Talk:Albanian sea port history/Comparing with the growth of Wikiversity

moving of the learning resource
The existing learning resource was now moved to: Albanian sea port history/Comparing with the growth of Wikiversity and a general intro page was created: Albanian sea port history. I am not sure, but I assume JWS wanted just that we get motivated to contribute to the learning resource. I am not familiar with Albania and their sea ports at all - so thanks for this opportunity to learn more and see if I can apply something which I learned in my life to this in the future. I will put it on my to do list for the next vacation. Will be an interesting experiment. Until then: while reading about it I improved some Wikipedia (German/English) articles and a new media file was uploaded to commons. I hope everybody can contribute a little so we can have a better learning resource for future participants. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 20:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Great to see some content; However...
Great to see some content; However, "deletionists often fail to respect the learning goals of their fellow Wikiversity participants, so they want to delete this page! " <-- This statement is hardly justified. The page was nominated for deletion because it had almost no content; the page was started with the single sentence: "It has been a loge battel for albania to come from where it has comeItalic text--169.157.9.51 13:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)", after which was added "...and it will be a long 'battle' for Albania to reach its goal for a Legitimate United Albanian State.". -Hillgentleman|Talk 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - anyone wants to try an attempt to change this ? Another comparison (instead of WV deletionsits) might be even better. Anyone an idea ? Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 17:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, truthfully I'd have to say that actually "I learnt something from this page." There. I said it. I mostly learnt this: "Documentarian Jason Scott has noted the large amount of wasted effort that goes into deletion debates. Being called an inclusionist or deletionist can sidetrack the issue from the actual debate, which may contribute to community disintegration, restriction of information, or a decrease in the rate of article creation that suggests a decrease in passion and motivation amongst editors. Nevertheless, some have observed that the interaction between the two groups may actually result in an enhancement of overall quality of content." (See here). Now the anti-deletionist sentence that JWS put in this page will irk a few people because of the incongruity between the title of this page Albanian sea port history and what actually may be learnt here at this point in time (the learning project/content may change to align with the literal semantics of the title at some point) but it has to be said that learning can often come out of strange places. So in a way JWS' "lesson" has been taken and WV need not ascribe to the requirements (that the content be specifically related to the subject of the page). This is a chance to get outside of the old educational boxes, to play with learning, not to regulate, or dictate, but to give things opportunity to grow in unusual ways. The page can now regardless really not be considered for deletion anymore can it? It can be changed, modified, improved or worsened, but it now has a history, an admission of at least one learning experience, and a right to remain. Countrymike 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how many more pages JWSchmidt is going to turn into a repeat of the "learning project" over at the Student union. The Jade Knight 05:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MPOV
I've provided an alternative point of view, so the page now has two+. The Jade Knight 03:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to introduce an experimental good faith edit to make this project more balanced, and to leave the decision-making up to the participant, instead of fighting a clear anti-Inclusionist or anti-Deletionist battle. JWSchmidt apparently isn't interested in a balanced learning project here, as shown by this edit.  I am not going to edit this page further, as JWSchmidt clearly owns it, and (from what I gather in his edits) isn't interested in approaching all sides of the issue evenly.  The Jade Knight 05:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I left all of your edits in the page and created a new section for further study of your edits. Can you explain how this constitutes ownership of the page? --JWSchmidt 06:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're interested in a one-sided page. I'm not, and your edits make any other POVs feel very unwelcome.  So I'm not competing with you.  It's all yours, JWSchmidt.  The Jade Knight 06:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jade Knight, We would only achieve multiple point of view (not to be confused with Megalomaniacal point of view) if every participant 1. explain carefully his arguements 2. listen to others.  John Schmidt is not censoring any contribution.  It appears to me that you are not happy because John Schmidt is a prolific author against deletionist.  The solution is to ask a deletionist to write from their point of view. Hillgentleman|Talk 06:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me; what I am most bothered by is the fact that when a page gets targeted for deletion, JWSchmidt immediately turns the page into a "learning project" on Anti-deletionism. When he does so, other users decide that the page is suddenly a learning project, and must be kept.  In other words, JWSchmidt is circumventing the deletion discussion page by turning every page which the community thinks might be worthy of deletion into a 1-sided argument about deletionism.  I am left to wonder if a year from now we'll have 100 of these pages floating around, all using the same general anti-deletionist logic.  The Jade Knight 06:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You may also turn it to an arguement for deletionism! Let us look: 1. It is the best possible outcome that a page-deletion request provides the stimulus to good content creation. 2. The page, as it stands now, is still weak in content, and it is not in good shape. However, since it is growing rapidly, let us give it sometime to stabilize before passing any judgement. Hillgentleman|Talk 07:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * " I am left to wonder if a year from now we'll have 100 of these pages floating around, all using the same general anti-deletionist logic. " - Let us stick to this concrete case, shall we?  This page is not in good shape, and deletionist's (also mergist, exclusionists, ....) contribution are very much needed. Hillgentleman|Talk 07:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I am not deletionist, and am not interested in turning this into a 1-sided argument for deletionism.  2.  I am definitely not interested in 100 of these pages about deletionism or antideletionism.  3.  What I had thought would be good to do with this page was to turn it into a question about the war itself—instead of effigizing one side or the other.  JWSchmidt clearly has other ideas in mind, however, and it is impossible to stand back and question the fight from an observational standpoint while one user continues to use the page as a battleground.
 * Stick to the concrete case? Are you unaware that JWSchmidt created a virtually identical "learning project" over at Student union?  He has done this twice now, and I see no indication whatsoever that he intends to stop here.  You may feel that other POV's are needed, but how would any user feel welcome in a project where their POV is being attacked?  How would they feel welcome at Wikiversity at all when users try to effigize them when they act in accordance with their own particular beliefs?   The Jade Knight 07:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * learning exercise. "turning every page which the community thinks might be worthy of deletion into a 1-sided argument about deletionism" (from above). I urge everyone to look at Requests for Deletion and Deletion requests/Archive/1. Count the number of pages that have been discussed. Count the number of pages for which I have voted "keep". Report the data you collect on this page. --JWSchmidt 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole is a rhetorical device. Explicitly: twice there have been pages which the community might think worthy of deletion which you have transformed into 1-sided arguments about deletionism.  Better?  The Jade Knight 06:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I just realized that I've seen something similar before . Which made me think of one of his other puppets, which was used for a strange form of what I now recognize as the kind of "drama as teaching" we've seen here lately: w:Special:Contributions/Dr_Chatterjee. --SB_Johnny talk 00:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this, I've deleted well over 200 Wikiversity pages, thus qualifying me as a "rabid inclusionist". --JWSchmidt 06:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You make an excellent agent provocateur, then. The Jade Knight 07:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)