User talk:Marshallsumter

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello Marshallsumter, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

You don't 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! --Abd 04:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Most Active Wikiversity User for January 2013[edit]

Learningcycle.png The Learning Cycle Barnstar
Most Active Wikiversity User for January 2013

Marshallsumter, I was reviewing the list of active users for this past month and noticed you had by far the most edits in January. Keep up the good work! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you![edit]

Star constellation.png The astronomy barnstar
Thank you for the massive edits on astronomy! Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 18:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg This user has created a global account. Marshallsumter's main account is on Wikiversity (English).

Personalized Headings[edit]

For an example of how to customize headings for your own viewing pleasure, see User:Dave Braunschweig/common.css. To make Level 2 headings look more like Level 1, I think you'd want something like:

div#content h2{
    font-size: 110%;

Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Intergalactic medium[edit]

Your reason for deleting the talk page is wholly inaccurate and very inappropriate.[1] Please discuss. --mikeu talk 11:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the only reason I deleted it was that appeared to be what the request from the IP was for. The description appeared to be referring to the resource but the deletion template was on the talk page. It was peculiar. The history only showed you as the contributor and not the IP. I'm guessing since I just had to log in myself and it's the end of the month that you were the IP. Usually, speedy deletion tags on talk pages are for the talk page. Such tags for the resource are on the resource page directing discussion to the talk page. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 11:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Subpage Categories[edit]

Take a look at Portal:Technology/Participate. The subpage categorization is creating quite a lengthy, and distracting, project list. I'd like to update the subpages on this list so that they use {{CourseCat}}, allowing the parent page to display, and the subpages to be based off the parent category. Thoughts? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not everything in the Category:Research projects is a technology research project (TRP). Base isolation, for example, is a technology research project. The various subpages of Stars, for example, are science research projects (SRP). The Category:Technology has 133 resources listed, whereas Category:Research projects has 1,148. The problem seems to be stemming from the lack of subcategory inclusion for many of the research projects listed. Dominant group, for example, should be a subcategory of Category:Research projects but its not for some reason. Ditto for the subpages of astronomy and stars. I put the Category:Dominant group as a subcategory of Category:Research projects but the Portal:Technology/Participate still lists those that are in Category:Technology.
In other words, any category Category:Technology or template {{Research project}} or {{research}} that puts Dominant group/Letter of intent, e.g., into the Category:Research projects has to be removed. Well, no that doesn't work either, I put {{CourseCat}} without the "tlx|" into Dominant group/Letter of intent (LOI), removed all of the above and something else is still putting this resource in Category:Research projects. Even What links here? is not showing Portal:Technology/Participate/Research Projects but LOI is still there. What else would you have to remove or change to get Dominant group/Letter of intent, e.g., off Portal:Technology/Participate/Research Projects, unless I missed something? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Dynamic content is cached. You have to force a sever purge of the cached page to see changes here. There is now a Purge option on the page menu, and also a Purge link at the bottom of the new portal design. Let me know if there's something you want MaintenanceBot to do, or if you want to make the changes manually. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Purging is definitely working! I removed Dominant group/Culture from the Category:Technology. Even though it's still in Category:Research projects, it's no longer on Portal:Technology/Participate/Research Projects. Many of the research projects are TRPs. I'm not sure there is an easy way for MaintenanceBot to know which is which. I can remove those that are SRPs manually but it'll take a while. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Upload Information[edit]

I noticed a rationale added to {{Upload Information}}. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought upload information applied to all files, while only Fair Use files need a rationale. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably true, but when anyone uses the template there's no display of the "|rationale" so most images that are not non-commercial use will never see it unless they go to the template location. We can also add a usage note if others like this approach, something to the effect of use the "|rationale" only for non-free use images. This is just illustrative. We know it's there, so this is one way to supply a Fair use rationale. I've put an example on the colloquium on using this template and using the {{Fairuse}} template. I can modify my Upload information formatted template to remind me to include a rationale. It looks like this (you'll need to edit to see them) {{[[Template:Information

|Information ]]}} The {{Fairuse}} works on the example but needs tweaking. I can remove these whenever so that we can see how this might work. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added "(fair use images only)" to the Template:Upload Information. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The down side so far for putting the "|rationale" in the Template:Fairuse is that all or perhaps all-1 (the file with the rationale filled in. I don't know how to search the Category:Files with no machine-readable license to see if File:Redoubt Glacier.JPG was actually in it.) are now in the Category:Files with no machine-readable license. Unless there's an easy way to solve this problem, the Template:Upload Information works best. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The down side to putting rationale in Template:Upload Information is that it appears in every file that uses the template. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Upload_Information. This isn't an effective solution. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, noticed. The templates that do not have a fair use rationale display "{{{Rationale}}}". Those that don't need it, well don't need it, but I suppose it doesn't look nice to see "Rationale (fair use images only)" in blue on the left with {{{Rationale}}} on the right. But, for those that do need it, it is effective. Using the {{Non-free media rationale}} or a simple one line template instead would reduce redundancy. I'll try one. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Community Review/Exemption Doctrine Policy[edit]

Issues existing with current EDP was begun at 21:01, 20 March 2016.

See Wikiversity:Community Review/Exemption Doctrine Policy and Wikiversity:Community Review/Fair Use.

Potential question: What if anything would you do as a bureaucrat regarding our Wikiversity:Exemption Doctrine Policy, especially with respect to our fair use policy, that is different from or in agreement with actions, or lack of actions, by our current three bureaucrats? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest contribution by Mu301 was at 00:49, 26 July 2016.

Latest contribution by SB Johnny was at 04:28, 29 January 2016.

Wikiversity:Research Namespace[edit]

This proposal was begun at 15:59, 31 March 2016. It was contributed to by two others.

Extensive discussion and voting was conducted on Wikiversity talk:Research Namespace. The proposal was defeated by three to five primarily on the basis of no good or positive benefit and apparent peer review naivete.

Potential question: In view of the defeat of your Wikiversity:Research Namespace proposal, do you intend to continue to try to subordinate research, especially original research, to education or teaching as a bureaucrat?

Potential question: Do you "strongly support the need to deprecate non-standard Wikiversity pages"?

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) 15:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


Did you see my response on my talk page ? --Thierry613 (discusscontribs) 08:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Main Page/News[edit]

The Main Page News column now exceeds the length of all other content on the page. Please condense or prioritize your news items to balance the main page layout. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we remove items from Main Page/News by oldest out. This means "15 January: The Wikimedia Year of Science begins. Please share your ideas of how we can improve science teaching and learning at Wikiversity:Year of Science 2016." should be removed as the year is more than half over. My lectures are my contributions to "The Wikimedia Year of Science" so there may be a way to combine these. Suggestions are welcome!
The next out would be "2 February: Please share your first impressions of Wikiversity to help us gain a better perspective about how we can improve our learning resource. Join the discussion at Initial experiences." The last contribution was almost three months ago!
I've been announcing lectures and courses using the Main Page/News for a while now so after the above two the next out is "15 April: A new lecture on wanderers through the Portal:Physics and Astronomy is now available."
These three outs in total follow this page's customs and would readily shorten the column appropriately. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
An extensive explanation isn't necessary. Please just make the changes you have suggested. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision deletion[edit]

What is the meaning of this summary:

"The initial creation of the resource has not been restored. This is an effort to allow that to occur" [2]

How does your use of revision deletion conform with WV:REVDEL?

--mikeu talk 16:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

When I was trying to add the earlier versions of the same resource, the view/restore process would not allow these earlier edits to be added unless I revision deleted the first of the most recent version even though the dates did not overlap. If you know a better way to accomplish this so that all the earlier edits are included I'd be happy to read about it! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm referring to the edit history for these resources. When I present my results, I'd like to have complete edit histories available for others to review should they wish to. Suggestions welcome! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
What are you trying to accomplish? The use of Revision Deletion is a serious invocation of Custodian rights and should only be used in cases to remove highly controversial content that could cause harm to others. This should not be used to pursue a learning project or as a topic of "research." What is the reason for selectively hiding these edits and why are you using the tools in this instance? What are you hoping "to allow that to occur"? It is very important that edits on Wikiversity are transparent to all members of the community and there should be an obvious reason for using it. --mikeu talk 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I am aware of the usual purpose of Revision Deletion. I have no interest in selectively hiding anything here. I stated above that view/restore would only allow the previous edits to be added to the resource history if I revision deleted the first entry of the top version. There should be no need to do this as a merge history should have occurred, but view/restore left no other option. I want everything to be transparent. I need it to be for my analysis to be transparent! It appears to be the case since all of these previous versions are by the same group I am researching that view/restore has some kind of bug in it. It seems to me there should be no reason for Revision Deletion to be required. If you'd like to test this remove the Revision Deletion from the entry in the resource history and watch what happens. The previous edits of previous versions disappear. I tried to find a way around the apparent bug but no way presented itself. In the case of most of these first entries of the top version most of the content is shown. As I asked above "If you know a better way to accomplish this so that all the earlier edits are included I'd be happy to read about it!" and use it! If you agree that there is a bug in view/restore, I can submit a phabricator task. If you find a way around it so that all edits are readily available we'll both be happy. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I just tested changing the visibility back from Revision Deletion and the earlier version edits remained in the history! I'll try this on the others. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Same thing worked on the other two! Now all earlier versions are visible. The problem with view/restore still remains though. Is there any reason why view/restore would need to require Revision Deletion of the first entry of the top version of a resource in order to add previous version edits to be added to the resource history? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If this hasn't happened before when you've used view/restore, the next instance when I need to do this I'll let you know so we can see if the bug repeats itself. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Failed email[edit]

Hi Marshallsumter! I have an alert saying that you sent me an email, but I didn't receive the email (yes, I checked spam too). Could you repeat your message through here? Thanks! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 13:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Felipe! Thanks for responding! There's a problem with certain aspects of WMF email. I have a task at the Phabricator about it, url= It now seems I can receive email notices from various projects like Wikiversity and Wikipedia, but I still can't send anything. I sent myself a copy of my test email to you and apparently neither one of us got an email. It's weird! You got an alert but never the email and I got your email from Wikiversity but not my confirmation copy. The phabricator volunteers believe it has something to do with Yahoo! email which I use. Feel free to leave a comment at this phabricator task describing what did or did not happen. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I was also thanking you for the Wikidialectics notice on the colloquium. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
It appears to be the case that the Wikidebate template could be run on a sandbox to test alternative outcomes.--Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User Page not Rendering Correctly[edit]

See Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

YesY Done Thanks for the notice! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags[edit]

See Category:Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags. This is often caused by a <tag/> which should instead be a </tag>. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

YesY Done Thanks for the notice! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Data Networking[edit]

See Data Networking. It isn't one project, but at least twelve. They need to be organized under Data Networking/Fall 2016, but we're waiting until the end of the semester for that. The instructor mentioned to me that final exams are next week. It would be better to wait until the end of next week, then move the projects and then mention them in the News. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)



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? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the consideration! I will place a request for this on the Discuss page. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If there is some review to become a member of the editorial board I would be happy to undergo it. I would also be willing to review manuscripts or other submissions to the journal in astrophysics and materials sciences. If there are submissions not yet reviewed, in other fields, or when an additional review is needed, I can be tasked to do so and will do so time permitting. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]


  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Quadratic Equation[edit]

Hi Marshallsumter,

I'm new to Wikiversity, so I hope I'm communicating with you in the most suitable way.

Yes, please. I hope that someone may find it useful

Many thanks for your interest and encouragement.

ThaniosAkro (discusscontribs) 14:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


I've sent you mail. Thanks! -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


Hello, I've left you a message on Meta Thanks! Cameron11598 (discusscontribs) 02:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of upload removal[edit]

Dear Marshallsumter:

The Wikimedia Foundation (“Wikimedia”) has taken down content that you posted at File:Aurora surprise by torivarn-d6qsuny.jpg due to Wikimedia’s receipt of a validly formulated notice that your posted content was infringing an existing copyright. When someone sends us a validly formulated notice of copyright infringement, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) Section (c)(1)(C) requires Wikimedia to take the content down, and to notify you that we have removed that content. This notice, by itself, does not mean that the party requesting that the content be taken down are suing you. The party requesting the take down might only be interested in removing the content from our site.

What Can You Do?

You are not obligated to take any action. However, if you feel that your content does not infringe upon any copyrights, you may contest the take down request by submitting a ‘counter notice’ to Wikimedia. Before doing so, you should understand your legal position, and you may wish to consult with an attorney. If you choose to submit a counter notice, the alleged copyright holder can either refuse to contest the counter notice or decide to file a lawsuit against you to restrain Wikimedia from re-posting the content. Please note that Wikimedia will not be a party to any legal action that arises from you sending a counter notice, and that Wikimedia is unable to provide you with legal advice.

Filing a Counter Notice

If you choose to submit a counter notice, you must send a letter asking Wikimedia to restore your content to, or to our service processor at the following address: Wikimedia Foundation, c/o CT Corporation System, 818 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California, 90017. The letter must comply with DMCA standards, set out in Section (g)(3)(A-D), and must contain the following:

  • A link to where the content was before we took it down and a description of the material that was removed;
  • A statement, under penalty of perjury, that you have a good faith belief that the content was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled;
  • Your name, address, and phone number;
  • If your address is in the United States, a statement that says “I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district where my address is located, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; alternatively, if your address is outside the United States, a statement that says “I agree to accept service of process in any jurisdiction where the Wikimedia Foundation can be found, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; and finally,
  • Your physical or electronic signature.

Pursuant to the DMCA, Wikimedia must inform the alleged copyright holder that you sent us a counter notice, and give the alleged copyright holder a copy of the counter notice. The alleged copyright holder will then have fourteen (14) business days to file a lawsuit against you to restrain Wikimedia from reposting the content. If Wikimedia does not receive proper notification that the alleged copyright holder has initiated such a lawsuit against you, we will repost your content within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days.


As a matter of policy and under appropriate circumstances, Wikimedia will block the accounts of repeat infringers as provided by Section 512(i)(1)(A) of the DMCA. After speaking with Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel, this upload will not be treated as a "strike" because they believe it is likely there was a mistaken belief of compliance.

If you would like to learn more about Wikimedia’s policies, please refer to the Wikimedia Terms of Use, available at Terms of use, and the Wikimedia Legal Policies, available at m:Legal/Legal_Policies. More information on DMCA compliance may also be found at:

Wikimedia appreciates your support. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this notice.

Sincerely, JSutherland (WMF) (discusscontribs) 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Move review to article talk page[edit]

Hi! Thanks a lot for reviewing the article Atlantis/Location Hypotheses! I know it's a lot of work and you're the first one to undertake it, so double thanks! I've been thinking about the submission process of the journal, and decided to vastly simplify it. You can see a draft of the new approach at WikiJournal of Science/Contribute. Part of the simplification will be getting rid of the "Submission pages" such as WikiJournal of Science/Submissions/Location Hypothesis of Atlantis in the Azores, as they are difficult to use, maintain, understand, etc. (even for me!) Therefore, I wanted to ask if you could move your review to the talk page of the article itself, and continue there. I would have done it myself but I thought maybe you want to ask an admin for a merge, to save your review history. If you don't care much about the history in this case, a copy-paste should suffice. Thanks a lot!! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Sophivorus:! Special:MergeHistory did not work because user RAYLEIGH22 made an entry on 24 April, right in the middle of when my entries would go. It can be done by parts but copy & paste is easier. Just FYI, I am an admin but not the best at complicated page history merges. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


[3] and [4] demonstrate "discriminative notification and [are] considered inappropriate canvassing". If you want to indiscriminately bring users to the discussion, there are Wikiversity:Colloquium, Wikiversity:Notices for custodians, and MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Any approach that selectively notifies users of the discussion is inappropriate and must cease. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a comment is not canvassing or inappropriate, but I would be happy to use MediaWiki:Sitenotice. How about "Please comment on Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#File:The same man at 18 and 80 years old.jpg"? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and question[edit]

Hi Marshall. First of all I'd like to thank you for the phenomenal work you're doing for the WJS. Right now, if it's moving forward, it's thanks to you. I hope I'll be able to join you this week with a few reviews, so that we may approach the release of the first issue. Anyway, I have a question for you: I noticed that you left some reviews on the talk page of the "submission pages" of various articles. For example, at Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Submissions/Astronomical spectroscopy. My intention was to "phase out" these pages, because they are unnecessary and difficult to maintain. I think that reviews should go in the talk page of the article itself, where it's most natural and useful to find them. Do you agree? Are you posting them on the submission pages because of your ban on Wikipedia? Kind regards. --Felipe (discusscontribs) 20:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words!
Do you agree? In general, yes! Contrarily, I like them with the submission on Wikiversity because we have greater freedom to try to get these submissions to be a credit to the journal, although this may not be in agreement with the submitters' original purpose for the article. I also like to have each article as close to a stand-alone piece as possible so links to significant Wikipedia articles can be gotten around by including the salient points.
Are you posting them on the submission pages because of your ban on Wikipedia? Yes! As you pointed out most or all of the so-called copyright violations were for cited quotes or sentences as part of what was perceived as original research and easily covered by fair use. But, not on Wikipedia! One way around this would be for me to email the reviews to a rep say from w:WikiProject Astronomy for posting on their talk page to see if they even want to include them. What would you like to do? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)