User talk:Ottava Rima

From Wikiversity

Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome!

Hello Ottava Rima, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Signature icon.png in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may


And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --JWSchmidt 07:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

--JWSchmidt 07:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Would you like to make it a project learning resource?

Perhaps User:Ottava Rima/BLP could be moved to Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/BLP, Ottava Rima's investigation? WAS 4.250 12:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind. Ottava Rima 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do incorporate your investigation into the Ethics Project, alongside the parallel one from JWSchmidt. —Moulton 15:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Anything else needed? Ottava Rima 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Now that you have as a baseline your own independent case study, I would be grateful if you would conduct an Umpiric Peer Review of some of the other independent case studies and append your comments and questions to them, with a view toward crafting a consensus view that meets the most stringent tests for scientific and journalistic peer review. —Moulton 17:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Ottava Rima, I just wanted to say thanks for your recent work here in trying to keep things productive and civil. I'm interested in teasing out the meaning of "attack pages" - asking questions like: what is (scholarly) inquiry, and when does it tend towards provocation? Also, have you seen the Learning from conflict and incivility project? Cormaggio talk 14:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can fully appreciate it's difficult to get one's head around the various (often interpersonal) dynamics at play here - but hey, this is Wikimedia. ;-) Any development on such a project would be discussed, or at least announced, on the Colloquium. Cormaggio talk 11:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] custodianship

I would be thrilled if you accept my nomination for custodianship. Please see Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship. --JWSchmidt 01:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to serve Wikiversity as a custodian. Reading list: Wikiversity:Policies and the official and proposed policies, including the research policies located at the Wikiversity hub, Wikiversity:History of Wikiversity and Wikiversity:Approved Wikiversity project proposal. New custodians should become familiar with Category:Wikiversity policy and Category:Wikiversity administration. Please list yourself at Wikiversity:Support staff. During your probationary period, be sure to respond to any questions from the community related to your editing in general and your custodianship in particular (watch at Wikiversity:Probationary custodians). If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Again, thanks for participating at Wikiversity! --JWSchmidt 14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A random mascot

Crystal Clear app gnome.png
Jack-Russell-Terrier.jpg

Woof! My name is Jack(Russell). I am a dog and a Wikiversity mascot. I am pretty new around Wikiversity. Perhaps we can learn together! Tail wag...

[edit] How to be a Wikimedia sysop

Hi - just thought you might be interested in this page and possibly being a participant. It's entirely optional. Sincerely, James Neill. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please update info about yourself on: Wikiversity:Support staff

Thanks and welcome in the team, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 14:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hope (and work) springs eternal

I know, and I knew the block was coming while I was admiring your style and effort. Even indefblocks can be lifted, eventually, but not right now.

He can still edit his user talk page, so he can still do what you've requested on that page for now, then move it elsewhere later when the dust clears. Please don't give up... it will all work out in the end! --SB_Johnny talk 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I will discuss with all parties that I can think of and see if they agree that this is worth it. I would not want to go against the community in this matter. Ottava Rima 19:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, please do continue the good work. :-) Cormaggio talk 20:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

I didn't get a "New Message" box. Why?

Well, I'm not here to participate, so I saw no need for a username.

I wasn't being unkind. I also don't consider it kind when you post trollish comments on WR. It's not nice and amiable. Jonas Rand 68.96.213.118 21:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The types of decorum required is different than that expected in WR, but I do apologize for my unseemly behavior there. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
A modicum of decorum is usually expected everywhere except Encyclopedia Dramatica. I meant Everyking, Kelly Martin, and mostly everyone who disagrees with the Pro-wikipedia POV. 68.96.213.118 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe in a pro-Wikimedia POV. That includes this project. If you are not here to participate, then please make sure to respect the fact that many are. Your comments may hinder our ability to recover. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image

Did you see this? I guess that was where I found the image. --JWSchmidt 02:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Spam Policy

We don't really have one, but it's certainly outside our scope. Personally I'd just welcome the user and voice your concern on his talk, and then if he hasn't contributed actual learning content after a few days just delete the page. This sort of thing is fairly common. --SB_Johnny talk 14:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

Sorry about that. I'm still fairly new here, but not to Wikimedia projects. Made some anon edits on enwiki between 2004-2005, did some in 2006, and had a few odd accounts which I lost the password to (not sockpuppets!). Thanks, AC --Sunstar NW XP 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I should just add, if anyone sees the username SunStar Net on en.wikipedia/wikibooks/quote etc. it is not affiliated with me, and was a hoax account set up by someone who I know. My username comes from my website and it is Sunstar Net with lowercase s. Thanks, AC --Sunstar NW XP 19:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request from Moulton

Please see this edit [1] Dzonatas 03:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Moulton's Comments thread

[edit] Previous Version

Note - the below has been taken off of Moulton's talk page temporarily to promote his continued progress on his exercises. The conversation can be continued, but please keep it to the secondary section so we can differentiate between what was moved over and what is current. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confused.[2] You have "instructed" me to follow Wikiversity:Scholarly ethics. That is not only not policy, it has failed utterly. 6 oppose, 1 support, and 1 neutral. OTOH, you are failing to abide by the actual policy of WV:CIVIL. Your edit summary characterizes me as "antagonistic and adversarial editor" and you continue to edit war on a page which is clearly titled as JWSchmidt's investigation. As JWSchmidt has thanked me for my corrections, your edit warring is merely to keep inacurracies and attacks which are not needed nor wanted and which are against policy in that page. You seem to have trouble telling the difference between your idea of what the rules should be and what the rules actually are. If you check the WV:RULES page, you will save yourself such embarassement in the future. Let me know if I can help. KillerChihuahua 13:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already answered this on your own talk page. All participants in the Ethics Project are obliged to adhere to Scholarly Ethics whilst editing within the confines of the project. These are the terms of engagement established and agreed to by those who initiated the Ethics Project at Wikiversity. —Moulton 13:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I didn't agree to that. KillerChihuahua 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing to the terms of engagement for participants in the Ethics Project is a requirement if you wish to participate in the Ethics Project. If you do not agree to the terms of engagement, then you may not be a participant. Your edits of the content prepared under the byline and signature of others is unauthorized tampering with the scholarly work of others. Each scholar has pledged to respond to scholarly questions about their contribution. If you corrupt their contributions, you disrupt the ethical foundations for scholarly research. —Moulton 16:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that any content on any Wikimedia project, as they are released under GFDL in our wiki systems, are required to be free to be edited by any other user at any other time. Can you please link the consensus accepted approved Wikiversity policy or guideline that supports your position that none may edit others' materials? Do not answer on my talk page. I prefer all conversation in one place at all times for naked transparency. Rootology 16:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Rootology, There are numerous types of content on English Wikipedia which it is inappropriate for users other than the author to edit in place (though the GFDL of course allows you to take the words and adapt them elsewhere): Discussion page comments, RFC summaries, Arbcom evidence and workshop proposals; just to name a few. Those are all "meta-space" stuff and not actual content, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- but the nature of Wikiversity is sufficiently different that, at least to an outsider such as myself, it seems not entirely unreasonable for some projects to be structured such that some of the content has a specific author. Random832 18:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
And I understand that, Random. I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the WV rules on this, for "content", which is why I'm asking if there is a specific policy or guideline that says authors' edits are sacrosanct, for clarification for myself. Rootology 19:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Moulton, You said "unauthorized tampering with the scholarly work of others" but KC has clearly indicated the edits were authorized. Do authors in the academic world not have editors that propose changes to their written material before publishing? Random832 19:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I have not enlisted her to edit the cases which I have prepared under my own byline and signature. She is free to write up her own cases or alternative versions of events, and she is welcome to put questions to me (and other scholars) in accordance with protocols of scholarly peer review. All scholars in the Ethics Project are committed to responding to scholarly questions. Since I am committed to answering questions on what I have written, it is inappropriate for others to alter my report, as that corrupts the process. I cannot defend the content of my research if others are free to tamper with it. —Moulton 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it was a mistake for your report and JWSchmidt's to be combined on a single page. Random832 12:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. JWSchmidt prepared his independent investigation. I then read it and provided my commentary, just as it might appear in old fashioned "transactions" of yesteryear. We do it this way because we don't presume we will come to a single unified account or analysis (especially since parts of my response are reporting personal knowledge or personal experience). —Moulton 00:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
KC, as much as some people would like to claim it is, the "clique" or "cabal" that Moulton and others perceive to exist is not coterminous with the entire membership of the wikiproject. If you would like to propose an alternate name, that would be more productive than insisting on replacing references to it with references to the wikiproject. Moulton, the 9/11 towers imagery is blatantly offensive and I have trouble imagining that you believe that this would be acceptable in a real-world academic context. Random832 12:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I cannot, for so far as I can determine, the only defining factor or parameters for "membership" change according to who is doing the lableing and the context. If there were some defining parameters listed, I might be able to suggest something. KillerChihuahua 17:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The allied editors are not all signatories to the WikiProject on ID. For example, Raul is one of the allied editors who never signed on to the ID Project. And three or four of them have since taken their name off, retired from WP, or simply vanished. The main tool for statistical proof of allied editing is the new WikiStalk tool. The other source of data is the many historical RfC's and RfArs where cliques, tribes, and other alliances may be observed over long periods of time. ArbCom has conclusively voted in a finding of allied editing (see Finding 3E). Such observations date back at least to the Ferrylodge ArbCom case. —Moulton 00:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
At Ottava Rima's request, I grant him permission to move the above thread from this talk page to his, under the proviso that everything already here remain intact, and if anything is subsequently edited after the move, I have the right to alter, amend, or extend my responses accordingly, so as to maintain the illusion and pretense of civil discourse. Moulton 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current conversation

Moulton states he is speaking of "allied editors" who are not all participants in the Intelligent design Wikiproject; then states "cliques, tribes, and other alliances may be observed" - this is simply saying "they hang". That's not a defined group, that's a vague and nebulous association. KillerChihuahua 07:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been extensively addressed elsewhere. See Fear and Loathing in Lost Vagueness. —Gastrin Bombesin 15:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanked page(s) at ethics project

To avoid an edit war, I put a DR on your page: Wikipedia Ethics/BLP, Ottava Rima's investigation. If you wish to immediately keep the content, I suggest to move it to your userspace, and you may remove the DR tag once moved to your userspace. I hope this was fair. Dzonatas 18:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mentoring

Hi Ottava. I think there are plenty of people here who will queue up to be your mentor! Count me in. Have you signed up for How to be a Wikimedia sysop yet? --McCormack 06:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly me. Yes - you have...! --McCormack 06:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If you would be willing, would you want to step up and fill in any gaps in time/commitment that SB Johnny would be unable to cover as a mentor? I wouldn't mind having multiple mentors. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
In practice, mentoring has always been a village job :-). you should always feel free to ask questions from any custodian (or even someone who's just been around for a while). The mentor's role has primarily been to accept the candidate and vouch for them, and then to write the recommendation for full status after the probationary period ends. --SB_Johnny talk 14:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I would be willing to write up a statement for multiple admin to have the right to ask for my status to be revoked, and then also just have one who would write up the above. If you want the job to write up the above, and others to take more responsibility, or whatever, just state. I don't mind any which way. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics

How is the new, leaner, cleaner Ethics project going? anything I can do to help? KillerChihuahua 21:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm in a slump and we are still sorting some things out. I'm still waiting for my FAC to close on Samuel Johnson before I devote a lot of time into something else. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Moulton's didactic character subpages

He has been using these in fake sig lines on Wikiversity and now Wikipedia. I do not think it is fair for Moulton to use Wikiversity pages to make it appear as if he is an unblocked user, especially on other Wikimedia servers in which he is blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He was signing with those names and not linking those names to "Moulton". The point of those pages is so that when he signs with other names, he links to "Moulton". Deleting those pages does not prevent him from signing with other names; it only makes thing worse by then not having a link to "Moulton". If you wish to achieve the goal of Moulton not making comments while blocked, you need a different solution than the proposed one of deleting those pages. In short, while your concern seems valid, the proposed method of dealing with that concern appears poorly thought out. WAS 4.250 14:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions are most welcome. One thought is to blank the page, post a notice that the user account who created the page is blocked, and then protect it. I don't know if that is a course that we wish to take at this time, and I request that others comment. There are a couple of things to think about. One is that Moulton can not edit these pages while logged in as himself, and so the purpose of using the pages to respond to others is moot. He is a blocked user who has abused the right to edit his own talk page while being logged in. That page was protected to prevent personal information from being posted, which has required oversight. Another issue is that he is giving the false impression that he has an active account at wv. --mikeu talk 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
He is a retired Ph.D. in computer related stuff who has money and friends at MIT. He can get around any technical measure this community uses to try to block him, if he puts his mind to it. How much effort do people here really want to use in dealing with this? Some have suggested that WikiMedia needs to have some sort of useage of resources statement that would allow it to sue especially difficult cases. I don't see a solution at all as long as WikiMedia insists on "anyone can edit" combined with blocking/banning based on "consensus" as this does in fact eventually create a game where the only people willing to spend the time reverting blocked users' "contributions" are mostly motivated by the game aspectand the feeling of power. WAS 4.250 15:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Money and friends are not what sustains Moulton. Moulton is sustained by an unquenchable passion as a veteran (if laughably inept) science educator. —Montana Mouse 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Another possible avenue to explore is filing an abuse report with Moulton's ISP. --mikeu talk 13:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would urge this avenue of redress be fully explored. —Caprice 13:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(<---)WAS 4.250, you are 100% correct. However, it is insulting for Moulton to link to Wikiversity "profiles" while going around his block on Wikipedia, like he did here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is only "insulting" if you take seriously claims that WikiMedia sites are capable of blocking/banning intelligent adults with the money to change ISPs and travel to various libraries and such. It can not. It can effectively block children and can ban people who want to play the wiki-game under an established avatar and so will willingly not get around the ban until they are allowed to continue playing the game. Anyone with intelligence and resources is capable of playing the game wearing the robes of the adversary in the wiki-game. I do not wish to play that game as either the adversary who gets his comments deleted because "banned means banned"; nor do I wish to play the role of the banniator going around blocking and deleting banned users contributions. I think Moulton is being childish, but I certainly am not insulted. I suppose he has time to kill and this helps him fill his days. I wish he found cooperation more fun than confrontation. I know I do. WAS 4.250 17:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Moulton is engaged in the traditional practice of Didactic Education. I am curious to discover what (if anything) anyone is learning, and what emotions (if any) are surfacing in the course of the discovery learning process. —Barsoom Tork 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I can quickly and efficiently ban Moulton from this project if it is requested. Salmon of Doubt 18:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think we'd rather have humans pushing the buttons for now :-). --SB_Johnny talk 19:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. You won't get an interesting through-line on the dramaturgy if it's all mindlessly automated. So, as SBJ indicates, Moulton's cast of dramaturgical characters are required to engage with the other fluidic characters, so as to sufficiently elevate the issues above radar sonar to reveal the thrilling conclusion to the Chronicles of Wikia. —Montana Mouse 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If he were contributing constructively, it would be one thing, but, as can seen above, Moulton's alter egos are used primarily for his flat attempts at jokes, making them disruptive. The recent experiences here tell me that Moulton will continually push to see just how much he can get away with. As a result, I suggest the pages be Deleted as a step towards discouraging the behavior. If he continues, the custodians can work on the next step. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I call for a sober scholarly review of the didactic value of Moulton's use of Muppet-like character voices. How well is Moulton employing the venerated methods inspired by the famous pioneers of 20th century education such as Burr Tillstrom, Jim Henson, Shari Lewis, and Fred Rogers?
The use of puppet characters in educational sketches is a time-honored tradition. Burr Tilstrom pioneered it on children's educational television with Kukla, Fran and Ollie, quickly followed by "Buffalo" Bob Smith with Howdy Doody. Shari Lewis, Bob Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo), Fred Rogers, and (especially) Jim Henson used puppetry in a creative and appropriate manner to craft high-quality edutainment aimed at children of the late 20th Century. I expect that some of our academically dry material can be usefully presented through Aesopian sketches populated by such Muppet-like players.
Moulton, the Schmeggegy Scientist has long used well-known character voices like Montana Mouse, Barsoom Tork, Gastrin Bombesin, and myself (among many others) to voice different perspectives in dramatized presentations of fundamental educational ideas.
Caprice the Flying Goat 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Moulton has claimed he's using characters as a sketch/show. However, that's not what he's doing, so that excuse is worthless. He's doing the equivalent of pulling out hand-puppets in board meetings. It might be considered funny once or twice (if there's an obvious purpose), but doing it constantly would be intentionally disruptive (or just nuts). Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to posit theses like that, then you have an ethical obligation to support your thesis with evidence, analysis, and reasoning, and submit your thesis to scholarly peer review, in accordance with the academic principles of scholarly ethics. What evidence do you have to posit the thesis that we are not engaged in an educational discourse among Muppet-like characters arguing in the manner of Bert and Ernie? —Moulton 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No, you're dodging by trying to avoid any responsibility for defending your position. Your characters are being used in an inappropriate context for disruption, not education. I think you know it, too, as you have yet to give one reason for your use of them beyond the "sketch" excuse, which I already showed to be inappropriate. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you admitting that you are not learning anything? If you would disclose to me 1) your personal learning objectives and 2) your preferred learning style and learning orientation, I'll adapt to your special needs as best I can. —Moulton 20:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You're still dodging the issue. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If the issue is your thesis, above, the burden is on you to support your thesis with evidence, reasoning, and analysis. So far you have failed to support your thesis with a shred of evidence or analysis. Hillgentleman already called you out on that once. Pay attention to him, because he is rigorous when it comes to supporting one's theses with evidence, reasoning, and analysis. —Moulton 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I answered Hillgentleman, and you're still dodging. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
His comment (just below) is that your thesis is an opinion and not a fact. You have stated an opinion, unsupported by evidence, reasoning, or analysis. Therefore it has no weight as a scientific thesis. It is merely a flight of fancy. You are entitled to your flights of fancy. If you wish to act on your flights of fancy, you may do that, with the understanding that acting on one's flights of fancy converts a venue like Wikiversity from an authentic academic culture into a post-modern theater of the absurd. It's your choice, whether you wish to convert Wikiversity from a venue of scholarly studies into a post-modern (pre-apocalyptic) theater of the absurd. If that is your preference, then populating the theater with Muppet-like characters makes even more sense than it does when I use them in didactic sketches. —Moulton 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
And you're pretty much back where you started: claiming that you use your characters for didactic sketches, which you don't. When you ask for evidence for something everyone is already aware of, it's just an obvious misdirection technique. I'm not going to go in circles with you, because that's something you seem to enjoy, not me. If and when you have a relevant question or argument, we can pick this up again. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Science doesn't work that way, Sxeptomaniac. Your name implies skepticism. In science, one treats every thesis with healthy skepticism — especially one's one pet theories. And then a diligent and conscientious scientist tries like the devil to disprove his hypothesis. What experiments have you done, per the protocols of the scientific method, to falsify your thesis? —Albatross 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Oh please. Why are you asking others to do what you don't even do yourself? You act on assumptions, then play obtuse when anyone points out why you're wrong. However, please feel free to prove me mistaken. When have you, clearly and openly, admitted to one of your "theses" being wrong? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
See, for example, this recent exercise in Hypothesis Testing, where I pose both the Null Hypothesis and an alternate one:

In particular, I would like to propose a scholarly examination and peer review of the following two scientific hypotheses:

  • H0:Benign AGF (Assume Good Faith) that nothing sinister, nothing unusual, nothing extraordinary has happened here in Wikiversity or in the associated IRC channels.
  • H1:Speculative (and as yet unproven) hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be an immediate consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was inappropriate for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so).
H1 is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis, so I have (elsewhere) proposed a simple experiment to test it. Those here who are systems scientists, can figure out the experimental test without much difficulty. Those here who are actors in a constructed reality soap opera will probably have little or no idea what I'm talking about.

So far, the acknowledged actions of the majority of resident scholars here has reified (rather than refuted) H1. It is still possible for H1 to be falsified, but to the best of my knowledge and awareness, that has not yet happened as of this moment in the remarkable history of Wikiversity.

Moulton 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I then set up a sequence of experiments, trying like the devil to falsify H1. Time and again I created opportunities for the custodians to falsify H1. Alas, every time, they firmly reified it, rather than refuting it. That's how real science is done, Sxeptomaniac.
Moulton 00:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought you'd say. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 01:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep unless he keeps defying the ban, in which case, delete. Emesee 19:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sxeptomaniac, The present problem is that Moulton is using different ip addresses to go around a block, not whether these pages are appropriate. That doing it constantly is disruptive is your opinion and is not a fact. I feel unease at your mention of "board meeting" (which makes me think of power, struggle and formality); for what we have on wikiversity is a Colloquium and what we do in a Colloquium is to talk and to listen to as many voices as possible. Wikiversity is experimental and exploratory and using clearly defined alter-egos to represent different voices is an interesting thing to try, so long as the attribution ("who said what") is clear. It may be funny to you sometimes but, as I have seen it, the point of any humour is not to be funny but to get a message across. Before these pages on wikiversity these characters were on external sites and it was much more difficult to track "who did what" in any discussion. Deleting these pages will not solve your problem; it would only make it worse, for Moulton will continue to go around the block, linking his alter-egos to external sites. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your sober, sane, and insightful commentary, Hillgentleman. I sincerly hope that, going forward, your scholarly example becomes the norm here. —Moulton 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand my point. I never claimed that deleting the pages would magically solve any problems. It's just a step in discouraging disruptive behavior.
Perhaps you've not been to many board meetings for small organizations. I've been to good ones and bad ones. A certain level of formality is absolutely necessary, or all you have is chaos, and nothing ever gets done. Process is necessary (as long as it's balanced with flexibility and not process for the sake of process).
The point of humor is not to be funny? That's got to be one of the saddest things I've heard in a long time. Nevertheless, Moulton has frequently not been making any relevant points to the topic at hand, either. The edit war we have going on now on this page isn't much better, unfortunately. I suggest that only the off-topic material get deleted from this page for now. Encourage him to stay on-topic and discourage disruption. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sxeptomaniac, let us resume our dialogue here. If this one also gets disrupted, we can move it off-wiki. —Moulton 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note - I just wanted to note that I put these up here just so that he won't be using our servers to link to other projects like Wikipedia. I would prefer that other Wikimedia projects know that we are not hosting his content so he can simply link back to it. If some other website hosts his content and he links to it constantly, I'm sure that they could be asked to remove it as it is part of his constant avoiding blocks and possibly harassing. That is all. The community can decide if they agree with my belief or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, take issue with your system of belief. —Caprice 20:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Novel Approach to Feelings: Using Literary Characters to Teach Emotional Intelligence

From Edutopia, published by the George Lucas Educational Foundation...

“ A Novel Approach to Feelings: Using Literary Characters to Teach Emotional Intelligence

When it comes to learning real-life lessons, fictional characters offer a strategy all their own.

By Traci Vogel

"I've picked you to accompany me on the greatest adventure of our mutual lives," the character Claudia tells her younger brother Jamie in E.L. Konigsburg's Newbery Medal-winning young-adult novel, From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler. The adventure Claudia is referring to is running away from home to take up residence at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but the invitation addresses young readers as well. Reading is an adventure, full of discoveries: new lands, new words, and new emotions.

That last subject, emotions, hasn't traditionally been addressed in language arts curricula. But in the past decade, spurred on by growing scholarly evidence of the impact social-and-emotional-learning (SEL) initiatives can have on classroom productivity and academic performance, teachers have begun to weave such lessons into their literature segments. Books like From the Mixed-Up Files provide a starting point for discussions about community building, handling anger, listening, assertiveness, cooperation, mediation, celebrating differences, and countering bias.

--More at the link--

 ”

Moulton's use of didactic characters to enhance discussions about community building, fairness, conflict resolution, and related topics in Emotional Intelligence is all part of the mix of modern educational thinking. —Montana Mouse 20:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're making up excuses after-the-fact, Moulton. The article describes a specific lesson plan, in which characters from a story are discussed separately from the reading. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you've been doing. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
See below. —Montana Mouse 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stage Craft: Taking Cues from Theater Class to Help Make Math and Science Fun

More from Edutopia, published by the George Lucas Educational Foundation...

“ Stage Craft: Taking Cues from Theater Class to Help Make Math and Science Fun

Why can't a classroom have the passion of drama or sports?

By Carl Engvall

I recently had a chance to read an article by Herb Childress called "Seventeen Reasons Why Football Is Better Than High School." The ethnographer spent a year observing students in a high school, noting the contrast between their boredom and discontent in the classroom and their joy and success on the playing field. Quite a few of the reasons he lists resonated with me as a high school teacher and drama director.

--More at the link--

 ”

I'm not making this up, Sxeptomaniac. I've been a member of the George Lucas Educational Foundation since its inception. I've long worked with other GLEF pioneers like Bonnie Bracey. —Moulton 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So what? Does founding the organization make George Lucas an expert on education, too? If you're going to pretend authority, you should pick at least pick an example that demonstrates some level of expertise. You didn't.
Not to mention, this article doesn't describe the kind of thing you've been doing any more than the last one. It describes a structured lesson plan, and structure is the opposite of your actions. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 05:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
GLEF has funded some of the most innovative professionals in education. But the use of didactic characters isn't all that new. It goes all the way back to Aesop. —Moulton 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I see one fundamental problem with your approach, Moulton: You're not the teacher teaching the students. We are all peers discussing an important issue to the community. It may be perfectly appropriate to use "puppets" to teach in a classroom setting (or even the Wikiversity equivalent), but it strikes me as terribly condescending to use a similar tack with one's peers. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we are all co-equal learners here, each working at our own idiosyncratic frontiers of discovery learning. By the way, all the characters in the Muppet Factory are my own peers as well. I learn as much from them as they learn from me, since we are all learning together, each of us at our respective frontiers. —Moulton 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this OK

Before this goes any further: Is the above an acceptable use of your talk page, Ottava? I haven't seen an indication that you're OK with this. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I rarely read my talk page and I don't pay attention. I noticed your tag in the recent edits and it seemed like you need an answer so - sure, whatever. I'm not paying attention. Feel free to do what you want. :) I'm not going to bother reading anything unless it appears to be something urgent that I can go out and do. You can contact me directly if you need me. My email is always available. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ping

ping --mikeu talk 05:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] km's "Bill of rights" to "Bill of Rights"

Thanks for the suggestion. Can you please do that for me? km

[edit] You're up :-)

I assume you'll accept? Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship#Nominations_for_Full_Custodianship. --SB_Johnny talk 14:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! You are now a permanent custodian. Don't forget to update WV:STAFF. --mikeu talk 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Now if only my computer worked so I could get back to helping out. Its hard trying to use a tiny device to do everything while losing signal. I need my computer. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

You're just asking to get banned, aren't you? Please stop, it is not helpful in discussion, and is merely an obstacle to critical analysis. I wouldn't assume that you are being serious there, and it seems like "Look, I'm trolling WR, isn't it cute?" Well, it's not, and you should either be helpful and contribute to the forum's goal, or just not post. I thought you promised to cut it out, unless you do not interpret "apology" as a promise to stop, or you did not understand what I meant by "trolling". 68.96.213.118 07:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You can disagree with what I say at WR review all you want, but it doesn't matter to me. It is obvious to people who look at WR that the moderators there are everything they claim that the admin at Wikipedia are, and possibly far worse. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with many of the things that GlassBeadGame says, Herschelkrustofsky's rules about children, and some of the censorship that Somey, Gomi, etc. take part in, but other than that, they're pretty rational most of the time. More than the average Wikipedia admin...

Anyway, I don't think you are being serious with what you say, as every moderator at WR is not the same as the other. For instance GlassBeadGame, IIRC, had some conflicts with Gomi over whether Gomi should be moving arguments that s/he considered off-topic to new threads in the Tar Pit (correct me if I'm wrong, GBG). Being critical of Wikipedia is not something that is evil, and you are surely making it out to be. You bring up neutrality, but I really don't think that being blindly faithful to Wikimedia is neutral, nor do I consider it critical thinking. There are some good things about Wikipedia, such as that you can use it for quick reference (as I do) and that it is handy, but many people who run it are incompetent, and they are given a large amount of autonomy and freedom to treat other users however they want. There are so many other things wrong with Wikipedia. But being one-sided and neutral are incompatible, and IMO, so are neutrality and almost everything else. Being blindly faithful to anything is bad, and I'm not afraid to say that that is my opinion, and has no basis in fact (or whatever certain people twist it to be). 68.96.213.118 04:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You can doubt my serious all you want. If you want to say that I am making disagreement against Wikipedia out to be evil, and that those admin are rational, please explain that (for example), when I state how consensus operates, I was accused of supporting mass murder. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedic manipulation of the word "consensus" is what Somey was referring to. The way Wikipedia is run, which is far from unanimity, mutualism, or agreeability, is like this: a number of high-powered users agree on something. Whether some did not wish to participate in the discussion, where what the powerful ones say goes, is irrelevant. If the powerful agree to make a proposal policy, no matter how large or small the ratio of dissidents to proponents, it is therefore made law. If some disagree, things are not negotiated, but instead people try to persuade the dissidents to bow down, "put up or shut up", to what the powerful say. If some disagree after the law is "agreed" upon, if that is what you want to call it, then it is their fault for having opinions of their own. From what I see, this is what Somey was trying to say, and you missed the point by focusing on his usage of "mass murder" as an example. The reason he probably used the term "mass murder" is because there is no choice to reverse something like that, and because some decisions are quite harmful. I thought you were not being serious because you did not seem to understand this comparison, which was not comparing the effects of mass murder to the effects of the Wikipedia process, but saying that the process can be, and is, fatal. I also doubted your seriousness as you never refuted claims that you were not serious, and my views haven't changed a bit. 68.96.213.118 06:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
"The Wikipedic manipulation of the word "consensus" is what Somey was referring to." I'm sorry, but there is no way to defend Somey's comparison of consensus to mass murder. Your continuation of such an argument is ridiculous to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] size matters

"When you go over a certain length, it makes it harder for people to keep up with what you are saying, and gives others the impression that you don't necessarily want to discuss, but just be heard." <-- I'm sensitive to this problem and I have similar feelings about this. There seems to be an interesting double standard at Wikiversity. If you are baninator-in-chief then you can do anything you like and never have to answer even the most basic question: on what authority did you impose that ban? If you are a member of the Ruling Party then you get a free ride for blocks and do not have to explain why you imposed a bad block. If you are a Probationary Member of the Ruling Party then other Party members will spring into action if someone starts asking you "too many questions". Things are so different for non-Party members. In my case, I've had a full measure of false and distorted charges thrown at me, but I've accepted the obligation of answering every one of those bogus charges, even though it is a sickening process that drains my precious wiki time. As soon as I started responding to this the Party Prosecutor sprang into action and tried to prevent me from responding to the false and distorted charges he had made against me. I had to move my responses to another page. Before I hardly got started answering the flood of false and distorted charges I was blocked from editing and prevented from responding at all. The false and distorted charges were then used to "justify" removing my custodianship. I was banned from #wikiversity-en with no warning, no discussion and reason given. It appears that you are perfectly happy with all that sickening abuse of power by the Party, but you need to complain to me that I give the impression that I "just want to be heard". We certainly do not want that at Wikiversity, do we: let people who are blocked and banned by the Party be heard? No, we cannot have that. "the sizes of some of your entries" <-- please explain what you mean by "some of your entries". Do you really mean "all of your entries that go over 10 sentences"? Is this another of the unwritten rules of Wikiversity that the Party will some day enshrine in Wikiversity:Censorship Policy: "non-Party members must limit their entries to 10 sentences"? OMG! Did I just go over 10 sentences? --JWSchmidt 15:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"too long, didn't read" <-- Thanks for your advice. I think this is one of the major problems at Wikiversity....we have busy 'crats who cannot keep up with what is going on so their solution is to delete, block, ban, intimidate and censor. It is a pathetic response from people who are supposed to be defending Wikiversity as a center of learning and scholarship. Just join the Ruling Party then you can eliminate anyone and anything that bothers you and you do not have to account for your actions. It is really such a time-saver for the busy 'crat. "help your audience" <-- the problem is that "my audience" is just those people who do not want to listen to me and do not want to have their judgment and actions questioned. I really feel I have nothing to lose by asking my questions...I know from many long weeks of experience that the Ruling Party has no intention of listening to me...they will not even let me participate in #wikiversity-en. When I get "uppity" I am just told to fuck off. It is really a matter of personal honor. I feel honor-bound to try to defend the Wikiversity project, even if the Ruling Party has the power to prevent me from being successful. --JWSchmidt 16:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
"I wish you would stop stereotyping or lumping people together." <-- What do you mean by "stereotyping"? I have describe and discussed the fact that a team of custodians has worked together, off wiki and in secret, to compile false charges against me and then publish those false charges on wiki in an attempt to "justify" blocking, banning and de-sysoping me. Sometimes I find it convenient to refer to this team as the "Ruling Party". Maybe you can suggest an alternative name. I feel that "Ruling Party" is a reasonable short description...I note that some Wikiversity participants are even stepping forward to proudly participate under the label of "ruling party member", so I am not the only one who finds this useful terminology. I have not lumped this team together, they formed their team and they continue to work as a team. I'm just observing and commenting on their activity...just my little learning project. Maybe I'll be able to move beyond the data collection stage and start Wikiversity:Ruling party. "I don't rule" <-- some philosophers have made what I feel are interesting observations about people who, even just by remaining silent in the face of injustice, allow injustices to continue. I admit that I have myself often looked the other way when I have seen wiki ugliness. We all have to decide when we will look the other way and when we will make an effort to defend our principles. --JWSchmidt 15:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I'm just stopping in to let you know I do still plan to contribute here; my time and attention has been taken by other things. Hoping all is going well here - KillerChihuahua 23:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats good news! I'm in the same boat. All of my free time at the end of the year is hastily building Milton pages for his 400th on Tuesday! Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reading groups

Hi Ottava,

Just contact me if you start a reading group.--Daanschr 09:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I'm here

Where/What was it that you wanted help with?Balloonman 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now, we have a learning project devoted to Wikipedia. Before, we have had various ethics projects and loose forums/discussions on many issues. Primarily, we deal with philosophy, proper conduct, and other important aspects. In conjunction, we have How to be a Wikimedia sysop. I believe that a strong, organized course of "studies" should be created based on experience working with those on Wikipedia that deal not only with understanding policies and guidelines, but in the application of such things. There should be an individual set up for each of the various administrative activities (deletions, images, blocking, etc). Mostly, it will involve ethics and application. It would be similar to what you and those like JulianColton perform now. Wikiversity is dedicated to teaching, and it offers various resources that Wikipedia cannot. It can also allow people to get hands on training as a sysop (after an agreement that deals with trust, background knowledge, and basic community approval), which Wikipedia cannot. Right now, too many people think that "common sense" or "anyone can do it" applies to RfA, which is why we have hundreds of admin who cause serious problems. Not only would source a program help create better candidates, but better users in general. Even if people don't become an administrator on any project, they know policies and guidelines in a way that mere base exposure cannot accomplish. Eventually, this can be expanded into understanding consensus, when to close and how to close, and other activities that are similar to what Bureaucrats or higher accomplish. In general, its to better educate through common experience all people, including those who already have admin status. It would also allow people who aren't admin (or who feel that they cannot ever be admin) to work on various issues and get an understanding of what adminship is in order to promote a greater understanding all around. Obviously, someone like Malleus would be able to get exposure in an area that he is locked out of so he no longer feels isolated, has a better sense of what is happening, and can more easily deal with issues when they arise.
But why did I ask you? Because you have worked in similar areas before and because Wikiversity was dealing with similar projects until they fell apart during a controversy that erupted during the end of last summer. Such a Wikiversity project would help bond Wikiversity and Wikipedia, along with the other projects and help educated people. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
They didn't "fall apart". The ethically challenged goons of IDCab destroyed them. —Barry Kort 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Moulton, as I explained to you constantly - 1. Their actions do not justify your own breaking of policies. 2. Using personal information in the way you do is completely unacceptable. 3. You were given a chance to prove your understanding of policies and guidelines, to talk about ethics in a neutral manner, and to demonstrate that you can fit in here without constantly personally attacking others and you chose to start a fight with other users. This three points are what ruined the previous attempt. I closed down that project because you broke your contract with me. Nothing more, nothing less. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The behavior of the goons of IDCab violated every precept of scholarly ethics. There is no excuse for their outrageous, unseemly, unscholarly, and unprofessional conduct. —Barry Kort 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
As I stated before, degradation of the human condition is not a justification nor an excuse to defy standards and act in an inappropriate manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The only standards that were violated were the standards of scholarly ethics, which Jimbo and his goon squad from IDCab unceremoniously pitched aside. —Barry Kort 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"Scholarly ethics" according to...? There is no such thing. Few "scholars" are ethical and seek to destroy each other through cabals. All of scholarship has become what Adam Smith feared and warned about. There is no ethics within the system, only exclusionary rules to get rid of free speech and thought promoted by those with agendas. Thus, your premise is flawed and inaccurate. However, there is a community agreed set of procedures that involve proper decorum and treating others, and your personal attacks and use of real life identities violates these in a manner that makes you unfit to be allowed to participate. You were given the opportunity to correct this behavior and you refused. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Course in Applied Ethics expressly adopted the Wikiversity Policy on Scholarly Ethics. All participants in the Course on Applied Ethics were obliged to adhere to the Wikiversity Policy on Scholarly Ethics. —Barry Kort 00:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait, did you honestly just use -wikiversity- to as a basis for ethics? And yet you choose to ignore other wikiversity requirements such as treating people with respect? Selectively choosing aspects to agree with while disregarding others is directly contrary to the scientific method. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I was expressly invited here (by SBJ) to build a Course on Applied Ethics in these pages. I was expressed asked (by Hillgentleman) to provide actual cases studies of Ethical Conundrums from experiences at Wikipedia. The examples I provided detailed egregious cases where Wikipedia admins (led by the now disgraced FeloniousMonk) had treated hundreds of scholars with profound contempt and disrespect. —Barry Kort 11:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Outdent - An invitation is not a license to do whatever you wish. Instead, an invitiation requires more respect to one's host. You disrespected people who are part of this community and you still continue to use their real identities, personally attack them, and other such abuses without remorse. You were given the chance to move on, to show that you can deal with things neutrally, and be willing to start afresh. You declined. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not "do what I wished." I did what I was asked to do. I was asked to construct an academic module on the Foundations of Ethics. I did that. For reasons unbeknownst to me, the Fahrenheit 451 Book-Burners summarily baleeted it. I was asked (primarily by Hillgentleman) to provide some authentic examples of real ethical conundrums from Wikipedia. I did that (as did PrivateMusings and Dzonatas). JWSchmidt constructed an independent scholarly review of these cases. That's what I was asked to do (by the senior leadership here) and that's what I did. And then I invited others to review, comment, and critique those cases, per the precepts of scholarly ethics. —Barry Kort 10:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please link where someone explicitly told you that attacking others, using their personal information, and doing things in which administrators asked you to stop was appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Mu. It was the other way around. Hillgentleman, for example, asked Jimbo to explain why he deemed my contributions inappropriate. Jimbo failed to respond. Then Jimbo deleted the page with the unanswered questions. —Barry Kort 18:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't care what Jimbo says or do. -I- gave you explicit criteria. -I- gave you ample warning. -I- gave you unheeded advice. -I- terminated the project for you to prove that you should be unblocked across all Wikimedia projects Moulton. You showed yourself unacceptable to be brought back. You chose to continue a pattern of behavior that cannot be tolerated. You can admit it, recognize it, apologize for it, and move on. If you do so, then you can show that you deserve to come back. Otherwise, right now you are not accomplishing anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but I am not your obedient servant. Barry Kort 00:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I never asked you to serve me. You asked me for advice. I showed you the steps and procedures to get your end results. I worked hard to carve you out a path. You chose not to follow it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I have never asked you for advice. Why would I, a 64-yr old semi-retired researcher in 20th Century Systems Theory seek advice from an erratic and unseasoned 25-yr old grad student specializing in 19th Century English Literature? You proposed a discussion on Applied Ethics, which I agreed to. Then you pulled the rug out from under me, thereby demonstrating your own epic failure with regard to the fundamental principles of scholarly ethics. Even as you clambered aboard the Jimbonic Jackboot Juggernaut as it ambled on down the Puerile Pogrom Parade, the scholarly content which you and others in the Evil Censorship Cabal were gleefully baleeting here was simultaneously being highlighted and featured on the Front Page of Google Knol. —Barry Kort 12:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Unindent - so, if you didn't want advice, why did you talk to me so many times about various problems you were having? Because you wanted to use me as some kind of errand boy to do your bidding? If so, that didn't seem to do you any good, now did it? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm an educator. I routinely dialogue with those who exhibit at least some interest in learning and thinking about issues and subjects of mutual interest. I'm interested in your personal sense of ethics, values, and methods of ethical reasoning and analysis. —Barry Kort 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If you seek to dialogue, you will have to adjust your ways. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there!

Hey there Ottava. - Until It Sleeps 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How to use R

FYI, I've restored this page due to: (1) the significant number of incoming links; (2) I think the speedy delete proposal needs discussion - there is in theory no problem with content on both WV and WB. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just keep any discussion about it on Pre-Statistics Topics in Math, Introduction to Computing with R instead? It doesn't seem like we need the page when we can merely use the WikiBooks with the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there could be discussion there or elsewhere. But there were also several links to that page - feel free to tidy/improve. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima"