text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Moulton's block

User:Moulton
Note: one closed section of this discussion has been archived

''Discussion closed, the sense of the community is that Moulton has been disruptive, and that the block is appropriate. The community's displeasure of his block evasion using IPs and alternative accounts should also be given considerable weight, so this block should be considered a community ban of Moulton until such time as he comes to a reasonable agreement with one or more custodians in regards to acceptable behavior as a student/teacher/peer.'' --SB_Johnny talk 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales banned Moulton for incivilty. This may have not been the most transparent of actions and may have been a surprise to some. I am posting this here so if Wikiversity users would like, they can discuss it here to see if there is in fact consensus among Wikiversity users to ban User:Moulton. I'm not suggesting lifting the ban at all, although Community Review seems like it would be the place to do it. Emesee 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Supports the ban To separate me a bit from that, I will start this new indented reply. I support the banning of User:Moulton for a couple reasons and probably more. 1. he should have known better than to post emails and other things that have had to be oversighted multiple times 2. Jimbo Wales believes he should be blocked for the good of the wiki and the community - Wikipedia is much more mature and "successful" than Wikiversity thus far and we should follow his advice based on his accumulated experience with facilitating the success of projects. 3. not respecting and also circumventing the block thus far. So I support a ban until furthur notice. He is certainly more than welcome to participate in a thoughtful and considerate manner on other wikis and show that he can do so in ways that are accepted by the larger community. Emesee 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with below comments showing concern for the way the block was implimented, I am highly disconcerted by the way Moulton has refused to acknowledge his block, and continues to antagonize elements of Wikiversity, setting himself up as a martyr. I would like to see better behavior coming from him before lifting the block.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily see bad behavior. He is trying to effect a major paradigm shift. When you look at what he has done from other perspectives, it can be justified. I am going to establish a sub section were we can set out exactly what we see as bad. I don't think we have ever sat down and done this. i would rather not lose a visiting scientist at MIT with a PhD in Network Technology. Geo.plrd 05:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Experts can be a valuable resource to wikivervsity and we should encourage their contributions. But, I think we need to distinguish between mere affiliation or credentials and the more important issue of the quality of the contributions which an expert makes here within their field of study.  Isn't that the real reason why wikiversity should strive to encourage an expert to participate?  I am not aware of any edits that Moulton has made to "Network Technology" pages.  Please provide links if I have missed something.  The majority of his contributions have little to do with his research.  See: Wikiversity the Movie/Wikiversity is a Mighty Fine Ditch or this example (copy of one of his contributions which was deleted from wv.)  Please clarify how his position at MIT is relevant to this dicussion.  --mikeu talk 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mikeu. Moulton's PhD is only relevant if he had been contributing significantly in a relevant field at Wikiversity.  As it is, he seems to have entirely ignored his specialty, and as such, his role as an "expert" is meaningless here.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I primarily am concerned with the precedent Jimbo has set with this block. It appears from the discussion that he will remain blocked. The main point I want is that Jimbo is out of line, not that Moulton is unblocked. Geo.plrd 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * i don't think that following the lead of Wikipedia is a good idea. The mission of Wikipedia contradicts that of Wikiversity. Its like having a Professor of English do your taxes. The foundation of the community is that the Community has paramount power. Jimbo stepping in and unilaterally imposing sanctions takes power from the community. While I have no problem with him expressing the opinion that Moulton was wrong, I do not believe it is academically sound to allow him to force that opinion down our throats. Regardless of whether it was right, it is the wrong path to start down. In the law, this is called a slippery slope. You don't go down these slippery slopes because of the ways it can spiral into unpleasant things. Geo.plrd 05:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As fas I'm concerned, we're not going to be applying this as an example of judicial precedent here. If it becomes something other than an isolated incident, the community might have to draw up a statement to send to Wales to encourage him to back off.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural Reverse  I move to reverse the ban on the grounds that Jimbo has overstepped his authority. Geo.plrd 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Emesee, I take it that you do not distinguish a block and a ban. Anyway, Jimbo Wales has not edited Wikiversity since its launch and we can consider him a (re-)newcomer and unfamiliar with Wikiversity as it is now. His unfamiliarity can be seen, at least, in this edit, where he said he was happy to "remove" Dtobias from the project  (a very unwikiversity expression!) if necessary over an action a month before under completely different environment, atmosphere and circumstances.  I consider his action very much "wikipedia-like" and is unsuitable for wikiversity, which has a different demographic and has evolved differently.  Looking at the (in my opinion) juvenile flame wars on wikipedia (sample of which has recently been seen on wikiversity), I would not consider wikipedia in any way more "mature" than wikiversity. If Moulton were to be blocked, there should be a community discussion of the reasons; Moulton should have been given a specific final warning on-wiki, and a suitable time-limit be proposed. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you think that a block and a ban are different. Emesee 02:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is right. For example, I do not oppose if, as an emergency measure, a wikiversity custodian blocked Moulton for a specific time limit for a specific thing he did (like posting private information on wikiversity, or flooding the recentchanges with edit wars).  However, as wikiversity is a wiki, a ban should be by the community - or, as it is a website, the owner of the host.  As it stands, Moulton was blocked by Wales in consultation with the bureaucrats and the community still has to discuss the block. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Support block. For reasons that we have started to elaborate on at Requests relating to Moulton, Moulton's block, Moulton's talk page and range block log.  I will contribute much more on this page in the coming days...  --mikeu talk 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you support the precedent that this block set? Geo.plrd 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Realize that one can support the block without supporting the precedent (see above). The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that the initial block set a precedent. --mikeu talk 02:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mike, If we are to discuss the block of Wales, we should not use the events that happened afterwards to justify it.:-) --Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm starting to get a little confused about which section of this page is for which part of the discussion... There are multiple issues: the reasons for Moulton getting blocked in the first place (regardless of by whom), the fact that it was Wales who made the block, events that happened after that, if the block should continue, and if the block should be a ban.  Sorry if my comments about different aspects are getting mixed up within the wrong sections.  Let me back up.  Moulton was going to get blocked.  There is no question about that.  The reasons for the block had been building for some time.  I was holding off on doing it (before I was even aware that Wales knew of Moulton's edits on wv) to give diplomatic attempts a chance to show progress.  I was not particularly hopeful that those efforts would succeed given how the dialogue was going at that time.  I was also concerned that attempts to work with Moulton were draining the time and energy of the community.  Moulton might have had another day or two to edit before the first short blocks by me or others, maybe a week or so before that escalated to an indef.  But, IMHO, when it happened - it was long overdue.  --mikeu talk 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I would also Support a ban, although we should probably clarify what we mean by the terms "block" and "ban" in the context of this discussion. --mikeu talk 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest support block/an possible Not here to create learning resources. A consumate troll across multiple internet sites. Salmon of Doubt 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you support the precedent that this block set? Geo.plrd 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this block. I also urge people to look through the activity documented at User:Cormaggio/Moulton's_block. However, I am still not happy with the precedent of this block, and encourage the community to continue working on our principles and policies to ensure that, in the future, we take these sorts of decisions and actions as a community. Cormaggio talk 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Support ban. I disagree with how it came about, but I do not support unblocking based purely on procedure.  Moulton's behavior on WV was inappropriate before the block, and has only gotten worse after.    His scientific expertise is mostly irrelevant, as his only contributions have been well outside his sphere.  In fact, I have not seen a single edit of his that could be considered a worthwhile contribution to WV.  He's too focused on his personal feuds to make unblocking him a good idea, as being wronged on Wikipedia does not excuse his behavior here.  I agree with Cormaggio that this should not be considered a precedent, but instead an exception.  We in the WV community need to develop a better method for dealing with problem behavior in the future. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Should Jimbo have come in here and IARed a block on Moulton? Probably not, despite statements from some curators that effectively admit that at the time they temporarily lacked the will to do it themselves. So... bad process. But good outcome. Unblock because of bad process? No. Cost benefit analysis shows Moulton to be a huge drain on resources, far in excess of what most people would judge as the benefit. This is especially bad for smaller wikis that have less resources. I support this ban. But I have little to no standing in this community, take it as an outside view, nothing more. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * block, per reasons already given. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the initial block of Moulton wasn't done well the first time. On that point at least there is I suspect some good consensus. So, my feeling is that if the block is proposed to be re-done (i.e., to change from a Jimbo block to a WV community block), that we at least take some extra effort to do it "properly"? By that I mean something like stating a neutral-tone, succint, precise set of behaviours of concern, with evidence of specific diffs, etc. and links to the respective policy issues or related consensus - followed by community response. This was a key step IMHO that was missed. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with J T Neill. Someone needs to tell Moulton what specific deeds he had done before Wales blocked him to deserve the blocking; or, if that is the case, "the Wikiversity community simply cannot accomodate you, at least at the moment". For even if his essays were the longest and his language are not music to a lot of ears, Moulton was not the only one who engaged in edit-warring and flooding the recentchanges list. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary
(This should be updated as votes are added):
 * 7 a block, of which 5 explicitly support a ban.  (Lar also supports a ban, but considers himself an outsider and is not currently counted in these numbers.  Sunstar NW, on the other hand, is counted per his comments below)
 * 1 on grounds that Jimbo was involved.
 * 1, believing that the block should be totally redone after certain conditions are in place. (Hillgentleman appears to be also of this persuasion, but has not explicitly declared a position, and is as such not yet counted.)

