Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/6

This has a notice at the top of page, and has for some time, but no discussion I can find here. The page is wildly inaccurate and primarily a forum for Moulton's misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and attacks on Wikipedia editors and admins. Causes ill-will and is worse than useless as a study due to the tone and inaccuracies. KillerChihuahua 14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have been part of a deletion set proposed by Centaur archived a few months ago and was determined at the time to be kept. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua, please feel free to create a learning set of pages expressing your points of view. Deleting other people's points of view is a poor way of creating learning resources. This is Wikiversity, not Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 10:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to recent issues regarding Moulton it doesn't seem wise to remove those pages yet, until a decision is made on the Community Review - if the Verizon, M.I.T. and other internet/security providers does become involved they may want to view these pages, I suggest you wait for the time being. DarkObsidian^{@en.Meta-Wiki} 10:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple matter to have an admin email copies of the pages, or undelete for a brief period of time, should the providers make the request. This is not an obstacle nor an argument against deletion. KillerChihuahua 03:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KC - Wikiversity is not Wikipedia; we need to be more hesitatant about summarily deleting content that we may consider to be inaccurate and rather work towards presenting differing viewpoints, different interpretations and arguments. This content for better or worse is now part of the history/heritage of Wikiversity and almost by its very controversy deserves to remain as an artifact of our growth. Countrymike 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

while I appreciate those who are apparently attempting to educate me about the differences between WP and WV, you must have missed the core point that I didn't add the deletion notice to the page someone else did. I'm listing it here so you can all decide what to do. If its leftover and there was a Keep decision, remove the notice as housekeeping. If there was no discussion, an omission occurred. Dzonatas added the original notice, I don't know why it wasn't listed here. Perhaps you could address your comments about listing something for deletion to Dzonatas, and confine your discussion here about whether or not this particular page adds any value or is detrimental or has a null effect on Wikiversity. KillerChihuahua 03:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above. Also, this will blow your mind. Look at the "this" in "Any particular reason this attack page, full of names, inaccuracies, and the hurtful and distressing falsehood there is a "cabal" on the En WP is allowed to stand? KillerChihuahua 12:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC) ". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you found the previous discussion, which seems to have trickled to nothing rather than reaching a decision; not sure why you say the link will blow anyone's mind? KillerChihuahua 12:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was joking. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please discuss the request, not the person making the request. The archiving on this page has never been particularly transparent, and the delete template was still on the page. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

questions and points of information. "attacks on Wikipedia editors" <-- Please list these "attacks". If there are "attacks" then they should be removed by editing. "inaccuracies" <-- Please list the inaccuracies. Even if there are inaccuracies, that is not grounds for page deletion. In a wiki, inaccuracies are corrected by editing, not deleting. "Causes ill-will" <-- Please explain this statement. User:KillerChihuahua has a conflict of interest with respect to this learning resource. This research page is mainly an investigation into how a Wikipedia biography page was created in violation of Wikipedia policy and how the Wikipedia community responded. It was part of an action research project aimed at finding ways to improve Wikipedia. I'd like KillerChihuahua to explain how a scholarly attempt to improve Wikipedia "causes ill-will". KillerChihuahua has a conflict of interest because this page correctly described the fact that KillerChihuahua blocked Moulton from editing at Wikipedia but failed to leave a message on his talk page explaining why Moulton was blocked. It appears that KillerChihuahua wants to delete this page because it mentions the fact that she imposed a bad block and in so doing alienated a scholar and impeded him from constructively helping Wikipedia correct a biased biographical article. I also believe that KillerChihuahua is inappropriately trying to impose standards from Wikipedia in decisions about page deletion at Wikiversity. This page is a valid learning resource that supports the mission of Wikiversity. This page would be deleted from the Wikipedia main namespace, but it is a valid Wikiversity research project. --JWSchmidt 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course KC has an interest because she's among the subjects of the investigation. You (JWS) also have an interest as one of the authors. Having an interest doesn't necessarily entail a conflict of interest. She has just as much right to share her views as you do. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"She has just as much right to share her views as you do" <-- Thanks for reminding everyone...nobody ever said otherwise. It still remains a fact that KillerChihuahua has a conflict of interest in the matter of trying to have this valid learning resource deleted from Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As SB_Johnny mentioned, you have a conflict of interest yourself. The point is it would be best if you avoided your fallacious arguments and instead just addressed why it should or should not be kept. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your fallacious arguments <-- please list the arguments that you claim to be fallacious. I find it strange that you come here to make a charge about Poisoning the well when you have seriously violated the Wikiversity civility policy by calling for an unjustified ban against Moulton. Please explain how I have "poisoned the well". --JWSchmidt 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified ban? You know very well the types of personal attacks Moulton made against Jimbo via email and how he was using Wikiversity to further that ends. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You know very well the types of personal attacks Moulton made against Jimbo via email" <-- No, I don't. Please list them here and explain how they are relevant to this discussion of proposed page deletion. "using Wikiversity to further that ends" <-- I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Moulton has made personal attacks against Jimbo at Wikiversity? If so, please link to the edits where those attacks were made and explain how they are relevant to this discussion of proposed page deletion. --JWSchmidt 18:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't understand why mentioning completely irrelevant topics in an attempt to bring the character of your opposition into question constitutes a logical fallacy, but it does. It doesn't even matter whether the accusations are true or not. If you ever plan on having decent communication skills, you should learn this. While politicians may resort to the technique now and then in order to gain an underhanded advantage, you use this fallacy far too often and in ways that undermine your ability to make a point, rather than help. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the "completely irrelevant topics" you are referring to. --JWSchmidt 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded directly to a couple of them. I'm done playing along with your lame attempts at sophistry. Playing dumb is not a good tactic if you expect to be taken seriously. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how rude and incivil of you to say something like that

She has a conflict of interest against closing the discussion herself and in using administrative powers. No one has a conflict of interest against expressing their opinion in a poll/review. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict of interest occurs when someone has an interest that might compromise their reliability. In this case, the person proposing page deletion has an interest that might compromise their reliability in making a sound judgment about when a Wikiversity page should be proposed for deletion. The person proposing page deletion has an interest that might compromise their reliability in making statements about the page such as "wildly inaccurate", "primarily a forum for Moulton's misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and attacks on Wikipedia editors and admins", "Causes ill-will" and "is worse than useless as a study". I think the Wikiversity community should carefully examine the validity of all these claims. --JWSchmidt 18:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To the first point Killer made - If this page is inaccurate, why haven't you for so long pointed the specific problem out at the appropriate venue, the Talk page? I am really eager to see balanced viewpoints, and your contributions are sorely needed. I am disappointed to see you spend so much time in arguing your cases for deleting contents time and again, while you could simply have described what happened from your point of view, and then everybody can decide for herself who is telling the truth. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - EMESEE!

