User talk:SB Johnny/Archive

From Wikiversity

Your "warning"

I'm simply doing what you as an admin should be doing, Johnny. Moulton has been adding links to sites that attack and out Wikipedians in order to harass them. If you would do your job I would have to. Shame on you for enabling harassers and troublemakers like Moulton. Shame. You owe all of us an apology for helping Moulton harass us by obstructionary notes just like this one. Centaur of attention 18:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Centaur, if you feel that an admin should have been doing this, why did you not take it to Wikiversity:Request custodian action‎ and allow an admin to do this? We do not allow for things to happen arbitrarily or unilaterally, but seek imput from everyone before making such sweeping changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Centaur of attention! Just a short comment on your comment... You blame Moulton for attacking people, and you are doing perfectly the same... (With your "Shame on you..." speech). So please take a deep breath, and proceed further from this unfortunate case. Do what needs to be done, and that's it. Really... I just want the best for you (us). And don't blame somebody for his good will and effort to help. --Gbaor 04:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

Johnny, Please cite reasons and prior warnings for your blocking of John Schmidt, as it is customarily done. Thanks. --Hillgentleman|Talk 22:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It would be proper and appropriate for you to leave a message on his talk page on this matter, even if you might have done it via other off-wiki channels. And I am puzzled by the lack of time limit of the block; for even if someone is very upset about you, he would not be angry forever. As we may agree, this is a sensitive case, and care, sensitivity, friendliness and tact in the small details go a long way. Have a good day. --Hillgentleman|Talk 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

gotta be doing something right :-)

G'day SB - in taking a look at current goings on, seems to me you're copping 'flack' from several quarters - so you've got to be doing something right! :-) - I say this with a smile, and the strong faith that you're navigating choppy waters in the way you think is best... we'll all get there by hook or by crook in due course :-) Privatemusings 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)now go engage on JW's talk page! ;-)

Interesting observation. Is it customary for Quakers to ask their friends to identify their own mistakes and solve their own problems instead of telling them the answer right away? Hillgentleman|Talk 01:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really a quaker thing, but in general one should try to ascertain whether the other person is aware that a problem is really there before you can address it. Interesting question though... we do believe that the purest essence of human nature is love, and that every human can hear the voice of that if they listen carefully. Actually, the Eastern State Penitentiary was originally designed from Quaker principles, so I suppose there is a historical reference for your thinking. I'll try to anwser better after a bit more thought. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Johnny, I have read some of the interesting recent discussions between you an John Schmidt. As I know you as thoughtful, does this comment[1] constitute a straw man, or is it a genuine question? And then does his prior comment "In wikis, new decisions are always being made about what content should be on which page. I'm willing to be guided by consensus on content decisions." and his elaboration provide a substantial answer? As I see, the question is complex and a simple "yes" or "no" wouldn't suffice. Hillgentleman|Talk 17:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by straw man... it's a direct and simple question. Are you aware of what he did on that page (and a number of related ones, including the edit comments)? The yes or no was part of a different question, where I was just trying to understand if he knew his actions were hurtful to some other contributors. I'm honestly not clear on that, and I'm not clear on whether he plans to do similar things in the future. I'm sorry if it looks mind-gamish, but I really am asking questions because I want to know the answers, and I want to know the answers because I think it's important to know his thoughts, opinions, and intentions. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vinca minor

Hi Johnny,

Wow! You found some Vinca minor in bloom this late in the year. I only know where to find one patch, and it quit blooming back in May. Maybe yours is cultivated?

Also, since you've found some Myosotis, I guess I'll visit the only place I know to find that and see if it's still in bloom. It's right along the banks of the Merrimack River, and I quit going there in July because it was flooded. --Jomegat 13:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, last year I logged V. minor in December! It's not the full flush you see in spring, but they definitely produce blooms sporadically throughout much of the year, which I hadn't really paid much attention to before the bloom clock. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser note

Cary may have already told you, but if not, just a note that your checkuser flag has been withdrawn as you were the only checkuser left here after JWSchmidt lost his flags last week. Current checkuser policy requires a minimum of two per project. Stifle 14:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