(initially summarized by The Jade Knight (d'viser))

A Random Page-Break
User:Moulton has not addressed, or even acknowledged, his actions and behavior Request_custodian_action/Requests_relating_to_Moulton User:Cormaggio/Moulton's_block that led to the block. The reason that he has given for why he should be unblocked is refuted - it is quite clear from the discussion above that the only reason why we are even reviewing the block is because of community concern about the process that led up to it and that the block was done by Jimbo Wales. There is no indication in the comments in this discussion that the concerns that the community has about process are reason enough to consider an unblock. There is clear support from the community that the block is justified and should remain in place. In any case, Moulton's "reason" for unblocking is not a valid response to the many problems that have been brought to his attention. This is a continuation of his evasion in taking responsiblity for his actions and refusing to address the concerns of the community.

I think that there is consensus that Moulton should remain blocked (despite concerns about the process that led up to it and that the block was done by Jimbo Wales.) The issues related to process can be brought up in a seperate WV:CR, but for now let us consider the block itself. Are there any objections to this assessment that the community considers a continued block of User:Moulton justified? --mikeu talk 15:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * The comment below was copied by me from the unblock request at User talk:Moulton. --mikeu talk 01:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 * The reason given by Jimbo Wales has not yet been demonstrated or peer-reviewed per the express requirements of the First Law of Hammurabi. We must now have a hearing and a trial of the charges leveled by Mr. Wales. Please lift the block so that we may proceed to trial to examine the evidence to be provided by Mr. Wales and to cross-examine his witnesses. —Moulton 17:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any improvement of behaviour. In fact, I see quite clearly the opposite, and while the disruption is quite visible here, it isn't limited to this project. That said, the actions taken to combat such disruption is largely up to each community.

Moulton's disruptive accounts are a major problem in my mind, especially since they are being used in rather familiar ways. Moulton has been asked to stop participating on Wikiversity until we make a final decision and has refused to abide by that decision, instead creating accounts to further disrupt the project. I can only conclude from such a response that increased disruption would follow an unblock. I must therefore agree strongly with Mikeu:

 * 1) Moulton's behaviour has been problematic for some time;
 * 2) Blocking him was a long time coming - overdue, in fact;
 * 3) Whether we agree with Jimbo's actions (and I happen to disagree) it's a separate question (though one the community needs to reflect upon);
 * 4) A community ban enforced by a block is the best way to repair the Wikiversity community and prevent further disruption to this project.

I think the discussion here shows broad agreement that the block should not be lifted; I support that stance. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with Mikeu and Mike.lifeguard. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's Behavior
What behavior of Moulton's do we see as unaccpetable? Geo.plrd 05:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Taunting other contributors on this project and Releasing private information of individuals on this project, for starters. Salmon of Doubt 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Moulton has thoroughly demonstrated he will not constructively contribute to this project: In short, Moulton is obsessed with getting back at those he feels wronged him, has acted against the goals of the Wikiversity project, and has not been willing to moderate his behavior, instead taking advantage of the patient, inclusive atmosphere. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Using a project as a platform for a personal feud was the biggest problem, IMO. His "case study" is a good example of this.
 * When others attempt to address his poor behavior, he tends to lawyer based on procedure, rather than address the issues. When dealing with my removal of his bogus case studies, he refused to address my arguments, instead claiming that I was not following the correct procedure (mostly through private channels).  See also his unblock request
 * He tends to spam his work through excessive links and multiple cut-and-pastes.
 * Rather than moderate his behavior, he edit-wars (see the Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion history).
 * When KillerChihuahua joined the project in order to address what she felt were inappropriate attacks, Moulton taunted and attacked her with her real name multiple times (I believe most of that is now oversighted). This is related to his attempt to continue a feud here that began on Wikipedia.
 * See User:Cormaggio/Moulton's_block for more detailed examples. Cormaggio talk 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * While the point about the edit-wars may be valid, it is also valid to say there were others involved. It would only be fair to name who else was involved in the edit-wars. Dzonatas 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, though I don't think it's absolutely necessary to name the others here, since this was specifically about Moulton's behavior. It's worth noting that he has also reinserted edits removed for more serious issues, such as when he used real names. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is not worth it to mention the others, then it is not worth it to mention there was an edit-war at all. Dzonatas 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Dzonatas 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did explicitly name Salmon_of_Doubt in the above page, and, while I think his behaviour at times has also not been a bed of roses, I think Moulton's was by far the more problematic. Cormaggio talk 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dzonatas, I'm not sure what the issue is. The question was specifically what behaviors of Moulton's have been a problem.  In addition, while most of his edit-warring has been against Salmon of Doubt, he has done so against others as well. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I retracted my previous statement because it was meant as a rhetorical and not (to be) made personal. Dzonatas 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that his constant violations against his (initially temporary) block combined with his use of totally one-sided examples and loaded rhetoric to push forward his POV are what are what are most unacceptable (in addition to "outing"). The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * The initial temporary block by SB_Johnny was only for two hours. Do you have any evidence to support the allegation that Moulton posted during that two hour interregnum?  Original Spin 04:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about your current block. Posting comments on this page right now seems particularly inappropriate for you.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 04:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Observations
Transactional analysis offers some ways of understanding what seem in these two cases to be somewhat intractable conflicts. However, in the words of Ken Wilber (1981, p. 328), "at this point in history, the most radical, pervasive, and earth-shaking transformation would occur simply if everybody truly evolved to a mature, rational, and responsible ego, capable of freely participating in the open exchange of mutual self-esteem." -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See also: answer to Philosophical Question #3 and User:Hillgentleman/consensus and the zeroth law of robotics. --mikeu talk 15:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also of possible interest in terms of perspective-taking in interpersonal relationships: Johari window. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Original Spin
I reiterate - I can technically ban Moulton from this project. It is trivial. Why are his accounts and IP addresses allowed to keep going on like this? Salmon of Doubt 20:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait until the Community Review has passed, at least. I would very much like to see Moulton exhibit better behavior on his own.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think someone besides Salmon should do it, if it becomes necessary. There's far too much personal animosity between Salmon and Moulton. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It has not been demonstrated that any one other than me has the technical ability to do so. I'll release my source code. Salmon of Doubt 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For those of us trying to catch up, could you clarify what you mean here? A pointer to a previous discussion would be fine... but I'm not following this just yet. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he means that he can set up a bot to revert Moulton. --SB_Johnny talk 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The heuristic to detect Moulton is trivial. SB Johnny is correct. Salmon of Doubt 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got a point there. Regrettably. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good point. I agree, Sχeptomaniac.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki is Open-Source software. There is no need to implement close sourced solutions as a bot. Post a patch to the MediaWiki list if you have the technical ability. Dzonatas 23:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would not be appropriate to ban Moulton from every MediaWiki project. A flag to "ban Moulton from this project" is code creep. I will release the source code of my Moulton reverting/blocking bot under the gpl, making it open source. Salmon of Doubt 01:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have neither suggested nor encouraged you to make such a specific flag that would cyberattack user(s). I also do not support your viral attempt to release such software. I simply echoed a common course of action to improve open-source software, but it appears you did not recognize it as such. Dzonatas 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Salmon, Moulton should at least be allowed to give specific answer specific problems on this page. Any problems with that? --Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see: Changed protection level for "User talk:Moulton" The page has been unprotected for the sole purpose of allowing blocked user to respond to Community_Review. Any posting of personal information or use of the page for other discussions will result in immediate re-protection.  --mikeu talk 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * he's back to his old ways. Reprotect the page. Salmon of Doubt 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Next steps
What are we doing with respect to this block currently? I see some support for a community ban in discussion above (and I would agree that's an appropriate course of action), however nothing has been implemented. I also see support for developing better procedures for such dealing with such disruption in the future, such that extraordinary actions from Jimbo are unnecessary (and I think that's a very good idea), yet nothing has been done in that vein. Moulton's talk page remains open for him to edit it - the reason for this was to permit him to respond to the discussion here, though I fail to see anything resembling a mature or useful response on his talk page; indeed I see more of the same behaviour which we've determined is unacceptable. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Please note that Moulton is now repeatedly circumventing the block placed on his account. At first this was done editing without creating accounts, then with a series of sockpuppets. This necessitated a series of rangeblocks; since Wikiversity doesn't have any CheckUsers, this was done without access to information to better determine what ranges to block. I have attempted to refine the rangeblocks so they affect the fewest number of IPs possible, however they are evidently to narrow now, as Moulton has continued to create new accounts to circumvent the block, necessitating steward intervention. Still, I believe the range blocks in place will not be effective, though without CheckUser data I am reluctant to cast a wider net.

