) I've created Template:Db-unknowncopyvio - do you think it's redundant with Template:No license?. Cormaggio talk 10:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Right - we might do well to draft a page for face to face groups intending to use Wikiversity as a workspace - with copyright issues at the top in bold, blinking text. (Well, ok, we don't need blinking text.. :-)) Cormaggio talk 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help with Design for the Environment

Mike, I appreciate your help and that of other custodians with the labeling of the reports with the DFE category. It's the first year that I'm doing this and hope that with time and experience everything will go better. --SRego 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Flowers?

Hi Mike,

Just wondering if you had blooms to log, and if you plan to keep logging generally. I ask because I'm going to have Mike.lifeguard do a template update within the next day or two, and need to know whether we need an entry field for Rhode Island :). --SB_Johnny | talk 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought of you today :-)

Was wondering if you saw this show ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) PS: Tag a learning project with completion status !! 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Custodial flag for Remi

ping, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

subst

Hmm...I subst'ed the welcome template, but it had the unintended side effect of crediting me for the initial welcome. Maybe go back and sign your name over mine? Cheers, --HappyCamper 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Mike, thanks for joining the Learning from conflict and incivility project - looking forward to reading more on your narrative. Cormaggio talk 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A random mascot

Hello Mu301/Archive All, we are the Baah and Bahh twins and we'd both like to welcome you to Wikiversity. While you sit back and explore Wikiversity, enjoy some of our fresh goat milk. You can help us learn by creating new learning resources or help us by improving the guided tours and other exploration tools. We look forward to seeing you around. Baaaahbye for now.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser access

Thank you for the heads up. Emesee 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

. . . for the welcome! :) Xdenizen 01:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser on Vandal?

Mike, have you been able to run (or request) a CheckUser on this morning's vandal?

Moulton 15:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

blocked indef and I believe that all the diffs have been rolled back or reverted. We currently have no local CU, so I will contact SBJ on how to proceed. --mikeu talk 15:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
You might want to ask Alison if she thinks this is Grawp, one of the more notorious Uber-Trolls who has been marauding WMF-sponsored projects. —Moulton 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

American History

Can you delete Topic:History of the Americas and move Topic:American History? Geo.plrd 18:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

At commons now

That Florida class is showing up at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lots_of_similiar_usernames now, any help would be appreciated. MBisanz 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

inappropriate page locks

There's this one, too: [2] The Jade Knight (d'viser) 09:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

There's this one, too: IP.141.154.76.226 (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your revert

I disagree with your revert: [3]. It is obvious that the added words do not address consensus specifically and only confuse what consensus is not by not being easily precise, which it can be. I rather you discuss such change more than to revert like you did. Dzonatas

The section is titled "What consensus isn't" and not "What consensus isn't and may be what it is," which obviously diverts from what it simply is not. That kind of 'diversion' is 'amusing', synonymously. Dzonatas 17:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Acknowledge that you don't understand the intention to keep it simple and move everything else that quickly falls out of scope to the amusing section. Maybe it shouldn't be called the amusing section, but you could have made a more productive change than reverting me because you don't understand. Dzonatas 18:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You made a lot of criticism towards me: [4], which was not justified at all. You stated you did not understand, so you could have asked me on my talk page to clarify. I have no problem to admit a mistake if something was not understood and taken the wrong way. You didn't give any chance for that before you reverted. It takes discussion to understand that first. If you still think I have some intent to be uncivil especially without any of your prior attempt at discussion, then may I suggest you take a wiki break. Dzonatas

Poor job

The way you worded your comments[5] took me off guard, as I felt there was no need to use words like "you did a poor job," "you should...," and "border on uncivil." Today I read, "You should take your time and make edit summaries and edits that a reasonable person can understand without confusion." I felt you didn't criticize edit there at all. I hope you didn't mean to make me feel stupid over that comment. A reasonable person would have first talked about it to understand and suggest alternative. You expressed you don't understand. I tried to talk here with you, but you just tell me "you should." Dzonatas 18:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A Unified Account

A unified account would really be nice! I intend to spend a good deal of time on WB getting that book right. Please let me know what information you might need to do this (if any).

Thanks again, for all your help, you've been very helpful.--Jolie 13:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

what I minute, I think I'm talking to the wrong 'mike'. Its mike.lifeguard I think that can get my setup with a unified account. my bad. sorry.--Jolie 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

SUL

Don't worry, all accounts are using the same password and email address. I just decided to wait a while for the bugs to come out. Right now I am working to make sure that I have all accounts renamed. Geo.plrd 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Mike.lifeguard's candidacy

Mu301, I have reverted your closure on the community review on Mike.lifeguard's candidacy, which is very premature, your comment "with near unanimous support" hides the fact that the discussion is clearly unfinished, the last comment being written even in less than 24 hours, with questions not yet answered. You can expect more wikiversians to voice their supports or oppositions as the discussion moves on. As has been said not so long ago, requests for custodial tools are not votes. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 20:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the astronomical advice, BTW I've done some astronomy too

thank you for your helpful entry on writing to our justification

'mayans forecasting the end of the world based on studying asteroids' is part of the sometimes ridicilous content of the WB book "US History"

by the way, I'm into amateur astronomy, as well. I have a 10" dob and we explore the relatively dark skies of NW Pennsylvania for the deepspace objects; galaxies, nebulas, clusters. I've also become rather interested in some lunar work and have been known to pick through the craters for the interesting stuff; rimae, rupes, and the like.

Is there observational astronomy content of wikiversity; have you ever done a course or a project?

I've spent a good bit of the summer fishing- but the season is passing. I will be ramping up for my favorite yearly ritual; the messier marathon (which like a rainy parade has been ruined year after year; by weather, work, you name it). I like the think tank idea and will lurk around waiting for a good opportunity to contribute.--Jolie 14:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No imaging is a little beyond me. I am a pretty manual guy. thought about a barn-door mount before. didn't pursue it. Observations is free and film and mistakes with film are not. I'll look into your links. I've played around with variable stars, before. I've also thought it might be cool to look into supernova. I check out comets when I get the chance. Their interesting objects and there seems to normally be a few around viewable with a 10" mirror. We have two right now in the north, correct? I've also done a little variable star work. fine discrimination of reference stars is HARD!
I've been at times and places a sucker for challenges and have chased some of the tough stuff. stephens quartet is a favorite target. the crescent nebula in the summer, some of the tougher planetaries, a few palomar globular (though most are beyond me). the coma cluster and the one in perseus. there's a long list.
Part of what hurt the excitement a little was moving to town. I went from 6+ skies to 5, with a little drive for good skies that still seems far with a telescope in the backseat. But I'm definitely open for ideas. I think a course that better explains things up there would be great!
--Jolie 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added some content; the sky is awash in comets right now!

todays sky was that beautiful deep blue that has you anticipating some observing. Awesome! we should do so stuff together you and I. Do you like to oberve comets, there's some real neat ones around 17P is back and scwassman is in the late sky with the possiblity of outbursts.--Jolie 16:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurray! I've accomplished one of my big achievements; to record a globular (or two) in a careful sketch of the Andromeda galaxy. I've written a page about it here; Globulars_in_M31

The two comets near casseopia are tough under smalltown skies (5th magnitude)! nevertheless I nabbed them and will post observations soon.--Jolie 13:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Supernovae

I have stumbled into your supernovae page and I am a little confused; what would one do? do you have a reguarly imaging routine of galaxies. Is it possible to get raw images of current supernovae, make photometric measurements than report the values back? I had heard someone say the manipulating images are actually quite time consuming for many amateurs but I'm not sure I understand how I would make perform that analysis. is photometric software availabe as freeware??

--Jolie 17:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

hold up, I see some sort of procedure using aladdin in another page. I'm typing faster than I'm searching.

you know If I like doing this, I'm going to want more images :) --Jolie 18:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)your jan 5 photo of ngc 105 loaded. I tried 'matching stars' and a calibration pane was created. How do I find out what the value of the marked supernova is??

Its time consuming and a little confusing. I'm uncertain whether technique 1 or 2 is for photometric measurements of a local image.--Jolie 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep I'm doing something wrong. Aladdin has got the 2mass and dss image for Ngc 105. I have

Requested course;

Astronomical imaging analysis and reduction (including utilizing online information) I have downloaded aladin. Astronomical calibration is definitely beyond me. --Jolie 21:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I love it! Have you performed the calibration and are you planning to report it?
I've been remodeling the backyard astronomy page and thinking about new horizons in astronomy; I've been feeling that I need to give variable star work a second chance.--Jolie 12:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Backyard Astronomy

Lots of changes in backyard astronomy. I thought it wasn't very good advice for someone interested in doing some astronomy. Intend it to progress from initial experiences, too equiptment advice, to colloration and networking with other amateurs (such as you and I). Drop by and tell me what you think. As in the case of all my writing, I'm not as suncinct as I would like to be. hopefully over time, I'll improve much of my wording.--Jolie 20:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

aha, so you've undoubtably seen my fitful attempt to improve 'backyard astronomy'. Well, Hopefully I will have time to press on with it. the last few days haven't seen much time to do anything.
But now what shall we do with 'stargazing'?? I'm glossing over with synonyms; when we 'stargaze' we are likely doing backyard astronomy (particularly if we are using a telescope). While stargazing does seem to be an introductory peice on many different observing experiences outdoors. it seems to short to do any of its subject justice and too indirect, to help a new or aspiring observer.
My efforts at backyard astronomy was to give (what I think) is good advice for beginning and aspiring observers. but somepeople might charge that my peice about 'backyard astronomy' omits that the topic backyard astronomy is about telescopic observation, yet my page advises the new observer to NOT buy a telescope.
This is from personal experience. People ruin the hobby , IMHO, by poorly purchased, junk scopes before they know what they are doing. People are particularly fond of ruining the hobby for kids whom might not have the patience and temperiment for it at all. the kids would be better visiting a planetarium or science museum.
It would be nice to organize the astronomy resources of this website, generally. I like to work on making sure all our resources are 'connected'. --Jolie 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

really like M15c2. M15 is the one with the planetary, pease1 in it, Isn't it? Your exposure is just about perfect here! Last night was the first Lake effect snow storm of the year. 'Lake effect' is a almost untolerable curse to observing in NW Pennsylvania.--Jolie 11:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry through astronomy

Following up on yesterday, I talked to my wife about it (and my mother-in-law), and they both really liked the idea, both saying chemistry was a really hard subject to stay interested in, but astrophysics is much more interesting. Like I said, hydrogen is probably the hardest one, but it's simple enough to explain and easy to remember in any case (atomic number 1, valence 1).

I got the idea from this show: http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-107-nucleosynthesis-elements-from-stars/

I guess the idea would be to go through how each element is made in the star (avoiding too much of the actual math part of the physics), and then explain why the element behaves as it does according to how it was made and it's structure. A one element per week course would be nice to give people an "intimate feel" for each element, and start picking up the patterns of how they form compound molecules. The basic story could be used for a Wikijunior book, while the wikiversity project could focus more on a question-and-answer approach (updating the wikijunior book when a question/answer seems like it might make a young person even more excited about the element).

One thing I was a bit unsure about (from the show) was how neutrons become protons (or is it the other way around?), but that seems to be a central part of it. There's another ephisode I'm downloading now that's about that.

Thanks again for recommending the podcast... I'm hooked! :-). --SB_Johnny talk 12:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way, let me know if you can think of a better name for this... I'd like to develop it through the think tank. --SB_Johnny talk 13:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see what comes out of this. Nuclear chemistry isn't my specialty but as a chemist and an amateur astronomy, I have a little background.--Jolie 12:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image license

Hi Mikeu! I am tiding up the image ns and I have found some of your pictures, such as this: Image:06rsMU C200701022326.jpg. Could you double licence them GFDLxcc (e.g. CC-SA-BY 3.0)? GFDL is not a free licence for media.--Juan 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Watching with interest...

 
Been busy flipping hot compost among other things

Hiya Mike. I've been watching those projects with interest (the NEO one too), but still busy getting things done before the freeze. As far as what I'd like to learn, it's really more about what I can tell 'lil SB about what we see in the sky in the evening or early morning, so mostly planets in relation to the moon.

BTW, the computer I had been using for IRC is in the shop (RAM chip blown). Taking the opportunity (excuse) to live IRC-free for a while :-). --SB_Johnny talk 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Busy organizing

Here's what I was thinking. Could you enter some of your information into internet astronomy? I can see that in the past in an effort to drum up projects and activity that you and others looked to astronomical projects that could be entirely done on the internet.

I'm going to generally struggle to define much around imaging/ CCD work, etc. yet this has always been a little more interest here. talk to you later.--Jolie 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on some beggining skygazing content. I intend to make a beginners astronomy course out of it. the geist of it, is if, by taking some of my advice- a beginner can learn the constellations and become interested in astronomy.
I've watched a lot of beginners waste money on cheap scopes ;)--JoliePA 20:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This is now developed enough for an adventerous wikiversity participant to attempt Initial_experiences. feel free to tidy things up, I now things are a little roughly said.--JoliePA 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Have a happy holiday and take care. I hope everything goes well. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

import

Thank you i have already done so. The talk page import is unnecessary70.24.79.253 14:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tasks

Hi, yeasterday, you were posting me some pages I may study. But I had a difficulty to find them. Could you next time place a task list on my talk page instead of IRC, please. Thanks.--Juandev 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Draft of a Working Paper for Education

Hi, and thanks for being so good about helping me around Wikiversity! I've contested the deletion of the Draft of a Working Paper for Education at Brown University page, as I have obtained permission from the author to release it under a CC-BY-NC licence. Is this O.K.? I've also released the work on the Internet Archive: [[6]] 72.128.35.111 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

You might want to have a peek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Do_we_have_any_defense_at_all_against_meteors.2C_black_holes.2C_etc..3F --SB_Johnny talk 15:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#How_long_will_it_take_for_Pluto_to_clear_its_neighborhood.3F ... are you watching that page? --SB_Johnny talk 22:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I have made some categories.--Daanschr 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Middle School Science

Earth and Space Science needs editing help -> Middle_School_Science/Earth_and_Space_Science I guess the strategy is to keep it as light as possible, because the text is meant to be teacher support for project-based learning to assure that required learning (as in NCLB) is being covered while the students are doing their "own thing." It is hard to know exactly how deep the requirements are.

My strategy right now is to get more books of test questions (to re-gear myself into a testing mind-set), and then blend them into the existing Google docs as I implement them in the the wv pages.

More important to me right now with respect to wv is the Scientific Method, which I want to call the Scientific Model because we are not in a position to raise funds for hypothesis testing (and probably neither are our "students"), but we can create real-life models to apply to the surrounding environment to see if they fit. Applying models in the business of real-life should realize benefits to the model appliers, assuming the model is accurate. If not, the model has to be rewritten or adjusted. I also want to flesh out research ideas while working on the page to help give wv policy direction for research projects. Please give me your take on this renaming of the Scientific Method.

Recovery therapy and learning: I got this immediately. I have a writing on teaching hurricanes to students in areas that may be hit by hurricanes, and hence traumatized, to show how learning can actually be theraputic through what is called the "construction of knowledge." I have my cut+paste full of unrelated material at the moment, but middle school science will be my focus soon, so I will try to attack all angles including technology in teaching, aka wv.

Recent writing: Absolutely I plan to insert the google doc pages into the Wikiversity. The only reason I have not so far is that they are not fully rewritten so as to be original writing, and hence free of proprietary copyright. This is the major issue, and the minor issue is that they have to be fact-checked.

Since I am entering a teacher certification program this summer, the topic is "back in play" for me, and I will be completing the pages on google docs, first with an eye to copyright infringment, and then to assure accuracy. Keep in mind that they are written "to the test," where the tests are the Praxis certification tests. I want to add requirements from other tests such as the New York State teacher exams.

As it happens I am back working in information technology; I will be looking at educational software to create an equity trading school. The equity trading information will be proprietary (something I don't really care about), but I want to somehow blend the functionality of the MediaWiki with other public domain educational software such as Moodle. Moodle attempts to emulate a top-down didactic structure, whereas the Wiki is clearly different, and hard to define! As both are written in PHP, the sharing of code and expertise seem possible.

