Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

Deletion guideline | Deletion log | Archives

We welcome and appreciate civil discussion of requests to delete or undelete pages when reasonable objections are made or are likely, the advice in Wikiversity:Deletions is followed, and other options have failed. A good attitude is to explain what you have tried, ask for help or advice from fellow Wikiversity participants on what to do now, keep an open mind, accept any community consensus, and focus on how pages can be improved. Finding ways to improve pages is the preferred outcome of any discussion and consensus here. Pages should always be kept when reasonable concerns are adequately addressed. Reasons and responses should be specific and relate to Wikiversity policy or scope in some way, kept brief, and stated in a positive or neutral way. Vague reasons ("out of scope", "disruptive") may be ignored.

A clear consensus should emerge before archiving a request. Often discussion takes a week or more to reach a clear consensus. Remember to add {{dr}} to the top of pages nominated for deletion. You can put "keep", "delete", or "neutral" at the beginning of your response, but consensus is established by discussion and reasoning, not mere voting.

How to begin discussion

Add {{Deletion request}} or {{dr}} to the image, category or resource nominated for deletion.
Add a new section to the end of this page using the following format:
== [[Page title]] ==

reasons why this page ought to be deleted --~~~~

Scope: If an article should be deleted and does not meet speedy deletion criteria, please list it here. Include the title and reason for deletion. If it meets speedy deletion criteria, just tag the resource with {{Delete|reason}} rather than opening a deletion discussion here.

Undeletion: If an article has been deleted, and you would like it undeleted, please list it here. Please try to give as close to the title as possible, and list your reasons for why it should be restored. The first line after the header should be: Undeletion requested

Deletion requests follow.

Korean/Words

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

(I go to RfD instead of proposed deletion since many pages are affected.)

I proposed to quasi-delete, i.e. move to userspace of the main (or sole?) creator, KYPark (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account).

The page is organized a little bit like a dictionary. It makes it redundant to Wiktionary except that Wikiversity allows original research and there does seem to be original research there. Thus, its being organized as a dictionary would alone not necessarily be a problem.

Where I see a problem is in the organization and execution/implementation. Consider Korean/Words/가다, which seems rather typical of the subpages (some subpages are like categories and transclude the pages for individual words):

On the putative definition line, there is this: "한곳에서 다른 곳으로 장소를 이동하다", apparently(?) in Korean. That does not seem to fit well into the English Wikiversity.
There seems to be some original research into etymological relations between Korean and European languages in the "Comparatives" section (from what I recall, the English Wiktionary rejected this kind of content from KYPark). Admittedly, it is marked using "This is a primary, secondary and/or original Eurasiatic research project at Wikiversity", so it could be tolerable, but even so, one has to wonder whether Wikiversity wants this kind of fringe science/research or outright pseudo-science.
- Fringe science: fringe physics has been moved to user space before. This would be fringe etymology. But then, original research is allowed.

Deletion is not required; moving to user space suffices, I think. Alternatively, one could at least rename the pages to make it clear from the title that this is not Wikiversity voice but rather KYPark voice, e.g. "Korean/Words (KYPark)/..." or "Korean/Words/KYPark/..." (recall the "Fedosin" pages featuring the name "Fedosin").

Methodology: I see almost no methodological notes spanning the words at Korean/Words. And yet, if this is original research inventing new etymological connections, surely there should be some general considerations/analysis on how to proceed and how that manner of procedure differs from mainstream etymology?

Prefix index (max 200 items?):

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would keep it. If there is a course of Korean, why not to have a resesearch on Korean vocabulary? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I propose to dismiss the above input: 1) it does not contain any argument, except for a question, and a question is not an argument (it can be so reinterpreted, but that includes additional burden on the interpreters, in interpreting it the wrong way); 2) it ignores all the issues I have raised, including that there is something like definition lines in Korean, in this English Wikiversity. To answer the question asked: there can be a research on Korean vocabulary in the mainspace, but not one showing the defects I identified above. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've reviewed a sample of approximately 20 of the Korean/Words sub-pages and lean towards moving to user space because:

The pages appear to be an idiosynchratic collection of etymological pages about Korean language
There is minimal English instruction which is problematic for English Wikiversity
There is no explanation of research method
There is no educational rationale

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, since the original creator has indef I change my mind and I would delete it. The case is nobody knows how to continue with the research and if we move it to the userspace, the user cannot improve it eihter. What the original user can do to request admin, to send them a contentent to their email for example if they really want to improve the resource elsewhere. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 08:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Enhancing Web Browser Security through Cookie Encryption

Latest comment: 5 months ago29 comments6 people in discussion

To avoid further conflict with the user who entered this text into Wikiversity, I am opening a RFD request.