 * This behaviour is rather unacceptable in my mind - if Moulton wishes to contest the block he has had ample opportunity to do so on his talk page, which he has specifically been permitted to edit for that purpose. As I noted above, I don't see anything resembling an attempt to contest the block either on his talk page or in his edits elsewhere using the sockpuppet accounts - simply more of the same behaviour which led to the block in the first place.

 * – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Ignore him? Geo.plrd 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * For the most part, that is what we've been doing. There have been no responses to his posts in the past 10 days.  But his editing outside of his talk page has been disruptive.  See my comments below.  --mikeu talk 15:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I would have supported the unblocking of him as I did that of JWSchmidt, but his behavior post-block has been totally disrespectful; I frankly thing that if he cannot respect Wikiversity now, then I have little hope that he would if he were unblocked. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * His continued editing during the block has been disruptive. Request_custodian_action/Moulton's_talk_page Of particular concern is his use of sockpuppet accounts to vote in a Community Review    and recreation of pages  that were deleted at WV:RFD. Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/3  The discussion thread above discussing his block is near closing, as there seems clear concensus that it should continue.  --mikeu talk 15:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * The continued disregard for scholarly ethics has not only been disruptive, it's a dysfunctional practice that undermines and corrodes the very concept of an enlightened academic culture. To continue to disregard these core academic values abrogates the published mission of WMF and jeopardizes the status of WMF as publicly funded educational non-profit.  Moulton 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dr. Kort, for the most part I have agreed with you. However, I find it ethically suspect to run an experiment without the participants' consent. Just because WMF may be a drama engine does not mean that contributors have implied agreement with experimentation. Many people have asked you to stop. I do see that you have stopped most of the concerning behavior and have restricted yourself to your talkspace with some exceptions. This shows an improvement over behavior from a month ago.

 * Your results and observations will also be invalid as you are injecting yourself into the mix. This is a direct contradiction of the scientific method, where scientists are observers.

 * I do see a definite improvement in behavior which gives me hope. I am therefore proposing a potential solution that is designed to restore order and salvage a contributor. My motivation for doing this is closure. I think that everyone is tired of having to deal with this matter. Please see the next section for details. Geo.plrd 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * If this is intended to be an experiment, I feel that I can confidently say that no IRB in the United States would approve it. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Closure
Note: please see the summary above. --mikeu talk 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is designed to bring closure for both the Community and Moulton. Please feel free to comment on each individual point.

Background

 * This matter stems from conduct of User:Moulton considered disruptive by the Community.
 * Moulton was and is banned on the English Wikipedia. It is outside the purview of this Community to comment the merits of such an action.
 * After his ban, Moulton came to and utilized Wikiversity to attempt to reform areas of Wipedia. His reform attempts were an expression of his dissatisfaction with Wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia editors saw this project as an attack page on Wikipedia.
 * Moulton has violated the privacy of one Wikipedia contributor by using their real name on Wikiversity.
 * Moulton appears to equate Wikiversity with Wikipedia.
 * He has made repeated complaints of being banned and has equated banning with a Bill of Attainder.
 * He fails to understand that Wikimedia projects exist solely to make the sum of all knowledge available to everyone without charge.{evidence and reasoning needed}
 * Moulton sees Wikimedia projects as drama engines.
 * He has engaged in ethically suspect practices by utilizing Wikiversity for experiments without contributor's consent. In the real world, this would be considered a civil rights violation.{evidence and review needed}
 * The Community refuses to comment on any activity at Wikipedia, or take any such activity into consideration here.
 * The Community has previously decided that the block implemented by Jimbo Wales should have been left to the Community.
 * Notwithstanding the means of creation, the block of Moulton has been affirmed by the Community.1
 * The Community is tired of spending time on this matter.
 * The disruptive behavior of Moulton is condemned by the Community as a violation of core tenets.

Proposal
These options are separate.
 * 1) Moulton will be unblocked subject to the following conditions.
 * 2) Prior to the block being lifted, Moulton must submit a writing plan detailing what productive activities he will undertake.
 * 3) Moulton shall also refrain from violating policy
 * 4) Three mentors shall be appointed to oversee all Moulton related issues.
 * 5) Once every month, the mentors shall furnish a report to the community, detailing progress. The mentors will have all powers necessary to enforce restrictions.
 * 6) Decisions made by the mentors shall be considered final.
 * 7) The mentors will be authorized to take any action they deem necessary to remedy the situation, including ISP abuse reporting.
 * 8) These conditions shall be discharged upon agreement of all three mentors.

Discussion

 * Thoughts?Geo.plrd 18:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * All education is disruptive to some extent, since education tends to supplant current beliefs with revised beliefs that represent a deeper or more comprehensive understanding of the world we find ourselves embedded in.

 * I have never been community banned at any WMF-sponsored site. I have been indef-blocked on several occasions by corrupt admins who could have reliably predicted there would be no community consensus to overturn their block.  This is a fairly standard (corrupt) practice in many WMF-sponsored sites.  The community is deeply divided, as you can discover by reading the discussions, all of which are extensively documented on my talk pages.

 * I do not equate en:WP with en:WV. Rather I equate identical practices when they arise on both sites.  Jimbo came into Wikiversity and introjected a corrosive and corrupt practice that (to the best of my knowledge) had not previously appeared in Wikiversity.  In doing so, Jimbo has unwittingly converted what could have been an admirable Education Engine into a familiar (if tiresome and banal) Drama Engine, by reprising an anachronistic practice that is well known to generate passionate drama.

 * Jimbo's block has neither been upheld nor overturned. Jimbo's block has (predictably) divided the community, which is what H1 predicted. Earlier today, Mike Umbricht stipulated H1.

 * Blocking and silencing of peer scholars is simply not a sustainable practice for an authentic learning community, full stop. A considerably more appropriate and enlightened community regulatory process needs to be crafted and adopted.

 * Moulton 19:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want a more appropriate and enlightened process, why do you alienate those who could help you, rather than engaging in productive conversation? Geo.plrd 21:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I would add as a required condition for unblock that Moulton go an entire month without violating said block. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems a tad punitive. I would support prohibiting unblock until monitors are appointed. Geo.plrd 15:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If he chooses to be disruptive when he's blocked, I seriously don't expect him to do otherwise when unblocked. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * SB_Johnny also pointed out that the "Mentors" element seems particularly demanding; if Mentors are going to be used, the work expected of them should be reduced significantly. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the point of the mentors are to keep this matter off the Community's plate. Geo.plrd 15:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So we're going to waste more time of valuable community members dealing with someone this disruptive at the best of times (and even moreso during the worst of times)? I think it is probably best to let everyone get on with building a stable and sustainable community and project. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no support from the community to unblock Moulton; see the comments in the first section of this review and the summary. --mikeu talk 02:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, my question was rhetorical, intended to get the reader to draw that conclusion. I don't think this proposal is going anywhere; there is no support for unblocking. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was general, and not a repsonse to yours. I tried to indent it to indicate I was responding to the top level question "thoughts?"  --mikeu talk 12:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I have nothing much to say except that I agree with Moulton being banned. This is a bit of a timesink for the project, and I suggest if he wishes to appeal his ban, he should do so via the Foundation or OTRS, rather than here on-wiki. This probably is going to go in a circular discussion, in my opinion... AC --Sunstar NW XP 10:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Ban of Moulton
Withdrawn per nom. --mikeu talk 12:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that there's the vote above on this page. I'm suspending this until that is resolved; it seems to simply be a duplication for the time being. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 08:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Recent actions by Emesee

Recent actions by Emesee
User:Emesee has protected Topic:European history so that only custodians can move it. Uninvolved parties, please review this to see if there is a better of action that should and/or could be taken in light of the circumstances. He is open to reasonable dialogue.

