User talk:Marshallsumter/Archive 2013

Most Active Wikiversity User for January 2013
Marshallsumter, I was reviewing the list of active users for this past month and noticed you had by far the most edits in January. Keep up the good work! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Article in the Education newsletter
Hi! Thanks for adding information about your course in Wikiversity to the newsletter! A favor, can you add more information to the article, such as who you are, where you teach, how you decided to teach the course with Wikiversity. A link to contact you would be great as well!Thelmadatter (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Script Errors Update
Just wanted to highlight the update at Colloquium. There were other Colloquium posts today and you might have missed it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Courses Category
I'm working on cleaning up Category:Courses in order to add it under the Explore Wikiversity box on the Main page. I think that will help provide an alternative to some of the open courseware and MOOC sites. I found several of your Quiz pages in the Courses category and removed them. You may want to designate the main articles the quizzes are a part of as Courses. They're excellent materials. But it didn't seem to me that the quizzes themselves belonged in the Courses category. If you disagree, please revert my changes. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Solar system
Can I group all resources on the solar system into different pages under one resource? Then I want to nominate it for featured content. - Sidelight12 Talk 13:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking a quick look, I don't see a clearly defined entry point on astronomy. These exist, though:
 * Topic:Astronomy
 * School:Astronomy
 * Astronomy

For featured content, I think we'd want a relatively complete resource. Of what already exists, what would you suggest? Perhaps you might want to polish something up. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see
Nice to see all the great work you have done in my absence. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice
Is any kind of website that is not appropriate or needed such as a blog website spam? --Aaqib talk 23:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Partly, it depends on where the link is placed. If you have a personal blog, you could link it from your user page, as long as you haven't created your user page just to promote the blog! If there is a blog that is interesting on some topic, it might be linked from a resource on the topic. Exactly how to do that is up to consensus. On Wikiversity, we give participants a lot of freedom to choose what works for a resource. However, if someone disagrees, work it out, and if you run into an obstacle, don't insist, all by yourself. Consult the community. You can always ask me to look at something.
 * We have some people helping out here who have Wikipedia-like ideas about spam and reliable sources and the like. They do a lot of valuable work, but sometimes we have to remind them that this is Wikiversity, it is not an encyclopedia, it is a place for Progressive education. You saw, two years ago, how I interpreted that, with you. While some people didn't like that, consensus generally supported it, and I'm proud of your development as a student. You did that. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia
I notice in Astronomy that you have cited Wikipedia as if it were a source. A Wikipedia article can be a moving target. If you are going to cite it, I suggest using a permanent version of the article, because what you quote might disappear at any time.

You can add wikilinks to Wikipedia by using the form w: in the pagename, which will flip the target to Wikipedia instead of Wikiversity. A pipe after the name will suppress the w: so it doesn't display.

Generally, it would be better to cite original sources instead of Wikipedia, where possible, but, of course, that can be more work. If you choose a resource to work on for featured resource status, I'm willing to help edit it. Just let me know.

We are allowed to do original research and to create resources here, off the top of our heads. However, as a resource develops, sourcing in it, I expect, will move toward what Wikipedia considers reliable source, it's natural, because the reliable source guidelines are excellent for well-established content.

In theory, a resource here could surpass Wikipedia content in terms of quality, interest, and scientific solidity, and it could be possible to suggest, on Wikipedia, that the resource here be transwikied to Wikipedia, to replace the WP version. It is also possible for student projects here to become Wikipedia articles, and we have seen that happen as a class project. Basically, they need to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing, notability, and neutrality, that's all. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrator
Marshallsumter, I have been itching to ask you. Why don't you go request for adminship? You are outstanding and you are a remarkable worker. --goldenburg (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw your response on Goldenburg's talk page. It is easy to obtain probationary custodianship, you only need to find a full custodian willing to mentor you. I'm pretty sure you could do that, your behavior on Wikiversity has been exemplary. Community approval is not needed. As a probationary custodian, you have all the tools, and only a suggestion that you refrain from using them controversially. See Custodianship for the procedure. The minimum probationary period is four weeks. It can take longer, sometimes simply from inattention. Your mentor will decide when and if to propose permanent custodianship, and that discussion requires closure by a bureaucrat. You'd make a great custodian. It is not required that you commit to any particular level of custodial activity. Wikiversity needs more custodians, precisely so that the work be shared. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me.
Hello Marshallsumter, Are my edits okay, are my collection of books good. Am I improving Wikiversity? --goldenburg (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Custodianship
I just wanted to say that I fully support your request for custodianship, and will be willing to mentor if and when I am approved for full custodian myself. Keep up the good work! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk page
I replied here. --goldenburg111 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Retired
Hello Marshallsumter! I have decided, of my own free will, to Semi Retire on Wikiversity. I feel this is a very important action since there is a lot of work needed to be done down at Meta! While I take Wikibreaks at Meta, (Next Wikibreaks starts at the end of this month), I will be coming over here to edit. Thanks Marshall for everything you have been doing for me. Thanks! --goldenburg111 (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Custodianship
I gave you a question here on your request for custodianship. More are coming along the way! Thanks :) --goldenburg111 (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Marshall, Reminder to answer the second question! --Goldenburg111 (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you answered the question already. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Marshall, please reply to me at the Comments section of your Request for Custodian. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the original Wikipedia ban discussion reactivates my sense of how broken Wikipedia is. Panic reigned. I know the work of the admin who did the mass deletion well. Contrary to what used to be Wikipedia Rule Number One (w:WP:IAR), he clearly damaged the project. There were other approaches that could have worked without damage. There was no emergency. The most urgent issue was copyright violation and, in fact, that creates no hazard to Wikipedia, but only to for-profit re-users of Wikipedia content. One might wonder why such effort is expended to protect them!


 * I saw the pro-ban comment of one user, an arbitrator, which shocked me. That used to be a very level-headed editor. I think long service on Wikipedia does some damage. Administrators become cynical and impatient.


 * As a not-for-profit organization, Wikipedia is protected by the DMCA against claims of copyright violation, as long as Wikipedia promptly takes down violating content upon a complaint from a copyright owner. Even for-profit organizations that are "service providers" like youtube are protected to some degree. But if someone is printing and selling books, as you noted, they could be in bigger trouble, and the labor to identify copyright violations could create an onerous burden. So ... Wikipedia harnesses the volunteers to protect them! On-demand publishers, much of the Wikipedia sales market, are probably okay, though, as long as they take the material out promptly and don't continue to distribute it. Much of this has never been legally tested. But it's quite clear that there is no hazard to Wikipedia from the "copyvio" that is posted, some of which is found and deleted, much of which is never noticed. Your "violations" were legally de minimus, almost certainly allowable under fair use. Long story, eh?


 * In fact, one of the problem images you used was from Commons. It was suggested that it be deleted from Commons -- which decision would not be made on Wikipedia -- and then put up on Wikipedia for "fair use." If policy is that unclear, nobody should be blocked for violating it, unless an action is repeated against warning.


 * Deleting all those pages was utterly unnecessary. They could have moved problem pages, as we do here on Wikiversity, to your user space, no fuss. If there was a concern about copyvio, and except for *massive copyvio*, simply blanking them would have been enough. What deletion did, being done so quickly, was make the content invisible to ordinary users, thus possible filtering of good from problem became difficult, and articles that were probably okay, or that could easily have been stubbed, were just deleted out-of-process.


 * They could have asked you to help clean up the mess, giving you guidance on policies and guidelines, and, I suspect, you'd have done that. But they have habits of dealing with problems with single-button solutions. Block. The ANI discussion began on September 8, 2011. There was little prior indication of there being a big problem. There were many AfD notices on your talk page from the same user, all about "Dominant group" pages, which was forordained, those articles were not appropriate for Wikipedia at all, clear w:WP:OR. To delete all of them should have taken no more than one combined AfD. The word "warn" does not appear in the ANI discussion. After that discussion began, you made very few edits. There certainly was no violated warning that I could see.


 * You were blocked by September 9, reason given was (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (copyright violations and intent not aligned with Wikipedia's mission). That is the only block. Quite unusual, except when there has been a riot. You did have intent not aligned with mission, but so have many other editors. And administrators, by the way. Blocking for copyvio is almost always preceded by warning, unless it's massive and abrupt. Normally, if there is a dispute over what is copyvio and what is allowed, perhaps under fair use, there will be a discussion, creating a decision closed by an administrator, or otherwise showing consensus, and *then*, and only after you have been formally warned, you'd be blocked for violation, typically for a short time. This block was indef out of the box. That is because of the theory that was raised and believed that this was all a plot to "disrupt Wikipedia."


 * The issues were raised by a highly disruptive user, blocked for socking. The "master" was later unbanned. Deletionist. Stopped editing after an ANI report. Notice . The closed ANI report is at . My sense is that users like this serve a purpose for a certain faction of administrators. I've seen worse be tolerated. A common pattern: when the heat is turned up, the user disappears for a while.


 * You are *much* better off on Wikiversity. As to astronomy articles, you may create an "exercise" here which is a draft Wikipedia article, and perhaps someone involved with WikiProject Astronomy might RfC it to replace an existing article, or just do that, linking to the source, or may create it, likewise linking. Obviously, that person would be responsible for ensuring that the work satisfies policy. This has been done in the past by banned users, it's legitimate, though some may scream about "meat puppetry."


 * Much of what you did was not uncommon among experts. You are one among many experts who have been banned. Wikipedia is not a project that protects experts and expertise. It's an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," and that requires that it have the whole complex set of guidelines about Reliable Source and Verifiability. Experts, including professors, are accustomed to just writing! (or, in front of a class, just teaching.)


 * In theory, you could ask for unban, particularly because there are no claims of sock puppetry. If you are interested in that, ask me. My opinion, though, is that you are better off here, and their loss is our gain. -Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh. . (Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked). That's outrageous. Full protection, preventing you from requesting unblock or unban. Sure, it can be argued that your harmless edits there were inappropriate. I've seen that prevented many times, by warning the editor not to do that. Full protection prevents anyone else from communicating with you through that talk page. What the administrator was doing was preventing *someone else* from restoring your material. However, you can still email other users. (As can I, by the way.) Bans are not supposed to prevent a user from requesting unban, but repeated abuse of the right to edit one's own Talk page can lead to a block that prevents it. If the purpose here had been as that admin states, to prevent you from "abusing" the right to edit your Talk page, your block would have been expanded to prevent Talk page editing.
 * These people simply do what comes into their head. It often makes no sense.
 * I looked a little more. The content was restored by a user who had filed an ANI report over your action. You re-added the ban notice. Very weird. Normally, see a problem edit, just revert it, don't go to ANI. I've never before seen page protection used to prevent editing of a banned user's talk page, when it was edited by the user. And you essentially made a single mistake, quickly corrected, It was called "continued abuse." And nobody speaks up for the editor being abused. Notice that the discussion was closed, with a notice that the banned notice had been restored, and then other editors violated the closure by adding comments post-closure. And other editors removed your content. That was controversial, but within what is commonly done. With no further violation, the talk page was semiprotected (useless!) and then full protected (weird!).
 * That was because of this.
 * However, you made this mistake.
 * Never, when blocked, ever, ever revert war with anyone. I've seen a banned user get away with this, but only who really had a lot of community support. You revert warred with an administrator, no less. Bad idea.
 * Still, what is normally done for that is to warn the user and expand the block to prevent talk page editing if the warning is violated. Once again, you were not warned that you would lose your user talk page access if you continued. Nevertheless, by arguing on the talk page, and the revert, you probably led the admin who had allowed you to have those userboxes to apparently change his mind. Zero tolerance.
 * By the way, it was naive to think that you'd be allowed to use your Wikipedia talk page to announce possible edits to other editors. Others have tried this and have lost page access similarly. There are other ways, but Wikipedia administrators, citing "a ban is a ban is a ban," have often blocked or prevented them, completely disregarding w:WP:IAR. Indeed, I tested this, and that was mentioned in your original ban discussion. That is, I documented what happened I self-reverted "per ban of Abd," thus showing cooperation with a ban while efficiently calling attention to the edit and thus a possible improvement -- and self-identifying. They pointed, I think, to the page on WV where I documented this. I had previously shown that self-reversion worked with other editors, and generated good content through cooperation. They hated that. When I listed my IP edits on my Talk page, they blocked talk page access. When I self-identified, they eventually used the edit filter to block all edits with my name in them (which caused heavy collateral damage). They used escalating range blocks to prevent all edits from increasingly large ranges -- all for edits that were, in fact, harmless at worst. They used revision deletion to hide edits (violating revision deletion policy, that was actually discussed and decided.). It was all about power and control, they must control the project. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

IRC
Marshallsumter, can you meet me at IRC? --Goldenburg111 20:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)