I am not sure about how to proceed, although I am inclined to move it out of mainspace = quasi-delete. I am looking forward to get input from others, especially curators and custodians. Some considerations:

1) There is perhaps no more appearance/suspicion of copyright violation, now that the ResearchGate (RG) article (of which this is a copy, perhaps an incomplete copy?) carries a license.

2) The article is not a complete replica from RG: at a minimum, it lacks images. The inserter could have continued editing the page in his user space before he uploads images, that is, before he finalizes the page for consumption, but that did not happen. I did not check whether the text is an exact one-to-one match; the article does not indicate anything in that regard.

3) The principle implied seems to be this: users should feel free to duplicate non-peer-reviewed articles from RG in English Wikiversity, perhaps to increase the Google search and LLM yield. I find this problematic, in part for the duplication. I would say: choose a venue and publish it there. If RG is not good enough for you as a publishing venue, choose Wikiversity instead, but not both?

4) There are some features that appear unduly promotional. There is a link to a dot com home page of the inserter of the article. I dot not know how we handle or should handle this, whether prohibit such a link, etc. This is perhaps not so much a call to quasi-deletion but a call to make it less promotional.

5) I cannot determine the value of such an article. It seems to be a pseudo-article describing someone's browser extension. Can someone do a better analysis?

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

2) Images for Wikicommons are being created, it will take a lot of time. and the text is not an exact one-to-one match

3) I also mentioned that It was being created so that it is more accessible from mobile phone, which is not possible in RG or in Zenodo

Let me clarify the purpose of uploading it to different platforms

Zenodo - registration and to link DOI

RG - Self Archiving

Wikiversity - Accessible by anyone from any device. LLMs may get trained on Wikiversity data or use these data for indexing

5) The paper is a result of a research project which involved a browser extension which was built to test the theory. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I find the practice here of publishing non-identical but similar text ("the text is not an exact one-to-one match") with almost the same title to be problematic. I cannot imagine this is a recommended practice in academic publishing. At a minimum, somewhere near the top, the page should say something like the following: "This text is based on article ___ published at ___ but is not identical. The author of the differences/changes is ___." Everything else leads to an undesirable confusion. In academic publishing, the title of an article serves as key part of identification of the artifact.

As I said before, I seen nothing particularly academic article-like about the page except for external/superficial signs. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That Article has been published under CC BY SA 4.0

And I am one of the author of the article. That gives me right to modify text and publish it under a similar name. However, I will add the disclaimer text that you have suggested. I hope that helps. ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It may give you that right from the copyright perspective, but perhaps not from academic publishing integrity perspective. Unfortunately, I do not have any guideline handy; I am merely following my common (or not so common) sense. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would like to ask: was this article guided by someone from an academic institution, such as a university? Is it reviewed at least in some weak sense? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, This article has been reviewed by two academic professors, their names are also listed as co authors.

First, a project guide would help us with selecting a topic and with the document

Second, an Internal examiner would go through our experiment and approve it

Finally, External Examiner would examine the documentation and verify it.

We were required by these professors to put their name under contributions ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let me explicate the promotional potential of such a page a bit: one can go to the page of the article in Wikiversity --> https://tomjoejames.com/ --> HitMyTarget (a commercial, profit-making entity?) Why would the link be to a commercial web site rather than an academic page, or perhaps a LinkedIn account, which I think the person has? There could also be no link at all; a search for the name would turn out something in Google as well. But providing a direct link would drive users/viewers toward that website much stronger since otherwise the viewer of the page would have to open a new Google search window or the like. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is evident that the website is not even close to being complete.

