Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/8

Motivation and emotion/Textbook
This page is clearly outside the scope of wikiversity. According to What Wikiversity is not we should not be developing materials that fall undert he scope of the other WMF projects. But in the case of this book, Motivation and Emotion the claim is that book is being developed here. This is inappropriate, and the book should be transwikied to Wikibooks. Thenub314 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity participants can make pages about the development of any type of learning resource. It is disruptive of the Wikiversity mission to try to prevent Wikiversity from having pages about the development of a textbook. If there ever is a book at Wikiversity then it can be moved to Wikibooks. Such book development projects were explicitly given as an example of Wikiversity content in the approved Wikiversity project proposal. --JWSchmidt 15:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. (ec)At this point, there is only a little material. Eventually, this may be indeed moved to Wikibooks. There is no hard line between a textbook and a collection of materials for educational purposes. At the present time, it's not a textbook. See Talk:Motivation and emotion/Textbook for discussion. This is not something to be forced by RfD. --Abd 15:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Motivation and emotion is an active course, developing materials and putting together a "textbook" is part of that activity. What Wikiversity is not cannot be read to prohibit this. When the course is done, there may be, indeed, a textbook that could be moved to Wikibooks. But students enrolled and active in the course here should not be required to work with an account on another project to participate fully. Here, they will have one watchlist and can follow all traffic with the course pages. I'm really surprised to find an RfD filed, without the support of any of the 38 present participants. --Abd 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. By placing comments on the wikibook stating the material is to be deveoloped here, it is clear that this is an acknowledged textbook. And since those notes were added the development at wikibooks as ceased.  Since when does a RfD require consent? Projects in the course can be to develop chapters or sections of a textbook, but the textbook should still be developed at wikibooks. But if it makes you feel better to have a participant be the RfD filer, I will participate in the course. Thenub314 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Question - has a discussion been started on WikiBooks on the matter? If so, could you link? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no sign of a discussion there. See Motivation and emotion. --Abd 17:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. Since the wikibook directs users to here, I started the discussion here.  Though two of the wikibook admins (myself and Adrignola) agree that it is appropriate to transwiki to wikibooks, and there is a very incomplete book the same subject at wikibooks already. Thenub314 18:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. Jtneil did mention on the talk page that I was not the first person who suggested it should be moved to wikibooks, but I don't know who or where the first conversation took place. Thenub314 18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop muddying the waters between Wikibooks and Wikiversity. Too often class projects are conducted at Wikibooks when they should be at Wikiversity.  Here we have something intended to be a textbook being developed here instead of at Wikibooks.  It's supposed to be such that courses and classes here develop books at Wikibooks for their use.  If you don't feel like participating at Wikibooks, fine, but you're stepping on its toes.  The course can stay here; the textbook should be developed at Wikibooks.  That's the project for developing textbooks.  The projects weren't split up for this to be ignored. Adrignola 17:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you meant to have that respond to my question? :) I was just curious if there was a discussion over there about the page over there. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Change the claim that "a book" is being made to "resources for a course" are being made. If someone wishes to create a book from those resourses, then that book should of course go to Wikibooks. WAS 4.250 17:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per request. "A free and open psychology textbook authored by students" seems to support the suggestion that this would be more appropriate on Wikibooks. Whether or not this is yet complete is irrelevant I feel, unless of course the Wikibooks scope says otherwise. I would assume that Wikibooks is better suited to handling the development of textbooks with more appropriate policies, guidelines and templates. Adambro 18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: At this stage, Motivation and emotion/Textbook is primarily a learning and assessment exercise for students of Motivation and emotion. I created a holding place for Motivation and Emotion to which we can hopefully transwiki completed and acceptable chapters. I am teaching 80 students wiki editing from scratch this semester, with them using their user pages as learning journals and trying to build their confidence and capability with wiki editing in the WV environment, rather than have them working across wikis in these early stages. Leighblackall has also asked me verbally why this exercise is on WV rather than WB (to which I've given a similar response). Please also consider the guidelines for this exercise Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: FYI, I've moved the deletion nomination template to the talk page so that it's less intrusive to students who are working on this at the moment. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: By way of a bit more background, it may be worth noting that I conducted a similar exercise with students for a different topic in 2008: Social psychology (psychology)/Assessment/Essay/Topics. The key difference was that I called these "essays" rather than "textbook chapters". As a result the content has remained on WV and gone relatively unnoticed. This time around I thought that it could be more helpful to have students shape their "writing assessment exercise" to address a textbook audience, so that we could gain more value from their work by then feeding the content into the open textbook idea on WB. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * transwiki at the end of the semester - The approved Wikiversity project proposal states that wikiversity "participants might decide to collectively assemble material that would contribute to a Wikibooks textbook for that subject" The intermediate state of those materials (in the student learning journals) might not resemble book form until the students complete the assignment and merge the collective work at the end of the semester. --mikeu talk 22:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For example: Motivation_and_emotion/Textbook/Motivation/Student_motivation_theories looks more like a plan for writing the section than a chapter of a textbook. --mikeu talk 23:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, and, as Mike suggests above, transwiki at the end of the class if appropriate. In the future, I strongly suggest that active projects of actual university classes should not be subjected to silly interwiki politics and turf wars. --SB_Johnny talk 23:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral I agree in general textbooks should be developed at Wikibooks to begin with, and not simply moved there when "complete". However this may be on of those cases where there is a chance the work might involve original research and may in its current form be inappropriate for Wikibooks. Anyone is of course free to import any part of the work they wish to use at Wikibooks right now, if they really want it, keeping in mind that parts might need to be cleaned up or removed to avoid problems with original research. An import does not require deletion here, just someone willing to use and adopt the work at Wikibooks. -- dark lama  01:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I echo SB Johnny. In the future I hope that new Wikiversiters make an effort to read, understand and ask questions about wikiversity policies and practices before participating in contentious issues such as nominating resources for deletion.  And everyone should have read the wikiversity project proposal approved by the wikimedia board of trustees. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 06:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Closed. Consensus is to keep. Wikiversity can be used to develop resources that might eventually be useful for other wikimedia projects. -- dark lama  11:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Krunchlolee/Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory

 * Hopeless original research, posted by an author who has repeatedly had this article deleted from en.wiki, and is now trying to use this Wikiversity page as a source for the Wikipedia page. Obviously no sources, since this is a theory that the author has made up.  NawlinWiki 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I got to give a hand for the comment above, that's hilarious from my standpoint.Krunchlolee 04:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The theory still has to be proven hopeless by the proper authority since the editor above doesn't understand the principles that it is based on. Please find a better critic to prove hopelessness. Krunchlolee 20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is such complete garbage that it doesn't even qualify as a theory. Try learning some physics. This is the sort of thing a 7 year old would call a "theory". WAS 4.250 20:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Krunchlolee 20:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did so at Texas A&M University with my instructor III Thomas W. Adair who is also one of the Authors of "Physics of the Atom"

Krunchlolee 20:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you knew anything about Physics you would understand why I am laughing right now.
 * I didn't post the math equation directly below this line.Krunchlolee 02:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * $$ \left ( \begin{array}{l} t' \\ \mathbf{r}' \end{array} \right ) =\gamma(\mathbf{v}) \left ( \begin{array}{ll}1 & -\mathbf{v}^T/c^2 \\ -\mathbf{v} & P_{\mathbf{v}}+\alpha_{\mathbf{v}}(I-P_{\mathbf{v}}) \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array}{l} t \\ \mathbf{r} \end{array} \right ), $$

where vT denotes the transpose of v, α(v) = 1/γ(v), and P(v) denotes the projection onto the direction of v clearly proves you wrong. - WAS 4.250 21:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC) With respects to you of course since I'm not unsulting your intelligence. Krunchlolee 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This equasion is absolutly useless by the way, once you figure out what exactly I'm saying. I haven't done a time dilation calculation since I took a Modern Physics class since I know already by understanding the fundamentals of what is actually happening.  If maybe I were to be employed by NASA, I might bother to waist my time doing one hand calculation.  However, we are looking to advance instead of retard in our progress.Krunchlolee 00:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you know that there is a 4.250 inch bore in a Big Block Chevy? Mr. WAS 4.250 Krunchlolee 23:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would look at things like conservation, creation, archeology, anciet text, cosmic activity and maybe see if time is linear first. Then check with NASA first before you shoot out an answer.


 * Seems like a straight forward delete, so unless there is a legitimate support for the page that appears I will process this out this weekend. I will keep tabs on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Krunchlolee 22:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so since there hasn't been sufficient evidence to prove the theory wrong. In the mean time, I've got to look for a job since I got fired on the last good paying one because some guy on an offshore rig was trying to tweek a VFD controller leaving a 5 month bill for a machine that wasn't working and me getting fired because I just walked up on the servicing vessel as the lead field engineer.

Krunchlolee 22:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Krunchlolee 22:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Krunchlolee 22:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Learn to understand Relativity and Cosmic Acceleration
 * http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/03/25/hubble.confirms.cosmic.acceleration.with.weak.lensing
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRK6ojWdtU&feature=related
 * http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://snapshotsoffamily.com/NationalGeographicTheUniverseMap.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.shoponline2011.com/m~b-17000000~f-259-668741~c-Babies-and-Kids.aspx&usg=__j3z2LPZx0ShI4JcXYeHoOI-KULo=&h=3888&w=6000&sz=11088&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=XZj3LbVByDHWxM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=142&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnational%2Bgeographic%2Buniverse%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D583%26addh%3D104%26output%3Dimages_json%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=98&vpy=172&dur=749&hovh=181&hovw=279&tx=150&ty=99&ei=T4HUTIm7D4OdlgfOt4z8Bw&oei=VYHUTIyVMIGclgfHuZj8Bw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0
 * With all due respect and for time instance, you are basing your thoughts of deletion to the relative time on your clock and not your knowledge. Tick tock tick tock and I'm busy looking for work right now so deletion would be better suitable for an authority such as NASA.
 * Think microscopic and then macroscopic and once you figure that out please get back with me. Cause I'm really busy and I've already thought this out.
 * Since I used to also be a United States Navy Avionics Technician for Anti-Submarine Warfare I think I would also know something about Doppler Shift and magnetic distubances.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity


 * If this was even remotely close to something educationally useful, I'd support keeping it. But it isn't. It is incoherent and embarrassing, and I very much doubt that the instructor at Texas A & M would appreciate having his name associated with this. As to your being a "technitian," it reminds me of the saying that used to go around when I was working as a "technician."


 * Six months ago I couldn't even spell "injineer" and now I are one."


 * Sorry, Krunchlolee, it's so bad, so thoroughly confused about nearly everything mentioned, that I won't even try to explain why it's so bad. But you could ask on my Talk page, I will generally answer simple questions.


 * However, you could ask for the page to be moved to your user space, and you could work on it there, I'd suppport that.


 * I'm Not A Physicist, But I Knew Some and Listened and Learned, and never stopped learning, --Abd 23:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:Longevity_by_Cosmic_Acceleration_Theory Krunchlolee 00:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  It's actually Educational because it suggest that Civilizations in the past who are dead now were not Lying about there records. So, it's sort of a respect thing as well.  I'm no longer a Technician by the way, I'm an Engineer who used to be His Student.Krunchlolee 23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review and advise Talk:Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory for constructive suggestions.


 * This page is without value to Wikiversity or its readership. Why wait to delete it?  It doesn't even account for the temporal anomalies generated by the tachyon eddies in the Bajoran system.  PCock 00:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were you Mr.PCock I would work my thoughts towards respect for the dead. Please refer to a fictional section such as Star Trek for any other confusions. Very funny Mr.PCock. Krunchlolee 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) NawlinWiki: Original research is within Wikiversity's scope. Having been deleted repeatedly from Wikipedia does not justify deleting it here. Whether a Wikiversity resource can be used as a source or not at Wikipedia is something to be decided and enforced on Wikipedia's end.
 * 2) Krunchlolee: Research needs to be transparent and to include background details like the principals the work is based on. The responsibility falls on the work's authors to prove research is viable and to explain research in a way that can be understood by everyone. This is true whether you are trying to get this published in some sort of Mathematical/Engineering/Religious Journal or at Wikiversity. Wikiversity participants are the closest you are likely to get to seeing a "proper authority" at Wikiversity. Appeals to a "proper authority" alone does not justify keeping a page at Wikiversity. This work needs to be coherent and there isn't sufficient information to make the work educationally viable. What is being proposed isn't coherently clear on its own, and beyond that there needs to also be sufficient explanations as to why this proposed theory is viable or not on the page to make this work educationally viable. You could possibly achieve some of that by presenting an explaining that ties in the information on the webpages you have linked to as being important to understanding the theory. If you spent more time fixing the page and less time writing creative arguments, you might find the time to fix the page when you aren't busy looking for a job. You aren't doing a good job so far of presenting yourself as taking the page or this deletion discussion seriously, which is likely to end badly both for the page and for you. -- dark  lama  10:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) WAS 4.250: While this work may be the sort of thing a 7 year old might call a theory. Calling a work "complete garbage" is also the sort of criticism a 7 year old might give and is unhelpful. Physics and Mathematical equations are a bit more useful. If you could contribute to the page explaining the physics and math so that everyone can understand why the theory is not viable that would be educationally useful.
 * 4) Abd: I agree this would be worth keeping if remotely educationally useful, but it isn't right now. I'd be willing to give Krunchlolee an opportunity to make this work educationally useful too, if Krunchlolee is serious about this work at all.
 * 5) Ottava Rima: I agree, right now this does look like a straight forward deletion, with an author that isn't taking the work as a serious educational resource or this discussion seriously. -- dark  lama  10:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved page. I have moved this page to User:Krunchlolee/Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory, because it is possible that it will be useful for the education of this user, if nothing else. Because the user did request comment, on my Talk page, I will make a few comments on the attached Talk page. I recommend that this be closed as deletable from mainspace, but userfied, and the redirect should be deleted. I've left the RfD tag in place. --Abd 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRK6ojWdtU&feature=related Krunchlolee 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) *If you have a hard time grasping this find a professor, engineer that understands,   nuclear physicist or astronomy physicist. Krunchlolee 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So since this is Wikiversity and housed with scientist, engineers, historians, archeologist and more especially astronomers that would be capable of acknowledging that it's possible the claimed ages of 900years were recorded correctly relative to their existence before and after Noah's era and that we truly understand Einstein’s Relativity - Time Dilation we can now work constructively and draw towards a conclusion that all truths are truths’ and are only good enough as those capable of receiving it.Krunchlolee 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will now continue with more of the basics such as math models that may help but will not derive or complex what is unnecessary since there is a such thing as common sense and that there can be situations we may experience where common sense is not common.Krunchlolee 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please understand the following utube video or find one that may help you as I look for some math models for you to chew on, remember we are not reinventing the wheel.Krunchlolee 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please understand the use of kinematic equations and remember that you may not be dealing with a single object but a body of some sort such as a galaxy . Krunchlolee 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics
 * Please understand Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and that a huge galaxy or whatever can cause our galaxy to accelerate, this may even be as simple as something that happened in our galaxy. So, we now have two bodies in the Universe that are affecting each other’s travel thru the Universe and now changing the solar systems travel as it continues to rotate normally 365days a year. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
 * Now it's time for us to use our common sense and imagination to picture a cosmic cloud containing the earth’s solar system and another object in the universe such as a cosmic cloud, entity, huge mass or black hole that has a gravitational pull which is also acceleration effecting the earth’s travel thru the Universe and how time is being dilated. In addition to common sense we are also now using conservation of velocities between the magnitude of zero and also the speed of light.   That also can be boiled down to common sense of a drinking glass that is half empty or half full.
 * Since time can be dilated it is now effected the experience of the two sets of observers, one being Noah and his tribe and the other being yourself and everyone else on this planet. So, this is not fiction such as Star Trek but a theory created on the planet we stand on. Krunchlolee 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this can occur, we now need to rely on the mapping and motion of the bodies within the universe and the time line of earth that would contain the event that occurred during the flood of Noah's Ark. In conclusion, that information could only be performed by an authority with resources such as NASA. Krunchlolee 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.biblechronology.org/charts/Longevity2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.biblechronology.org/charts.html&usg=__hTiamEb_hBptBDwd8U0Sr2tl_Io=&h=440&w=541&sz=58&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=HyY-H2hpVWIdMM:&tbnh=139&tbnw=171&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpatriarchs%2Blongevity%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D833%26bih%3D439%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=541&vpy=74&dur=1435&hovh=202&hovw=249&tx=158&ty=91&ei=Z3PVTOnnGYHGlQf3zs2BCQ&oei=Z3PVTOnnGYHGlQf3zs2BCQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0
 * This discussion is being continued at the link posted below.
 * http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Krunchlolee/Longevity_by_Cosmic_Acceleration_Theory
 * Krunchlolee 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is my conclusion at this point: this user has a serious misconception regarding time dilation and what it means and how it works, that is not a terribly uncommon misconception, I suspect. He's just unusual in that he has developed a theory based on that misconception. So it is, in fact, possible that the discussion that is taking place could eventually serve an educational purpose. In the end, probably the discussion would need to be boiled down to a few crucial points, both to express the misconception and to express why it is, in fact, a misconception, i.e., to express an understanding of time dilation theory (and experimental verification, there are, in fact, some little high-speed clocks whizzing about, cosmic ray muons, which would never reach the surface if the earth, due to their short half-life, except for time dilation). I have no idea of the user will start to listen sufficiently to understand, but ... you can never tell without trying. --Abd 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Krunchlolee 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even more amusing the author above (Abd) does not understand the differences between the spectrum of speed from zero miles per hour and the speed of light. In addition, the author above(Abd)also fails to accept the concept of relativity between the two different time occurances along with there change in velocity after Noahs flood.  Furthermore, the author Abd refuses to accept that the Galaxy we are contained in does not travel in the Universe.  This type of poor critical thinking was proven false when Christopher Columbus realized that the Earth was round and not flat.  In conclusion, the author (Abd)also claims that he didn't under go a lenghty and detailed college education involving Physics.Krunchlolee 21:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I stongly suggest that you put your thinking cap on and use some common sense while watching the utube video below to get a better grasp in what is actually happening. It is not rocket science.  Have an open mind and imagine two bodies, galaxies, trucks, cars, planes, trains or what ever traveling very fast at a velocity somewhere between a magnatude of zero and the speed of light.
 * You have a big range there to be creative in this video below if you decide to watch.Krunchlolee 21:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRK6ojWdtU&feature=related
 * Keep in mind after you understand that, you also have to consider that they occure in a time span from one another.Krunchlolee 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So something that would cause Noah's flood such as a large mass passing by has an effect of gravitational pull causeing the earths speed to change.Krunchlolee 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you have to understand you are not applying relativity to the object passing by causing the earth to accelerate.Krunchlolee 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For this reason, it is the relative time change that effects the aging and mortality difference between 900yrs and 100yrs count of rotation around the Sun. Given this is just a theory and not a magic time machine.Krunchlolee 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a nice weekend, I done explaining.Krunchlolee 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in case ya didn't get it on the other page.
 * Thanks, In addition and through some humor I am suspicious you are are hiding, I hand around a random act of kindness out of good spirit.
 * Have a great weekend or what's left of it.Krunchlolee 00:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I give up
I tested the waters here, and failed to find a fish, as was my original thought and others have also anticipated. I see no more educational opportunity, and no willingness to listen and learn on the part of Krunchlolee, or even to engage in dialog by actually explaining his theory. He seems to have no purpose here but, in effect, trolling and wasting our time. I have preserved the content for non-admin access -- I may extract some material for later use in a resource on relativity -- at User:Abd/Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory (and I've blanked those pages for now). Since Krunchlolee removed some of my comments from his page, I removed all of them. I now, again, support deletion, and if filling this RfD page with rambling defense of the theory continues, I'd support blocking the user. I've seen no evidence from him -- or anyone, other than myself, transiently -- that the page serves an educational purpose here. --Abd 14:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For reference: Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory (deleted, twice), w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion and w:User talk:Krunchlol. He also hit 3RR at Longevity myths, see particularly, and he managed to get two edits reversion-deleted from w:Talk:Jimmy Wales, imagining that the article was a place to contact Wales. His first edit was reverted and the editor reverting told him where to place a message for Wales. He ignored that and reverted. Essentially he was very slow to pay attention to what people were telling him, the same as here, and that included people who tried to help him. He did go to User talk for Wales, making a mess by where he posted, and Wales responded by deleting it with rm stuff that has nothing to do with me and in which I have no interest at all). He then added more, and even after that was removed, he came in as IP with . That's just background, and it explains why NawlinWiki proposed deletion. Krunchlolee is welcome here if he behaves cooperatively here, or at least non-disruptively.

Now, a theory to put on the shelf with the others. This is a user attempting to discredit Wikiversity, by showing what nonsense we host. I don't think it's working, but the attempt to involve Wales, to get Wales to look at the page here, is, shall we say, reminiscent of Days of Yore. There are other theories about what's going on that could be equally likely. --Abd 23:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

'''*LOL, Correction, I'm not discrediting Wikiversity, just your approach. No hard feelings''' You can't fathom this problem by thinking in the present and imagining Moses walking around with a radar gun. But I will give you credit [Abd], that, that is hilarious. Besides the theory is in reference Noah, not Moses. Big time difference there. I've got additional theories that Moses came down the mountain deranged with two stone tablets because someone had sex with his chick. Krunchlolee 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL is part of this user's username, it's more obvious on Wikipedia. An additional theory: the goal is to discredit my "approach," which is to give maximum space for wacky, far-out theories to be expressed, for educational purpose. A bit paranoid, I suppose, but stranger things have happened. Everyone else on Wikiversity was just Delete with no effort to extend a real welcome and to listen and try to understand. There are some people who don't like my approach at all. Moses didn't have a radar gun? I'd better re-read Genesis, I would have sworn.... --Abd 23:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

*I'm not really sarcastic about religion by the way, I was born and raised a Christian in Brenham, Texas. But, I've got different theories as to what I've been taught since I believe man created God as an order to civilization which lead to Government. Check out the Smithsonian timeline of human evolution.Krunchlolee 01:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides the theory is in reference Noah, not Moses. Big time difference there.  I've got additional theories that Moses came down the mountain psychotically deranged with two stone tablets because someone had sex with his chick. Krunchlolee 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, that's actually not a bad idea to bring up Moses, cause that sets a timeline point. So, all you have to do is go to Axum, Ethiopia where they are keeping the Ark of the Covenant.  Open it up and carbon date the ten commandments.  Because I have $25 USD in my wallet that says I can open up this Ark of the Covenant and I won't do a damn thing.  So, if you could then get with NASA who is mapping the motion of the stars and then have them rotated back to the time the written stones were created.  Maybe get an idea what caused Noah’s flood. That’s just a theory.  All you would have to do is bribe the keeper or sedate him and the tribe while we do this. Krunchlolee 00:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Author of page indef blocked
See Special:Contributions/Krunchlolee. Is there any objection to closing this RfD? I believe the conclusion is obvious. --Abd 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No objections Same page, same content, different name. TeleComNasSprVen 20:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Closed'. Even the main author doesn't seem to consider it a serious attempt at an educational project, and since the author has been blocked indef, there is little chance it will become one without a complete rewrite. -- dark lama  11:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

[[File:File other]]


These appear to be templates accidentally placed in the wrong namespace following User:Jtneill's use (or misuse) of the import tool (example). TeleComNasSprVen 17:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've deleted Imbox after Darklama was happy with the rest. --Draicone (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Structure
Yet another unused category created by User:188.17.67.125 with the same "forced depth" of categories and subcategories without content pages. TeleComNasSprVen 21:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Vista-clean.png|15px| ]] Done. I suggest using speedy delete (delete) for these type of categories next time. -- dark lama  11:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Precursors of Chemistry (-1800)
Based mostly off this early revision of the Wikipedia article History of Chemistry. TeleComNasSprVen 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * More likely based on that revision since the revision you referenced didn't exist at the time it was copied over, but nonetheless nobody has contributed anything of any significants since it was copied over, so I deleted it. -- dark lama  11:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion


Not necessary, we can always use this page for such discussions. TeleComNasSprVen 22:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Vista-clean.png|15px| ]] Done. Also made rfd a redirect meaning requests for deletion now. -- dark lama  11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Custodian intervention against vandalism
No useful history besides my first report on this page. Should be deleted and redirect to Request custodian action. TeleComNasSprVen 16:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ That makes a lot of sense. For a long time I've thought it would be helpful to new users and others to consolidate some of our pages and this is a good example where it is appropriate to do so. Adambro 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Quantum computing software‎
Largely or entirely word salad or incoherent. If it is about anything at all, it is not about software but about an algorithm. Created as sole edit by IP. Requested speedy deletion was denied. I have not requested clarification on Talk or notified user on IP user talk page because the likelihood of usefulness is extremely low, and that would create two more pages with useless information. --Abd 22:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. It doesn't strike me as a word salad, I suspect there was some thought behind the links the user was trying to establish. Unfortunately some of what was going through the users thought process is missing, and it is not at all clear how to fill in the missing pieces. Thenub314 14:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted In light of the lack of action on this RfD and the support for deletion, I've deleted the page. Geoff Plourde 19:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction:
Not really a resource or of much relation to Wikiversity as far as I can tell. TeleComNasSprVen 22:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you asked U118827 about it? U118827 seems to mostly contributed to Motivation and emotion. Maybe this page was intended to be a part of that resource. -- dark lama  22:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. It was a duplicate of content on the students' user page. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Unknown license
Unused, superseded by Template:No license. Cannot place dr because it is protected. TeleComNasSprVen 07:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think no license should be deleted too. Template:File copyright is the best and most maintained of them all. -- dark lama  12:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that. Template:No license is meant to be placed on the target media file that lacks the licensing; Template:File copyright is used as a warning to the uploader of the media file of its pending deletion. TeleComNasSprVen 15:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

✅ Deleted Unknown license but not No license. Start an RfD for No license if required. --Draicone (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Login

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Useless template with no transclusions. Why would users need reminders to login, and would not using this template reveal their IP addresses? TeleComNasSprVen 23:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for this template at the moment, but it is one of those 'nice to haves'. As the IP address will be in the history, that's a moot point. I don't feel it's necessary to add this to an IP's user talk for a single unsigned comment regardless, and the number of IPs with multiple unsigned comments is also generally quite low. However, I'm not familiar with the current state of enwv so I'll let an active custodian weigh in and action this one. --Draicone (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been using this template to save myself retyping the message after I've already used welcomeip on IP addresses which are editing student user pages. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actual usage kinda trumps opinion of uselessness.... TeleComNasSprVen, how about withdrawing this nomination to save us time? --Abd 02:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking at transclusions, but anyway, I have withdrawn. TeleComNasSprVen 02:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Martha Rendell
Biography that appears to have been sent from Wikipedia. TeleComNasSprVen 06:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC) ✅ --Draicone (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * --Gbaor 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The resource is poorly written and doesn't contain any content that is irreplaceable or invaluable. Geoff Plourde 21:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * duplicates, at best, Martha Rendell. A horrific story, but if this story is needed here, it can be accessed by reference to Wikipedia. There is some comment about this, referring to Science and the nonphysical but if this is needed, it would be moments to add it to that resource with a link to Wikipedia. This could have been speedied, my opinion (i.e., with a tag, asserting duplication of Wikipedia content, not an immediate sysop deletion, which is generally a bad idea if there is any resemblance to possibly useful content or controversy. Serious controversy does belong here.) --Abd 22:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Free Masonic Lodge "True Harmony"
Undelete the article Free Masonic Lodge "True Harmony". Was filling in article for a college course for extra credit. If it is deleted, I will not receive the extra credit.
 * The above request was filed by 98.220.61.193, 20 July 2010.
 * I'm appalled that this request sat here for almost two months with nobody showing any sign of noticing it. A newbie got bit.
 * Looking at the deletion log, the article was speedy deleted by a custodian making a judgment ‎ (No educational content: posted in wrong project). The user reposted it, which would be the equivalent of a user removing a speedy deletion tag. That should always go to Request for deletion, at the instigation of the one who wants to delete, not immediate redeletion, unless the content is actually harmful. Instead, the same custodian deleted again, with the advice Repost of deleted material. Please request undeletion.
 * It looks like the user was using Wikiversity to develop a paper for credit in a class. That is normally an appropriate use for Wikiversity. But as a non-custodian, I can't see the content.
 * Therefore I request speedy undeletion, because that should have been the default state, and this could then be moved to the deletion request section if anyone still wants to request deletion. If speedy undeletion is inappropriate, please userfy a copy of this page in my user space, so I and others can see it, or if it's truly objectionable, please email me the wikitext. Time could be important to this user. It may already be too late. Looks like, from the contributions, that this might have become a productive user. --Abd 22:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The user returned on July 27, my guess to check if the page had been undeleted, and made a few more edits to User:6500jmk4 18th_century_European_scholarly_societies_and_academies. That user appears to be a teacher, and there is evidence this was one of his or her students, so I'm going to ping the user, see User talk:6500jmk4. --Abd 22:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "The downfall of the Free Masonic Lodge was the other group called the Illuminati." That is an excerpt from the page. It is a conspiracy theory rant that was not posted at Wikipedia where it would belong but in a more neutral format. By the way, the user claimed that it was for "extra credit" during the summer, which makes it less likely. The problem with that class is that many of the articles belong on Wikipedia and not Wikiversity. We allow for articles on education related matters, but a Free Mason lodge that lasted only a few years and did nothing does not fall under that. There was a discussion on the Colloquium about the allowance of pages on universities and the rest, but that was the extent. Edits like this suggests that the user has the ability to recognize when a page belonged on Wikipedia or could post it there. Regardless, it is moot now as many of the pages that were accidentally deleted were restored and the class is over. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ottava, you seem to have overlooked something. This page was apparently submitted as a paper for a real history class. Speedy deletion thus interrupted an educational process. It might be a bad paper, but "bad papers" are part of the educational process. Should the paper stay here long-term? That is entirely a different question, but if Wikiversity is going to host real classes where students write real papers for the class, we damage the process by judging the papers from an outside, absolute perspective. That paper, if it hadn't been deleted, might then have been edited to improve its presentation, its neutrality, or to add sources, perhaps. In any case, the deletion violated policy. Not policy about content -- you are free to assert your position on that -- but policy about deletion process. Only if the page was positively harmful would a custodian have the right to overrule a user when there is even a shred of possibility of use, and papers about conspiracy theories can be -- and are -- used in the educational process. In any case I want to see that paper. --Abd 23:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We should be thinking about how to deal with class papers like this. I'd suggest that there be a class page, and papers submitted to the class can be subpages of the class page. The class page itself can be a subpage of a topic page. So, later, someone else learning about the topic can look at a class and at the paper submitted, reading them and seeing how the teacher commented on them. This could be extraordinarily useful. At the least, this page should have been userfied. Since the user did not apparently have an account, I'd have suggested that and offered to userfy the page. That, as well, could have helped this user. But we would develop long-term benefit by organizing "class" pages where submitted student papers go. --Abd 23:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not true. It was not submitted as that page has many links to pages -already existing-. They were also at Wikipedia. It is not our responsibility when an IP places content in the wrong project. Furthermore, there is no "user" to "userfy" it. Stop making things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Bangs head against wall .... ouch! I really shouldn't do that!) As to "submitted," the user claimed that it was placed here to "submit" it. Perhaps indeed there were many such papers, in which case the deletions were even more of a problem. I'm not sure what Ottava means about the issue of links. So what if the page has (had?) links? Do you think the teacher was suggesting that articles be placed on Wikipedia? That's a problem in itself! Maybe. Let's find out what happened!
 * Yes, the user didn't have an account, which is why I suggested that registration should have been suggested to the user. Nothing was made up. What was the hurry? Why the insistence on deletion in spite of an obvious request to please not delete? Why no response to the user here? Ottava, you suggested that the user come here, and the user did. As to our "responsibility," that depends. It is the responsibility of every custodian -- but also every participant with the ability and time -- to assist other users, to help them properly use this project, not to present them with a brick wall. I'm afraid that's what happened to this user, and maybe to the teacher as well. I don't know yet. I see no harm in restoring this page while it's being investigated. And that Ottava -- who, you might all guess, is the one who twice deleted the page, the second time telling the user to come here and ask for undeletion -- hasn't simply undeleted it on request, which is the norm for speedy deletions, speak volumes. But for right now, the issue here is simply the undeletion of that file. It doesn't have to be so hard. I did not raise this to harass Ottava, but simply to serve the user and Wikiversity and all those who use it. That's why I didn't mention Ottava!
 * Ottava, please stay on topic. I've requested that this page be restored, and to my user space if not to mainspace. If you have more arguments to make about why this page shouldn't be undeleted, even to userfy it, by all means. But, otherwise, let's please keep this constructive. --Abd 02:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Non notable non academic pages don't belong here. That is blatantly obvious. Your statements are continuously disruptive. Cut it out. Also, you are making up things about "speedy deletions". Stop it. Just because you can hallucinate something does not make it fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ottava, for demonstrating your degree of respect for Deletion policy. How about we see what other Wikiversity users have to say? --Abd 06:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found a little more. I believe I've identified the professor; the course is graduate-level, was originally Methodologies of History, but the summer course may have been different. The process the professor set up was described at 18th_century_European_scholarly_societies_and_academies, "this project will investigate the scale of literary, artistic, and scientific academies and societies across Europe in the eighteenth century." In addition, the professor wrote, "Be sure to add your entries to Wikiversity, not Wikipedia. We can always add our entries to Wikipedia in the future, but since this is a class project, let's keep it on Wikiversity." The student added the deleted file to the list July 20. I see that another page was deleted, ; this must be what Ottava was talking about; this page was undeleted by him, and he added the file name to the list on the user page with the index. --Abd 07:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of process how? Because you made something up? There isn't even a policy. You do realize that lying like the above is incivil, right? Furthermore, a teacher's statement does not override our standards. If a teacher said students received credit to vandalise, the students will be blocked. Stop using ridiculous arguments to disrupt. We are not a community that hosts Wikipedia pages that were not notable enough to exist on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If a user said that he needs the resource, I think it makes sense to give him the chance. It is what Wikiversity is for.  Restoring the resource causes no harm, but deleting and then refusing to restore it without any specific reason is contrary to the purpose of wikiversity. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If a user said he needed a page with a series of cusses, that would not be acceptable. User request is not enough to warrant inclusion in Wikiversity. There was a very specific reason used. He could post it up at Wikipedia if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Undeleted (at least temporarily) to allow discussion of whether this page is within scope. FWIW and IMO, it's clearly not vandalism or "a series of cusses", so it really should have been brought up on RfD rather than speedied. --SB_Johnny talk 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't temporarily undelete things to discuss if they are in scope. You know that. If you want to make up rules like Abd is, perhaps you should stick to your own community. There is no RfD need for such a page like that created by IPs that are clearly not within our scope. We have a very clear scope and the matter was discussed previously. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, if it's a matter of contention (which apparently it is), it's not a good candidate for speedy. The fact that it was "created by an IP" is neither here nor there.
 * More generally, it's really inappropriate for you to suggest people "go to another wiki" every time you disagree with them, particularly when your position doesn't seem to have any more foundation in official policy than does the contrary position.
 * There's also absolutely no harm in undeleting the page so that non-custodians can see it and make up their own minds. I personally don't have enough background in the subject it addresses to have much of an opinion on whether its contents are history or pseudo-history (hence my question below). --SB_Johnny talk 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is always harm when a custodian undeletes something inappropriately and feeds trolling. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "trolling"... who is being trolled? Barring any actual evidence, I'm willing to take the guy's word for it that it was written for extra credit. The problem is that we don't know what the actual assignment was (see my comment on the classes below). --SB_Johnny talk 19:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the problem. We know what the assignment was, because it was explicit, and I've pointed to it above, but, for convenience: 18th_century_European_scholarly_societies_and_academies. --Abd 20:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This page does strike me as conspiracy theory. Putting questions of whether or not it should have been speedy deleted (or undeleted) aside, now that I have read the page I think it doesn't fall into our scope.  It doesn't satisfy NPOV, it doesn't have the POV declarations that a page should have if it is taking a fringe point of view.  I don't think it falls under our scope as original research because there are no references to back up this particular conspiracy theory.  So at the end of the day it just seems pure hypothetical conspiracy theory. I agree with Ottava that this doesn't fall under wikiversity's scope. Thenub314 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub, The author was clearly a newcomer to wikiversity. Therefore the natural course of action is to provide guidances.  The rules are here to help us, not to be hindrances to academic work.  Regards, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP is not a new comer. Furhermore, if someone wants to register and become an actual member of the community, they are always welcome to do so. There is nothing academic about that page nor could there be anything construed. We are not a depository of non-notable pages that weren't able to be put up on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The custodian is digging a deeper hole.
 * The IP is Special:Contributions/98.220.61.193. Look at the filing here and tell me again that this isn't a newbie! No signature. No section header, making it quite likely that the request would be overlooked. Now, we know who this is, all the edits to the resource page are signed. (I've moved that page, so I'm replacing the links to it with more direct links.)
 * IP editors are "members of the community," if they are here to learn or teach or help maintain the place. If they aren't, then why do we allow IP editing? Yes, we encourage registration. I think we should do more than that, I'm coming to the view that here, unlike Wikipedia (where the situation is very different), we might encourage the use of real names, at least for some privileged class of users. But that's for later. For now, IP editors are at some natural disadvantage. We should not overemphasize this by stepping on them as if they were unwanted pests.
 * The page is a presentation of information in an academic source. Is that "academic"? Whether it is or is not, it is useful in developing the resource, which is now 18th_century_European_scholarly_societies_and_academies. No, not "conspiracy theories," nor even "secret societies." This wasn't random content, it was just another society listed an excellent academic resource, given on the resource page. This is an excellent example of why we don't let custodians have a special privilege to make content decisions. My own practice when I was a custodian, and probably it should be policy, is that except for *blatantly* inappropriate stuff nobody but a true troll would question, custodians should not delete stuff based on their own opinion, they should place a deletion tag, with a decision then being made by an independent custodian. And unless something is an emergency, we should have a minimum time for these, at least a week. But even if we don't allow that long, at least if there is a protest, the page should come back immediately upon request or protest, if only to give a user time to copy off their labor of love. I can't imagine being a custodian and not understanding the importance of this. (Did the user have an off-line copy? Probably in this case.)
 * We have tons of pages that "couldn't be put up at Wikipedia." Oddly, the Wikipedia argument has been presented in both directions. At the same time, we are told that this page should have been on Wikipedia, and then that it isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. What we have here is the janitor telling a professor and students what is academic and what is not. Even if he were right, he'd be grossly out of place! There is a process for deletion of anything that is at all controversial: this page!
 * I've added other information showing that there is ample source indicating that this society is notable. But it could be some obscure society with only a single historical source, and it could and probably would belong here, as part of a class project. It was up to the professor to determine inclusion criteria, and he did so. --Abd 22:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: I don't really know much about freemasonry (outside of a show I saw on the History Channel once), so I'm not sure what makes this a "conspiracy theory". If someone more familiar with the subject could explain, I think that would be helpful. --SB_Johnny talk 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theory was as I quoted above, linking the closing of the lodge with the Illuminati, who were not actually practicing in that region. The information and works used in the source about the Illuminati come from famous conspiracy theorists that go on and on about "secret groups" and their influence in Europe. The lodge shut down because no one cared. It was non-notable, it didn't exist that long, and attribution of famous people to it have been proven as fake long ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that we don't know if the assignment was to document a conspiracy theory, or to present something as fact. This actually relates to a broader issue: there are several projects going on here that are completely disconnected from the community at large, and in fact I rather get the impression that the students have been instructed not to engage. Unfortunately we don't have anything approaching a policy structure on that, so all we can apply is WV:AGF.
 * With that in mind, maybe an alternative would be to simply create a "conspiracy theories" project, and make this a subpage of that (leaving behind a noindex redirect in place for a while so that the creator can find it).
 * A bit off topic, but might it not make things a bit easier for us in the future if we bugzilla'd to turn off mainspace page creation for IPs? --SB_Johnny talk 19:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, off-topic, but wouldn't it be ironic if we shut down IP editing of mainspace because of a real class project where a lot of IP editors contributed pieces of a good resource? There are other reasons to consider possible restrictions of IP editing, but this is already a monster discussion on a simple request. --Abd 20:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The page was submitted pursuant to a class project, with many other such submissions. The main source is a page from the suggested academic source for that project. Let's take that as authoritative for the moment.. It may not be obvious at first, but this is a full page on that specific organization.
 * The IP was obviously that of a student actually enrolled in this class, at a real graduate school. Suggesting account registration for students, great idea. Where was this done?
 * Those who want to cry "conspiracy theory" should read the source.
 * The paper is not well-written, leading to a possible misinterpretation. The Illuminati did not directly cause the downfall of this society. However, the student did describe the actual problem. Fear of the Illuminati led the Emperor to issue a patent to the society, but also to set up registration requirements that were chilling, which apparently led to the dissolution of the Society. That's not "conspiracy theory," that's an interpretation of history, and a sourced one, to boot. The subject page is a brief summary of what is in the source.
 * The argument about "the Iluminati ... not practicing in that region" is irrelevant, read the source!, likewise the comments about "famous conspiracy theorists." This page is not about the Illuminati, it is about a particular lodge and its history. There is actually a lot of information available about this lodge; it published a scientific journal, for example, from 1783-1788. The source for the article isn't from "conspiracy theorists," it is from an academic compilation that is itself sourced from two major sources apparently considered reliable. The main source is, and the review here calls this society "the famous Viennese masonic lodge Zur wahren Eintracht." Another source is.
 * Thus the claim that this society was non-notable, beyond being irrelevant, is probably also not true. A Wikipedia article could be written about this society, and should survive AfD, if someone attempted it. The lodge is already mentioned on Wikipedia at Mozart and Freemasonry, According to Otto Erich Deutsch, this lodge was "the largest and most aristocratic in Vienna. ... Mozart, as the best of the musical 'Brothers,' was welcome in all the lodges." It was headed by the naturalist Ignaz von Born. The lodge is also mentioned with respect to Haydn.Haydn and Mozart.
 * And it should not really be necessary to review any of this. The real problem with this and the other pages was that they would be better organized as subpages of a resource or class project page. The resource page was suggested by Gbaor in February, but there was no followup and no sign that the professor noticed the suggestion.
 * I intend to assist in restructuring these pages. And to try to prevent abusive deletions like this in the future. In no way was this page qualified to be speedy deleted without discussion or opportunity to object. Referring the author to this page had it backwards, the presumption is Keep, not Delete, unless cause for deletion is obvious, and when an author or someone else objects, that presumption becomes even stronger. --Abd 19:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Abd's last point: we don't have the db/prod/etc. structure that WP has, so it's better to avoid n00b biting and put the onus on the custodian when there's a dispute.
 * As far as the content is concerned, I'm comfortable ceding the floor to Ottava, since it's pretty clear he has a bit of background in the subject. However, I don't think he's necessarily correct about the intent of the page (i.e., that it's "trolling"), and I'm starting to see this more as a categorization and organization issue than a scope issue. --SB_Johnny talk 20:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (I have plenty of background in this field, by the way, but it's not relevant here so I haven't asserted it, at all.)


 * Yes. Categorization issue. This is not about a "conspiracy theory" at all, that was an incorrect reading of the page. That's why I suggested that people read the source. Yes, I know, in order to have informed opinions, we might actually have to read something. We shouldn't be getting into these debates here, we have a very generous inclusion policy, and the real problem was that a large pile of what, for a course, should really be subpages, got spread out in mainspace. (That's a Wikipedia problem, they really screwed up by enforcing a flat structure, instead of a hierarchical one.) I'm going to start fixing that, I very much doubt that the professor will object (I've emailed him, but no response so far.) I lay out the plan at User_talk:6500jmk4)


 * My suspicion is that Ottava read the page in isolation, didn't check where it was linked from, and didn't check the rest of the contributions of the author to see the linking and context, in addition to misreading the reference to the Illuminati. But it's also clear that later he realized what was going on with the class project, because he restored a different one of these pages he'd deleted, and worked on the link to the page from the coordinating page. I think that his "conspiracy theory" misreading got him off on the wrong track on this one. We can help prevent misunderstandings in the future by helping professors organize their class projects in a clearer way, and by encouraging registration of student accounts. Class projects could involve, for example, the submission of student papers and some of those might be badly written. We might think about deleting some of them later, but they should never be deleted (absent request from author or a class teacher or coordinator, perhaps) during the class operation itself, unless they create legal issues. --Abd 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ready to roll. The professor replied, approving the plan. I'm starting to make the changes. Please watch my contributions to see what I'm doing, if you care to help or make suggestions. I asked on the Colloquium about subpages vs. categories, but I don't think the subpage concept conflicts with categorization at all. But there is the question of the best categories to use. Time to start cleaning up. --Abd 22:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your suspicion, like everything else, is based on your own imagination. If you bothered to look, I worked on many of those pages. IPs are nothing. If they want respect, they can register an account. Wikipedia doesn't allow IPs to create pages for a reason. We are not the host for pages that couldn't make it on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have a good imagination. As it happens, I had looked at a lot, probably more than half of what you had done. But since you mentioned it, I looked at what may have been everything. Wikiversity thanks you for your page moves [move]. . I'm still trying to figure these out. The first, created by IP, you quickly moved it, to a longer name. Why? The IP came back and recreated the page, perhaps wondering where it had gone. This caused a bit of confusion during my cleanup. Then the Academy of Special Education, listed on the resource page first and then created, was completely out of scope. That Academy was founded in 1912, and these were 18th century academies of a very different kind. But how could you have known that? You'd have had to look deeper than the page you were staring at in Recent Changes. Also, you pressed delete five times with four pages, but you did undelete three times. That Royal Humane Society article should probably have stayed deleted, but, again, how could you know that? You were right, i.e., if a Wikipedia page existed, there was no intention to create one here. And then, of course, you fixed some links on the resource page.. As to IPs, it's obvious that you gave more credence to named accounts than to IPs, even though one of the IPs was obviusly working extensively on the resource, whereas one of the named accounts was an SPA pop-in, it looks like, I'm not completely sure. To be fair, you did restore one of the two pages from the IP that you'd deleted. With the exception of pages where there was already a Wikipedia article, the pages, even quite stubbed ones, were appropriate.


 * My contributions for the last four hours are insane. But this was the help the class needed. --Abd 03:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't rename any page. I made a redirect for a duplicate. This shows the page made at 01:12, 27 July 2010 by 68.46.221.226 and this shows my redirect at 02:49, 27 July 2010. Why do you persist in consistently making up things? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. That explains it. I did misread this. I apologize for questioning this action, Ottava, based on my misreading of what you had done, yes, you simply created a redirect (though I still have a question, see below). --Abd 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP was confused. This happens when a class project starts up, when quite a number of new editors appear. For the future, it would be important to suggest -- and maybe enforce -- that class participants register; they should probably be coordinated on Talk or subpages. We can provide special protection for "enrolled students," who would be given more allowance to "scribble," but we'd want them to scribble or make their mistakes in defined spaces. I've seen piles of edits from running classes, and they can be hard to understand. If those edits are taking place in a defined space, we can more or less let the class and the teacher run that space. There was a spam edit to the resource, I noticed it on Recent Changes, I remember. But not knowing what the resource was about, I shrugged my shoulders. I didn't know that the editor -- SPA -- wasn't a class member. To take care of some area of Wikiversity, to do it well, we should be familiar with what is being attempted. This class needed active support. It's well worth providing it, they are, with their activity, generating deep material. Wikiversity has often been suggested as an article incubator for Wikipedia or a book incubator for Wikibooks, precisely because we don't have the strict sourcing or notability requirements as does Wikipedia, and there is normally no pressure to complete a page before it gets speedied or tagged as happens on Wikipedia all the time.
 * These people weren't anonymous, they were signing their edits with their real names, on the resource page. Given this, and ecause of the value to the resource and to Wikiversity, we might indeed semiprotect project pages under some conditions. (We would not semiprotect the Talk page, the goal here is making maintenance simple, not in excluding anonymous editors, and registered accounts are actually more anonymous than IP. But it takes, how many days?, before registration allows bypassing semiprotection, so a class couldn't start that way. We need to set up procedures, this is really work that should have been done years ago ... if it was done then, it wasn't maintained (I still haven't figured out how Wikiversity is organized, if it is organized, except ad-hoc). I think we suffered from the same paralysis that has afflicted the other wikis. It's structural, it's not anyone's fault, it is, in a sense, the state of nature, if we don't build something.
 * Now, as to that redirect. The content for the two pages was the same. You redirected, Ottava, from the simpler name to the more complicated one, the opposite of what you did when you did actually did a move. Look, if that was an error, it was a minor one. I didn't "make it up," rather, I misread the action. I saw no sign there of any bad faith, the only action for which I have truly faulted you was the deletion of the subject page here, based on your misreading of the page content, and I deliberately left out your name when I supported this request. That first deletion was an understandable mistake, we all sometimes don't take enough time or do enough research to understand what's actually going on. But the repeated deletion was beyond the pale, that is where you seriously deviated from policy, where you should have backed up and gone to RfD yourself if you were going to insist on your (faulty) interpretation. Let me repeat this: that page isn't about any "conspiracy theory," and someone who thinks so hasn't read the source. The emperor believed that there was a conspiracy, and that the emperor believed that is a reasonable historical fact, and asserting that, even if, somehow, it was incorrect -- i.e., that the emperor didn't believe that -- it's still not a "conspiracy theory." By knowing a little about the actual conspiracy theories out there, Ottava, you jumped to conclusions about this page and what it was about. The author presented a colloquial and simplified version of what is found in the sources, describing it in terms of effect, i.e. the "downfall" of the "True Harmony Lodge" was the effect of the reaction of the emperor to the matter of the Illuminati. The emperor issued what was possibly intended to be a protection of the Masonic Lodges, a "patent," and forbade secret lodges, which was aimed at the Illumnati, perhaps, but the patent required that there be only one lodge in a city, as I understand it, and the keeper of records of the Lodge was required to turn over membership lists to the police. And that was apparently so chilling that the Lodges disbanded, even if it wasn't directly intended to shut the Lodges down. And I can understand this, because what if the local chief of police disliked the Lodge, perhaps out of religious prejudice? And then discriminated against the members, harassing them?
 * Ottava, what is going to torpedo your privileges here is that you have consistently been unable, once you make a mistake, to admit it and move on. Instead, you attack, trying to shoot the messenger, as you have been doing here. Look at what I did above when you pointed out my error. I apologized and I struck my mistaken comment. If you look through my history, you will see that usually when someone complains about, say, incivility in my comments, I strike it, even, sometimes, if I could defend the statement as "true." Would you be willing to learn something from someone you perceive as an enemy? If you were to do it, and if you were to start to thank people for pointing out your errors (or even "imagined errors") instead of attacking them, you might find that your entire life clears up. What's happening to you here has happened to you elsewhere, and the common element is you, not me, nor anyone else. I learned long ago, way over twenty years ago, that those whom I thought were attacking me were, in some ways, my best friends, because my "friends" wouldn't tell me what I needed to hear. They were too polite, or perhaps they were biased in my favor. That doesn't mean that someone attacking me is 'right,' but that I should pay careful attention, truly consider what they are saying about me. Is it true? Or am I, at least, carelessly allowing an incorrect appearance to show? How can I change my behavior so that useless conflict doesn't keep coming up, so that only useful conflict, conflict that leads to resolution and progress, remains? I'm still working on this!
 * As always, you are the sovereign over your own behavior; your choices are your own responsibility, for you are the one who will suffer the most for poor choices. You may think me arrogant, but do, I suggest, stop to consider that I'm almost three times your age, I've seen and experienced a lot. You can barge ahead and learn, the hard way, if, indeed, you ever manage to break through the chains of your own making, or that you inherited, or you can begin to learn from others, and skip what can be a very unpleasant phase of life. You can learn from bad examples, even, if when you see one, you realize that this is a message for you not to imitate it. Instead, you can take the example as a confirmation that you are better than others, which makes the example worse than useless for you.
 * It's not too late. If you stop and think, swallow your pride, and just say "Oops! Looks like I was on a dry drunk (or a wet one, I don't know anything personal about you!), I'd better be careful in the future, please let me know if I make any more mistakes," you'd be fine and all this would blow over quickly. As they say, "It's the cover-up, stupid!" What if, when I blocked you for two hours for incivility, which has since been confirmed as a reasonable action, you had laughed and wrote, "Okay, sorry, that was outside of civility policy, I'll try not to do it again." Do you realize what would have happened? First of all, I'd have immediately unblocked you since you would have made a continuation unnecessary. Second, you'd have had an ally for the future. Third, you'd probably have stopped alienating others, at least not as much as you have. And one and on. You missed a huge opportunity, then, but it's never too late, really. Until it is.
 * I'm just being selfish. It's a pain in the rump to get a Community Review right, to structure it so it punches through the noise. If you can make it unnecessary, it will save me, and the community, a lot of fuss, a lot of time that can go into improving the project directly. Without some evidence of course correction from you, though, I'm totally obligated to put in that work, and I'm skilled at it, as I think you'd know if you knew more of my history. I was warned, about Wikipedia, that I'd be banned if I went ahead. This warning came from a highly experienced and very well-known Wikipedian, who was supporting what I'd found and what I was planning on confronting. And, while I didn't want to be banned, confronting administrative abuse was crucial, well worth the loss of a single contributor, me, because it was doing, and the like of it continues to do, massive damage through alienating many contributors. I'm just one editor, and no one editor is worth that much damage. (They got this wrong on Wikipedia, in practice, not confronting abusive administrators because they were such prolific contributors or workers.)


 * Re: "Ottava Rima: 'IPs are nothing. If they want respect, they can register an account. Wikipedia doesn't allow IPs to create pages for a reason.'" Ottava, That is not the consensus within the Wikiversity community, and I don't think you understand the practical and specific problems for which English Wikipedia do not allow ip-users to create pages. A fundamental tenet of Wikimedia is that everybody can edit. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Closed: Part of a class and has been incorporated into 18th century European scholarly societies and academies. People should be encouraged to register an account and welcomed without scorn even if they choose not to. -- dark lama  09:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

How to build a pykrete bong
I should start by noting I have nominated this page for deletion before at Wikibooks. While I feel this doesn't live up to policies such as verifiability, I would rather focus on how I feel it harms the project. Basically it detracts for the scholarly nature of pursuits here, and hence harms the reputation of the project. When I see pages like this it is more difficult to take the project seriously. Pages of this nature also harm our ability to interface with brick and mortar secondary schools. My only evidence for this is a comment made to me by a wikibookian. He explained, once he realized that pages like this existed, that he understood why he couldn't ask his administrators to remove the block on wikibooks. Basically I feel it hurts our reputation and our ability to reach out to other learning communities. Thenub314 23:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I skimmed the resource. If Bong belongs in WP, then I don't see why How to build a pykrete bong wouldn't be appropriate for WV. It seems to be a well-written resource, somewhat in the vein of How to clean a toilet. I think its OK maybe even desirable that Wikiversity provides learning materials beyond those which might approved by some schools. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The scope and content of articles at WP differs from that at WV. Two examples that come to my mind are Explosive and Strangulation.  These are perfectly fine resources at WP, but I don't think we should carry learning resources on how to effectively strangle someone, or aim to teach people to create improvised explosive devices.  No matter how well written there should be a line beyond which we decided this is not in the the type of educational material our project aims to produce.  Would you find learning resources on constructing crack pipes or cooking and injecting heroin as falling under our scope? Thenub314 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything in Mission or the WMF mission that indicates that "learning resources on constructing crack pipes or cooking and injecting heroin" (or building a bong) would be out of scope. (Scope is, however, rather unclear and in need of development.) Bongs are not illegal in most jurisdictions and are important items in many people's lives etc. But I understand that feelings about the appropriateness of this article will vary depending on value systems and how one approaches the topic - e.g., I'm looking at it anthropologically - as some human knowledge that some people may wish to learn about. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But certainly with the other cases I mentioned there are some people who would like to know these things. I know Bongs are not illegal in most jurisdictions, indeed I used to construct and sell them during high school for spare cash. That doesn't make a static resources on how to build one from Pykrete really something that people are seeking to learn?  At the same time, every thing I mentioned above is something someone has wanted to learn at some point.  The question I was trying to get a sense of is would you find those four topics appropriate learning resources here?  I personally  believe they would harm wikiversity's reputation, and even though I could write very good resources on three of them (I know nothing of explosives) it wouldn't dream of it, not even to make my point.
 * Drawing lines can be a tough call. Universities allow students to do experiments. Can the same learning objectives, observations, and results be achieved by a different pykrete experiment? A chemistry course might discuss explosive combinations to ensure that students don't accidentally try combinations that are known to be dangerous, to ensure that student observe necessary precautions when combining chemicals that are known to have explosive results, or because they may need to know about certain explosives for the type of careers they might want to pursue. Wikiversity cannot help to be an aid for Universities, if certain pursuits are off topic. Resource should attempt to observe all necessary precautions that would be expected to be observed at a University. -- dark lama  16:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree drawing lines can be tough. I can only say that it would be off topic at a university to construct run a course containing information on constructing pykrete bongs.  Indeed most university dormitories have regualtions prohibiting such things.  To me it is a matter of perspective.  If your writing is written about explosives in such a way as to teach chemistry that is (to me) perfectly acceptable.  If your writing about how to make explosive devices from existing military bombs in such a way as to create traps for people, I think some line as been crossed.  Some people would like to have this information, it is certainly educational, but I would argue it should not fall under our scope.  Unfortunately we cannot hope to observe all the precautions observed by Universities. My understanding is that at many universities there is usually a mandatory course about safety which needs to be passed before you may take a class that involves dangerous experiments.  We may suggest prerequisites but not enforce a passing mark in some course.  Don't take this to mean that I think we should not have courses that involve potentially dangerous experiments, we should.  I am just pointing out that we don't  have the same resources as brick and mortar institutions when it comes to safety.  But overall my comment is that it harmful to our project, not that the bong would be harmful to person.
 * We must not forget that WMF servers are in the US and we legally promote illegal activity, which includes building illicit drug paraphernalia just as we could not have a "how to" for building a bomb. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Noting that the article appears to be very similar to http://www.thefullwiki.org/How_To_Build_A_Pykrete_Bong -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems imported from wikibooks. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Noting also this nomination for deletion discussion at Wikibooks about the article - b:Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion/How_To_Build_A_Pykrete_Bong_%283%29 -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I should have noted the wikibooks RfD here. It was (I think) mentioned in the colloquium post which lead me to bring it up here.  I note, but this is not very convincing even to me that the official beta policy forbids research that would be considered illegal.  Though in which jurisdiction is the real question, there just is no easy way to interpret that bullet. Thenub314 14:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For perspective on Wikibooks' view of this material, I recommend its fourth and last RfD: b:Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/How To Build A Pykrete Bong (4). --Pi zero 19:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Or do we have a policy not to host such stuff?--Juan de Vojníkov 09:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Closed: No clear consensus either way. No consensus that harm is caused. No consensus that this is out of scope. -- dark lama  08:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Top ten reasons why academics do not contribute to Wikipedia
This page is not a learning resource.

If the page is about "involvement in Wikipedia and other wiki projects" it is outside the scope of what Wikiversity is and falls right into What Wikiversity is not, namely, "A podium: Wikiversity resources and activities should promote learning above any personal opinions, beliefs, or biases that you may have," - reasons (perceived or real) - and "Other Wikimedia projects [...] may be better for [this]."

The page suffers form many of the problems it pretends to address, as already pointed out in the discussion page. "A major problem thus far is the lack of references, since most of the current entries are somewhat based on anecdotal evidence," "Again, as stated above, adding in some references would be good." ("What do we mean by academics?" "In my case, I stopped working with WP for several reasons," "it is likely that junior academics have career reasons not to waste time on WP or CZ, and more senior academics may feel that there is little point," "the proportion of academics with relevant expertise compared to the total of contributors to articles in a given field may well be higher than at most Wikimedia projects," "That was always my reason.")

Uncivil comments have already reared their ugly head, "That is an assertion -- not even a testable hypothesis -- and deserves to be ignored," "the idiots," "cretins," "that's probably not what academics would say."

The editor who started the page is unable to respect the list mechanics he set himself:

"Please order by importance - those reasons (perceived or real) most likely supported by many academics would go to the top, less likely ones to the bottom. The same for the rough categories. The list is in flow, and everyone is invited to contribute to it. Though the aim is to have a top-10 list (or so), there is no reason to delete any suggested item, as long as it is potentially relevant - just reorder accordingly., , , , , , If you think you can shorten an item without losing much, then go for it."

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 00:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this falls under the scopes of learning, teaching, researching, and sharing. Why do you think otherwise?
 * Podium also says, "If you wish to express your personal take on someone or something, please do so in a way that is open, respectful, inclusive of academic participation, and informs participants on the issues that matter to you. Critical Analysis and academic lectures are two possible ways to do this." I believe if anyone is being uncivil they need to be warned about it and someone needs to nudge discussion in the right direction. I think if other people are being civil and respectful than this is just a person issue and not a resource issue.
 * What other Wikimedia projects would be better suited for this?
 * -- dark lama  01:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry, but as far as the above comment and questions I'm afraid I'll have to pass. For further details, check my user page, talk page, other statistics and information available about me and contributions to the page. Vapmachado 02:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If this page has weaknesses then the solution is collaborative editing to improve the page. The topic is an important one of great relevance to Wikiversity and Wikiversity community members and I don't understand how anyone can claim that study of this topic is not within the scope of this project. Page deletion is not a tool for disposing of weak pages: we use the edit button to improve Wikiversity learning resources. --JWSchmidt 14:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Schmidt (or may I call you John?),

You are very welcome to engage in "collaborative editing to improve the page." I tried that and had several of my edits deleted by someone who stated that "there is no reason to delete any suggested item, as long as it is potentially relevant - just reorder accordingly."

You are entitled to your opinion about what is and is not "important" and "of great relevance to Wikiversity and Wikiversity community members." You also "enjoy using Wikiversity as playground for learning," and "think Wikiversity should have some kind of "community blog" " Your opinions notwithstanding, the scope of what Wikiversity is and  what Wikiversity is not stand as described in those two pages, which your opinions do not override.

I'm sorry you couldn't understand. I hope that I have helped some. If you still don't understand, try talking about it with people close to you, colleagues and friends. Then, but only then, if there's something you still don't understand, I'll be glad to help. Try to be a bit more specific about what you don't understand. It will make things a lot easier for me.

Your last remarks ("Page deletion is not a tool for disposing of weak pages: we use the edit button to improve Wikiversity learning resources") sound very good and profound, but are totally off topic and off color here. Being a weak page was not the reason invoked for deletion. Others, including you, recognize that the page is weak, and I acknowledge that much. Everybody that is at least slightly familiar with wikis knows what the edit button is for. If I may suggest, please stay away from making that kind of remarks.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 15:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "I tried that and had several of my edits deleted": would you mind giving the direct edits for this please? Makes it easier for others to understand. Merci, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 17:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I could be missing something too. Vapmachado made [ these edits] and Mietchen removed [ a few additions] . -- dark lama  17:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(as per darkcode + John): Keep it, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 17:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Erkan, Do not mind at all. I already did. They are the seven diffs on the last line of text of the "dr." It would not be cool to make a "dr" without providing the links and diffs supporting the statements made there. Then I thought it would be kind of dull to repeated myself. I didn't expected that most readers would bother to check them. However, how could someone have missed them, having already expressed an opinion on the "dr"? Is this a serious project or just a "playground for learning"? Any opinion, expressed under those obvious conditions has no credibility whatsoever. Is that the way the editors of this project want to be perceived by the readers? This is Wikiversity, NOT Wikiground oder das Land der Blinden.

I strongly object to anybody misrepresenting my edits and those that were removed. If you do not have the qualifications to do it right, DON'T do it. I took the liberty of crossing out the inaccurate statement, but would welcome any other more elegant solution, still hoping to have given no cause for offense.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 19:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I did look at the diffs before commenting and each one shows Mietchen did both the previous and next revision. I didn't rely on them because they don't show how your edits were deleted which is what you stated happened. If I relied on only your diffs I would conclude that nothing you did was deleted. You edited the page many times in a row, my diff shows an accumulation of your edits to demonstrate what you added on the right side of the diff and what it was like before you edited on the left side. Mietchen also edited the page many times in a row, my other diff shows an accumulation of their edits to demonstrate what was removed in relation to your edits on the right side, and what it looked like before their edits were made on the left side. That is the most elegant solution there is with the tools available. -- dark lama  20:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The first diff, and second diff show some text that was removed and is not included in "[ a few additions]." Please, check also this edit and this.

This is all besides the point and a distraction. The reasons for "dr" are stated in the first two paragraphs. They are still standing as nobody has disproved them yet.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "They are still standing as nobody has disproved them yet". What you were trying to prove is beyond me. I see one policy and one proposed policy pointed to without context or conclusions being made, and I see evidence without content and conclusions being made. The only conclusion I am able to draw right now is that you aren't happy that several of your edits were deleted, which isn't a reason for deletion. What were you trying to prove? What are your conclusions? You can choose to pass again and I'll have to accept that, but choosing to pass on questions may cause people not to take your request seriously or may harm the credibility of your request. -- dark lama  01:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this falls within the scope of a learning project - it seems currently to be an exploration of barriers to academic participation in Wikipedia. It could arguably also fall within original research. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The page in question seems to be getting several edits a day, from multiple editors. Unless there is a clear problem of scope that's not been made clear in the discussion above, I'll close this request tomorrow morning. --SB_Johnny talk 00:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're all very welcome to do as you please. After all, you are the custodians of this most illustrious community. I was expecting to find here people that would have at least a minimum command of the English language. I'm pretty sure that you all do. Unfortunately, even on a topic like this, there seems to be more concern in maintaining an environment where academics are denigrated, vilified, intimidated, insulted, defamed, character assassinated, lied to, tricked, misled, censored [add what happened to you or that you witness happening], blocked, and banned from Wikimedia Foundation projects, a question that remains unanswered.

I would go over the series of very questionable comments and questions that have been made on this page, if I had an inkling that would be at least worth my time. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. I find that particularly offensive in a project that has hijacked, to a certain extent, the name of a grand institution, but is run by people that don't even have the strength of character to introduce themselves, in private if they so wished. My e-mail address is there on my user page, available for all that might want to use it, and "E-mail this user" is also activated.

Again, I strongly object to anybody misrepresenting and deleting my edits, doing it, being proved wrong and not even recognizing and apologizing, a concept that seems to be completely foreign to most here.

Also, please, don't lie. That's so unbecoming to a custodian and a gentleman. If you do not have the qualifications to stick to the truth, QUIT!

Please forgive me for repeating myself, once from the "dr," another from the discussion: "The reasons for "dr" are stated in the first two paragraphs. They are still standing as nobody has disproved them yet." There has been no rebuttal from Schmidt, who questioned them. Neill simply stated what he "thinks," what "it seems," and "arguably." Having presented these as arguments justifying his "Keep", I saw no point in trying to persuade him to change his mind. He is entitled to his opinions, no matter how simply or briefly justified.

Can't get any clearer than that. If the reasons for "dr" have been disproved, show me where, how and by whom. Do I have to explain that believing on something does not amount to disproving anything else?

Now that I had my saying, why wait for tomorrow? The most embarrassing thing here is to loose face, right?

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 04:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Closing (somewhat speedy), as there does not seem to be any policy basis for deletion. --SB_Johnny talk 15:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)