Wikiversity talk:Babel

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Why has Wikiversity:Babel got a multilingual header yet it does not user the beta multilingual system?Hillgentleman

WikiVersity, OpenCourseWare, OpenStudy and maybe others in a "OpenLearning" Common Area[edit]

WikiVersity, OpenCourseWare, OpenStudy and others need to agree to a common "OpenLearning" area.

I know the USA education system (K...12...PhD) has a large deficiency in learning content, which could be mitigated with UN/International agreements on funding and development for the global population, human exploration learning, and local economies.

PLEASE, work with the USA Universities (MIT, Stanford, CMU, Georgia Tech...) and the UN to bring together learning resources and assets for everyone.

There is no greater oppressive evil in humanity, than the known by few, and unknown by many.


MIT OpenCourseWare – Assignments: MIT OpenCourseWare – Calendar: MIT OpenCourseWare – Exams: MIT OpenCourseWare - Intro2CS+Programming20080901OpenStudy: MIT OpenCourseWare - Lecture Videos: MIT OpenCourseWare – Readings: MIT OpenCourseWare – Syllabus:

Wikimedia Foundation – Projects: Wikipedia: Wiktionary:>

conversation re The Banner moved from Babel page[edit]

The Banner: What applies to Romaine, also applies to you. Okay, thank you, goodbye. Vogone (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry? What do you mean? The Banner talk 20:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I recommend that warnings be explicit on the user talk page. In any case, Vogone linked to his warning of Romaine, underneath displayed user name. I dislike using Special:Permalink because it conceals certain information, and doesn't show what page is linked. Underneath "Romaine" was Special:PermaLink/163101#Warning which links to a recent edit by Vogone on User talk:Romaine. Specifically, The Banner, you are being warned about harassment. When you edited with your question, presumably the diff was visible. Any other questions, I strongly recommend you ask on User talk:Vogone. --Abd (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not interested in your warnings of warnings of your personal protector. Especially when they are cryptic and indirect. The Banner talk 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't escalate this by continuing your respectless behaviour, I'm not anyone's personal protector. I have already stopped counting the number of pointless ad hominem comments on your side. Nobody forces you to follow Abd's suggestions, so you can safely ignore them instead of continuing to spam this page with unconstructive comments. Even if Abd was not right, his comments are way more civil than yours. Cheers, Vogone (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I moved this from the attached Wikiversity page because the conversation is irrelevant to the subject Wikiversity:Babel#Language_wiki_identification. I would hope that, in the future, user talk pages are used for personal messages, and warnings should be issued there, not in situ of some alleged offense, as tempting as it might be.
  • Vogone may or may not be my protector; I hope, however, that custodians protect all users from harassment. In a post on Babel, today, I posted and archived to history some research into recent history on Babel, I covered harassment, but I did not extend that to The Banner, thinking that it might be unnecessary, because of the warning. I also closed the Request for custodian action I had filed on The Banner, because of the warning as well, since warning was what I was asking for.
  • Nothing that The Banner has done since the warning rises to the level of harassment. It might be defiance, or pretended ignorance, but my recommendation is that users not be blocked for defiance or the like, it's a normal human behavior and not disruptive *in itself.* Except maybe out here in "the open." Which is another reason why it's a good idea to warn users on their user talk page! --Abd (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
About escalating matters? Why does this discussion appear here? I guess you did not like it that I did not answer? Do you really want the controversy to stay alive and bother other unrelated people with your disruptive behaviour? Sorry, but I have to be blunt now: with your disruptive behaviour you are acting like a troll and it seems that the actions of you and Vogone have single handedly killed off the Dutch Wikiversity. I do not want to be followed around everywhere. I don't want to see discussions moved to completely unrelated places. I just want you to stop your disruptive behaviour and give the Dutch Wikiversity a chance to develop in a useful project, without people who speak no Dutch trying to set the rules.
None of the custodians was brave enough to act beforehand against your disruptive behaviour, I hope they see now how damaging the actions of Abd are. The Banner talk 18:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The discussion appears here because it never belonged on the Babel page. However, it was posted there. This is very common with community process pages: if something out-of-place is posted there, it is not deleted, it is moved to the Talk page. Any user may do that. If another disagrees, they can move it back, but ... given that Talk page discussion also appears on Watchlists, there is usually no reason to fight over it. It's not censorship. (And there are alternate compromises that can be made.)
  • This has nothing to do with The Banner allegedly "not answering."
  • The talk page for Babel is not "completely unrelated" to Babel. As well, this is a wiki. Errors can be fixed. Some people, instead of fixing an alleged error, prefer to complain about it. Even though fixing it takes less than a minute.
  • What rules? The discussion this was moved from was about how the Dutch project -- and every project -- is identified. That is a point where interlingual cooperation is needed, or else there is chaos, and, in fact, there is, then, no Dutch Wikversity to move to an independent project. In no way could this inhibit Dutch content creation. The most that would happen would be that some non-Dutch user might put Category:NL on a page. Is that a problem? Assuming the page is actually in Dutch, of course?
  • No damaging action is alleged here, but instead a complaint that I was not sanctioned for unspecified "disruptive behavior." That's disruptive!
  • There is indeed an almost complete decline in Dutch activity. In my opinion, at this time attempting to blame this on this party or faction or that one, will not increase activity. What will increase activity is Dutch users being encouraged to create content here. There was only one thing that has been done to discourage that: over 5000 pages were deleted, created by, as far as I can tell, not just one user. Those users will be discouraged, nobody is encouraged by page deletion.
  • There is a possible argument that the Dutch Wikiversity being full of poor content discouraged participation. All that content is gone, for the moment, so while there may have been some effect like that, there is another claim, seen on the Dutch pages: it is harder, allegedly, to create an educational resource than it is to create an encyclopedia article. That's due to the definition of "educational resource" that was adopted by the new Dutch users. It is not at all hard to create a "learning project," to start collecting some material, learning about a subject, learning-by-doing, and it is not hard to find such projects and join them and expand them and organize them. But to create what certain Dutch users wanted, indeed, it is more difficult, and apparently, there are fewer users willing to do the work. Those more developed educational projects are completely welcome on Beta.
No Dutch user, other than the long-time user Timboliu (or other users whose content may have been deleted), has been harassed or prevented in any way from creating content here. The most that there was, here on the English central process pages, was a consideration of that massive deletion process, and Dutch users could cheerfully have ignored that, and most did. But they may not so easily ignore the actions of Dutch users. I don't know that there is a problem, but if there is, that would be where it lies. --Abd (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
(after edit conflict, directed at The Banner) Sorry, which of my actions do you mean? That I made Timboliu aware of his drafts not being substantial in some cases? That I deleted some of the empty pages as requested by the Dutch community and agreed on by Timboliu? Please be specific, otherwise I can't see my mistakes and fix them. Regarding the apparent conflict between parts of the Dutch community and Abd, I didn't take any action, just defended myself and other custodians against attacks by Romaine and you commited for a reason I still fail to understand. And that I don't speak any Dutch is a false claim, and I used to be the most active contributor to the Dutch language Wikisource, just by the way. If you don't like "rules" proposed by external community members, you don't have to apply them. Abd can't force you to do anything, he can merely share his opinion. And that is something which should be allowed independently of language skills. Regards, Vogone (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Beside that, you act on Wikiversity:Request custodian action as a custodian by closing discussions still open. That is remarkable, as you did not accept a custodian to close discussions. Trying to confuse people and claim rights you do not have? The Banner talk 18:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, this is not the place to discuss that, properly, but it stays on this talk page because it was placed here. The place to discuss an alleged improper action on Wikiversity:Request custodian action would be Wikiversity talk:Request custodian action. This is the principle I'm operating on, and I have years of experience with it. It works. Any user may close any process on a wiki. That close might say "closed" or "done," but every edit is a proposed change, not some irreversible decision. The idea that only custodians could close discussions was one of the ideas that I confronted in the beginning of this Dutch Affair. It is broadly rejected. There is an exception: a close requiring custodian tools for implementation must be done by a custodian, except that if a custodian has already acted, another user may add the formal closure.
What I closed were requests that were complete, where there was an apparent consensus for closure, or no further action or useful discussion likely. In some of these I was "involved." On a large wiki, I'd not do this. On small wikis, it's often necessary. This is not a usurpation of power, because the close is actually proposed, any user may revert it, taking responsibility for the request or topic remaining open. The Banner could undo those closes, though I really don't recommend it! Abusively re-opening a disruptive discussion can be considered disruptive, but also Be Bold. If you are civil and cooperative, you can do almost anything. Try it! You might like it. Wikiversity is for learning-by-doing. This is all part of it. --Abd (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)