Mu301 asked and I answered above: One thing I'm unclear on - are the links to google docs (ie. [1]) pages that you created? Do you have plans to start similar pages here at wv? I'm not sure where I could help out if much of the material is off-site.

Previous writing: --some text deleted (see first policy discussion)--‎

Your contributions are timely as I am entering a summer program to be certified in middle school science in Connecticut (USA). As it happens, Earth Science is key to middle school learning/teaching, and Astronomy is of course a component of Earth Science studies.

The intrusion of social sciences into the scientific method, or perhaps model, is making a fuss. The "ivory tower" is giving way to the "action research" model, which initially recruited prostitutes as researchers in the research of their sub-culture giving them the ability to construct the "steps" for their escape from their self-imposed dangers.

The difficulty in writing about education for youngsters is in making the writing applicable to both the teachers as well as the youngsters. Perhaps the scientific method information can move to its own page, leaving behind something kids can discuss in class. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Bessa (talkcontribs) 13:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing project but currently blocked

Hello I am in charge of this class project "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Design_for_the_Environment" and I need to reorganize it for the current year. However, I currently blocked from doing this. Could you unblock me. Thanks --Thomson 03:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to edit: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Design_for_the_Environment but it says "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page has been locked to prevent editing." Can this page be unlocked? Thanks --Thomson 03:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Artificial Consciousness

I was just trying to put a link into my home page to my Artficial Consciousness page on WikiVersity, but it can't find the page is there some prefix I have to put in front of the file name in order to tell it to look on wikiVersity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Graeme E. Smith (talkcontribs) 20:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OOPS! sorry didn't mean to forget to sign my question, it seems a colon is needed as a prefix.--Graeme E. Smith 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-Genetic Darwinism

Sorry to bother you again, I see you are interested in Astronomy, I am just starting to build a course on Non-Genetic Darwinism, and I have forgotten where I read about the red shift, and galaxy formation as being an indication that the Big Bang was wrong, and possibly the second law of thermodynamics as well. Do you know anyone who could help me find such references?--Graeme E. Smith 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiversity policy studies proposal

If my studies become complex, I like to put myself on a mono-diet of my ideas to create a pure test model. In a sense a wiki is a on a wiki mono-diet, because everything is a wiki article page, and the results of the information developed in the page fit the phenomena of the wiki model.

After looking over the pages suggested to me in the "what wikiversity is not" discussion, I concluded that wikiversity is not on a wiki mono-diet, but should be. The policies seem to be defining wv in terms of everything except wiki-based learning.

A wiki by itself is an educational vehicle in the purest sense following the wiki phenomena, where an aggregate of wiki pages in a single wiki community should create a wiki-produced conceptual view of the world. I believe that such a conception should be nearly completely accurate. A wiki is not the only web community format to produce a nearly perfect conception, but it may be the best (so far). My personal experience with web-based information aggregation has been that, given contributor freedom, the knowledge created will be the best available.

I am seeing a lot of ideas that do not necessarily support the Internet as the modern Information Society, let alone the wiki phenomena, but ideas that want to re-implement antiquated structural ideas that have no place in the modern Information Society.

Going with the idea of a wiki mono-diet, we might want to create an aggregate study as a single article of exactly what is going on, and what should be going on with respect to our growth: Wikiversity studies.

The primary problem is this: I do not see that the policy structure is going to promote wiki-based studies, and those that are produce here seem to wander off to other wiki-communities. I think we need to work primarily towards wiki-retention, to fight wiki-attrition. To fight this we need to provide things that our scholars need, specifically support, and also we need to define what value we want add to the planet, how we want to help humanity. In other words, we need to define the wv in terms of six billion others rather than ourselves. Otherwise the good courses will simply move on to other wikis, as I am seeing.

Within that we need to define what server-type services we need to have to facilitate our scholars (I have a lot of ideas about this). And to do this we can simply study ourselves and our own needs. Such a study would be unique and would probably become famous because it could show how learning in a democratic environment can be the information source for policy making.

Ideally wv should generate ideas to be used in other wikis and similar study sites, but not necessarily the wp.

I think that this mission is valid and necessary, and that the "charity should start at home," should fully embrace the wiki phenomena. And hence my idea of wiki-education policy studies as a wikiversity mono-diet. Unfortunately there is no place to post this idea... except to start a wikiveristy policies study article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Bessa (talkcontribs) 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation Status?

Any update to my attempt to usurp User:Doug? This is the only English Language project on which I do not have the name User:Doug and one of only three total projects.--BewareofDoug 10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (elsewhere Doug(talk contribs))

Mentorship

Hi Mikeu! I know you're interested in outreach to new users. I've been working on developing more organized mentorship resources and better recognition for mentors and mentees. I would appreciate your help and feedback on Wikiversity:Mentors and Research Mentoring Program. Thanks. --AFriedman 18:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation follow-up

Crats: I messaged a couple of you previously about this but just noticed there was a specific note to message all crats on Wikiversity:Changing_username#User_rename_requests and due to the delay thought I'd better do again: I'm following up on my request from December at Wikiversity:Changing_username#Usurpation_of_User:Doug, no action has been taken. mikeu mentioned back in January that there was a technical problem with some of the tools and I see that mentioned on the Changing Username page now too. Reviewing the problem myself though, I am not clear on why this administrative issue is really a problem. I can see why it might be in some cases but not allowing clearly valid requests to go through without a pro forma check seems silly. For the life of me, I cannot see what these two tools would tell you for information about a user that you can't get nearly as easily through other means, particularly when we're talking about accounts that haven't edited in years in most cases and even then very little. I know there are only four of you, but the request ahead of mine has been sitting since July. That user and I are both Sysops on other projects and are both trying usurp accounts that appear to be clearly dead. I've actually been waiting before taking a more active role here until my account was fully unified and it looks like you could use a bit of help. Cheers! --BewareofDoug 03:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Hey! What's going on? You left a message on the usurpation page over a month ago saying that you were going to look into the back log and clear it up. I only just found it though because you didn't respond to any of the individual requests or messages on our talk page. I have tried to contact all four crats on here, on other projects, and via e-mail and have gotten no response since you left me a message in January! I know there are only three active crats but this is becoming ridiculous; please promote some custodians if you need more help. --BewareofDoug 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation of Jackie

You can finish the request about usurpation of User:Jackie account? I wrote {{Usurpation requested}} on the talk page of target account about 2 month ago... Need rename Jackie-ru-ru-new -> Jackie. --Jackie-ru-ru-new 08:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Changing_username#.28Partial.29_Usurpation_of_User:Ethan|Usurpation of User:Ethan

Usurpation of User:Ethan mikeu, can my usurpation request (and all the other people who have been asking as well) yet? the tools seem to be working, so usurping should be possible. Thanks, -Ethan (talk) • 2009-04-18 14:52 (UTC)

Information

I think my IRC timed out. Here is the info - Paul Lewis Broer, employee of the Jet Propulsion Lab. He was assigned to help with Voyager I (around 1980) after they discovered that there were particles in the dark spots of Saturn's rings. He had to figure out a way to get the craft to maneuver around the rings. I was wondering if you could find any documents that may have mentioned his involvement and what exactly was done. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Block

User:Unstoppable Fandal needs a block. Proxima Centauri 08:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Does Vandalism Peak during the Summer?

I have noticed a distinct increase in vandalism in the last month at least on my own projects, some of this seems to be interwiki, Does past history suggest that there is a peak between June and September for such vandalism?--Graeme E. Smith 16:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Explicit images on the commons

Thanks for the info on my talk page Mike. Hope yu don't mind me inserting this message at the top. I'm still working out best ways to communicate through talk pages, and adding talk topic in reverse order strikes me as slightly more efficient.

Yesterday I did spend a deal of time looking through the ranage of images on Commons and seeing how many were up for deletion.. it seems that images over a year old had some repetitive requests and denials, and recent images within 2 months had nither discussion of requests. It seems that people may have given up requesting? I now I was put off by the repeated denials, as I wouldn't want to be drawn into a debate over deletion.

Which leads me to wondering how to manage such content if it is going to continue to exist? If something gets listed as a bad image.. does that also hide it from view on all pages (not just history?). Ideally, we need a way where we can hide images from view so that users have to click past a warning page to see the images. --Leighblackall 21:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WV:RFD archive

Hmmm, yes, I see and agree, maybe I was a bit fast there - thinking more from my POV of resolved ones being distracting than keeping decisions easier for others to see/find. Will slow down. Thanks. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

on language, and other topics

"I have a complaint about the language that you have been using" <-- I use words that I know the meaning of and I always make an effort to use them correctly. In light of the many false accusations you have published about me you should familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word defamation. Also, you should think about the difference between "name calling" and providing an accurate description.

Are you saying that "thug" is an accurate description? Are you saying that "thug" is not defamation? Can you explain how "thug" is an accurate description and not defamation? I think expecting anyone to consider or think about it is rather unreasonable when you haven't explained/expressed your reasoning. -- darklama  14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Assume Good Faith" <-- Here is a chance for you to practice your creative writing. Provide me with a reason why I should assume that you acted in good faith by publishing a large number of absurdly false claims about me. Give me a reason why I should assume that you acted in good faith by pretending that your false accusations justify removing my custodianship. --JWSchmidt 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cary Bass made the decision to remove the tools. Do you expect mikeu to be able to explain why Cary Bass made that decision? If you want to know the justification for the removal you need to ask Cary Bass. Only Cary Bass knows why Cary Bass made the decision to remove the tools. I think you should stop deflecting Cary Bass' decision on other people. I didn't make the decision, mikeu didn't make the decision, and SB_Johnny didn't make the decision. Cary Bass made the decision. -- darklama  14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt, but that's not correct, Darklama. The desysopping was done by unanimous consent of Wikiversity's four bureaucrats. Cary did act as consultant during the process, but things weren't nearly bad enough to justify foundation-level action that bypassed the principle of "home rule". The decision to desysop lies squarely on the shoulders of the 4 'crats. --SB_Johnny talk 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying it was a foundation-level action. A steward can desysop a user, while bureaucrats cannot, so it was a steward that made the decision. I don't know what the steward policy is on the matter, but I'm sure a level of decision making was involved by the steward in deciding whether there involvement and action was within any policies they are suppose to follow. The steward involved could probably have decided that more involvement from the community was needed first. Does steward policy obligate stewards to take action if there is unanimous consent by all of a project's bureaucrats? Since neither I nor JWS know the details involved in the steward's decision, I think the best way to find out is to ask the steward involved. Asking the steward involved would provide more insight and info then there is now. At the very least it would confirm that unanimous consent by bureaucrats is all that is needed for stewards to act. -- darklama  19:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikiversity" <-- Does this explain why you signed your name to a large number of absurd accusations against me, accusations that not only ignored good faith, but did so in favor of maliciously fabricated falsehoods? I'm sickened by the Ruling Party's skill at gaming the system. The wielders of the mighty ban hammer do not have to assume good faith, only the little people must, even while they are being abused. Let's put that into written policy and explain it on the main page. --JWSchmidt 21:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying you think mikeu's intent was to harm you and that mikeu took pleasure in harming you?
defamation: a malicious attack.
malicious: of, pertaining to, or as a result of malice or spite.
malice: intention to harm, to take pleasure in the misfortune of others, feeling a need to see others suffer.
spite: to take pleasure in hurting others.
I think believing mikeu's involvement was done with the intent to harm you is bad faith. I think believing mikeu took pleasure in harming you is even a worse form of bad faith. However I think not taking the time to express/explain how you think mikeu's intent is to harm you and why you think mikeu took pleasure in doing so is possibly the worse form of bad faith I've seen so far. Can you explain why you think mikeu's intent is to harm you? Can you explain why you think mikeu takes pleasure in harming you? -- darklama  14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Inviting things that probably shouldn't be invited

I don't think this comment will lead to anything positive. I think having a discussion of policy (and its enforcement) is a Very Good Thing, but I don't think it's going to happen if you (or I) take the bait and allow it to become yet another discussion about JWS's spiel. Just sayin, eh? --SB_Johnny talk 23:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

confrontation

Part of the problem is that I'm not on the mailing list for the Ruling Party's daily newsletter, so I do not know what the talking points are for each discussion. I still think Wikiversity:Censored would be a useful policy page. We could put at the top: "Never mention the policy violations of admins." My comment at the Colloquium provided useful perspective for the discussion. I would have said more, but in the current atmosphere of intimidation I felt it best to keep my comment brief. Unlike the Ruling Party, I think it is healthy for a wiki community to discuss its problems rather than try to prevent them from being discussed. How does it help the collaborative spirit of Wikiversity when policy violators are made into custodians and told "good job"? Is anything short of saying "good job" to policy violators "needlessly confrontational"? --JWSchmidt 03:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

FLOSS4Science

Re: Your comment:

Great! I would love to see a community grow around this project. Please go for it (i.e. do whatever you want to take it further) and let me know if there is anything specific I can do to help. K 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Project incubator

Please check Wikiversity:Project_incubator for an update on HHF. Your help would be greatly appreciated. I have a bunch of enthusiastic volunteers from my hostel ready to help me out with the discussions that are supposed to happen on Highschool Help Forum. However, to keep them glued to the forum, it's necessary that the forum be complete. There are just too any trivial issues to be resolved. I'd request you to brainstorm over this on the project incubator. --Dharav talk 12:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Twitter

Twitter I created a Wikiversity Twitter account. I'm DM you the password. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How to archive User pages when cut and paste is shut off?

I got one of those speed limit signs on my user page, and went to archive it using cut and paste only to find that cut and paste is shut off somehow on that page. I know that Bots can archive, so there must be some way to create a template that will move a section of user talk page into a specified archive, do we have a template like that?--Graeme E. Smith 17:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cut and past is shut off? What do you mean? --SB_Johnny talk 20:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure, except that when I go to cut or copy text, it is not transferred to the clipboard I am currently testing to see if it is a local memory allocation problem but it works/fails to work across multiple versions of Firefox, and IE6, so I figure there is something strange going on. Could just be I am running short on swapfile, I haven't been able to get through the memory clean-up utility yet, so maybe that is it, too many temporary files or something.--Graeme E. Smith 03:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the template for me, I didn't see that requirement in the instructions, and I wanted to protect the welcome message, though I see that it wouldn't normally be moved anyway.--Graeme E. Smith 00:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the bot shut off? or busy somewhere else? I know it has processing limitations to keep it from lagging the server.--Graeme E. Smith 00:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanx

Thank you very much for the linkage and the constructive criticism. Both were appreciated. B9 hummingbird hovering 13:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ello

I have located some guys who have uploaded heaps of audiovisual onto YouTube regarding Tibetan language learning amongst others. Is there a way to embed this stuff from YouTube in Wikiversity directly? I tried embedding in HTML tags but didn't work. Or is this new Wikimedia Player I have heard about within Wikiversity pages a good way to embed the url? Or do we need to encourage them to upload it somewhere within the auspice of the Wikimedia Foundation projects? Where would be most appropriate? Is there a different location other associated media such as translations should be placed? Recommendations about how to establish project linkages? Is there a protocol? Dictionaries, would you know how best to incorporate the doings of our group within Wiktionary? Is there a forum within the Foundation to maximise interactivities between projects? Is this information somehow already captured within Wikiversity from other language learning projects? Is this information harvestable? You're prolly thinking OMG but if you may assist in any way or foster appropriate linkages I would be most appreciative. Is there a mentor program on Wikiversity?
I await your advice
B9 hummingbird hovering 07:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response and I will prospect your recommendations. I thank you for your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for taking me under ur wing. I appreciate your time.
Skype? b9_hummingbird_hovering or B9Joker108@Twitter
B9 hummingbird hovering 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't use Skype, but I am often in irc in #wikiversity-en --mikeu talk 13:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I finally have started to use IRC. I initally started on Pidgin but was not very pleased with it and happened upon integrating IRC with Oprah, which is one of the browsers I favour and I love its functional ease. Please find herewith linkage prospecting Wiktionary as requested:
I very much appreciate your gallant offer to facilitate.
Respectfully
B9 hummingbird hovering 13:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to a yank

Why not start a project on how U.S.C Title 17 could be reformed?

