User talk:Marshallsumter/Archive 2015

My condolences

 * I just had occasion to review your ban discussion on Wikipedia. That was definitely a riot. Voices of calm were drowned out. You had massive contributions, but they were called "copyvio." The same thing happened here. Nothing I've seen from you was actually copyright violation, you have used short quotations that were attributed. Not copyright violation, definitely fair use. Otherwise the failure was attribution of source, not true copyvio. Nobody seems to have brought up that issue. Biggest process defect: you were not warned of any problem, but were quickly indef blocked. You were not given any opportunity to clean up. Without any necessity, the indef block was converted to a ban. Why? Well, it was perceived that you had massively violated copyright. That you should have known better. You did use Wikipedia for original research. However, that is not a blockable offense unless repeated after warning. Now, this is the problem: you could request unblock, your Talk page access was not cut off. However, normally, with a ban, talk page access is cut off. You were never reblocked to reflect that. You did do something that would often lead to talk page blocking, putting information about you on your talk page. A blocked user is to use their talk page only for discussing unblock. It was suggested that you email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. I don't know if you ever did that.
 * I don't know why you would want to edit Wikipedia, but it could be useful for setting up connections between Wikiversity and Wikipedia. If you would like to go that way, email me. I noticed the activity from Wikiversity in your ban, from SB_Johnny and his mentee, S. Larctia, a sock later identified and blocked and banned. SBJ closed the ban discussion there based on "consensus," a typical Wikipedian admin move, violating ban policy. I.e., closes should be based on arguments, not numbers. There has been the same phenomenon here. A good close will actually consider the arguments, showing that the closer actually read them! Raising all this in an unban request, however, would be counterproductive. It would be much simpler. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This was a demonstration of your intentions. In spite of w:WP:IAR, the "community" will not allow any participation by banned users. It was said this way: "a ban is a ban is a ban." A technique was developed for allowing banned users to contribute positively, see User:Abd/Wikipedia/List of self-reverted edits. The idea was developed for another user who was topic-banned by ArbCom, who was deliberately violating the ban with "harmless spelling corrections." They were not harmless. They were designed to trap an admin into reverting or blocking for making clear improvements. The idea that he should have suggested the edits on the talk page was preposterous, in fact, if you consider how much work is involved, not only for him but for a user who has to find the text and then make the change. Far, far simpler to just make the edit and then "self-revert per ban." There is thus no enforcement labor necessary, the user is self-enforcing the ban! This user, however, did not want to cooperate! He ended up being site-banned because his motives were obvious. He's back, by the way, he had lots of friends and they went around an ArbCom ban, so he is under no restrictions and is doing much the same as before, just a little more carefully.
 * A arbitrator approved the plan. When it was actually used, it worked, with the first test case it created cooperation between the banned user and the editor who had requested the ban! And then I was topic-banned myself by an admin. An abusive ban, later confirmed as such, the admin was desysopped. However, I then saw a syntax error in Cold fusion, which he'd banned me from. So I fixed it and self-reverted per ban. This led quickly to a fix. (My edit was actually not yet right, but it pointed up the problem clearly, and it only took a little more attention to fix it). So, from the point of view of article improvement, it worked. However, the admin blocked me for it. This whole sequence led to a decision that admins could not ban users from articles. And then ArbCom defeated that with another process they set up, article probation. Long story, eh?
 * Now, once I was indeffed on en.wiki, I gave up on due process there, and decided to test Self-Reversion Per Ban. The only problems encountered were caused by "enthusiastic enforcement." Not by the editing. Some substantial benefit accrued. However, the range blocks got bigger and more work to bypass. I never went to editing by open proxy, which would have been the next step (and essentially unstoppable). That's what Russavia does, mostly. So I then created one sock account. I made no effort to conceal checkuser identification. The rule used to be no fishing for checkusers. Turns out that arbitrators -- who should be neutral judges, not executives -- do not restrain themselves. The sock was identified by an arbitrator and blocked without any disruption. But ... I did violate the community cold fusion ban that was still in effect. Not an ArbCom ban. That single sock episode then led to my "community ban," led by the same admin whom I'd first confronted. Never did he disclose his involvement. Basically, the whole episode demonstrated how an administrative oligarchy develops on wikis that then enforces and protects its own interests. *Usually* those interests are aligned with the community, but not when there is a conflict of interest, which arises whenever a user criticizes -- or worse, actually manages to successfully confront -- administrative abuse. Bans were supposed to be closed based on a discussion between "uninvolved users," base on arguments. That policy was never practically implemented, it's only occasional that someone points out the involvement of a user discussing a ban.
 * Your ban was not based on involvement. However, there was no attention paid to dispute resolution process, how user disruption is designed to be handled. It was hysteria, a screaming mob. Some surprising voices in the yelling. Carcharoth, for example, used to be about as sober as they came. Burnout, my conclusion. Years of dealing with disruption in a system that is very poorly designed, that actually foments and encourages it.
 * So you came to Wikiversity. You were promptly attacked here. Now, I commonly welcome new users. That puts their user talk page on my watchlist. I do not just welcome and then ignore them! If I see a problem, I may warn them, but I always and seeking to advise them how they can avoid problems, how they can do what they want to do, without causing negative response. I used to do this on en.wiki, though in a less organized fashion. That activity, highly successful, was prohibited by ArbCom for reasons that were never made clear. *They do not want disputes resolved by actual consensus.* The very idea was attacked, there are active admins on Wikipedia who said things in that ArbCom case that, if anyone were paying attention, should have led to immediate desysop. They don't do that. They do not guide sysops, except through highly disruptive, blaming process.
 * We can see what is missing on your Talk page. Nobody tried to advise you how to proceed. You suggested you might use your talk page to propose changes. You were unaware that many other users had attempted to do the same and promptly had their talk page access cut off. (You were right, this would not harm Wikipedia. But "a ban is a ban is a ban" has the force of law on Wikipedia, and there is a reason for it, but the reason was addressed by the original self-reversion discussion. That almost became a guideline. It was only rejected because I used it once. Wikipedia is run by a collectively naive and ignorant mob, when it comes to consensus process. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no great desire to edit Wikipedia. When I'm reading entries and see an error it would be nice to fix it, but nada. Other than introductory info which Wikipedia is still okay for I've lost interest in it except for original research. I'm preparing one effort which I believe you've seen Dominant group/Wikipedia, an effort to show there is a dominant group that is systematically or inadvertently dissuading female users. I've found three oldtimers there so far that have actually dissuaded apparently female users.