 * The original complaint, and following discussion, have been removed by Emesee (diff), after which he protected this page from editing for two weeks (diff). The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Topic:European history has been unprotected. --mikeu talk 10:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Community Review has also been unprotected by a steward. --mikeu talk 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Below is the discussion removed by Emesee before he protected the page. --SB_Johnny talk 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Emesee has moved and protected Topic:European History to prevent it from being moved back. Emesee appears to be unwilling to engage in discussion on any talk pages about his need to constantly move pages where he is not involved in developing content, despite the fact that I have brought the issue up multiple times on his talk pages. I created the page and have been involved significantly in its development. Emesee has hardly been involved at all, and has insisted on renaming the page however he likes. While this sort of unwelcomed unilateral action is disrespectful to begin with, what I find particularly inappropriate is that Emesee recently moved the page to the version he likes, and then protected it himself, without any discussion at all, to prevent any further changes. It is highly inappropriate for Emesee to be using his Custodial tools to protect pages so that he may protect his preferred version of them. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to tone down your language here. Emesee 06:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are currently being highly disrespectful and you are abusing your role as a Custodian. It is inappropriate to engage in edit-warring and then to protect a page to your preferred version while ignoring what discussion has occured (which you chose not to participate in).  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above post was originally in response to this; Emesee has since self-censored his response. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that Emesee has taken issue with every single action I have proposed at School_talk:History. Also he appears from one post to be looking for a template to delete. Geo.plrd 06:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this related to the issue at hand? Do you feel that this reflects on Emesee's other actions in the School of History?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is part of a larger scheme of his actions in the School of History. I remember that he created a History of the Americas page, which blocked a merger. This appears to be the manifestation of his disagreement with merger proposals that we have been working on.

If you are talking about those templates, then yes. I object strongly. That arguably takes away from organization on Wikiversity in the long run a great deal. I strongly advise against using it, but consensus is consensus. Please let me know where that template is, which I think I may have created. Emesee 05:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) This would appear to be him planning to delete the templates in use at American History. I know its a stretch but he indicated displeasure with their use, then asked where they were, then noted that he might be the author. Geo.plrd 06:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think this is the best way to approach the betterment of Wikiversity. Then great. Good luck. Have fun. Emesee 06:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If what is, Emesee? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am curious to find out why Emesee is now trying to censor me. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Jade Knight

 * Action proposed: Ban for ten years.
 * Reason: Incivility
 * Evidence: Stating the other users are "whining" and acting "silly".

Please find the diffs yourself. Emesee 08:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ban as per nom. Emesee 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ban as I don't see a need for it at this time Geo.plrd 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * —I will stand by consensus as to whether or not this is appropriate. Please do review this page's recent history while deciding, however.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 08:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed Please provide detailed evidence that such a drastic action is warranted, and don't open a new request unless you can back it up. --mikeu talk 09:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?
I'm a little confused about what's on my watchlist this morning, but it doesn't look good. What's going on?

Just for the record, Emesee's tools were removed by a steward, but has two other accounts in the sysop usergroup. Could we get an account of what happened so we can make whatever decisions need to be made? --SB_Johnny talk 11:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Found this revision, which seems to sum it up. Seems he was edit-warring with the assistance of the page protection tool. The section above (recommending a ban of Jade Knight) shows rather poor judgement as well. Keep in mind that there has also been a pattern of poor communication about other things over the past few weeks (see his talk page), including some very heavy-handed blocks of dynamic IPs, censoring comments, and so on. --SB_Johnny talk 12:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Nominations for checkuser/Remi which has been reopened to review the CU access request. --mikeu talk 12:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The checkuser nomination has been closed, per Emesee's advice. Cormaggio talk 10:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Move to remove tools from all accounts
There is clear support for removal of custodian access. The community does not have confidence in his ability to use the tools in an appropriate manner. --mikeu talk 00:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(administrator access temporarily removed until the community can review)

Emesee has removed comments and asked on #wikimedia-stewards to get the buttons turned back on, etc. I think it would be a good idea at least for the time being to remove the tools from his other two accounts. We can give them back later if that's determined to be a good choice by community discussion. --SB_Johnny talk 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 * , regretfully but firmly support immediate removal of all tools. --SB_Johnny talk 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * , Geo.plrd 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * immediate removal, while discussion is ongoing. --mikeu talk 15:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I no longer have confidence that he can use tools in an objective and fair manner. Protecting a mainspace page during an edit war that a custodian is involved in is inapropriate.  Protection of a Community Review page to shield oneself from criticsm is unacceptable, and does not reflect the kind of judgement that we require from a custodian.  --mikeu talk 17:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 * removal - Why did multiple accounts have tools in the first place? (I know some of the background, but I still think it's a valid question, there is no reason for one user to control more than one account with admin tools) Note, you may wish to discount this support as I have little activity in this community. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * removal. I, like Lar, fail to understand why multiple admin accounts were permitted in the first place. I have had little confidence in Emesee's ability to perform the CheckUser role (unfortunately I was unaware of the nomination until after it passed), and now I have little confidence in Emesee's ability to perform the custodian role given the rather clear recent abuse. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 17:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * , per recent events and discussion. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * removal - per Lar ..--Cometstyles 00:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of tools on all accounts. Highly erratic, unexplained behaviour, not responding to questions, editing other people's comments (after being asked not to, and saying he wouldn't). Also using custodian tools to have influence over an edit war. Cormaggio talk 08:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How would it be if I supported that? As I understand it, there was not particularly a valid reason to have the tools removed in the first place. Emesee 17:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you're kidding. I think the above comments clearly state what actions were inappropriate. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * I appreciate that this is being done on wiki. I hope it was a third party that alerted Stewards to my "abuse", if it wasn't, and they should know if it was, then I urge that User:Emesee be reflagged as custodian. Emesee 16:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of procedure stewards only remove flags, it is the local bureaucrats who add them. Actions like protecting Community Review while you are in an edit war does not give confidence that you can use the tools in a fair and appropriate way.  It mattered little who alerted them, actions like that speak for themselves.  --mikeu talk 16:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The request to the stewards to have you emergency desysopped was, in fact, not made by me. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser?
Closed - There are good reasons to believe the account is not compromised, and no other reason for needing CU has been explained,. --mikeu talk 23:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I hate to have to say this. However, I feel that a checkuser is necessary to see if this is a compromised account, because of the erratic behavior. Geo.plrd 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 * The other two accounts have been inactive since early summer. He also verified his identity last night, so it's fairly unlikely that this is a compromised account.--SB_Johnny talk 15:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for a user to checkuser, might I suggest Special:Contributions/Werdna? Emesee 16:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On what basis? Wernda is a highly trusted user acting in perfectly normal ways; accusing random people isn't helping your case. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 17:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume you are saying this person has more than three edits on Wikimedia projects. Thank you for the information. Emesee 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to stop editing others' comments. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 17:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see a real need to checkuser Emesee… The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Eml4500.f08.team.foskey.ckf/HW4a

The Connectivity Array
In solving a finite element analysis problem, it is beneficial to have a connectivity array, "conn", to create a correlation between the local and global nodes. If the two bar truss system is considered, the connectivity array is:

$$ conn =  \begin{bmatrix}

1 & 2 \\ 2 & 3\\ \end{bmatrix} $$

Where the columns 1 and 2 represent the local node numbers (1 and 2 respectively), the first row represents element 1, the second row represents element 2, and the contents of the matrix are the global node numbers.