Or indeed any other title ;)

Sfan00 IMG 18:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User rename request

Would you please check the username page for my request on changing userame? C.I. 17:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tibetan templates

Thanx so much mate.
May I also ask where abouts I would find the syntax to tweak them?
:-D
B9 hummingbird hovering 11:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a text I would like to translate and it is in the public domain. Until it is finished I considered a ghost page or annexure of my Learning Weblog, unless some other people want to play as well. But most people have said yes, yes, yes, but when it comes to it they are nowhere to be found. I know people get busy but it confuses me why people tender or venture a learning commitment and then do not honour it. Lesson 15 already has a number of entries that could go in a Tibetan-English dictionary. Because Wiktionary is multilingual should I prospect them about how I should enter them? I am in bind about how to best progress the dictionary, should it be both Wylie and Tibetan and what case ending should I use in certain instances? I am flying blind with that and don't want to start something that will become a legacy in future. I would like a dictionary that is functional and easy to navigate. The Tibetan Wiktionary is locked but can be re-opened, as well...but my understanding of this forum is a dedicated Tibetan language dictionary. We need a bilingual dictionary.
:-D
B9 hummingbird hovering 11:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sweet. Your interest is appreciated and I will keep you in the loop with the Wiktionary developments.
B9 hummingbird hovering 12:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Roundtable palette clearing

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Bessa (talkcontribs) 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. --mikeu talk 20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

IRC

Hi, thanks for the note. I just went there to check how you might have seen my message. Still no idea. Can you give me a hint? --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, may be another time. Thanks --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate ur view on this when u hav time

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Meta-text_environments_and_audience_customizability
B9hummingbirdhoverin'æω 15:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User usurpation request

Hello sir. I requested for an account usurpation here a few days back. Since its been a little time so I thought to request it personally. Regards. Marsa Lahminal 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

oversight

How do I request meta:oversight e.g., for [7] -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I took care of that one. But, here is the info for future reference. You never want to make the request on wiki because that draws attention to the libel, personal information, or whatever is being oversighted. Go to #wikimedia-stewards and type "@steward oversight en-wv" to get their attention. The bot will list the stewards in the channel. When one of them responds, use private message to tell them the page that needs oversight. When deleting a page with sensitive info make sure to use an edit summary, otherwise the default is to include the first line of text from the page. That causes some of the info to remain visible in recent changes and the deletion log even though the page is deleted. --mikeu talk 14:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Great info, thanks. I've added your valuable advice to here: Help:Oversight - feel free to adjust of course. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories added with Mu301Bot

The categories added with Mu301Bot ignore categories that are added with templates.

For example: Assistant teacher program for asylum seekers did receive a new category "Assistant teacher program" while the template {{atp/asylum seekers}} already added it to "Category:Assistant teacher program for asylum seekers", which is a sub category. --fasten 08:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IRC advertisement

Hi Mikeu, how are you?

Could you link betawikiversity:Sandbox Server from #wikiversity-en and #wikiversity channels, please. Since I am banned from freenode services, I can't spam there:-)--Juan de Vojníkov 22:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

CU on WB

All the regular !voters have weighed in, of course. --SB_Johnny talk 12:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Custodianship

Hi Mike. Thanks for mentoring. My probationary period is over and there's a vote on me for full custodianship. --AFriedman (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man

Hi, well im pretty much a newbie here, not to mention that Im from Costa Rica so my english is not the best, but I'll try. Im a software engineer so maybe I try contributing in that topic. --Keylor 14:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Account rename

After usurpation target account has been renamed to the Jackie (usurped), but current account don't rename to the Jackie. I don't want re-create new local account Jackie for my SUL - rename, please, my current Jackie-ru-ru-new to the Jackie. — Jackie-ru-ru-new 06:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

tools

ping --Gbaor 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity Nomic - Call for judgement

Hi! I entered as a player in the Nomic, and then when I saw the possibility there did a rather boring bid for winning. I won't say I won't be happiest if it is judged as valid, and I actually think it looks legit (if perhaps, a bit boring), but I'm also interested to see how it will be handled - and however it goes, perhaps it turns out it was what was needed to get the game going? So, will you take a look and comment at Talk:Nomic#I can haz WIN?? I'll also post on User:Kennercat's talk page. Anyone else who should be contacted? Ever wonder 11:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

SUL Merge

Please kindly check Wikiversity:Changing_username#Naz_.E2.86.92_Nazar. Thanks! -- Naz 12:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Need some help with SUL

Ummmm could you please take a look at Wikiversity:Changing_username#SUL_for_User:Anshul? Would really appreciate the help. 120.138.117.230 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Anshul)

Tools

Hi Mike. There are some interesting things going on here lately, some of them not so good. If you don't mind, please restore my tools, which I had relinquished a while ago thinking that I would not want to use them again. Things are a bit out of balance, and I'd like to perform a few actions in the interests of restoring that balance. I'll probably not keep them for more than a month or so, but we'll see. --SB_Johnny talk 23:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've undone your voluntary relinquishment of the tools. Good luck with the mop! --mikeu talk 23:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not good Mikeu. We have a procedure. Do you know why? Why you should be that only one who say, this user I like so he/she can take back his rights, while this user I dont like... It is up to community if they want such a custodian or not--Juan de Vojníkov 06:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll figure out what to do with them tomorrow... farm chores to do! --SB_Johnny talk 23:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a voluntary relinquishment. He was regranted it by whim of Jimbo after SB Johnny promised to stop the drama. Instead, SB Johnny redid the drama. We do not have a policy stating that those who give it up for any reason can be granted the tools upon request regardless. Mike, it is also troubling that you would do this without discussion especially without having any active role in this community for a while. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Did SB Johnny retire amidst a drama? If not, he can request the tools back whenever he want(ed). Diego Grez 00:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No. He cannot. That is Wikipedia. We are not Wikipedia. But he did retire amongst drama, drama he created when he decided to wheel war and openly attack the Foundation through his use of ops that made it necessary to remove his ops. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This argument has been made by Ottava and answered by me elsewhere. He didn't listen. The history is clear. SB_Johhny did "wheel-war" (by a special definition, perhaps not realizing that it wasn't really proper under the circumstances) with Jimbo. Jimbo did remove the tools. But Jimbo then restored them. There was no further hazard to the tools, no process filed here or on meta, no complaint here or on meta that was likely to result in process, therefore no "cloud." Basically, the cloud had passed and the sun had come out. Therefore no reason not to restore the tools. The request and restoration was proper. It is not true that he "attack[ed] the Foundation." But even if he did, that would be completely irrelevant. The Foundation representative, Jimbo, was content to leave the tools in place, appears to have no beef with SBJ. SBJ apparently felt that, at that time, he could not continue, so he went to meta and resigned the tools. It is traditional under those circumstances, volutary resignation, to restore them on request, I have never seen an exception, even with some pretty shaky cases. The restoration of tools leaves the case as it would have been if the sysop simply went away for a while. No drama. No debate.
Ottava, as you know, Mike cannot remove the tools. If you believe there has been some violation here, you are free to go to meta and request removal. I do not recommend it at all, you are already in quite enough hot water. --Abd 01:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo restored based on a promise to end the drama. SB Johnny gave them up in order to make the ultimate point, thus breaking his promise to Jimbo. There was a strong cloud. Regardless, we are not Wikipedia and we do not have the "not under cloud" allowance to give custodianship back. Crats here can only act under clear consensus. P.S., if you paid attention I already went to those who can remove the status and requested it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Abd - why can't Mike remove tools from other accounts here? Is there no process for requesting such action?
Ottava - I hope you don't mean your comment on my talk page. Even if it were appropriate for a steward to get involved, it would not be appropriate for me as I edit here and participate in the community. But this discussion is the sort of matter that can and should be resolved here.
SBJ - re: "a few actions in the interests of restoring that balance." -- hopefully only actions supported by community consensus. :-) SJ+> 02:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Within policy, and with prior consensus, of course :-). I think the most important and meaningful "action" was just taking up the tools again, tbh... there's been a bit too much of the "custodians are in charge" mentality lately, so having an old-school "no big deal" guy returning to the flock (tools and all) seems to have already shifted the dynamic a bit.
I think it's also just a very awkward position for Jtniell to be the only "active" 'crat. Jtniell took a huge leap of faith a couple years ago and invited his students and assistants to come here and share in the creation of and participation in a true OER effort. As the "man in power", he's also been the focus of what must be some rather uncomfortable attention finding himself in the middle of a drama he did not create or contribute to. He's starting a new semester, with new students and new assistants, and if I were him I'd be rather uncomfortable. Wouldn't you?
Good to see you here, of course. Could you maybe pop in once a day or so for a while? Wikiversity needs at least one reality check per day, and you seem like you have the skills to provide that :-). --SB_Johnny talk 03:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Bureaucrats here cannot lift a bit, they can only promote, not demote, if I understand the restrictions correctly. To remove a custodian bit or a bureaucrat bit takes a steward. It's looking like Ottava is trying to get stewards to act (I haven't looked) without an attempt to find local consensus, which I understand would only happen in some kind of emergency situation, and there is no emergency. Yeah, I'm a little concerned about that comment from SBJ, but I'd suggest taking it straight. I see that SBJ is seeking community consensus on the one issue that's come up, explicitly. Thanks for your concern, Sj. --Abd 02:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I was told by two Stewards to mention it to other Stewards. You were easier to contact over talk page than over IRC. More of a "heads up". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The process for removing a bit is that a custodian can voluntarily resign or the community can demonstrate consensus and make a request at meta. In either case it is only a steward who has the technical means to flip the bit off, but they will only do it in one of the two cases listed above or due to an extreme emergency. When I go to the Special:UserRights page the check boxes for custodian or crat are grayed out under a column heading titled "Groups you cannot change."

This is not the first time that this has come up. See [8] and [9]. At no point did anyone say "Whoah, mike, what are you doing?" If someone gains the trust of the community and then chooses to resign or take a break I don't see any reason to not reinstate at their request. It would be very different if someone had the tools removed through a community decision. But there never was any community discussion on removing the bits from SBJ. The removal and reinstatement were done unilaterally by Jimbo Wales and his actions did not reflect the wishes of the community. --mikeu talk 14:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I wish you were on IRC at the time because then you would have seen that SB Johnny's actions did not have the support of the community and that Jimbo's actions did have quite a bit of support. SB Johnny's approach caused a lot of headaches and unnecessary drama that took weeks to clean up. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
We can see some of the problem revealed here. Ottava and a few friends had a problem with SBJ's action, others not, but perhaps the latter were not on IRC. (However, I've written a policy proposal that would prohibit what SBJ did, as to the future.)
I commented in a few places during that time, here and on meta, and I've never used the WV IRC, and many of us don't use it. ::SB_Johnny and some users had a problem with Jimbo's action, and others did not. From what I can see, the majority of users who commented felt it was inappropriate. Ironically, I don't necessarily agree.
Ottava argues that SB_Johnny "caused" a lot of problems. That's irrelevant, not to mention not true. The basic problem was that Jimbo intervened rather clumsily, and not just with SBJ, and these interventions, it must be remembered, were part of what led to his resignation of some of his Founder tools. That was under a cloud, by the way, because at that point the !vote was about 4:1, with roughly 500 comments, as I recall, to remove the founder bit. And I didn't and don't necessarily agree with that removal, I'm just pointing out that there was a whole lot going on besides SBJ. What Mu301 has written is simply correct. And we can see it in the current consensus. What happened on IRC is irrelevant, and for good reason. Thanks, Mike.
"Resignation under a cloud" has never been taken to mean "Some users didn't like what the sysop or 'crat did." It means actual process under way, or removal by complaint. I.e., someone complains to a steward, and, before the steward responds, the user resigns the tools. Indeed, Ottava, with no evidence, has elsewhere described this situation that way, "You can't fire me, I quit!" Under those conditions, a steward might consider the situation much more carefully, as would a 'crat. That is not at all what happened. --Abd 19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
We aren't Wikipedia. There is no "under a cloud" distinction here. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
We are not Wikipedia. We are not Wikipedia. We are not Wikipedia. Now. There is an "under a cloud" distinction here because it is common sense and 'crats will follow it unless they have a damn good reason not to. And if you don't like that, Ottava, propose policy to the contrary, or propose policy that provides that custodians and 'crats cannot do anything that they are not specifically allowed to do by policy. I don't recommend that. At all. Do you? --Abd 13:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Crats can only act through community consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikiversity:Bureaucratship is a proposed policy. Claiming that a Bureaucrat may only use tools after a community consensus is established is denying common practice. The exception, promotion discussions, is being mistaken for the general rule. In fact, in almost all actions, the 'crat is exercising discretion, and some actions are done with no discussion at all, beyond, typically, a request and a response. Beware of attachment to outcome, beware of claiming that reality is this or that because it suits what you want at the moment. Absolutely, a 'crat is obligated to respect consensus, and to avoid acting against consensus, that's true. But a 'crat may act in expectation of consensus, in advance of an explicit formation, and the rules are really the same for custodians. As the proposed policy states. --Abd 00:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Call for bureaucrats

FYI - Call for bureaucrats. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing username

Hi, I used to be AFriedman and have submitted a username change request. May I please have my custodian privileges moved to my new primary account, User:La comadreja? Thanks, La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Sample Edit

Hi there! As requested, I have completed a sample edit with my bot. See Wikiversity:Bots/Status. Sorry for the delay, I could swear I had the page watchlisted, but apparently I did not. - EdoDodo talk 19:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Violation of community trust

Mikeu, you closed the CR section when this motion was passing. That motion shuts down all previous votes and declares them as void. The CR procedures also do not allow voting to happen, especially when voting preceded discussion and was done through canvassing people who were not part of the community.

The review was also closed in four days, which directly defies all norms.

This is an egregious violation, and compounded by your readding SB Johnny's sysops and Crat status without community consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu

Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu. There will be more added, but I will be consulting with JWS and Moulton about abuses relating to your use of ops regarding them and lacking consensus to do so. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike, the CR filed, cited above, was filed prematurely and, in my view, abusively. I do not believe that there are any issues raised by Ottava there that require a response from you in the CR, but, of course any other user might think differently and request that you respond. I was a bit concerned, and I expressed it there, about the following:
  • The close with less than the seven days provided in custodian policy for desysopping. I do believe that in an emergency, where there is present and ongoing damage, a 'crat may request desysopping at any time, even without discussion, so this might be moot, but you did not declare such an emergency, i.e., a need to act more quickly than the 7 day period, so you might possibly comment on this.
  • You may also have felt that the conclusion was obvious, and that some damage would result from the discussion staying open. Again, if this were explicitly stated, then it might help.
  • Or, you forgot about the 7-day period, in which case an "oops!" might be in order. However, I don't believe that harm is done by the error, the conclusion was forgone, and an "oops!" would simply avoid establishing a precedent. Much of the "support" discussion may have shut down when Ottava appeared to "resign," but then oppose !votes started appearing from "new users," so it's a bit of a mess, complicated with possible canvassing -- which does not need to be decided -- and the misdirection, intended or not, of a false resignation. Nobody wanted to kick a man while he was down.
Reviewing your closing statement, just now, I do feel that it was adequate, focusing on the basic issue, the widespread loss of confidence by long-term users, which sidesteps so many of the issues raised in objection. However, if you do wish to comment more thoroughly on your close, either here or in the CR, it might possibly help.
Your review and close with this unfortunate incident is appreciated. Thanks. --Abd 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
ping --mikeu talk 14:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Excellent. --Abd 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you made me smile

[10] (Cheering!)

(My WP topic ban would theoretically allow me to comment on your talk page there, but I'd rather not push it.)

The w:Cold fusion article process is totally crazy. It's claimed There are no reports from "secondary peer reviewed publications about the excess heat-helium correlation and x-rays". We cover the subject adequately. There are plenty of such reports, I won't list them here, but you can find heat/helium reports at Cold_fusion/Excess_heat_correlated_with_helium/Sources. I'm not expecting that you intervene in editing there, but it might help in understanding to know that the editor who made that claim has specifically removed at least one of these sources, so he knows they exist.

For a long time, the main library (by far) of by-permission preprints of most papers in the field, lenr-canr.org, was globally blacklisted, by request of one of the set of editors who have been sitting on the Wikipedia article, and the renewal of my topic ban on Wikipedia was based on my successful request at meta to lift that blacklisting. (I was allegedly too argumentative, though, in fact, it's quite obvious that if I hadn't been, the request would not have been granted. I was laying out the evidence, so I could then file a meta RfC if necessary. The blacklist admins knew that, and don't want an RfC, it would crimp their style, they are basically allowed to do Whatever They Please otherwise. I've worked on the blacklist problem for years, I know these admins and can sometimes cooperate with them....) Attempts to link to that library as an external link from w:Cold fusion, it clearly satisfies external link policy, were eventually removed (it was there for years), and an attempt to link to the Wikiversity resource was likewise recently reverted. "Self-published" was claimed -- which wouldn't be a reason for an EL! If, however, WV resources are "self-published", then every link on Wikipedia to another Wikipedia article would be to a "self-published" page. They were applying sourcing standards to external and inter-wiki links. Whatever it takes to keep it out.

It's very clear: there are editors on WP who do not want Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing and the ArbComm decision on fringe science to be implemented with cold fusion. The editor in question was topic banned on anything to do with fringe science in that decision, and Cold fusion is under discretionary sanctions as a result of my later case, but AE is useless if nobody is left who both understands the situation and is allowed to intervene.

I abandoned the effort and have not appealed the ban simply because it had all become too much work. One article isn't worth it. I can build resources on Wikiversity, and can work with skeptics, etc., without all the huge conflict. Some argument, for sure, but not the total waste of time that is Wikipedia process, slogging back and forth.

Anyway, thanks for making me smile. Ura Ursa may or may not be a sock, but these people will assert it and act on it without proof, they've done it many times, basing sock ID on POV, which then becomes a POV ban. Very similar to the whole Climate Change mess there, and some of the same people have been involved. --Abd 04:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Noob Question on Classification

Thank you for your welcome and invitation to ask questions, which I belatedly found today. Hope you don't regret it.

I'm working on a collection of lessons, currently linked from my user page (in the nav box at the bottom--the link is "What the Bible Says"), in a field where a similar resource already exists (Bible survey). My stuff is aimed at a secondary or adult education audience, and the existing material seems decidedly post-secondary. Is there room for both, and when the time comes how will I integrate my lessons?

Thanks again. Exfilia 18:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

How to Add Categories

Hi, I'm writing to you as a custodian (I think that's the term). I would like to add a category to the non-formal learning hierarchy, and possibly a sub-category. The major category would be 'careers and employment.' Obviously once I've done that I need to be able to mark articles so that they appear in the new category. Would you please point me in the right direction or towards someone else who might have the time to do so? Thanks! BillBell 18:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore my request. I think I've found what I need. Thanks anyway. --BillBell 20:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the welcome! BillBell 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Recreation

Yet another recreation. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

and more. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Now, what do we do? Range blocks? You know where that road goes. Endless maintenance. I'm going to do something with these IP-created pages, and we'll see what happens. I'll yank the speedy tags as part of this. I want to see if I can snag these users and encourage them to participate. Feel free to copy what I did, you can use your user space or mine. --Abd 03:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm covering this, now that I can revision-delete. It may take some time for these (kids?) to get it, I'm willing to be patient for a while. After all, I have seven children and five grandchildren, I've seen a bit in my time. --Abd 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

[11]. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for you to step down

Please see. Since there is no Bureaucratship policy, no one can make up statements about a Crat being required to remove a Crat, and seeing as how Bureaucratship requires a super majority of support, it seems highly unlikely that you will be allowed to continue. You can end unnecessary drama by resigning your Bureaucratship now. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion categorization

I noticed that you added and removed category Cold fusion from a subpage under that topic. Do you think that all resources under Cold fusion should have the category? You removed the category in this case, I think, because it was a Talk page, and that's correct, I believe.

I'm motivated to consider, here, what is appropriate as to categorization. A category for subpages is a bit redundant, but would still have some use, I suppose. Is this worth the maintenance labor?

Anyway, thanks for supporting this resource with routine maintenance, as well as by occasional discussion. --Abd 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had intended to tag the page, and not the talk page. My feeling is that the more methods of helping people find resources the better off we are. I would not consider a category of subpages to be redundant, as some people might use different methods to search for information. I seem to recall that there is also a dynamic page list feature to automatically generate a list of subpages. --mikeu talk 20:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, Cold fusion will be, my hope, a demonstration of how Wikiversity can address real-world controversies, using and developing and exploring them, in depth. As with any academic process, this might even eventually help to resolve some controversies, because certain controversies are maintained by lack of such detailed exploration. At the very least, we may develop an understanding of the basis for controversy, why people are lined up on this side or that, with others scratching their heads. --Abd 16:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

On moving to project space

I'm fine with moving User talk:SB Johnny/CR CR‎ to the project space. I worry a little bit that it will be a magnet for tl;dr post once it goes there. Followed by tl;dr arguments about how tl;dr is a good thing, and tl;dr rants about abuse if the tl;dr comments are removed.

Just sayin', but I suppose there's no way to find out aside from finding out :-). --SB_Johnny talk 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr --mikeu talk 20:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry to move it. Perhaps we should let folks chime in as they notice it for a short while, and then move it later? WV:NBD --mikeu talk 20:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't move it there yet. See how it develops, work on the process, managing it as "chair." Consider that you have formed a CR CR committee. If I don't like your committee, I can form my own damn committee! But as long as you allow me to participate in yours, why should I bother?
Your CR CR can be announced on the Colloquium, being explicit that it's not binding on anything until moved to CR subspace and announced in the site message (and you should not personally put it there!). If there are any polls there, pending, they are just "committee polls," to make temporary decisions about process, subject to your approval. What becomes irrelevant can be archived to page history or moved to page Talk. --Abd 22:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We've already had one person getting angry, it seems :-). The beauty of userspace is that the user can set the rules, or so I've been told. --SB_Johnny talk 22:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Who got angry? Yes. The beauty of user space. I've used it on Wikipedia, I ran a "self-RfC" there, it was effective to resolve a dispute, it was used to then negotiate with Jehochman, and he caved and apologized (without admitting bad faith, which I wasn't alleging) and we became good friends, even met off-wiki. Of course, there were the usual suspects screaming about how crazy it was to have a user manage his own RfC, and they tried to delete it, but it didn't fly. The RfC was presented as being for the purpose of advising me. Not binding on anyone else. --Abd 23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of ops

This is a clear and egregious abuse of ops.

You gave SB Johnny rights without consensus. The community responded and shot that down. You have no right to try and use ops to fight against the community.

Policy is very clear and states that to retain them he must have consensus in support. This is clearly not what he had, and you put an archive box on a discussion which policy does not allow for and protect a page in clear defiance of Wikiversity tradition.

You have violated just about every possible policy we have. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Privacy

See here.

Mabuabsdd

If you didn't notice, Mabuabsdd is part of the Aaqib group, the one we use to just block over the past two years instead of allowing them to spread there nonsense into dozens of pages. Now that Abd no longer has Custodian rights, can we clean up the "play area" and stop the kids from running amok? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, not having ops does make it more difficult for me to police that "group." This is apparently a number of elementary school kids, though it's a bit possible they are middle school. Ottava Rima should use Wikiversity:Request custodian action like any other mortal, and not solicit individual administrator action based on private argument.
There has been some (limited) success in encouraging these kids to communicate. See, however, Wikiversity:Playspace for the proposal, and User:Abd/Playspace for my personal implementation. These kids are, if nothing else, learning to use wikitext. The largest problem is with Wikiversity:Privacy, as these are apparently minors and may sometimes use real names. How would we know? However, massive intervention to prevent this will involve blocking school IP, which is not exactly a good course to pursue if we want to encourage schools to participate in Wikiversity. I've thought of contacting the school, but would want our community consensus before doing so.
No attention was paid in the recent CR on me to what I'd actually been doing as a custodian.... only to the very visible flap Ottava was creating. I was pursuing a graduated and cautious, friendly but firm, approach to dealing with these kids, encouraging them to keep their "games" out of mainspace, shoving it into user space where it was less disruptive and required a bit less attention. I will be responsible for pages in User:Abd/Playspace, but I can no longer revision delete, necessary to handle revelation of names. I'd appreciate guidance on how to handle this, now that I don't have ops. I suppose I can blank, use speedy deletion tags. This is not quite the emergency that "outing" represents, we are not obligated to instant response, my opinion, and revdel need not be instant. It may be enough that names are confined to history, for a short time.
I'll ask how successful blocking the Aaquib group was. That procedure requires constant sysop attention. If my approach fails, it won't make things worse, merely return them to the prior status quo. Ottava has a very different philosophy about Wikiversity, much more limited to a no-original-research, all-knowledge-is-officially approved, approach. Lousy with kids nowadays. I do have seven kids and six grandchildren.... At one point I had five teenagers, proof of my obvious insanity. --Abd 17:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion riquired! www.@mdj.com

Do not acting like this! But thanks for the deletion of Sponsor Episode. Draubb--Draubb 17:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My suspicion is strong that the user is creating many accounts. These are almost certainly elementary school kids, and I'm not sure how much they understand what they are doing and what is being said to them. I don't wonder that their stuff was routinely deleted before. However, carrot and stick. I think we should leave the carrot in place, allow user space pages, within reason. I'm unclear on whether or not we have one user here, or many, the appearance is that of a number of kids going to the same school, but also creating more accounts than one each. They are not particularly communicative with the adults here. I'm trying to keep the door open for positive or at least harmless play, while shutting it to continual need for custodial attention. Maybe I'll fail. But I'm willing to continue trying for a while. Without the tools, it's harder, but that's the breaks. The above made no sense to me. --Abd 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What next then?

Greetings. Peter Damian 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thrilled you are here. Can you convince Milton Roe to join us, too? —Moulton 22:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer a question and relate it to the above, we need to write a pile of policies so that we can ignore them. Welcome, I assume that Mike won't mind my welcoming you here. You can come on over to User talk:Abd if you need any doorstops. --Abd 02:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolutions

Hi Mike. I think we're making some progress with reforming Community Review to make it more useful and approachable. I've created a "resolutions" subpage in the interests of adopting the things we might agree upon, and leaving the things we still need to discuss for later. My hope is that by getting these reforms through we will be able to pursue further reforms, since that's pretty much what CRs should do.

With that in mind, please comment on Wikiversity:Community Review/CR process discussion/Resolutions.

I'm leaving this note because you've already commented. If you comment on nothing else, please let your opinion be clear on using the sitenotice (part of resolution #4). --SB_Johnny talk 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Notice of an amended resolution

Hi Mike. I'd like to make sure that you're aware of an amended version of a CR resolution you commented upon. Please let the community know if you're satisfied with the text of the new resolution.

On a personal note, please have a gander at my scratch page, and let me know your thoughts on that! --SB_Johnny talk 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton on User talk:Ottava Rima

User talk:Ottava Rima Thanks for removing that, supporting what I'd been doing. However, you did, then, leave the use of a personal name in place, when Ottava has previously objected to that. It's pretty certain that that message would also be unwanted. --Abd 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Pseudonymity and external correspondence where a discussion has started on how to clarify wv policy on the use of names. --mikeu talk 23:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton flagrantly violating your warning re outing

you warned Moulton.]

See Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Request_action by KillerChihuahua, which requests oversight of two edits. In this edit, Moulton edits a prior comment of his to show her real name. This is pure trolling with no possible academic justification.

In response, Moulton repeated the name, including in edit summaries, with [12] and [13], and with the last edit, establishes clearly that his intention is to harass.

With [14], Moulton also outs another WP user.

There is no privacy policy if it is not enforced.

As this is clear harassment, with apparent intention to harm, and besides revision deletion of outing edits, it is essential that Moulton be promptly blocked, until and unless it is clear that the risk of continued harassment has abated. This is not just about Wikiversity, there are major cross-wiki issues. Accordingly, I am discussing, with some involved, should this not be resolved locally, going to meta to request relinking of the WV Moulton account with the global account, so that the global lock is again effective here, as well as the addition of Caprice. (It could then be whitelisted if any admin wants to allow Moulton to edit. Apparently the whitelist works now.) --Abd 03:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

RCA request re-opened due to continued disruption by Moulton

Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Request_action. Moulton is also pushing the edge with outing, see [15]. I have re-opened the request at meta due to continued and gratuitous disruption. --Abd 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Gosh this is exciting. —Montana Mouse 15:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, would you consider it "outing" for me to post this link: Cold_fusion/Experts/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax? --mikeu talk 15:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. There is a reason for that page, it discloses possible conflict of interest. I pointed to Moulton's edit because he is using the name offensively, and, when one looks at what he's posted elsewhere, he's being fairly explicit about what he's hinted at with others: threatened legal action for libel. The use of the name, with me as with others, is to underscore personal responsibility. From a practical standpoint, apparent outing should be interdicted because investigating each situation is to cumbersome. I'm not suggesting that Moulton should be blocked for outing, but that he will push every edge, creating more and more disruption, until he finally manages to get himself blocked again. The core of this complaint is "Death Eater Bitch," and SBJ's apparent willingness to tolerate this. There are plenty of other signs, as well, that Moulton intends to be absolutely as disruptive as possible. He should not have been unblocked without assurances. --Abd 15:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • What I wanna know is why Mr. Lomax didn't complete his studies and earn a degree from CalTech. But I suppose I'm not entitled to know the true reason, on account of privacy of academic records. —Moulton 15:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
And the reason you want to know this? You would not find the answer in the records. I left in good standing, I could have returned at will. The bottom line is that I decided to study something else. --Abd 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You decided to study Cold Fusion, something that Richard Feynman would have derided, as an example of Cargo-Cult Science? —Moulton 16:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Eh? I left Cal Tech in 1964 or so. CF was discovered, probably, in 1989. I knew Feynman. You didn't. What he'd have derided would have been your pseudoskepticism, the rejection of experimental evidence in favor of attachment to personal opinion. I.e., what you do every day. --Abd 18:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Take all the time you need. —Moulton 17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Privacy violation

Thank you for the recent oversights; however you seem to have missed [16]. I am also a little confused as to why I have seen no actions other than cleanup/removal/oversight, not even a warning, regarding this behavior. Is this standard practice here? KillerChihuahua 13:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for contributing to our research project on discovering best practices for dealing with intimidating practices. —Gastrin Bombesin (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not voluntarily contributing to that "research" at all. I don't know why you're harassing me and trying to intimidate me. I have asked you to stop. KillerChihuahua 15:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you feeling harassed and intimidated? —Montana Mouse (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

[17] --mikeu talk 16:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion on WV:Privacy is being conducted here: Wikiversity_talk:Privacy_policy#Referencing_published_authors --mikeu talk 17:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving on Requests for deletion.

There are some very old discussions there, and some recent ones that might have an apparent close, but my tentative "close while involved" was rejected, repeatedly, in one case. My view is that RfDs should not hang around forever, the existence of many on the page has an effect of suppressing discussion, and the argument that leaving discussions open will lead to improvements is very incorrect; many people will not improve a page that has a deletion tag on it, I learned, the hard way, to avoid that on wikipedia. If I wanted to improve a marginal page, I'd wait for deletion process to complete and then, if it was deleted, arrange for the page to be userfied, so that work could proceed without disruption.

Do you think that you could review some of the discussions and close them? Either with a keep/delete conclusion, or accepting userification, or other result, or as "no consensus", the latter judging that enough time has passed without a clear conclusion?

("No consensus" is always "without prejudice," except for possibly inhibiting immediate renomination. For simplicity, we should establish some standards, which will matter if the WV scale increases.

Thanks for considering this. --Abd 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this an outing in the desert?

