User talk:Sidelight12/14

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

U.S. states

Merging Virginia into our project

Can I blank Virginia and request it for speedy deletion and add all the information on Virginia on that page in our Virginia page? --~~Goldenburg111 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I can merge it. but you'll have to stay off from editing it for until its merged. Let me check if this information is copied, first- Sidelight12 Talk 18:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Editing the page Virginia or our Virginia article? --~~Goldenburg111 18:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
don't edit U.S. states/Virginia for a few minutes, but you can edit its subpages. I haven't thought about the Virginia article, it will merge in an instant, but it could cause a conflict. Let me check if the article is copied first (doesn't look it so far). - Sidelight12 Talk 19:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, you can edit it now. I moved it to a subpage instead of merging. Can't figure out how to make that fit with the project. It does make it look like a wikipedia article (which I want this to be distinguished from it), unless original research can be applied to it. - Sidelight12 Talk 19:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A research project here can create what amounts to a set of articles. Traditionally, articles in mainspace here can get deleted, though we have developed the much less disruptive habit of instead moving them to subpages or to user space. Deletion opens a can of worms, WV"RFD should be reserved for difficult cases.
  • Generally, if a page has history, it is much better to move it, rather than copy the content and delete. There is a procedure for merging page histories. As I recall it, you delete one page, move the other page over it (the version you want to be current), then undelete (unhide) the older revisions. The point is to preserve edit history. Copying the content doesn't do that. As described, the procedure is transparent, any editor can review it, seeing all the revisions. Copy & delete can only be reviewed by a custodian.
  • For a great example of a research project that created many articles, see 18th century European scholarly societies and academies. And then look at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/8#Free_Masonic_Lodge_.22True_Harmony.22 if you would like to understand some of the background to my objections to custodians making unilateral decisions about deletion. Notice that even when an objection arrived, the custodian again deleted the page.[1]. From experience, the next step would have been blocking the IP, essentially for disagreeing with a custodian. I.e., custodian speedy deleting unilaterally, for anything other than totally obvious, transparent reasons, Bad Idea. I'd even suggest, for spam creations, blanking the page when placing the speedy deletion template on it. The only reason not to wait that I can think of is blatant and serious copyright violation, or libel, or accidental or deliberate revelation of private information, where even having the content in generally readable history can be a problem.
  • By the way, a Community Review was indeed filed for that custodian, I had drafted one but did not file it, it was filed using my draft by another. The custodian was desysopped. His behavior in that RfD was a minor part of it, the tendentious argument got him blocked on many wikis (including this one, for a while), and he came moderately close to being globally banned, which would be quite an honor, as there is only one globally banned user, another episode in the ongoing wikidrama that the WMF community routinely generates. I was involved. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
That was out of context. The only pages I deleted had no information on it, it could be undeleted to see, then it'd be quickly deleted. I'll just try to tag it so it expires for a custom amount of time, from a week to 6 months. I questioned another custodian's deletions before, but I undeleted to look at it, then deleted it, to see his judgement. After I see his judgement, then I might make a suggestion, I allow him to do by his judgement, without interfering. Because after that, I pretty much know what is deleted by another user. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Added

I have added more states since their are 50 states instead of 20 ;) --~~Goldenburg111 18:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

that's good. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Broken Redirects

Please check Special:BrokenRedirects. There are broken redirects that have active links to them. Also, in particular, take a look at the Google redirect. Unless you know for certain otherwise, I believe that link must remain as is in order for the Google Analytics to be accessible. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