PM

I was going to send an e-mail and then decided to post this instead. Wikiversity can be said to be isolated from the rest of WMF, but it certainly doesn't make it disqualified from the rest of the WMF projects as a sample. Many estimated tests form some sort consensus based on subsample of the population. One thing we can learn from Wikiversity based on such a subsample is that WMF has either lost sight or has lost control of its wikis for intended purpose. It appears to be more of the former when those with bits beyond a regular account start to argue, either directly or indirectly, that they have the appropriate authority to initiate or display information that they feel regular users without bits should not initiate or display. Since when did the bits to have tools equal appropriate authority to edit the wiki, as that would immediately prove "anybody can edit" or "any reasonable person can edit" both as false. Somewhere along the way with wikis and the flock of the population to use them someone invented the need to segregate the community with the words "appropriate authority." I'll give an example here, but I'm sure no matter how nice I try to say it that someone will get offended just because of the rationale and not because of how I said it. That rationale is found a comparison: between a) how the moratorium on the ethics project went in effect to not discuss living people, and b) the immediately initiation to review a member of the conduct of a Wikiversitarian. The only rationale given was "appropriate authority." The discussion of living people in (a) is being stopped but it is still being continue in (b). Perhaps, the way the ethics project was presented that some are blind to this fact. There is an obvious view that some feel a need to discuss (b), and we can say that need is the same before the moratorium in (a) with the ethics project. It's all about behavior, but the only thing being learned is segregation. I've never really taken a side here, and I feel like I got bitten no matter what I try. I believe there are many people being hurt by the MediaWiki platform as it exists, as it just doesn't have enough civil tools. If there were well implemented civil tools, there would be no need for anybody to claim "appropriate authority." The side I take is one against the technology itself and not against the users because for the last 30 odd years I've learned something about software, and that is people tend to conveniently leave out the software aspect and directly blame each other. I don't know why it is so hard for people stop, think, and try to improve the software someway then attack each other. MediaWiki is a social platform that lacks much needed automated civility. Sorry for this wall of text. I'm quite depressed from what happened to me on Wikipedia, and I look back and see how much of that could be avoided if civil options were available. Without the options, it's ugly cutthroat. Damage is done. I lost hope. Dzonatas 21:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dzonatas, I can see you're upset about something, but I honestly am not sure what you're trying to tell me :-(. Is there something I can help you with? --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

“ One thing we can learn from Wikiversity based on such a subsample is that WMF has either lost sight or has lost control of its wikis for intended purpose. ”

I agree with Dzonatas that WMF has lost sight of its mission and vision.

“ That rationale is found a comparison: between a) how the moratorium on the ethics project went in effect to not discuss living people, and b) the immediately initiation to review a member of the conduct of a Wikiversitarian. The only rationale given was "appropriate authority." The discussion of living people in (a) is being stopped but it is still being continue in (b). Perhaps, the way the ethics project was presented that some are blind to this fact. ”

Dzonatas is exactly right. The hypocrisy is both transparent and shameful. Whatever the policies are, they apply equally to both sides of the chessboard. It is not a sustainable practices to have a double standard. Nor is it a sustainable practice to have Bills of Attainder. Those practices are utterly corrosive of a scholarly culture, and drive away serious scholars, leaving the site to costumed characters in a masquerade ball.

And if I'm wrong about that, then here I am pretending to be a cyberspace journalist while wearing a silly mouse costume, myself.