The elements of the connectivity array can be given in the following format:

conn(e, j) = global node number of the local node j of element e

The Location Matrix Master Array
A location matrix master array, "lmm", is used to make a relationship between the local degrees of freedom in the elements and the global degrees of freedoms. For the two bar truss example, this array is given as :

$$ lmm = \begin{bmatrix}

1 & 2& 3 & 4 \\ 3 & 4& 5 & 6 \\

\end{bmatrix} $$

Where the columns 1 to 4 are the local degrees of freedom 1 to 4 respectively, the first row corresponds to element 1, and the second row corresponds to element 2. Each component of the array corresponds to a global degree of freedom (or equation number) in K.

The elements of the location matrix master array can be given in the format:

lmm(i, j) = equation number of j (global degree of freedom) for the element stiffness coefficient corresponding to the ith local degree of freedom.

Transforming the System
Referring back to method 2 of deriving k(e)4x4, the goal of using the connectivity and location matrix master arrays would be to transform a system with four degrees of freedom into a system that also has four degrees of freedom (instead of only two) so that the transformation matrix is now a 4x4 matrix that is hopefully invertible.

title: User:Eml4500.f08.team.foskey.ckf/HW4a


text:
Learning from conflict and incivility/Jolie

I am a learner who is exploring wikiversity as a community and a model of life-long learning.

I think I perfectly fit the description as an "lurker" or "onlooker". I am quite concerned about the possibility of incivility. I think fundmentally a community that allows such behavior is doomed to stagnation.

that said, some tolerance is important for any participant in an on-line forum. If I can easily gain membership and encouraged to say what I want; everyone else is too. while rude behavior is not acceptable it is understandable.

The community simply must be willing to define 'rude' and stick to that assesment. I am willing to let the community know when I feel someone has been incivil, and I will try to be tolerant in an open community to social styles that seem odd.--Jolie 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
User:Eml4500.f08/HW report table/The best of HW3

 Under construction; not final. The intention here is to document the best features in any HW report for the readers (including you); if you see excellent features in any HW report (including your team's) that I may have missed noticing, don't hesitate to let me know. (I don't have time to read all HW reports in detail.) Eml4500.f08 13:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 * derivation of element stiffness matrix $$\displaystyle \mathbf k ^{(e)}_{4 \times 4}$$ in global coordinates: Axial dofs $$\displaystyle \mathbf q^{(e)}_{2 \times 1}$$, 2x4 transformation matrix $$\displaystyle \mathbf T ^{(e)}_{2 \times 4}$$, transformation of dofs $$\displaystyle \mathbf q ^{(e)} _{2 \times 1} = \mathbf T ^{(e)}_{2 \times 4} \mathbf d^{(e)}_{4 \times 1}$$, axial force-displacement (FD) relation $$\displaystyle \mathbf p ^{(e)} _{2 \times 1} = \hat{\mathbf k}^{(e)} _{2 \times 2} \mathbf q^{(e)} _{2 \times 1}$$, FD relation in global coordinates $$\displaystyle \mathbf f ^{(e)} _{4 \times 1} = {\mathbf k}^{(e)} _{4 \times 4} \mathbf d^{(e)} _{4 \times 1}$$, verification of expression for element stiffness matrix $$\displaystyle \mathbf k ^{(e)} = {\mathbf T ^{(e)}}^T \hat{\mathbf k}^{(e)} \mathbf T ^{(e)}$$. Best explanation: Team Bike
 * singularity of global stiffness matrix: solve eigenvalue problem on global stiffness matrix and observe the zero eigenvalues. Best solution: Team Bike Team Ramrod, but the explanation of the zero eigenvalues was wrong for both teams.

 * closing the loop: For statically determinate problems, such as the 2-bar truss system, first solve for the reactions using statics, then solve for the displacements at the global node 2 using infinitesimal displacements. Best solution: Team Wiki1 did everything right, even detailed the solution of 2 simultaneous equations for the coordinates $$\displaystyle (x_D, y_D)$$ of point $$\displaystyle D$$.  See also Team Ramrod, who got almost perfect solution, where there was a misprint in the second equation: $$\displaystyle \cdots \tan \left( \frac{2\pi}{3} \right) - (x_D-5.917) \cdots $$ should be $$\displaystyle \cdots \tan \left( \frac{2\pi}{3} \right) (x_D-5.917) \cdots $$, i.e., no minus sign; also the solution process for $$\displaystyle (x_D , y_D)$$ was not described in detail as in Team Wiki1, but that is minor point.  Only these two teams got this problem right.
 * figure for conceptual steps in "closing the loop". Best figure: Team Echo (did not point out where "closing the loop" was) Team FEABBQ (did not point out where "closing the loop" was) Team Wiki (did point out where "closing the loop" was, but had an extra arrow in lower left corner that I did not intend to have in my lecture)
 * computation of the reactions using method 2, i.e., multiply the reduced global stiffness matrix $$\displaystyle \mathbf K _{6 \times 2}$$ by the reduced displacement matrix $$\displaystyle \mathbf d _{2 \times 1}$$, and ignoring rows 3 and 4, which correspond to the known applied forces. Best solution: Team Bike Team Ramrod

 * 3-bar truss system: This system is statically indeterminate; 3 unknown reactions, but only 2 equations, $$\displaystyle \sum F_x = 0$$ and $$\displaystyle \sum F_y = 0$$. The equation $$\displaystyle \sum M_A = 0$$, i.e., sum-of-moments-about-point-A equals zero, leads to a trivial equation $$\displaystyle 0 = 0$$, and thus is not useful (point A is the intersection of the 3 bars).  Show that the sum of moments about any point in the plane leads to a trivial (not-useful) equation $$\displaystyle 0 = 0$$, and thus the moment equation cannot provide a 3rd independent equation to solve for the 3 unknown reactions.  The theory was explained in detail in class; see my lecture presentation.  Best explanation: Team Bike
 * figure for assembly of element stiffness matrices into global stiffness matrix. Best figure: Team Wiki Team Echo
 * 3-bar truss global stiffness matrix. Best expression for $$\displaystyle \mathbf K = \overset{e=nel}{\underset{e=1}{\mathbb A}} \mathbf k^{(e)}$$ : Team Jamama

 * 2-bar truss system: matlab plot of deformed shape. Best code, plot, documentation: Team Wiki plotted a square around each global node number using matlab and not other software; Team Team for complete documentation, including sample matlab codes.

EAS 4200C, The best of HW3


text:
MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext

$1 (talk) has been blocked.

See IP block list to review blocks.

title: MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext


text:
MediaWiki:Unblocked

$1 has been unblocked. (reblock)

title: MediaWiki:Unblocked


text:
User:Sunstar NW XP

Hi. Sunstar NW XP here. You can find me here, or at MediaWiki.org - mw:User:Sunstar NW XP.

I am on a few wikis here and there, not all Wikimedia ones.

Note that the users on Wikimedia Commons and en.wikipedia who are SunStar Net are explicitly not my accounts - although the name sounds similar, it is a joke account created by a third party.

title: User:Sunstar NW XP


text:
Web 2.0 for Professional Use/E-Mail

E-mail for Web 2.0 Professional Use
E-mail is one of the most common communication methods within the professional world today. Therefore, it is important to know the best, most effective ways to use the tool professionally when corresponding with others in the business world.

This page was created for viewers to gain a better understanding of using e-mail appropriately in the professional, business world. A tool, like e-mail, is only as powerful as the person operating it; therefore, it is important that the people writing, sending, and receiving e-mails are doing so effectively. This page serves to educate and guide the senders of e-mails on the basic construction of professional e-mails, general e-mail do's and don'ts, and professional Web etiquette when looking for a job.

Because of the transition in professional communication to e-mail, every legit professional has an e-mail address nowadays. If you are trying to reach a professional but do not know his or her e-mail address, here are three easy ways to acquire it:

1.	Call and ask the receptionist.

2.	Go to the company Web site and extrapolate.
 * If you have JSmith@companywebsite.com, then all employees are in that format.

3.	Ninety percent of the time it will follow one of three formats:
 * JohnSmith@companywebsite.com, JSmith@companywebsite.com or JohnS@companywebsite.com.
 * To ensure that you have reached the person, you can send it to all three of these possible addresses because the recipient won’t see the unsuccessful attempts

/Basic Parts of Professional E-mails/

/General E-mail Do's and Don'ts/

/Professional Web Etiquette When Looking for a Job/

title: Web 2.0 for Professional Use/E-Mail


text:
User:Annarodrig

Anna Rodriguez is in ENGL 4832

holler

title: User:Annarodrig


text:
Web 2.0 for Professional Use/Blogs and Blogging

Blogs and blogging for Web 2.0 professional use

A blog is a type of website that can be used for a variety of reasons. Blogs can be used to describe events, showcase graphical design, and convey perceptions of the world. They can be maintained by an individual or multiple writers, and tend to have a particular subject matter that they discuss. Entries are typically displayed in reverse-chronological order.

Nearly any type of blog can be used professionally. Some provide commentary on news, or function as a personal diary. No matter what type of blog you are writing, it is capable of furthering your professional career. A blogger may be paid to generate traffic in order to give advertisements more exposure. The relationship between a blogger and a company may also be direct, as in some cases popular bloggers are paid to promote a company's product. Many people, such as artists and writers, also use blogs to promote their own services and products.

Writing A Good Blog
Starting off, you should always make sure that you use proper grammar and spell words correctly. There are always exceptions to the rules, though, and technically one could write a blog with intentional bad grammar to represent culture or parody. However, as a general rule, such styles are considered unprofessional.

Another important rule is that you should adhere to an ethical code of conduct. This means that you should not report information that you know is false, and you should avoid slander. Gossip and satirical blogs may take a liberal view of this rule, but generally speaking, these rules are good to follow. If people find you to be a credible source of information, you will be more successful in the long run.

Make your content interesting and make what you are writing about clear. The title of your blog and the title of your blog posts should always give a clear indication of what you will be writing about. If you yourself do not find the content that you are writing about to be interesting, then chances are that your readers will not, either. Try to avoid update posts just for the sake of updating, and write something that says something interesting about the world.

Promoting Your Blog
Creating a blog is easy, but making it successful takes work and practice. There are many different ways to gather an audience and keep it.

Gathering An Audience
One of the best ways to gather an audience is to simply let people know that you're out there. Tell your friends, post on forums that are relevant to your topic, and use keywords and tags to make it easier to find. People are always looking to read a good article, but they have to be able to find it. Having an easy to remember blog name helps, as people can pass on your blog by word of mouth. Forums are an even better way of showing people what you are up to, because they often have a greater number of visitors than any personal site does. Finally, try linking to other people's blogs and making friends with other bloggers. Linking to another blogger will often get you linked back.

Keeping Your Audience
Provided you already have an audience, it is important to update at regular intervals. If you plan on not updating very often, let your readers know when you do plan to update, otherwise they may simply lose interest. You also need to realize that your audience will have certain expectations of you. If your blog has a title or entries that focus on a particular subject, changing venues will throw off readers. Having a blog that covers a variety of subjects is good, but you need to let your readers know what it covers.

If you write sponsored blogs, it's important to remember that doing so incorrectly may alienate your readers. First and foremost, if you are paid to write a sponsored blog, you must write an honest review. It's also important to let your audience know that you are being sponsored, as this lends to your credibility. Doing otherwise is dishonest, and may damage your reputation with both the sponsor and the reader. Do not make the majority of your content sponsored. People come to read your blog for your opinions, but if you only write biased articles for sponsors, this will damage your credibility in the long run. People may no longer see your blog as yours, but rather as a corporate tool. Finally, always try to keep up your end up of the bargain. If you are being paid to write a certain type of article, you should be sure to write what you agreed to.

Collaborative Blogging
While individual blogs can certainly be correspondingly written by a single individual, the avenue of collaborative blogging often provides the opportunity for a much more active, dynamic blogging experience. Obviously with more authors contributing to a particular blog, it is more likely that the blog can be more frequently contributed to. The burden or load of carrying an individual blog by oneself is certainly made easier by sharing the load with fellow contributors in a collaborative blog. Also with more authors contributing to a particular blog, the greater the possibility for an even more intriguing variety of voices and personalities. The interaction of these different voices with one another can certainly add a refreshing dynamic unachievable in the realm of individual blogging. An interesting variety of blogging voices within a single blog increases the potential for a wider variety in readership across the world. Though employing many voices in one setting can be fairly attractive for attaining a wide readership, readers may be pushed away if the blog is not well run and well organized by an administrator or group of administrators.

Collaborative blogging may consist of a small or large group of people who personally know each other, or it may consist of a small or large group of people who do not. An example of the latter of these collaborative blogs is the politically liberal blog DailyKos, which allows blogging access to essentially anybody who desires it.

Because of the rising popularity of and interest in communal blogs, many blog platforms in addition to individual blogs now offer some kind of collaborative blogging feature. Blogger and WordPress are only two of many blogging platforms which allow access for multiple contributing authors, editors, and administrators.

/Blog Hosts/
The first step in the creation process of a blog is choosing a blog host. Alternately, you can decide to host your own blog. A variety of competing blog hosts offer unique features that make them the best choice for different bloggers. Storage space, bandwidth, WYSIWYG interfaces, themes and pricing are all options to consider when picking out a blogging host.

/Web hosting/
With literally hundreds of sites offering domain registration and web hosting, it can be difficult to find the best service to suit your needs. Many web hosts offer tons of storage space and bandwidth, but have unreliable tech support or other problems that are only encountered after committing to a monthly plan. While it’s possible to buy a hosting plan that comes with a free domain name, it’s recommended that registering a domain and buying web hosting should be done separately to ensure that the web host does not retain control of the domain name. The site Webhostingtalk is a hub of users sharing their experiences on the best and the worst web hosting available on the internet.

Using Dreamweaver
Adobe's Dreamweaver is a XHTML generator, giving users the option to either code a Web site visually or through HTML coding. The visual component is what makes Dreamweaver an indispensable tool for stunning Web site design. Those with little to no experience with coding may find Dreamweaver daunting and confusing at first. The program is built to cater towards intermediate to advanced Web site designers, though a technologically savvy person may be able to trial-and-error their way through. For the unassuming professional, an excellent guide is Garrick Chow's Hands-on Training's Adobe Dreamweaver CS3, which includes a CD-ROM with exercise files and videos.

As part of Adobe's Creative Suite, Dreamweaver CS3 is the best option seeing as it is more compatible with the other Adobe programs such as Photoshop and Flash.

Adobe also offers extensive tutorials to help new users learn how to use Dreamweaver.

Blogging software
To host a blog on your own website, you'll want to choose from one of many available blogging software options. Some popular choices are listed below.
 * WordPress
 * MovableType
 * Drupal


text:
User:Stevenarntson/Wikiversity Primer

sign up

 * My wikiversity pages are found by clicking the "school" link from my website at www.stevenarntson.info
 * Create a free Wikiversity account. For your user name, please use Firstnamelastname or Firstnamelastinitial (Stevenarntson or StevenA, for instance).
 * Wikiversity will send a confirmation email to the email address you provide. Respond to it, or they'll shortly delete your account.

set up

 * Go to my templates page, and copy (command+C) the template for your class.
 * Click your username at the top of the page, with the little "person" icon next to it--this will take you to your personal UserSpace.
 * Click the "edit this page" (or "create this page") tab.
 * Paste in the template, and save the page.

sign in

 * Return to my main Wikiversity page, and click student hub. Find your name under your class section, click the "edit this page" tab, and type " " (three tildes) next to your name. This will automatically leave your signature, and will let me know you're here.

That's it. Depending on the class you're in, I'll give further assignments.

general information

 * Do not compose on the wiki. Compose offline, and paste in your work.
 * Everything you need to participate at Wikiversity is in the tabs at the top of every page:
 * article (which will usually say about stevenarntson).
 * discussion includes people's comments about the article.
 * edit this page allows you to change the article or the discussion.

Enjoy the Wikiversity! Be bold, but also be considerate. The wiki is an extremely vulnerable atmosphere. If you have further questions, Help is helpful.
 * Sign comments with ":" . It will result in something like: Stevenarntson
 * All content (including things you write) on Wikiversity is distributed under the Creative Commons BY-SA license.

title: User:Stevenarntson/Wikiversity Primer


text:
Web 2.0 for Professional Use/E-Mail/Basic Parts of Professional E-mails

Basic Parts of Professional E-mails
When writing professional e-mails, there are five basic parts- Subject, Salutation, Body, Closing and Signature. The following provides a general description of what is required in each part to effectively communicate via e-mail. Attachments are also addressed at the end of this section.

Subject- It is important to include a clear, accurate, descriptive subject line. Be sure not to make an e-mail seem urgent unless it actually is.

Salutation- In the salutation, you address the person to whom you are writing. There are various ways of addressing a person:

 * Dear Mr. Smith-- For this, you must be 100 percent positive that you have the gender of the recipient correct. If you’ve never seen the recipient in-person, this could be risky.

 * Dear Dr. Smith-- This salutation is correct only if the recipient has earned a doctorate or a medical or dental degree.

 * Dear Professor Smith-- This salutation is only correct if the recipient has earned a doctorate.

 * Dear John-- This salutation is only correct if you know the recipient personally.

 * Dear Customer, Client or Colleague-- These salutations are less personal but also less offensive.1

Body- The body should be kept as concise as possible. E-mail is used for quick communication; therefore, if it is over two or three screens, then the information should be communicated with a telephone call.

Tone: In general, e-mails should be written with the same tone as a formal, hand-written letter, especially in the professional world. However, the tone depends on the writer’s relationship to the recipient of the message. There are a few guiding rules: Format: Lists are often helpful when writing e-mails, as they make information easier to read.
 * If the writer has a personal relationship with the recipient, then the salutation, tone and closing of the letter can be more casual and conversational.
 * If the letter is being sent to a person higher on the food chain in the organization or is a stranger, then the letter needs to be formal. The most casual tone is used when writing on the peer level.1

Closing- All e-mails should include a complimentary statement that appears above the signature. The greater the personal relationship, the less formal the complimentary statement.

 * More formal closing statements: Sincerely, Respectfully Yours, Respectfully

 * Less formal closing statements: Best Regards, Cordially Yours

The closing of an e-mail can also include an urge to action or an offer of further help, depending on the purpose of the e-mail.1

Signature- Can include the sender’s formal name, title, company and additional contact information (address, telephone, cell phone, fax, Web site, etc.). All of these parts are not required, but depending on the situation, many or all of them are helpful.

Attachments- Avoid attachments if at all possible. When they must be used, make sure the file is sent in the most general format available, ensuring the maximum number of recipients will be able to open the document.


text:
Web 2.0 for Professional Use/E-Mail/Professional Web Etiquette When Looking for a Job

Professional Web Etiquette When Looking for a Job
As a potential employee, it is important to not overlook the proper etiquette that is expected when looking for a job or internship, e-mailing resumes and cover letters, networking, and following up with contacts.

Oftentimes prospective employers will only scan materials that are submitted for application purposes for 10-20 seconds.1 This quick scan is all the time taken before a decision is made about whether or not to interview an applicant. Therefore, it is vitally important that all correspondence with potential employers is as professional as possible for the best chance of being asked to come in for an interview.

The following are some things to consider before applying for a job by e-mail:

'''1. When the employer receives an application e-mail, what e-mail address will it be coming from? '''

Before the Internet, a person would mail applications, resumes, and cover letters in an envelope or package addressed with their real full name. Now days, the Internet allows for the employer to see the person’s e-mail address first. Therefore, when setting up an e-mail account, choose a user ID that looks professional. In other words, it is not professional to have e-mail addresses like BigSexy86@email.com or Sassypants@email.com. One look at e-mail addresses like these and an employer may not pursue reviewing the application or requesting an interview.2

Host sites like Google mail and Yahoo mail enable users to have multiple e-mail addresses without paying a penny. This makes it possible to keep an e-mail address created with a high school nickname to correspond with friends and also have a user ID for professional, work-related purposes. Including one's name in an e-mail user ID may be beneficial for the employer to remember who the applicant is, ex. John.Doe@email.com.

'''2. After reviewing a resume, the employer may decide to call the applicant in for an interview. What will the employer hear on the other end of the phone if the applicant is unable to answer the call?'''

Make sure the telephone number provided on application materials will be answered in a professional manner, whether that means a recorded voicemail message that sounds polite and professional or a prepared message-taking system with roommates or whoever may answer the phone at the number provided.3

The following is an example of an unprofessional voicemail: Unprofessional Voicemail

This voicemail message is unprofessional because the voice plays a joke pretending to answer the phone and not being able to hear the caller.4 Prospective employers may perceive this scheme as the applicant being unprofessional, not serious about the job position, and not serious about the employer. The voicemail message does not identify whose phone the caller has reached.5 The voicemail message also instructs the caller to call the person back instead of offering to return the employer's call and does not provide the caller with a time to call again. This voicemail message demonstrates a lack of initiative on the applicant's part. It is also unprofessional to have a voicemail recording by a child or with music playing as part of the message.6

The following example would be better received by an employer calling to invite an applicant to interview for a position or to offer an interviewee a job: Professional Voicemail

This is an effective use of voicemail professionally because it identifies who a caller has reached, apologizes for the inconvenience of not be able to take the call, and gives the caller clear, concise instructions of what to say in their voicemail, so their call will be returned. The voicemail message takes authority/responsibility for returning the phone call, which will be respected by prospective employers.

3. What method should an applicant use to include his or her resume and cover letter in an e-mail?

When e-mailing an attachment, there is always the possibility that the receiver may not be able to open and/or view the document.7 Therefore, it is important that all attachments an applicant wishes to include in an e-mail be sent in .doc or .rtf format because those two formats are the most compatible with all computer operating systems. Sometimes it may be appropriate to ask permission before sending an attachment.8

4. What contact information should an applicant include in e-mails and application materials when applying for a job or an internship?

It may be beneficial for an applicant to include a "signature" below his or her name in an e-mail when contacting possible employers as a quick reference for the employers to find the applicant's contact information. The following information may be included in a signature: the applicant's formal name, title, company, and additional contact information (address, telephone, cell phone, fax, Web site, etc.). While not all of these parts are required, many or all of them may be helpful.


text:
Web 2.0/Types of social media

Social Media for Web 2.0 Professional Use
Social media is the next big step in communication for the professional world. But how do you decide which social media networks are appropriate for the workplace and which should stay at home? Take a look at the following guidelines.

According to Wikipedia, Social media are "primarily Internet-based tools for sharing and discussing information among human beings. The term most often refers to activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words, pictures, videos and audio." Social media are becoming increasingly popular in the world, and this obsession is slowly transforming the workplace. This phenomenon is changing the way people think, live, and communicate with each other. It is changing the way we do business. Professionals need to be aware of this new form of media and how the use of it can affect their professional life in both positive and negative ways.

Twitter
According to its website, http://www.twitter.com, Twitter is a “service for friends, family, and co-workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?”

Twitter assumes that basic updates on a person’s life are valuable to those they associate with. It can be used as a way to keep up with family members, distant friends, and sometimes even someone as close to you as your roommate. Many feel more connected to their Twitter friends when they are continuously updated on random details of that person’s life.

The site suggests a Twitter user can stay connected with their place of work through updates on important information about their colleagues. Twitter can be a useful type of social media in the workplace. If you are running late for a meeting, you colleagues will know. If you are meeting with a client, your colleagues will know. When you finish a project or a report, your colleagues will know. Even when the coffee pot is out, your colleagues will know before they have to get up and check the break room themselves. If your colleagues are well-connected on Twitter, it can be an extremely helpful communication tool.

However, there are several ways Twitter can be detrimental to a professional. Here are some tips to avoid an embarrassing mishap in the workplace.

 * Always be mindful of who you are writing to. You might be considering your friend when you post something and completely forget that one of your superiors is also reading your Twitter account. It would be highly embarrassing if the boss found out through Twitter that you were secretly taking a nap when you were supposed to be working. Keep in mind that even when you are not at work, like on the weekends, your coworkers will still have access to your posts.

 * Be careful of posting opinions of your work or your work day. Coworkers might lose respect for you if they know how much you hate your job and you hate being in the building with them. Never say something disrespectful about a fellow employee; the Internet is essentially a public forum and you never know who might see it.

 * Be careful of posting your opinions in general. You might detest Barack Obama and everything he stands for, but for all you know, your cubicle neighbor was canvassing the neighborhood to promote the Campaign for Change all weekend. You do not want to create unnecessary tensions with the people you work with.

 * Do not release too much information. There are some things your coworkers just do not want to know about you. Never say anything you would not tell the person to his or her face. Releasing intimate details about your life, no matter how insignificant, could potentially make a coworker feel awkward around you in the future.

Always remember that an amicable, professional relationship between you and your coworkers is vital. Twitter is an interesting site and has the potential to be useful in the workplace, but do not let it your use of it cross the line.