I will be creating a separate page under the same domain name specifically for people to contact me.

The url would probably be defined as tomjoejames.com/contact-me/

I haven't decided yet. But that is my personal website.

If the community requires me to remove it, I will. But personally I think people who are from here most likely to click the link to know more about me or to contact me. Either way I think my personal website serves the purpose.

As for the HitMyTarget, it can be traced from any of my links. From my research gate profile, linkedin page or even my own userpage.

On the article I did not add any promotional content about myself, I hyperlinked only my own name. I do not know how that is promotional. ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am pausing any further responses from me to see whether anyone else has any input. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

What does it mean "There is perhaps no more appearance/suspicion of copyright violation"? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have accepted VRT permission per ticket:2025100410001149 FYI. Matrix (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Matrix Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would delete it. 1) it states its a learning resource. It could not be a learning resource as not rewieved original research. 2) It is not an ongoing research, nor the research was performed on Wikiversity - wv is not a preprint or article database. Maybe it could be moved elsewhere withn Wikimedia domain, but I dont know where. So I would delete it. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would keep it. Like Dan had pointed out, we do have article-like pages in Wikiversity, and this is not just a random pseudo science article but an article that is a report of an final year project, it has been reviewed by 3 professors whose name has been mentioned at the very beginning. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it is not good to rate pages by appearance. It can be done on other Wikimedia projects, but it cannot be done on Wikiversity, because Wikiversity does not create a static format for presenting information, but is focused on the goal and process. Unfortunately, the goal and process do not have a uniform format. While a target article on Wikipedia or an entry on Wiktionary have some standard target format, Wikiversity does not. That is why I personally rate pages according to the goals and their assessment. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Further reading for this nomination: S: Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2025#Index:Cookie_Encryption.pdf; EncycloPetey handled the matter. Let me quote his wisdom on Zenodo (which I lack): "This is tied to a PDF on Commons that was uploaded as "own work" with a CC license and a doi link to Zenodo, with no indication of where this paper was published or if it was published. Zenodo is not a publisher; it is a site for storing research and sharing papers. If Zenodo is the only place this was "published" then it was effectively self-published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)"

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you clarify what point are you trying to state? Didn't I already state that the article is published by me?

I first created the article in wikisource which I thought would be the perfect place, unfortunately they do not allow self published articles that are not notable. Then I discovered Wikiversity where they allow self published articles. That is why I created the article here.

Unlike in wikisource, I did follow guidelines.

Ever since you deleted the first article, I spent time reading Wikiversity guidelines and I do think that I am following it perfectly.

I would like to get your suggestions on how should I improve the page, 10 points would be sufficient.

Because your goals or intentions are confusing me very much. At first you told me that the article is exactly the same as the preprint in RG and therefore there is no use to it here. And then when I continued to optimize it for Wikiversity, you went ahead and said it is problematic according to recommended academic publishing.

Atleast just respond to the points that I have made whether you agree or disagree. So that I clarify and proceed to discuss points that are important and relevant

Have you published an research article? If yes, could you send it to me so that I can see the format you have done it ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am giving a chance/time to other curators/custodians to look at the matter and respond to my inputs. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, above I counted 4 questions (or more), 1 request (or more?) and 1 command (or more?). That is a behavior of a commanding entity. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would delete it'. It's more like an academic communication than a learning resource or research.--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the above post, I do not see any valid rationale for deletion: we do have article-like pages, in Wikijournals and also e.g. in Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Stellar Stefan–Boltzmann constant. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

But I do, see above. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

it is a student research paper forming part of a learning resource on web security and encryption.

The project was conducted as part of a final-year university course and documented as a practical study on cookie encryption and it has been reviewed by three professors. However, I will be creating a sub page for the article to elaborately describe the experiment that we have conducted and the results we got. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

And why should w host research papers? Wikiversity is not an academic Journal nor repository. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I do not wish to go through this same argument once again, I've already answered to this question several times in Dan's talk page, Colloquium. you can refer them. I am not hosting the research paper here, I have already hosted the pdf in the ResearchGate, I have published a text version in the wikiversity so that it may be useful for others. Unless you can show me how that article is totally useless, I would like to keep the article in the wikiversity. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 10:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

And thats the point I am having. Wikiversity is not paper repository. The only way is to publish it via WikiJournal, but they want it for Wikipedia usually. Why wikiversity should be a duplication of ResearchGate, Academia or Zenodo?

What I can read on Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? policy is, that Wikiversity research "...includes interpreting primary sources, forming ideas, or taking observations." The article doent look to fall into this. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, then how come you missed the term "Learning Projects"? As Jtneill had pointed out, this is a legitimate learning project. And also, I do have the VRT permission to host this article on Wikiversity. ticket:2025100410001149 . besides ResearchGate is an self-archiving platform. the document version in it is not accessibly to screen readers (usually disable people use them), Translators, and also for the mobile readers. therefore I do have valid reasons to publish this article on wikiversity.

It is a learning project, therefore according to WIkiversity Policy, It qualifies.
I have an explicit VRT permission to host this article on Wikiversity
Versions that are published in RG, Zenodo are documents, and they are not accessible by screen readers or mobile users. Therefore it is imperative that an article version of this paper exist on here.

Therefore this article qualifies to stay here on Wikiversity. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep. This is a legitimate student learning project that may be of use to others. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pragmatics/History

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Another KYPark page and subpages with unclear organization scheme. Contains fairly many redlinked items. See also User:KYPark/Literature, perhaps a similar concept. Unlikely to be really useful for others but KYPark. Move to user space.

As an alternative, moving to History of Pragmatics (KYPark) would make sense to me: the topic is identified using a natural-language phrase (instead of the relatively unnatural slash) and the responsible editor is indicated so that the reader knows whether to look or not. And for those who oppose the brackets (which I like): History of Pragmatics/KYPark. Or also: KYPark/History of Pragmatics. But then, searches in mainspace will see that content and the question is whether that is good. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

What about to propose the user to write some guidelines, how other can participate instead of deleting it? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I plan to move the pages to userspace as I proposed. If someone wants to ask KYPark to address the problems, they should feel free. There will be plenty of time for KYPark to address the problems while the material is in user space. After the problems are addressed, the material can be moved back to mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

So I would delete it. In the blocked user space its useless. The user cannot improve it and Wikiversity is not free hosting service for personal pages. My believe is, that there should be just a few working pages in the users spaces. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 08:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Move. Insufficient statement of learning objective or connection to related learning resources with insufficient current activity to stay in main space. The page was originally History of pragmatics but was moved by Dave B. Therefore, I suggest moving to User:KYPark/History of pragmatics. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

IMHA Research Archives

Latest comment: 5 months ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I propose to move to userspace, including the subpages. I struggle to understand how Wikiversity readers are supposed to benefit from the material here and in the subpages. In the log, there is e.g. '10 February 2019 Marshallsumter discuss contribs deleted page IMHA Research Archives (content was: "{{Delete|Author request}} Thanks! -")', so the page was deleted before, but not the subpages.

We could also delete all the material if we have strong enough suspicion too much of it is copyright violation. In any case, moving to user space improves the matter a little by moving the content away from Google search. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looking at some sub-pages, they can be deleted e.g., because they only consist of broken links or are largely empty. I deleted a couple but haven't been through all to check. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As an example, let me give the wikitext content of IMHA Research Archives/3. Scientific litterature search, storage and use:

==[[/Medicina Maritima - the Spanish scientific maritime health journal/]]==

==[[/PubMed/]]==

==[[/Google and Google Scholar/]]==

==[[/Zotero/]]==

==[https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d91z7bcyelfvk42/AAAkIvjtBnnFMbiU9ZLOdVL9a/Andrioti_database%20sources0310.pptx?dl=0 Maritime health web portal ressources ]==

