User talk:Darklama

From Wikiversity

Contents 1 Making a change to the parent page after the subpage is created 2 replies to your questions 3 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 4 Project incubator

I believe discussions should continue where they started. If you leave messages here, I will reply here, so please watch this page. If I leave messages on your talk page, I usually watch it, so please reply there. If I haven't responded to a discussion elsewhere in a week or so, don't be afraid to remind me.

[edit] Making a change to the parent page after the subpage is created

My forum discussions are monitored using the following code: -

{{#tag:DynamicPageList|
category=<category-name>
order=descending
ordermethod=lastedit
mode=ordered
count = 20
}}

Now, if I use the Auto subpage route, the problem that's created is that the subpage with the replies gets updated and not the more important overall forum thread. This obviously hinders working of the forum as a forum.

Is there a way to make a change on the parent page when a child page is updated? Would subst within noinclude do? What I'm thinking is to substitute the subpage text at the bottom of the parent page, so that everytime the subpage is updated, the parent page is also changed. Now, my question is, does subst work this way? Would my update to the reply (subpage) update the original parent thread as well?

There's a way mentioned on Threaded discussions with NavFrames. Can it work here?

My work right now is very confusing and seriously, I can't wait when the whole thing is operational. It's one small task - just keeping the links at the bottom that is taking so much of thinking. Anyways, I'd be happy when it's all done! Dharav ^talk 07:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

subst is replaced when a page is saved even within noinclude. Tricks to prevent that also mean that subst loses its special meaning. Another subst on the parent page would be required to reparse the text and give the first subst back its special meaning. That would mean the parent page would constantly require a manual update to include an update of the subpage. Threaded discussions with NavFrames seems to be trying to figure out a way to make it work. I don't think it works as expected though. You would still need a way to add a new section to the page while preserving other contents on the page or a way to edit two pages at once in order to make DynamicPageList sort pages correctly and there is no manual way to cause two pages to be edited at once.

I think wiki makes for an ineffective forum system. There are even some forum extensions for mediawiki available, but none work very well. The software just wasn't designed with forums in mind. -- darklama  16:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] replies to your questions

"Can you prove your allegations that two Wikiversity bureaucrats are not competent to close community discussions?" <-- A proof is just an argument that someone will accept. Some people do not care that Wikiversity bureaucrats do things like allow custodian candidates to violate policy by not answering questions about their administrative actions and falsify the results of community discussions; I don't think it is possible to prove to such people that some Wikiversity bureaucrats are not competent to close community discussions.

A 'crat's job on the RFC page is to read the community consensus. Aside from you, no-one else insisted on him answering your questions. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By proof I mean "facts or observations presented in support of an assertion". Arguments "based on opinions formed from feelings or intuition, and not observation or reasoning" are indeed considered acceptable by some people, but not by me. I am not asking you to provide a subjective argument because they can be influenced by "an opinion formed before obtaining adequate evidence, especially as the result of bias or prejudice". I'm not even asking you to argue a thing because you have already spent a lot of time doing that. I'm asking you to show me evidence that backs up your assertions. An Internet meme that I think might capture the essence of what I'm talking about is "pics or it didn't happen".

Can you prove your allegation that custodian candidates are violating policy by not answering questions? Can you prove your allegation that some people do not care that this happens? Pics or it didn't happen. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"What questions have bureaucrats told custodian candidates they do not have to response to?" <-- I've documented this problem at my blog. I think you are well aware of this problem of custodian candidates not answering questions since you have contributed to it.

Darklama is not a 'crat. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not a bureaucrat. I don't expect anyone to answer questions which contain assertions out of the blue without having been previously discussed and established that the person agrees with the assertions. Like I would not expect someone to answer why they think the earth is flat when it has not yet been established that they think the earth is flat. I cannot be "well aware of the problem" when I don't even agree that there is a problem. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you prove your allegations that bureaucrats have routinely told custodian candidates that they do not have to response to questions?" <-- I suppose some people deny this, even though it is obvious and should not need to be documented, so it is not possible to prove this to those who enjoy participating in the practice of allowing custodian candidates to not answer questions about their administrative actions.

You keep asking every candidate if they were "told not to answer questions", and they have all replied "no". If you're not going to believe their replies, why do you ask? --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If your allegations is obvious, you should have no trouble providing proof. Pics or it didn't happen. You have not yet provided the proof for that assertion, but none the less can you prove your assertion that people also "enjoy" participating in this practice? Pics or didn't happen. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"What policies have custodians violated?" <-- for starters... Wikiversity:Custodianship, Wikiversity:Bots, Wikiversity:Civility, Wikiversity:Rollback

Where? --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What specifically was said or done that violated those policies? What specific parts of those policies were violated? Exactly how were those policies violated? Pics or it didn't happen. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you prove your allegations that two bureaucrats have supported policy violating custodian candidates?" <-- Not to some people. Honest people would simply look at the custodian candidates who have been nominated, voted for and allowed by bureaucrats to violate policy.

So everyone besides you is dishonest? --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly would "honest people" be looking at? Can you prove your allegations that bureaucrats have allowed custodian candidates to violate policy? What specific policies have bureaucrats allowed custodian candidates to violate? Pics or it didn't happen. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you point to a specific policy and rule that was violated?" <-- Are you suggesting that since there are no official policies about the importance of advertising community discussions then there is no need to advertise community discussions? I'm sure policy-violating admins enjoy running poorly-advertised rubber-stamping sessions and secret kangaroo courts, but they should be embarrassed to do so.

Community discussions are advertised on the colloquium and/or sitenotice. The whole point is to get the community involved in the community discussion. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't think policies were violated? You previously seemed to be suggesting that people had, which is the bases for my question. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you point to a specific policy and rule that was violated by closuring of discussion before completion?" <-- Are you seriously arguing that since Wikiversity does not have an official policy for this that it makes sense for bureaucrats to tell admin candidates not to answer questions and close discussions before they are complete?

If you want to have more time to talk to a candidate before an RFC closure, you should start early on their talk page. Of course, you've been told that repeatedly. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to be saying that Wikiversity has a policy against closing discussions which is the bases for my question. Are you saying that there is no policy against closing discussions? I pointed out that Wikiversity does have a policy when it comes to custodian candidate discussions which says a decisions is to be reached after 5 days. Are you disagreeing with my assertion that discussions are to be closed after 5 days per policy? I have not seen anything to suggest bureaucrats are telling custodian candidates not to answer questions, so I am definitely not arguing that is what bureaucrats are doing or that it makes sense for bureaucrats to do so. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you prove your allegations that bureaucrats are policy violators?" <-- Not to people who ignore Wikiversity policy.

I guess we can take that as a "no". --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you alleging that everyone is a policy violator? -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you prove your allegations that bureaucrats are trying to stack Wikiversity with policy violators?" <-- My expectation is that an unbiased observer would be able to read the evidence and reach this conclusion. Biased friends of policy violators seem to have a blind spot and I doubt that I can prove anything to them.

So everyone besides you is biased? --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that "anyone who does not reach the same conclusion" is a biased observer? Are you also saying "anyone who does not reach the same conclusion" must be a friend of the people you allege to be policy violators? -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"That sounds like circular logic to me" <-- If someone says "I am not biased" and I say "your biases are clear" then that is not "circular logic", it is just a way of disagreeing with someone who has claimed to not be biased.

That isn't what you said though. You said "I think it is very clear since your biases are very clear". I think that is like saying "I think the house is very red because your house is very red", or in even similar terms "A is B because A is B". Hence why I think its circular logic. I think why you disagree with someone isn't very clear that way. So why do you think Adambro is biased? Can you prove your allegation that Adambro is biased? -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"you should have no trouble demonstrated and providing proof of your allegations so its very clear to everyone" <-- We are talking about humans. People often adopt biases while maintaining the firm belief that they are not biased. In this case, administrators adopt abusive practices at one wiki and then assume they have the right to continue those abuses at another wiki.

