User talk:Abd

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search


Well, Happiness/Have a Happy Relationship/John Gottman/Glossary is now complete. I was originally also going to do the terminology from 10 Lessons to Transform Your Marriage, but it looks like it doesn't introduce a lot of new ideas; it just has more application of the doctrine set forth in Gottman's other books. The Relationship Cure talks a lot about Jaak Panksepp's emotional command systems. At this time, I feel less enthusiasm for learning about making romantic relationships work, given that I've probably reached a point of diminishing returns, and there's no immediate need for the information. It's ironic how in life, sometimes when you're unprepared for an opportunity is when you have it, and when you're prepared is when you don't have it anymore. Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 14:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Cycles. Life comes in cycles. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to let go sometimes; I feel like I want to stop the wheel and go back and try again. But I can't. Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 02:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Right, the wheel turns in one direction, always into the future. You feel like you want to stop the wheel and reverse it when you think something was wrong. Our life shuts down beginning with that first occurring of "wrong." Pain is intrinsic to existence, but "Wrong" is not real, it's an invention, a story, an interpretation. Your feeling, above is based on your mistakes, i.e., what you believe you would not do again. So ... don't do it again! You could not have come to this position without what happened. The wrongness you feel now, you are continuing to carry. Stop carrying it! You are free. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rant about Wikiversity history[edit]

Just going to rant a bit. <rant on> I'm working on some pages created in 2007 by a user who was quite active. He named a series of pages with names that we don't now allow, such as prefixing the page with Lesson: as if we had a lesson namespace. He created a project that began with the name of the software used, and created many pages linked to that. Then he realized that this could be confusing (he actually said so in his move of the page to a better name). And then he went back, and instead of changing links to the new page, he added display of the new page and left the links as pointing to the redirect. What he did created a mess for someone to later clean up. And then he abandoned the project incomplete, though a great deal had been done.

I'm looking at what he created and it seems quite valuable; indeed, it is material I can use. But it is scattered through mainspace, not in one place. Sure, it's linked with categories and templates, etc. Very complicated. Blah, blah, blah. <rant off>. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Iberian mesopotamia alignments[edit]

Hi, Abd Thanks for your help and useful tips on my research project, they are all welcome. To tell you truth my biggest problem is about writing. I hate to write because I have ideas but no way how to put them on paper. --Jocirilo (discusscontribs) 23:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy. Don't use paper! Save the trees. In any case, welcome, again, to Wikiversity. My suggestion: on a page in your user space, just make some notes. Don't worry about good or bad, just press some keys. Or use a voice conversion program and say something. Don't let your story that you hate to write stop you from creating content. Did you have trouble writing the above? That's a question, not a declaration! --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving "Photoelectric for Beginners"[edit]

I noticed that you moved Quantum timeline to a subpage. To be consistent, we should also move Photoelectric Effect for Beginners. Would you like me to do that? Since Quantum_mechanics/Origin_of_quantum_mechanics already discusses the photoelectric effect I suggest Quantum_mechanics/Photoelectric effect for a name and also putting next to the Timeline essay on the Quantum_mechanics page. What do you think?--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 19:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I saw that, but only have so much time.... Thinking abstractly, the photoelectric effect might be classified in other ways, but if the resource focuses on the QM implications, that's a fine place to put it. I haven't checked. Under some conditions, we might have more than one resource on a topic, each written from the point of view of some field or interest. These may be cross-linked in some way.
Dump the "Beginners" in the page name. Where there is more than one educational level of resource, they would be under the same name, but then as subpages for various approaches. The pagenames here often derived from Wikibooks usage, X for Beginners being a popular book title, or X for Dummies or the Compleat Idiot.
We aren't writing books here, but creating educational resources, which includes learning-by-doing. You may be an expert in your field, but we also want to engage people who are not experts. I'll return to this topic, the issue of expert users on Wikiverisity is quite different from that on Wikipedia. At the same time as we respect experts -- and often protect them -- we also encourage learners, and, similarly, what might be called "fringe experts," who are often quite knowledgeable.
We do this in a way that expands educational opportunities without being misleading. Wikipedia, structurally, cannot approach this, it's not "encyclopedic." Yet Wikiversity can be a supplement to Wikipedia, and could be much better integrated with Wikipedia, it's part of what we have to work on.
Okay, I'll look. Photoelectric effect explicitly says it was lifted from Wikipedia. That has been, in the past, a cause for deletion, because Wikiversity is not intended for encyclopedia articles. What I normally do, in creating a resource here, often to be a placeholder for subpages on a specific subtopic of interest -- that might not even be covered on Wikipedia at present -- is to link to the Wikipedia article. Normally, stubs that do nothing other than that may get deleted.
However, there is a quiz. I haven't looked, but suppose for the moment that Photoelectric effect is only a copy of the WP article. Yet the quiz is valuable, and the page will link to it as a subpage. So the page would become a link to the Wikipedia article, with maybe an interesting image as eye candy, but we'd be encouraging people to read the Wikipedia article. And then to take the quiz, if they want. The page can also cross-link to other relevant Wikiversity resources. It can also outline the topic. Being Quantum mechanics/Photoelectric effect specifies the main interest. Our resource may *discuss* the topic, much more conversationally. It is possible for resources to invite questions. Wikipedia talk page policy specifically discourages discussing the topic of the article, but we can encourage it.
As an example, a physics professor emailed me about Falaco solitons. I've been encouraging academics to work on Wikiversity. Sometimes they have worked on Wikipedia, and ran into problems there. You can imagine. So I created Soliton and then Soliton/Falaco Soliton. I think Falaco Solitons are really cool because I think I've seen them, in pools of water, under some conditions, and never realized what those dark spots were on the bottom of the pool. I also like human stories. I sat with Feynman at Cal Tech and heard those stories over 20 years before they were published. The stories reveal how he thought, and I probably learned much of how I think from him. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Photoelectric effect for beginners was one of my first contributions. I wouldn't have bothered to write it now. I addition to the quiz, it does have two concepts not in any other resource--unfortunately they are at different levels of sophsistication. At the "beginners level" I pointed out that the energy formula is that of a straight line (y=mx+b). It's funny how students who can't remember their algebra remember the formulas. At a much higher level I contrast the photoelectric effect with the classical model of how electrons would behave in the presence of a wave. The disparate levels do make the "essay" weak. I will move and rename it as you recommend, perhaps this weekend. If I put it next to my other "essay" (Timeline), perhaps I should put an invitation for others to write essays and/or modify those already present? I have always thought Wikiversity should resemble a bookstore. That is not exactly your vision, but I think our visions are compatible. It's a bookstore where learners are welcome to write as well as to read.--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 03:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

mKR educational resource and learning structure[edit]

Hi Abd Could you point me to a good example of how mKR should be presented on Wikiversity? --Rhmccullough (discusscontribs) 01:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, see MKR. Mediawiki cannot have a lower-case letter as the first word in a page name. If MKR were a subpage of some higher level in a page hierarchy, it could be lower case.
You are really quite free here. Wikiversity allows Original Research, you can give your opinions, you can create an educational resource as deep as you like it to be, and not worry about the Deletion Police. You may create tutorials, discussions, whatever. (Obviously, a discussion requires more than one person.) If there is a problem, we can address it. (Wikiversity does have a neutrality policy, and so opinion should be attributed. But it can be expressed.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
So MKR is now an educational resource?
I am wondering if I should work in a Sandbox, or on the the resource? I had a lot of trouble on Wikipedia because I was not working in a Sandbox, and some editor kept revising my material as fast as I wrote it, sometimes introducing serious errors.

Rhmccullough (discusscontribs) 04:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It is an educational resource. This is not Wikipedia. There are not hordes of editors looking over your shoulder. Because your topic is clearly legitimate -- my opinion and that of a lot of editors on Wikipedia was that it was legitimate there -- you don't need to work in a sandbox. If conflict arises, we will create a fork, but that is highly unlikely to be needed. You are the originator of mKR, and unless you go completely off the rails, nobody is going to second-guess you on that page. Welcome to Wikiversity. Welcome to academic freedom. You may work on something in a Sandbox. But you don't have to.
Do disclose your relationship to mKR. Feel free, as well, to work on other programming resources.
We may eventually move MKR to a subpage of some wider programming resource, that's a structural decision. It doesn't affect your content. We don't have a notability guideline. You can do original research, you can write essays, give opinions, just as can students and professors in a university. We do move "weird stuff" to user space, if it has an author. After all, maybe it's the next Jabberwocky. Or a 7-year-old kid learning to write. --Abd (discusscontribs) 12:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Physics/Essays/Fedosin 1[edit]

Dear Abd.

Pages in - these pages are not my work.

Pages in Nonstandard_physics - there are only 4 my pages :

Gravitational induction

Maxwell-like gravitational equations

Selfconsistent gravitational constants

and the page Gravitomagnetism was edited for the best quality in Gravitoelectromagnetism.

I beleive that all pages which are listed at my user page Fedosin are standart physics.

Fedosin (discusscontribs) 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My intention is to handle the "Inexplicable physics" pages differently, then. I will probably add Template:Prod to them, which will give 90 days for some user to decide to remove the tag and work on the pages.
I will review your standard physics pages and may do some work organizing them, if needed. Please continue to advise me. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Now, as to your comment that all the listed pages are "standard physics," I want to distinguish between arguments that use standard physics -- I think you do that -- and the application of those arguments in ways that are not broadly accepted. You included, there, what is now located at Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Infinite Hiearchical Nesting of Matter The article labels this as "pseudoscience," currently. On, you participated in w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter. "Standard physics" is not a purely objective category. It is about perception, and this concept is perceived as fringe. Non-standard. Or "pseudoscience," which is worse.
I'm not qualified to assess many of those pages. Your arguments on en.wikipedia showed, however, that you did not understand the keep/delete issue. You expected "proof" of what was being asserted. It doesn't work that way. The burden was on the authors of the article to show that it was notable, and to show sources meeting Wikipedia requirements for "reliable source," that supported the article. Here, we can allow much more. It is not necessary to show that a topic is notable, on Wikiversity, but to feature the topic in top-level mainspace we might eventually have a requirement for that.
It is unnecessary to argue this, my opinion. As essays, you may fully explore the topics, without hindrance. Most of those pages don't belong where they are, they are often narrow topics, they belong as subpages of larger topics. In a collection of your essays, we don't need to decide those complexities, and anything can be moved back to better locations if they are found. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter[edit]

About the page The page was created as development of page at Russian Wikipedia. See Fedosin (discusscontribs) 16:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The page is in English. I was aware, long ago, that the concept of IHNM did not originate with you, I don't remember when I first heard about the idea, but it was probably more than 50 years ago. Nevertheless, it's not standard physics, or contains much that is not standard physics, that is your work and opinion, and so, here, it's your essay. It is not a particularly notable topic, and we are moving away from having articles on relatively obscure topics at the top level in mainspace. If you don't wish to be personally responsible for that page, I would move it away from your essay space, but I think it might be moved to your user space, if you want it, or deleted unless someone else will host it and take responsibility.
The Russian article has, at the top, in Russian, of course: "This article is about a pseudo-scientific theory or concept." We are creating a hierarchy of knowledge on Wikiversity, and we could indeed have pseudoscience coverage. We don't ordinarily host encyclopedic articles, however, rather we refer to the wikipedias for that. We do make exceptions. Basically, you may create alternate articles here, but generally not at the top level in mainspace. I would prefer not to call your page "pseudoscience," though I could probably support that claim. That is, it is not testable. I have classified this page as an essay because this completely avoids the necessity of labelling it as "pseudoscience." Someone can call it pseudoscience if they like, on the Talk page, and that could be discussed.
If you look around Wikiversity, you will see much material that is not organized. It's a mess, really, but to organize it, we start somewhere. Again, my goal is to make Wikiversity safe for people interested in study, learning, and, yes, teaching. If you look at the history of the deletion of resources on Wikiversity, you will find work that was mostly out of place, or with a highly uncooperative user. I have made the point that we can host pages of utter nonsense, the question is where. It might be the next w:Jabberwocky. More to the point, someone put the effort into creating the page, and that may have been educational for them. So I'm reluctant to see work deleted. Rather, what appears to be nonsense may be moved to user space. It might eventually be deleted if it is abandoned and nobody sees value.
Your work is not nonsense. I hope that I've accurately characterized it as "nonstandard physics." As to this page, the Russian wp header clearly considers it very nonstandard. I see that this work is linked from w:Infinite divisibility, though this edit. I will annotate the redirect so it is not removed. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Fedosin (discusscontribs) 05:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


A lot of subpages in Category:Inexplicable physics pages and Nonstandard physics containes Yakymakha in its references. i suppose he is an author of the subpages. So may be create the space like this: and removed there all the subpages?

Also the subpage is not my work, may be it was done by Yakymakha.

Fedosin (discusscontribs) 10:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikiversity allows the creation of pages anonymously by IP. However, the concept we developed of saving pages from deletion by defining them as attributed essays, with some registered user taking responsibility for them, doesn't work with anonymous essays. Those subpages are in that essay space because you either created them yourself or took responsibility for them in some way. The Stoney scale page is one that you edited substantially. If you don't want to take responsibility for it, I would tag it for deletion unless someone else steps up. (You may also contest deletion without taking responsibility, we might then go to WV:RFD, but these pages were already the subject of a deletion discussion, they can be deleted. Given that you worked on the page, though, and that the deletion discussion suggested that unchanged pages might be deleted, it's ambiguous. Still, my preference is to seek consensus without RFD, if possible.)
If Yakymakha was the author, is it possible for you to contact this person and encourage them to register an account and take responsibility for the pages? I see that you already attempted to engage the user, at User talk: way for understanding. That was great. However, this is the problem with IP editors: there is no way of reliably contacting them. They will not be getting email notification of comments on their talk page. To my mind, indeed, we might lock out IP editing, it is actually less anonymous than a registered pseudonym, but for academic purposes, it's better we know who people are, it's an issue of responsibility, which goes with freedom. So maybe you can find a way to contact Yakymakha if you have a reason for thinking the author might be him.
I will continue looking into this situation, and thanks for your attention. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Fedosin, did you attempt to contact Yakymakha? The user would presumably be welcome here. We do encourage real names here, but that's not essential. Still, if one is a published author, and acknowledges that, we may put special effort into protecting the user, as long as the user is reasonably cooperative or can learn to be so. We expect experts, especially those with some negative experience on Wikipedia, to be a bit sensitive and reactive. Hopefully, we can assure them that this isn't necessary here. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can not find Yakymakha and his e-mail unavailable.

Fedosin (discusscontribs) 14:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you tried, in several ways. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

New name for Physics Learning Project[edit]

Hi! I've thinked two new possible name for the page: Basic Physics, Basics of Physics, but I'd prefer the first!
Next, I think that we must place it also in other places at Wikiversity, so that new participants arrive! Such as in Portals!
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 11:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with searching for topics is that if everything begins with Basic, Basics, or Introduction, you can't find the topic. Instead, we should consider Physics Basics, Physics Introduction, etc. Think primary word first in titles. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
My thinking is the same, except I'd use subpages. The primary resource is Physics. Underneath Physics, there can be many resources. The could be a Resource, Physics/Basic which covers very basic physics. There could also be a Basic Science Topic or Portal that lists all Basic resources. Alternatively, there could be a Science/Basic resource that covers all the sciences (by linking to subpages, generally), so basic physics would become Science/Basic/Physics.
Physics/Basic might be linked from elsewhere, but I'd be careful. First develop the resource, then see where links would help students and others. We would not want a Basic resource linked from many places, outside of the obvious places, because we don't want to feature a Basic resource when it's just being started. Later, if well-developed, linking can expand. But still in proportion to the resources overall usefulness to the community of Wikiversitans.
Right now, the page is Physics/Overview, which is fine for the moment.
I'm starting to think of Wikiversity as more like Wikibooks, but with quite general books being developed, that include a wide variety of types of resources, such as discussion groups, essays, compendia of useful links, etc. In the Wikibooks approach, the top-level (mainspace) resource is just a very brief introduction plus a table of contents. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
About naming, I agree with both of you! Specially, I like Physics/Basic.
About a Science or Basic Science Portal/Topic, I don't know what say, I still haven't enough knowledge of Physics, not a complete overview!
About linking, I don't approve. Wikiversity is full of incomplete resources linked from highlighted portals and other places (such as Euclidean Geometry in Mathematics School). If too little people know of the page (Physics overview actually), too little people will participate! And time needed for developing is multiplicated!
However, I don't like Wikibooks, I think of Wikiversity as the universal place of learning.
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 21:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Gradually, we are deleting useless stubs (i.e., that could be recreated in a minute if needed). We may also, with a link to a stub, note that it's a stub! You will find, Nenomaz, that most resources have little participation, short-term. We don't have the user base, and we don't have the incoming links from Wikipedia (or, say, Simple English Wikipedia) that would create the traffic. My suggestion: build your basic physics page in order to learn about physics! (Creating simple explanations is a very good way to learn.) You may always ask someone to look at it. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It's ok! Then, you are also doing something to increase user traffic to wikiversity? And, making easier introduction to new comers? However, I doubt of usefulness of Wiki in Simple English! -- Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 20:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
All the time! However, there is something that could be easy to do, for you, that I cannot do. I cannot put a sister wiki link on Wikipedia. I could do it on Simple. The reason re Wikipedia is that I'm banned there. Long story! On Simple, a template to place could be
See the template documentation for further instructions. The simplest modification of the template would be, say

as an example. The first will link to the Wikiversity page in mainspace with the same name as the page it is placed on, the second to Physics/Overview. Do not do this until there is a decent reasonably-developed resource there, or at least a good seed of one that invites questions and participation. This could also be done with learning circles, but one step at a time.

On Wikipedia, there are a number of templates that can be used. Look at w:Category:Wikiversity templates. The simple Wikiversity template could work, it would normally be put in the External Links section.
There should be a template to place on Talk pages for people who want to discuss the topic. I thought one was created, a while back, but I don't see it. Wikipedia generally discourages people from discussing topics on Wikipedia, even on the Talk page, which is supposedly just for discussing changes to the article. But then, they just tell people not to discuss what they obviously want to discuss, and lack of discussion sometimes impacts how well the editors of an article actually understand the topic. So pointing to Wikiversity for discussion could be a great idea. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
About discussions and template, excuse me, but I've understood a little, because I'm new in Wikimedia projects and I don't know all its history, in addition, I've basically skills of English language and understand some phrases is difficult and take a lot of time.
Well, about links from Wikipedia... I'll do it :)
However, I haven't understood well what you told me above on stubs and their deleting, so I need your opinion on my insertion of links to my Physics Overview in these two pages: School:Physics_and_Astronomy (It's "Physics basics" above of High School Physics), and Portal:Science (in the "Content development projects" right box).
--Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 13:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
As seen, you might forgot to reply me also here in your discussion, this happens to most due to Wiki-Discussion method. Thence, I propose to continue our discussions in Physics/Overview discussion area, but both you and I must add it to our watchlist. I have only recently known this feature and start to use it, and you? --Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 20:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have my preferences set so that any page I edit is automatically on my watchlist. When the page is added, the watchlist also shows edits to the attached discussion page. So I'm already watching that page. I receive email notification of all changes to my watchlist. However, I have more than 4000 Wikiversity pages on my watchlist. I don't always see everything. If you comment on a page where you expect me to respond, and I don't, wait a while, and then ask me about it on my user Talk page. I will receive special notification of that, and, as well, I will eventually see it even if I continue to be distracted for a substantial time. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I get it. I've decided to make my preferences the same! However, I think email notifications are not necessary for me, I like Wikiversity and I come here very often. --Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 21:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can better address this question?[edit]

See here. The question is whether content written from an Austrian point of view would be welcome at Wikiversity. We'd like to move Mises Wiki content over here, if it's feasible, since the Mises Institute leadership and tech support team don't seem to be taking a lot of interest in the wiki lately. Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 22:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked there. With some caveats, yes, all points of view are generally welcome on Wikiversity. As to moving content here, there would be license issues, but assuming those are handled, and assuming that the content can qualify as "educational resources" and "learning by doing," it should be welcome. How you do it is important. You can, effectively, have your own corner, so to speak, but it's not a subdomain. If you want that, just set up your own wiki, trivial to do. You *can* have your own project, as long as it does not attempt to own Wikiversity or suppress contrary views or make it appear, as an example, that some fringe position is mainstream-accepted when it is not. If something is marginal, we would want it presented as marginal, controversial, etc., not as "the truth."

If you write an essay in your user space or in a subpage of a mainspace resource, identified as any essay, as personal opinion or original resource, it can be done. This is, of course, very, very different from Wikipedia. The greatest freedom is in your user space, of course, but we have controversial content being written in mainspace. I generally shove it into subpages if the topic is of general interest, or to use space if I think it is not.

It is rare that there is a serious conflict.

Wikiversity has a neutrality policy, so how you do this is important. You could not, as an example, control a mainspace page on a controversial topic, if anyone contests that. However, you can generally own essay pages, attributed opinion, and the like. If some content is considered highly offensive, as I think you know, there could be problems, this is still a wiki and people are people, but if you are respectful of the community's needs, it will generally be respectful of yours.

In reality, you can often create pretty much what you like as long as it fits with "educational resources" and "learning by doing." --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Mises wiki some more, the "Austrian point of view" can be studied on Wikiversity. Mainspace resources can present it. w:Austrian school indicates that this is a notable topic. One way to get going with a resource here is to create a page with a link to the wikipedia article, then set up subpages and create some subpage content. The top level page should be rigorously neutral, and I highly recommend avoiding any conflict about that. If someone thinks something is not neutral, generally, treat it as not neutral and move it to an attributed page. Even if it was "actually neutral" -- whatever that means -- it is generally not worth fighting over it, it just wastes time. We have two general approaches, creating essay pages and the like, or creating "sections," where a topic is "managed" by an individual. I used the latter approach with Landmark education. So, I would think either of Economics/Austrian school as a place to start, but Austrian school could be acceptable (and would be linked from an Economics resource. There is also Topic and Portal namespace, which should not be used for content as such, but to link to content, working groups, subjects, etc. There is also the School namepace. The early Wikiversitans threw everything and the kitchen sink at the organizational problem, there is no single coherent scheme.....
Wikiversity content should generally not duplicate Wikipedia. If a Wikipedia article covers a topic well, creating a stub here that references the Wikipedia article is a great way to start. Subpages can then explore the topic, essays can be written, lists of resources can be created, etc., there can be discussions. (If you only create the stub with no other content, i t will often get deleted, but if you have created an linked subpages, not, and if there is original content or supplemental content -- say from miseswiki -- it would be kept as well.
Mises wiki does appear to have a compatible license, so content *can* come here. You might start by linking miseswiki content. However, if the fear is that this content is likely to disappear, I'd think much or most of it would be welcome here, with some caution as I've described above. I'd think of a series of Wikibooks on the Austrian school, rather than strewing content all over mainspace. For example, if I look at Wikipedia, I see a sidebar with Austrian School topics. I could imagine, here, Austrian school/Principal works, Austrian school/Theory, and the other major categories are also reasonable, and then under those would be specific topics. Those pages, straight out, would just cite the Wikipedia article, but underneath that subpage and linked from it could be a /Mises article, if there is reason for a distinct presentation. That article could be attributed as original research or opinion, as appropriate.

(We might generally want to be careful about biographies of living persons, we don't need the complications of maintaining them, but some level of biography can be appropriate here, and certainly Wikipedia bios can always be linked from here.)

It should be possible for someone wanting to study the Austrian school to use the resources here to actually learn. Some of the material would be here, some would be elsewhere and linked, but the Wikiversity pages would guide and support this independent learning. Compiling such pages is highly educational (even if one disagrees with the content!) so that is an aspect of learning by doing. As that is filled in, over time, people start to do more by researching narrower topics, creating bibliographies on those, etc. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You know that Austrian economics went to the ArbCom, right? Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 01:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, not surprised. You know that Cold fusion and Pseudoscience went to ArbCom also, right. It makes zero difference here. We are not an encyclopedia, encyclopedias have to make choices about notability and about how a topic is presented, that have far fewer ways of addressing neutrality. They want Wikipedians to behave as if they were neutral. You know what I think about that -- there is only one objective standard by which neutraility can be assessed, and that the level of consensus among the knowledgeable. Two problems with this on Wikipedia:
  1. There is no way of assessing true consensus, because they have no real process for it, only the defacto "rough consensus" of who manages to prevail with or without revert warring. It's rough majority, somewhat, modified by judgment by administrators as to who is the better or more useful or more important or more "neutral" Wikipedians. Which means that people become skilled at pretending to be neutral. The most reliable guide for unbiased text is that nobody thinks it is biased. Wikipedians don't think it's possible to get that kind of agreement, and it's possible that it's impossible because of Wikipedia structure. We do it here relatively routinely. Wikiversity has not generally been severely tested because few focus obsessively on a single topic at the same time, here. So, to be fair, Wikipedia is far more severely tested.
  2. There is no way of knowing who is knowledgeable, and who is Randy from Boise who knows everything. Wikiversity bypasses this problem. Essentially, we are all students, or "scholars" is a common word that has been used by participants here. However, people are encouraged to use real names and to disclose real affiliations, and, in practice, we will help genuine professors and experts in managing resources.
Wikipedians tend to think that Wikiversity has been taken over by fringe believers, because fringe ideas are readily expressed here and not deleted. However, that is also what happens in academia. I have stood for two principles here: high inclusiveness, low deletion, but, then, high organization. I push the edges most strongly with cold fusion, but that is more or less as a challenge. I will push anything down the hierarchy if anyone thinks it is not neutral, or will attribute it, or will source it and defend it.
On Wikiversity, we can simply write about a topic, we do not have to provide sources. If push comes to shove, though, we may sort the material. A common device is to simply have a top level resource that refers to a Wikipedia article, then a "scholar" comments on the Wikipedia article on subpages, expands the available material, etc. Someone thinks that is biased, they have easy choices: first, write their own commentary. They may generally comment on the attached discussion page. Most of us here will also invite participation on the topic page itself, as well, but, speaking for myself, I always reserve the right to remove material to the attached talk page. It's my 'essay' or 'original research.' I'm responsible for what is in it. And that is quite how academia works.
Hence, Leucosticte, we have the highest defacto inclusionism in the WMF. If you don't like a Wikipedia article on t he Austrian school, you can deconstruct it here with high freedom. You will be subject to relatively informal rules for honesty in academic discourse, but you are unlikely to be punished for violating those rules unless you persist in an uncivil manner. That's about the only thing that gets people blocked here. You also know to avoid certain hot topics. That is not an absolute prohibition; as hinted by Dave, any topic is possible here, it is just that some may need ethical guidelines, and we have not written them. It is quite the same as in academia. You know some published papers where simply citing the paper can get you into hot water. So you don't, here, start out by citing the paper! And you don't approach such topics alone, because this is still a wiki and any Wikipedia, Randy from Boise, or Carrie Nation with her axe, can edit here. You gain consensus first, about a sally in to the territory, and then consensus on extending it, etc., and if anyone says Boo! you stop, you don't argue with them, particularly on-wiki.
That's how to survive under difficult conditions. You focus on what you can do, not on what you cannot do. And gradually, you will be able to do more and more, and you can become unstoppable. Premature insistence, you can easily be stopped.
Because this may be read by others -- expect that -- I will add that I know your personal life and know that you are not as you have been represented. You are not a hazard to anyone here. I do know why and how you got into trouble. It can be highly misleading. So there we are.
Welcome, again, to Wikiversity. You can make a difference here, this is a place where you *will* be successful, as long as you don't give up. If you do solid work here, you may find that other doors you have thought closed might open. But start here, and what you can do here will be amazing.
Yes, if that's what you want to work on, Austrian school economics. You will find that the entire topic of economics has been neglected here, for the most part. You may develop it generally, or focus on specifics. You are a trained Wikipedian, you do know, I think, how to be neutral, you just got stuck in so many situations where your position was knee-jerk rejected that you got out of the habit a bit. So when you deal with the overall topic of economics, put on your neutral hat, and be very careful about that. But you can also fully express whatever, if it's properly attributed and framed.
It is also possible to study wiki process here. That raises certain ethical issues and requires care. Sometimes I push the edges, mostly I stay away from it. But it is an important topic, so you will see me working with it from time to time. Very clearly, this is not a place to attack Wikipedians, or stewards, it is not our job to reform Wikipedia or meta process. However, by providing a kind of refuge, we make it possible for alternatives to exist, to breathe and find some life. One of the most important aspects of this is with fringe ideas. Wikipedia can sometimes end up not fairly representing such topics. It is possible to place "sister wiki" links on any Wikipedia article, so that people interested in the topic can explore it, here, in more depth, with interaction, discussion, and supplemental materials. So I advocate that, though, for obvious reasons, I can't do it myself. Those sister wiki links are sometimes removed on totally spurious grounds, that demonstrate the degree to which a faction can control Wikipedia. So ultimately, Wikiversitans will stand for neutrality, by appealing such removals, and I know fairly well what will happen if that goes to ArbCom. Some more of the cabal will get its wrist slapped.
In the end, my sense is that Wikiversity is the great hope of the WMF, to actually realize not only the goal of a neutral encyclopedia, but far deeper educational process than an encyclopedia alone can accomplish. Consider the difference: you have a kid. You can give them Wikipedia, or you can give them a full university library, along with an entire community dedicated to free learning, free in all senses. Which do you choose?
It's not even close, Leucosticte. So that's the future, and I see nothing that will stop it, unless we are colossally stupid. The mistakes have already been made, we are not likely to invent worse ones.
Okay, I looked at the ArbCom case. What leapt out for me was the "race controversy." I did not read further, but I readily suspect what that is. Looking over Mises wiki, I saw some references to race. I've seen this before. People look at someone who wrote long ago, and judge and label them with contemporary judgments. For example, it's easy to call, say, w:Rudolf Steiner a racist. By the simplest definition of "racist," my working definition -- anyone who thinks that "race" is a biological or objective reality -- he was racist. But so were most people in his time. The issue of the biological nature of race is not controversial in academia, any more, not generally. Race is a social construct, not a biological one. But most people, out on the street, will think that preposterous. The racism that is generally rejected is really racial superiority, and that then leads to all kinds of contradictions. So, on Wikipedia, some editors will want to call certain economists "racist." Others will want to defend them. Disputes will arise over what sources are more reliable than others. And it's all highly charged. Racism is endemic, still (as I define it). Because we, knee-jerk and as a dominant social stand now, "condemn racism," then it becomes very important whether someone was "racist" or not, because we always want to know if people were "good" or "bad." I suppose we are making out Santa's Christmas list or something.
If your interest is economics, study economics. If Karl Marx, say, allegedly molested his students or drank too much or whatever (I just made those up, I know nothing about Marx's personal life), that is of zero interest to his economic theories. If someone brings it up, you shove it into a resource dedicated to that special topic, give the page to them to develop as an essay, allow it to be reasonably linked, but not to dominate pages dedicated to economic theory. Now, if some part of an economic theory is intrinsically connected to race, it could be unavoidable, but, still, you would handle this as it is handled in academia.
And if you want to answer that essay, you do so on the essay page if permitted, or on a parallel page that is *your* essay. With consensus, you can put a summary of the debate on a higher level page. There are many possibilities, once we realize the value of academic freedom, of full self-expression. If someone actually lies on a page, misrepresents what is in sources, that kind of thing, that can be addressed -- with evidence -- , but we don't start with block buttons.
Basically, I have not seen that happen here. We would handle it with a Community Review, which is pretty much the only way someone can be banned here. They are rare, as they should be. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
All those people who were banned on Wikipedia could be invited to participate here. Seems they were rather down on the Mises Institute, but that should not be held against them. They were apparently knowledgeable, or considered so by ArbCom. Experts and other highly knowledgeable people commonly run into difficulties on Wikipedia, and can do well here. I don't care if they are biased, if they are housebroken. I.e., if they can put bias or claimed bias into pages attributed as opinion. What I've found is that people really dislike being told to shut up. No surprise, eh? However, if people are told that they may fully express themselves, and *here*, they are not nearly so unhappy. There is a quid pro quo on Wikiversity: I will let you express yourself fully if you let me express myself fully.
Yes, there can be problems. If someone attacks a living person, there can be BLP issues here the same as on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, with the Austrian School, there were attacks, apparently, from my superficial reading, on deceased individuals. Those attacks will continue, there is no way to stop them. On Wikipedia, they can keep them out of current versions of pages, but they are still there in history. So, on Wikiversity, we can keep problematic material out of mainspace, top-level pages, but because we do allow whatever might be allowed in a university environment, on attributed opinion pages or sections, we don't have the deep, intrinsic conflict that is set up on Wikipedia. Revert wars are quite rare here. People work it out, given the opportunity. Mostly, anyway. The revert wars and conflicts that arise are not generally about content, but about procedure and policy and personalities. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Suicide content[edit]

Any advice with regard to the suicide content? I was going to move all the suicide methods information from SuicideWiki over here. Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 17:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, Leucosticte, what do you think? Would that get people riled up? Imagine the local university ran a course on "How to commit suicide"? What would happen politically? Come on, don't be lazy and ask me! You know the answer.
Thanks for the notice, I've added a speedy deletion template. If that's removed, I'll go to RfD, and I can fairly well predict what will happen there. This kind of research or resource, if it is to be hosted here, requires ethical guidelines accepted by consensus, or it will be disruptive. This is what I request: Go to that page and change the reason for speedy deletion to "author request." Then, if you want to work on this here, work on guidelines, seek consensus *before* creating what will almost certainly be highly disruptive here. Don't just go ahead and create a provocative "test case." How has that worked for you in the past?
With consensus, some study of suicide might be possible. It's the same with other highly controversial topics that cause emotional reactions.
You can host Austrian School economics here. You can host Libertarian studies. You can express unpopular opinions as long as they are not directly inciting to riot. In certain *very hot* areas, even neutral content can be highly provocative, triggering reactive response, so there guidelines are needed. One of the goals of Wikiversity is academic freedom, but freedom requires responsibility. It is not "anything goes."
You could create political science resources that, on opinion or essay pages, advocate anarchism, for example. What could not be done, here, is to create a course in how to make bombs or how to rob banks or how to hack into government -- or any -- computers. That is beyond academic study into actual participation in illegal and broadly antisocial action. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not create a course on how to create bombs? The information doesn't have to be used to create bombs; it could be used by counterinsurgency forces to understand how the bombmakers operate. Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 02:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You may certainly invent arguments to support it. The argument you give about "counterinsurgency forces" is completely bogus, though. Those forces are not going to get their information from Wikiversity, unless the Wikiversity becomes hotbed of bombmaker activity, in which case they'd be all over us with subpoenas of server logs, etc. This is the bottom line: without ethical guidelines accepted by the community, such a resource would attract intense disruption, damaging Wikiversity. I certainly don't personally want to see a page like that here without due caution to avoid possible harm. The real issue here is ethical guidelines for Wikiversity content. From your libertarian history, you want zero such guidelines, or is that true? However, in real society, there are restraints on freedom, and that will be true in libertarian societies as well, it's a shift of balance, not of essence.
More arguable is the suicide material, but we still need guidelines. Wikipedia has a page on which then links to, I'm sure, material as "dangerous" as what you put up. That newsgroup is controversial and web sites supporting the right to suicide are often under attack. What we "can" do here is to first study suicide itself and the controversy, being careful that the study is neutral. Becoming a kind of suicide information service -- which we can do in noncontroversial fields, in some ways -- we cannot do without creating massive disruption, and that is why I took immediate action. I also do not want to see anyone commit suicide without full counseling, etc. Suicide is contrary to my religion, as another matter, but that is not behind my action here. I generally support personal rights and freedom, but that also must be balanced against unnecessary harm. People commit suicide in flights of despair, that might then pass and resolve if they don't kill themselves. And all this is a debate familiar to people who work with the issue, and it can be studied here if advocacy is avoided or carefully framed. In areas like this, we properly proceed with caution, or the reaction can be extreme.
I'm aware that you are blocked at the moment, which was the kind of reaction that can be expected in this area. That block is not legitimate and will be overturned, I'm sure. Meanwhile, if you want to respond to anything here, you have my email address and I will put any nondisruptive comment you send me, here. Your arguments on this page and your question on the Deletions page were not disruptive. You have the right to advocate your position, and you properly avoided creating disruption over the deletion. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


It appears that I have been blocked without warning or notice.[1]. The occasion seems to be my notice of a custodian feedback filing on User talk:Sidelight12. I did consider not notifying Sidelight, but instead asking someone else to do it; however, it would be important that the custodian about whom a complaint has been filed be informed ASAP, so that he or she can respond promptly if desired and before there is much other comment.

Given that Sidelight is relatively inactive, probably is not watching Recent Changes carefully, and had not, to my knowledge, edited that page before, it might not be watchlisted. I knew that Sidelight disliked my posting to his talk page, but could not recall if he had actually prohibited posting. (Complaint is distinct from prohibition.) Given prior comments to Sidelight from another custodian that, as a custodian, he must be open to criticism on his Talk page, I decided to provide the notice without any other comment.[2]

For the future, I commit to not posting on User talk:Sidelight without permission; by making it clear here that he considers any posting by me on his talk page a blockable offense, he is now clearly responsible for any harm he suffers from lack of notice. I am also no longer responsible for discussing problems with him first (as would normally be the case with an action to which I object), before taking other action. Harassing him has never been my intention.

Feedback from others on this choice is invited here. Meanwhile:

--Abd (discusscontribs) 12:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked, as noted above. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Perfect. Agreement clear. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Brain surgery[edit]

There's no restriction on the public's access to medical books on how to do brain surgery, is there? I think the difference is, people figure amateurs are more likely to take it upon themselves to commit suicide than to perform brain surgery. Most of the examples I can remember of amateurs doing surgery in the home involved cutting off some part of the genitals. E.g., people performing orchiectomies on themselves or fellow cult members, or clitoridectomies on their daughters. Eek. Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 16:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Medical books on brain surgery are published by publishers who can have their pants sued off if they do so irresponsibly.
Stop arguing with what is obvious, Leucosticte, you waste your time and that of others. Look at that discussion on Talk:Suicide and you can see a path forward to build resources responsibly. It is not impossible that eventually this would cover suicide methods, you are providing some cogent arguments there, but please understand this about wikis, and Wikidragons often end up blocked because they don't get it.
Wikis are community projects. It is not about being right or wrong, it is about collaboration and cooperation. If you want complete freedom, you know how to get it, and you have done that, you start your own damn wiki. And usually, most of the planet ignores you. Start working in community and your own power will be multiplied a thousandfold, because the process will trim away what does not work and will leave you with the full human potential, not just your individual and unreliable personal efforts. Wikiversity is for learning by doing, not just for "educational materials," and you have an incredible opportunity here, and, I see, you are actually taking advantage of it. Congratulations. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Why can't the publishers use a disclaimer to get rid of their responsibility for inaccurate or otherwise harmful information? Anyway, it remains to be seen whether there'll be any green light at Talk:Suicide to bring in that ASH content. Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 16:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Publishers can, and lose all credibility. There is not going to be a green light at that talk page to "bring in that ASH content," not yet. Focus on what you can do, Leucosticte, that creates a path forward that might even end up where you want, or it will lead to something better. One step at a time. You are highly knowledgeable. You can contribute a great deal. You have shown that. Or, I suppose, you can throw a tantrum because we won't let you play just exactly as you want, i.e., with matches. Patience, you might even learn high explosives and demolition, my brother did. I'm not going to train you in that, though, nor would he. Not as you are. You are transforming, I can see it, or I would not bother working with you. Carry on! --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sysop tools[edit]

Would it be accurate to say that what tends to get sysops desysopped most often is their use of blocking and unblocking? So, why not become sysop and just refrain from using that particular tool? Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question. This is the problem. Once one has the block tool, and sees a situation where a user is causing harm to the wiki (in one's opinion), the temptation is high to use the tool. So, normally, we set up procedures to review blocks. If blocks are made in good faith, following procedures, usually blocks won't be a cause for deysopping. However, Leucosticte, you asked me at one time, why not just Be Bold. It's Only a Wiki! So we had a user who was working here, was doing good work. He was well-known elsewhere and had done some quite problematic things, though, in fact, little of what he did harmed the project itself, it got people riled up. Personally riled up. And he socked. Apparently just for the hell of it, because he was a 'crat already, he created a sysop account, and did not apparently abuse it. Silly, stupid stuff. Can you identify with someone who does silly stupid stuff, and gets in trouble, and didn't even walk away with cash? I.e., no sane greediness involved, perhaps just his idea of fun.
Anyway this was Poetlister. There was a global ban discussion on meta and he was globally banned and his account was locked. However, the locking steward said that it was up to local wikis if he would be allowed to use other accounts. I asked!
However, he was very unpopular at that time on Wikipedia Review as well as on WMF wikis. Whatever the cause, he was blocked here, by a sysop who clearly disliked him, but had previously stated that it should take consensus to block, not consensus to unblock. That was when he liked another banned user that I was arranging to allow to edit here. The 'crat trick was used, by this sysop, to delink this other account from the global one so he could edit here. The sky did not fall. The user was also eventually unlocked, he'd never been formally banned with a discussion, it was all just ad-hoc stewardry, fired up by a "who will rid me of this meddlesome priest" offhand comment while frustrated, from the God-King.
Because blocking a user with no disruptive actions here was contrary to policy, I questioned the block, and began a discussion of it. After a discussion, there was no consensus, opinion was split. So I followed policy and prior practice and unblocked. And an immediate request for emergency desysop was filed. So, Leucosticte, it's true that desysopping usually has to do with the block tool. However, what is the toolset worth if it cannot be used? The other tools are largely used for maintenance. They are an opportunity to do more work. I have no need of them, generally, the one that could be useful is move with subpages. That, by the way, is an invitation to make a big mistake that can take hours to clean up. Dave has a bot that he uses for stuff like this.
Behind the question is an idea that one would want to be a sysop. Why? Having been a WMF sysop, I can tell you it's a pain in the rump, you get to do lots of extra work, and it's seriously distracting from what you might want to work on. And you must deal with a whole array of disagreeable people, though that can vary. Mostly, Wikiversity is quite friendly and collaborative. So far.
My goal is to prepare for a future where Wikiversity is far, far more active. In theory, Wikiversity could be much larger than Wikipedia. We are absolutely not ready for that. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


I notice that Wikibooks has even fewer sysops than Wikiversity. Quite a sleepy little community. Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 23:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. It turns out that writing a Wikibook is more work than most people want to do, my suspicion. We can create books here, piecemeal. Wikiversity began on Wikibooks, that could be the origin of our subpages in mainspace.
If you want to do something controversial, consider that on a "small, sleepy" wiki, you might actually get away with it for a while, thus investing more work, until those who don't want it notice it. Then if they come in, in numbers, they can easily whack it.
In a way, this what happened in the Dutch Wikiversity (on Beta). A user enthusiastically created a whole lot of stubs and projects and learning group ideas, very undeveloped, until Wikipedians saw this and decided to do something about the mess. Enough of them came that they elected a sysop and started whacking away at the page, until they had deleted almost the entire Dutch Beta Wikiversity. Then they vanished. Actually building educational resources is a lot more work than deleting them. If the goal is learning, we will do it, because of the value of learning. If the goal is to build "complete educational resources," who is paying for it?
Very important on a wiki, for long-term stability, to engage with the community. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
At this point, Wikiversity has one active sysop. Jtneill is a sysop and 'crat and is active with his own courses, not much with anything else. Take a look at the deletion log. On Wikibooks, there is also essentially one sysop deleting stuff. Nearly all this is speedy deletion material. If you look at Wikiversity:Requests for deletion, and Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/13 you will see all contested deletions for this year, plus some added by clueless 'pedians who think they have to use the request page for pure garbage -- or copyvio. Nobody is paying much attention to that page any more, it's fairly obvious. Periodically, I go there and clean up, closing stuff even if I've commented, because nobody else is doing it. WP:BOLD, if someone wants to object, I don't revert war. Fine with me!
wikibooks:Wikibooks:Requests for deletion is also pretty sleepy. Looks like Wikibooks does not maintain an archive page. They archive discussions as subpages under the RFD page. Ugh. So you can see them with Special:PrefixIndex and it is completely insane, no way to track what is going on except to comb through history. Talk pages? Very weird. There is a bit higher level of activity other than the primary one maintaining the site. Darklama shows up. He's a sysop here as well, occasionally edits. Hardly ever uses tools. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonstandard Physics[edit]

The nonstandard physics articles that had been tagged for speedy deletion have been moved to {{prod}}. There's a new custodian in town, and we shouldn't confuse him with tagged deletions that aren't ready for deletion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd been wondering what to do about those pages, whether to slow it down or speed it up. Prodding them is probably a good idea anyway. Definitely, creating confusion, not a good idea. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thai Dessert[edit]

There's also Thai Dessert and subpages that could go with Cooking. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Okay. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing of subpages[edit]

I see at some Nonstandard physics subpages for proposed deletion in January 2015. May be some of them will be improved. In any case I think that instead of deletion the subpages may be removed to Physics/Essays/Fedosin with the notation: The page is under revisions. After revision the subpages may be transferred back.

To the moment the page Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Selfconsistent_electromagnetic_constants is corrected in full, all the formulas were checked.

I suppose the pages Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Gravitoelectromagnetism, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Fine structure constant, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Gravitational induction and Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Maxwell-like gravitational equations may be transferred to main space as standard physics, and the question is for the next discussion. Fedosin (discusscontribs) 11:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we will probably not "transfer back." There are a series of issues.
  • I don't think we will have a resource called "nonstandard physics." That was used to temporarily hold these pages when they were proposed for deletion. Having such pages with no maintainer is not good, because they are "nonstandard," which would mean that the knowledge necessary to maintain them may not be available. There is no declared responsible user.
  • Any of these pages can be an essay as a subpage of a related physics resource. Or they can be a non-essay (i.e, a neutral educational resource), as a subpage. A mainspace resource may have, as an example, a section called "Lectures," with listed topics, hosted on subpages.
  • Pages can be in mainspace, top-level, as I wrote, and in my opinion, as the core of an educational resource, if the topic could reasonably be a stand-alone course in a university. Otherwise, in what course would the topic be covered? (I.e., the best one, the one where the topic would be most important.)
  • So that will be the topic of discussion for the pages you have checked or improved.
  • As to the pages under proposed deletion, you may adopt any of these pages by moving it. You could choose to simply remove the proposed deletion tag, but this could, instead, lead to W:RFD. If you move a page to your Physics/Essays subspace, you may remove the proposed deletion tag, no problem, and note that you plan to review them. (I.e., you are not yet responsible for them, but willing to take on the task.)
Based on your comment, I will move all those pages to your essay space. I will not remove the proposed deletion tag, but you may do so.
Having edited a page, presumably you now have the page on your watchlist, and you will see changes and may choose to accept or reject or modify them.
One more point. If en.wikipedia has a decent resource on the topic, we should probably not duplicate that here. However, a resource can still exist here that fills in details, addresses controversial points, and as a place where the topic may be discussed. A resource may list many external sources on the topic, including external sources that might be biased. We study topics, our goal is deeper knowledge, not just what would be found in a highly-filtered encyclopedia. This is how Wikiversity, as envisioned, is far more like real universities.
Thanks for your work, it's appreciated. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


I haven't been on a lot. How has it been? --Goldenburg111 18:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

wa ^alaykum salaam. What's "it"?
Seriously, I've been doing well, thank you. I've been active on Quora lately, it's a fascinating site, lots of intelligent, thoughtful people, and the usual scattering of dimwits who think they are smart and who are certain they are right. I'm just starting to write a bit about Islam there.
My Quora account.
Wikiversity is doing very well. I did what it took to get Dave approved as permanent custodian, and now Marshall is probationary. And yourself? --Abd (discusscontribs) 12:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Marshall is probationary? That's great! Along with Dave's approved permanent custiodianship too. I've been doing somewhat better than last time, getting back to activity here, leaving another site.
You're tone has changed. I can feel the change in your tone tho. Idk it's probably me. I also met other Muslim friends. --Goldenburg111 12:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
No, we change, life moves on. See if you can describe what you sense. It doesn't have to be right. You will be describing, not me, but your own "occurring." I will then tell you if it makes any sense to me! --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't know. But yes indeed life has changed. I have also encountered normal idiots who think they are superior in every way. But ah well there gone from my life and it's out to do better stuff than to stick around there. What's going on in real life with you? --Goldenburg111 15:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
One of my daughters, now 13, has been living with me for a year, she is technically home-schooled, but is actually an independent learner. See She's an adventure. Most of my writing is private, among cold fusion researchers, but I just submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, first time. This will be fun!
I'd say that Quora is the first time that I've seen what might be called "extensive popular success." It really might be no different on Quora than elsewhere, I've always been popular *among some*. And Quora mostly shows the upvotes. There are no downvote notices, and a couple of cold fusion posts of mine were downvoted into being hidden, but seem to be reappearing as people find them and upvote them. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it actually possible we can meet in real life?[edit]

Idk, seeing that we both live in the East. This just popped into my head when I was reading my archives. --Goldenburg111 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It is possible, but we are not at all close. This would be arranged through your parents, if it is possible at all. (I think it's okay for people to know you are under 18.) I live in Northampton, Massachusetts and do not currently travel much. I do know about where you live, from all that you have written. Sometimes there are wikiconferences in New York, I did go to one, but that is unlikely in the near future. It is not impossible that I will travel to Washington, D.C., on business related to cold fusion sometime within the next few years. That would be not terribly far from you, I'd think, maybe two hours drive or so. If I am going to Washington for this, I assume I would announce it on the cold fusion resource and probably on my user page, so that people would know that there is some possibility of meeting. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, possibly when I am older I might be able to go Massachusetts soon. --Goldenburg111 17:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What reciter do you listen to?[edit]

Like in the Quran, what reciter do you listen too? --Goldenburg111 17:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So I'm assuming you don't listen to any reciters...? --Goldenburg111 15:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Not usually, lately. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

You're welcome, Abd, but you could've asked permission before reposting someone's comments, even if redacted. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


I report that the editing of the Essays is done. I do not want edit the pages: Physics/Essays/Anonymous/Solar planets as gravitational resonators, Physics/Essays/Anonymous/Dirac large numbers hypothesis, Physics/Essays/Anonymous/Weak natural scale.

The page Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Electric charge wave is redirected to a section of Quantum Electromagnetic Resonator.

It is obvious the page User:Jorge/Quantum Hall effect is not finished by the author and it is necessary to appeal to him. Fedosin (discusscontribs) 13:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the Quantum Hall effect to the user space for User:Jorge, and am cleaning up all the redirects and references. More will follow. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"These pages should be placed into page hierarchy, associated with general articles on the general topics". May be I can help. If you give me examples of such ordering in your opinion, we shall discuss it. Fedosin (discusscontribs) 09:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good question.
I have the idea that top-level resources should be major topics, but that the minimum for this is what could be a course in a University catalog, not merely the topic of a single lecture. In any case, some of the pages could easily be moved to subpages of Quantum mechanics, cooperating with the user who has been working on that, see history, and he already has a set of essays there. If they stay as essays, they can be neutrally linked (as they are now). Or if they are not listed as essays, but as simple resources, then their content will be a matter of consensus. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft ethics[edit]

See Wikiversity:Ethics for pages concerning illegal or physically dangerous activities. Is anything more needed? Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 17:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


Can you take a look at Thorcon? It was deleted from Wikipedia as advertising / promotional. The only sources are the company promoting the technology. Perhaps it can be renamed (Thorium Energy) or moved to a subpage somewhere, or perhaps it's just promotional and should be deleted. But it seems closer to your area of expertise. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I will investigate. I am familiar with thorium power, it's a known technology, but I don't know about the company yet. I would not suggest Thorium Energy as a resource, it's too specialized. I will look at what we have on nuclear fission or nuclear power. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
As usual, our resource structure is a mess. We have Nuclear power greener but not Nuclear power. It is possible that the "greener" page should be a subpage of Controversies in Science. (In fact, likely all those pages listed on the Controversies page should be subpages of Controversies or of the more general topic. Cold fusion was academically called "The scientific fiasco of the century," and is still a huge mess, unresolved.
"Greener" It could also go under a new Nuclear power resource, that is a sufficiently broad topic. There are many forms of nuclear power, and w:Thorium fuel cycle is one.
w:Thorcon was speedy deleted. There is a protest on w:Talk:Thorcon from a long-term regular user. Don't know why he has not formally requested undeletion, it should be immediately granted if properly requested. The user may have a COI, it's possible, I'll communicate with him here. We allow COI users to edit, but COI must, by WMF policy, be disclosed. The user needs assistance, appears clueless how to proceed, image files uploaded on Wikipedia don't have proper licensing information. The images should be on Commons and permission should be confirmed through OTRS.
World Nuclear News could be reliable source. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you ever planning on requesting an unban at Wikipedia?[edit]

I honestly don't know the case very well but what I've seen (which is little) you didn't need to be blocked. --atcovi (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What you can readily see is the tip of the iceberg. In the community ban discussion, there is an apparent cause. I had socked with a single undeclared sock, for a short time. None of it was disruptive, but ... that is considered a blockable offense. Normally, it would not result in a ban, but there was a long history here. ArbComm is involved. (That is part of what that sock demonstrated. Old policies and practices that would have led to a different result are not followed.) To understand the situation would take a lot of study. I'm certainly willing to discuss it. However, to be unbanned, I would need to request it from ArbComm, though there is an alternate path. I do not expect sympathy from ArbComm, though possibly from individual members. I saw the ArbComm members who would have opposed a ban picked off, one by one. The underground politics of Wikipedia is ugly. It doesn't affect most editors, so most editors won't believe it exists. Why that would violate policy!
The alternate path is that someone sets up an unban discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard. My guess is that the faction behind the ban is still quite active and would react quickly. Even when I was unbanned and even when I was successful in confronting administrative abuse, discussions were going 2:1 Ban Abd even when what I had done was open-and-shut proper and they lost before ArbComm.
And why would I want to edit Wikipedia? What interested me most about Wikipedia was the process, I had seen the potential of such process for decades before. I know how it would work and how it could fail. Working in the content salt mines, wikignoming, great thing to do, and I did some of it for a time, just because I could. I do it on Wikiversity, sometimes. But it is not what really interests me. As to anything wiki, I'm quite happy with Wikiversity, where I can build resources and structure without fighting off hordes of Lilliputians who really don't care about the subject, or who have some old POV to push (plenty of those among Wikipedians "in good standing," including administrators. Who are welcome here.) We just don't need to fight here, there is no scarce space, no single page that has to be complete and neutral. And I can help out on, say, Wikiquote, where I was recently active because there was controversy that I knew how to handle. It worked. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
So, thanks for the thought. Maybe someday I will be invited. I'm not planning on holding my breath. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Huh, alright. No problem. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me with this essay at Wikibooks please?[edit] - I know you know all about how an interactive wiki works like. Maybe you can help me with this essay at Wikibooks? Thanks! --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Its me[edit]

I want you at en WP again. Your action plz + my service (u r "still" in my heart) Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You may ask questions about Wikipedia here, or you may email me. I am unable to directly edit Wikipedia, because I am banned there and have not appealed the ban. Nevertheless, I have been, on occasion, able to assist editors with handling Wikipedia process. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It is my desire to appeal for lifting up ban. Do you allow me plz. (I think after one year appeal can be made easily). Can I initiate such a proposal?Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You mean my ban. Why do you want me on en.WP? I would consider cooperating with such a request, but coming from a user with little experience, the chance of success is small. I'm quite happy with Wikiversity, and I worry that harm might come to you if you attempt such a thing. Simply being unbanned, by the way, would not be satisfactory. I would still be under the community ban on cold fusion, and the "MYOB ban" set up by ArbComm, as it came to be interpreted (not as it was formulated, I actually thought it was fine when it was first passed), made it impossible for me to do what I was good at. That MYOB ban was indefinite.
I'm not seeing value that is worth the energy. However, there are many possible projects that involve cooperation between Wikiversity and Wikipedia. There is no particular obstacle to these, so if you would like to help, you could. It might also be difficult, sometimes, but at least there would be a likely benefit. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are not keen for en-WP, its ok. However, I would request to opt “review” by ArbComm. Further more if you are sure that outcome has possibility in negative then turn down req/proposal. Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 19:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If you would like to show me some proposal, you may. I did appeal to ArbComm, and, in fact, I was indef blocked during an appeal; I considered then that the general requirement to follow due process was exhausted, so I used the occasion to test a process that had worked for others who were banned. It actually worked, but not as well as it would have worked if recognized. Then, when block enforcement escalated to the point that it was temporarily a nuisance -- and it was causing collateral damage -- I created a regular sock, taking no precautions. I only made useful edits, within policy, except for block evasion. I wanted to see if there would be special enforcement, checkuser, without disruptive editing. There was. Basically, the old policies and guidelines were not followed. I have not edited Wikipedia except accidentally since. I'd found enough. That was documented here, by the way.
Let me ask you why you would want to see me unbanned. What purpose would it serve? My work is mostly here, though I'm active globally on occasion. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don’t know what would be the result. I was planning to discuss the matter with an en-WP admin.
  • Answer to your questions: Simply I do not know. However, reply has already been given to you last year - that was “natural”. I think there is magnetism between persons that might cause attraction towards any segment of our social life. So I am patient of that gravitation. Sometime this gravitation becomes: desire, admire, jealousy, love, help, hate etc. Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 20:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There should be no harm in discussion, unless you insist on something. Let me know where such a discussion takes place. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
Ok. Please wait.
Please read this at and give your "Explicit view on expansion of universe". Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 14:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (to save religion dispute we may hold communications via e-mails)
It is recommended that a request for unblock by placing an unblock with reason for unblocking template on your talk page may please be done (by using Wikipedia unblock ticket system", see ). Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 10:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Nannadeem, I know how to request unblock. However, there is a community ban in place. So see w:Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Review_and_reversal_of_bans. If I were unblocked, which would not be, in itself, terribly difficult (basically, I was community banned for doing some editing by IP and a single sock, and the editing itself was nondisruptive, and, my narrow purpose accomplished, I have not deliberately socked for about four years. That story is on User:Abd/Wikipedia/List of self-reverted edits). However, I would still be under an indefinite ban, an ArbComm ban on intervention in matters where I am not already involved. (Call this the "no-neutral intervention ban," but it has been called the "MYOB" ban -- Mind Your Own Business --, and it's one of the more fascinating devices invented to make it impossible for me to work on Wikipedia doing what I'm good at. Never before and never since for anyone, AFAIK.) It would be work, and for what purpose? What would I want to do on Wikipedia that cannot be done, just as easily or more easily, by someone else?
However, I had been under the impression that I was still banned on cold fusion there. I'm not. I'd forgotten, that ban was only for a year and expired October 5, 2011. So there might be some useful work I could do there, with appropriate caution, even with the MYOB ban in place. I do know how to do this. I'll consider it. I still have email enabled on Wikipedia, and, for a community ban, the minimum action is emailing an admin. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not take it ill and place your request without hesitation. Am telling you destination/Luck (Taqdeer in Urdu/Arabic): (1) Personal attempt (2) Tools to be applied (3) Random. You know in Physics three mistakes have value i.e. Personal, instrumental and random. If you believe in Taqdeer you must apply and do not scarify two objects for the sake of one (See rule Attempt + Result one pair Negative + Positive 2nd pair. Mutation of these Allele is Taqdeer). My prayers are with you.Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 18:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Today my first peer-reviewed paper has been released.[3]. It is part of a special section on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, in Current Science, and is referenced in the preface to the special section (p. 492 of the journal). Are we having fun yet? --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I am already impressed of you. It is your involvement in physics and interest with command. That is why I personally do not want to see you as blocked/banned. (My question for your personal views (expansion/expending) needing a response plz). My prayers to Almighty for your more n more success n dignity.Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 17:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it a good idea?[edit]

Is it a good idea to create Category:Images of Wikiversity in this Wiki? Thanks! Shustov (discusscontribs) 08:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC) moved from [4] --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please define the Category. What is the purpose? That is separate from the purpose of the images themselves that you are uploading. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)