 * My only reason to be in communication with a few Wikipedians is to try to bring better linkage between some of our schools or departments and their project groups. Astronomy, geology, paleontology, and genetics, for example, appear to have some informed participants that may also enjoy the greater freedom of Wikiversity. I haven't included the physics project because some of them are way over the hill on relativity theory and solar neutrino theory. Even Einstein was trying to convince other physicists that relativity has some limits or possible flaws, but they refused to listen.


 * With respect to attribution of source, I made a few errors in forgetting to put a ref tag but these were certainly less than 5 %, and possibly less than 2 %, which puts it at certainly way beyond preponderance and possibly to beyond reasonable doubt that there were no copyright violations per US standards. I did use the talk page for something but I don't remember what and I may have asked once to have the block or ban lifted but it was too quickly rebuked to indicate any objectivity. I initially considered suing WMF for slander but when I mentioned to colleagues that Wikipedia banned/blocked me for copyright violations they laughed at Wikipedia. So I felt my reputation and potential for getting grants had not been damaged.


 * I tried I think once to email arbcom but it didn't work. I enjoy Wikiversity probably way too much. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a whole Wikipedia criticism community, and the things you write about are common and well-known. Yes, I can see what you did. Your responses were fairly common. It is as if Wikipedia spits in the face of those who try to help. In fact, this is a tiny part of the Wikipedia community that gravitates toward the levers of power. The founder of w:WP:ANI later said that he regretted it. It's obvious why. What should have been an administrating 911, dealing only with emergencies, and deferring to slower, more cautious processes, became a general place to complaint about other users and see their ban. In design, a ban was to be done through RfC, which has rules that, in theory, would lead to more careful process. Now, who participates in ANI? I edited ANI many times, so it would be on my watchlist. I would quickly take it off, because the traffic would make my watchlist unusable. There would be ways to make this workable, but Wikipedia became hyper-conservative, and it works for some that the system cannot find broad consensus efficiently. So the opinion expressed at ANI is that of a tiny section of the community, biased toward drama and reactivity. Your case demonstrated that.
 * In fact, you are far better off here. After realizing what is possible -- and routine -- here, why in the world would I want to dive back into that cesspool, where gross incivility is routine from the core, and immediately punished in outsiders? Where making minor changes, clearly supported by policy, can take weeks of work, arguing old arguments that were resolved long ago, repeated just because some can get away with that. After Wikipedia, Wikiversity is Freedom. And, yes, we have a lot to do to realize the potential of this place and make it more widely known and available.
 * We let Wikipedia be the encyclopedia, we represent academia and the full panalopy of human knowledge and understanding. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision Deletion

 * On this topic, because revision deletion cannot be reviewed by the community, it should be reserved for cases of actual harm. That a person might be exposed to criticism because of an edit is not the kind of harm we would want to avoid. We would want people to be responsible for what they do. Most revision deletion is requested because of privacy policy violation, outing editors, etc. Ordinary deletion is adequate for mere incivility. My opinion is that if an editor makes grossly uncivil edits, they should not be revision deleted unless the editor requests it. If it is requested, that such deletions were made, and the reason for deletion, should be public record, easily discoverable. An attacked editor may also request that the edits be rev-del'd, and in that case, the offending editor should be notified that their edits were hidden. That's what I've seen at meta. It's a form of warning. Making edits that require revision deletion is highly disruptive.
 * I looked at the specific case and, yes, revision deletion was completely proper there. The indef blocked user's contributions display shows the revision deletions. This is fine for documentation, if it is ever needed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PragmaticStatistics relationship with Wikipedia
Dear Marshallsumter.

Thank you for your efforts on my behalf. One of the problems I had with Wikipedia was that initially I had placed links in the content area not knowing that was not allowed. Part of the problem with Wikipedia is the many pages and pages of long form rules few are willing to actually read. Its like accepting Google map terms few every read when setting up an account. And, the fact that there is a very inconsistent application of those rules by the various editors. And...I can understand your seeing me as hostile to the editors when you only read part of the interaction. Evidently you missed how editors started the hostility. In the beginning I tried to show them how inconsistent editors were in applying whether or not Google Maps were allowed as content since there were existing Google Maps in the content area by the UNESCO World Heritage Sites which went to their web site. Which is where I got the idea to add my maps. Why was it right for UNESCO but not for me? Then there was the inconsistency that over 30 of my maps still exist on Wikipedia while a few editors treated me with hostility and removed them. Also, these sort of discussions on a public page like this is bad form. These discussions should be private where the accusations made by editors are not accessible by Google searches. I won't bagger this any further here.

So, how may I help you with your volcano project. I already have maps that include volcanoes, however, their main function was about El Nino, the thermohaline circulation, etc. I can make a volcano map providing it is with in the limits of the ability of a browser to load it reasonably. To date I have maps with as many as 300 placemarkers and as a MyMap map they load reasonably well. Beyond that I have no idea of how well it will function. I normally get my info from various Wikipedia lists of volcanoes. Note that the Wikipediua maps bvreak them up by country, however they have no content in the map and as such are useless.

I read somewhere that MyMaps can take on 1,000 placemarkers from a spreadsheet, however, from what I see of the Google Maps created on Wikipedia's List of Volcanoes in Costa Rica, it evidently missed many of its targets. What I found in four years of making these maps is a constant problem with Wikipedia coordinates. The people who place them do not zoom in close enough to hit the target when zoomed all the way in. So, if you would like me to help with your project, please send me an email to the address you contacted me at with an email address I can contact you so that we collaborate in private. If you don't know the address, you can get it off my contact page on my site at MyReadingMapped.com--Pragmaticstatistic (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pragmatic, you seem to have confused my comments, left on your talk page, with Marshall, because he welcomed you. I will respond to you on your Talk page. Your concern about people seeing what is written is worrisome. However, sometimes I contact users by email; my email is enabled and so is Marshall's so if you want email communication, use email. What I've seen is many comments from you, on-wiki here and on Wikipedia, including recently, that would attract attention to links on Wikipedia that, noticed, might be removed. You seem to have imagined that acceptance of an edit is shown by lack of revert. That is only a first-level assumption. Frequently improper edits are not noticed for *years.* Further, you may be dealing with inexperienced users with low understanding of policy, I would say that this is normal. Anyway, normally, if you want to respond to a user's comment on your talk page, respond there. Normally, a user will have your talk page on their watchlist and will receive email notification (anyone active will have this set up). --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Full Custodianship
You've been a probationary custodian for five months now, and have done an excellent job of keeping up with proposed deletion requests, Colloquium discussions, etc. It appears that you have also mastered the skills listed at Custodian Mentorship. Are you interested in moving forward with a vote for full custodianship? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll have my support btw Marshall! --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Approved. . Congratulations. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider removing the Site message. MediaWiki:Sitenotice Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all your help over the years! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Commons! Unreliable!
was deleted for copyvio on Commons. It had been there since 2006 and was in substantial usage. Commons procedure sucks. The uploader was notified as if the claim had been an own work claim, it was not, it was a PD-NASA claim. So speedy was incorrect. But looking closer, the image came from a Japanese satellite, and might not be public domain (and, indeed, at first it was not! They apparently embargoed the data for a year). So I was about to upload the file to Wikiversity since Fair Use was obvious, but then found that all Yohkoh data was released into the public domain, explicitly. I have requested that the deleting admin restore the page on Commons.

I assume he will.

But case in point: Commons often deletes stuff, for good reason or poor, that others have depended on. The Commons home page advertises so many files for free use. It lies, when one looks at the fine print. There is a file that was just kept after a massive discussion, where there is a copyright claimant who might well sue the WMF, he has threatened it, and he might win. Does the image carry any disclaimer? No.

We cannot depend on Commons hosting of images. So I recommend that any images used here be uploaded here, I've recommended this in the past. Then if someone wants to transfer them to Commons, file, but we will need to stop Commons' automatic deletion of image links to Commons-deleted files, it creates a mess additional to uploading here. There is no legal hazard to the WMF from non-free files uploaded here. There is an issue about non-free content policy; however, this is clearly not an emergency, and what would be important would be that non-free content (actual or alleged) be tagged, so that a commercial re-user may find it and remove it if desired. "Sun in X-Ray" will come back, I assume, but this is a constant issue. See Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker.

Case in point, I just looked at a more-or-less random image deletion from the delinking here:. That image was in use here. Normally, images in use on a WMF wiki will not be deleted, but who checked? That's a content issue for the wikis to decide, not Commons. There is no notice to the affected wikis. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be great if the deleter restores it! I went out on the web and found a copy. It's now uploaded here as File:Sun in X-rays Recovered.png. It sometimes takes time to find them. I usually remember to add them to my commons watchlist when I first use a commons image. And, I check it usually once a week. If they would just let us know before its deleted, it would make it so much easier. Usually, now, I only upload here, as fair use. I have also uploaded an image from commons here, but no where near the number I still have from commons. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've sent you an email
Thanks. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Marshall did you see it by any chance? Thanks. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've checked my email today, on Sunday and earlier, but there's no email from you except from Wikiversity writing that you left this message here on my talk page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll say what I sent in the email. Since you're currently a full custodian (congrats again!), I'm currently looking for a mentor here Candidates for Custodianship/Atcovi. I may have been inactive, but atm I'm trying to balance out my edits. For some experience I'm an administrator on Wikibooks, so I know what to except. If you do not wish to be my mentor, please say so (I won't catch feelings). Thank you Marshal. (atcovi here) --72.84.233.224 (discuss) 00:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your request! I thought you had already asked Dave. In his archive is "If in May or June [of 2015] you have a solid track record of helpful participation, without attracting some of the drama that followed you here a couple of years ago, I would be happy to consider your request at that time." I believe it would be better to have Dave as your mentor at that time. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. --72.84.233.224 (discuss) 12:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No-license file deletions
File:Laguerre Polynomial Graph.png and three others were deleted by you, deletion reason: (No copyright information after 7 days)''. I can't tell now, but it looks like the files were not in use recently. The only "What links here" was a page set up to hold possible Fair Use files pending actual usage, as I recall, particularly where the original uploader wasn't available. That page is Licensing_of_Wikiversity_media/Files, which must be in mainspace to satisfy the present version of WV:EDP. The page says that if files are not handled within six months, they would be deleted. Much more than 6 months elapsed for those files, and they don't appear in mainspace. I have removed those files from that page. The rest of the files on that page are used in Jtneill's Motivation and emotion course. I will remove them from that page, as well, as all those files have a Fair Use tag and are in use and should not be speedy deleted, accordingly.''

The goal of that Files page was to provide a temporary home for educational purpose, which was, in this case, very general. Pages that appear possible as Fair Use files that have been uploaded but are not yet in use might possibly be placed on that page, pending user response. Basically, it is as if Dave, in the case of File:Attributions.png re-uploaded the file, claiming fair use. Technically, the file information is not complete, but we are not Commons, we are not intended as a file host, per se. The Fair Use tag warns any re-user of a possible copyright problem. Most of these files, historically, have been self-created, but some are scraped from the web by a student. My goal has been to avoid damaging the educational process. Just covering this because I saw it.

Thanks for your work. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info! I was wondering if something like that was going on. When I saw the Laguerre polynomials files I double checked to see if we could use them in a resource on these polynomials but the graphs are problem-solution oriented rather than likely usable in such a resource, unfortunately. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Prod
When using, be sure to use it as subst:prod. Using subst: forces in the current date. Without subst: the date advances every day, so it technically never expires. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I read about the difference between and  on your Discuss page. When checking the dates last modified versus my use of, I then knew why the dates didn't match my off-site log and have already deleted the older ones. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, thank you for changing the s to s and adjusting the dates or removing the prods. It's good to have a second opinion! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Double Redirects
Take a look at Special:DoubleRedirects. Sometimes there's a bot that runs that cleans these up. But it only fixes the double redirect. It doesn't tag the intermediary redirect for deletion. I usually look at these every couple of weeks or so, but since it seems you created these, I'll let you review them first. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up! I had actually started fixing them without thinking of the Special Page. It makes them so much easier to find! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for unblocking me. I'm a medical school physiology professor and that means I'm quite busy in the real world. I will not have very much time to devote to Wikiversity editing, but I plan to work a bit on a creative writing learning project (Science Fiction Challenge). Judging by the red links at Science Fiction Challenge, I might be making some requests for page deletion review. --JWSchmidt (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of "Four potential gravitation" for the "proposed deletion" template?
Hi - Now that you are a custodian, I can stop pestering Dave every time I have a question:. Would it be appropriate for me to place Four potential gravitation on , or should I move it to a page reserved for fringe physics articles? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I briefly read through the page and it does seem to be a fairly well developed theory for (scalar) gravitation, but I'm no expert. As you say it is on the fringe. There is a gravitation resource that it could be moved as a subpage to. The current author hasn't edited in just less than a year so there may be more improvements coming. A is a good clean up idea. The resource appears to be a lecture although this isn't crystal clear. Someone with the User name Vttoth put it up for speedy deletion but fringe theories presented as a lecture are okay as learning resources. The resource does need some improvements along this line. I don't know if there is a fringe physics page, but I'm very hesitant to delete it. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My reasons for proposing the page for speedy deletion are: 1) more than a fringe theory (being on the fringe does not automatically delegitimize a scientific endeavor), this theory's sole sources are the author's own self-published/vanity published booklets; 2) the page was created by the theory's author, so it is clearly self-promoting; and 3) the so-called theory flatly contradicts established science. (It is by no means "well developed". The author just writes down a standard field equation for a vector field, and then a proposed Lagrangian density that is neither generally covariant nor consistent with the vector field equations... which lead to a repulsive force anyway, not to mention failure to satisfy the equivalence principle... but hey, all of this is 100+ years old established science, well known to anyone familiar with classical gravity.) I don't mean to be mean to the author, but I consider such self-promotion an abuse of resources like Wikipedia/Wikiversity. They will not fool experts of course, but they do lower the overall quality of the resource and might mislead those who come here for genuine learning. As I indicated to the author in private e-mail, the proper route is to publish the theory in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and then have others write entries about it. Vttoth (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments and welcome to wikiversity! If the resource is only solicitation it will be deleted. However, your point 3) and following sentences do help qualify the value of the resource for Wikiversity as a learning resource and/or possible laboratory for students to show what they know and can verify. The resource in any form would be deleted at Wikipedia as an encyclopedia usually pitches the current established dogma only. But here as you've pointed out it has some learning value, only if so developed. Hence, my two suggestions to Guy vandegrift. Either one is more appropriate I believe than speedy deletion. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't consider established science "dogma" (to be sure, there are dogmatic scientists, but basic, well-established and experimentally thoroughly tested laws of physics are only described as "dogma" by crackpots.) Nor do I believe that a demonstrably incorrect, naive "theory" that exists only in the form of the author's self-published ramblings offers any learning value. Perhaps I am taking the stated mission of Wikiversity a little too seriously, but I see no educational value in allowing every crackpot to publish every piece of nonsense here and thereby gaining some perceived legitimacy. Anyhow, I think you understand my concerns... I welcome whatever is deemed to be the best resolution for this. Vttoth (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if one of our users writes a modern Jabberwocky -- or tries to -- you would toss it in the trash? Wikiversity is not a peer-reviewed journal, though some content later published in peer-reviewed journals originated here or the author educated himself here.
 * The appearance of material on this site conveys no approval of the material. Even Wikipedia doesn't do that, it can't. In my own field of interest, the Wikipedia article is about twenty years out of date, ignoring what has appeared in peer-reviewed journals in that time, because an adminstratively-supported faction of Wikipedia editors thinks that anyone who studies that field is, ipso facto, a "crackpot." The hell with RS standards. What me and my friends believe, now that's solid science. They need no reliable source for their opinions, but they use them to exclude what they dislike.
 * I worry about this concept of "crackpots." It's a very primitive -- and uncivil -- view of humanity. I had two well-known professors when I was at Cal Tech. They were both considered "crackpots" by some. Pauling and Feynman. I know quite a few "crackpots." I vastly prefer their company to that of Wikipedians, in general, who can be quite a vicious bunch. (To be sure, many are nice, but ....). And, yes, I tell my friends their crackpot theories are nonsense. But we talk about it. And that's what we do here. If you have better knowledge that you wish to share, by all means. Please do. For the same reason that we won't delete that user's work, we won't delete yours. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 05:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If someone (ab)uses Wikiversity to lend legitimacy to research that was rejected elsewhere (with good reason), then yes, I would toss it in the trash. If someone presents an unsubstantiated, crackpot theory in a misleading manner, making it appear as though it was accepted mainstream science, then yes, to the trash it goes. And while it is true that some perceived crackpots were in fact none of the sort, this has been used all too often by the countless real crackpots as an excuse. In any case, I understand that Wikiversity's stated purpose is education, not to provide a platform for crackpots. (By the way, if you have a better term, by all means, let's use it; I am not trying to be insulting, I just don't know a better term than crackpot or crank to describe, well, this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html.) Vttoth (discuss • contribs) 22:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi Marshallsumter, thanks for the welcome. I contribute to other sister projects; mainly Wikipedia (en: & es:). I noticed your comment regarding "genus" under Sociology. Best regards, Tortillovsky (discuss • contribs) 23:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

CBI Courses
Hi Marshallsumter,

I agree with your comments about some of the redirects. I was playing with options for a more consistent format. That can be seen with the variation of styles used in the major categories. After reviewing the changes with the overseeing professor, we decided to keep the main list of courses on the main page and then create links under the major categories. The major categories were supposed to give an idea of the location of the courses. Some courses will be duplicated and therefor your suggestion of locating the source file on the main page makes more sense in that regard. The goal is to complete the project before the end of the summer, so there may be more decisions that may not initially make sense.

Also, I am trying to improve on the view of the main page. Are there any samples for navboxes that would help with UTPA STEM/CBI Courses?

On a side note, I am a student in Mechanical Engineering. Materials is a sophomore level course that stems from early chemistry courses. It differs from chemistry courses in that stress - strain relations for materials (primarily metals, ceramics and polymers) are introduced to strengthen later courses focused on design.

Thanks for all the support and help.

Mark


 * See Instructional Design for one Navbox example. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a spectral variety of Navboxes on my user page. Most are for subjects. Principles of radiation astronomy is an online course. Enjoy! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

deletion of index pages to UTPA STEM/CBI Courses/Graphics
I am inclined to agree with you regarding the deletion of UTPA STEM/CBI Courses/Graphics. I changed template from delete to dr. I think the deletion was proposed because it is redundant with a different indexing scheme. We need to ask the person who proposed the deletion whether the page is unnecessary or harmful (because it prevents the user from finding pages). If it is only redundant, then it does no harm. Two questions:
 * 1) Did I do the right thing in changing the template from "delete" to "deletion request"
 * 2) If so, should I change the other delete requests to dr status?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs)


 * Thank you for taking a look at these! I concur with changing them all from deletion to dr. The group from UTPA STEM/CBI is looking at these to see what they want to do. I made a minor change to the dr for UTPA STEM/CBI Courses/Graphics. See if you agree or not. Feel free to change it back, or add a comment about the path on the Discuss page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, process. If there is any hesitation about deletion of a page, and no necessity, speedy deletion is probably not appropriate. However, DR is really for contested deletions, and when a DR tag is placed on a page, there should be a request section opened on Requests for deletion, that explains the reason for deletion and requests community discussion. There is a step before that, which is Proposed deletion. That sets up a time limit for keeping the page, if nobody removes it. This is less disruptive. If nobody cares enough to remove the tag in three months, it's relatively harmless to delete it. (And we routinely restore pages on request, if they were speedy or proposed deleted.)
 * Never create a deletion request for someone else, my opinion. Tell them how to do it if they don't know and want to create the community discussion. Deletion requests invite debate, and should never be filed when speedy deletion or proposed deletion are possible. They may be filed if a person believes that the page should be deleted when someone else believes it should be kept (as shown by removing speedy and/or proposed deletion tags). So the RFD page is for resolving deletion disputes. No dispute needing resolution, not needed.
 * There are many alternatives to deletion, that may readily find consensus. The one who has requested deletion claims the page is no longer needed. As one possibility, it could be redirected, with a hard or soft redirect, which will leave the history intact. I have not studied the details, but the content, if any, could be merged if there is overlap.
 * The developing understanding here of how to handle page deletion has resulted in a far more collaborative and safer environment here than what happens, say, on Wikipedia, where deletion discussions commonly cause extensive argument and incivility, etc. Avoiding that is possible here because we have flexibility that Wikipedia doesn't have, and a purpose that is broader. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to place these pages under proposed deletion. Since the person cleaning up the pages is a student working under supervision of the principle author, I am inclined to defer to their judgements.  The author(s)  should almost always have the last word.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Almost always. If a principal author puts up a speedy deletion tag, it will normally be respected and followed, and, usually, nobody will object. Here, it was not the principal author. It was, I assume, as you say. Almost the same. However, admin policy and procedure do not depend on special knowledge or even detailed research. It should be quick and easy. Prod is easy and gets the job done. It's a management technique, I've called it a "slow wastebasket." Speedy is also easy. Marshall didn't like the deletion, which is his privilege. He will not object to prod, I'm sure, and he can remove that as well, perhaps after improving content, and then a user who still supports deletion may start a deletion discussion, if he thinks it is needed. Deletion discussions are not admin decisions, they are community decisions, hence inherently distracting (I call them "disruptive," which does not mean "wrong.") The community decides, and admin ratification of consensus is required for a delete decision, a keep decision may be assessed by an ordinary user with experience. The default if there is no consensus is Keep pending repeated process, which is discouraged here. Site organization may be done with ordinary editing. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with Prod as well. According to the group from UTPA STEM/CBI, they are trying to get the courses ready for the fall. A three-month prod would work out well. If they really don't want to include these in their course directory, then they can be deleted when the Prod runs out. Good solution! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What about changing the pages to redirects, once they (or we) know what it should redirect to? Just a thought.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also a good idea! Students, at least here, who would like a course on, for example, Materials would find the UTPA STEM/CBI Courses/Materials‎ using our search engine as an option, which would then redirect them to that portion of the UTPA STEM/CBI Mechanical Engineering curriculum. I like it! If the UTPA STEM/CBI group does not make a decision, this is a good, student-friendly option. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * An advantage of Redirect (without Move) is that it is an ordinary edit. Any user can do it now. It leaves the page history open for review. Deletion is always a kind of problem, because only admins can see what was deleted. Transparency is a positive value. If it is an orphaned redirect, it might be deleted as such, but it is harmless if left in place, especially as a subpage. (I'd be careful about deleting orphaned redirects when there is substantial content in history. By the way, as I recall, a redirect can also display the content below the redirect, it still works.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Double Redirects
The Special:DoubleRedirects list is showing some opportunities for clean up based on recent subpage moves. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The harm of moving files to Commons
removed a link to File:Zeta Scorpii.jpg from Radiation astronomy/Oranges. The image was credited to w:User:PlanetStar. It appears that this user used the image in the Wikipedia article on Zeta Scorpii in 2011. I found the image in Google's cache. It may have been an oranger version of this, which is credited to the "UK Schmidt telescope". The image is all over the internet, being sold on T-shirts, etc. I suspect it is public domain. It was deleted from Commons because it did not give license information, and it took them four years to notice. The uploading user was not PlanetStar, as far as I can tell.. The original uploader put the file on en.wikipedia. It was deleted by a bot that deletes NowCommons files, see. The original uploader was, of course, not notified of the Commons deletion. As well, the uploader was not notified of the local deletion. The user is still active, but not on Commons.

I just thought to look once again at Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker and saw this. There is a discussion on Deletions that may be of interest on our practice of routinely deleting files that have been copied to Commons. We also have a Commons administrator here, who commented on this today on User talk:JWSchmidt. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

IP Edits
If you find that you need to roll back IP edits, it's a good idea to check contributions and see what else they may have vandalized. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's good advice! I checked the IP that vandalized the Colloquium and found two more resources hit. I'm adding that step to my Custodial duties. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The same with any problematic edits, including by a registered account. I will also, if I have time, look at global contributions and then, if appropriate, on meta, request global blocking (IP) or locking (vandalism or spam-only accounts). --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Page information
You wrote, on Talk:Situography, this:


 * From looking under "Page information" at the left of the resource Situography, it does come up as a content page. So I'd say it's okay for Mainspace.

All that tells you is that the page you looked at page information on is a mainspace page. Every page in mainspace will show that. It's meaningless as to the issue of where the page might belong.


 * Situationism does not come up as a content page because it has no intra-Wikiversity links.

I don't know what you are talking about here. There is a link to Situationism, and it comes up as a Wikipedia page. I placed that.

I added wikipedia links to some of the user's pages so that they would be connected with that sister wiki resource. Actually, there is no link to Situationism as such, that is merely how the link displays. I placed a link to the wikipedia Situationist International article because it mentions Situgraphy. Situography, with an o in the name, is a variant, used in an early document. Notice that the user has spelled the word without the o in most instances.


 * At present the page only has a wikipedia link and an image. If no more content is added probably within a year it may end up with a prod for deletion as it can be replaced with the wikipedia page. But, hopefully, the resource creator will be adding more content or some intra-Wikiversity links. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is more content than that. Still, I recommended subpaging because, as a page within a structure, it would be far less likely to be prodded. But, hey, horse, water, drink? If the horse doesn't want to drink, why should I care, it's not my horse. That this flap developed is very unusual. We have been subpaging hundreds of pages without incident. There was no problem from the user until certain things happened. That's something I'll be studying. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy vandegrift asked for my opinion on these two resources. As you know we have lost some 8,000 pages from the list of content pages. I found and reported on the Colloquium that these loses are due to the new way WMF counts content pages. Down the "Page information" result it asks the question: Is this a content page, or it does not ask this question. If the question is there, the answer is Yes stated in the right column. If the question is not there, it is because there are no internal Wikiversity links. Try adding one to Situationism with resource creator ok and watch what happens.

Actually, no, not every mainspace resource page shows up as a content page. Many but not all of the resource pages in Special:AncientPages, Special:DeadendPages, and Special:LonelyPages do not have an intra-Wikiversity link so they are not counted as content pages on our Main page. Every now and then I go to these, find one that's not counted as a content page, add an intra-Wikiversity link and wholla it is now counted as a content page again. Feel free to help with this.

I'm pretty sure the resource creator for Situationism is going to add more so it's unlikely to have a prod stuck on it. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly hope so.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed an ancient prod from Neoism as one of my first involved actions. At this point, I would do the same for any resource in this family. My issues boil down to page name (location or name itself), not inclusion/exclusion. However, what happened in the past can happen in the future. At least two resources in this family were deleted or prodded, and I suspect that there was another. That happened in spite of incoming links. It would not have happened with a subpage structure. I'll check out what is said about the Page information link.


 * Consider the integration of Wikiversity with Wikipedia, with sister wiki links. Suppose a resource is a very undeveloped stub. Would we want an incoming link? If the link is to a resource within a hierarchy, it could be better than if it is standalone. We may develop templates to suggest to those coming from Wikipedia, how to address and use a stub. Stubs should reference Wikipedia, where content exists there, it's easy and quick and should not be controversial. If it is controversial, something is off. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First pass, I don't see the option you refer too, Marshall. I suspect it is a custodian-only option, but there is no associated user group right. I have no idea what the effect of the designation would be. There are incoming links shown at Special:WhatLinksHere/Situationism. As is common, []mw:Page_information]] is not terribly helpful. What is "and more"? No link to a complete list. However, there is more at mw:Requests_for_comment/Reimplement_info_action]. Still no complete list That was a proposal to re-implement action "info," which had been disabled for performance reasons. The proposed interface there is not what was actually implemented. So then, there is a list of gerrit processes. Nothing there readable by non-cyborg (i.e., specially programmed) humans. Actually documenting the software commonly takes second fiddle in a one-fiddle orchestra. It's a common problem with open software, which tends to be managed by specialists, highly interested in programming, and having no clue about what a non-cyborg would need. Nothing wrong with specialization, it's a powerful tool in the human toolbox. However .... the specialists don't need the user manual! The rest of us do, and the purpose of it all is easily lost.


 * Okay, looking up Page Information was a dead end for me. But here is what matters: mw:Manual:Article_count. So now I understand what you wrote, Marshall. The issue is a wikilink on the page. I.e., a page is not counted, even if it is clearly a resource, linked from other pages, if it does not, itself, have a wikilink. I will test this, but not on Situationism, where editing other than by the Owner is Strictly Prohibited by Police Order. (Okay, okay, as a "suggestion" by a custodian requesting that Abd be blocked by another custodian for doing what comes naturally for him, i.e, collaborating on content and structure.) If "content" is what I think it is, this could be hilarious, an example of what programmers will do when isolated from the community they are programming for. This came out of Article_count_reform which should have been an Requests for comment but wasn't. That may have suppressed participation. Apparently it was announced on wikimedia-l, a general abuse of the system. (i.e., consensus assess by off-wiki discussion). (I'e use "abuse" to mean, in this case, "outside of design intention.") The vote was then held at Article_count_reform_vote which should have been a subpage, but meta is dominated by Wikipedians who frequently have little clue about how to use subpages. It used Range voting, an excellent idea, for choosing among many options. The archive is actually a copy of content from somewhere else, not credited. OMG! License violation! It rejected using single-byte as a standard, and the implementation was apparently to disable count, not implement a better method. Wait! That vote took place in 2003.


 * I later used Range voting to attempt to choose among various versions of an article to be edited under protection. I was banned from the topic as a direct result. It was apparently thought too confusing. However, the voting showed 100% consensus on a best option, which was then ignored by the admin who banned me. That's wiki process for you. This did lead to his desysop, by the way. But raising an issue like this before ArbCom can get you banned, ipso facto, if you actually provide evidence, and without the evidence, it will go nowhere. Contrary to what is said in the mailing list discussion, Range Voting is not difficult to assess. Simply create a spreadsheet of the votes and total them. You can do independent preference order analysis, as well, but Range Voting is known by experts to be the best single-ballot method.


 * So where was it decided to use outgoing wikilinks? Somewhere in the maze there is probably a link. Or not. This is what I see: if this is correct, we can drastically increase our resource count by adding a single link, which could be to a category Category:Stubs or something more specific. I'll check this. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So Harmonium, a true stub (I understand the content, but most people won't), is counted as content, because it has Template:welcome and expand on it, which, of course, creates transcluded wikilinks. So transcluded links are counted, apparently. I've speedied the stub, the content is so extremely peripheral to the name. Are templates alone counted? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's right! When I removed your deletion request and all that was left was text, it was no longer counted as a content page. I put it back, wholla!, content page again and now deleted per request. Go figure! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For pages that are on those lists I mentioned, my favorite is to put the word education if it occurs in the text in . Instant content page. It's returned to our counted total. I've even checked the Main Page and seen the counts go up, but it takes a while. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I found the entry up at meta. It may take me a while to find it again. When I do I'll post it here. They're running one of their newer versions of their software. Started it last November as I recall. Before they started we had like 28,000 resources. After they started, bam, down to 20,000. They use to look for commas to count content pages, then changed it to outgoing intrawikiversity links. As the templates have as you say outgoing links, it triggers their counter. I just plug away at the lists, but maybe Dave can run his bot and add some around any occurrence of the word education. It might jump our totals up by a couple of thousand. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, this should be done collectively with some consensus behind it, my opinion. The simple edit action is placing a template that includes a wikilink. Suggested improvement templates do that. So what's ironic is that a deletion tag creates the page as content. I'd be opposed to creating useless wikilinks on garbage pages. Rather, prod them! I'm going to be reforming our prod system, because it was not well-designed. I was blocked when that was worked on.... I'd created the concept of a slow wastebasket, an old management technique. The real needs, as to actual practice, were not considered. Key to a slow wastebasked is that the wastebasket is dated. Not the individual items in it! Basically, it's obvious: put a bunch of people with no management training in charge of a project, what do you get? A wiki!!! Now, anyone can learn, if they are willing to set aside the importance of Being Right. (This does not involve shame and guilt, done right. You can avoid Being Wrong by never doing anything at all risky; unfortunately, the ultimate result of that is death without ever going beyond the imaginary limits.
 * I'll discuss this on Template talk:Proposed deletion first. Ah, by the way, there is an edit under protection request there that has been lighting up WV:RCA for some time, with no response. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with the above) Thanks for the speedy deletion. Meanwhile, I notice that Template:Proposed deletion, of course, causes a page to be tagged as content. See Pets/Shiba Inu. So then I tested some other stuff. A link to a page's own non-existent talk page created "content." My testing was done at Sandbox/Test. A pure template like "Done" did not. Image links do not create content. A link to a user space page created content. An interwiki link to Wikipedia did not. There is a variable that determines what namespaces are "content" namespaces, but the link making it content need not be to a content namespace. I was surprised to see User space working. Hence a signature makes it a content page. Special pages don't, apparently. The linked page need not exist. I'm finding it difficult to think of any sane usage of this particular bit of information.
 * "Content page" may be used to compile the NUMBEROFARTICLES variable used in Special:Statistics on Main Page/Welcome. Garbage in, garbage out. We have many resources that may not have any local links, and many with local links that are fluff. Mmmm. the syntax of that hits me as arcane. Normally, what is after a pipe is simply displayed, but I've never tried transcluding something after a pipe. So Special:Contributions dropped my entire User page on this talk page, when I previewed it. Cool. Now, what page can I vandalize with this? Ahem! Where were we?
 * I've always looked at the claim on the Commons home page as misleading. Right now:
 * a database of 27,638,611 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute
 * Yeah, right. Freely usable unless they aren't (There is no reliable vetting process). As set up, "wiki" <> "reliable." And Anyone as long as they are welcome. Or especially pushy, Russavia is still contributing massively in spite of being globally banned, and the WMF Office now dedicating paid staff time to stopping him, taking legal risks, and discovering but not talking about how difficult this is, and refusing even the thought of negotiation. This is what happens when human beings are treated with disrespect. I was a prison chaplain. Treat inmates with disrespect, you can end up dead. Or have a riot on your hands. Treat good-faith users as disruptive, and ban them in a manner that seems unfair to them, funny, sometimes they don't just go away like we expect any normal decent law-abiding person would. Sometimes people think the WMF should live up to its promises. Does it? Is there consensus on these issues? Don't ask! Every time these kinds of actions have been presented to the community, the community has rejected high central control. So ... they don't ask. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comment relating to me on a user talk page.
.

See User:Abd/References to my unblock request. If there are any questions, please don't hestitate to ask.

Setting up the link that starts this section, I noticed the apparent absence of the TOC on that page. I tested it in User:Abd/sandbox. Those edits may have created user notifications, I didn't think about that until I was done. Ooops! Not intended!

In any case, the TOC was not absent, just concealed under the first topic collapse. As I've pointed out in a number of places, collapse templates should be placed inside the section, never before it, or else they do weird stuff. Like hiding the TOC, which automatically appears just above the first explicit section header. (Location can be forced).

It is also much easier to do transparent archiving, a section at a time, if archive templates, like on WV:RFD, are inside the section. It's a common error to put these close templates before the section, and then, sometimes, archiving the previous section removes the template! You might helpfully inform the user. You do not need to mention my name, because of the apparent allergic reaction. Unfortunately, he's a probationary custodian and this is going to require community attention at some point. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

the New Improved Template:Proposed deletion
I modified the template to create Category:60-day proposed deletions for such, and that immediately displayed 60-day old prods that were not created by substituting the raw prod template, so I reviewed them, and cleaned them up. However, there are still prods out there that won't display, I intend to clean that up, as a one-time thing (because future prods should all do this. It took me some hours beating my head against the wall, tangling with template syntax, which was developed by sadists, until I realized that beating my head against the wall was unproductive, and got systematic. Many of the prods were really ordinary speedy candidates. It's fine to tag these with the proposed deletion template if one has any doubt at all. For some, though, 60 days was more than enough to give a user who is, from editing patterns, never going to show up again, time to at least cough. One set of pages was created by IP, looks like a child, but ... if so, the kid knew how to properly use subpage links. I playspaced them. I don't mind this in my Playspace. It would help if some other users would also create Playspaces, this has tended to be considered One More Crazy Abd Idea. It's worked though, and we have a WMF sysop who would not be one if not protected in this way when originally editing IP. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So, in a little over an hour, I cleaned up all 60-day prods. I was wrong about the remaining work, there wasn't any, because Dave has been using the explict dated form of the prod, instead of the generic automatic date version. And that did already put 60-day prods into the category. I'd been assuming that most users would follow the instructions on the template and simply substitute the template. So I spent an hour updating most of the templates, then realized that it wasn't needed.... I did handle one prod, moving the page into user space, pinging the user, including emailing her (probably her) through Wikipedia. 2007 page, and a window into what early Wikiversity was like. Nobody thought anything at all odd about a pagename of "Mrs. Ruther's class" sitting there in mainspace. There are many, many pages like this.

Next step: announce all this to the community. I'm thinking of creating an organizational/cleanup project that would encourage general users to get involved with site organization and cleanup. There are many tasks to be done, and when the community expects custodians to do it, we get custodian burnout and Wiki studies/Wiki disease and blame it on everyone else but us. We now have many alternatives to deletion that can be used to make cleanup and organization easy without damaging our welcoming and open character. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone could decide that I should not unilaterally reduce the 90-day time, as I did in several cases by changing prod to speedy. I did that only for pages that really should have been handled another way in the first place, so this is like a simple revert. Not a confirmed decision. I could be reverted, of course, though the page moves are a bit more work, sometimes. But none of these pages were worth actual discussion, individually. Where I saw potential value, effectively, I removed the prod and handled the page in another way. Anyone could do that, and we need many more users willing to look at this stuff; and we can organize a project so that there is some coherence and consistency. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Volleyball
If you are still interested in the Volleyball project, please supervise Russia men's national volleyball team and related content copies. I remain concerned that the user or users behind this content have no regard for CC-BY-SA licensing and no regard for content organization at Wikiversity. All pages created by this user are not original content and need to be imported or properly referenced to remain at Wikiversity. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also see Special:Contributions/JESAAS11 and Special:Contributions/JESSARICAN2. This project is rapidly deteriorating, again.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the head's up! Russia men's national volleyball team is a direct Wikipedia copy and has been put in the category Category:Wikipedia copies. The contributions other than to Russia men's national volleyball team appear to be original resource creation that could be moved to under user page or Volleyball but it's too soon to tell if any move is needed. FIVB Men's World Statistics does not appear to be a Wikipedia copy. Awarding of Honors in Grade 1 isn't either but suggests some sort of learning environment with apparent grading, perhaps from a classroom situation. I've added each to my watchlist. Any luck with Special:MergeHistory, I was going to use it with Geochronology/Ice cores but apparently Sidelight12 may have imported Ice cores along with the page history in December 2013, although there's no indication of using the import process. I found the Special:Import cite on the page Import. Although no request was made, I will attempt to use it with Russia men's national volleyball team. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried importing the Wikipedia page Russia men's national volleyball team and received the message: "Import failed: Could not open import file". I was trying to import it to a subpage of Volleyball. Suggestions? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which options you tried. I just imported it to Sandbox/Russia men's national volleyball team. You can move or merge from there. Regarding the other copies, see FIVB Volleyball World League statistics and the various templates that have been copied to support these pages. Awarding of Honors may be unique, but it also isn't main space content, and needs to be moved to user space or to a subpage of some as yet undetermined learning project. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Request to revert your edit to User_talk:JESAAS11
Hi Marshallsumpter - I will move your comment on User_talk:JESAAS11 because it clutters up the message I am trying to send. He needs to open a channel of communication. Feel free to edit what I wrote if you keep it BOTH short AND friendly. My concern is that a long message will confuse the individual, especially if English is their second language.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs)


 * Where do you wish to move it to? I have no interest in editing what you wrote. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be inappropriate for me to edit your statements. If you meant to block the user for failure to properly license their templates, no problem from my point of view in your making this clear, or using my words to do so. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)