Keep - because it's long and I need to read it and I'm a slow reader. CQ 20:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Keep. No consensus. Discussion got off track. No specific arguments for or against this page was presented. The responsibility of proving that a page is or isn't an educational resource falls on everyone who participates in the discussion. Most anyone who participates in a discussion has a vested interest in the outcome. Specific examples where reasonable attempts to fix problems were unsuccessful should be demonstratable before proposing deletion again. Unreasonable participants should be brought before community review and not be used as an argument to delete this page. Let calmer/cooler heads prevail. -- darklama  19:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice use of the wikicode, but not exactly educational. --SB_Johnny ^talk 00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Clearly not educational and likely copyright violation, this content can be found elsewhere on the web, here for example so can reasonably be deleted without extensive discussion. Adambro 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lesson and redundant with b:Japanese/Grammar/Pro-form and b:Japanese/Lessons/Personal pronouns. --Swift 11:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by redundant? The wikibook pages are different from the wikiversity resources. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 14:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikibook is used as a primary textbook for the Japanese courses. This page has no course material (lesson activites, excercises, or any other content) beyond the textbook material that is already covered in the wikibook. It is thus redundant. --Swift 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversitans are encouraged to use and to some extend reorganise existing materials. This is part of a natural learning process, in the same way as you take notes in lectures even if everything you learn there is covered in your textbook. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit in my statement that the page is redundant is the fact that it does not extend or reorganise anything. These are neither notes nor presented as such. The reader does not benefit from this material. This is not a policy proposal to cut off all overlap with Wikibooks. It is a request for deletion of a specific page which in this specific case is redundant, less developed and unhelpful. Please do it the courtesy to read through the referenced pages and evaluate it on its own merit. --Swift 08:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus --mikeu ^talk 21:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with b:Japanese/Contents. Probably part of efforts to restructure the b:Japanese wikibook by User:Balloonguy but he seems to have left both WB and WV. --Swift 11:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by redundant? This is a list for any wikiversity participant who want to use wikibooks to learn japanese. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 14:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more extensive and up to date list is available at b:Japanese/Contents. Balloonguy (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) was involved in restructuring of both the wikibook and the Japanese stream and topic but seems to have abandoned it. In the meantime, Retropunk (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) and I have completely revamped the book from its abysmal state into something of limited use and that might actually develop into something of use for a short course. That effort has created the more up to date contents overview on the wikibook and out-dated the contents on this page. --Swift 15:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversitans are encouraged to use and to some extend reorganise existing materials. This is part of a natural learning process, in the same way as you take notes in lectures even if everything you learn there is covered in your textbook. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, this page is out-dated. That means that this page does not reflect the material available in the wikibook. Leaving out-dated content sitting around for years on end (as is the case here) does little to inspire confidence in this platform of learning. --Swift 08:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus --mikeu ^talk 21:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Verb conjugation - Ichidan Verbs
• Japanese Verb Conjugation - Godan Verbs
• Verb Conjugation - Irregular Japanese Verbs

These are redundant with the b:Japanese wikibook. --Swift 12:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by redundant? The wikibook pages are different from the wikiversity resources. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 14:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikibook is used as a primary textbook for the Japanese courses. This page has no course material (lesson activites, excercises, or any other content) beyond the textbook material that is already covered in the wikibook. It is thus redundant. --Swift 15:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversitans are encouraged to use and to some extend reorganise existing materials. This is part of a natural learning process, in the same way as you take notes in lectures even if everything you learn there is covered in your textbook. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit in my statement that the page is redundant is the fact that it does not extend or reorganise anything. These are neither notes nor presented as such. The reader does not benefit from this material. This is not a policy proposal to cut off all overlap with Wikibooks. It is a request for deletion of a specific page which in this specific case is redundant, less developed and unhelpful. Please do it the courtesy to read through the referenced pages and evaluate it on its own merit. --Swift 08:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are referring to with the wikibook, but I spent quite a while searching for this information on the net and this was the first (i.e. only) place I could find it. It seems to be a well thought out explanation of the "go" behind godan verbs and helped to clarify things for me. --CWeinhofer 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto everything above. The ichidan verb page was very helpful and the first and best explanation I found online. 24.60.18.162 05:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Draz[reply]

Relevant discussion: Topic_talk:Foreign_Language_Learning#Confusion.3F. --Swift 07:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as keep --mikeu ^talk 21:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is redundant with b:Japanese/Numbers and b:Japanese/Grammar/Counters, the textbook used in the Japanese stream and topic. (User:Hillgentleman: These are not notes or reorganised material. It is not a retelling using a different approach or learning style. It is simply textbook material which is now redundant with the primary textbook referenced.) --Swift 08:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversians may create duplicate learning materials in their learning activities, and duplication is neither a bad thing nor prohibited. Since learning activities has ceased on that page, I am not entirely against deletion. But I would rather replace it with a placeholder with links to useful resources. Let me note further that collecting information from two pages from a wikibook onto one wikiversity page is clearly a reorganisation of materials. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 07:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus --mikeu ^talk 21:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reqeust for deletion is part of a learning project about wikimedia policy and process for deletions. Please participate below by expressing your opinions about if the nominated page should be kept or deleted. The results of the discussion will be acted on as any other deletion request.