The wikilinks are red; the external link to dropbox says "You don't have access". This was made in 2016. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I suggest delete -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we should avoid deletion as much as possible, instead moving to user space (bar copyvio, ethics violation, etc.). This is a good general principle. It greatly improves auditability and makes it so much easier for anyone to request undeletion since they know what content they are requesting for undeletion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do not recreate Wikiversity from the educational and research project to the personal blog. That will lead to the cancelation of it by WMF. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The English Wikiversity has a long tradition of moving problematic content to user space, as per evidence collected at User:Dan_Polansky/About Wikiversity#Moving pages to userspace. If Wikimedia Foundation finds this problematic, they can start a discussion in Colloquium and state their concerns. They do not need to make explicit threats at first; they can start a discussion and explain why it is problematic. They can even do it from an anonymous IP and provide a well-articulated reasoning. And anyone else can start a discussion in Colloquium to change this tradition. I do not see why we should not want to change that tradition based on well-articulated, compelling reasoning. I see no reason why Juandev should be making threats instead of them, on a per RFD basis. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If Juandev is sincere about deleting very-low-value items from user space, he should perhaps demonstrate that by asking his pages like cs:Uživatel:Juandev/Problémy/Kov/Repase dvířek elektroskříně to be deleted; otherwise, I register a glaring inconsistence. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What was the original delate page about @Jtneill? I guess that would be crucial for the decission. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Juandev the couple of pages I checked and deleted were much like @Dan Polansky posted above i.e., headings with empty sections and/or broken links but no substantive content. But I think each sub-page needs checking. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

So I'm saying that the main page usually determines what the other pages are for. But if I don't know the page because it's been deleted, or why was deleted (deletion based on the founder's request is probably not the rule), it's hard to judge. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've pasted the original content of the root page: IMHA Research Archives#Original page (i.e., prior to the content being removed and deletion requested) to help understand the context for the sub-pages. In 2018, Saltrabook blanked the page, indicating that the content had been moved elsewhere, and requested page deletion. Marshallsumter then deleted the main page but not the sub-pages. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see, so if those subpages are usefull I would keept them, if not I would delete them. I dont see a point of providing free hosting to sombody, by moving many pages to their user space. The question is if we want to host (i.e. to have in the main ns) lists of links elsewhere. I have no opinion on that. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let me clarify that while many of the subpages are like the example above, IMHA Research Archives/Scientific litterature search, storage and use/Zotero is different:

"A continuous critical and evidence based learning is a core issue in clinical practice, research, teaching, publication and prevention activities. The Zotero Program is just one of many scientific literature management programs, that should be used for these purposes. Of course one can live without such a database but it helps a lot and can save a lot of time that could be used for more interesting issues. Not only that, but it helps to create better publications and knowledge. Without this program it can be very time consuming to publish a scientific article with the requested style for the references. Further in daily practice when you want to collect and cite a few references for a specific evidence in a clinical colloquium and discussion, this program is excellent. Therefore we strongly recommend that all maritime health persons learn how to use this excellent tool in their daily maritime health practice of all different types. There are good online courses for self-instruction on how to use Zotero. For example this one: Zotero fast online course But in order to increase IMHAR´s collective scientific strength in the use of EBM we would like to give training sessions in every possible opportunity, IMHA Symposia, seminars and other types of meetings. The database is useful for personal purposes but especially also for collaborative aims. At the IMHAR meeting in Paris Oct 7th 2016 we will give an introduction to the program by showing how it can be used in the daily practice and discuss strength and weaknesses compared to other similar databases."

Even longer is e.g. IMHA Research Archives/Scientific litterature search, storage and use/Medicina Maritima - the Spanish scientific maritime health journal.

However, that does not mean these should be salvaged. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Palliative medicine

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Underdeveloped and has not been improved on since 2007. Author inactive. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete, per nominator PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would also expect there to be more and especially that someone would write how to use it. However, it still seems to me to be a useful thing in the sense of a syllabus, so that someone who is interested in the topic knows what information to obtain in order to get a complete picture of the topic. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Canadian Wilderness

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This page doesn't seem to belong to wikiversity. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

In principle there could be some material useful here but in practice, I don't see what this page is adding as an educational resource. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I can see this being a useful resource to a bigger project. Maybe we could move it to the "Draft" namespace vs. deleting it? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone plan to work on it? PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 01:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Next week the page has it's 17th birthday. Ever now and than someone added to it. With a lot of work it could be a nice encyclopedic article but making it educational .... Merging it may take more work than rewriting it. Move to Draft might be the best option. Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 08:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

LQR Control for an Inverted Pendulum

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Underdeveloped resource, has not been edited for more than a decade. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 08:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks like a test, delete. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

False flag "authority hack" user page deletion

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Not undeleted, the requester dropped the request. See Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion v. 2803217.--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 08:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Undeletion requested

Hi, Juandev marked my user page as "spam" and "authority hack", and deleted it.