Is this outing content? The purported real name of a contributor to Wikipedia is in there. (I also asked SBJ about this.) --Abd 23:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Who the hell knows if it's his real name? He writes under six different names. "Paul Mitchell" is the name he writes under on the WMF Mailing List. It's just one of the many pseuds used by the author who, here on Wikiversity, wrote under at least two registered names plus an IP or two. You certainly had no qualms about listing all the pseuds and IPs under which I post content on WMF sites. —Caprice 00:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've responded to this at User talk:SB Johnny#Is this outing content? and probably should have simply cited that page instead of copying my notice. Sorry. You may remove this section, as far as I'm concerned, it's enough that you be aware of what's going on, so that you may act if needed. Thanks. --Abd 00:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Uh, reread what I wrote above. Mike is free to disregard this, though he's the one who warned you about the outing thing, so he's a proper admin to notify that You Are Still Doing It. If he doesn't care for Lunatic Psychodrama, what in the world was he thinking when he accepted (and continued accepting) being a Wikiversity admin? That's a question, not an accusation. He is not obligated to answer! --Abd 01:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I reckon he was thinking that Wikiversity was an authentic learning community and not a Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd to be frequented by a curious cast of characters dressed up as Eight-Line Rhyme Schemes, Narcissistic Centaurs, Doubtful Salmon, Killer Canines, and Gamboling Goats going for a musical outing in the desert. —Caprice 04:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Charles Moore 2010 WWA etc

Category:Charles Moore 2010 WWA Hi mikeu

Here is my reply to you concerning the titular matter. Cheers! -- KYPark [T] 09:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Hey, thanks for welcoming me to Wikiversity. Well, I've been looking at things here for the last days, and I liked a few things. For example, I signed up for a Breton course (School of Language and Literature under Faculty for Humanities. I'll come back here and post if I need help - though I hope that won't be necessary. Will that be okay? --User:Scorpio March 18, 2011 5:41 PM (IST)

science communication

Folling up on what we discussed the other day, this podcast has a lot of starting points: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2011/3089284.htm

--SB_Johnny talk 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Welcome Message

Thanks a lot mike, It was really nice to meet you. The information shared by you is really useful. Lets learn a lot about meteors. --Venkyzealous 16:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Philly astronomy night

Thought you'd get a kick out of this. --SB_Johnny talk 08:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Slide show

Thanks for your suggestion of Commons:User:Dschwen/Slideshow. For the reason you mention, and because I'd rather keep the slide show to a fraction of the screen, however, I'd like to keep looking.

 darklama  has offered me an implementation that seems likely to meet my needs. I need to experiment with it to see how far I can push it.

Thanks for your help and interest so far.

BillBell 13:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Great, yeah Darklama is very adept at working out solutions to these kinds of things. Let me know if there is anything else that I can help with, though. --mikeu talk 15:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Biblical RfD

Hi Mike, I reopened an RfD you commented on previously: Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#A_Translation_of_the_Bible. SJ+> 03:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Belated Thanks plus Question

First, Mike, belated thanks for your welcome!

Second, I would like to be able to put a slide show within a topic on wikiversity using, say, [18], and perhaps some other javascript libraries. Would you please tell me where the rules for using such things are outlined--if indeed they are permitted at all?

BillBell 18:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice so far.
BillBell 15:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing username

Mu301, I see you made an edit today. If you have time, would you mind looking at Wikiversity:Changing username? I've clerked the page to make it easier, and have made recommendations. If any of my recommendations are improper, I'd love to know. It should now be practically one-button to handle good rename requests, and two-button for usurpations that are ready. Let me know what you think, okay? Thanks. --Abd 16:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Marshallsumter

User:Marshallsumter Mu301, I'm contacting you because you're a bureaucrat here. We've had some problems over at en.wikipedia due to the activities of Marshallsumter, who has been creating very problematic articles as part of a "research project" he's been writing about over here - see Dominant group. Although Marshallsumter is now blocked at en.wikipedia, and is likely to receive a ban, he continues to contribute here. All of his contributions on Wikiversity relate to his own original research on creating meaningless pages about combinations of words on Wikipedia, and he's now using Wikiversity to host versions of these pages, which have since been deleted at en.wikipedia. I am unfamiliar with most Wikiversity policies, but I don't think it's acceptable for a user to coordinate disruption of another Wikimedia project from here. Would you please look into a way of preventing this activity ? Thanks. --S Larctia 10:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I was aware that the user had been active at Wikipedia with "problematic articles." However, original research is allowed at Wikiversity. "Coordinating disruption" would not be allowed. Can you explain what you mean by that? What activity is it that you wish to prevent? We have no control over what users do on other projects. --Abd 13:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
If you read through Dominant group, it is clear that Marshallsumter's "research" here involves creating large numbers of problematic articles on Wikipedia to see how the Wikipedia community responds. All of his Wikiversity activity relates to creating the said disruptive articles. I'd like Marshallsumter to be prevented from writing about this particular "research" on Wikiversity and using Wikiversity as a place to store drafts and copies of deleted Wikipedia articles (you can find them as subpages of Dominant group). This is clearly an abuse of his privilege to edit Wikiversity. Thanks. --S Larctia 14:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Larctia, it seems you are trying to prevent a user from writing material that may be allowed here, not being satisfied with arranging his block on enwiki. If there is a specific problem where Wikiversity inclusion policy is being violated, please point it out; however, "deleted Wikipedia articles" are not prohibited content here, per se, depending on details and how they are placed. Frankly, I'd prefer to arrange for transwiki for deleted articles that may have some educational value, to preserve contribution history, but if he's the only major contributor, that's not a problem. The user can surely "store drafts" off-line, but he can share them here. There are possible concerns, to be sure.
Do you have the idea that material not appropriate for Wikipedia is therefore not appropriate for any WMF wiki? In any case, Mu301 is quite inactive. I'd suggest we not continue to discuss this here. There is your user Talk page and mine, if you have any specific concerns, or there is Wikiversity:Request custodian action, if you believe a user is being disruptive here, and we have speedy deletion tags ( {{delete|(deletion reason) --~~~~}} ) and Wikiversity:Requests for deletion. --Abd 16:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Much as it's sort of funny watching you try to convince this person, Abd, I'm pretty sure you've met him before ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 20:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You may be pretty sure, but I'm not. Maybe you know or have noticed something I haven't, beyond "deletionist," and the one that would come to mind for me, I haven't seen specific signs. I did comment on the user's Talk page. To put it politely, this is a "highly experienced returning user, not disclosing prior account." As to "convincing" him or her, I'm giving the person an opportunity. I'm not relying on him or her accepting it. --Abd 01:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to register for the Wikiversity Assembly

  • The Wikiversity:Assembly has been established as a technique for developing reports on topics of import for Wikiversity administration. The Assembly is not a decision-making body, per se. Rather, it is designed to create or discover or estimate consensus, through focused, facilitated, thorough deliberation. Assembly reports may be referenced in regular Wikiversity discussions, but will not directly control outcomes. Where full consensus is not found, minority reports may be issued.
  • I invite you to register for the Wikiversity:Assembly by adding your user name to the Wikiversity:Delegable proxy/Table.
  • Registering for the Assembly creates no specific obligation, but does consent to direct communication as the Assembly may determine is appropriate. You may opt out of such direct communication by adding "no messages" to the Table when you register, in the user comment field, but it is unlikely that the default (communication allowed) will create burdensome traffic for you.

You are invited to name a proxy

  • When you register for the Assembly, you may optionally designate a "proxy."
  • I suggest that you nominate, as a proxy, the user whom you most trust to participate positively in a Wikiversity discussion if you are unable to participate yourself. The proxy will not be voting for you in any process. Rather, the proxy will be considered to loosely represent you, as a means of estimating probable large-scale consensus based on small-scale participation, in the event that you do not personally participate.
  • If you name a proxy, you will be consenting to direct communication with you by that proxy. If a named proxy accepts the proxy, you become, as long as you maintain the nomination (you may change it at any time), the "client" of the proxy, and by accepting, a proxy has consented to direct communication from the client.

Comments

This is a device for allowing thorough deliberative process while not requiring massive participation, which, without attention to process details, can become enormously inefficient and confusing. The proposals may look complicated, but they will, in practice, be simple. I hope you will consider this. Thanks. --Abd 19:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

FLOSS4Science

FLOSS4Science Hi :-)

A couple of years ago on my talk page:

I hadn't noticed Portal:FLOSS4Science until just now.  
This is a great idea, and I would like to see this developed.
--mikeu talk 11:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

and I responded

Great! I would love to see a community grow around this project. 
Please go for it (i.e. do whatever you want to take it further) 
and let me know if there is anything specific I can do to help. 
K 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone seems to have taken the idea further (www.floss4science.com).

This is a good thing ... just wish they had not decided to impose NC-ND on all the content on their web site (scroll down to the foot of the front page) - breaks the spirit in which the knowledge was shared.

Of course it is entirely possible they came up with the idea independently.

- K 12:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Closures needed

Hi Mike. I have offered to mentor a new arrival. Are you available for button pushing?

Also, Abd's confirmation is on it's 5th day now. I'm too involved to close (as is James, I would imagine).

Thanks! --SB_Johnny talk 11:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That was handled by agreement. --Abd 17:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot learning resources

I am interested in your plans! Keep planning! This bot WILL used to generate examples for the creation of learning resources, if I have any say in the matter! Ray Calvin Baker 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC) (P. S. I got here trying to find out when the sandbox was invented. I would like to nominate those involved for a Nobel Peace Prize!)

Mu301Bot at Astronomy

Hi Mu301!

Your Bot has kindly stopped by the Astronomy article that I have been contributing to pointing out apparently problematic links. I wanted to update you on these.

Dead link - has been deleted.
Dead link 2 - "Reference checked and link works fine. No clue why bot's having a problem!"
Dead link 3 - "Section of article is a cited quote from Wikipedia article "Andromeda Galaxy", which contains the broken link even now."

I cannot leave messages at WP, but perhaps you can if you wish to verify and notify accordingly.

Just FYI Marshallsumter 20:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for the note. I'll take a look at the bot logs to see what is up. --mikeu talk 14:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I just changed link 2 from https to http which the bot seems to like better. w:Andromeda Galaxy already has that link tagged as broken, but I'll need to look around to find a reliable source as a replacement. Let me know if the bot is incorrectly reporting any other broken links. --mikeu talk 15:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mu301!

Your Bot has again kindly stopped by the Dominant group/Astronomy article to report the following link to be dead:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168822708003355.

When I click on the link it takes me to the Abstract on ScienceDirect, which I believe should be okay. I've added a pmid from Pubmed to this same link. No idea if this is a problem with the bot. Marshallsumter 17:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X80900047, does the same thing. Is this a problem? Marshallsumter 17:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems like the problem occurs when the bot tries to check an url for a website that does redirects, ie. when the wiki page has a link to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168822708003355 but the Science Direct webserver rewrites the url as http://www.diabetesresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S0168-8227%2808%2900335-5/abstract One solution would be to try to the second url. Another option is to try the [[doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2008.07.017]] syntax which gives a link to the same article that looks like this: doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2008.07.017 or this: Global complication rates of type 2 diabetes in Indigenous peoples: A comprehensive review. Also, please let me know if the bot is annoying ;) I can tell it to ignore specific pages. --mikeu talk 00:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mu301Bot at Dominant group/Planetary science

Hi MikeU!

The bot didn't like another sciencedirect abstract: url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103500963589. These sciencedirect abstracts normally do not allow the wikiversitian to get to a free copy of the article, which I would prefer the reader to have access to. Usually, Google scholar can give me the complete quote which I put into the article. If I need to do follow up I just interlibrary loan (ILL) (usually for free, so far) a copy of the article. Any suggestions? I don't mind an occasional message from the bot. It did find one dead link at Dg/Ps, but these sciencedirect abstracts are a bit annoying as is the demand for $s. Marshallsumter 17:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491606002557 is another one like above at radiation astronomy found by the bot. One possibility is to leave these sciencedirect abstract urls out of the citation. Another might be a bot scan command that skips the process when it finds "... sciencedirect ...". This way if the user wants to ILL a copy they have all the info they need. A third may be to put a note with the citation indicating that the quote is obtained by Google scholar. Marshallsumter 17:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay link

The following link url=http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/m87.html works fine. No clue what bot is having trouble with. Marshallsumter 17:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Username rename request: White Cat -> とある白い猫

I'd like to request a username rename per SUL. -- Cat chi? 13:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My flowers pics

Hi. I'm sorry I post in a wrong section. -- Best regards! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.131.176.154 (talkcontribs) 04:54, 31 March 2012‎ (UTC)

User:SallyIMHV

User:SallyIMHV This is not the first time I've seen this spambot try to disguise spam as a userpage. mw:User:WilbertMc had very similar content as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

m:Special:MyLanguage/Single User Login finalisation announcement|Forced user renames coming soon for SUL

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL

Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 13:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Custodianship

Can you please mentor me to become a custodian? ---Draubb

Right now I don't have time to mentor a new custodian. There are many task that you can help with that will improve Wikiversity as a source of learning that do not require custodianship. --mikeu talk 15:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Name Change

Could you change my name for me? I've been waiting a while...

Wikiversity:Changing_username#simplex_.E2.86.92_simplicial_complex

Simplex (discusscontribs) 09:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users

Dear Mu301,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!


Auto-block

My account was compromised during my absence. Can you enable an indefinite block to prevent further damage from wiki projects? Thanks for your collaboration! --BScMScMD (discusscontribs) 00:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I noticed an odd edit by BScMScMD on Light and optics. It did not seem to be vandalism but a good faith edit. I looked at his/her recent contributions and came across the aforementioned entry. The claim of compromise might be legit. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer‎

Sorry about the conflicting edits on MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer‎. Thanks for correcting this link! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! It probably would have taken me at least a couple more tries to get it right. Editing template syntax gives me flashbacks to the time I tried to learn Lisp... --mikeu talk 02:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the View History tab of any page the External Tools: have some problems. Two of them are 301 Moved Permanently and another is 404 - Not Found. I can't seem to find the mediawiki page to fix it. --mikeu talk 01:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Try MediaWiki:Histlegend. Let me know if you want me to try to correct anything. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Candidates for Custodianship

Regarding Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Leutha, apparently there was never a nomination or vote for full custodianship. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's been there an awful long time. I un-archived the discussion and pinged Jtneill.--mikeu talk 20:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
It had been removed previously. Abd was researching it and discovered there was never a vote and restored the entry. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess...

...you've returned for good now? Or just a short stop? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had some personal issues that made it difficult to participate. I'm going to work on some small projects this semester and try to get back into regular editing. --mikeu talk 00:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Great to know that a user from the old days are back :) I'm an "old" user too (Mabuabsdd, Draubb) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on Curator! Your contributions are improving the project. --mikeu talk 03:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment :) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, my watchlist has stuff on it all of a sudden! --SB_Johnny talk 13:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hehe. Drop by Wikiversity:Think tank for a blast from the past. --mikeu talk 18:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite Block on an IP

I don't necessarily think that's a good idea, as someone else might use that IP later down the road that WANTS to contribute constructively. (https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=+68.153.113.200&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=) In my opinion, a 6 months - 2 year block would be sufficient, because the IP might be the IP of a user that wants to contribute productively (or maybe the IP might change, we don't know). Thanks (and remember, this is just my advice) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There are too many inappropriate edits on multiple projects going back to last October. (I also blocked the ip on outreach: and hid revisions there, others have blocked for various times on wp, etc.) I'm waiting for some additional info from the Stewards to decide on the appropriate duration of the block. There is a cross-wiki pattern of unproductive contributions and lack of communication. For now, a good faith contributor can edit the talk page and request unblock. I would need to see some reassurance that the pattern won't continue. I'll review within 7 days, it is unlikely to stay indef. --mikeu talk 15:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
As to the appropriate duration, this is a bit of an edge case. The ip may be a public computer in a library, for example, which would argue for a shorter block like a month. However, the nature of the edits could be an attempt at posting info useful for w:Identity theft which is a very serious breach of Mediawiki policy. Even if that is not true, the editing has been disruptive. I would usually prefer to handle this through the abuse filter but the edits don't have enough in common to catch all of them. Part of the reason for the duration and message in the block it to flag this for admins on other projects that it needs to be looked at more carefully. This ip seems to have slipped through the cracks, hopping from project to project to persistently evade short blocks for the past couple of months. --mikeu talk 15:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The ip is now globally blocked. I've removed the local block as it is redundant. --mikeu talk 23:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright, great. Thank you. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Notices

Do you find blocked notices on spambot user pages adding value? I haven't bothered because there's no legitimate user to see the notice. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It is probably a waste of time. In some cases where it looks like a person manually inserted spam it might have some slight effect, though I'll grant that it is unlikely. I don't think there is any point in us making the effort. I've also refrained from blocking ip addresses where the abuse filter succeeded in preventing edits. I don't think that it is a bad idea at all, it's just an unproductive use of my time if the filter is doing its job. --mikeu talk 18:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been doing the IP blocking more as a personal experiment than for wiki protection. I wanted to identify the approximate number of bots under control. By blocking and forcing the controller to change addresses, I have a much better understanding of their botnet size and the approximate location of their victims. I have also seen the attacks reduced, but I don't know how much of that is block and how much is the filter working so they don't try anymore. If I were to guess, I'd say it's the filter. As the blocks expire, there are relatively few repeats. I may give up the block effort soon and focus on filtering. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fascinating. Please let me know if you learn anything else from the experiment. I saw the blocks and jumped in to lend a hand thinking the activity was a problem. Then realized it wasn't worth the effort given that the filter was doing most of the work. --mikeu talk 20:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Open Proxies

On a related note, I noticed that we have thousands of indef. blocked IP addresses from January 2007 as part of the Wikiversity:Open Proxies project. As far as I can tell, this is no longer necessary, based on meta:WikiProject on open proxies being a historical archive and meta:Category:Open proxies blocked on all participating projects existing. Any thoughts on whether to maintain these blocks locally? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I imagine that some of the open proxies were abandoned long ago. Though there might still be some ISPs who tolerate abusive use of their hosting. I'm not sure how risky it would be. I tried to cross reference a couple of them but couldn't pin down if they were still legitimately blocked at wp. We don't seem to have indef blocked any proxy since 2012, which leads me to wonder how much of a problem it still is. Wikimedia has changed a lot since then and the cross-wiki abuse that gets globally locked now reduces that burden here. I find it odd that the ips blocked here are not also globally locked if they were such a problem. I suppose we could turn a few dozen on and see what happens? I'd also suggest that we change the proxy template to explain how to request unblock.
Have you seen User:Mu301Bot/Requests for unblock? If you watchlist the page you'll see when a request gets added to the category. It runs hourly.
FWIW, it looks like there are automated tools to detect them w:Wikipedia:Open_proxy_detection/Explanation But, a quick look shows much out of date information. --mikeu talk 22:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

ip proxy unblock

Would it be possible to have your bot delete the IP talk page when the block is removed? I'm not going to be able to keep up on the deletes. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking we need to get more systematic about this. I think the talk page removal is secondary to the unblocking and have been focusing on the later. I would have to flag my bot as curator to enable deletion. I wanted to check how the community felt about that. But don't worry about my leftovers. I'll take care of it one way or another. I might have the bot replace the proxy template with speedy while we figure it out. --mikeu talk 03:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I figured out a way to do it as tagged. I know I can loop through the backlinks for {{openproxy}} to find the pages that have it, and then check that user to see if their status is blocked. If not, then delete the page. But I would have the same problem of needing to flag the bot as curator for the deletions. Otherwise, I could have it generate deletion URLs. See User:Dave Braunschweig/sandbox for unblock links. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
See User:Dave Braunschweig/sandbox. We can do them as a pair. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a lot more efficient. We should discuss the curator flag with the community. The magnitude of this is quite large. In the past bot deletion has been controversial. Personally, I would be comfortable with it if there were some clear ground rules, ie. a limited scope task like just open proxy talk pages and/or limited time frame. The flag can be added and removed easily, if there is consensus to do so. I'm heading to work now but will look into this later. --mikeu talk 14:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Another possibility would be to have a bot search for recent unblocks and change {{Openproxy}} to {{subst:Welcomeip}} and perhaps add to a category like Category:Unblocked OP. I don't much care if the pages exist, but the block notice really needs to be removed. Given the magnitude of blocks this could cut our time in half. --mikeu talk 00:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask...

...what is your opinion/view on blocking IPs because they are "proxies"? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that the folks at meta will block them globally about as quick as we could, and global blocks are more effective in that it prevents an active proxy from hopping from project to project to evade a local block. The former policy was to block open proxies even if there were no edits. I disagree and think that temporary local blocks should only be used in cases where there is disruptive editing and not preemptively. The mediawiki wide system of blocking repeat offenders has changed significantly since the blocks that we removed were put in place. That sort of policy is no longer the best method. --mikeu talk 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that IP proxies should be blocked only when they disruptively edit :-) Is there any future plans on writing a policy about IP Proxies here at WV? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Of the OPs that I've unblocked I've run across only one like Special:Contributions/67.15.28.21 that are globally blocked for an extended time. I think the mediawiki wide policy is fine. --mikeu talk 01:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

reply to IRC

Thank you for the compliment. But, couldn't a request close if there aren't any objections to it? I believe I know what I'm doing in front of a pair of buttons, but after all: timing. If it's going to be halted, I have no problem with that, I have no rush to become one. (oh and thank you for the move) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There has always been a requirement for a Probationary period mentor and then the mentor is the one who recommends (or not) the candidate for Full. "If any experienced custodians agree to mentor you and you agree to their mentorship, then you will be approved as a probationary custodian for a period of at least four weeks." [19] "Candidates that... have failed to secure a mentor within one week are archived as incomplete." [20] There are a number of archived requests that were closed with the comment "No custodians willing to mentor the user." It is perfectly acceptable to find a mentor first and then add your request to candidate page. Either method is fine.
As I said in irc, I think you are doing a good job. I have also been taking the time to explain why I've made certain decisions about blocks as a sort of "pre-mentorship." (But, I'm also trying to get caught up on tasks that were left unfinished while on wikibreak.) There are things I check for when blocking like cross-wiki abuse, revert vandalism on other projects, or alert an admin there. We're all in this together and I feel it is important to communicate with our sister project colleagues about issues that are occurring that might have an impact there. I also look for threats or libel in an edit or personally identifiable info which needs to be revision deleted. These cases are not always obvious or uncontroversial. The mentorship is really intended as a learning experience. Those who have used the tools for longer have seen rare activity that should be handled in a cautious way.
As you may have noticed I tend to take my time with certain things :) There is no rush to update the BOT policy, for example, and there are good reasons for moving slowly. In some cases it is better to give it a little thought before pushing the buttons. A sandbox edit might be a little spamish, but that doesn't necessarily warrant a block. Maybe a revert and {{welcome ip}} instead.
PS: the #wikiversity channel is for betawikiversity: But there is also #wikiversity-en for our project. I usually hang out in both, but mostly I watch out for requests for custodian action in -en. These channels are very little used today, but were once much more active. On occasion an admin from another project would alert us for cross-wiki vandalism. This is mostly done through other methods now. --mikeu talk 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Documentation template?

Is the {{documentation}} template no longer to be used here? Why did you delete it? It's still used by lots of templates. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming this was a mistake? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd say so. Can someone undelete it? :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was a botched import. I deleted a few files by mistake. I though I had restored things but let me know if there is anything I missed. Sorry for the confusion. Also, if you see any odd messages try adding ?action=purge to the URL and refreshing as this will clear the cache and show the restored files. --mikeu talk
No worries. Could you please also import {{documentation subpage}}? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 Y Done Please let me know if there is anything else that needs restoring. --mikeu talk 04:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 06:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Astronomy Images

Just an FYI on duplicate astronomy images. Marshallsumter had problems with Commons deleting images and not providing an opportunity to recover them and put them here as Fair Use. So we haven't been removing duplicates lately. I haven't heard any complaints on other content, but it's probably better to leave the astronomy duplicates for now. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I just worked on a handful of astro images, so I'm not sure which dup you are referring to. I moved three of my uploads to commons. I tagged this page File:Sicily - NASA orbital photo.jpg as speedy; I saw the note and didn't delete it in case the page was still needed for a bug report. This one appears to be a copyvio (or three) File:Betelgeuse PK.png. --mikeu talk 03:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
If you find any duplicates uploaded by Marshallsumter, it would be best to check with him before deleting. The rest can probably be deleted. For awhile I removed duplicates. Then there was discussion and agreement that the duplicates don't harm Wikiversity, so we were leaving them. Copyright violations are a different issue. They can sometimes be used as Fair Use, but would need to be tagged that way. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
That all sounds good, The dups are fine with me. There are some uploads of mine from aeons ago that I would prefer at commons as I do a significant amount of cross wiki editing. It is more than just tagging fair use, but the missing attribution, licensing, and exemption doctrine rationale will have to wait for another day. I don't really have the energy to open that can of worms right now. --mikeu talk 04:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm not surprised that Marshallsumter has had problems with deletions at Commons. From what I've seen of his expansive interpretation of fair use here he appears to be going beyond a reasonable reading of Foundation policy. Specifically, several of the provisions listed below. This is something that the community will eventually need to discuss at length, but as it is a rather large problem I suspect that we will need to approach this through several smaller steps over time. --mikeu talk 20:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine is used as little as possible and only in order to attain a specific educational goal. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice. An entire copyrighted work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used when possible. Even low-resolution/fidelity or short samples cannot be used under the fair use doctrine at Wikiversity if such use allows for piracy or other re-use that will decrease the market value of the copyrighted work." —Exemption Doctrine Policy

Wikiversity:Year of Science 2016

I am not sure what your plans were for Wikiversity:Year of Science 2016. I tend to ramble, so feel free to move my recent contribution to the talk page.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact I moved it all to the talk page and went to do a rollback, only to discover that Atcovi performed an edit. I don't wan't to rever his edit without discussion.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I really like the ideas there. These are all great suggestions for improving wv. I'll add some info that more specifically addresses the improvement of science related resources. --mikeu talk 02:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the only edit was to add a single comma. I wouldn't worry about that. --mikeu talk 02:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that @Guy vandegrift :P (btw I'm interested in Wikiversity:Year of Science 2016) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@Atcovi: No apology necessary. I was about to revert my own edits, and you "saved" them!--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Atlantis

Hi.

This is John Garner. I have been adding to the Wikiversity Atlantis site from my work computer at the hospital. Sometimes I do not log in or I forget.

I have been registered under user name RAYLEIGH22 for quite some time. I also work on it at home from time to time.

At the present I am working in Medical Records. I have been a radiologic technologist since 1970 registered by the ARRT since 1972. I have teaching licenses for high school and I ran a radiologic technology program for 13 years.

I have always dabbled in science also having a BS and a MS in Physics. I have a PhD in educational administration. This is only one of my hobbies. But I do have a love for this science of geology, thanks, for helping me. I could not be getting around these sites and contributing without your help, and I could not be sharing this hypothesis regarding Atlantis without your help.

John Garner PhD RAYLEIGH22

63.134.186.84 (discuss) 13:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! I'm happy to provide any help that I can. Let me know if you need anything. --mikeu talk 21:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

PlanetPhysics

PlanetPhysics was a website that is no longer available. Last year someone who must have been a primary contributor provided a PlanetPhysics archive and asked that it be imported here. The problem with the archive was that it was only effectively available in LaTeX format. I did a bunch of research, found some LaTeX to Wiki conversion code, improved it as much as I had time for, and imported the 800 or so pages. Another user had agreed to review all of the pages after they were imported. Apparently that review was incomplete. The entire learning project likely needs review, but physics is not my area of expertise. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to join the board of First Journal of Science

After a communication with our other board member, I can now invite you to join the board of the First Journal of Science. As per this recent edit by Mikael Häggström, you might someday choose to recluse yourself from the board so you can be more active as a referee or contributor. But at the moment your insights are badly needed to get this thing off the ground. If you choose to accept this offer, go to First_Journal_of_Science/Editorial_board and add your name to the membership list.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I find the idea very interesting and would be willing to contribute. --mikeu talk 02:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your nomination of an article for FJS

Mike - As per our discussion I "nominated" the article on Alpha_Centaur. In order to illustrate the nomination procedure, I added your signature on your behalf. Delete immediately if you have any reservations. I "forged" your signature so that other editors would understand the process. The page is at First Journal of Science/Publishing. An opportunity to publicly discuss the nomination is at First Journal of Science/Editors which will soon contain a link to the article's submission talk page. Also, board meetings will be held at First Journal of Science/Editorial board/log. To keep that page short, place lengthy information, discussion, etc. at First Journal of Science/Editorial board/log/Mu301.

Finally, my communications with Mikael are complicated because they are cross-wiki (he does a lot on Wikipedia). If I sent recently you a messsage or you a comment, and you can't remember what page it was, or even which wiki, there is a "directory" at First Journal of Science/Editorial board that looks like this: Guy vandegrift T v: w: b: c: log.S. Click the individual letters to see what's up.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 12:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That all sounds good. I'm trying to multitask here by both improving wp for the Year of Science while also getting our journal launched. I need to give some thought to this process. I've made some suggestions to Centauri talk that might require substantial editing of 3 subsections. The article may be too unstable to review for a short time. I would not feel comfortable accepting the permalink until my concerns are addressed. This one is in the stage where I have "sent the manuscript back to the authors and requested that they resubmit a corrected version to our journal" when these issues are addressed. I'm also on wp often, so let me know if there are any pages to watchlist there. --mikeu talk 13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

First Journal of Science

Board meeting at First Journal of Science/Editorial board/log. Not urgent -Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Files with no machine-readable license

I was attempting to use commonshelper to move the first of our files in this category and found that the file is already on Commons with the exact same title: "File:-1--4tiles.png". The version here at File:-1--4tiles.png is an earlier version without an ellipse around the "+++". If this is true with all or nearly all of the other files in this category, using this first file as a test, would deleting this first file here cause the resource it appears in to now call the Commons file? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If the file has the same exact name, then yes, deleting the local copy will cause the commons version to appear in all linked pages. You might have trouble undeleting here, if you needed to later, as the interface won't let you overwrite a global copy with a local one. --mikeu talk 02:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

File:01 Project Preparation.png

Attempts to delete this file have proved vexing. I've tried deleting this file twice now and I'm getting this very strange message, "Error deleting file: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/k/9/a/k9art0b8dzdhxjty717rlz46bliwu3z.png" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends". Clues? I have deleted another file from the speedy delete category and another from Category:Files with no machine-readable license without a problem. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Very weird. I successfully moved the file out of the way so that the commons version has now taken its place in our pages. But, I still can't delete the file either. We may have to file a bug report. The file itself is not such a big deal, but it indicates that there is an error somewhere. --mikeu talk 22:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The only thing I've found so far unique to this file is this at the top of the file when opened with "Edit source": "* Wikiversity:Main Page --> Practical Arts and Sciences --> School of Project Management --> Project Management - A course in Project Management based on Mindmaps". I don't see why this should matter. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Get emails about Wikiversity Journal matters

Hi! As a fellow board member of Second Journal of Science, I think you may want to be included in the email list used to discuss matters related to the overall Wikiversity Journal project, including issues that affect both Second Journal of Science and Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. You can email me your preferred address if you're interested. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Y Done --mikeu talk 12:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Mispelled a Link/Page :-(

I didn't want to bother you with such a tedious task but I have misspelled a title (sub-)page and it has been annoying me every time I see it... Here's the page: Pre-Late Egyptian Reconstruction/Templatic Class I: The i-Type Vacalizations and it should be vocalizations not vacalizations. Thank you for your time and patience and work on this site =).-- dannydiscuss 14:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Y Done I moved the page, but didn't leave a redirect. --mikeu talk 17:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Good to see you around! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for this on the cold fusion RfD.

I added some comments after you posted that, not noticing your request. I have reverted myself. If you have time, please look at that and revert back in anything that looks okay, or let me know I can do it. -- or close the RfD as requested without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled later (presumably following your request). Otherwise it is likely to continue to attract more mess. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I just realized why you thought that study page was "checkuser-like." It's because the information was compiled -- copy-pasted -- from actual checkuser requests, mostly on Wikipedia, and so users are listed with the checkuser template. That's all. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sanctions: any attempts by you to create "case studies" or "investigations" of wiki contributor activity at en-wv are subject to a formal Review Board as described at Wikiversity:Review board. This includes sock puppets and anonymous editors discussed in any namespace. You must request permission before creating any such content here and this will be strictly enforced using revision deletion, page protection, and/or blocks. We have received numerous legitimate complaints about your activity over a long period of time. We expect any future activity on this site to adhere to the "high ethical standards" as described at Wikiversity:Research guidelines Please review your future contributions to ensure that they adhere to Wikiversity:Privacy policy. --mikeu talk 18:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

ːThanks, Mike, I appreciate the warning. I am not aware that I have violated privacy policy, though one external link in the study you deleted did originally have a name in the URL. That was immediately handled by Dave, and I fully cooperated with that -- and still have not mentioned the name in the meta study, nor have I linked to off-WMF material.

Can you give a specific example of any such recent "case studies" or "investigations" here? If I have a problem with SPAs appearing, may I request custodian attention on the page for that? May such requests document what I consider the problem? With an RfD, if I discover clear evidence of canvassing, may I disclose that?

ːAs to the "legitimate requests," is there any documentation of this, or is this a star chamber where I am sanctioned with no knowledge of who accused me, what I was accused of, and opportunity to respond. In any case, I have not been creating such studies on Wikiversity, the one that you found that you deleted had been blanked, merely to avoid attack on it here, which was clearly causing disruption, and it was moved to meta, because it was about cross-wiki LTA activity. I will, nevertheless, exercise extreme caution. I will look at the Review Board, and at Community Review as well. I will no longer be working to build content on Wikiversity, pending, I have better places to work in any case. Please think about making Wikiversity safe for scholars, from attack by those who come from outside. That is what that study here was about, SPA disruption, a long-term problem. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

We're not exactly inundated with SPAs or any other "threat" that urgently requires your assistance. If you see cross-wiki activity you can try posting at meta. Otherwise we have plenty of folks here with the tools and the trust of the community to handle whatever scarce inappropriate activity that occurs. Please take a break from this sort of activity here. This really gets to the core of my concern: you are using militaristic language like "from attack by those who come from outside" which creates an adversarial us against them environment. You literally categorize WMF participants as Friends and Enemies. These are not isolated instances. This permeates a lot of your on-wiki interactions and it is detrimental to a collegial learning environment.
I'm going to let your w:Star Chamber snark slide by without a brief incivility block despite the fact that the phrase is "synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded." You've been around long enough to know that admins are sometimes privy to sensitive personal information that could have real world consequences and that we are required by WMF policy to respect confidentiality where it is warranted. I will however share one quote from a private exchange: "Regarding Abd at Wikiversity... the participation his behavior draws certainly have a net negative effect on my experience." Please note that this is not from an anon or someone who is more active at Wikipedia. This is from a productive member of our local community. The implications of this statement trouble me more than any specific edit that you have made. People are our most valuable learning resource at Wikiversity. The consequences of your behavior are that participants are discouraged from contributing here. --mikeu talk 23:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I asked if it was a star chamber. Thanks for the response, however, we used to require a community review for sanctions, apparently that's gone and sanctions are issued based on private conversations instead of community discussion. As an admin you may certainly warn me, though I would have appreciated more specifics. Was the RCA filing a problem? Seems to me that you think it was. I have been blocked before here, one time for asking for custodian assistance because of problems from another user. I was blocked for requesting review (and the other user was also blocked. That is called "shooting the messenger." Ultimate sane response. Leave.
I have been following cross-wiki discussions and there is indeed an attack on Wikiversity. That's been going on for a long time, mostly it sits in the background. Look at the comments in the RfD! They are matched by comments elsewhere, even more blatant.
You have not understood the "Friends and Enemies" comment I made on that meta page. That refers to people who are friends or enemies of the sock master. He uses their names in new accounts. That's all. I was not defining any of those people -- and I'm one of them, he has used my name -- as friends and enemies of me or the wiki and inclusion in that list was only that those names are used. Mostly he uses the names of people who are probably enemies, but sometimes maybe friends, so I did not classify them. They are people he interacted with. You have jumped to conclusions.
One thing is clear to me: with your decision, Wikiversity is not safe for me. I will work elsewhere, where I get much more visibility (page views!), funding, and appreciation, and I learn more. I do not stay where I am not welcome. Bye. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Fringe sciences

This lecture focuses on the real fringe sciences, not on alleged 'fringe science'. I have many publications in real science journals that have included the use of various types of physical fringes. If the title is causing someone concern, there are two alternatives: (1) its name can be changed to Sciences/Fringes or (2) Physics/Fringes. Let me know! Either alternative is fine with me! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll continue the discussion at Talk:Fringe sciences --mikeu talk 17:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Cold fusion

I have the following research project Plasmas/Plasma objects/Nucleosynthesis. It is not limited necessarily by temperature but does look especially at nuclear fusion. The Cold fusion resource could become a sub-page Plasmas/Plasma objects/Nucleosynthesis/Cold fusion with all of its 125 sub-pages so that I can review them hopefully undisturbed. It would be a slow-moving, multi-year project with any outside comments restricted to Discuss pages only. If this is okay, let me know and I'll move all. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Please submit a proposal at Wikiversity:Community Review/Fringe research. --mikeu talk 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Parapsychology

I noticed Steigmann's pseudoscientific parapsychology project was restored for archiving purposes and then deleted again. It contained a lot of copyvio and attacks on Wikipedia. He has ported it to archive.org last week [21]. I am in email communication with moderators from archive.org and they are likely to delete it as Steigmann has been abusing that website on several accounts. Abd says he is going to campaign to get the project undeleted on Wikiversity. If there is somehow an un-deletion request I will vote delete. 86.132.237.70 (discuss) 20:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I am not 86.132.237.70 and I will also vote to delete --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that there is much that I can do to help with regard to archive.org or Wikipedia, but I can tell you that both Cold fusion and Parapsychology are subject to a topic ban at en-wv (please see [22]} and any future projects on those topics will require pre-approval from our Wikiversity:Review board/En before they can commence (or will be speedily deleted.) User:Abd and User:Ben_Steigmann are currently indef blocked, so they won't be able to contribute here any more. Abd can "campaign" all he wants, but the community has decided that these so-called "research projects" are simply too disruptive to allow on our site. Please let me know if there is anything else at en-wv that I be of assistance with. --mikeu talk 21:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Files Missing Information

Thanks for uploading files to Wikiversity. All files must have source and license information to stay at Wikiversity. The following files are missing {{Information}} and/or Wikiversity:License tags, and will be deleted if the missing information is not added. See Wikiversity:Uploading files for more information.

MaintenanceBot (discusscontribs) 01:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Y Done[23] --mikeu talk 01:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Advise and Prod

I propose that any {{Advise}} pages over 90 days may be speedy deleted, treating Advise as equivalent to {{Prod}}. These can be cleaned up by bot, just checking the edit history for Advise pages older than 90 days. Any objections? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely concur. I would suggest a shorter 30 (or even 7) day speedy for "empty pages" that contain little more than a wiktionary definition. Perhaps we should add a note to Advise making that clear.
I don't consider the pages bulk tagged an urgent priority for speedy deletion, I just wanted to get them in the queue to see if anyone objects. Some of those are over a decade old with no development.[24] After these pages get created I see numerous small edits by staff tweaking the categories or templates and other wikignome activity. I don't think this is a productive use of our time. No one page is a burden, but multiply that by × pages... we are wasting time and effort that does little to improve wikiversity.
We should take a look at some of our ancient templates as our attitudes have changed considerably over time, see my removal of this out of date message.[25] We have {{Main welcome}} which is rarely used alone, then there is {{Welcome and expand}} and {{Welcome header and search}} It makes it confusing that we have older pages tagged differently than newer ones and these abandoned pages get lost after they were tagged.
I'd like to see a simplification of which templates we use for which cases. Advise is good for encyclopedia content, perhaps we need another (or adapt an existing) for "short pages" that have little content and no history of improvement. --mikeu talk 16:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Restore

Hi. I need this restored: Template:FULLBOOKNAME. Thanks. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Y Done --mikeu talk 01:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC) mikeu talk 07:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Abd doxing users

Hi, I know abd has been blocked from Wikiversity and Wikipedia but he is still active on meta-wiki. In regard to the "studies" he was hosting against anglopyramidologist and other users he does not like, the consensus was to delete them all [26], yet two of studies still remain [27], [28] and were not removed. Can you remove both of those pages? Abd has now fully doxxed AngloPyramidologist on his website coldfusioncommunity and he goes after this persons parents. Is there anyway Abd can be globally blocked from meta-wiki? He is now posting Wikipedia users family members addresses on his website and writing defamatory statements about people. This is creepy and disturbing behaviour that is probably illegal. What is the correct method of action here, who do I report this to? Can you remove his meta-wiki studies that contain false information? Bodybuilder1991 (discusscontribs) 06:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bodybuilder1991: At Wikiversity I've removed Abd's user pages including the "studies" but I can't do anything about pages at Meta as I'm not an administrator there. I supported the deletion of those pages[29] but my suggestion was not consideed. You might want to take a look at Meta:Deletion policy and Global bans. Those are probably the only ways to address this. Personally, I would support both page deletion and a global ban. Hope this helps. --mikeu talk 07:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bodybuilder199: (I’m guessing this was a single-purpose account to maintain anonymity), I’ve left a note at User_talk:Vituzzu (who deleted the first page you refer to) asking if those pages could be deleted under the same policy. Otherwise it would be necessary to create a new entry at Meta:Deletion requests. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 17:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I tagged both pages as speedy delete[30][31] a month ago and got this reply from Vituzzu. --mikeu talk 17:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, yes I will remain anonymous here (no point in using my IP which Abd has attacked on his blog) but I have been in communication with the Wikimedia Foundation and they are aware about Abd as they have already received numerous complaints, unfortunately Vituzzu has not been logging in recently and no action has been taken to delete those pages. Abd has now ported those studies to his personal website. He is not a steward nor does he have technical evidence for half of his allegations but accuses a user of owning about 50 accounts he never created, including several other IPs including me. He has made a mess of confusing AP's socks with someone else's, including innocent IPs such as mine.
I will not link to Abd's website as it is blacklisted here but he had previously doxxed Wikipedia user ජපස, including his real name and where he works, he also sent this user harassing emails. He is now doing the same to AngloPyramidologist (AP) and other users he has a grudge against, but taking it two-stages further by posting peoples real life addresses (or addresses he thinks Wikipedia users live at, including their family members) on his website and then deliberately archiving these blog posts. Actions like this could well be illegal. In one of his blog posts he laughs and says he finds it funny if someone will turn up with a gun at this persons address. This is all to threaten, harass and intimidate a group of supposed skeptical users he has on-going feud with. Abd seems to be on the internet all day, so he has all day to do this kind of harassment. Because of his doxing there is no valid reason why he should still be aloud to stay on Wikimedia projects. This is a very serious matter, far more serious than his blocks for disruption on Wikiversity or Wikipedia.
On the global ban criteria it says "Harassing or threatening contributors to the projects, on- or off-wiki" and "Violations of the privacy policy or other official Wikimedia policies", he has clearly done both of these things, he is harassing users on his blog and posting peoples private information. He now has over 20 pages dedicated to stalking Wikipedia users on blog which is disturbing and violating Wikimedia privacy regulations. So far the Wikimedia Foundation has not stepped in and blocked this guy from Meta-Wiki where he is still active, he should be globally blocked. Abd is still commenting on this [32] over there. Contrary to what he says I am not AP, I am an IP he has targeted and falsely put on his 'study'. He did the same with another IP a few weeks ago. My IP now appears on Abd's website on a map and he says he is trying to find out who I am. I do not know if he can get much from an IP but this "fishing" exercise for peoples personal information I am worried about. I am worried about peoples safety, including mine. Privacy has been violated by this guy. I want it stopped and I wish this guy would move on. Bodybuilder1991 (discusscontribs) 22:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic as Abd has caused much disruption here. I've done all that I can to block his activity at Wikiversity and remove his userpages.[33][34] I believe that the Foundation is probably the best remedy for this as it spans cross-wiki and off-wiki. I would also suggest that it would be better to start a discussion of page deletion at meta:Meta:Requests for deletion and/or a ban at meta:Requests for comment. (Rather than post to the talk page of a single overworked admin as this try is not likely to have a better chance for success than the request a month ago.) If you believe that there is illegal activity you should notify the appropriate authorities (police, court, etc.) as a wiki admin can do nothing about real world activity that crosses that line. If you do open a deletion or ban discussion at meta I would support it. Other than that, we can't really do much at Wikiversity beyond what we've already done. The activity that you are describing is no longer happening here. An admin at meta will need to address concerns about his contributions there. --mikeu talk 02:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, this account has been locked. Many more have possibly been locked as well. -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah... I had a gut feeling that there was something suspicious about this which is why I declined to be too helpful. Do you know which account this sock puppet is tied to? Don't waste your time looking into if you don't know. I'm just curious and it isn't important. --mikeu talk 04:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably all the accounts that aren't well established that attack Abd for literally nothing. This is different from users like JzG and ජපස, though. You are right though, better things to do than investigate something like this. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Atcovi, I am not attacking Abd, where did I do that? I have now been blocked [35] by a request from Marshallsumter. Firstly that style of writing, listing bullet points and using the phrase "duck test" is not Marshallsumter's writing style. This request came from Abd privately who obviously emailed him. That is Abd's technical writing style and layout. I have emailed the Wikimedia Foundation in the past, I am not AngloPyramidologist. My identity has been confused with that person, like several other IPs. There is no technical evidence to link the accounts of Sci-fi- to the socks of AngloPyramidologist, none, zilch. We are separate people confused by Abd. I know who that individual is and broadly where he is from from his IP, he is about 70 miles from me. I have been blocked on accounts, but not for harassment. I am skeptic and I work for a skeptical organization. I have complained about pseudoscience being supported in the past on this website.
In regard to Abd's comments that Marshallsumter filed on the check-user request it said "deception: "he had previously doxxed Wikipedia user ජපස, including his real name" which is readily available", this is false. ජපස changed his legal name last year. His old name was indeed listed on an old account of his but Abd doxxed this user's real life new name and posted where he worked on his blog and on forums. Abd has since deleted those posts (legal fear) but harassed this user over email.
Atcovi (a close friend of abd) above claims Abd has done "literally nothing". No, this is not true. Abd confuses peoples Wikipedia or Wikiversity accounts and has posted the addresses of specific individuals on his blog and has been attacking peoples family members (illegal activity) just because they are skeptics. You would need to explain why you are tolerating this behaviour, and why he is not banned from meta-wiki still. The way to move forward here is for you to delete his "studies", because I have been confused with another person on it. I do not want 120 socks listed as my ones, when I did not create them. It is just a way Abd can write libel about me on his blog. If the page in question is deleted I would have no problem. Regards. Liftingthe (discusscontribs) 19:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the size of the earth?

--TahkaiGreen (discusscontribs) 16:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikiversity and oercommons.org

@Dave Braunschweig: In physics and astronomy the most successful OER effort seem to be the OpenStax textbooks, and they have an account with oercommons.org where I uploaded two resources.

The links to Wikiversity are active, in the sense that any edit I make to Wikiversity is immediately transferred to the OER-hosted page. You can even edit from the OER page by opening "Edit source" in a new tab to the WV edit page (without the OER-commons header.) Another interesting fact is that it took OER over a week to "accept" these two submissions. I don't know if they took that long to properly review it, or it was some sort of administrative delay. For obvious reasons I am not going to test the quality of their review by submitting something of low-quality. All this raises two interesting questions:

  1. Will this "back-door" entry into Wikiversity via OER confound Mikeu's efforts to study how Google treats Wikiversity?
  2. Should Wikiversity consider using OER to highlight our best resources creating an OER group that points Wikiversity pages?

Given that WV is implementing a "draft" space, the second question should be considered to be strictly hypothetical (perhaps?) There are two ways to fix the problem of low-quality WV pages: One is to move them to draft space, and the other is to find a way to highlight the better articles. While these methods are not necessarily mutually exclusive, a simultaneous attempt to implement both reforms sounds like trouble, given the chaotic manner in which Wikimedia communities make decisions.

To see what an OER Commons user group looks like, see https://www.oercommons.org/groups/openstax-university-physics/1713/ --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this affecting my study of Google search. Quite the opposite, the more incoming links from popular sites like openstax will likely boost our Google search visibility, at least somewhat. I strongly encourage participants to link to wv from your institution web page and in other forums like this. I've recently been posting links to my wv projects using the Ladd Observatory twitter account for example. As Google crawls the web and discovers these links it can only help our popularity. The more links, the better for us. --mikeu talk 19:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Reasoning

Hi Mu301!