Montana Mouse 01:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(<---)SB Johnny, I find Dzonatas's words to be clear, poignant, and valid. Please help us out here. Which statements do you not understand? WAS 4.250 14:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton, at Wikipedia Review you have expressed the view that you are right to continue disrupting WikiVersity. Don't. Behave yourself. Do not act in a way that you know will get you blocked. That is just stupid. Don't be stupid. You are not in meat-space jail, so I know you don't tease law officials the way you tease WikiMedia officials. WikiMedia officials have not only the right but the responsibility to put your avatar in wiki-jail if you are deliberately disruptive. Be w:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who said "I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and sympathy. For what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on oneself.", not w:Abbie Hoffman whose political theatrics came across as self-serving clowning. WAS 4.250 14:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says Moulton is disrupting Wikiversity? It occurs to me that Moulton is seeking to remediate the clownish disruption which occurred when a posse of non-resident hooligans came galumphing into Wikiversity (burbling as they came) and unceremoniously disrupted the studies underway in these hallowed halls of higher learning. —Montana Mouse 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton, it was deliberately unproductively disruptive for you to use people's real life names at Wikiversity when that information was already available at linked sites. There is a sensitivity to the use of real names here and you need to respect other people's sensitivities even if you disagree with those sensitivities. Example: I learned that some blacks take offense at white people using the words "negro" or "niggardly" even when they call their friends "nigger". It makes no sense to me, but I respect their irrational sensitivities because I respect their right to be a flawed human just like I am a flawed human. Give others the space to be imperfect just like we give you the space to be imperfect. WAS 4.250 17:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this, Dzonatas's - though I disagree with the use of "appropriate authority" as a justification for authoritative actions. The actions that you're referring to - ie by Jimbo/bureaucrats - were not justified by any claim of "appropriate authority", but rather by a sense of obligation to intervene when Wikiversity/Wikimedia principles were being compromised. I'm the first to acknowledge that these actions are problematic - but I absolutely do not think they make any claim to authority, as they are still subject to community discussion. They are an intervention attempting to preserve Wikiversity's mission - however flawed they might be, and however blunt the tools are (as you rightly point out). However, your point - that the study of people's behaviour was prevented in the ethics project, while utilised in the review process - is unfair. There is clearly a need for a clear process to review community members' behaviour in order to determine what is acceptable/unacceptable practice within this community - akin to an RfC; can I take it you agree with that point? The problem - that we still need to discuss and resolve as a community - is in determining what are acceptable processes for assessing practices; and whether it is sufficient to justify such a process under the framework of unbounded 'learning'. So, I think this simply calls for much firmer guidelines on such inherently sensitive processes as analysing actions of fellow editors here, or on a sister project. (I also think we should be having this discussion elsewhere, ie more publicly - SB_Johnny's talk page has become somewhat overrun recently with multi-voiced discussions that do not relate exclusively to him personally!) Cormaggio ^talk 16:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cormaggio, I think you, me, and Dzonatasare are in substantial agreement about what needs to happen next. Let's make progress on achieving community consensus on the issues you just raised. WAS 4.250 17:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes - though I think a further delineation needs to be made here: between internal review processes (eg of Moulton), and reviews of activity outside Wikiversity (which is what the ethics project would fall under). I don't think it's fair for people monitoring Wikiversity to be able to evaluate and facilitate projects which can easily spill into the kind of vendetta that Moulton evidently has. Jimbo suggested we need to think carefully about how to manage this, and I agree. So, we could have something like Wikiversity:Review processes and Wikiversity:Learning projects on living people to try to figure out a viable means of moving forward. (Just my name suggestions for now - please suggest better alternatives!) Cormaggio ^talk 18:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We hold these precepts to be discoverable, that all scholars are creative equals, that they are endowed by the architecture of their brains with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are 1) the right to engage in discovery learning by the scientific method and 2) the reciprocal right to remain utterly oblivious by the adoption of inscrutable methods currently unexamined by modern science. To demonstrate these alternatives, dramatic encounters arise, deriving their predictable scripts from the recurring anecdotes of human history. Whenever any form of liminal social drama arises, it is the duty of the scholarly ethnographers to document and analyze it, and to derive new insights into the challenge of promoting improved scientific scholarship. —Moulton 17:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton, the Wikimedia Foundation has the legal right to empower individuals to maintain order on sites run on its servers. Do not cry for freedom of speech and then write on my living room wall. Do not demand to use resources you do not own in ways seen unfit by those who do own those resources. WAS 4.250 17:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The question to be addressed, WAS, is who was being disorderly? You and I and JWS and SBJ and Dzonatas and Privatemusings and Hillgentleman and Ottava Rima and others were going about our business, doing scholarly work on an approved project when the site was invaded by a posse of disorderly persons who disrupted the project in a manner that I daresay Wikiversity had never before seen. Amongst those disorderly persons were Cary Bass and Jimbo Wales. They do not own the resources. The resources are owned by WMF, as funded by public donations, in accordance with the published educational charter and mission of WMF. I claim that we were acting in accord with the educational charter, mission, and vision of WMF, whilst those who invaded this tiny venue of scholarly research departed from the declared and advertised function of the project and its publicly funded sponsor. —Moulton 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Other people behaving badly does not excuse you behaving badly. WAS 4.250 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's not a bad actor. He's just cast that way. —Jessica Rabbit 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

We appear to have some redundancy here on Wikiversity. Thanks for pointing that other page out to me. I've already lodged a complaint over at the Naming conventions page, but no one has yet responded. Remi made a proposal here which is better, though I like what you said when you voted against the Naming Conventions proposal. I would support/be willing to contribute to a total rewrite. But which page do we use, and how do we approach it? Can we officially put the nail in the current WV:NC coffin yet? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"It is quite clear that you will continue to be disruptive..."