First, I asked him for help with "time limit for new users", and he replied - I should admit I dont know, what is "new user limit", but if filter blocks your page because of certain external link, you may force to save anyway and sometimes it works. It should not work, when the website is blacklisted. As of now, I am not seeing you to save page in main namespace, so try to save it without external links first.

Then he wrote me another message: Well, I have analyzed your contribution to Wikiversity and I should point out here, that this project is not a place for advertising, so there is no way of promoting your books and authority this way. - probably referring to the intro of my About me page where I present me and my work.

Before I could explain him the difference between the neutral information and advertising and promotion, he deleted my user page.

Here is my answer I posted to the discussion today:

Hi, my About Me page is just an info page with the neutral as possible presentation of my work.

There is a big difference between informing and advertising. Informing is neutrally stating that something exists and requiring no action, while advertising is a special communication form with intent to cause certain action from readers. For example, click here, click there, order this, buy that.

There is no such intention, form, or terms on my info page. Just neutral information. I don't hide and I am not ashamed that I am write and author, and that is a part of the usual bio, including works. I checked your user page: "I graduated from the Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague and studied information science at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University." I think that if you had written a book on Life Science, you would have mentioned that as well.

Most of the Info page is about my research and AIPA Method which is a valid contribution to psychology, consciousness studies, identity theory, and personality development. Actually, my paper AIPA Method: A Cognitive-Phenomenological Model for Identity Reconstruction and Stabilization in Pure Awareness is now in the peer review procedure at Journal of Consciousness Studies.

Here is a part from the Wikiversity AIPA Method page in creation (waiting for the end of the time limit for new users):

== Introduction ==

The AIPA Method addresses a gap in contemporary personal development and consciousness science: most evidence‑based approaches (CBT, MBSR, MBCT, standard meditation) operate at the level of mental content—reframing thoughts, observing them, or reducing their impact—rather than at the level of identity structure. In contrast, AIPA targets the structural relationship between the self and the mind, aiming at durable identity reconstruction rooted in Pure Awareness rather than symptom management.

The central research question of the primary AIPA preprint is whether a structured, sequentially staged method can produce permanent identity reconstruction rooted in Pure Awareness, and how such a method compares to established approaches in scope, mechanism, and outcome.

== Theoretical foundations ==

The AIPA framework is grounded in the cognitive‑phenomenological tradition (e.g., McAdams, Varela, Metzinger, Erikson), contemporary consciousness science on minimal phenomenal experience, and qualitative methods advocacy in psychology. It builds directly on:

Empirical work on pure awareness and Minimal Phenomenal Experience (MPE), especially Gamma & Metzinger’s large‑scale study of content‑reduced awareness states.
Metzinger’s proposal of minimal phenomenal experience as an entry point for a minimal unifying model of consciousness.
Narrative identity and partial‑self models within personality and identity theory.

Within this backdrop, AIPA proposes Pure Awareness as a distinct, operationally specified state that can become a structural ground of identity rather than a transient meditative experience.

== Experiential empiricism ==

The empirical foundation of the AIPA Method is explicitly first‑person and experiential, combining:

A 22‑year longitudinal autoethnographic self‑study (2003–2025) documenting partial personality episodes, protocol use, and outcomes.
A 13‑year prospective verification period with zero self‑reported recurrence of targeted harmful behaviors after a dated stabilization point (1 January 2006).
A high‑ecological‑validity “stress test” during acute bereavement, used to examine whether non‑reactive awareness remains stable under maximal provocation.
Two independent practitioner cases (an Amazon‑verified report and a structured questionnaire case) providing preliminary convergent signals across cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and identity dimensions.

All central constructs (Pure Awareness, partial personalities, the Switch, identity stabilization) are operationalized with explicit phenomenological and behavioral criteria intended to enable replication and future third‑person measurement.