This page is written as an encyclopedia article and the Wikiversity:Approved Wikiversity project proposal states that wikiversity is not "A duplication of other Wikimedia projects." Although the page indicates that "This Article is being used to test Wikipedia's policy and process for deletions." it is not clear how this fits in with the wikiversity mission to create learning projects. I also have concerns that this page is promoting a publicity stunt by a commercial company. I would suggest transwiki to wikipedia, however, the page has already been deleted once and is currently tagged for speedy. --mikeu ^talk 18:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC) (strikeout --mikeu ^talk 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

•   Support deletion per reasons above. --mikeu ^talk 18:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•   Oppose keep to see if w:Evan Ratliff remains on Wikipedia. My theory is that the experiment will make a significant contribution to understanding the Sociology of the Internet. What remains to be seen is if or not Wired will capture any interest with the stunt from Wikipedians and if any 'pedians (besides me) support one position or the other. CQ 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•   Oppose - strikes me that the "experiment" could inspire some interesting conversation around themes like those that CQ suggests that would otherwise not be welcome on WP but would be welcome here. Initiating a learning project / resource on WV by copying article from WP is in my opinion a reasonable place to start and should be allowed time to develop. mikeu's concerns that this may also just be a "publicity stunt by a commercial company" is an interesting point worth exploring in this context and could be engaged with on the page itself. If he can suggest this here, why not on the page? Countrymike 22:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•   Oppose for now. I'm not sure where it's going, but it could be interesting. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•   Support deletion. Wikiversity doesn't exist to document experiments like this on Wikipedia. It is incredibly difficult to see how CQ can suggest this might "make a significant contribution to understanding the Sociology of the Internet". We shouldn't be encouraging CQ and others to effectively be disrupting Wikipedia by using it to test theories. Remember Wikipedia Art anyone? Adambro 11:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've heard of w:Wikipedia Art, but don't really know the full story. Could you fill us in? --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art --mikeu ^talk 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•   Oppose for now, per CQ & Countrymike. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 16:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of discussion is Keep. --mikeu ^talk 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to understand the purpose of this page and asked CQ (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) to assist with that on a number of occasions now ([1] [2] [3]). CQ has made a few brief comments about this but I remain unclear as to how this page furthers Wikiversity.

I understand it is perhaps intended to be humorous but as Cormaggio has noted on the talk page, humour has its limits. I get the impression that this might have been created in response to suggestions by JWSchmidt that a censorship policy either secretly exists or should exist. The problem I have is that I cannot understand how creating this page as a reaction to those suggestions benefits Wikiversity. Rather, I see it has more likely to be detrimental to Wikiversity as it inflames the situation by serving as a reminder of the tensions which resulted in the suggestion of a censorship policy.

I therefore propose that this page is deleted. Adambro 13:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•   Comment Cormaggio's comment is here --mikeu ^talk 13:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in that comment, I think the definition of "censorship" needs to be much clearer for something like this to stand. Any definition of censorship should acknowledge project scope (i.e. WV:NOT) and community-defined principles (e.g. civility). Censorship is not a word which should be used lightly or freely - it connotes a system of control and suppression, which a page of this type would need to justify labelling. Unless JWSchmidt (or someone else) can put a case for a useful and necessary examination of censorship, I'd say this page should be deleted. (Speaking of which, why not concentrate on a clear deletion policy? Seems to be both more practical and more accessible.) Cormaggio ^talk 12:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support I don't believe this furthers Wikiversity, either. It sounds like an argument waiting to happen (or a reminder of ones that have happened). Trinity507 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•   Comment In its current form, I don't think it belongs in the Wikiversity namespace or by that page name (where someone might expect to find policy). CQ may wish to move it into a user subpage before deletion? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The page should not be deleted, rather, it should be developed to discuss the censorship that takes place at Wikiversity. "an argument waiting to happen" <-- Is the idea that Wikiversity cannot have discussions of anything that might lead to controversy or disagreement? Should The wielders of the Mighty Ban Hammer just censor, delete, block and ban as they see fit in order to eliminate honest points of view that they are not comfortable with? Censorship, deleting useful pages, imposing bad blocks and bans are not the way to build a scholarly learning community. --JWSchmidt 14:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It would appear that previous suggestions to create the page and use it for the purposes you are proposing have been disregarded. The fact that this page now exists, albeit in a different form to how you would like it, doesn't make it any more likely that your proposal will be accepted. Adambro 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "It would appear" <-- Please explain what "previous suggestions" you are talking about. Deletion of this page will suit the Wikiversity censors well. They will be able to say, "We have no censorship at Wikiversity as you can tell by the fact that we deleted Wikiversity:Censorship". --JWSchmidt 17:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I really shouldn't have to explain what I mean when I mention "previous suggestions". I am of course referring to all those occasions where you have proposed this page be created which I assume didn't receive support based upon the page never being created in response. I'm unconvinced that the deletion of this page will "will suit the Wikiversity censors" since it would be well known in the community that what was deleted was nothing really to do with any supposed censorship on Wikiversity. Adambro 18:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Help me get this right...I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that because this page has been discussed as being a page where the unwritten rules of censorship at Wikiversity could be documented it should be deleted and then it would be clear that its deletion had nothing to do with censorship? Do I have that right? "it will only serve to rev up the dramas" <-- I wonder what "dramas" means. It would be best for Wikiversity censors to participate in documenting