fixed. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent Deletions

I appreciate your efforts to clean up Wikiversity. However, rather than immediately deleting older content that has been abandoned or may not be currently accepted as appropriate, could you tag it with {{proposed deletion}} and give everyone 90 days notice? The result may very likely be the same, however, if a resource has been here for several years without anyone complaining, it's hard to justify an immediate deletion without opportunity to make improvements or move it under an appropriate learning project. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. Patience is an essential tool for a custodian. I don't necessarily agree with Dave about longevity being proof of anything, and I haven't looked at your deletion log, Sidelight, but unless it's totally obvious that something is useless and will never be useful and especially if it might get in the way of what is useful, speedy deletion is appropriate. It's a bit better if you don't go there yourself. I.e., as a custodian, don't make it your job to delete, but rather to serve those who propose deletion. If others propose speedy, Category:Slow deletion, as a custodian, to do what is not being done with prod. You *can*, without any problem, prod as a custodian, because anyone can. The point is to initiate the process and give plenty of time for objections. Asking on a talk page may be too much, but it would be a courtesy to notify any involved registered user. If none, the just placing the tag gets the procedure moving, and it will complete or run into objection. You can handle objection if it arises. Sometimes the page might get moved to the user space of the objecting user.... Then it has a maintainer. --Abd (discusscontribs) 18:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll try. The pages mostly had a few lines, with no information aside from its purpose. some of them were just here is a link to wikipedia, and little else. The edit history had the last edit over 3 years ago by the original author, and no content added since. I like to preserve people's work, but there was no content. They mostly had a 2 sentence introduction with no information, and a link to wikipedia. I was impatient with this. It took the editors no time to do that, and they likely forgot about it, so I don't see the harm or why the authors would get upset. Their edits were good faith, but the contribution was a spontaneous 1 minute of effort with no information. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the use of {{Proposed deletion}} on Robert de lasalle. Based on content, I might have deleted that one as a test post, but this is fine. It will be deleted eventually. Note, however, that to use {{Proposed deletion}} correctly, the easiest approach is with {{subst:prod}}. This puts the current date in there. Without that, the 90 days keeps advancing with the calendar. At some point I will see if there's a way to work around this with Lua, but for now substituting prod is the way to go. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Dave, there is no sound reason for waiting to delete that page. Sidelight was only procedurally incorrect to delete the page unilaterally. I've replaced the prod with a delete template. Sidelight, the only problem here is that when you unilaterally delete a page, it's not transparent. The rest of us may not be able to tell what it is that you deleted. Personally, I was a fan of Pure Wiki Deletion -- which is blanking -- but would want to use it with something called Junkyard Space, for Wikipedia. We effectively use user space and similar devices here for what would have been Junkyard Space on Wikipedia. (Junkyards are where items considered useless by the "owners" are taken to be recycled by others.)
Sidelight, in the future, when you see a page you want to delete, forget that you have sysop tools, behave as an ordinary user, speedy tag it. Let another custodian delete it. Or, of course, any user can remove the template if they disagree, then we have more involved process. If we only had one custodian, you could still do the same. I could then see your speedy tag, and cosign it, then you could delete it as my request. Either you or Dave may now delete that page. Or revert me, but I'm really going to wonder what's up if that goes back for Prod. Why? You were basically right, Sidelight, and thanks for restoring the page so we could see that.
I don't know about the other pages, I haven't reviewed the deletion log, but, Sidelight, if you'd like to establish clear transparency, undelete the other pages you deleted and place speedy tags on them, if you like, that would be quick. Dave can probably pop them all off in a minute. I'm sure he'll replace the speedy tag with Prod if that is really called for. A page with a link to Wikipedia might have a purpose, after all. This page was effectively vandalism, and it might also be a personal attack. No matter, it doesn't belong here. If it were going to remain, it would need fixing, etc. Not worth it at all. The whole point of speedy process is to avoid useless work. We had users who took everything to RfD. I troutslapped them, at least one went away mad. There are actually some users who love to leave behind a record of successful deletions. It fires them up. We might decide on a process that would allow users to show how many speedy tags they have put up that have been granted. As a custodian, I could show my deletion log, but as a user, most of the record vanishes with the deletion, and, in fact, it could look bad. Toolserver may show "deleted edits." But I don't really care. I add speedy deletion tags to help clean up the place. I'm not about to abuse it. If I do, drop a trout on my talk page.
(But if there is an urgent problem with a page, go ahead and delete it, and actions like this should probably be flagged for another custodian to review. I wrote standards for emergency actions, but the sysops at the time, shall we say, were averse to any requirements that might restrict their freedom, but, in fact, having standards for emergency action, and following them, frees custodians to act properly. The absence of those standards creates, long term, disruption and controversy, over what could be quite simple.)
Ah, one point: check for links to the page being deleted. When I place speedy tags on redirects, I usually state "no incoming links." If there are incoming links, I fix them. The unaddressed problem would be links on the web, we should really check for those, but it increases the work. If there are off-wiki links to a page, courtesy could require leaving a redirect in place. I don't know if this has any relevance to your recent deletions. It would probably be rare. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The sound reason was to support Sidelight12's efforts. More important to establish a collaborative process than to be in a hurry to delete the page. But it is a good suggestion that one or the other of us tag speedy but not delete our own, unless there's a clear urgency. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I did look at other delete templates, but I couldn't find the one I wanted. It looked like vandalism or a test page, but the person may have been a famous person and not the user's name. The other pages I deleted had no content, just see wikipedia, this is about, develop this resource. I'm not going to undelete pages, I know they had nothing on them. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikiversity:WikiProject-> Wikiversity:Wikiproject