I believe this is a valid contribution to Wikiversity.

Best regards, Senad Senad Dizdarević

I suggest you check the deleted user page, and see for yourself if it is "spam" and "authority hack", or a legit author's page with one paragraph short presentation, while the rest of the page is about my research project.

Thank you for undeleting my user page, so I can use it.

Best regards,

Senad Dizdarević Senad Dizdarević (discuss • contribs) 07:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Senad,

Welcome to Wikiversity.

It looks like you tried adding similar content to Wikipedia and ran into similar difficulties over there (w:User talk:Senad Dizdarević)? Perhaps that is what has led to you Wikiversity?

Basically, if you'd like to collaborate and help build open educational resources, feel free to contribute to Wikiversity. But if the primary motivation is to promote your autobiographical work you're probably going to run into challenges.

Sincerely,

James

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

James, Hi, and thank you for your answer.

Yes, in 2025, I created the autobiographic page on Wikipedia, which was removed because of the links to my books on Amazon. To admin, I explained that I did not know the rules, and agreed that page is removed. Now I know that somebody else must write a Wikipedia page for you.

On the deleted user page on Wikiversity, there were no links to Amazon or any other form of promotion, just neutral as possible basic presentation of my writing (one sentence) and current project (the rest of the page).

I created Wikiversity page to present my AIPA Method project, to invite researchers to read it, give their opinion, and conduct empirical researches in their institutions. Now, it is in a theoretical phase, and needs more empirical testing.

Best regards,

Senad Senad Dizdarević (discuss • contribs) 07:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

It looks to me like the primary motivation for contributing to Wikiversity is to drive traffic / search engine ranking to your website?

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not. There is no link to my website, so "driving traffic to my website" is not possible.

For your educational purposes:

Copilot "AI: Senad Dizdarević (discuss • contribs) 07:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

So do you still insist of undeleting your former version of your userpage if you have created the new one? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 08:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, because in the moment of undeletition, somebody could delete it again, and so on. Thank you for not deleting my new user page, as it is made in your user page image. Senad Dizdarević (discuss • contribs) 08:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Undeletion request

Latest comment: 22 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

It was deleted by an admin without discussion and with untrue rationale. If people take offense with the question that doesn't mean it's not a valid question and the page was good. Please undelete the Wikidebate page Is it likely that Earth has been visited by aliens millions of years ago?

There are lots of sources on the subject, the wikidebate is sourced very well compared to other wikidebates and wikiversity pages, and the page is educational, useful and of good quality. Prototyperspective (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Page: Is it likely that Earth has been visited by aliens millions of years ago?

Ping: Atcovi -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is no need for a discussion for straight garbage-level, pseudoscientific content.

For Is it likely that Earth has been visited by aliens millions of years ago?, the flaws for this page wouldn't even take someone more than a few minutes to assess:

Essentially, the "pro" arguments unproven claims being derived from irrelevant, established facts (basically: "it is likely aliens have came because Earth has existed for so long [sources proving Earth's longevity]"). These are not serious, scientifically-backed arguments - these are non sequiturs. It's as if I said Wikipedia has existed longer than my existence on Earth (reputable source proving this fact), therefore it's likely that my birth took place solely for the sake of me experiencing Wikipedia (0 backing). It makes no sense and no person with at least a high school-level of intelligence would take this seriously.
What is worse is that the user is being misleading with their "[the page is] sourced very well" claim. The sources themselves don't even back up the claims. It's just used as proof for an established concept, where the user then uses this established concept to jump to an unsupported, laughable conclusion that is pulled out of thin air. It's utterly ridiculous to even consider such a page for mainspace since it clearly violates our Wikiversity:Verifiability policy. This is, once again, pseudoscientific content that has caused our website to reduce in quality over the last few years.
Going source by source, we can see that:

‘Compress Earth’s history into 24 hrs. Humans came at 11:58 pm, yet killed 70% of wildlife’ is literally just a blog post which doesn't even mention aliens or extraterrestrial life. It just talks about Earth's history in accordance with the 24-hour metric of time, and the author tries to use this article as a 'piece in the puzzle' of aliens "possibly" visiting Earth... which, once again, is unsupported and is not backed up anywhere in the article.
The Cornell article does not even remotely support the idea that "aliens visited Earth". It mentions a chance of "life there [a habitable exoplanet] might not be limited to microbes, but could include creatures as large and varied as the megalosauruses or microraptors that once roamed Earth.", but again, no justification to take this article as proof that "aliens may have visited us!". There's no mention of aliens visiting Earth anywhere in the article. Once again this is only proving the background premise, but not the unsupported, nonsensical "alien likelihood" argument that the author of this garbage page is trying to push so desperately.
The Parker Solar Probe WP article does not even mention aliens either. It follows the same issues as the previous argument.

And the other page this user complained about on my talk page holds almost similar, maybe even more fatal mistakes, than this one. It has nothing to do with "taking offense", this is just low-quality, garbage content. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think pro claims are required to be proven? It's possible to object to them and these are arguments, not contextualized to be statements of proven facts. And it's not a strange or unreasonable argument to make that since Earth has existed for long, it's more likely that aliens have come here in the past than in recent times or the near future. Instead of insulting others' intelligence, maybe engage with the actual reasoning rather than censoring it away. And there are lots of sources, such as Alien Civilizations May Have Visited Earth Millions of Years Ago, Study Says etc etc. The sources are used for the arguments themselves individually. Prototyperspective (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Because, once again, this is not a site that caters to rampant debating for the sake of "we need to employ rationality and logic to solve the world's problems", we have policies that we need to fulfill. The claims made in the pro argument clearly do not meet Wikiversity:Verifiability, since you cannot verify these arguments with the sources because they are not relevant.

"And it's not a strange or unreasonable argument to make that since Earth has existed for long, it's more likely that aliens have come here in the past than in recent times or the near future." The point being is that these arguments are not supported by the sources. Even the article you mention poses the idea as a hypothetical model. This is just you twisting the article to fit your unsupported narrative. I'll bring direct quotes for you to show why the linked article does not help you:

One problem the researchers do make sure to point out is that they are working with only one data point: our own behaviors and capabilities for space exploration. “We tried to come up with a model that would involve the fewest assumptions about sociology that we could,” Carroll-Nellenback told Business Insider. We have no real way of knowing the motivations of an alien civilization. --> proves that this is just speculation and no evidence-based arguments have been provided for the idea that aliens likely visited Earth.

And I'm not sure if you read my entire response, but I did engage with your "actual reasoning" and exposed its weaknesses and lack of adherence to Wikiversity policies. If we allowed content that was just filled with non sequiturs we would have content that fails Wikiversity's educational objectives and reduces the overall quality of this website, hence why such a harsh stance needs to be taken. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for proving that the Wikimedia ecosystem is unfit to deliberate on controversial topics. The question is entirely valid and the content is far better sourced than nearly all Wikidebates and has no genuine flaws. The only possible issue with it as far as I can see is that now that Wikidebates has been paused people can't add objections if they do have sth specific to say about the topic that's not already included on that page which already had plenty of Cons and objections.

The page was more educational than most of Wikiversity and it was well-sourced – wikidebates was for arguments so people were invited to make arguments based on sourced things or outlined logic and the page met WV:V and most pages on Wikiversity aren't sourced as good. Doesn't look like people can see beyond their biases and personal views here but that's more evident in the marginalization and deletion of wikidebates and the low activity in that project than these selective deletions. A constructive thing to do would be to add reasoned Cons and objections not yet on the page and people had plenty of time to do that. There are and will be other sites for free constructive rational adversarial deliberation (not a big loss in that sense). Prototyperspective (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for failing to address any of my arguments and going on an unrelated, nonsensical tangent that has nothing to do with the discussion. Once you start producing work that aligns with Wikiversity's content policies instead of typing up laughable, pseudoscientific garbage, then maybe your work can be accepted and not removed. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you stop ridiculing things and learn respectfully forming genuine points about the subject at hand. the idea as a hypothetical model but please learn first about what arguments are and why they're not the same as a statement of objective proven fact. Prototyperspective (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply