Wikiversity:Request custodian action

Custodians' tool
Custodians' tool

New request
Please sign with -- ~~~~

Wikiversity support staff are trusted users who have access to technical features (such as protecting and deleting pages, blocking users, and undoing these actions) that help with maintenance of Wikiversity.

Action required




Events and news

Custodian requests Entries
Purge cache
Edit protected page 0
Speedy deletion 13
Expired prods 1
Unblock requests 0
Possible copyvio 0
History merge 0

Request to move image files to Commons


I got this request to move files from Category:NowCommons and Category:Files from USGS. I delete lots of files, but usually let others delete image files because of my ignorance of copyright laws. I also have contributed a lot of files to Commons, but almost all of it is my own work. So I am out of my comfort zone on this. I don't even understand why these files should be moved.

@MGA73: Maybe we can find someone with more expertise on file transfers here on Request custodian action.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

In a related vein, due to my inexperience with copyright regulations, perhaps it would be better if someone else processed the following files. All are up for speedy deletion. And all seem like quality images and/or on potentially high quality WV resources.

My request was primary to delete files that was moved to Commons allready. But if anyone have checked files they are of course very welcome to move files to Commons too. Same with Category:Files from Flickr. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 16:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the info. My ignorance of copyright law makes me very hesitant to delete image files.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 19:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I noticed User:Koavf just deleted a file moved to Commons. So perhaps Koavf could have a look at the files in Category:NowCommons once there is a little time to spare? :-) --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 19:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
lol@"time to spare", but sure. <3 —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes dirty tricks work ;-) --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 08:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions/Hooglimkt (again)

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



According to WV:IU, this username is not acceptable (implying bot), should this account be blocked? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I already sent a welcome and {{uw-username}} (imported from enwiki). MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think explicitly saying that you're not a bot is acceptable, but I agree that it's probably not ideal. E.g. someone could have the username "NotAReet" and run a bot under this name. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Call for rewriting WV:UNC


This agenda is suggested at Wikiversity_talk:Username#WV:UNC needs updates, since this is related to policy documentation, I would like to have the attention of our custodians. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 02:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possible vandalism (Massive enwiki copies with MOS issues), seems to be related to the recently reported IP, please consider range block. All targeted pages are semi-protected. Reverted revisions seem to be enwiki copies, please also consider revision deletion if needed. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 03:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Note) Currently stale, will report again if they come back. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 09:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scope of talk page usage for blocked users


I understand that the scope of talk page usage for blocked users is aimed at unblocking requests and relevant discussions. I would like to ask if Wikiversity has more exceptions accepted by the community. I'm asking this because I recently found special:diff/2602322, and this does not seem to be related to an unblocking request. If unacceptable, custodians may need to remove talk page access from the user. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 02:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please review recent edits at Wikiversity:Verifiability

long discussion

Recently we had many changes to this documentation. Reverting undiscussed changes would be non-controversial, but I'm not sure about the others. What would our custodians think about these edits? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 15:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Each of my edit has an explanation/rationale in the edit summary. Here a summarization: I above all removed sentences that presented a contradiction within the same page. I also switched the page to policy proposal away from policy since I could not find a discussion establishing the page as a policy and since, given the contradictions before my edits, the page could not have been taken seriously as a policy, that is, a set of rigid rules contrasting to guidelines. I could have discussed the changes somewhere first, but since the changes are well documented in their edit summaries, I hoped they could remain. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 17:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the record, the original version (before recent efforts) can be found at Special:Permalink/1375824. Regarding my thoughts about these edits, I think we should distinguish between top pages and subpages. If an instructor is inviting students to submit work in subspace, the instructor should have considerable flexibility regarding those subpages.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
While I'm not sure about what type of flexibility is being mentioned, I generally believe that teachers should have enough privileges to complete their projects. If our policies (and related proposals) restrict legitimate educational activities, then we are no longer a place for education. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 12:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for the explanation and the summary, but I cannot guarantee that everyone will accept it. Removing contradictions sounds good. If the content was obvious nonsense or conflict with the entire Wikiversity, then your decision (blanking/removal) would be the most reasonable one. In this case, I think there were other options (such as rewriting to resolve contradictions), and that is why I'm calling for a review. For example, at special:diff/2602692, you said that "The obligation to use verifiable and reliable sources lies with the editors wishing to include information on Wikiversity page, not on those seeking to question it or remove it" contradicts the option of scholarly research at Wikiversity. I don't understand how this becomes a contradiction (have you already explained that?). Even if it was a contradiction, I think blanking was not the only one option. We could have restricted the obligation to non-research content (such as educational resources) or downgraded the obligation to a recommendation, and avoid potential conflict with Wikiversity research content. The summary of my question is, "Why have you decided to remove instead of suggesting a rewrite?". MathXplore (discusscontribs) 13:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see an obvious contradiction, as mentioned in the edit summary: if original research and original user-written essays are allowed, there is no "obligation to use verifiable and reliable sources".
As for dropping text vs. rewrite: a rewrite creates an opportunity to introduce new mistakes and non-consensualities, a bad thing. By contrast, removal of problematic sentences removes defects. After removal of problematic sentences, we may focus on whether the text that remained after removal is really accurate and fully fit for purpose, which I do not think to be the case either; more corrective work is required. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for additional explanations. If somebody is going to produce their own research where anything similar was never published elsewhere, there would be no other independent secondary sources, so the Wikipedia-like verifiability is no longer reasonable at here. On the other hand, I believe that authors should work hard to avoid errors (calculation errors, uploading wrong images etc., I was talking about this type of verifiablity for research content), if they want to pass Wikijournal peer reviews then they need to do so. In addition, I expect many type of research comes out from previous research history, and I think it is reasonable to expect the Wikipedia-like verifiablity when explaining research background and related history. What would you think about this? I'm not demanding the Wikipedia-like verifiability to research itself, I'm recommending this to things before entering research. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
As for "If somebody is going to produce their own research where anything similar was never published elsewhere", one may well publish result of research such that something similar was already published elsewhere; it is still original research in Wikipedia terminology.
Wikiversity is great for articles that combine original research/element of originality with referenced material. For such articles, there is no duty to reference things but I would see inline referencing as recommended for consideration (not enforced) and adding great further reading/external links as recommended (not enforced). I fully agree that "authors should work hard to avoid errors". As for Wikijournals, that is a separate class of Wikiversity content, with its own rules and processes. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
About "explaining research background": I know of no duty to explain research background (or is there one?) and therefore, there is no duty to explain the background and then reference it using Wikipedia-style inline referencing. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would somebody like to vote between keeping page as is or returning it to Special:Permalink/1375824? If so, write "I move that we foobar" as vote yes or no.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can User:Ciphiorg/sandbox be an acceptable sandbox?


The sandbox was made by using talk page namespace so I moved it into userspace. After the page moved, I noticed that the sandbox was about physical geography but also aimed to promote a single website ( and its subpages. I checked the author's enwiki history, all edits were reverted and their enwiki sandbox was deleted per CSD U5. Could this be a xwiki spam case? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 06:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y Done Deleted. He can ask for undeletion if he wants to remove self-promotion/spam links. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Recent abuse filter logs suggests that the user came back to do something similar. You may need to take action to stop them. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 05:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Update) Currently stale. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 09:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Concern about an IP range starting from 165.199.181


IP editors from this range (Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/ have done a lot of unhelpful actions in our project for months. I think our custodians should consider a range block for a reasonable amount of time. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 02:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Note) All IPs in this report are blocked in minimal range. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 02:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please consider blacklisting of


Dear custodians, I have reported about editors trying to get to appear in Wikiversity at special:permalink/2603578#Can_User:Ciphiorg/sandbox_be_an_acceptable_sandbox?, and now we have another editor trying to get the link visible (Special:diff/2603646). Please consider the blacklisting of this URL. Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 02:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply



Too many test edits at sandbox (RC flooding), possible proxy, already blocked at zhwiki. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 09:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MathXplore: I blocked for 3 hours and then Googled {RC flooding}. I have no experience with these things. How long should I block for?----Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
When I reported the IP, they were violent, and at least a short-term block (perhaps several hours) may have been needed at that time. Currently, the IP editor is stale, so there may be no significant meaning to block them at this moment. On the other hand, GetIPIntel Prediction is 100% at IPcheck information, this means that this IP might be a proxy (and I guess that is why zhwiki blocked this IP, I don't know well about zhwiki proxy block policy), though the other parameters are negative. I think we need someone who knows more about proxies to choose the right range and terms. @Koavf: can you take a look at this IP? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 13:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Note) After my reply, another IP (Special:Contributions/, close to the one above) appeared with similar behavior (targeting sandbox). This IP is blocked at zhwikivoyage as an open proxy (1 year), also blocked at enwiki as a web host. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 14:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am not a range block pro, but doing a little range block hacking, I see that both Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ contain all of the edits by the above IPs and only the edits by the above IPs. Both are globally blocked for a couple of months, but 1.) I take violent threats very seriously (@MathXplore:, did you write to legal@? If not, I will.) 2.) the sandbox is one of the only pages you really don't want to have escalated protection on, and 3.) oftentimes, rangeblocking open proxies is not going to harm the project. So, I'm willing to do a 12-month range block. Great work as always. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I didn't write to legal. I was checking the edit frequencies and their global contributions rather than the context. Please go ahead for the report to legal. Thank you for the reactions and information. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 06:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey, no worries MX. You do a lot across many wikis. It's a team effort, friend. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wait--I actually looked at the diffs and some of them mention some weird violent content, but are not threats, so it doesn't rise to that occasion. Sorry for my ignorance. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply



Vandalism from this IP, a targeted page is now semi-protected. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 02:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Note) Currently stale. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply



Can this be considered as an academic profile, or should be handled as an advertisement? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 06:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tricky. I'm inclined to call it a valid profile if this user engages in actually editing and particularly in creating resources related to these kind of topics such as SEO, but call it just spam if this person is only here to say "I am so-and-so and I have [x] marketable skills". :/ So I could be persuaded either way, but it's not obviously spam as of now, as far as I can tell. I totally respect any other custodian or curator deleting it, tho. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portal talk:Astronomy


This talk page is currently isolated but has a lot of things in here. Where can we move this page to save it as an archive? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 13:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I created Draft:Archive without asking for a consensus. If nobody objects, we can all use it. The only open question in my mind is whether we need to nowikify the pages to avoid having titles appear on various lists and categories. I suggest the title Draft:Archive/2024/Portal talk-Astronomy. Personally, I am not very adept at undeleting pages, thought with a bit of practice I might find it more natural. With a small cleanup crew that tends to get bogged down in long discussions, it's easier if everybody can look at pages that have been removed in this fashion. Many years ago I remember an editor who annoyed administrators with frivolous requests to undelete for viewing purposes. If you want, I can move Portal talk:Astronomy right now.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
What is wrong with Portal talk:Astronomy staying where it is? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 14:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry! Again I read quickly but without accuracy. I didn't notice that it was a Talk page. I will archive it right now.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)  Y DoneGuy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
You "archived" the page but not moved. Where should we move the talk page? That is my question. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 00:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
According to WV:CSD, isolated talk pages are subject to deletion. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 00:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I apparently just forgot to delete the talk page. Does anybody object to deleting the talk page and its archive?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why is this being deleted or archived? I guess it is because of WV:Deletions, "Discussion about deleted resources where context is lost and becoming an independent resource is unlikely". But the resource was not deleted, it was moved: from looking at Portal:Astronomy, one can see it was moved to Topic:Astronomy, which is now a redirect to Astronomy. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y Done  Taking Dan's lead, I assumed the hanging talk page Portal talk:Astronomy to have been attached to what is now Astronomy, which already had a talk page. So I made the Archive a subpage with an explanatory note at Talk:Astronomy. I'm glad this is a hobby and not a serious effort to preserve the history of this ol wiki.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 19:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chronological order of Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action/Archive/23 and Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action/Archive/24


I generally understand that archives are numbered in chronological order but I found an exception to this rule. special:permalink/2596291 says that 23 is "January 2021 - June 2023" and 24 is "December 2021 - December 2022", this is breaking the chronological order. Should we fix this or keep it in the current state? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that while archiving a while back. I think we should leave it alone. One problem is that we have two chronological orders: One is when the request was initiated, and the other is when the request is archived. To make matters worse, many topics get "archived" twice: First when {{Archive top}}..{{Archive bottom}} turns the background blue, and second when the conversation is moved. Also, these conversations are extremely chaotic. Reading them would make good reading for chatbots if and when humans ever decide to start punishing them for transgressions.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, thank you for your opinions. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can anybody explain how this turns into a proposed deletion?


I just deleted a lot of pages because I thought the author was confusing the prod template for speedy delete. This is the source for User:Ramosama/sandbox/Problem Analysis - Provision:

Click to view the source code that triggers the prod
 {{Problem analysis - measure|name=Reusing durables|identifier=reusing_durables
|definition= The reuse of durable goods in their original form. 
* Design of equipment for reuse of their parts ("cradle to cradle").
* Prolonged storage of reusable goods in warehouses, such as deserted office buildings.
* Second-hand warehouses.
* Refund for returns of durables.
* Facilitation, for example, allowing customers to reuse packaging or containers.
|disadvantages=   }} Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thankfully the user has been dormant for almost 4 years. See Special:Contributions/Ramosama.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I edited "Template:Problem analysis - concept" to place its proposed deletion code into the noinclude tag. As a result, User:Ramosama/sandbox/Problem Analysis - Provision--which uses the template--no longer shows any proposed deletion tag. I hope it added some clarity and has no undesirable consequence. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 19:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good news! I thought it was possible to accidentally make a prod. Thank's Dan.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 19:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody know how to delete all pages by a single user?


We have a serial page creator. My hunch is that the pages were created in another language, translated using an auto-translator, and placed on en.wikiversity. I am currently trying to create a list from this list. If nobody knows how to do this, I will use a list under construction at Pre-diabetes diagnosis and remission.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Special:Nuke can mass-delete, with some caveats. Oddly, it is only available to bureaucrats here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the answer. But let me list the pages created in 2024 (there are more from 2023):

--Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 16:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y Done I deleted all the maritime health and diabetes pages made in the past several months. If more is needed, let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Justin. You might want to change the parameters of my block of Saltrabook. I know little about blocking protocols. I will change my expiration date from one week to indefinite. I didn't know you could pagenuke. We need an active pagenuker on this wiki now that Dave is less active.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have no perspective on an indefinite block, but it may be a good idea until/unless he can explain on his talk page what he's trying to do and where he is getting this information, etc. Note also that he has lots of pages going back to at least 2019. If we had consensus that Special:Nuke were available to admins (curators), then we could make the request on phab: to change the local settings. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do you know whether Saltrabook can use his talk page? If so, there is no need to change the indefinite block.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 19:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The latest block (special:redirect/logid/3389142) does not include edits, so I think they can. Generally, most blocked users can edit their own talk pages for unblock requests and related statements (unless revoked). MathXplore (discusscontribs) 03:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Currently, curators cannot restore pages. I think allowing mass-delete without restoration permissions can be risky. Allowing mass-delete to our custodians should be enough. Why have we limited mass-delete to our bureaucrats? Are there any previous discussions in the past? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 03:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
No clue. That is very bizarre and atypical. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we can ask to hear the community's opinion at Wikiversity:Colloquium. They may want to speak about what they think about this odd technical settings. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 03:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Note about this matter) I started a new thread over there. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 13:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Update) Per suggestion (special:diff/2610994), I started a proposal at Wikiversity_talk:Custodianship#Proposal_to_allow_custodians_to_use_mass-delete. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 07:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
If possible, I suggest clarifying the deletion criteria (RFD? off-wiki request?). I'm sorry if I have missed anything. From my viewpoint, I only requested renaming without redirects, and now I see pages being deleted. Having more explanations would be better, I think. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 03:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MathXplore: Sorry, sometimes I act too swiftly. It turns out User:Saltrabook has been creating what looks like interesting pages for a long time, and he has created close to 100 such pages (probably much more.) He doesn't know English very well, so it is obvious that he is auto-translating the pages. I blocked his page creations, and he seems happy working on pages he already created (many of them were almost blank.) Personally, I would be happy if he works on the pages he has already created and left us alone. We get odd ones on WV. I should know; my family thinks I am one.-Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 03:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the explanations. As can be seen in each page history, I'm one of the few editors handling the categorizations of their creations, but I didn't notice that there were auto-translations (has anyone identified which software has been used?), apologies for being late to notice such issues. I think we should clarify how to handle auto-translations via policy/guideline or previous discussions. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 03:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



Lock evasion of User:Premaledu, please see special:permalink/2609661#Offensive_username. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Already  Y Done, globally locked. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Explanation of edit


I was trying to link my pages and I got a notification to explain to a custodian. I hope I'm in the right place for that. An5189 (discusscontribs) 04:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems fine to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
thanks An5189 (discusscontribs) 04:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

create about user page


I was trying to create about User page An5189 (discusscontribs) 05:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll create a blank one and you can modify it. Let me know if you have more problems. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
thanks, I willAn5189 (discusscontribs) 08:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



Making bad pages (I already deleted them) and xwiki abuse (also reported at Wikiquote). MathXplore (discusscontribs) 02:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 05:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



Spam-only account with promotional username (account named after company name). MathXplore (discusscontribs) 06:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 13:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



Lock evasion of Special:CentralAuth/Premaledu. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 07:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y Done, already locked. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 08:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



Vandalism and xwiki abuse. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 10:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y Done Month-long rangeblock. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



The user has repeated user page spam, I already deleted it and set indefinite full protection. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 05:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y Done indef block. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

CAPTCHA Problem when creating an Account


I don't know how active Dave is at the moment, so I paste a message to Dave from User:Ireicher2:

@Ireicher2: One thing you might try is having them create Wikipedia or Wikibooks accounts. I believe membership in one automatically creates membership on Wikiversity. Another thing to try is asking students to create the account from their homes. Does anybody else have any ideas????--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think w:Wikipedia:Request_an_account/Help_and_troubleshooting is related to this issue. It is a different project but shares the same technical basis. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
See meta: Mass account creation. I'll try adding Account creators to User:Ireicher2 with an expiration of seven days and see if makes any difference. Yes, the suggestion that students create their accounts from home (or using their cell phones vs. school computers) should help. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Dave Braunschweig @Guy vandegrift Of course. That makes sense. Thank you!
Ireicher2 (discusscontribs) 04:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I need the custodians & curators to tell a user not to be involved with deletions.

Collapse as resolved

Here are two examples:

  1. He put a speedy delete on special:permalink/2617505, saying among other things that there is "no clear explanation" of what ordinary differential equations are". This is a subpage, and the parent page at special:permalink/2483117 gives a rather coherent explanation: "Differential equations serve as mathematical models of physical processes. This course is intended to be an introduction to ordinary differential equations and their solutions. A differential equation (DE) is an equation relating a function to its derivatives. If the function is of only one variable, we call the equation an ordinary differential equation (ODE). ...
    There is a movement to raise the standards regarding what should and should not be in namespace, but the the parent page at special:permalink/2483117 has 13 subpages. If this resource is a problem, it has to be addressed from the top down, not one subpage at a time. As will be shown in the next example, I recently attempted to explain to him that it is inefficient to remove subpages without looking at the entire resource (via the parent page.)
  2. Days prior to the aforementioned effort to delete a subpage of Differential equations, he proposed the deletion of one of some 300 subpages of Student Projects because it was unsourced. My reason for not deleting that page should have informed him that it would have been inappropriate to delete one subpage of Differential equations, because it turns out that almost all subpages of Student Projects are unsourced, leaving us with the same issue involving the deletion of pages from the "bottom-up". For evidence that this user had been informed of the need for a "top-down" approach attempting to delete a subpage of Differential equations, see special:permalink/2617342#Student_Projects/Major_rivers_in_India. This editor is a nice person with a lot of good ideas, but his stubbornness is making it difficult to moderate Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't want this user blocked, or even banned from participating in discussions about deletion policy. He is not alone in advocating higher standard, and the community might want to do that. But there is a distinction between the nuts and bolts of deletion, and deletion as a policy. I am very conservative about deleting pages. So if the standards get tightened, there will be no need to revert anything I have done. I am asking the custodians/curators to encourage this user to go to WV:WGW2024 and create a subpage for sharing his ideas with the community.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  1. 1) The "unsourced" on Student Projects/Major rivers in India was only one reason; the other reason was that this page has nothing to add what is not in Wikipedia, a rationale previously recognized. 2) Student Projects/Major rivers in India is not integrated in any way to a Student Projects "project"; its being a subpage is just an attempt to escape deletion scrutiny. 3) I am not aware of any explanation to me that I should not nominate subpages; such an explanation has my talk page as a proper venue, and I am unaware of any such explanation, neither there or elsewhere. 4) Any disagreement about deletion can be resolved via RFD and via voting-cum-discussion there, as is usual in other projects, e.g. the English Wikipedia and the English Wiktionary; if I am mistaken in a particular nomination, it can be brought to RFD and quickly voted down. Even a single person opposing can prevent a deletion in which I am the sole, mistaken, deletion supporter. 5) I have a pretty good conversion rate between deletion nominations and actual deletions/moving out of mainspace, and therefore, I do not think that my nomination algorithm is too broad and too burdensome on those who have to oppose my nominations for deletions. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 14:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    All I am asking is that you stay out of active deletions and focus your talent on changing the policy. A great place to do that is at WV:WGW2024#Personal_subpages_(with_visual_editing) Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I invite you to my talk page to make requests concerning change of behavior on my part. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 14:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Resolved We have corresponded in our talk pages and the problem has been resolved to my satisfaction.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply


Other Free Learning Resources the univeristy of reddit link has a lot of very adult explicit words as links . I did not view other links from this page. Thanks

U - X

2001:8003:B120:8900:4D5:4E7A:36B2:58F3 (discuss) 12:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, it's now spam, so I removed it. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply



Vandalism Seawolf35 (discusscontribs) 18:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 19:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Induced stem cells got imported to here from enWiki- which is fine, attribution was done correctly and everything- except for the fact that I'm just wrapping up a copyright investigation on the original contributor & his alternative account. Due to the fact that this contributor repeated and blatantly infringed on the copyright of multiple sources despite multiple warnings an even a block, I tagged the original page over on enWiki for presumptive deletion. I don't know what Wikiversity's process is for suspected copyright infringements without a clear source, but I figured you guys would want to know about the problems with this page anyways. -- ~~~~ GreenLipstickLesbian (discusscontribs) 20:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very helpful, thanks. Do you have any relevant links to en.wp about the investigation or where he typically ripped off material? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay- everthing I've gathered so far is going to be in this investigation page. ( tried to link it in the original post, but I failed spectacularly as you can see). They almost exclusively copied from scientific papers/ reviews, and news/blog reports. This user typically copied from the source they cited- or, at least, *a* source they cited. They'd regularly copy a paragraph of text from one source, then a cite a different source for each sentence. If a source was paywalled, they often would cite the source, but copy from a news report/blog report analyzing the source. One of the other investigators found a few instances where they copied another article in Wikipedia without attribution- but that was their rarest type of violation. They occasionally wrote their own material, but it was normally easily identifiable because English is not their first language.
Sorry for not being more helpful on this article in particular-I saw they(and their alt) were essentially the sole author of this page, cited 300+ sources, made a noise somewhat akin to that of a distressed animal, and decided I was going to take advantage of enWiki's rule allowing us to delete articles written by serial copyright violators without any more evidence. --GreenLipstickLesbian (discusscontribs) 00:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That’s plenty to convince me that this should be assumed to be a copy II until proven otherwise. Merci. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the responses, I think having a short intro, soft redirect to the CCI page, further readings section, and categories would be OK, what would you think about this? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure. Do you want me to undelete and then redelete selected diffs? Or you’ll just create the redirect yourself? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will create a soft redirect afterward. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 02:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the information, do you think WikiJournal Preprints/Induced stem cells needs deletion? It is another page where the same editor has substantial involvement. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did a brief check, and I found that this source (cited in the article) appears to have been partially copied. Specifically, the stuff about zebrafish has been copied word for word. It's not a promising sign. If this was on the English Wiki, I would ask for it to be presumptively deleted soley on the basis of the author and that confirmed instance of a copyright violation. I worked on the investigation for several days (and I was the one who asked for it to be opened), and I could confirm over half their writing to be blatant copy-and-paste jobs. GreenLipstickLesbian (discusscontribs) 03:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your service, hermana. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the information, I have contacted an active Wikijournal contributor to learn about how this preprint should be handled. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 02:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you to GreenLipstickLesbian for informing us about the copyright violations and reference false attribution in this article, and Koavf & MathXplore in participating in this conversation. Normally we would keep rejected articles in the preprint with the stated reason in the talk page for record purpose. However, since the induced stem cell contains copyright violation and may cause future accidental copyright violation by future text re-users under the assumption that the text is under Creative Commons license, I will request that the preprint be deleted while talk page remains undeleted to note the rationale. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good point. In addition to not deleting the talk page, I am redirecting the main page to the talk page and protecting it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Koavf Can you also delete WikiJournal Preprints/Induced stem cells, redirecting it to talk page please? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 04:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to set up my own talk page here at Wikiversity with my own example of trying separate the essence and accident of programming, as per [[w:No Silver Bullet|No Silver Bullet]] at Wikipedia, but it's rejected because of the external link (i.e. to Wikipedia). I'm doing this because most example code I see buries the essence in the accident and I wanted to show an example that there are better ways to write code. Philh-591 (discusscontribs) 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's very weird: you can't create interwiki links? And to be clear, you're trying to put said links on your talk page at User talk:Philh-591, not your userpage User:Philh-591? —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, your creation of the page with a welcome message has got it past that restriction, although I don't think it was the Wikipedia link. I'd not noticed that there are URL's in my example source referring to public information at the European Central Bank. However, it now insistently applies "nowiki" to what I insert. I guess I don't understand the formatting rules at Wikiversity; I'd assumed it was just like Wikipedia. I'll see if I can understand it more playing in the sandbox. Philh-591 (discusscontribs) 13:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I figured that would fix the problem: sometimes, creating a new page (even your own user or user talk page) has restrictions. I forget the exact limitations per wiki, but they are usually very modest, like make at least five edits across two weeks or something. Re: formatting rules, they should be the same as Wikipedia, so I'm confused as to what you're trying to do again. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply