User talk:Hillgentleman

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[1]{{subst:Game of Life












Add New Comments:

Note:We are experimenting with Threaded discussions here. Please leave your message with the "reply" or "comment" links. It is more interesting than to edit this page directly. : )

/20070519 | /20080903 |Threads Purge

Add New Comments:

Threads[edit source]

I noticed your comment about trying out THREADNAV. You might be interested in looking at Template:Thread/Example. -- darklama  17:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i was thinking about liquid threads.. but thanks, i am not aware of the thread template. can it be nested indefintely? and how do you handle multiple replies? it could be more economical than a pile of nav frames. but i am too lazy for that. thanks.Hillgentleman
In theory it could be nested indefinitely, but mediawiki has a upper limit to how many templates can be on a page. -- darklama  18:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You add additional replies under the first like I'm doing here. -- darklama  18:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i see. when i have time i might create some /w/index.php?..preload=....action=edit links for convenience. Hillgentleman
but , of course, if we are to be able to view from any node, nested transclusion would be necessary. Hillgentleman

This was very inappropriate, please stop.[edit source]

[36] While this wasn't exactly "vandalism," it was very close to it, and is clearly inappropriate, as inappropriate as, say, using any example of an admin "getting away with murder," so to speak (i.e., violating a policy), on a WP policy page as if the policy was unclear and had an admin exception.

Policies exist to guide general behavior, not to determine that there are no exceptions, and the alleged exception of, say, a putatively abusive admin, provides no guidance to those who need it, for they are not such admins and the exception will not protect them.

It is possible to add to a page that exceptions exist, so that new editors don't become outraged because "someone broke the rules." But that would never assign the exception to a specific person, and it's clear that in doing this, you were creating disruption in order to make a point. Please do not repeat that. --Abd 20:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "It is possible to add to a page that exceptions exist ... But that would never assign the exception to a specific person, ". This is the second time I am making a simple request: make up your mind before you pass down another judgement. Let me remind you that we are talking about a set of one person, the one in the "founder" group. I don't remember the Wikiversity community electing you to be our judge. Regards, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 22:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hillgentleman, it seems to me that you might benefit from asking some other people what I mean, because it's pretty clear to me, but apparently it's not getting through to you. Are you claiming that I have an inferior right to comment here, that I would need to be "elected" as a "judge"? If that is the case, can you point to your own election? I have warned you, effectively, about disruptive behavior, as I see it. I am not your judge, because I have no power to sentence you to anything. I am simply doing what you, paradoxically, are claiming any Wikiversitan should be able to do, express their opinion. You can take it or leave it, but, under the present circumstances, it is possible that if you "leave it," you might be unable to continue here, not because of any special powers of mine, but because it is likely to be a natural consequence of your behavior. It remains up to you.
    • Again, because you have repeated this "make up your mind theme" when I develop an issue beyond a simplistic single-valued assertion, I will state that I have no unclarity about what I wrote, and if you need more explanation, ask a question. This is your Talk page, you have the right to ask me to leave you alone, and if you request this, I will honor it, but would instead, if I have a problem, go to the appropriate place to register a complaint and possibly a request for action. What is your preference? --Abd 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

custodianship nominations[edit source]

Hi! I think you copied an inappropriate section to Jtneill's nomination here. It would be nice if you could correct it. Thx! --Gbaor 08:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I re-read it, and seems that you wanted to illustrate a point with that section. Can you please explain whant you meant with "call on pause on Gbaor's judgement"? --Gbaor 08:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wales/Breach Postmortum[edit source]

Hi, I am here and then I am not, and this crisis (thankfully) passed me by. I am doing a postmortum, and I am trying to find out if it actually came to a vote at the WMF Board to shut us down, and if it did, what was the outcome?--JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 22:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know something about this, some of which I can disclose publicly. Summary: AFAIK, there was no proposal presented for vote. Some here mistook bluster and personal opinion for official WMF action. There was a proposal on meta to shut down Wikiversity and it went down in flames. As a result of the events of March, compounded by a later action that was similar in principle, Jimbo resigned his intrusive founder tools, facing something like an almost 4:1 !vote, with over 500 participants, to remove the tools, his voluntary request for removal leaving only the tools that allow him to see all of what is happening. Oversight is the only exception, he could theoretically oversight edits, but the intention would have been to remove the ability to do so; future revisions of MediaWiki may allow separation of the right to read oversighted edits from the right to make them.
To be more explicit about the meta proposal, there were six who supported the proposal. Two of the names were long familiar to me as long time administrators who had abused those privileges (and had been admonished by ArbComm, in one case, and resigned checkuser, at least, facing serious questions from functionaries, in the other.) The concerns of these six should not be summarily dismissed, there is some level of truth behind them, but, for perspective, there were 51 explicit oppose !votes. Many of the user names were familiar to me as active, reputable Wikipedians.
A. B., compiled a useful set of statistics on Wikiversity. He then closed the discussion, including the comment, Given the overwhelming opposition to closing this project, this matter can be considered closed for the foreseeable future and another proposal to close active Wikiversity projects will probably be speedily closed unless some change has occurred or a number of months have elapsed.
It's fascinating to me to read the Oppose votes in the meta RfC, Remove Founder flag, up to the point where votes started pouring in based on later events at Commons. Even at that point, even though participation bias would lead to disproportionate voting on meta for supporting Jimbo, I'd expect, compared to general feelings among a wider community, if more awakened and informed -- as later happened --, the vote was running, as of 5 May, at 23:32 Support/Oppose, showing shockingly low support for Jimbo, it was No Consensus at that point. Yet many of the Oppose !voters treated the matter as a joke, as pure drama, one early comment read, This is absolutely silly in the extreme. At this point, Jimbo should probably have recognized that he had a Problem. I notice among the support votes at that time at least one Steward, plus a former member of the en.wikipedia Arbitration Committee. This wasn't just a few disgruntled Wikiversity participants.
Summary: do not worry about Wikiversity being closed. Do worry about the quality of the project and of community process. If we don't clean up our own garbage, it will offend our neighbors and attract flies. This does not mean, to me, tossing out useful content or useful contributors, but setting clear boundaries and, in particular, ethical guidelines for studies that involve other WMF projects, it's a peculiar problem that Wikiversity has because original research is permitted, we can have a resource on Navel gazing -- why not? -- and there is certainly interest in the topic of wiki history and process from some people (like me, for example). --Abd 00:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

R[edit source]

The main open source statistical software is R - increasingly popular and very powerful. I'm a novice - just learning to use it. Is that what you're after? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPSS is windows/menu driven or syntax driven. R is command syntax only. So, R take-up is limited by this especially for teaching statistical analysis. But there are R packages providing front-ends - I haven't investigated them enough. I am keen to eventually switch from SPSS (there are lots of annoying aspects mostly related in one way or another to its proprietary nature) to R, but need to spent time learning R. But maybe still this is not quite an answer you're after? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]