So everyone with experience on another wiki shouldn't be trusted? --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone adopted biases while maintaining a firm belief that they are not biased on Wikiversity? If so you can you prove your allegation? Can you prove your allegation that administrators are abusive on other wikis? Can you prove your allegation that these same administrators continue those abuses at other wikis? Can you prove your allegation that these same administrators assume they have a right to continue abuses at another wiki? Pics or it didn't happen. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you prove your allegations that custodian candidates have violated policy?" <-- I cannot prove this to people who ignore Wikiversity policy. However, I have documented the policy violations at my blog and in community discussions of admin candidates.

"Can you prove your allegations that bureaucrats have told custodian candidates to ignore questions?" <-- For starters, look at the discussion of Adambro's admin candidacy. Two bureaucrats came forward to tell the candidate that he need not answer questions. As a related issue, I ask you to think about the implications of your own past deletion of questions.

Might help if you asked your questions in a similar tone that demonstrates AGF. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone tell Adambro not to answer questions. In fact I saw some suggest it would be a good idea to answer some questions. What exactly was said that you think is telling Adambro not to answer questions? Pics or it didn't happen. I doubt you and I see the same implication of my past removals. I removed allegations that I considered to have been made in bad faith in compliance with Wikiversity:Civility which is a Wikiversity policy. If you disagree with my judgment call that is fine, your entitled to your opinion. If you disagree with policy, I suggest you propose changes to policy. I would not of seen a need to remove anything you said if you had taken the initiative to remain civil. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you prove your allegations that any bureaucrat has ran a community discussion that was a sham?" <-- Not to someone who has claimed the right to delete questions from a community discussion.

Nice dodge there. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you alleging that I have claimed a right to delete questions from community discussions? I have never claimed it was a "right". Are you implying that I violated policy? What specific policy did I violate and what exactly did I violate? I think anyone can remove incivility in compliance with Wikiversity:Civility if other avenues have been tried first like is suggested in the policy. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you prove your allegations that falsifying records was SBJ and Adambro's intentions?" <-- A competent bureaucrat would notice that the candidate had not answered all questions and would not have closed the discussion before trying to make sure that the discussion was complete. He could have told me that he was not going to wait for the candidate to answer all questions and given me a chance to state my final evaluation of the candidate. You can ask Adambro about his intentions. Clearly there was not unanimous support for the candidate. His repeated insistence on altering the record to say that there was unanimous support speaks for itself.

Frankly, I thought you weren't voting (I even entertained the thought that you might not be voting out of respect for Juan, whom you once were friends with). --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it anyone's responsibility to notify people that a discussion is going to be closed? How is anyone suppose to know that another person has more to add to a discussion? Do you expect people to read minds? Do you expect people to wait forever just in case someone might have something further to add? -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you prove your assertion that your being responsible and honest about your allegations?" <-- Not to people who feel they have a right to abuse their administrative powers. Standing up to bullies and thugs is a responsibility I take seriously, particularly in the context of a wiki that invites young learners to come and explore their learning goals. If you think I am not honest then I'd like you write some sentences in the form: "It looks like you were not honest when..." and then I can respond to your concerns. --JWSchmidt 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your link descriptions to Adambro's "actions" on the RFC page weren't accurate, which some might see as dishonesty. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove your allegation that people have abused their administrative powers? Can you prove your allegation that people feel they have a right to abuse administrative powers? Can you prove your allegation that people are bullies and thugs?

It looks like you were not honest when you linked to diffs in your discussion of Adambro's "actions" because the link text suggested one thing, but the diff itself showed nothing like it. Like if I told you by following this link on honesty you will find the definition of honesty.

It looks like you were not honest when you asked Adambro to point out what policies he had violated because you had not determined/established first in the discussion that he was aware of any policy violations. You instead asserted that he was aware of policy violations as if it were an established fact as part of your question, which is not being honest. Maybe next time someone should add {{fact}} to your questions/statements to make it clear where your honesty is being questioned. -- darklama  15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

I'm going to undo your edit here; the Act cannot have been passed by the Conservative government since they were kicked out on May 1, 1997. Nor can the Act be said to be working well: vide Northern Rock, Lloyds TSB, HBOS, RBS, the Icelandic banks... --Major Bonkers

Your undo still seems to suggest that the Act was passed by the Conservative government and that it works well, unless the intended meaning was that the previous act in which someone wishes to bring back was passed by the Conservative government and they think that bill worked well. I know nothing about UK law, any opinion was already there, if I appeared to change the meaning of the description it is only due to the possibility of being able to misinterpret its intended meaning. -- darklama  11:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. The situation is this: the previous Conservative government passed the Financial Services Act 1986, which by and large worked well. In 1997 Tony Blair and the Labour party took over the government and in 2000 passed the Financial Services and Markets Act which, inter alia, repealed the previous legislation (ie. the 1986 Act).

The point, therefore, is: the previous legislation worked well; the present legislation is flawed and has failed; the proposal is - repeal existing legislation (2000 Act) and revert to the status quo ante of the 1986 Act. --Major Bonkers 11:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK so if I understand it right the 2000 Act repealed the 1986 Act. By repealing the 2000 Act it is hoped that the 1986 Act can be restored. Reasons for repealing other legislations seem to be more descriptive then that. Is there any specifics that could be used instead? Like how does the 2000 Act effect businesses/households? How would repealing the 2000 Act help businesses/households? -- darklama  12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think what's needed is a more systematic explanation of what these bills are about. Was thinking about it while working, but heat fried my brain a bit... the gist is that each item should have:

1. When the bill was passed, by which party, etc.
2. Why the bill was passed in the first place (i.e., what issue was it aimed to improve)
3. Did the bill address the issue?
4. Did the issue really need to be addressed?
5. Did the bill create or magnify other problems? (as "collateral damage")

More later when my brain has time to cool off... hot here! --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Darklama - quite right. There has been a lot of talk in the UK presss in recent months as to why the 'financial crisis' appeared to come out of nowhere. As I take it that you are American, you might be interested to know that our Prime Minister blames your country for the problems! However, the consensus is that the FSaM Act 2000 had a lot to do with it by splitting responsibility for financial regulation between 3 regulators.

SB_Johnny - I think that your proposals are very sound, however they require a degree of specialised knowledge that is unlikely to exist amongst contributors to these pages. Perhaps what you propose could be left to the 'Debate' page? I find beer, by the way, very efficacious in cooling the brain. If the brain is not cooled sufficiently, it could explode. --Major Bonkers 06:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would specialized knowledge be needed? My guess is that quite a few of the bills might even have Wikipedia articles that would answer some if not al of the questions. I'll try to make an example description and then bring it to the talk page.

The problem is that the project needs to be moving towards an NPOV "learning resource" useful for both the outside observer (like me or like Darklama), for the participants (to strengthen their arguments), and for the "other side" (to understand the arguments). --SB_Johnny ^talk 07:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I expect the reasons why legislation was passed and why people think legislation should be repealed now to be biased. I think accuracy is more important then NPOV with this learning project. I expect like Americans, there are citizens of the UK who don't know or don't understand their country's legislation. I think in this learning project understanding UK legislation is more important for UK citizens then for Americans or others. IOW I think this project should continue to be from a UK perspective. If this learning project was intended to be useful for a broader audience I would expect things like what Parliament is and how does it work to be explained, but I think that is outside the scope of this learning project. I just don't see how things like "We all know it has failed" helps other UK citizens understand the reasoning behind somebody's opinion that a piece of legislation should be repealed, and it also doesn't exactly encourage constructive debate which seems to be the main intention of the learning project. I think constructive debates is key to making this project an active learning project.

I think resources on UK legislation could benefit everyone not just this learning project. If consensus is that other resources could benefit this learning project, a debate subpage could be created for each legislation so people can keep up with the debates easier (which I think is going to eventually be a problem anyways). -- darklama  11:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, a description of what the bill and issue is can be closer to NPOV... the arguments for/against can then run from there. Don't know if you saw it, but having background descriptions like the example page I made is pretty simple to get done, and would help frame the arguments so that they could be made more effectively (either to an outsider or an opponent). --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Project incubator

Please check Wikiversity:Project_incubator for an update on HHF. I have given up on the idea of keeping the links at the bottom. I guess, I want the forums to work just fine, no more. --Dharav ^talk 11:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)