User talk:Sophivorus

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from User talk:Felipe Schenone)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome!

Hello and Welcome to Wikiversity Felipe Schenone! You can contact us with questions at the colloquium or me personally when you need help. Please remember to sign and date your finished comments when participating in discussions. The signature icon Insert-signature.png above the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy, Civility, and the Terms of Use policies while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


You do not need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Rights[edit]

Could you please disclose your membership / group rights that allows you to edit Mediawiki: pages? There's nothing in Special:UserRights/Felipe_Schenone, and it's not clear from your user page what roll you have in WMF that supports this ability. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Extension:WikipediaExtracts[edit]

It looks like there's enough support that you can put in a Phabricator request to have Extension:WikipediaExtracts added to Wikiversity. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Done, see phab:T148848, cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 16:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Files Missing Information[edit]

Thanks for uploading files to Wikiversity. All files must have source and license information to stay at Wikiversity. The following files are missing {{Information}} and/or Wikiversity:License tags, and will be deleted if the missing information is not added. See Wikiversity:Uploading files for more information.

MaintenanceBot (discusscontribs) 01:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Wikidialectics demo.png is currently a candidate for speedy deletion. If you want to keep this file, please supply the missing license information. If you are not sure how to do this, please let me know and I can help. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki.J.Sci[edit]

Hi, Given your interest in Wiki.J.Sci, I was wondering if you'd consider listing yourself on its editorial board and helping find peer reviewers if an article in your area is submitted? I've also made a couple of suggestions on its discussion page in case you've any opinions. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Definitely! It's just that I'm on holidays until February, I will resume work on the journal when I return, cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 11:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Felipe Schenone:, Great to hear. Enjoy the rest of your break! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Whenever you decide to put together the issue 1 for Wiki.J.Sci, let me know. I wrote the majority of the Catalytic triad page from scratch and I'm happy to submit it for peer review. No worries if your focus is on the domain discussion first though. Let me know if you want help with any of the formatting templates. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: Wow!!! Awesome article Evo, I'd definitely like to have it in the first issue! As you very well predicted, I'd like to sort out the domain and structural issues before getting into the first issue, but rest assured, it'll happen more sooner than later. Thanks for contacting me!!! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 11:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science/Submissions: Physics/Essays/Moreno/Demostration of the No Relativity of Time has been given a brief review on its Discuss page, and Life/Irrefutable Truths of Life has been given a longer review on its Discuss page. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidebate[edit]

Hi Felipe! Wikidebate appears to be ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: But of course! Do I need to do something? --Felipe (discusscontribs) 01:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Does God exist?[edit]

Hi Felipe! The Wikidebate Does God exist? appears to be ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 12:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Hi, sure! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 13:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Formal glossary of philosophy[edit]

Hi Felipe Schenone! The resource Formal glossary of philosophy appears to be well developed and ready for learners! Would you like it to be also announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Yea ok XD --Felipe (discusscontribs) 01:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Should suicide be legal?[edit]

Hi Felipe! This Wikidebate appears to be ready for learners and participants. Would you like it announced on our Main Page News?

This may not be applicable to the debate, but many who attempt suicide usually are not proficient or well-trained in killing so their attempts when unsuccessful often worsen their medical or psychological state. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Sure, go ahead. Regarding your comment, it's interesting, but it doesn't seem like an argument for or against. --Felipe (discusscontribs) 22:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I like to think of it as an argument in favor of legalization like of currently illegal drugs by analogy. If its legal an individual might seek medical or psychological help. If its illegal and they survive, but get caught, they may go to prison or a psychiatric ward. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Should we go vegan?[edit]

This Wikidebate appears to be well-developed and ready for learners and participants. Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Sure, go ahead! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 11:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Another WikiJournal of Science submission[edit]

Hi Felipe Schenone! There appears to be another submission to the WikiJournal of Science, namely WikiJournal of Science/Submissions/Location Hypothesis of Atlantis in the Azores. Has it actually been submitted or is it in limbo somewhere? Cheers! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Fixed, thanks! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 04:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Space - Movement - Matter and Relativity of Time[edit]

Hi Sophivorus! Is Space - Movement - Matter and Relativity of Time still a submission to the WikiJournal of Science or has it been withdrawn or rejected? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 16:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Space - Movement - Matter and Relativity of Time has had two reviewers and two reviews. Usually, we give the author(s) a month or two to respond, including fixups and if needed re-submissions before putting the submission in the rejection section for not responding. What would you like to do with this submission? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter: Hi, and a trillion thanks for your review and help with the WJS. I think we both know what will happen with this submission, but I also think there's no rush. Please be patient now, if after a month of my review we had no answer, we'll move it to the rejected list.

Space (mathematics)‎[edit]

Hi Sophivorus!

I restored WikiJournal of Science/Submissions/Space (mathematics) so that any Wikiversity reviewer is free to review w:Space (mathematics) here. I suggest keeping these WikiJournal of Science/Submissions for this purpose. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hi Sophivorus!

May I ask you for a comment at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#File:The same man at 18 and 80 years old.jpg --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Argument[edit]

Without the associated styling and collapsing that this template used to have, it's now no different than indentation. Why did you remove this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Fixed! The problem was that someone mistakenly deleted the JS and CSS files in Commons. I restored them now, thanks for letting me know! By the way, I'll let you know in advance that I'll bring some changes to the wikidebate syntax in a couple of days. I favor the new syntax because it's a bit cleaner and more importantly, it allows to edit wikidebates from the VisualEditor. Below I leave you a sample of the new syntax, which will also make the Template:Argument and Template:Objection unnecessary. Hope you like it! Cheers, --Felipe (discusscontribs) 18:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
<div class="debatetree">
Argument about something
* Objection to the argument
** Objection to the objection
* Second objection to the argument
</div>
Score. Thanks as always. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hm. Actually, now it makes the first argument "Refuted" no matter what. See Should we go vegan?Justin (koavf)TCM 03:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Thanks for letting me know, I'm on it. Rather than fixing it, I'm updating to the new version that doesn't have this bug. Cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 03:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I have updated the debate on veganism to the new syntax, check it out! I'll go ahead and update the rest of the wikidebates now, but it may take a while. Hopefully I'll finish today though. Cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 03:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Let me try with w:en:WP:AWB. Give me a moment. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Thanks a lot Justin! I updated all the documentation to match the new syntax while you worked, as well as the debates in the Spanish Wikiversity. I'm going to sleep now, bye and thanks again! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 05:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Igual. Buenos sue~os. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A first-order theory of causality[edit]

Hi Sophivorus! Your logic resource A first-order theory of causality appears well-developed and ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science[edit]

Hi Felipe! Here's a likely line up of articles for Issue number one:

  1. Space (mathematics), ready for publication and may need common language introduction
  2. The Eikonal Approximation, ready when principal author finishes revision
  3. Introduction to quantum mechanics, same as above
  4. Quantum mechanics timeline, same as above
  5. Alpha Centauri, revision stalled, may need to be imported here, or accepted without further improvement.

--Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 13:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Hi! You've done some amazing work so far, thanks!! Your list seems adequate, lets give the authors a bit more time to review their articles. Have you had any answer from them? I'm also thinking in submitting my article Dialectic algorithm, it's pretty short and concise so it should be easy to review, but I may still add some content so I haven't submitted it yet. Cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Guy vandegrift has #2 on his to do list, I've contacted w:User:Chetvorno about #3 but no response (may be on summer break), #4 I left a message with Guy, I've contacted w:User:Exoplanetaryscience and w:User:Huntster about #5 and some revisions (updates) have occurred, I contacted w:User:Aldebarium about Astronomical spectroscopy but no response and may be on summer break, w:User:Primefac is the principal contributor 75 % to Astronomical spectroscopy, and no interest shown since 18 March 2014. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
There are a couple of possibilities with "Astronomical spectroscopy": (1) change the title to "Optical and radio astronomical spectroscopy" and clean it up after importing it here, or (2) import it here and improve on it here to make it conform to its title "Astronomical spectroscopy". --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for your awesome work! Then I'm afraid I cannot think of much else to do until these people respond. Most of these submissions come from way back, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the authors lost interest. I can do the second review once the authors respond, but I can only check for things like coherence, syntax, clarity, etc, cause my formal training is on philosophy. Also, I think you'll agree there's no point in doing a second review to an article until there's a response to the first review. However, if any of the articles would benefit from a second review right now, let me know and I'll take care fast. Cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 00:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)