Hi, Johnny. On this edit [2] you cited a personal web log and a fork of the review page as evidences. I don't see it this way. All I can see is John defending his actions - it is within his rights to do it. John claims that you have produced twisted charges against him; I would be very glad if you could prove him wrong. Hillgentleman|Talk 12:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at those actions? All I see is him defending them, when what he needs to do is to avoid taking similar actions in the future. He's actually continuing to do it in the process of defending them as well. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Anybody, even a murder suspect, has a right to defend himself. To me, the crux of the matter is that you claimed his action are bad, but you haven't clearly explained to him why they are bad. It is like telling your kid stop being naughty and when he asks what is bad about his actions you say "You are a bad boy. Just stop it." Hillgentleman|Talk 12:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I've tried to make that clear on numerous occasions. It's on that review thing too. Insulting people's integrity, accusing people of bad intent, publicly humiliating fellow contributors, etc. Keep in mind that the only involvement I've had (from the beginning) is to ask him to tone it down and be respectful of his peers. I'm still asking the same thing, and he's still going on about how awful his peers are (the topic today is how McCormack is apparently on a mission to exclude student involvement at Wikiversity), which is (again) insulting their integrity and good intent. He needs to understand and acknowledge the core issues, because we can't possibly make a definitive list of dos and don'ts, and there is no tool available to moderate his posts before they appear on the wiki. The core issue is that when he sees people getting upset, he should stop what he's doing. If he doesn't understand why people are getting upset, he needs to take himself out of the conversation and ask someone to help him. If he honestly can't tell when people are upset, he might just have to walk away. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC) .

Thank you very much! Hillgentleman|Talk 15:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Anytime I can be of help, of course! :-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I also appreciated this new level of clear straight talk. WAS 4.250 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if it didn't look like straight talk before: I was just trying to get a better feel for how John saw the situation and why he was doing the things he was doing. I'm not exactly neutral here because I really like John, and I really want to support him in helping him to get past this, so I might not have been as willing to tell him things in a very direct and imperative manner as a complete outsider would be. This is a really small town, guys, and I'm not the sort to beat up my neighbor. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

CU Status...

I don't know if all the "supports" are from "local community members" as per the official requirements of CU. And although you seem to be a pretty decent fellow, I was hoping to be paired with Erkan Yilmaz. Emesee 01:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Checking through the list here, it appears that they are all local community members voting except for "ScribblewikiLover", whose vote was removed from counting. Also, User:Erkan Yilmaz was just unmade as a custodian, so I think it will be a little longer before he is to the level of going for Check User (unless, they could speed up the process if he comes back and wants to become it again). I hope this helps to settle any doubts. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Erkan is still with us in spirit, and hopefully will come back when our spirits arre as they should be :-). He was a checkuser too, by the way. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Learning by doing

“

Learning by doing

Wikiversity has adopted a "learn by doing" model of education. When your willies become editors of Wikiversity webpages they learn by collaborating on course-related projects and their effort will contribute online to a global effort to make all of human knowledge freely available.

”

I get that this bit of (likely) vandalism intended to insert the term "willies" as a reference to the male penis. Note, however that "the willies" is also a reference to fear, as in "that creep gives me the willies." In Britain they say "the wiggins" instead of "the willies."

In that second (and probably unintended) sense of the word, the statement (while irreverent) is nonetheless true. Anxiety is a powerful motivator for learning. The right level of anxiety (and that's admittedly hard to gauge) can jump-start the learning process.

Fear, anxiety, bewilderment, and confusion are unavoidable passages in the life of a student. Emotions are the instrument panel on the dashboard of life. Just as you wouldn't go on a journey in your automobile without a functioning dashboard, you wouldn't go on a learning journey without one, either.

Moulton 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Custodian

Hi there, I was looking around the wiki and found that it had developed since I was last here as an anon editor back in August 2006. I have been an editor of the wikipedia project since 2002 but had to give it up die to my mum being ill and having to look after her. I was wondering about having a mentor for custodianship and the possiblility of going onto become a full custodian. Can you give me some more information on this. Many thanks Vandalismterminator 14:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Vandalismterminator 14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

blatant misuse of ops privledges on irc; decision making process

Hello, Johnny. You said on wikiversity:community review, "We also saw a blatant misuse of ops privledges on irc :Salmon of Doubt had requested that Moulton be kicked (he was posting private correspondence, names and email addresses of people who had not given consent to do so). When Salmon asked who had ops, JWS opped himself, but did not kick or ban... he was just showing who had the tools."

I am not familiar with irc. In what way is this an abuse?

And Johnny, thanks for your comment. You have described the basis of your decision to block John Schmidt. What about the decision making process? Where did the discussion take place? Thanks. Best, --Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Using or brandishing ops tools in a threatening way is inherently abusive, especially in the context of what had been going on on that channel.

The discussions took about a month or so, and were held via email, irc, and an alternate wiki. At the time we didn't feel that we could have a normal conversation on-wiki due to what was going on with both Moulton and JWS. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

SB_Johnny, thank you for articulating this principle, defining abuse of power...

“ Using or brandishing ops tools in a threatening way is inherently abusive, especially in the context of what had been going on on that channel. ”

Now please compare that principle to this curious record wherein Emesee writes this edit summary:

“ we are not going to start this cycle again. i will block you so quick if you do that again. i will be glad to send my checkuser info in and then consult about using it. we are not going to start this. ”

Would you be kind enough to carefully rationalize Emesee's brandishment and rapid exercise of power tools in light of your above articulated principle? Can you please rationalize Emesee's conduct in a way that totally exculpates and excuses him whilst still forthrightly and justly condemning JWS for brandishing his ops weapons without actually using them?

Thank you in advance for clearing up this mind-arresting confusion for me.

Mokita Syzygy 12:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A Plea on Kol Nidre

Tonight is Kol Nidre — Erev Yom Kippur. Tonight is the holiest night in the Jewish calendar. Kol Nidre is the name of the opening prayer. The name means All Vows. In this prayer, pious Jews pray that all vows they have foolishly made be set aside, as if they had never been uttered. Kol Nidre is perhaps the closest link in Jewish culture to the Quaker practice of not making vows. Ironically, I am, on this night of Kol Nidre, asking you to never again block an honorable and decent scholar like John Schmidt. I am deeply grieved that he would be scapegoated by the Wikiversity community during these Days of Awe. I cannot begin to tell you how much that grieves me. Tomorrow is Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, when Jews seek expiation for their sins. It is a day of forgiveness and forgetting. I hope that as the Jewish New Year begins, we can forgive and forget our foolishness and return to the serious business of scholarly studies. —Mokita Syzygy 01:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

55

I think it makes sense. I am not entirely convinced yet that it is necessarily sound, however. =þ The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 06:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

G'day SB

First thanks for unblocking JW - I think it was the right thing to do. Secondly - I've begun work on collecting my thoughts in an Ethics Sandbox, with the intention of trying to help a Wikiversity 'Wikimedia Ethics' project make some sense eventually :-) - I thought I'd drop a note in to a couple of places to get some advice and feedback ahead of diving in and mercilessly editing in the project space :-) cheers, Privatemusings 03:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

JWSchmidt and IRC

Forgive me if I am asking the wrong person, but I noticed that JWSchmidt is still banned on IRC. Do you still believe this is necessary? I understand if you do, just wanted to double check that it is still necessary. Geo.plrd 06:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it then be wise to bring this up at Community Review? I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, so forgive me if I am. Geo.plrd 18:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fallopia japonica in the News

Man - I edited an archive page and it somehow ended up on the main talk page (+56K bytes!). Anyhow... Fallopia japonica was in the news today on The Beeb. Not sure it's a good idea or not, but at least they're running tests first. --Jomegat 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Think tank

Wikiversity:Think tank <-- I am a big fan of content development projects and anything that will encourage Wikiversity participants to propose and develop content development projects at Wikiversity that serve their personal learning interests and goals. For a long time we had a prominent position at Wikiversity for the "general community learning projects" initiative which had similar goals as the "Think tank", but McCormack made the unilateral decision to destroy that initiative because it does not fit with his limited concept of what Wikiversity is. Some of us who feel that community learning initiatives are important created another way to promote community learning initiatives, but I am reluctant to point it out because of fear that it will also be destroyed. It is really absurd that a person such as myself who worked so hard to create Wikiversity now has to slink through the shadows in the hope that my efforts to develop Wikiversity will not be noticed by abusive admins. User:Mike.lifeguard <-- my general approach is to welcome anyone who a sysop at other WMF wikis if they want to help at Wikiversity. Of course, some Wikimedians do not understand Wikiversity, some do not support Wikiversity and some actively try to destroy Wikiversity. If Mike.lifeguard comes up for community discussion before he becomes full custodian I will have a long list of questions about his edit history at Wikiversity. I have many questions about his understanding of this project and if he is a supporter of this project's mission. --JWSchmidt 16:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

BCP & FCP

I just thought I should tell you, in case I already haven't, that I consider the BCP to be the single most brilliant project started at Wikiversity to date. It's a perfect use of Wikiversity to create a very education (and useful!) learning resource. And, personally, I'm more interested in food than flowers, so I'm looking forward to the launch of the FCP in particular. But great work in coming up with this idea! The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 07:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep your cool

Hi, Johnny. Telling another wikiversian to fuck himself [3] is a bookable offence :-( It only contributes negatively to the discussion. Let's keep our cool and be civil. Best, --Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 13:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bookable"? Did you see JWS's reply to me asking for some input and ideas on the think tank (above)? His tone is so incredibly negative that it's really getting in the way of moving Wikiversity forward in a hopeful, positive, and constructive way. Besides, that was just the alternative option... did you bother to read the rest of the note, or are you just popping in to see what bad things I'm doing today? Looks to me like the only thing he's interested in is politics and drama, which is fine in moderation, but only in moderation. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh> I understand your frustration Johnny - and I am very frustrated myself - but I can't see how this comment was helpful. Yes, I agree that John is being very negative (though the comment above was nowhere near the worst) - but treating it as 'tit for tat' undermines efforts to make progress. I agree with Hillgentleman's call for cool - maybe you should take a step back from discussion with John, but I definitely think you should take back that portion of the comment. Cormaggio ^talk 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'm more or less done talking to John (though I do have one more thing to say). It's not "tit for tat", it's just trying to do the right thing: if your friend is making a complete and total ass out of himself, a good friend should do his best to take the gloves off and talk straight! I'm damn tired of being "Mr. Diplomacy" here, and I'm just as tired of people asking me to wipe their asses for them.

You people in the peanut gallery should just watch the show or go do something constructive. John has personalized this, and I'm within "my rights" (as John would have them) to respond. At least I'm direct about it... I won't be subpaging this topic for future ammunition in some war I intend to fight. This has all gotten very silly, and I have a rather low tolerance for bullshit. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

SB_Johnny, it is a good thing that you understand and appreciate that JWS has caused others pain. It is a shame that JWS was unaware of the pain he was causing. I perceive JWS as currently being in a great deal of pain due to your block of him and your characterisations of him that he believes are false and defamatory. Is it possible that you are mis-perceiving him and unfairly characterising behavior that is better characterised as an expression of great pain? Can we all forgive each other and stop hurting each other? Please? WAS 4.250 23:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Had an e/c there WAS... off to bed but will reply in the morning. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what "Had an e/c there" means. WAS 4.250 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

e/c = "edit conflict" (we were editing the page at the same time, so didn't see your message). I guess I'm just getting worn thin by the constant accusations that I and others are out to "destroy Wikiversity": I honestly don't think anyone is trying to do that. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"destroy Wikiversity", "bind and gag", fuck off": there is a lot of emotion being conveyed in inflammatory language. Perhaps it is best to recognise that the people using such language are themselves inflamed rather than to let oneself become inflamed. It is not a lovely way to burn. WAS 4.250 07:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnny, I now get my gloves off and talk straight. Insults harm the environment deeply and do not contribute anything positive. If you are incapable to communicate to John, please back off and let others do it. If you think talking straight requires insulting others, think again. You should apologise to John, and even more so, to Wikiversity. --Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 01:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could give the same advice, Hillgentleman. However nobody else is doing it. While I don't condone the language, SB_Johnny is trying to do the right thing. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 10:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

This ran a little longer than usual, so I closed it. Ottava Rima is now a permanent custodian. --mikeu ^talk 23:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Empathy

I know I expressed lost hope on your talk page before. I've thought about how you handled situations and concerns that were brought up. One thing you tend to do more so than few other active uses here is to acknowledge those concerns brought up, even if they involve you more directly. We know it is not always easy. I found you try to resolve issues rather than be hurtful, and that is hope. I found you rather try to say something thoughtful, and that is hope. People need to express their feeling towards each other, and you seem to acknowledge that they need not to intimidate or be hurtful while doing so. You not only make such acknowledgment in one way or another; you also show attempts to allow improvement. I hope you get CheckUser bits again. Dzonatas 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer of help. I really meant what I said above and nothing more. I know people have a really hard time not being able to trust others and do tend to read between the lines too often. Seriously, I didn't think I would be here today to type anything further. I've stated several reasons why I'm depressed, but I've limited it to a point. I've given up on trying to prove things to court when they didn't care about my daughter even with the threats I have recorded on tape. Child Support system is really stupid right now, as they only want the money rather than the health and welfare of children. Even the social worker supervisor can't find the mother or my daughter. Today, and like I said I thought I wouldn't be back, the court finally had to reason over taking me into custody over technicalities like not turning in a report on time or that I mistaken the 1st over the 10th. They had to reason over that and finally believing me about my disability. Today, they obviously didn't want someone breaking down on their hands when they had every chance before to believe me and the doctors about the disability. I wouldn't expect you to be able to help there. I see a lot of people go through a lot of pain one way, and I'm pretty sensitive to how others may feel since I've been put through court drama. That sensitivity applies here, but others here won't allow it. I even though you offered help, you can't really change others. There is something I thought about, however. On the way home from the court drama, I thought about the role of the public defender. There is somebody that defends anybody that is brought to them. I know not all nations don't have public defenders. One thing to note, the Wikimedia's wiki environment doesn't allow for such role. Anybody who jumps into a dispute and tries to figure things out, or even points out events or contradictions, has not been allowed to be neutral. Probably won't understand that it is until compared to a role of a public defender that is known to defend anybody in court. Dzonatas 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Rags and Elbow-grease

Let me know if there's anything 'needs doing. I don't really know what sort of custodial tasks there are to be doing here at Wikiversity (aside from vandal-blocking and deleting of pages). The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Astronomy

A while ago you asked me about creating a page for learning how to identify things in the night sky. Jolie and I have started to work on some Category:Amateur astronomy topics. At the moment some of this (ie. Comets) is about using a telescope, but we plan to include some basic "learning the night sky" info. See Backyard Astronomy and the newly imported Skygazing for some samples. Drop by and let us know what you'd like to see covered. We're using Topic talk:Astronomy as the main coordinating page to discuss development. --mikeu ^talk 16:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm working hard on some beginners stuff right now. I intend to make a simple course out of it. I think this kind of project lends itself to be a very Good wikiversity course.--JoliePA 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Planets an update on Nov 6

Hey SB_Johnny there's too cool planets in the evening right now. Venus is near the south horizon at sunset. Jupiter is above it and slight East. The moon has moved away from both and is moving East its its waxes. it was near the first quarter (1/2 lit up) last night. --Jolie 16:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also check out this audio sky tour and This Week's Sky at a Glance. For a small fee you can get a sky calendar mailed to you each month. --mikeu ^talk 12:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Johnny

I appreciate your help. Lots of clouds around for me, nevertheless the moon commands respect now doesn't it? its near full moon. it should drift out of the evening sky. --JoliePA 16:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

... thank you, I'd appreciate it. I want to have one unified account (and I've unified the account JoliePA) for the whole wiki universe. --JoliePA 16:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure, whether I'm unified. lol. I know JoliePA is unified and that is why I copied my talkpage to the JoliePA user account. I was thought someone told me that 'Jolie' was used in an wikipedia wiki for another user, thus jolie (I thought) couldn't be unified.

Personally I'd be quite content if you would add a redirect on my userpage, to steer anybody looking to speak to me to JoliePA. I will then log in as jolie, try to copy my watchlist entries and then relog as joliePA and try to Paste my watchlist.

One way or another, I will move my 60 some page watchlist to JoliePA. I use that quite a bit.--JoliePA 18:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been very helpful today, John. Thank you.--JoliePA 20:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your messages

Thank you for your comments. I am against the idea that wikiversity decisions are made on un-accountable irc chats. It goes against the fundamentals that makes up a wiki.

Well, I'm not really in favor of SPAs, but then who is? :-) The irc channels are made available to allow real-time discussions, and that's how it was used. There's no "accountability" issue here at all: Mikeu is a b'crat, and as such can close the conversation. The fact that he asked for input on that is a good thing, IMO. Reverting the closure was not an appropriate thing for you to do. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And, Johnny, by the way have you decided whether to apologise to wikiversity for your introduction of foul and obscene language into a discussion on wikivesity? A true man doesn't need use use such phrases as "fuck yourself", one of the most offensive phrases that exist, as you did on User talk:JWSchmidt, just to show that he is an adult, as there are many far more appropriate and constructive words available. If you have already done so, I am sorry that I have missed it. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 01:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've suffered no indecision about that, and no, I don't plan to apologize. He's stopped accusing me of wanting a Wikiversity:Censorship policy... did he mention that he had been accusing me of that? It often helps to look into the context of a statement to understand why it was made. If my bad word offended you personally, I apologize. However, I really have a hard time seeing your demand here as in any way unbiased: John has been hurling insults left, right, and center, and you seem to have no problem with that. He's been accusing everyone who doesn't agree with him of acting in bad faith or out of bad motives, which personally I find far more offensive than anything I've said to him. His response to the review has been to simply continue to do the things the review pointed out, namely painting anyone he disagrees with of subscribing to some ism, acting in bad faith, being part of some nefarious organization, etc. If he's really incapable of discussing things without demonizing his "opponents", then he's also incapable of helping Wikiversity grow, evolve, and improve itself. I think he is capable, but is either unaware of how his approach affects people and the project, or simply unwilling to swallow the pill and admit that he's been entirely overboard. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He has already stated that he has been unaware; that he is now aware that he was unaware; and in the future will be receptive to people telling him when he is being disturbing to others without being aware of it. What more can you ask? We all have our limitations. Don't respond to learning that a man is blind by demanding that he learn to see. WAS 4.250 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WAS, he's been responding to people in the same way he did before, . See his recent contribs for a number of examples of that. I added some thoughts about it here as well. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems your basic complaint against him is that he "paints fellow contributors in a bad light"; while his basic complaint against you and a few others is that you guys "paint him in a bad light". He can't convince you he is right. You can't convince him you are right. There is a lot of talking past each other. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree. Can you come up with some objective behavior guidelines that you can live with and try to get him to agree to behave according to them? Negotiate a truce? WAS 4.250 21:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, he's not in a position to bully any more, which was the most serious problem. Of course it would be nice if he would assume good faith and try to work with people to improve things rather than blaming every one of Wikiversity's shortcomings on conspiracies of evil-doers. It's true that even paranoids have enemies, but it's not true that anyone is out to get him or plotting to destroy Wikiversity from within. My main concern is that he doesn't discourage people from participating. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(<---) Can we then put the past (everything prior to right now) in the past? The next time (I am not asking that you do all this every time) you see him doing something you believe will discourage people from participating can you verify with some person that that is indeed the case, link to and quote the exact words he used, link to and quote the verification of the person being discouraged, tell him why you believe that that person's further contributions will help not hurt Wikiversity, and as polite and specific as you can ask him to not act like that? Instead of trying to deal with a long back and forth history no one can follow in its entirety, how about concentrating on making the next time a clear learning experience? That is what we are here for, right? WAS 4.250 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what everyone's been doing... we all got rather complacent for a long time (hence the "backlog"), but I don't see biting being tolerated like that in the future (by JWS or anyone else). --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. WAS 4.250 17:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloom Clock Templates

I was just looking at a diff from Mike's bot account on the Bloom Clock. Looks exciting! Have you written up your intended use of these new fields? It looks like it may have the makings of a dichotomous key?

Pretty much nothing is in bloom here anymore. :-(

Also - are we still on for T-Day weekend? I'm up for either Friday or Sunday. --Jomegat 02:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The US Presidents

Thanks for the input. I've only been on Wikiversity for about a week, so I'm still learning the ropes. I picked up the pre-existing Presidents learning project stub as a good place to start, so your changes to sub-pages was perfect timing as I was beginning to look into that this morning. I agree that the naming should be more consistent. I prefer George Washington to just Washington. How do I move or update a page name? Thanks Sri-ganesh 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks quite biographical to me—the things that might separate it from something that would belong at Wikipedia or Wikibooks, such as questions, discussion, activities, etc., are entirely missing at the moment. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 07:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We get a lot of wikibook-style stuff in History, so I wanted to make sure he had a clear participation-based focus right at the start—nip any potential problems in the bud, as it were. At any rate, I was only asking a question. =þ The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 06:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Thanks for the reminder to not bite the newbies. =] The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

Re: "I really have a hard time seeing your demand here as in any way unbiased: John has been hurling insults left, right, and center, and you seem to have no problem with that."

I do not support either your position or John's. You attacked John personally (remember: no personal attacks?) with "fuck yourself"; on the other hand, even if you (or I) don't share John's viewpoints, he is describing his point of view - I cannot see how he is hurling "insults" left right or middle. If he said Darklama was censoring his questions, it is not because he wanted to "insult" darklama, but it is that he see it that way, and I will not deny that his action has some resemblence to censorship. Your personal insult with "fuck yourself", however, is completely counter-productive and meaningless. I am surprised that you cannot see the sea of difference between direct talk and foul language. An apology to me is not enough: there are a lot of people out there who don't like foul language. I do not want to see Wikiversitians copy what you have done, hurling "fuck yourself" to each other, and say, "See, SB_Johnny did that and got away with it; wikiverisitians did nothing and he didn't need to apologise to the community."Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a comment on the talk page of a user who lately has done little but accuse his fellow contributors of acting in bad faith, and the censorship comment wasn't directed at darklama (at least not at that time). JWS is the one repeating it over and over. You are the one putting it in edit comments. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fwiw, I thought that it was an overly aggressive comment to make - but I appreciated the context in which it was made, ie a long and frustrating process. I see Johnny's comment as an expression of exasperation - as, I suspect, was McCormack's "troll" comment. (I still haven't seen the conversation where that comment was made.) In any case, you can evaluate any comment by the feedback it gets - and I think this comment's feedback shows that Johnny doesn't "get away with" such a comment, just like anyone else. Cormaggio ^talk 12:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)