User talk:Dzonatas

Please continue your article
I think that it's probably the most practical and easily-implemented of the project! I think that it's very important that you finish it. The Fieryangel 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 Hello Dzonatas, 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. To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on 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.
 * 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! Jtneill - Talk - c 03:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dzonatas, I have followed the instructions, installed greasymonkey and wikianimate. All I know is that loading has been slow
And I cannot find any toolbox. Hillgentleman|Talk 08:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't see the toolbox then it probably is not installed correctly. On the bottom right of FireFox, you should see the face of a monkey. If you don't find the face, then the add-on is not installed. Left-clicking the face will switch it on and off (grayed). Make sure it is on (colored). When you click on the install link (for wikianim), then you should see a dialog to confirm install. There is no need to put the script in monobook.js in Wikiveristy. Once you confirmed, then it is ready to use. The toolbox should be shown when you go to any revision history page.

Here is some videos to help, visually:


 * Greasemonkey Part 1: Customize the Web
 * Greasemonkey Part 2: Customize the Web
 * Search for more videos

Dzonatas 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I know what you mean and I have clicked on the monkey icon in many ways. Doesnt' work.Hillgentleman|Talk 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When you click on the install link (for wikianim), what do you see? A dialog, or the javascript? Dzonatas 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A dialogue. I have wikianim installed inside the monkey. Hillgentleman|Talk 23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I tried it with your monobook.js, and it still works for me. I could make a version that would work directly in monobook.js. Anyways, greasemonkey is a way to debug javascripts easier as well as make dynamic content. Maybe try any of the scripts from userscript.org and see if any of those work. I would like to mix wiki templates with javascript. Dzonatas 05:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Does greasymonkey work on firefox 3.x.x? Hillgentleman|Talk 08:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I have 3.0, and it works. Dzonatas 16:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't make it work. :( Anyway, does it work for template:philidor position at http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Philidor_position&action=history  ? --Hillgentleman|Talk 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I selected the entire history to animate, and the chess pieces move. Dzonatas 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Audio introduction
Please participate at Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Audio or Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Audio/Transcripts. --JWSchmidt 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

DPL
"Perhaps, a DPL could be created for active discussion and a link added to the student union page to the DPL"

It sounds like a good idea to keep related discussions linked. --JWSchmidt 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Title change to colloquium thread
Hi Dzonatas. I see you changed the title to a thread in the colloquium. I wasn't quite sure how to deal with this. I started the thread with a particular intention in mind, reflected by the title, and felt that the title change shifted the focus of my request to the community. I didn't want to undo your edits, so I removed my original comments and restarted the thread under the old title - the thread with your title is still there. However if you agree, we can also turn the thread title back to what it was. I guess in general that it's probably better to ask the initiator of a thread before changing a title. Hope you aren't offended! --McCormack 06:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi Dzonatas, thanks for joining the Learning from conflict and incivility project, and adding your thoughts. Very interesting - I'll add comments/questions on the talk page. Looking forward to working with you. :-) Cormaggio talk 08:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Dzonatas, what do you mean by this? Are you proposing a different, more coherent structure? If you're proposing that this project be merged with the ethics project, couldn't you leave your narrative as a resource within that structure? Cormaggio talk 19:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Diff
Why did you alter Salmons comment here, could you explain yourself. DarkMage 21:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't. The diff I saw is here, which are the changes I made and doesn't include what Salmon changed in between that diff. It didn't show as an edit conflict, and I didn't know about it until you mentioned it. Dzonatas 21:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd, but it was under your username - so I presumed that you did it, I'll be a bit more careful in monitoring the user activity then - strange that it picked up your username and not someone else, but who could have done it and the question is why was your username mentioned in the diff. DarkMage  21:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Bug filed Dzonatas 20:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, maybe the Developers will find the cause for the problem and hopefully fix it before someone else does like I did assuming that it was the person doing the edit who didn't make the edit. DarkMage  20:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * People forget that the software is also involved. That's why I added Ethics and MediaWiki. Your input is welcome there. Dzonatas 21:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A random mascot
 Hi! My name is WikiversityJack. I am a pumpkin and a Wikiversity mascot. My aunt told me that fun + learning = Wikiversity. Let me know if I can help you out.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate for Speedy Deletion
Your pages Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies/Loud and Combative and Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies/Controversy or disruption were nominated by another for deletion. They are currently empty. As the original author in the history, do you wish for these two pages to be deleted? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question! For the reasons they were nominated for deletion, I hate to have it look like covered up evidence or to have it made only where admins can see it. Do you think it would be best to hash the title and then oversight the entire history, which would guarantee the "move on" principle? Dzonatas 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposed on Requests_for_Deletion. Dzonatas 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I put this here as to not clog your talk page - thank you for noticing that Moulton put that comment there. I have moved over the section accordingly. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "bogus"
Hi, Dzonatas. I struck out the word "bogus". I must admit I had never seen your cases amidst all the other editing that had been going on, so I cannot judge them and should not judge them. My adjective was too sweeping. --McCormack 06:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia
Hi again. I glanced through some of your pages in this project after you moved them to your user space. I only glanced, but they did give the impression of being the product of hard work. I think a problem we have in the aftermath of the Moulton-affair is that it has been difficult to properly monitor what was being done. There will have to be a discussion of which bits of Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia are valuable resources, and what the most appropriate place is to put them. I doubt very much that I'm the best qualified person to make these judgments, but I'd start by wondering if Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia wasn't a rather POV title. Perhaps the best thing to do is exactly what you are doing now - move the pages which are primarily your own work to your own user space as a provisional solution - then begin to take stock of the wider picture and replan. Please feel welcome to stop by on my talk page if you think I can help. --McCormack 06:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Our Unceremoniously Disrupted Dialogue
I have move the constructive dialogue and discussion, which other editors have improperly disrupted, to beta.wikiversity.org: User:Moulton's didactic character subpages.

Moulton 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility policy
Hi again. Sorry for flooding your talk page like this! On the colloquium you said you'd like to make some changes to the civility policy draft, so I've followed up on this quickly. I've created a second draft at Civility/Extension 0.2 and I'd be very grateful for your input here. Please help Wikiversity get its own ethics in order! Many thanks. --McCormack 08:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Delineation, authority, etc
Hi Dzonatas - thanks for your thoughts. I don't fully understand what you're saying, and I don't fully agree with other things - but before we go any further, I'd like to integrate this discussion on a new page, so that we can all have the discussion on the same page. How about having it in your userspace for now? (Something like User:Dzonatas/Reviewing people? Or Reviewing people for that matter?) When you're happy with the title, we can move threads over, and invite people to the discussion. How does that sound? Cormaggio talk 09:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks!
Good show closing the deletion discussion... we tend to extend things way too long around here :-). See any others that need closing? --SB_Johnny talk 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The ugly
Somehow, the cart is put before the horse, repeatedly. There are issues that have been conflated to the point that the original cause is no longer easy to understand. When the issues are eventually found to be conflated, that situation commonly unfolds into a blame game, which continues to distract attention away from the original cause and becomes a new problem in itself. This is what is being noticed here on Wikiversity.

The bad
The discourse related to these ethics projects become really hard to follow. It wasn't easy to read. The linear type of forum on the talk pages broke down too often. The talk page discussions often carried over and made the resource pages unstable. I saw issues being created, which piled more garbage on the ugly. I think Wikipedians would normally just try to wipe it all out, but then nothing is learned and chaos wins.

The good
The good happens when these ethics projects evolve and get more organized. One man's garbage is another man's gold. There is a lot of information generated. Here is a place to learn, sort out the garbage, and to stop the habit of making losers out of people on any of the Wikimedia projects. I understand, though, that the process to sort it out can overwhelm. I think new principles that do get created, out of these ethics project, should focus on the "how not to overwhelm" aspect.

Garbage
When I started to write this page, I had a little more discourse about garbage. I decided not to include it, when I saved the page, since I didn't want it mistaken as being parody at all. I had started to refer to the lyrics of Garbage, a nostalgic band. Despite its name and outward portrayal of being trashed-on, they produce amazing music with one of the best female vocalist. Those familiar with 007 movies I'm sure will recognize The World Is Not Enough. Before 007 fame, the band wrote very deep and emotional lyrics. With a song like Bleed Like Me, you can tell what they did wasn't parody in any way and not something they were laughing about, despite the fortune it later brought to them. Reflective emotions carried in the lyrics, more feminine but I'm sure men can related with a song like Stupid Girl. The closest you'll find to parody among their selection of music is I'm Only Happy When It Rains where she puts the 'not happy' feeling into a beautiful grind in her voice. I posted one song of theirs on Wikipedia Review in response to a comment left on Wikipedia:AN/I that referred to WR members as ghetto shopping cart pushers. The local shopping carts here have built-in coffee cup holders since most local stores have Starbucks inside or nearby. I posted Cup of Coffee in response to 'ghetto shopping cart pushers,' and, obviously if you listen, I wasn't laughing any bit.

You'll probably notice the slight punkish and gothic influence in the music of Garbage. If your familiar with Ska, you might agree there is an influence of blues: Black Coffee.

Further reflection on the 'ghetto shopping cart pushers,' it just confirms that the cyberpunk lifestyle truly exists as a "high tech low life." Quoted from the article, "It features advanced science, such as information technology and cybernetics, coupled with a degree of breakdown or radical change in the social order." What happens at Wikipedia has reminded me of such breakdown. Remarkably, I know there are Wikipedians that have already claimed that they aren't part of some ill-technocracy.

I've gotten more into modern acid jazz, and it still gets labeled as trance. In self-reflection, consider the nostalgic transition from garbage, Cup of Coffee, to The Way I Feel.

Professional detachment

 * Professional detachment, minus its pejorative expression, can describe the proper distance between personal involvement and professional responsibility where one isn't overdistant or underdistant from either.

revert
It is quite clear that the lines you moved were not intended to be amusing. The editors would have put them in that section if that is what they intended. Feel free to add more amusing lines, or make other edits, but do not move a contributors words to amusing unless you clearly know that is what they intended. --mikeu talk 17:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are saying here, but the important point is that you should not move other editors contributions under the line "these are intended to be amusing!:" when they clearly did not intend that. --mikeu talk 17:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If your intent was to "keep it simple" you did a poor job of conveying that with an edit summary stating "the rest of the extra info moved down to amusing" Moving the good faith contributions of someone else "to amusing" just because you feel that it is "extra info" is not respectful and borders on uncivil.  My revert was justified.  --mikeu talk 19:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made no criticism towards you; I have criticized your edit. You should take your time and make edit summaries and edits that a reasonable person can understand without confusion.  Removing an edit which is clearly out of line does not require talk page discussion, and it would be negligent to leave such an edit in place.  Your edit was inappropriate, and the revert was justified.  --mikeu talk 22:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Empathy?
Hi Dzonatas :-). Thanks for your kind words, I really do try to see things from the other's point of view. However, you seem to be getting into trouble with some other Wikiversity folks, so I can't help but wonder whether what you really wanted to say is "can you help me?"... if so, the answer is of course "yes". Are you sure you can trust me if I offer to help you? --SB_Johnny talk 01:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal and professional
"clarity on a per edit basis for how disruption is caused, or how someone can claim it as disruption" <-- Wikis are magnets for people who know how to "game the system" and avoid defending their bogus claims. Many good editors leave wikis in disgust because authentic discussion can be trumped by bogus claims that are not critically examined. It has always been an interesting question: can Wikiversity be different? Right now a team of abusive custodians are making their move to turn Wikiversity into a mirror of Wikipedia, make it yet another wiki where reasoned arguments are not offered, rather, the mighty ban hammer is used to remove inconvenient opposition to the gamers. --JWSchmidt 14:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "If Wikiversity is to become based on scholarly ethics, it has to be recognize different from Wikipedia where truth matters more than the popular view." <-- Some commentators have noted that there is a fundamental problem for wiki websites that are open to all: they tend to sink to the level of something like a "lowest common denominator". There are many wiki editors who fear the idea of scholarly ethics. They know that their bogus ideas can not stand up to critical scholarly analysis. These editors push their points of view into wiki websites by any means possible, usually that means a significant amount of bluster and persistence in their efforts aimed at intimidating and driving away ethical editors. For two years Wikiversity was making progress towards being different and having a culture where reason mattered. It will be interesting to see if that special wiki culture can survive or if Wikiversity will just be absorbed into the system where the "lowest common denominator" is triumphant. --JWSchmidt 16:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I just wanted to say hi, because we haven't bumped into each other in a while. If you want someone to talk to, you can feel free to contact me via my talk page or email. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)