User talk:Mu301

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from User talk:Mu301Bot)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a Wikiversity user discussion page.

This is not a learning resource or the discussion page for a learning project. If you find this page on any site other than Wikiversity you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikiversity itself. The original page is located at

This is Mu301's discussion page, where you can send messages and comments to Mu301.


What is your opinion on UFO? It suffers from similar issues as the other two cases that were recently nominated, but I also don't want to overburden all of the Wikiversity volunteers, so I'm hesitant to push my luck and overstay my welcome. To be honest, it isn't quite as terrible as the other two resources/lectures, but it is clearly suffering from creation of content by Wikipedia refugee (especially UFO/Sightings documentation). ජපස (discusscontribs) 19:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

We might not be able to promptly address an RfD on that group of subpages at this time. The new discussion about "lectures" is where we are currently focusing our attention and resources. Some of the UFO subpages appear to have had little activity in 2 or more years. It may (or maybe not) be uncontroversial to tag those with {{fringe}} or even {{prod}} which would open a window for improvement followed by a review. If someone objects and removes the template you could then open an RfD at a later date. That might be a more efficient way for us to look into the UFOs. If there are any urgent concerns like copyvio or commercial advertising we would, of course, address that through a {{tl:speedy}} process. --mikeu talk 19:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out how to use {{tl:fringe}}. ජපස (discusscontribs) 21:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, that is a shorthand that we use to mention a template in a discussion without including it in the talk page. Insert {{fringe}} and/or {{subst:prod}} as I did in this edit. --mikeu talk 21:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I also made a wiki markup mistake which is now fixed above. --mikeu talk 21:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused because the "fringe" template looks to me like a userbox. Is it somehow a deletion proposal? ජපස (discusscontribs) 21:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does resemble a user box. Think of it as a "resource box" that provides information about the resource. But that has nothing to do with deletion requests. Prod is the Proposed Deletion template. --mikeu talk 21:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I proposed deletion for the five pages I think are in violation of WV's scope, mission, policies, and guidelines. ජපස (discusscontribs) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The Category:Project_boxes were an attempt to more prominently inform readers about the type of resource, difficulty level, and completion status. They are not much used anymore but are found on a lot of older pages. You may also want to leave a note at Talk:UFO giving the proposed reasons. That is often helpful for someone unfamiliar with the topic who finds the page. --mikeu talk 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I did an explanation here. Hopefully this is as smooth a process as the last two. Thanks for your help! ජපස (discusscontribs) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you have seen this one, but Ben Steigmann had another project, [1] that he planned on doing. It seems he wanted to refute the material of UFO skeptics such as Joe Nickell. On the article is an extremely revealing link to a 72 page document he uploaded to Googledrive which consists in places of emails he has had with UFO proponents to counter-claim material found on Wikipedia. I think this project of his like the parapsychology one should be removed. (discuss) 23:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

At this point that's pretty much just an empty page (with only section headers) and User:Studentscribe mentioned there has only 1 edit in two years. That also qualifies for a Prod. If it contained email addresses without permission we could speedy delete. --mikeu talk 00:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that the last one is in userspace. Given that it is nothing more than a neglected to-do list I don't see any problem at the moment. --mikeu talk 01:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

More UFO and alien sightings have been {{prod}}'ed. According to Google Analytics (as I've summarized at Google/Search and Wikiversity) "alien sightings" was one of the top ten search queries returning Wikiversity resources. The mind boggles. It brought no search traffic to our site, however. --mikeu talk 16:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

What is this?[edit]

Radiation astronomy

I have never heard of "radiation astronomy" before in spite of my PhD in astronomy. What is this? ජපස (discusscontribs) 03:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been teaching astronomy for three decades and I've never heard of it either. That looks similar to what's being discussed at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Main_Page_"Lectures". --mikeu talk 05:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki guidelines[edit]

Just wondering what you might think of taking part in what would be at this time a purely hypothetical discussion across the WMF entities to establish in at least some of the entities a group of common baseline policies and guidelines. I know that there has been recent earlier discussion over at wikipedia about problems with importing wikidata material, so there might be maybe some interest in such a discussion. John Carter (discusscontribs) 00:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@John Carter: Yes, I would be very interested. Please ping me. As you may have noticed I've been thinking about this recently and I have some concerns about inconsistent cross-links to our resources. We are about to embark on a discussion of our Wikiversity:Naming conventions to see if we can standardize page titles and perhaps align them with a more global interpretation of wikidata item definitions. At least, that is my hope. --mikeu talk 01:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the copyright of File:Wilbur S White0.jpg?[edit]

Icon no license.svg
Question copyright.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Wilbur S White0.jpg, but:
1.svg The file needs some copyright information soon to stay at Wikiversity. Please place {{information}} on the file page and fill out who the owner is and the copying terms. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about using files because of copyright law.
2.svg Who owns the rights to this file? Usually this is the work's creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Only the person or company who owns the rights can give permission to use this file freely.
3.svg What are the terms for using this file? Wikiversity accepts open content, public domain, and fair use works (see Wikiversity's Copyright policy). You can place a {{copyright template}} on the file page to signify the copyright terms.
4.svg Please remember to do this for any other files you have uploaded or will upload. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or the Wikiversity community at the Colloquium. Thank you.

Note to self. --mikeu talk 01:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

For likely solution see File:Ruthshaw.jpg. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Thank you for updating the CC templates. Something occurred to me whilst I was about to use one of them. Could we change the text of these templates to say "This work is..." rather than "This file..." so they can be used on content pages generally? Green Giant (discusscontribs) 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Sure, I can probably do that by bot. Because these are transcluded in so many files I should probably wait until the page cache finishes purging. I probably just thrashed the server... as I noticed the categories were very slow to update. Please check my work, esp. with regard to the subcat reorganization. I may have made some mistakes during the flurry of edits. I'll be looking at the GFDL org next.
Also, I seem to have solved a long standing mystery about Category:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Dual License. It seems many files from Florida engineering are multi-licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0‎ and CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0. We'll probably need to import that template and then have a bot update the file uploads. It was previously unclear (at least to me) how/if the NC files could be reused.--mikeu talk 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Cheers. From what I have seen, the re-organization makes sense but I will have another closer look tomorrow. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 22:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
YesY Done I think I'm all set editing the entire suite of CC templates and categories. I believe all of the existing templates use "work" instead of "file" now. --mikeu talk 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The only thing I might do later is rename {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-dual}} and related categories as it doesn't really follow the naming convention given that it includes NC. Looks good to me for now, though. --00:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
FYI: while importing {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} to update our suite of licenses I noticed that this templates contains the wikicode: #ifeq:User talk|File|{{{category| which specifically excludes anything outside of File space such as learning resource pages from appearing in a license category. It didn't occur to me to check for that in any of our existing license templates. Mostly I'm just writing this down here as a note to myself. But, something you should be aware of if you want to use these templates for anything other than files. --mikeu talk 06:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Cheers for changing the wording. I am going to look at all the templates soon but I’ve updated the documentation for a couple of them and added cc-by-4.0 to the list at WV:L (new shortcut) but I’ve held off adding the two multi-licenses until they’re ready for use. As far as the file-only element of that template, I think we need these licenses to be usable for any non-image content that the author doesn’t want to use the standard cc-by-sa-3.0 seen at the foot of many pages. On a sidenote, I have been wondering (as a long-term matter) whether we could/should/would update the terms to cc-by-sa-4.0 International as a way of covering as many jurisdictions as possible. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 13:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thinking.... This opens up a series of questions for me. I'll elaborate tomorrow. Found a few more errors too. The 3.0 "this work" link breaks for nonfiles but categories work fine. Also some inconsistency with language across templates.. More later. --```` mikeu talk 04:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, etc. are still using 3.0 boilerplate (for text content) at the bottom of every page. I have a slight preference for waiting until Wikimedia makes a cross-wiki change in licensing policy. I'm not even sure what the ramifications are for using Special:Import to grab some 3.0 from WP and "converting" it to 4.0 here. Having said that, we could do something subtle like put CC-BY-SA-4.0 (and earlier) as the top choice in Special:Upload. Chances are that many new {{own}} files would get uploaded with whatever license is seen first. This would give us a head start on 4.0 for new files, at least.
<rant>Honestly, I can't understand why we have so many licenses listed in Special:Upload. If someone really cares about using an idiosyncratic license like {{BSD}} they'll likely know how to search for it and tag the upload. Do we really need to degrade the usability of our upload pulldown menu for 8 file uploads? IMHO, we shouldn't be making it easier for non-standard licenses, esp. where the differences are so minor that only a lawyer would care about it.</rant>
I don't mind if we have some text here that is other than 3.0 but I'm not so sure I want to advertise and encourage that... Imagine someone generating a pdf of a bunch of pages where each page has a different license. What's the status of that pdf and how can it be reused? I think we should strongly encourage contributors to use the "standard" Wikimedia license as much as possible for text, making exceptions where needed. Otherwise we're going to be Crazy quilting our site with multiple license content that could make share-alike more complicated and difficult. These are just my initial thoughts; I could be convinced otherwise if there are compelling arguments. I'll muse some more when I've had some time to think these issues through.
BTW, that {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} has horrifically complex dependencies. I can't even find the basic text of the license in the import that I did. I'm likely going to delete it and just clone one of our other templates. The alternative would be to blow away all our license templates and re-import them using Commons' differing way of building these. But, that's too much work for me to take on right now. I get why they do it that way, but it makes it difficult for mere template mortals to decode and understand.
As an aside, I'm noticing a lot of fair use content that stretches our EDP beyond the breaking point. I consider that a more urgent problem to address than license upgrades. --mikeu talk 01:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, probably best to put it on the Upload page. With 4.0 being international (most jurisdictions), it doesn’t make sense to let new uploads go just for older licenses. The BSD/GFDL problem is that it has been very difficult to wean Wikimedia off them. They are very unsuited to text and images but some people keep using them because they’re available. There was supposed to be a license update, whereby GFDL-only files were relicensed with GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0. I’m not sure if it reached WV though. On the question of fair use content, there are two problems I can see: the one you’ve noted above and that many files lack a fair use rationale. The same occurs with quite a few CC-license files in that the uploader often doesn’t add anything except a license. I think it’s quite strange that people seem to be able to bypass important information. I agree also that they should be a priority. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 22:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I cloned {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} to {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} (blowing away the botched import.) I also made a slight change to the wording of 3.0 and prior template. I believe the 4.0 and prior is ready to go. Have a look. Which template do we prefer new uploads to use? Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 or Cc-by-sa-4.0? I think the first is more flexible for reuse, unless we want to try to propagate the 4.0 through share-alike. I don't have a strong preference. I believe that the link in these templates that "This work" clicks to is to distinguish the text on the page from the file (which could have a different license.) --mikeu talk 23:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to be Bold and try to "wean" contributors off the old licenses by removing the options from the Upload pulldown menu.[2] --mikeu talk 23:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
You might label it a rant but it makes sense to me. Boldness is sometimes necessary to keep things going. I do wonder if anyone will notice or if they just pick the first license. I agree the Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 is the most flexible (and if it was up to me it would be the default BY-SA). I was also wondering if it is worth having a redirect to it at {{cc-by-sa-all}} but then realised you’d only just deleted it? Green Giant (discusscontribs) 00:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I just renamed that odd dual BY-SA & BY-NC-SA template to {{Cc-by-sa-any-3.0}} which seems (to me) to be the original intent of those who created it. My bot is changing the files that linked to the old template. There's a huge number of files so it may take a while. I wanted to get rid of that one because the name is very confusing.
There was nothing linked to {{cc-by-sa-all}} so I didn't see any need to keep it. I see that commons has a redirect so it may be worth having here. Maybe that is the default we should have on our upload page... Then we can just change the redirect when 5.0 comes out.) I'm part way through finishing up the reorg. Still a couple of things to do with ALL.
I just removed the 4.0 alone from the Upload menu leaving only 4.0 and prior. I'm tempted to purge WV:L of old licenses for the same reasons. The proliferation is just causing excess work for our staff (ie. me) and really doesn't add much to our site. I'd be tempted to remove any 3.0 and earlier from WV:L and just put a <small>Footenote: [[:Category:Creative Commons licenses‎|other Creative Commons licenses are available]] but we prefer that you use 4.0 and prior for file uploads unless there is a compelling reason...</small> or some such language to discourage use. --mikeu talk 01:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Wilbur S White0.jpg[edit]

Hey Mike. I was looking through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and I found this image in here. I was about to delete until I saw your small notice below the image. It has been about four months since you've posted that notice and no updates have been posted since the notice. Since it is not desirable for this category to have a backlog, what's the appropriate approach to this?

Hope to see your response, thanks. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Mike, as it seems to be evident that you have gone on a huge inactive break from the site and that the image has remained in the category for at least a half a year (6 months), I decided to be bold and delete the image. Knowing that you are a sysop here, you could restore it back in order to fill in the missing "puzzle pieces" if you wish to do so---up to you. Sorry for the inconveniences. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)