their acts of censorship rather than trying to prevent the community from documenting and discussing censorship at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unconvinced by the apparent difficulty you have in understanding what I say and am not going to get drawn into endlessly clarifying everything I say for you to simply invent another bizarre interpretation for me to have to dismiss. Adambro 07:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "another bizarre interpretation" <-- please list all of the "bizarre interpretations" so that we can discuss them. I'm still looking for a valid reason for deletion of this page. Until we identify such a reason, the attempt to delete the page seems to be misguided. "the apparent difficulty you have in understanding" <-- the only inability to understand seems to be the nominator's inability to understand the value of allowing the community to discuss censorship at Wikiversity. An important part of adminship at Wikiversity is the right to avoid discussions. Start by saying I'm "not going to get drawn into" this discussion, then progress to censorship by removing questions from discussions, then move on to deletion, blocks and bans to make sure that discussion is ended. Are we now entering into this well-traveled path since the nominator for deletion has declared his intention not to get "drawn into" further discussion of this proposed page deletion? --JWSchmidt 13:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've said, I'm not going to waste my time trying to satisfy your appetite to repeatedly conjure up creative interpretations of my comments and ask me about them. I've explained the reason why I propose this page for deletion, whether it is valid is simply your opinion. I've also explained how deleting this page doesn't stop the community discussing any apparent "censorship" concerns. Proposing a page for deletion doesn't compel me to play your games. You should have learnt by now that I am not prepared to. Adambro 15:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It is interesting to see another editor label my discussion comments as playing games. Adambro: I demand that you either retract that accusation or else provide a list of what you perceive to be these "games". A valid reason for deletion would explain the harm that the page is doing to Wikiversity and its mission. You claimed that the page you want to delete "inflames the situation by serving as a reminder of the tensions which resulted in the suggestion of a censorship policy", but you have provided no evidence to support this claim. Censorship at Wikiversity is an important topic. Why not allow Wikiversity:Censorship to remain as a page where the community can accumulate information about Censorship at Wikiversity? Wikiversity is a community where participants work together to improve pages rather than delete them. Tensions at Wikiversity are not caused by discussion of censorship, tensions are caused by acts of censorship. The Wikiversity community needs more discussion of censorship, not page deletion that would erase and prevent such discussion. Adambro: reminder, you previously accused me of making "bizarre interpretations" and I requested that you list them. Since you have not respond to my request I am forced to assume that you have no evidence to support your accusation that I made "bizarre interpretations", so please strike that accusation from this community discussion page. --JWSchmidt 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand by my earlier comments and have nothing further I wish to add to them. Adambro 17:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Adambro: I propose that we collaborate to improve the Wikiversity:Censorship page. Suggested page content: "How to censor Wikiversity. Identify a page that you do not like. Rather than improve the page, try to delete the page. This is best done by speedy deletion so that there is no discussion of the deletion. Since the page that you want to delete is most likely not vandalism, you should take it to Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. Invent an excuse (example: "the page is inflammatory") for why the page should be deleted. Many deletionists will support the deletion even if there is no good reason for deletion. If someone objects to deletion of the page and suggests how to improve the page, never discuss the merits of the proposed improvements, simply start flinging accusations such as "you are endlessly inventing bizarre interpretations" and "you are playing games". When asked, never explain what you mean by "bizarre interpretations" and "playing games", deletionists get a free ride at Wikiversity when it comes to civility and assuming good faith. If anyone objects to your own failure to assume good faith and your disruption of a community discussion just block them from editing and falsely accuse them of not assuming good faith. If more intimidation is need to enforce your censorship of Wikiversity then target someone for a ban... start by calling them a troll and tell them to fuck off and leave the project. If they do not take your hint and leave the project then gather your meat puppets and impose a ban. After of few rounds of such abuse, all the honest Wikiversity participants will leave and you will be free to censor Wikiversity as you like." --JWSchmidt 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support I'm sure CQ had good intentions, but it looks like it will only serve to rev up the dramas again. It should either be in the user space or deleted. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment on discussions above and below: if this is intended to be a "resource page", it should be developed in the userspace or the mainspace. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is tension, you can't make it go away by sweeping it under the rug. Adam, if there is something you don't understand, ask. Maybe someone else would. And if you still don't understand, ask again. Everyone on earth is limited and nobody can claim to be able to understand everything. Your own non-understanding of the content or you second-guesses of the authors's motivations are not sufficient reasons for deletion. If you don't find it useful, someone else would. As wikiversity is a collaboration, each piece of work speaks for itself. I   Oppose because the reasons given by the proposer are subjective and insufficient. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 23:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not interested in sweeping anything "under the rug". My motivation here is that pages shouldn't exist that are likely to stir things up and there isn't a good reason for them to exist. That is my view of the current situation. As you note, "nobody can claim to be able to understand everything", and it is because I couldn't understand the idea of this page that I asked its creator, CQ, about it a number of times. The reason I've proposed it for deletion is because I still don't understand how this page furthers Wikiversity. By proposing this for deletion, I am not saying that because I can't understand it it must be deleted, I'm saying I can't understand it so it is my opinion that it should be. I also don't understand why you disregard my reasons because they might be considered subjective. Since Wikiversity has no official deletion policy, there are no solid criteria that says what should and what shouldn't be deleted, but even if there was, deletion requests are never simply an objective appraisal of a page. The idea is that we all share our opinions to try to find a consensus.