Sidelight, there is no consensus for the change from WikiProject to Wikiproject. "WikiProject is a neologism adopted by Wikipedia. However, it's also used on other WMF wikis, see, for example, the MediaWiki project. and see The FamilySearch wiki. The only usage I noticed, searching that didn't have the capital P capitalized was a proposal by an anonymous user somewhere.

You seem to have an idea that capital letters are improper in the middle of a word. However, that's w:Camel case, with a long history, see the Wikipedia article. My wiki experience did not begin with MediaWiki, but with wiki software that routinely used camel case for page links. WikiProject means "wiki project," but is slightly shorter.

In any case, I don't think Wikiversity is about to pioneer a new usage, for no particular reason other than an opinion that there is something wrong with what everyone else does. If you want this to be decided by the community, we can go there, though it is probably not the best usage of our community's time. Instead, please move the page back, then we can turn to the rest of the changes you proposed, which are also potentially controversial for different reasons. My basic concern would be whether or not the hierarchical description you set up is appropriate for that page. You are jumping the gun on the work of Wikiversity:Curriculum committee.

The whole point of starting up the Curriculum committee was to avoid each one of us trying to implement our own personal vision, individually, something that I've been doing, with some support, for years. It's important for me that I submit my vision for community approval, instead of the normal wiki Just Do It. Being "Bold" is fine when it's individual pages or tight collections being edited, not so good when the goal is a broadly acceptable and clear set of guidelines.

If we wanted to simplify the name, we would go to just Project. Wiki is redundant, if it is a Project on a Wiki. It would be like using Resource:Algebra instead of Algebra or perhaps Wikipage Algebra, as if there could be a non-wiki-page Algebra. (In fact, this is what Talk space is, a page about the page or page process.)

ButWikiProject was used on the subject page because, explicitly, our School and Topic namespaces were being compared to the pseudonamespace of WikiProject on Wikipedia. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved it. I thought it would be better for it to be lower case, as you seem to understand my reasoning for that. There's two new Wikiversity templates at Wikipedia now, and you may suggest a improvements to the wording for the talkpage one at the template:sandbox here. FYI, I adjusted the wikiversity link at wikipedia's 'no original research page' and it didn't bring in much traffic. Don't expect much from the cross wikilinks, but its better than nothing. I still support going forward with the interwiki links. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the move. Yes, I know you thought it better. Watch out for that, it's what can get us in trouble!
Don't expect instant results on traffic. Notice that changing a template, if that's done, won't show up on editor watchlists. Only placing something new in the page or Talk page will do that. What I'd think is that with a previously overactive talk page, the damage might already have been done, largely, users have been driven off, etc. So getting Wikiversity mention could curtail that drain, that loss. Once Wikiversity is in templates like Not a forum, there is going to be an obvious alternative to warning users to not discuss the topic on the Talk page, toward giving them a positive solution, and users who just warn and threaten -- as has been common -- will start to be recognized as the ... Ah, never mind. Maybe they are just sincere workers in the Wikipedia salt mines. I just wonder about all those who request others be blocked or banned for discussing topics with a POV contrary to their own, while they, themselves, actually discuss the topic when it suits them.... (It is quite common for alleged "fact," not verifiable from reliable source, to be asserted on Talk pages. Stuff that sometimes makes it into articles but that won't stand if skillfully challenged. Problem is, these editors hate to be skillfully challenged, and they retaliate....)
Bottom line, there are sound reasons for the Wikipedia Talk page policy. What doesn't have a sound reason is excluding sister wiki templates that would clearly show users a welcoming place to discuss the topic. The opposition to that actually shows the effective bias of those maintaining certain articles, we could say "owning" them. It's still going on, all the time. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I want to encourage people to stay there, and not be driven off of Wikipedia. It's for the people who like original research. The talkpage template won't hurt Wikipedia's contributorship, it may give people a way out if others try to rally to push their non neutral pov against them. I think its some type of control over information, and I notice that they gang up to run people out one by one systematically. The good thing is, that this doesn't happen to most articles (its the science articles mostly this happens to). Please give your suggestions to the talkpage template, the real copy is at w:Template:Wikiversity-t. There's another one, but it allows a custom message, so no suggestions are needed for it, as it can be tailored to many uses.
People usually don't come to Wikiversity anyways, because they don't see much in it, but some will see its value. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not that I want it to be facilitated that they be driven off. However, they will be driven off. That happens, routinely. What happens is that they are outraged by what they find happening on Wikipedia, and, believing that they will be allowed free speech, they talk about it. Then they are warned or just plain blocked for talking about it. They readily violate community perceptions of civility policy. Yet, researching the history of events after the fact, I found that the "status quo editors" were routinely uncivil toward the newcomers. And when the newcomers responded in kind, they were then easily blocked. Really, the structure is abusive. What I'm calling the "status quo editors" mostly believe that they are preventing "POV pushers" from taking over. When the community doesn't support them, they lament how the "fringe theorists" are taking over, how shameful it is. In fact, however, they are only rarely restricted. For what will get a normal editor blocked quickly, they routinely see no consequences at all.
I was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee in the second case where I was a major participant. I filed that case to address what I saw as clear administrative abuse. The abuse was essentially confirmed, and the administrator was desysopped. He and many others supporting him were tendentiously uncivil on the case pages, and many admnistrators actually declared personal positions that were explicitly contrary to policy that had been established by ArbComm, or the community. Yet nothing was done about all that, and I was site-banned for three months, and topic banned for a year, based on .... based on ... it's obvious what it was based on. I made them feel uncomfortable. Imagine how the administrator here, I described it above a bit, felt about my interventions. I think I made him look like an idiot. He had written, publically, that he was the "major maintainer of Wikiversity," not long before. It was a huge fall for him. If he'd had powerful friends, what would they have done? He did have friends, they would show up in discussions here, SPAs dedicated to Whatever He Wanted. But, with one exception, they were not admin here, and he had few friends among regular users. The one exception did unblock him, eventually. And has totally disappeared.
While I certainly had no intention of making Wikipedia arbitrators uncomfortable, what I was pointing out was a situation that they had been ignoring for years, and I made that reasonably clear. They continued to ignore it. Another major case came up, filed by a steward, a highly privileged user. He asked me for advice, since I'd researched the issue extensively. ArbComm confirmed his filing, but construed it very narrowly, still avoiding the core issue: what happens when a faction of editors obviously acts coherently, even if it is without "off-wiki conspiracy." (If off-wiki conspiracy has been shown, they have thrown the book even at innocent collaboration.) What happens if administrators routinely back each other up in dealing with situations according to a shared POV? I'd shown examples in my filing, but because I did not show evidence for off-wiki collaboration -- I had none, though a little suspicion -- they dismissed it. Yet the on-wiki evidence for collaboration was quite clear. It isn't a violation of policy! And, for that reason, I had not asked for sanctions against anyone.
I did make process suggestions. To them, it was all too much writing.
Basically, the problem was too much for them to handle, so they punted to future generations, and continued to punt, and, as far as I can tell, still continue to punt. And what suffers is the promise that Wikipedia policies make, as to neutrality and due process. It's empty, not enforced and not enforceable by existing structures.
Back to topic discussion on Wikipedia and the effect of links here, if a Wikipedia user comes here to discuss a topic, they will meet users here with experience with Wikipedia. They might get some advice that will save their Wikipedia account. Personally, since being banned on Wikipedia, I've been paid to advise blocked editors, blocked because of violating w:WP:COI, something that commonly happens with biographies. They were unblocked. It was easy, I know how to do it. I did not violate any Wikipedia policies; I did not edit to accomplish this (I have not edited Wikipedia since the edits I documented on a page here). I simply advised, how to follow Wikipedia policy and actual practice.
I'll look at the template. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I know we want to keep people at Wikipedia. Wikiversity is an alternate outlet that we want to encourage without driving people off. I know that the driving people off is not our fault. I've been able to push the subject against meatpuppets without getting banned there, it takes patience. Biographies are a sensitive subject, hard evidence is needed to write anything about someone because it can be damaging. - Sidelight12 Talk 23:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

w:Template:Wikiversity-t

The text:

Wikiversity has an academic discussion about {{{SUBJECTPAGENAMEE}}} at [[v:{{{1}}}|]]. Original research may be used there.
We can have non-academic discussion, if it has possible learning experience as a result. We do need experienced users here who know how to handle the issues that can come up as a result of undisciplined discussion. Nobody cares if it happens in user space, with the consent of the named user.
However, in mainspace there are issues to be handled with neutrality. Generally, I'm discouraging discussion at the root level of mainspace. We do have resources which allow that, but I think eventually they will be moved down in the structure, with rigorously neutral pages above.

What do we have here? We have "open review" of topics. Yes, original research is allowed. If assertions aren't verifiable, they might be removed, but much more stably, they are moved and attributed. Users are not blocked for "POV-pushing." Students at brick-and-mortar universities are not normally expelled for pushing points of view; rather, they are trained, there, how to push them academically. And maybe to learn more and modify their points of view accordingly.

Let me try something:

Wikiversity allows discussion of {{{SUBJECTPAGENAMEE}}} at [[v:{{{1}}}|]]. With disclosure and attribution of opinion, Wikiversity allows original research and synthesis.

(I used w: links for the WP policies, those should probably be removed there. I give permission for my text to be used without attribution, if you choose to do that. They might claim meat puppetry, do be aware of that. Be sure that whatever you do, it's really yours, i.e., you are fully responsible for it, personally. What might be better would be to have a discussion here about proposed templates to suggest to Wikipedia, i.e, the template text I just suggested is my opinion about Wikiversity. Is it policy? Basically, if the community approves it, it is policy or the equivalent.)

--Abd (discusscontribs) 23:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a citation for users. Plus, I think an original research or synthesis citation is needed. It's bulky to attribute each claim from the editor who doesn't use their real name everytime, but they are attributed in the history. If we go this route, every claim should have a choice between a tag, and a full attribution. A citation tag, with only the username and date? Do we want to have a tag after every sentence? Sometimes its obvious what claim is made by the editor, when the rest is attributed to a source. I don't think reasonable claims that are obviously made by the editor should be challenged, then we'll end up deleting information like Wikipedia does. I think the term original research includes synthesis, based off of w:Wikipedia:No original research. - Sidelight12 Talk 23:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
We can assume everything here is original research that isn't cited, but this won't work for math or common knowledge. We can mark the page as Original research (which we do already). Or we can have a citation option that includes only username and date. This needs a new discussion on the colloquium. The template is here to stay, we only need to discuss this part. - Sidelight12 Talk 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
We can just use an original research template for the whole page. Text supported by citations should not include the editor's original research (In other words use clear separation to show the citation didn't make the claims that the Wikiversity editor did). Other text can be assumed to be OR. If we require a citation after every OR statement made, there would be a deletion campaign for editors who forgot or are no longer contributing (we don't want that), also over citation. Optionally, a tag can be adjusted to attribute the editor for important OR.
What about
"Wikiversity allows discussion of {{{SUBJECTPAGENAMEE}}} at [[v:{{{1}}}|]]. With clear separation from statements made by sources, Wikiversity allows original research including synthesis." - Sidelight12 Talk 20:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you have met my old friend

[2]. This is a highly disruptive user, who has done a lot of damage in various places, mostly biting newcomers, arguing tendentiously and without any necessity or value. (For example, long after consensus exists on a decision that overruled him, he continues to post messages that are little more than "But I was right and justified." You can see this on meta, if you care to review his contributions there.)

Nevertheless, I was surprised by the sheer rudeness of his response to you. I think he's burning out.

On Wikiversity, back in the days, I closed a number of RfDs that he had filed, according to obvious policy and consensus. Because I had commented in them, at least in some cases, I placed a notice that any user except the nominator could revert my closures. He reverted, ignoring that condition and the policy or wiki traditions behind it, claiming impropriety in my closing. The results were all the same, simply another closed them the same way. His activity became so disruptive that I did go to RCA. At that point, the wiki was routinely experiencing massive disruption, so he wasn't ever blocked, but, finding that he could not do what he wanted to do here (mostly wield a meat-axe to delete content, besides going to meta to get users here globally locked by presenting misleading arguments, violating global locking policy, he knows how to suck some stewards into acting prematurely), he left in a huff.

By removing the warning, he has acknowledged receipt of it. Now, as you are a probationary custodian, some advice. He was quite rude to you. However, do not block him. There is nothing to do at this point. If he is again disruptive, there will be something to do.

Because of his interaction with you, there, I suggest you recuse from action, unless there is an emergency. Being, then, like another user, you may go to WV:RCA and request whatever, and another custodian will handle it. You will note the warning and the continued offense with diffs. There is a defect in the warning, that no link was placed to the "harassment." You may remedy that with another notice to his Talk page. He has not forbidden you to post there. If he does, he is also waiving any right to further warning from you.

If there is, in your view, an emergency, you may block, but immediately go to RCA and request review of your action, disclosing the reason for possible recusal. (I.e, "I warned this user and he was uncivil; to avoid an appearance of impropriety and bias, I would normally refrain from using custodial tools with respect to the user, but I consider there is an emergency.") Do not claim emergency unless there is a likelihood of serious unremediable damage, such as waste of substantial user time in argument over issues unnecessary to handle contentiously. (The time cannot be recovered.) His placing of unrelated garbage on my User talk page -- which is entirely contrary to his claim that he only comes here on official business -- does not create an emergency, because I can simply clear it out, it takes only a moment.)

I will, however, notify him that he is unwelcome to post on my User talk page. Allow him to respond on his talk page however he likes. Please do not consider that, in itself, disruption. Let him rant and rave on his own Talk page to his heart's content, or let him simply delete it without comment, whatever, unless you independently judge that there is harm to others than me. Naturally, this does not allow illegal content, such as libel.

I'm going this to reduce his temptation to add disruptive and useless comments on my Talk page. I don't see that he has prohibited my comment in the past, I'll check for that.

It's been quiet here, very little has been going on in the way of genuine disruption, merely some minor reactions from users, readily resolvable, and readily handled with consensus.

Thank you for your attention to this. I thought about, but avoided, calling attention to it at RCA myself. It is far better, however, to let others defend the wiki, based on an independent assessment of what is going on. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging Histories

FYI: When articles have been split into multiple pages of history, you can merge the histories by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. See Fish/Leopard bush fish for an example. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've done it before. I should have done it to keep the history together, and to keep it simple. The work was done by one editor and it was recent. The one editor got credit for his/her own work the same as the cut and paste move, within an hour. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

reverted Colloquium archiving

[3] was archived a bit fast. The page says 18 days is automatic. That bot isn't running, I think. However, that period was accepted by the community. I understand you might have had a purpose in fast archiving, but ... we don't do that. Sections remain open for 18 days after last comment, normally. I reverted both the removals and the archiving. Your Feb 1 archiving was slightly too fast, but I left it. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's messy, just start a new thread, with a link to the archive section. It's also about a week. - Sidelight12 Talk 15:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
No it wasn't. - Sidelight12 Talk 15:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • [4] Too fast, Sidelight. Sure, a new thread may be started with a link, but consider that this then creates multiple threads in the archive. The page says 18 days for automatic archiving. Please don't do manual archiving faster than that, unless a thread is actually disruptive (in which case fast archiving should be noted as such). The threads you archived were not "closed." They were relatively inactive, that's all. The latest edit in what you archived was January 30. I was going to let your archiving stand, until I actually looked to see the latest edit. I will revert, then re-archive what can be archived as 18 days stale. Please be accurate about this. It matters, and I'm not explaining all the reasons why. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • One more point. I've done a lot of research involving discussion archives. Mass removal can make it quite difficult to find what archive was used. It's actually very easy to remove one section at a time and the archiving edits then show the section title, routinely. If I find some archivable sections under the 18 day rule, I'll show that. This is how I routinely handled AfD archiving, back in the day....
  • Had you done this, by the way, it would make reversing the archiving easy, if someone soon wants to comment on a topic. It would also have made it easier to go over your work and only revert what was too fast! --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Reviewed. Every section you archived had edits younger than 18 days. Please don't do that! If you wish to close a discussion, do that with a template, I forget which one to use. In theory, a closed discussion should not be archived until 18 days after the close -- closes should be signed, and 18 days allows reverting of the close. We can discuss that further, if needed. But none of your archived discussions were closed. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I see that you also collapsed a discussion you started, and wrote that another quite recent discussion was "resolved." A collapse can repress comment. If it was your intention to withdraw a proposal, then you should do so explicitly, not by simply collapsing it. You gave readers no clue as to what you were doing with the collapse and it was not a signed edit. I have now made your apparent intention clear with a signed edit and explanation. Closed discussions, generally, should still wait the normal archiving time. After all, someone might wish to revert them, and the same for collapses. I did not remove the collapse, that is a separate issue, but giving a collapse a totally non-informative title is a bad idea. I did not close the discussion, nor did your collapse close it. Be careful about closing your own discussions, that's generally a no-no. With a statement of withdrawal, someone else may close it as a withdrawn suggestion, and then it sits there for 18 days. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Using rollback to remove non-vandalism

[5] Sidelight, that's been enough to raise desysop issues. Rollback is a sysop tool on Wikiversity, and your edit there, as well, amounts to revert warring. Please fix it, don't do that kind of thing without discussion. Please restore status quo ante, then discuss changes. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No its not. [removed]. The archived text is obsolete. 18 days was for a bot, because it can't decide what is closed or not. - Sidelight12 Talk 19:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
After the colloquium rollback, I restored abd's comments, and I think other changes. My first attempt to archive January, I overdid it, but the second attempt, I think I got the archive about right. I'll leave colloquium archiving alone for the moment. - Sidelight12 Talk 00:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)