User talk:TeleComNasSprVen

Welcome! Hello TeleComNasSprVen, 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 in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may Take a guided tour and learn to edit. Visit a (kind of) random project. Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education. Find out about research activities on Wikiversity. Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity. Give feedback about your initial observations Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium. Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en. 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! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. ---- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mascot welcome Hi! Our name is Vicky-Verity. We are twins and are Wikiversity mascots. We think Wikiversity is a great place to learn and make friends (when we aren't sleeping). Leave us a message!

Um

Fyi, the Meta matter ended a long time ago (in October) and no one is blocking anyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See the timing. It was deemed rather frivolous. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot see how that relates to anything. I've been watching that RfC go ever since FT2 posted on your meta talkpage. Meta-wikimedia is a global place, so its policies are usually supposed to effect most everyone everywhere. As far as I know, the resolutions there were to let you go off with a stern warning not to continue your behavior. That is all. TeleComNasSprVen 22:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Meta RfC is for discussions and aren't necessarily binding. They are also done after two weeks of being opened, and it has been dead for a while. Your diff above says that the matter is still open. None of those resolutions were ever approved or passed, nor any of it succeeded. Your support of a desysop seems to not have a basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. the proposal to add more pictures was the only one that really got support. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they all gave me the same message, including MZMcBride, who appended his addendum before putting on pictures, that we are to treat you as we do any other editor, with perhaps a little leeway here and there, but that's it. The standard four usertalkpage warnings for w:WP:CIVIL followed by a block. The matter in the Meta RfC was settled on one issue, despite it still being open after two weeks, that you were definitely incivil. What else is there to discuss? TeleComNasSprVen 22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if custodians represent some of the best that Wikiversity has to offer, then it follows that, and sorry for being so blunt, but you are not the best this site has to offer, and so custodianship would no longer be necessary for you. TeleComNasSprVen 22:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It never settled that I was incivil. The only thing that was really brought up as use of "ad hominem", which are not necessarily incivil at all. If anything, there were multiple people who pointed out that I criticized others in a polite way. And it is a little strange for you to say I am not the best we offer when I am the only truly active custodian. Who do you think does all the work around here? You base your statements off of stuff that got nowhere at Meta then throw out strange statements like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There was Ocaasi "Ottava's reasonable and challenging points are simply lost in a sea of accusations of bad faith"; there was SeraphimBlade "Ottava is uncivil to the point that I cannot remember a time at which he posted a civil response to a person with whom he disagreed"; there was MZMcBride "And if Ottava is causing problems, warn him and then block him as necessary"; there was even a steward Pathoschild "your disagreement with others' opinions (or alleged POV pushing) does not give you license to ignore expectations of reasonable conduct or collaboration"; and now there is a community review. Just because a custodian is active, does not mean he or she is the best; there are lots of other small wikis out there that can live without a few sysops hanging around and they seem to be doing nicely. TeleComNasSprVen 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I've been an admin for two years and even praised by Jimbo Wales for my work around here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose we should give you a little leeway given your history with Jimbo. That's why I only called for temporary removal. But hiding behind even Jimbo does not guarantee safety, because, after all, he did try to close down the Wikiversity project. TeleComNasSprVen 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Take care. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Hello,

I'm glad to see your interest in maintaining the project! I'll be deleting most of the categories you're nominating soon, just wanted to get some feedback on Innovation. There is a innovation page and a innovation category, so would you class the category as unused and deletion material or would you add the page into the category? Thanks, Geoff Plourde 00:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome! Anyway, classifying it as Category:Innovation seems rather useless to me since it would be redundant and confusing as to whether the category would be about the page Innovation or the theory of innovation. But if you question the use of the category, we can take it to Wikiversity:Deletion requests, as I have always done when I think the page might be utilized in some way but cannot put my finger on it. TeleComNasSprVen 00:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted your thoughts, I'm not paid to pass judgement either way LOL. I'm gonna just delete it, because it's unnecessary right now and if we really need it in the future, it's not that hard to recreate =) . Geoff Plourde 00:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Probationary custodianship

Hi TeleComNasSprVen - given that you obviously know your way around a wiki and are an active contributor would you consider being nominated for probationary custodianship? I would prefer not to mentor because of off-wiki workload. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Telecom? Custodianship? You must be kidding. NasSprVen and Custodianship is something you cannot mix. It's one of those persons who just look around every wikimedia wiki looking for opportunities to achieve "adminship" (here custodianship), and I'd say this is just one more of those attempts. Please do not, Jtneill, nor anyone else mentor them. Diego Grez 01:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Jtneill, but I'm more interested in organizing and categorizing the Wikiversity project than I am in custodianship. I don't feel a need to block, delete, or protect anything anytime soon, and it's only been about a month since I stepped onto this place. But thanks anyway. DiegoGrez, you're not helping. I only gained adminship on testwiki, liquidthreads and the like for tests obviously. I'm not here to collect flags or canvass anybody. TeleComNasSprVen 01:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's perfect! Diego Grez 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Debits and credits

Was this page transwikied? I'm not sure I understand your CSD comment. --Draicone ^(talk) 10:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It was, and also a blatant copyvio, that you can see through the revision history for the Wikipedia article of the same name. TeleComNasSprVen 23:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you !voted the opposite of your intention

[1] The proposal is to delink our user Moulton from the global SUL, thus removing the effect of the global lock. If this is done, it has no effect on other wikis, the global lock is in place as long as the stewards at meta allow it to be so. If enough wikis do bypass it, they might consider lifting it.

From your comments it seemed to me that you supported delinking, but you actually !voted oppose, making what may be at this point 4:2, if I'm correct, be 3:3.

Because Ottava unblocked Moulton and Caprice, and Adambro reversed his subsequent blocks, Caprice can edit now, as can Moulton, but the SUL delinking is not actually an unblock decision; that is separate. All it does is to allow local sysops to make the decision, and it takes a 'crat to do the renaming involved. --Abd 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC) --Abd 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really care if he is unblocked on this wiki or not. The only thing I really want was that on the condition that if/when he is unblocked, he should not be let loose on other Wikimedia wikis; in effect, his editing should be restricted to here. TeleComNasSprVen 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We have no way to either "restrict his editing to here" nor to "enable his editing elsewhere." The proposal is to delink his local account here, to enable that account to be used to edit here. It would not allow him to edit other wikis with it. He is delinked and not blocked on, I believe, one other WMF wiki already. Thekohser, who went through the same process, is delinked and not blocked on a number of wikis, such as Wikibooks, Commons, and some others. So I'm not seeing that you are opposed to the proposal, but that is how you !voted. --Abd 04:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Social Sciencesnew

It is just a page for exploring possible changes to the portal --JWSchmidt 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See also

Category:Portals under construction --JWSchmidt 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why...

...are you here? What is it about Wikiversity that attracts you?

Just curious, of course. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know a very compelling reason to be here (much as I don't know exactly why I come to edit Wikipedia full-time) but I believe it is a combination of the fact that this is a Wikimedia wiki, I come here to revert vandalism and cleanup some pages perhaps with semi-automated tools, it's readable in English (and I sometimes go to Wiktionary to study more of the words), and much of this is about learning and teaching, and I have much to know and much to give. TeleComNasSprVen 07:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you want to learn and teach? -- darklama  13:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, can you explain the meaning of "TeleCommunications of Nasal Sprays from Venus (9*6=42)" and whether it has any connection to your personal learning agenda? —Moulton (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Feedback about template usage which produced mixed feelings in Wikiversity user

about [2], see please Wikiversity:Help_desk#Awaiting_response_from_custodian_-_Course_KOIIA-I_resource, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat 15:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Template delete requests

Hi - I checked a couple of those "bad page move" template delete requests but the two I checked were being used on other pages. This would need to be fixed I think first before deletion. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The pages are cached, one of the problems of transcluding templates. If you try to do a null edit, you'll see that they are not in fact linked as the special page might report. TeleComNasSprVen 03:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

At least one of the templates you marked for sd wasn't linked to because it was designed to be substituted. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

your reversion of archiving on the Colloquium page.

You reverted the archiving of two sections you had created on the Colloquium, adding keep-alive sigs. I now see that one of these you had previously reverted, but without adding a keep-alive signature.

Today's reversion, you did not remove the sections from the archive, which would then cause double archiving. Please be careful.

As to restoring a section twice, with no new discussion, this seems excessive to me. People have complained about old stuff being kept on the Colloquium. If you intend to continue this, it should be discussed by the community. Thanks. --Abd 17:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

[3] I think it's fine to be long-winded in a close, and to give clear explanations for a decision (short or long) is great. And it gets that puppy closed. Good work. --Abd 01:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Only because I saw clear consensus and participation of the entire community in full swing, and Ottava's recent departure and lack of clear substantial evidence did allow me to follow through process as I did. Policies exist for a reason, in addition to supplementing community consensus, and through my rationale I explain their application in regards to the controversy at hand, whilst other such deletion requests lack the substantial policies for keeping or deleting either way. There's no rush to close months-long deletion requests, but they should be closed when their direction is clear. TeleComNasSprVen 01:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I disagree with you about "no rush to close" old filings. (I.e., you are correct, "no rush," but, if it's months old, it isn't a "rush" to close it!) I assume the community will sort this out, eventually. --Abd 01:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't poke the bear.

[4][5]. Moulton/Caprice is not banned, he's blocked. (That template is used elsewhere for banned editors.) Please do not blank his user pages, it amplifies the drama. The blocked user template is probably not worth the hassle, editors are warned if they try to edit the page. If there is specific content that violates policy, you may remove it, of course, but I suggest caution. He is allowed at this point to edit his own user pages, please don't interfere with that. Thanks. --Abd 17:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wait! I thought we had all agreed to do Lunatic Psychodrama. Who made Abd the Writer-Director of this farce? Doesn't TCNSV get to write his own lines? —Palomino of Certainty 17:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

TCNSV, since you have objected to my default reversion of Moulton comment, I'll try to remember not to revert such edits to your Talk page. I assume you'd prefer I not revert them. Thanks. If I err, here or elsewhere, please fix it (as with all wiki editing). --Abd 17:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

People can read, which is why I was in the middle of placing the template on his usertalkpage. It's generally customary as in any other Wikimedia wiki for a blocked user to have his talkpage put up with a retired or blocked notice or just have it redirected to his userpage which contains the block notice to allow other visitors to his page to know he's been blocked. We give great latitude in userspace, yes, but it is mandatory that he understands that his talkpage is not "his", per w:WP:BLANKING, and that it is to the benefit of the community in general and that it is paid by the Wikimedia Foundation which runs the software to generate his talkpage. There was a recent discussion meant to decide whether or not users should remove their block notices, and I think we ought to abide by that rule. I've not interfered much with anything, except perhaps placing the block notice, and he's perfectly capable of adding his own unblock template to explain his actions, and I won't cause trouble based on something so trivial as his talkpage. As to disruption, there's not a lot of drama generated in undoing an edit I made to his talkpage, but what I find disconcerting is your belief that he has the right to his talkpage and calling my edit "gratuitously offensive" which is surely adding to the drama right now. And as to your last point, I prefer that you don't revert any of Moulton's edits and extend the courtesy beyond this talkpage, but it's your choice. TeleComNasSprVen 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with TCNSV. The Mission of WMF is to spread knowledge, and it's important to teach everyone in these World Wide Wikis how to exemplify the key concept of Nathaniel Hawthorne's New England classic, The Scarlet Letter. No cultural model is complete without such core constructs as wretched excess, banality, stigmatization, taunting, stoning, sarcasm, narcissistic wounding, and mean-spirited verbal abuse. I can think of no better way for WMF to disseminate these very important ideas around the globe than to encourage responsible contributors here to employ them at every conceivable opportunity. —Albatross 09:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies

Hi TC. I've noticed that you tend to link to a lot of Wikipedia policies when discussing Wikiversity issues, which makes me a bit concerned that you are perhaps assuming that policies on WP will apply to WV. Can we talk about that a bit in the hopes of assuaging my concerns? --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Inexplicable Physics

Is there an uninvolved custodian to deal with that mess? I think most of us have weighed in at some point. Geoff 22:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember MichaelBillington? He recently commented on JWSchmidt's talkpage. Perhaps, if Abd can get him to come and help, so can we. :) TeleComNasSprVen 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Request regarding your behavior at WV:RCA

[6]. --Abd 02:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have commented. Thenub314 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)