Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/May 2014

Questions about my account

Hello,

I have a few questions that my account was on hold for some reason that I was not told why, but I found that everything that I have updated was uploaded way later than the time that I have uploaded my files. I did contact someone before and I was told that my account was some revise and everything that I uploaded needed to be checked before it would be up from my account.Can you please help me to know why was my updates were uploaded on Tuesday early morning when I uploaded them on Sunday evening.These updates that are being done online are for school grades and my Professor when he checks he finds that it looks that i have submitted my files late on Wikiversity as I mentioned in the beginning that the problem is everything that I upload it takes some time to upload and that might be long as 3 days or more. I hope you can help me because I losing my grades because of the delay upload. Also you please check if there is any hold against my account that is causing this problem .

Thank you,

--Pas3ad (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Pas3ad for a record of your contributions. There's no record of any activity on Sunday evening. There's also no record of you uploading any files except at Commons on April 13/14. See Global User Contributions. Can you provide a link to the files you uploaded? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Pas3ad, what you have written isn't clear at all. Who did you contact before?

There is no review of uploads. You were warned here about file licenses, but the file is still there. You have not released your personal photo for free re-use, which is *required* for such personal photos to be here. We just don't enforce that very quickly. If you need help with that, ask. But it has nothing to do with the problem you are reporting.

I'm pretty sure that you are confusing editing here with upload. Editing here is not, strictly speaking, file upload. Rather you use an on-line editor to create what you write here. You can paste content into the edit window, yes, this is "like an upload," but isn't. File uploads go into Filespace.

Commons is the same. An upload takes a time that depends on the file size and the speed of your internet connection.

Basically, if you don't see that the file or edit is there *immediately* when the upload or save process finishes, something went wrong. Very rarely, it's a server lag problem and the file will be there next time you look. Don't ever assume that content has arrived on our server just because you tried to put it here. You can't be sure it's here until you *see* it here.

You did not give us any dates. If you were blocked, you'd have seen that immediately. There is no such thing as a "hold" on accounts here, so the story you are telling the professor, if the professor knows about Wikiversity, is not likely to be accepted. If things really were has you have said, you will need to be much more accurate with what you write, and that might be a good thing for you to learn to do.

Tuesday? When someone writes that, and it's Friday, I will think "last Tuesday" unless there is some reason to think it was before that. Same with Sunday.

So I could assume that the two edits you made on last Tuesday are what you are talking about. They were to the same page: [1]. That was completed at 02:16, 29.04.2014. That's Tuesday, but just barely. The previous week you submitted your work, [2], Monday, 19:40, 21 April 2014.

Now, I think I know what you are talking about regarding "hold." You can edit immediately, even without registering an account, but you can only upload files when your account is autoconfirmed, which takes four days from registration (here, Commons may be different). You are obviously long past that, since you did upload, both here and on Commons. So you were told that, quite a while ago. I don't see that it was here on Wikiversity, though. Maybe your professor? This has nothing to do with your present problem.

I also see that you asked the very same question on Wikipedia.... they referred you here, naturally.

Now, you are free to disregard this, -- we don't care -- but I do think I know what is happening. First of all, there is a time zone issue. You are at Howard Community College, which is in Virginia. The time zone (EDT) is 4 hours earlier than CUT. I think you have been submitting your work on Mondays, but you were working bit later this last Monday, so it shows up as Tuesday on the system clock. Local time, the times I report above were Monday, 3:40 PM, 21 April 2014, and then this last week Monday, 10:16 PM, April 28.

I think you have been pushing the time. When are the reports actually due? Frankly, I think it is extremely unlikely that you tried to submit your edits (not "upload") on Sunday. More likely, your memory is deficient, and you are under some stress, thinking that you will be harmed if your work is late. Maybe so, but allow me to recommend that you run your life on the assumption that the truth -- and being careful about it -- is far more important than whether some assignment that won't make any difference at all a decade from now is in on time or not. Just a suggestion from someone who is probably three times your age, okay?

When we are under stress, the mind makes things up to try to relieve the stress. It's very normal. Watch out for it, that can bite you badly. Good luck. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about speedy delete and what happens to permalinks of deleted pages

I am doing a major reorganization of the trig and calculus based courses: Calc based physics college course I and Calc based physics college course I will now be united into one resource called Physics equations 1. (Although this sounds weird, it really does work.) The only way I can keep track of this is to "destroy" the old resources as I decide what to keep and what to discard. I know there is a proper way to save the old resources, but I don't really need to even save them. But mostly for sentimental reasons I will be making permalinks to all pages (with separate permalinks for subpages).

Will these permalinks remain after the original resource has been deleted? --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 02:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well there is no reason for links to disappear. but I would propose, youll leave here some of the pages. Dont you think other users may use them?--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 06:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that I would prefer Physics equations/1 to Physics equations 1. I'm not entirely thrilled by Physics equations, preferring Physics/Equations. That is, someone interested in Physics would look at the page, and see links to subpages with specific coverage or resources.

As to the question, permanent links don't disappear, but they can become a distraction. They will not appear as redlinks, but if someone follows them, there is an error message. Juandev, whatever content was useful on those pages, will be on the page he is creating, presumably. However, for transparency, and as those pages were his creation, I'd suggest moving the pages to his user space, and leaving them there. The redirects can be deleted, the deletion summary should show the old redirect, so people can find the user pages if they ever want to.

I am hoping that a concept of a simple mainspace, with a much more limited set of top-level resources than blossomed early on, on Wikiversity, will take hold. Wikiversity is famously a disorganized mess. This is not a deletionist agenda, call it "categorizationist." Wikipedia used a flat model, no file hierarchy. They did not allow subpages in mainspace (the subpage slash is interpreted in en.wiki as part of the filename, not a subpage marker. Subpage hierarchy is a major feature of Wikiversity, it allows many features that, for example, can be used to avoid controversy over content neutrality. We got this from Wikibooks, which uses subpages for book chapters. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your advice sounds reasonable and I will make both semesters as subpages of Physics equations. I will also make all quizzes and such as subpages under Physics equations (including the "calc based" and "trig based" pages.). Nothing needs to be archived. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO guyvan52, for the most part we prefer that, for attribution and copyright reasons, you keep the original resources as redirects pointing to the new resource you've created. But since you seem to be the sole contributor to the original page, I do not think deletion would be a problem, because then in essence you own the copyright to the page and we allow a lot of leeway for you to decide what you want to do with it. Also, you seem to have duplicated your links, perhaps you mean Calc based physics college course II? TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I am in the process of merging into Physics equations the content of four resources,

1. Calc based physics college course II
2. Calc based physics college course I
3. Trig based physics college course II
4. Trig based physics college course I

(these four resources will be deleted soon).

Also [[Template:Physeq]] is to be replaced by [[Template:Physeq1]] -[[Template:Physeq2]] -[[Template:PhyseqC]] -[[Template:PhyseqM]]

I am almost the sole author of almost all of this (user:Clockworks might have made a few edits, but we are collaborating in the same building and he will soon be making major revisions). These moves are highly complex because the resource is not a standard wiki article for a number of reasons:

1. Physics equations heavily relies on templates for equations. This facilitates the copying of a given equation (with explanation) to other documents, e.g., equation sheets that are made available to students as they take exams. Editing equations that appear in different documents is hopelessly complicated.
2. Physics equations is is to be used for both calculus-based and algebra(trig)-based courses. This is unusual, but a polished open-source textbook (openstax Physics) is only available for the algebra(trig)-based course. Few professors would teach a course without a textbook, and supplementing an algebra(trig) textbook with a few ideas from calculus is not difficult.
3. The most unusual feature about Physics equations is that all the equations are {{hidden}}. What the student sees is a collection links to openstax Physics and links to subpages, most of which are [[Physics_equations/Quiz_sample_of_all_in_Physics_equatons|wikiquizzes]]. This feature is a product of amateur psychology: Most students (and for good reason) focus on the grade. Most of the tests are based on wikiquizzes, and as far as I can tell, most students figure out that the only way to remember how to do the problems is to understand them. This so-called 'problem-solving' is the lowest form of teaching physics. But it is also the easiest to teach, and therefore suitable for online-work. The idea of developing this resource is to free the instructors for the higher level learning (experimental design, applications, and other deeper insights)

Thanks for the response. I'm slightly concerned overuse of the templates might lead to slow page load and as a result MediaWiki will start throwing up errors in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, but I think you'll catch that error in time (when template transclusions start failing) and split any necessary content off to a second page if need be. Just be aware of that and not get confused if you start noticing some templates will just display e.g. {{Template:Physeq1}} instead of whatever it was supposed to show. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Blogging on Wikiversity?

Is it a good idea, or a bad, to blog on Wikiversity? (Sorry, that sounds a bit simplistic, but really I was just thinking of setting up some more info about how to blog here and it seemed like it might be nice to get some more consensus about whether or not it's generally accepted to do so at all!) Any thoughts? —— Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think educational blogging in userspace is appropriate at Wikiversity. I think blogging to share what a person is teaching, learning, or researching is appropriate at Wikiversity. I think blogging about science, math, engineering, etc. is appropriate at Wikiversity. -- darklama  11:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear! I have done a tiny bit of work on the {{blog}} and {{blog post}} templates, with the idea that the former be for blog 'homepages' (i.e. often user pages I guess) and the latter for individual blog posts. I think the various pages about blogging on Wikiversity could probably be rolled into one (currently at Help:Blog, but perhaps this should be Wikiversity:Blogging?). I'm not likely to move very fast on any of this though! :-) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 12:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

cleaning namespace of projects that are low quality, duplicate, or unfinished.

This topic comes up now and then, and when I was faced with two of my own such projects, I had an idea that may or may not be sound: Instead of deleting from namespace, why not invite others to improve them? When I first started on Wikiversity (less than a year ago) I was very unbold with projects in need of improvement. If we identify poor-quality pages as such, newbies will be more encouraged to jump in. This is not Wikipedia where hawks (who are not always reasonable) will swoop down and revert wanna-be editors (who are not always incompetent).

Specifically, I have two projects that others are encouraged to edit, even to the point of deleting everything and starting from scratch:

1. vector calculus- This was started because there are lots of off-beat things you can do from a basic understanding of vector spaces (general relativity, Fourier analysis, reciprocal lattices).
2. homemade log table-Students have trouble with logarithmic scales, which are important in sound intensity, earthquakes, and stellar magnitudes. It would be worthwhile to tie these topics together along the lines of a simple log table that students construct without the aide of a calculator.

Neither is a usable resource right now. On the other hand, both contain elements that someone else might want to use. I personally don't know what to do with them. I wish we had a template that says: This article in such need of improvement that new editor/writers are encouraged to delete everything and start from scratch--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Contrib-none}} is probably the closest available. You could also use that template as a starting point and create your own if you want something more specific. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will use that plus the "cleanup" template. I have noticed that it is not uncommon for wikiversity pages to grow in spurts. An example is Coulomb's_Law#The_Electric_Field_Near_a_Very_Long_Uniformly_Charged_Wire, which sat untouched for three years. This and a couple of other calculations will be linked to from Physics equations, and I can base some essential wikiquizzes on them.

Regarding a special template, perhaps it could be Be very bold: Good writers know when to discard everything and start from scratch. This page has not been maintained since dd/mm/yyyy. Feel free to start with a blank page and a new POV. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea (the {{be very bold}} template I mean). It'd stick things in a category too? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you do woodworking. Homemade log table is yours if you want it.--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer

Greetings, my apologies for writing in English.

I wanted to let you know that Media Viewer will be released to this wiki in the coming weeks. Media Viewer allows readers of Wikimedia projects to have an enhanced view of files without having to visit the file page, but with more detail than a thumbnail. You can try Media Viewer out now by turning it on in your Beta Features. If you do not enjoy Media Viewer or if it interferes with your work after it is turned on you will be able to disable Media Viewer as well in your preferences. I invite you to share what you think about Media Viewer and how it can be made better in the future.

Thank you for your time. - Keegan (WMF) 21:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Deletion request on Commons

Could anybody from your project, please, comment this Deletion Request on commons? We cannot recognize the reason why the files are stored as PDF. Ankry (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Y Done - It's likely that the instructor requires PDF format for those projects. The files should have been put on Wikiversity rather than Commons. It appears that the course is just ending. If possible, please leave the files until 1 June 2014 so the students can get their final grades. Then delete if necessary. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

How big can a pdf on Wikiversity be? I have approximately 100 Meg on a university server related to Physics equations. There is no need to move it unless a significant number of profs at other universities use the resource. That is my "big dream" and it won't happen in the near future. Putting it on Wikiversity now would serve no purpose. The pdf files are the 34 chapters of openstax Physics. (I am also posting handwritten solutions to '''[[Physics_equations/Quiz_sample_of_all_in_Physics_equatons|wikiquizzes]]''' on this site

See Special:Upload. The maximum is 100 MB per file. You shouldn't have any problems uploading your collection, since it is multiple files. However, because the OpenStax book itself is available on the OpenStaxCollege website, I'm not sure I see the advantage of uploading it here as well. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

incorrect system message on fully protected pages

When viewing the source of a fully protected page, the notice for semi-protected pages is shown instead. The message in question is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. Could an admin please look into this?

Thanks. --Ixfd64 (discuss • contribs) 03:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Our configuration for that page is the same as Wikipedia:MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. Can you give an example of a fully protected page that demonstrates the problem? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The log shows that Wikiversity:Main Page is fully protected, for instance. But the "view source" page still says: "This page is currently semi-protected and can be edited only by established registered users." I tried using a different skin, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. --Ixfd64 (discuss • contribs) 04:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

i've researched this, and as far as I can tell, there is only one Protectedpagetext page. The page has text for both fully protected and semi protected responses. The code no longer appears to be correctly detecting the protection level. I searched through the MediaWiki documentation, but can't find anything that indicates how a page can detect the protection level other than at the PHP level. The problem is affecting en.wikipedia, en.wikibooks, and Commons. The only one not impacted is Meta, because they took out the code and just indicate that the page is protected. Rather than us spending a lot of time on this, it might be better to get en.wikipedia to look into it, and then we can apply whatever fix they come up with. The other option (for now) is to take the Meta approach and just indicate that the page is protected. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be reported on bugzilla, because Manual:Interface/Protectedpagetext explains that $1 is used to determine this, and it seems to be broken. I changed the interface to use a default message when the type of protection is unknown, and the unknown protection message seems to be the one in use now. -- darklama  23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have corrected itself. Seeing the correct message now. Early today there was a problem with wikimedia websites returning "404 Not Found" Errors, but that probably wasn't related. -- darklama  00:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable way to move a large block of text from one page to another?

Wikiversity material is copyrighted, which means credit must be moved along with text. But the last time a custodian tried to move something (from WP to WV), something went wrong. This time I moved roughly half of Vectors into Vector calculus (two WV pages), taking the following steps to preserve evidence of authorship:

1. The first line of Vector calculus contains a permalink reference to a pre-move version of Vectors.
2. I copied all that was moved out of Vectors onto that pages "Discuss" section, where I assume it will be archived.
3. Finally, I did not actually delete the material from Vector, but instead commented it out with
   

<!--

(..many many lines...)

-->

This last step is problematical. Having all that commented out material sitting in "Edit" will annoy those who wish to further improve Vector. But I won't delete anything until I have approval.

I wish to add that I was quite impressed by the original authors of Vector. While much was moved and/or edited, very little was actually discarded. As they now stand, the following three Wikiversity resources,

• Vector
• Coordinate systems
• Vector calculus

are at least as useful for a beginning student as all the true but weird information scattered on the various Wikipedia pages. Physics equations will contain prominent links to all three of these Wikiversity pages. I need to make these links because Physics equations uses the open source openstax Physics, which is not calculus based.--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a permalink reference to the pre-move version in the edit summary for Vector calculus, a permalink reference to the post-move version in the edit summary for Vectors, and a mention on each resource's discussion page where the content went and came from is sufficient. -- darklama  21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The only issue that would come up that isn't covered by these approaches is if you create a book / collection to print the resources. The printed collections don't contain either edit summaries or talk pages. To address those, I include <ref> tags in the resource itself. I should also note that creating books / collections is very rare here, but my students seem to prefer it for my real-world courses. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I will reference the moved material to a permalink. This is a real-world course, but the printout of all the equations is only about 15 pages (two sided) for one semester. The official textbook, openstax Physics, is over 1200 pages and is available as a collection of pdf chapters to be read awkwardly online, or as a $50 paperback textbook. The bookstore person predicted that the only students who will buy the book are those whose financial aid packages specifically refund the purchase price. I also print out copy A of all the wikiquizzes, which is about the size of Physics Equations. So far my department has allowed (or not noticed) my printing out and distributing the material for free. Semester 1 is incredibly easy for me to teach, and my student evaluations have improved considerably. I am struggling to finish semester 2 by Fall. Are the students actually learning more? I have absolutely no scientific evidence either way. The students take randomized versions of the wikiquizzes, so of course there is a significant improvement in test scores, which makes everybody happy.--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 02:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)