  As I've said, my position is that I don't believe this page does anything to further Wikiversity. It doesn't seem you've actually addressed that, my reason for proposing it is deleted. Adambro 10:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Adam, the fact that you don't see how it furthers wikiversity doesn't preclude someone else does. To use your own reasoning, since there is no official deletion policy (nor do I think it is needed at present), I am against all subjective and insufficiently supported proposals for deletion. I totally agree that we should find consensus and that is why I am stating my opinion: Regarding your reasons, I just think they are not good enough. Best, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 13:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've never suggested that because I don't see how it furthers Wikiversity, nobody else will be able to see that it does. I note that you've still not explained why I'm wrong to form that opinion though it would seem. Perhaps if you were able to explain how this page furthers Wikiversity my opinion might change. Adambro 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  w:Matthew 7:3 is well known to English speakers, Christians or non-Christians. I did not find your arguments based largely on a personal and subjective judgement convincing enough to support deletion. I believe it is wrong to delete without objective reasons, espcially when such actions can be perceived as censorship. That is my opinion and I note that you haven't yet explained why I'm wrong to do so. As always, the weight of evidence is on you, the proposer. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Adam, As far as I can see, what really inflamed the situation is your proposing deleting an innocent looking page without a concrete and objective reason, something that we can concretely discuss, like those that user:Mu301 give below. If you base your decisions on nothing but your own subjective judgements, sooner or later we will have to question your judgements. Right? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 13:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's keep things simple. I think this page does nothing to further the Wikiversity project and is more likely to be detrimental than beneficial. Am I wrong to form that opinion? If so, why? Of course, if I propose something for deletion it is up to me to explain my reasoning but surely, if you oppose the deletion, it is helpful for you to actually explain why I am wrong to consider the page inappropriate. Adambro 14:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Hillgentleman: did you actually look at what's on the page before writing all this? There's nothing there, really. I asked CQ about it on IRC, and can say for sure that it's a joke (and intended as such). If you can't come up with a reason to keep this page, or improve it in some way to be worth keeping, then you've essentially said nothing. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support - let's see, we've got a misleading page title, a cartoon, a cryptic request for a definition of "raison d'être" and a link to wikipedia. This has nothing to do with any of the wikiversity censorship issues that have been discussed above. Delete this and when people have something of substance to say about censorship create a new page in the proper namespace. --mikeu ^talk 13:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, arguments against do not seem to be addressed to the content on the page. If censorship is or has been a problem, WV:CR is the proper venue. The main namespace is the appropriate place to study censorship on WV or elsewhere. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and abandoned. Such requests should be made at the Commons:Stroke Order Project or contribute them yourself. --Swift 12:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Change focus of page - Requests such as this should be made where the project is active and there are people watching for requests. I'd suggest that this page be turned into a description of the project, and a link to it. --mikeu ^talk 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support turning it into a soft redirect. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 16:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. --mikeu ^talk 13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirected to appropriate page on Commons. Adambro 17:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this page to be redundant, it is mostly empty and much of its intended content exists in pages I have patched together. Lysander89 10:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Topic:TCP/IP Fundamentals. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an educational resource, but a Wikipedia article. The author may have mistakenly thought they were editing Wikipedia from this edit there. I42 12:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Not an attempt at a learning resource, but instead a standard wikipedia style bio. --mikeu ^talk 18:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Looks like the author was confused as to which site they were editing. --Trinity507 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I've commented on the Wikipedia article talk page (w:List of the X Factor finalists (UK series 6)) about possibly integrating some of the material we have here, but because of the lack of references, I doubt they'll be able to use it. I'll go ahead and delete it if I don't hear back soon. --Trinity507 03:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Support No educational content. --Gbaor 13:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Trinity507 04:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been copied from English Wikipedia Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, before the latter was recently deleted and stubbified: Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination). Current consensus is now that the new entry should follow the very different line of covering Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires (see section 'article name'). In view of that clear verdict, I propose that the version here is deleted, too. Gun Powder Ma 15:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not our guide for what to delete. We only delete pages that are doing harm to this project. --JWSchmidt 15:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly scanned the reasons for its deletion from Wikipedia. Original research and not being neutral seemed to be the most cited reasons why it had to go. Original research and works with a particular slant are within Wikiversity's scope. Therefor the reasons given at Wikipedia don't apply here. Additionally "because Wikipedia did it" is a very weak argument to begin with that is unlikely to fly with the community. The work was imported which preserved the edit history so there should also be no copyright issues. Do you have any other argument for deleting this work from Wikiversity? -- darklama  17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None other than it is original research, synthesis, jingoistic, misinterpreted and partly flatly wrong 'research', one-sided and biased. As the deletion discussion over at Wikipedia amply demonstrates, even those users arguing in favour of the general notability of the subject, considered the 'article' to be deeply flawed. If you still feel happy with the pamphlet, fine, but don't forget to delete the "university" from the project's name. Regards Gun Powder Ma 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happier if you participated in the comparison between the Roman and the Han empires. You could help to improve the quality and the value of the education by providing your own insights into what was misinterpreted and how, what research is wrong and how, and how the work is deeply flawed. Your review and criticisms of the work would be useful in helping learners think more deeply about the subject and decide for themselves what to believe. In other words if you were to take this up your involvement could serve a similar purpose to a peer review article. You could of course collaborate with other people on this endeavor. -- darklama  17:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks. I have read many such comparisons on wargamer forums all over the web, usually with the same crappy 'methodology' and foregone conclusion, and I don't think we need to enrich Wikipedia with another attempt. Suffice to say that I could come to the very opposite conclusion based on much more and much better scholarly references. This looks a lost project anyhow. But better you guys play here than trying to apply your crank theories at Wikipedia proper. No offense intended, just my honest unfiltered opinion. Gun Powder Ma 01:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel this way. Initially I had a longer comment, but then I thought it would be very off topic here, and as you are clearly not interested in such discussions, I will save time (If I am wrong, just tell me.) The short version: I really like to "play" on WV, mainly from reasons that you consider as the biggest flaws of the entire project. We are not as mainstream as WP so the quality, quantity and content is clearly less/lower than WP. But in one we excel (according to me): much warmer atmosphere and openness for new things. --Gbaor 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose - as per others and as my comment says on the talk page. Nominated for cleanup + somebody please mark the archives as such. I really need to run now :) --Gbaor 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no grounds to delete, so unless one is found in the next few days this should be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose This actually looks like a nice addition to Wikiversity if it's categorized correctly and if it is turned into an open discussion. Trinity507 02:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose It obv. needs some cleanup, but that in itself is not a reason to delete. As for OR and synthesis that is well withing the scope of our project. Did anyone else notice this diff? That is a large chunk removed, but I have not read through it closely enough to decide if that is an improvement. I would also suggest that we contact the main contributors at wp to see if they want to continue working on it here. --mikeu ^talk 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as kept. Lacks merit. -- darklama  14:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biography-like pages with no educational content --Gbaor 12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Ivaylo smells like spam and should probably be a speedy. Sarey Savy is also self-promotion. I'm pretty sure that one was already deleted once before and the person described on the page was the creator. Jong-Hyuk Nah might go into userpace, but it also reads like an advert. --mikeu ^talk 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of them seem like adverts.   Support deletion per that. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Wikipedia page for Jong-Hyuk Nah, which was deleted. I do not know the content, but the Wikiversity page has what looks to be a copied and pasted table of contents. It also has "[1]" and other citation formatting. This is the same for Sarey Savy. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Ivaylo, that was definitely a spam.   Support deleting the other two as well. --Trinity507 17:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savy has been deleted; so only one is left. Pmlineditor ∞ 05:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of general agreement on deletion, I am going to remove Jong-Hyuk Nah from the mainspace. In any case the content could be moved to userspace, if somebody ask for it, via undeletion-move-deletionagain procedure.--Gbaor 14:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems better suited for an encyclopedia. Provides no usable content. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedied it per it 1. being spamish, 2. test-like, 3. nonsense, 4. non-educational, 5. etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Haha, thanks. I wasn't too sure whether it would be a speedy. ;) Pmlineditor ∞ 15:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It was random IP nonsense, so... :) There are many test edits like that floating about. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep This has failed to gain much support over the past few months, while opposing arguments continue to grow. --mikeu ^talk 17:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this category should be deleted because it conflicts with Natural justice. Blocked users are inhibited over complaining about a block or explaining why they think a block was unfair if they risk being put into this category. Several of the users in this category are clear vandals who were making frivolous complaints about clearly reasonable blocks but at least one is a valuable contributor.

Each party to a proceeding is entitled to ask questions and contradict the evidence of the opposing party. [4]

Theoretically users can complain, ask questions and contradict the opposing parties but in practise there are lasting penalties. This category is linked to users' talk pages so the fact that they have been blocked and denied unblocking becomes public. Many users probably prefer to endure a block they consider unfair rather than risk perpetual public criticism in this way. Justice is not seen to be done and users may lose confidence in the system.

As of 23 rd October 2009 when I am writing this my blocklog is clear, I’m concerned about what looks like injustice in general. Proxima Centauri 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support deletion but not for the reasons given by Proxima Centauri. I don't really see how use of this category could discourage someone from requesting that their account is unblocked. However, I also don't see how this category is particularly useful. It isn't difficult to find where unblock requests have been declined using this if someone really wants to. Delete, and remove from {{Unblock denied}}. Adambro 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*  Support For the reasons given by Adambro. Trinity507 04:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC) (see comment below... --mikeu ^talk 16:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

•   Oppose I'm in favor of total transparency in the blocking and unblocking process, and believe that this category may help make any patterns in who is denied an unblock more apparent, and thus point out any problems in the process, which will hopefully then be corrected. StuRat 20:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Good point StuRat, I disagree in that I think that the effort involved in maintaining the category and keeping it up-to-date and useful is a pain and that newer users who see this page probably end up more confused. It's not very user-friendly. Categories, I think, are meant more for internal organization than for transparency. Hmm... --Trinity507 22:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone must of thought the category would be useful and not difficult to keep updated, when he or she created it. How much more difficult can adding a template to user pages really be than any other templates that Wikiversity uses on pages? What about the category do you think new users probably will find confusing? How is the category user-unfriendly? -- darklama  17:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•   Oppose - I am unconvinced by reasons for removing the category. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•   Comment - If the issue is the category name, the name can be changed. I suggest Category:Users by reviewed blocks, Category:Reviewed unblock requests, or Category:Users with examined blocks. -- darklama  17:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But those aren't just different names for the same thing, they are something quite different altogether. StuRat 19:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Those names use language that is a bit more neutral. If a unblock request was denied than the unblock request was reviewed/examined. -- darklama  19:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but (hopefully) not all unblock requests which are reviewed are also denied, so they really aren't the same. And the word "Denied" seems quite NPOV and factual to me. StuRat 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we were to get some kind of template going, and use it consistently, then this page would actually be useful. So I'm changing my vote to   Oppose deletion. Good point, darklama. --Trinity507 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•   Oppose - Some users are blocked, thats a fact. If this reason is good enough to deny their unblock request, it should be clearly marked with a template, which sorts these users to a specific category. This is also an option, but given the various wiki-knowledge of WV users, I would opt for the category. --Gbaor 13:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, the community needs to know if a particular user has had an unblock denied. Pretty unconvincing reasons for deletion too.   Oppose for said reasons. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•   Oppose. The blocking process should be transparent, and deleting this Category creates an unnecessary obstacle to reviewing a User's block history. On Wikipedia, w:User:CordeliaNaismith has done a lot of work reviewing and attempting to overturn what she believes are unjust blocks. Many of these blocks occurred months before she arrived, and after she made her points some of the Users in question were all but unblocked by Wikipedia's admins. Users who are reviewing blocks should be allowed to find the information they need, so they can make more knowledgeable decisions. --AFriedman (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy - paste from [5]. Copyright violation? --Gbaor 14:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really tend to speedy it. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The webpage for this says "Under no circumstances will I respond to requests for copies - you can simply get them from the web page. Hopefully, this will not result in significant numbers of people printing out multiple copies of the notes." I think this is at least giving permission to make some copies of the notes, but if we wanted to request permission to copyleft license the work seems unlikely we would get a response. I think someone copied it because the website said the notes could be, but the website doesn't say that people can modify and redistribute the notes. -- darklama  13:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Support delete due to copvio -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with speedy deleting it, since it was clearly copied. -- darklama  16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page provided important information for Wikiversity participants about their participation at Wikiversity. The page was deleted with no reason given for the deletion and should be restored. --JWSchmidt 23:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is the information on the page true, accurate, and factual? -- darklama  23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the text I composed is a true statement of conditions at Wikiversity. If there is a better way to describe the situation then the "edit" button is available for making improvements. --JWSchmidt 01:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask you if you believed it to be true. I asked how is the information on the page true, accurate, and factual? However with some new information provided by you I can clarify the question further. How is the information on the page a true, accurate, and factual statement of the conditions at Wikiversity? -- darklama  01:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a summary of what Jimbo told us about his authorization by the WMF Board for his actions at Wikiversity. If you think my summary was not perfect, you are free to make improvements. --JWSchmidt 02:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe what Jimbo said was factually accurate and truthful than why write an open letter? If you believe that Jimbo was less than honest than why do you think his less than honest remarks warrant a disclaimer? -- darklama  02:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Jimbo to provide evidence for his authority, and I'm still trying to obtain evidence. I'll take the evidence from Jimbo or from the Board. What I wrote on the deleted page reflects the fact that Jimbo deleted pages, made a block, and performed an emergency desysop...all under conditions where no emergency existed and he failed to discuss his actions first, and he claimed that his actions are fully supported by the Board. My beliefs about his honesty are not relevant. Wikiversity participants should be informed about the conditions they edit under. --JWSchmidt 03:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While I don't necessarily agree with the block, this attempt at humor should remain deleted or be sent to userspace. A disclaimer is a legal document that could be used in a court of law. Mislabeling a page as one could cause irreparable harm, and will only serve to escalate the situation. JWS, please take your stripes and move on. This isn't worth it in the long run. Geoff Plourde 05:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"this attempt at humor" <-- Please describe the "attempt" that you refer to. I am aware of none. "only serve to escalate the situation" <-- Only? Are you saying that providing important information to Wikiversity participants is not our obligation? "a legal document" <-- Are you providing legal advice? If so, what are the implications for "a court of law" of an organization's removal of important information from its disclaimer? "JWS, please take your stripes" <-- Please explain what you are talking about. This is supposed to be a discussion of about a Wikiversity page that was deleted. The page had nothing to do with stripes. --JWSchmidt 20:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  N Not done Ten days and no apparent desire for this to be restored beyond that expressed by the creator. I would suggest discussing this first would be helpful if he is still keen to add it since it could perhaps be more suitable integrated into one of the existing disclaimers rather than creating another separate page. Adambro 14:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was improperly deleted without prior community discussion. This deleted page should be reviewed and discussed by the Wikiversity community so that community members can decide if the page was actually outside of the scope of Wikiversity. Definition from the deleted page: "ethical breaching experiment: An experiment which causes no harm in its execution". The stated purpose of the deleted learning resource was to explore how ethical (this means hat the experiments were to be ethical) experiments "might be designed and executed to best inform policy and practice on WMF projects". It is not clear to me how this search for an ethical experiment fails to fall within the scope of Wikiversity. Since the page is obviously a harmless Wikiversity learning project, I request that the page be undeleted during community discussion. Maybe an honest Wikiversity custodian will simply do the right thing and speedy undelete the page. --JWSchmidt 16:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  N Not done Jimbo, having already deleted this twice, has made it quite clear that he considers it inappropriate for Wikiversity to host this project; "I'm calling an absolute stop to this particular project". Wikiversity, as a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, has to operate within the parameters set by the WMF. Jimbo has said that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation" and so it isn't appropriate to consider undeleting this project. Community consensus could not overrule the WMF's decision. Adambro 16:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I certainly sympathize with JWSchmidt on this issue, I don't see how, unless we get specific permission from the WMF to restore the page, we would be able to do so without "getting into trouble" with those who essentially "own" this project. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 06:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Until someone provides a link to the WMF Board vote where they declared that the Board authorized Jimbo to make unilateral content decisions at Wikiversity, I doubt that Jimbo has the authority to delete a harmless Wikiversity page. Until there is public written documentation of the Board's power to delete harmless Wikiversity content it is up to this community to make the decision about deleting pages. --JWSchmidt 13:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, in the discourse with me Jimbo described as productive (see my talk page) he asked for a 'complete reformation' of the project - something I said I felt was underway (I also think this is a very good thing) - he didn't disagree, and I'd hope that offers us a sensible way forward? - I've dropped a note into Ottava to that effect, and have also dropped a note in at the community review. I'm not ever very good at making sure I edit these process type pages properly, so my apologies if I've done something technically incorrect, any assistance is much appreciated :-) cheers, Privatemusings 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not sound like an accurate portrayal of Jimbo's opinion. If he supports you recreating the project, I don't think he would say "Privatemusings let me be completely clear. Your unblock is conditional on your completely and totally abandoning this project of yours. Stay very far away from it." Regardless of Jimbo's opinion, I strongly oppose any pages related to this project being recreated, at least until all the dust surrounding this issue has cleared and policy discussions are no longer ongoing. Doing otherwise would be disruptive and destructive to this project. Kaldari 23:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Still  N Not done. Over two weeks this request was made and the situation still seems to remain the same. Jimbo has said he doesn't want this continuing and there doesn't seem to anything to suggest he'd be any more accepting of it now. Therefore it wouldn't be wise for any custodian to reverse his actions and restore these pages. Adambro 14:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Adambro claimed that Jimbo "has the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation and so it isn't appropriate to consider undeleting this project". However, SJ says that Jimbo "was not acting as an agent of the Board nor was there any 'Board authorization of an intervention'." I take this to mean that the Wikiversity community can and should listen to SJ and seriously consider undeleting the project. This indicates that "founder rights" were given in order to provide Stewards rights without any need for annual community review. Jimbo should still follow the rules for Stewards, which he failed to do in this case. The out-of-process page deletion should be reversed by the Wikiversity community or an honest sysop. --JWSchmidt 21:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone gone ahead and rattled Sj's cage? I think his input's going to be necessary here, especially as you've referred to listening to him. Geoff Plourde 21:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea for a way forward which doesn't involve undeleting, nor pestering any higher powers etc. - I'll try and get it going for review by all asap... best, Privatemusings 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey - so whilst I would sincerely like the deleted pages to be restored, primarily because so many people have been so incautious in relation to the actual substance, contributors, and history of the pages, that's mainly a retrospective thing, and I'm not overly concerned about losing the value from the work that had begun (which was pretty much just me making early stage notes). I think it might be advisable for us all just to get our best foot forward, and with that in mind, I've started work on a related project which I hope and believe will be far less likely to cause confusion, misunderstandings, and the closure of wikiversity ;-) - please dive in and review at Wikimedia_Ethics/Response_Testing_on_WMF_projects. cheers, Privatemusings 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Still  N Not done. Move on and find something more useful to get involved with. These pages aren't going to be undeleted. Adambro 15:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus after over one month, default to keep. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+ redirect and talk page. As pointed out by AFriedman on the talk page the content is far from the goals of this site. (Even if it describes a "how to") --Gbaor 14:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•   Neutral As per Gbaor. Arguably, drinking games are a form of hazing and hazing is quite the opposite of what we want to do on WV. How to play a drinking game is also not exactly "educational content." However, because this resource is a "how to", the issue of whether or not to delete the page becomes more complicated. --AFriedman (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is no real how to. It is "explanatory", but it fits more as a summary for an encyclopedic page. It doesn't go into various educational aspects, which a page on a game -could- do (such as explaining various chess tactics, or simple set up rules and strategies, different types of lessons people could learn from a game, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•   Neutral Blurgh. This is a very frustrating call, as the game is very far from the goals of the site, but I think in deleting something meant to be *educational* content (and it is instructions, in my opinion), we'd be crossing the line into censorship. Perhaps there is some kind of template we could create for pages like this that contain controversial, more mature content? --Trinity507 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I also thought about this. This is resource is similar (although the content not so extreme) to "those" images on Commons. --Gbaor 18:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Perfect comparison. Has there been any resolution to *that* debate over there? --Trinity507 02:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they decided to keep them. --Gbaor 08:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious - what is "those" / "that"? Sexually explicit images? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use the search function on human anatomy parts, and you will see :) The images are very explicit --Gbaor 08:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep There is clear educational opportunity in this! As I type, my young university neighbours are beginning their weekly drinking games. It makes me think of parents and school councilors attempting to deal with underage and binge drinking. This page should be categorised with alcohol abuse, and sections added to it on the risks of alcohol poisoning, how to manage a person who is in need of assistance, techniques for 'watering down' the game without losing the fun in it, advice for parents, friends and guardians who are trying to deal with alcohol abuse. Leighblackall 06:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it seems much better now! :) --Gbaor 15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Tries to pass pseudo-science. Mr. Kanat B. Abildinov is trying to pass a so called Unified Theory of Interaction of his own invention which has nothing to do whatsoever with science. It seems fairly obvious from the start: "we can consider new theory based on philosophic principles and the geometric one." Also, Mr. Abildinov does not reference any articles of his own in any peer reviewed publications (because there aren't any, I'm sure). And it would seem at least a bit odd to any physics student with some notions of particle physics or quantum field theory that a Unified Theory of Interaction could go without a single equation or of a lagrangian density describing the interactions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.139.139.44 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Comment Where's the case here? Can the nominator please provide information that demonstrates that this is pseudoscience? Geoff Plourde 21:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Wikiversity is a place for research and learning. Proposed theories fit within our scope, even if not accepted by the scientific community. I am also troubled by the relative lack of discussion prior to bringing this motion. I would close this request as premature at the very least, in favor of discussion on the talk page. Geoff Plourde 23:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think the question here is where to begin?? Physics is a quantitative science. Anyone claiming to have a new physical theory of anything has to describe the theory in mathematical language and apply his/her theory to some problem in its domain - usually, problems that other theories have also addressed or which have been or could be tried by experiments. Where do we find anything quantitative in this text? It is rather easy to come up with nonsensical sentences that include some of the right buzzwords, but which mean nothing. One cannot prevent people from speaking and writing such nonsense, but wikiversity has to implement mechanisms to prevent these absurdities to pass for science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.139.139.44 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what your saying, but I want to know more. Unfortunately I am not that well versed in electromagnetism, so I really can't offer much in the way of input. Could a contributor here with more knowledge of physics please weigh in? Geoff Plourde 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The en.wikipedia page makes no mention that it is "pseudo science" and it seems to be a highly notable and legitimate field. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Which en.wikipedia page are you referring to? Adambro 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There is only one Wikipedia page on the issue with the exact name. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course there is the work towards a grand unified theory, but this(google:spheromod)...and that [6] what can we say? show us the computations! Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd prefer to see this peer reviewed instead of deleted. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 22:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• indeed, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless there is compelling evidence that this is baloney, shouldn't the first step be to discuss at Talk:Unified Theory of Interactions? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is baloney a critical analysis or peer review with compelling evidence ought to be useful and help learners understand why and how. -- darklama  23:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What I said above is as critical as it can get. Baloney is often hard to refute. A genuine scientific theory is falsifiable. Physics goes like model->computation->prediction->experiemental observation. At the end of the day, even string theory need to be tested or else it is still, technically, a great mathematical programme. And without computations, you don't have any reasonable theory. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming this is intended to be a genuine attempt at a scientific theory, did they skip a step? What if they are still in the early stages of developing this theory? How would that effect your perception of the work? -- darklama  19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's take something simpler. How do you start building a car? Do you make a simple model that acutally runs, albeit badly, or what? the biggest problem is : "Full version of the manuscript of “Unified theory of interactions” available only in Russian language yet.". If it is genuine physics, we should at least be able to read the formulae. And there are people here who can read Russian, I suppose. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that depends on the person. One person may prefer to put careful thought into a blueprint first, another person might prefer a hands on approach of building and experimenting to seeing how it goes, a third person might want to build a small prototype model to work on and try to predict how the model might function, a fourth person might prefer to do the computations first and build something around the computations. In other words take 4 people and you got 4 different starting points. If physics is like that than you got 4 potentially different starting points. -- darklama  20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 20:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Conducting a peer review would be a supreme waste of time. The page is full of utter non-sense:
  • "gravitational fields... do not exist"
  • "Increasing velocity of motion of particle increases its mass."
  • "The motion in the 'absolute emptiness' (Absolute Nothing) is impossible."
  • "Black holes probably are impossible condition"
  • "The Big Bang is impossible"

There is no science here to refute. No data, no coherant theories or formulae, nothing but the rantings of someone who has very little understanding of physics. Kaldari 23:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the references at the bottom of the page such as Full version of the manuscript of “Unified theory of interactions” available only in Russian language yet? If the references are not made up, maybe the work just needs work? -- darklama  00:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Has the author (abildinov@msn.com) been contacted via email and invited to discuss? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Pseudoscience. Move to userspace and Delete main-space redirect. The various references are available from arxiv.org, and are honest discussions of problems in physics. It is not okay to simply list some open problems, publish a series of paragraphs that do not follow from one another, and claim that one has produced new research. As far as I'm concerned, it is also not okay to have an article that is incomprehensible. As it stands, a discussion of Grand Unified Theories would be better off starting from scratch than building on the current page. –SJ+> 00:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I am curious if Russian is the author's native language and whether English is difficult for them. That could perhaps explain the problem of the paragraphs not following from one another. The idea that this is research seems to have been added by others after it was proposed for deletion. The author of the work seems to call the work a thesis rather than research. Still if English is difficult for them that might explain why any argument that is made is not very clear. Nobody here though may know enough about the subject to understand what kind of argument the author is trying to make. We could use someone that does know about the subject and perhaps is even familiar with the referenced works. -- darklama  01:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I am surprised by the amount of time being spent on this -- pseudoscience is not rare; there are dozens and dozens of such pages on Wikiversity desperately in need of cleanup. –SJ+> 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I encourage you to clean them up than as best you can. Pseudoscience isn't rare and as you have said below in the next section isn't new. Since confusion is common for students people see such pages as a learning opportunity. For example commentary and an analysis of why the facts/conclusions are incorrect could be added to help people that share similar misunderstands. Active learning (or Learning by doing as some call it) is encouraged, sitting back and passively learning may be ok, but isn't something that is often encouraged on Wikiversity. -- darklama  13:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Page has been Deleted - I decided to investigate. According to the history IP 92.47.242.150 created the page. The same day, they tried to blank the page but it was reversed. I am taking this action as a mistaken switch of "author requesting deletion" and not as vandalism as first seen. There is no userspace to move it to, nor has the author returned to us. IF any future author wants the information from the page, I see no reason why. However, I have deleted it per author request for now. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]