Lbeaumont and I use this template to go to resources. Since 22 November 2016, Lbeaumont has been its principal user. If still needed Lbeaumont can remove the prod. If the user is no longer using it, I can and will improve it, but you haven't removed your warning regarding voluntary removal of templates that allow it without discussion. So I am asking for you to remove the prod or the warning. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I began using this template a few years ago when I began developing courses in the clear thinking curriculum. In July 2017 user Dave Braunschweig notified me the template is no longer valid, It causes a "high priority lint error". I stopped using it and developed the clear thinking template instead. (You can see it at the bottom of the clear thinking courses.) I have no objection to removing, or extensively editing the Reasoning template. I have an idea that a useful template on reasoning could be build by including the clear thinking template as one layer in a larger structure. Let me also mention that I did some significant work in cooperation with the original author of the template to change the color scheme from the rather garish colors originally used to the more pastel colors. I hope this helps, please let me know. --Lbeaumont (discusscontribs) 11:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
According to the template's history, apparently Dave Braunschweig modified the template on 7 January 2018‎ to prevent it from causing lint errors. I will add some improvements. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Please Template talk:Reasoning to continue this discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

UFO

What is your opinion on UFO? It suffers from similar issues as the other two cases that were recently nominated, but I also don't want to overburden all of the Wikiversity volunteers, so I'm hesitant to push my luck and overstay my welcome. To be honest, it isn't quite as terrible as the other two resources/lectures, but it is clearly suffering from creation of content by Wikipedia refugee (especially UFO/Sightings documentation). ජපස (discusscontribs) 19:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

We might not be able to promptly address an RfD on that group of subpages at this time. The new discussion about "lectures" is where we are currently focusing our attention and resources. Some of the UFO subpages appear to have had little activity in 2 or more years. It may (or maybe not) be uncontroversial to tag those with {{fringe}} or even {{prod}} which would open a window for improvement followed by a review. If someone objects and removes the template you could then open an RfD at a later date. That might be a more efficient way for us to look into the UFOs. If there are any urgent concerns like copyvio or commercial advertising we would, of course, address that through a {{tl:speedy}} process. --mikeu talk 19:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out how to use {{tl:fringe}}. ජපස (discusscontribs) 21:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, that is a shorthand that we use to mention a template in a discussion without including it in the talk page. Insert {{fringe}} and/or {{subst:prod}} as I did in this edit. --mikeu talk 21:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I also made a wiki markup mistake which is now fixed above. --mikeu talk 21:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused because the "fringe" template looks to me like a userbox. Is it somehow a deletion proposal? ජපස (discusscontribs) 21:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does resemble a user box. Think of it as a "resource box" that provides information about the resource. But that has nothing to do with deletion requests. Prod is the Proposed Deletion template. --mikeu talk 21:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I proposed deletion for the five pages I think are in violation of WV's scope, mission, policies, and guidelines. ජපස (discusscontribs) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The Category:Project_boxes were an attempt to more prominently inform readers about the type of resource, difficulty level, and completion status. They are not much used anymore but are found on a lot of older pages. You may also want to leave a note at Talk:UFO giving the proposed reasons. That is often helpful for someone unfamiliar with the topic who finds the page. --mikeu talk 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I did an explanation here. Hopefully this is as smooth a process as the last two. Thanks for your help! ජපස (discusscontribs) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you have seen this one, but Ben Steigmann had another project, [36] that he planned on doing. It seems he wanted to refute the material of UFO skeptics such as Joe Nickell. On the article is an extremely revealing link to a 72 page document he uploaded to Googledrive which consists in places of emails he has had with UFO proponents to counter-claim material found on Wikipedia. I think this project of his like the parapsychology one should be removed. 82.132.220.27 (discuss) 23:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

At this point that's pretty much just an empty page (with only section headers) and User:Studentscribe mentioned there has only 1 edit in two years. That also qualifies for a Prod. If it contained email addresses without permission we could speedy delete. --mikeu talk 00:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that the last one is in userspace. Given that it is nothing more than a neglected to-do list I don't see any problem at the moment. --mikeu talk 01:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

More UFO and alien sightings have been {{prod}}'ed. According to Google Analytics (as I've summarized at Google/Search and Wikiversity) "alien sightings" was one of the top ten search queries returning Wikiversity resources. The mind boggles. It brought no search traffic to our site, however. --mikeu talk 16:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

CC-templates

Hello. Thank you for updating the CC templates. Something occurred to me whilst I was about to use one of them. Could we change the text of these templates to say "This work is..." rather than "This file..." so they can be used on content pages generally? Green Giant (discusscontribs) 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Sure, I can probably do that by bot. Because these are transcluded in so many files I should probably wait until the page cache finishes purging. I probably just thrashed the server... as I noticed the categories were very slow to update. Please check my work, esp. with regard to the subcat reorganization. I may have made some mistakes during the flurry of edits. I'll be looking at the GFDL org next.
Also, I seem to have solved a long standing mystery about Category:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Dual License. It seems many files from Florida engineering are multi-licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0‎ and CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0. We'll probably need to import that template and then have a bot update the file uploads. It was previously unclear (at least to me) how/if the NC files could be reused.--mikeu talk 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Cheers. From what I have seen, the re-organization makes sense but I will have another closer look tomorrow. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 22:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 Y Done I think I'm all set editing the entire suite of CC templates and categories. I believe all of the existing templates use "work" instead of "file" now. --mikeu talk 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The only thing I might do later is rename {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-dual}} and related categories as it doesn't really follow the naming convention given that it includes NC. Looks good to me for now, though. --00:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
FYI: while importing {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} to update our suite of licenses I noticed that this templates contains the wikicode: #ifeq:User talk|File|{{{category| which specifically excludes anything outside of File space such as learning resource pages from appearing in a license category. It didn't occur to me to check for that in any of our existing license templates. Mostly I'm just writing this down here as a note to myself. But, something you should be aware of if you want to use these templates for anything other than files. --mikeu talk 06:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Cheers for changing the wording. I am going to look at all the templates soon but I’ve updated the documentation for a couple of them and added cc-by-4.0 to the list at WV:L (new shortcut) but I’ve held off adding the two multi-licenses until they’re ready for use. As far as the file-only element of that template, I think we need these licenses to be usable for any non-image content that the author doesn’t want to use the standard cc-by-sa-3.0 seen at the foot of many pages. On a sidenote, I have been wondering (as a long-term matter) whether we could/should/would update the terms to cc-by-sa-4.0 International as a way of covering as many jurisdictions as possible. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 13:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thinking.... This opens up a series of questions for me. I'll elaborate tomorrow. Found a few more errors too. The 3.0 "this work" link breaks for nonfiles but categories work fine. Also some inconsistency with language across templates.. More later. --```` mikeu talk 04:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, etc. are still using 3.0 boilerplate (for text content) at the bottom of every page. I have a slight preference for waiting until Wikimedia makes a cross-wiki change in licensing policy. I'm not even sure what the ramifications are for using Special:Import to grab some 3.0 from WP and "converting" it to 4.0 here. Having said that, we could do something subtle like put CC-BY-SA-4.0 (and earlier) as the top choice in Special:Upload. Chances are that many new {{own}} files would get uploaded with whatever license is seen first. This would give us a head start on 4.0 for new files, at least.
<rant>Honestly, I can't understand why we have so many licenses listed in Special:Upload. If someone really cares about using an idiosyncratic license like {{BSD}} they'll likely know how to search for it and tag the upload. Do we really need to degrade the usability of our upload pulldown menu for 8 file uploads? IMHO, we shouldn't be making it easier for non-standard licenses, esp. where the differences are so minor that only a lawyer would care about it.</rant>
I don't mind if we have some text here that is other than 3.0 but I'm not so sure I want to advertise and encourage that... Imagine someone generating a pdf of a bunch of pages where each page has a different license. What's the status of that pdf and how can it be reused? I think we should strongly encourage contributors to use the "standard" Wikimedia license as much as possible for text, making exceptions where needed. Otherwise we're going to be Crazy quilting our site with multiple license content that could make share-alike more complicated and difficult. These are just my initial thoughts; I could be convinced otherwise if there are compelling arguments. I'll muse some more when I've had some time to think these issues through.
BTW, that {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} has horrifically complex dependencies. I can't even find the basic text of the license in the import that I did. I'm likely going to delete it and just clone one of our other templates. The alternative would be to blow away all our license templates and re-import them using Commons' differing way of building these. But, that's too much work for me to take on right now. I get why they do it that way, but it makes it difficult for mere template mortals to decode and understand.
As an aside, I'm noticing a lot of fair use content that stretches our EDP beyond the breaking point. I consider that a more urgent problem to address than license upgrades. --mikeu talk 01:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, probably best to put it on the Upload page. With 4.0 being international (most jurisdictions), it doesn’t make sense to let new uploads go just for older licenses. The BSD/GFDL problem is that it has been very difficult to wean Wikimedia off them. They are very unsuited to text and images but some people keep using them because they’re available. There was supposed to be a license update, whereby GFDL-only files were relicensed with GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0. I’m not sure if it reached WV though. On the question of fair use content, there are two problems I can see: the one you’ve noted above and that many files lack a fair use rationale. The same occurs with quite a few CC-license files in that the uploader often doesn’t add anything except a license. I think it’s quite strange that people seem to be able to bypass important information. I agree also that they should be a priority. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 22:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I cloned {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} to {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} (blowing away the botched import.) I also made a slight change to the wording of 3.0 and prior template. I believe the 4.0 and prior is ready to go. Have a look. Which template do we prefer new uploads to use? Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 or Cc-by-sa-4.0? I think the first is more flexible for reuse, unless we want to try to propagate the 4.0 through share-alike. I don't have a strong preference. I believe that the link in these templates that "This work" clicks to is to distinguish the text on the page from the file (which could have a different license.) --mikeu talk 23:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to be Bold and try to "wean" contributors off the old licenses by removing the options from the Upload pulldown menu.[37] --mikeu talk 23:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
You might label it a rant but it makes sense to me. Boldness is sometimes necessary to keep things going. I do wonder if anyone will notice or if they just pick the first license. I agree the Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 is the most flexible (and if it was up to me it would be the default BY-SA). I was also wondering if it is worth having a redirect to it at {{cc-by-sa-all}} but then realised you’d only just deleted it? Green Giant (discusscontribs) 00:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I just renamed that odd dual BY-SA & BY-NC-SA template to {{Cc-by-sa-any-3.0}} which seems (to me) to be the original intent of those who created it. My bot is changing the files that linked to the old template. There's a huge number of files so it may take a while. I wanted to get rid of that one because the name is very confusing.
There was nothing linked to {{cc-by-sa-all}} so I didn't see any need to keep it. I see that commons has a redirect so it may be worth having here. Maybe that is the default we should have on our upload page... Then we can just change the redirect when 5.0 comes out.) I'm part way through finishing up the reorg. Still a couple of things to do with ALL.
I just removed the 4.0 alone from the Upload menu leaving only 4.0 and prior. I'm tempted to purge WV:L of old licenses for the same reasons. The proliferation is just causing excess work for our staff (ie. me) and really doesn't add much to our site. I'd be tempted to remove any 3.0 and earlier from WV:L and just put a <small>Footenote: [[:Category:Creative Commons licenses‎|other Creative Commons licenses are available]] but we prefer that you use 4.0 and prior for file uploads unless there is a compelling reason...</small> or some such language to discourage use. --mikeu talk 01:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the copyright of File:Wilbur S White0.jpg?

 
 
Thanks for uploading File:Wilbur S White0.jpg, but:
  The file needs some copyright information soon to stay at Wikiversity. Please place {{information}} on the file page and fill out who the owner is and the copying terms. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about using files because of copyright law.
  Who owns the rights to this file? Usually this is the work's creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Only the person or company who owns the rights can give permission to use this file freely.
  What are the terms for using this file? Wikiversity accepts open content, public domain, and fair use works (see Wikiversity's Copyright policy). You can place a {{copyright template}} on the file page to signify the copyright terms.
  Please remember to do this for any other files you have uploaded or will upload. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or the Wikiversity community at the Colloquium. Thank you.

Note to self. --mikeu talk 01:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

For likely solution see File:Ruthshaw.jpg. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Wilbur S White0.jpg

Hey Mike. I was looking through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and I found this image in here. I was about to delete until I saw your small notice below the image. It has been about four months since you've posted that notice and no updates have been posted since the notice. Since it is not desirable for this category to have a backlog, what's the appropriate approach to this?

Hope to see your response, thanks. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Mike, as it seems to be evident that you have gone on a huge inactive break from the site and that the image has remained in the category for at least a half a year (6 months), I decided to be bold and delete the image. Knowing that you are a sysop here, you could restore it back in order to fill in the missing "puzzle pieces" if you wish to do so---up to you. Sorry for the inconveniences. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki guidelines

Just wondering what you might think of taking part in what would be at this time a purely hypothetical discussion across the WMF entities to establish in at least some of the entities a group of common baseline policies and guidelines. I know that there has been recent earlier discussion over at wikipedia about problems with importing wikidata material, so there might be maybe some interest in such a discussion. John Carter (discusscontribs) 00:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@John Carter: Yes, I would be very interested. Please ping me. As you may have noticed I've been thinking about this recently and I have some concerns about inconsistent cross-links to our resources. We are about to embark on a discussion of our Wikiversity:Naming conventions to see if we can standardize page titles and perhaps align them with a more global interpretation of wikidata item definitions. At least, that is my hope. --mikeu talk 01:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

What is this?

Radiation astronomy

I have never heard of "radiation astronomy" before in spite of my PhD in astronomy. What is this? ජපස (discusscontribs) 03:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been teaching astronomy for three decades and I've never heard of it either. That looks similar to what's being discussed at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Main_Page_"Lectures". --mikeu talk 05:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


Wikiversity:Vision/2019

Hi there!

Sorry for not writing back sooner, I've neglected to check my alerts and notices as I've been busy off-wiki, and I don't usually get too many comments lately.

Things are starting to settle down a bit and I'll have some time coming up to explore things, so I thought I'd touch base. Historybuff (discusscontribs) 20:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ladd Wikipedian in residence

The Wikipedian in residence table states that Kevin Rutherford was WiR with the Ladd dated "June-August 2013, 2016 (ongoing)". Any ideas what the dates mean - is it currently ongoing? I can't find reference to Kevin Rutherford on outreach:Wikipedian_in_Residence/Ladd_Observatory. Also, I'm overhauling the table by encoding it in wikidata (see current status), so let me know if Kevin Rutherford has a QID that I can use. Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 08:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability:The residence by Kevin in 2016 didn't work out.[38] We did upload a number of images from the 2013 visit. I left the project open but haven't been contacted since then. --mikeu talk 21:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis

See note at bottom, and continue discussion at Draft talk:Location hypotheses of Atlantis. --mikeu talk 13:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

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


custodianship

I have applied for custodianship for wikiversity. Your input I feel is needed and I thank you in advance for it now.

Thanks very much again,

RAYLEIGH22 (discusscontribs) 15:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Replied at WV:RFA --mikeu talk 06:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


Follow

Hi, can I follow a a Wikiversity user (you, for example)? --Leonardo T. Cardillo (discusscontribs) 22:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leonardo T. Cardillo: If by "follow" you mean "see what I'm working on here" you can click Special:Contributions/Mu301 or search for edits by any other contributor. If you mean follow in the sense of social media we really don't have that sort of feature. You can get someone's attention by typing {{ping|Mu301}} on any talk page as I did here with your username. You can also leave messages at Wikiversity:Colloquium if you have any general questions. --mikeu talk 23:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Mu301: Thanks so much!! --Leonardo T. Cardillo (discusscontribs) 01:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome. Please let us know if you have any questions and welcome to Wikiversity! --mikeu talk 03:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Lomax has filed against you and 8 other John Doe

My collegue Abd Lomax has finally filed https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27215121/Lomax_v_WikiMedia_Foundation,_Inc_et_al https://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/3:2019cv30025/207020 Friend of Lomax (discusscontribs) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. --mikeu talk 17:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Resolved here. --mikeu talk 18:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Mu301/Archive All".