User talk:Ajraddatz

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

To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
your comment in my CC. This means a lot to me. As you know, we do not always agree. That's a positive thing! I have not shied away from controversy, but my understanding is that there is an important difference between taking a stand, and being right. I want everyone to take a stand for what they believe or see or understand. Where our stands seem to differ, we can then discuss the topic, become more informed about how each of us came to our stands, and then seek agreement. If we can find agreement, it's likely better and more functional and more productive than what either one of us would come up with alone. That's actually how functional human society works. Too often, on these wikis, something else happens. I'm trying to do something about that, particularly at Wikiversity, where we can do original research and where discussing topics is part of the project. Thanks again. --Abd 18:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your claim about Meta
You claimed here that Abd was acting appropriately on Meta. Consensus seems to be that Abd has been disruptive, as can be seen at this link. Even Abigor's own friends thinks Abd is speaking inappropriately. Also, I find it odd how on Meta you point out Abd's assuming bad faith and other problems related to his accusations surrounding Abigor. He has accused multiple Stewards of misidentifying CU data and claimed bad things about those who wish to see Abigor stay banned. He is also encouraging Abigor on Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottava is misrepresenting the history, unfortunately. I have not accused stewards of what he claims. I have not claimed "bad things" about those who wish to see Abigor blocked. I've claimed that a large proportion of those users are those who had engaged in conflict with Abigor around nl.wiki. That is not an accusation of "bad things." It is not a "bad thing" to be involved in some way that could lead to bias. It is not even a bad thing to be biased, if one is. And surely you know my position on the checkuser data, my last edit in that request page was a response to you, Ajdraddatz. this is classic Ottava, everything becomes a huge conflict, with arguments generated by a very productive generator that seems to be unrelated to truth.


 * With the comment of yours that he cited, I don't think you were accusing me of assuming bad faith, at all. I certainly did not take it that way. Either I'm misreading it or Ottava is.


 * However, the last comment by Marco Aurelio, today, is puzzling. What I wrote there was solid, didn't accuse anyone of anything, no conspiracy, and the reference to a request by Huib is not explained. I've been in frequent communication with Abigor (Huib), and from that comment by Marco Aurelio, I'm a bit unclear about the identification by Ottava of him (the former Dferg) as a "friend" of Abigor. The status of that request on meta is that it's a request denied by an involved admin, in my opinion, so there is a standing request for a review by a neutral administrator. My analysis has suggested that there is no consensus for maintaining the block, so it's open to an unblock conclusion, but any uninvolved admin should be able to close that, whatever way. I'm mostly trying to get the damn thing properly closed. The claim of Marco Aurelio that I'm "spreading misinformation and assuming bad faith from everybody" is puzzling, indeed, and worrisome for a steward.


 * But it takes all kinds. And it's not our job here to judge what goes on at meta. I'm sitting here worrying that I've even responded to this here, but this is semi-personal communication with you. If I want to do something about Marco Aurelio, I'd do it at meta, and Ottava's habit of spreading disruption (i.e, one user says something negative about a user on one wiki, so Ottava takes it to another where he's in conflict, and cites it as proof for his position.) That's the kind of behavior that's gotten him blocked or banned in more than one place.


 * On the checkuser issue, Marco Aurelio has not explained the "misinformation." If I've been spreading misinformation, perhaps it should be corrected, instead of just claiming that I'm spreading misinformation. What did I write that was incorrect? I'm at a loss to figure it out. I suppose I should ask MA.
 * I've asked Marco Aurelio about his claims.... --Abd 02:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I read your comment in my CC page and was puzzled. What about meta? So I looked at meta and found that I was "infinite" blocked. For what? I was blocked by WizardOfOz, some of whose actions I've questioned. But no specific misbehavior was cited. I was not warned, I had a clean block record there, no warnings from any admin, and I have no clue what action of mine resulted in this block. I've asked, because I'd rather not ask for unblock before I know what I was blocked for!


 * After writing the above, I now see that I've been charged with misconduct in a diatribe like I have never seen from any steward. I won't discuss this here any more, this is really for meta, I'm just surprised. --Abd 05:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest, I don't completely agree with the action that has been taken on meta, but I am going to avoid picking sides on this one. Ajraddatz 22:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Picking sides" is not what I'd want. Standing for the community and for the projects, is what I'd expect. It's what I've been doing, as to my intentions. If I'm the only one doing that, it will be useless. One person can easily be mistaken or sidelined. Together, though, we are unstoppable. I'm staying away from meta for the moment unless questions are asked on my Talk page. There is no emergency, but that doesn't mean that this is not important. --Abd 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your dilligence
for protecting my efforts. It was me whom you rolled back, but it did no harm because it reminded me that I forgot to log in. I undid your roll back in an instant. Continue being bold!--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Guy vandegrift, my apologies. When I saw an IP removing large amounts of content from a page, the instincts kicked in. Sorry for the inconvenience - being bold shouldn't include reverting valid and good content contributions :-) Ajraddatz (discuss • contribs) 01:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize. Accidents like this happen all the time.  Speaking of accidents, my wife called me away from the computer, I came back and discovered I was logged out again.  Apparently one needs to renew one's "stay logged in status". (We have only adults in my house, so there is no need for passwords around here)--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To determine if that was a good contribution could be a lot of work. Ajraddatz, I might have done the same had I seen those edits, and I would know that the real author could easily undo my revert. This isn't Wikipedia, and Guy has been working on that page logged in. It was easy enough for him to log in, once he realized what had happened.
 * It is not that we won't let an IP editor change a resource. It's that nothing is really lost if we revert, as long as we don't drive an IP editor away. Technically, using rollback here is the problem. Rollback doesn't allow an edit message, it's supposed to be reserved for vandalism. The edit message would have been something like "unexplained removal of material by anonymous editor," something like that. On the other hand, it easily did look like vandalism.
 * Thanks for your attention to Wikiversity, Ajraddatz, we have been accumulating some great users, Wikiversity is humming along, and Guy is one of them! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is nice to see the activity here; I am always happy when a sister project is able to do well. I usually do consider large removals to be vandalism, but in the future I'll try to use undo with a descriptive summary here (except for very obvious cases). Ajraddatz (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)