Facebook
http://facebook.com

Facebook is a site that was founded for social networking purposes. It has gained notoriety in recent years due to organized events being mentioned on the site. If you do use it, the following etiquette should be adhered to:

 * Do not upload a picture of yourself: it can be taken on the web by anyone else.
 * Do not make offensive posts - since these are public forum. Slanging matches are not to be carried out either.
 * Use of it should be more akin to Friends Reunited, but do not use it to post things publicly (i.e. on people's "walls") but use it as an advertising tool.
 * If your real name is excessively long or double-barrelled, shorten it, e.g. John Smith-Jones would become John Smith etc. but not the full name. This is for privacy reasons and to prevent search engine robots and scrapers getting your real name.

Follow these and your profile should be safe for employers to view.

Myspace
http://myspace.com

Myspace is a social media tool that allows users with accounts to create personal profiles based on interests and activities, add friends, send messages, maintain a blog, post bulletins, create and join groups, update statuses and moods, post a limited amount of photos and videos, and write on friends’ profiles. Myspace obviously offers several opportunities for communication between friends and other members. But the Place for Friends should be just that - a place to communicate with friends and family outside the workplace, but not with fellow colleagues.

 * Since the launch of the more conservative Facebook, Myspace has received a somewhat negative stigma. Often used as a place for young people to solicit parties and inappropriate behavior, the site is geared more towards pre-teens and adolescents than working adults (with the exception of people who work in the radio and motor industry, and broadcasting ,i.e. television industries)
 * The site’s design also does not lend itself to professional use. Members can design their own pages with little to no restrictions on appearance or conformity. Overly decorated pages can appear unprofessional and juvenile. Other social networking sites, such as Facebook or Twitter, place more restrictions on the user’s ability to change the appearance of their main user page, giving the sites a more polished and professional look.
 * The site is also cluttered with advertisements, making it difficult to communicate in an efficient manner. Pop-ups, videos, pictures, and flashing text are distracting. Users who are on the job need quick, reliable sources of communication and the slow pace Myspace often runs at makes this difficult.
 * Myspace also offers too many venues for communication to be effective. Messages sent for the workplace need to be quick, succinct, and easy to find. Because Myspace offers messages, wall postings, blogs, videos, and bulletins, it becomes difficult to decide which medium will best deliver the message. Other social media networks, like Twitter, offer only one or two means of communication, which allows the message to travel from point A to point B much more quickly.

If you do wish to create and maintain a Myspace account for work purposes, be sure that photos and videos you post are appropriate, keep your profile simple and clean, and make sure blog posts and wall postings are easy to understand and professional.

Flickr
http://flickr.com

Flickr is an online photo management and sharing application that provides its users with an easy way to upload, edit, and share pictures with friends and families. Unlike other social media sites, Flickr is based upon the sharing of visual images, not just the sharing of information.

In other media outlets like Facebook or Myspace, the chronology and organization of pictures is determined by the owner/original uploader. But with Flickr, friends, families, and associates have the ability to organize another user's content. They can organize it based on a specific business preference or by what types of pictures they want to see.

When considering Flickr for professional use, it is most popular for businesses that sell, produce, or maintain something visual. This means that Real Estate agents can use Flickr to sell houses. Or Graphic design agencies can use it to sell or promote their new lines. Or maybe even photo journalists can use it to communicate with their editors during a trip. With Flickr, the "audience" of the pictures has the ability to organize them and give fast feed back too.

Plaxo
http://plaxo.com

Plaxo is very similar to Facebook. However, its primary usage is for the working professional. There are a few users who use it for recreational purposes, but the majority of Plaxo's users are professionals looking to network and get their name and/or product out there. So it would be ill-advised to put excessive personal/recreational information on Plaxo, in case a current or prospective employer were to see it.

Main features

 * Plaxo was founded primarily as an address book to network with other people. It is home to 40 million users with address books.

 * Much like Facebook's "wall," Plaxo has a feature called "Plaxo Pulse." It is used mainly for sharing information with other users.  For a writer, this would be a good opportunity to link to some of your work in a simple and easy-to-use fashion.

 * One thing that does differ from Facebook, however, is Plaxo's calendar. Facebook has no such feature.  The calendar is a good way to share your schedule with other people, such as co-workers and supervisors.  It is also an easy way to keep up with your own assignments and tasks in an electronic form.

 * Like Facebook, Plaxo allows you to network with other professionals. Unlike Facebook, though, networks are mainly through employer.  Facebook allows individuals to network through geographic region, school, or employer.  When networking is done through an employer, it appears more professional.

LinkedIn
http://linkedin.com

Unlike MySpace and Facebook—sites founded purely for social networking—LinkedIn is an increasingly popular place for professionals to connect with others within their fields and related industries. Users put up Profiles that are abbreviated resumes, containing their current and former places of employment, educational background, links to any company or personal websites, and public profile. Connections are made to other users through issuing and accepting invitations. Through primary and secondary connections, users can link up with others, be introduced to others through the connections, and explore available jobs. Groups can also be formed, based on common interests, educational institutions, or employment sites.

Main features

 * Basic personal accounts are free on LinkedIn.

 * Upgraded accounts are available that increase the number of Introductions one can make and enable a feature called InMails. These are private messages that users can send to other users about business and career opportunities.

 * If a user is receiving an InMail from someone not in their network (connections), the sender’s identity is hidden until the message has been accepted.

 * LinkedIn includes features common in social networking sites, such as what types of updates your connections have made to their accounts or networks today, yesterday, or last week. However, walls for making comments and places to post photographs are missing here, as the main focus of LinkedIn is professional rather than social networking.

 * News articles relevant to a company are posted by the site and can be posted by users. These articles can be also recommended by users. This triggers an alert to go out to coworkers at a company.

Video Resources
Teaching with web 2.0 technologies: Twitter, wikis & blogs - Case study COFAonlineUNSW, 2011

title: Web 2.0/Types of social media


text:
Web 2.0 for Professional Use/Social Media/LinkedIn

LinkedIn: Professional networking made easy

Unlike MySpace and Facebook—sites founded purely for social networking—LinkedIn is an increasingly popular place for professionals to connect with others within their fields and related industries. Users put up Profiles that are abbreviated resumes, containing their current and former places of employment, educational background, links to any company or personal websites, and public profile. Connections are made to other users through issuing and accepting invitations. Through primary and secondary connections, users can link up with others, be introduced to others through the connections, and explore available jobs. Groups can also be formed, based on common interests, educational institutions, or employment sites.

Basic personal accounts are free on LinkedIn. Upgraded accounts are available that increase the number of Introductions one can make and enable a feature called InMails. These are private messages that users can send to other users about business and career opportunities. If a user is receiving an InMail from someone not in their network (connections), the sender’s identity is hidden until the message has been accepted.

LinkedIn includes features common in social networking sites, such as what types of updates your connections have made to their accounts or networks today, yesterday, or last week. However, walls for making comments and places to post photographs are missing here, as the main focus of LinkedIn is professional rather than social networking. News articles relevant to a company are posted by the site and can be posted by users. These articles can be also recommended by users. This triggers an alert to go out to coworkers at a company.


text:
User:Dvdrtrgn

dvdrtrgn

title: User:Dvdrtrgn


text:
User:Unionhawk/Technical Writing

Here's my technical writing Wikiversity page. I'm pretty excited.

title: User:Unionhawk/Technical Writing


text:
User:Celenetolentino

Recent high school graduate from Kentrdige High School, I am in the fashion design department trying to attain my BFA at the Art Institute of Seattle.

title: User:Celenetolentino


title: File:Leigh1small.jpg


title: File:Map1b.png


text:
Portal:Preparatory Academy/Intro

The Wikiversity Preparatory Academy is a secondary school on Wikiversity. The focus of this school is to work on resources that will assist students in obtaining a high school diploma or GED, through the creation and coordination of relevant content. The Academy will also work to establish a list of individuals willing to tutor secondary students, making their chances of educational success even more likely. Wherever possible, the courses offered through this program will be of equal or higher level than those traditionally available. An increase in difficulty will make taking a high school course easier, as the student has already taken the more difficult option.

title: Portal:Preparatory Academy/Intro


text:
User:TFBCT1

Hello, eveyone. My name is Tom. I hail from the great State of Connecticut in the United States. My interests are numerous and varied; I have expertise in matters of Mathematics, certain Sciences, and Linguistics. Obviously, I speak English. I fare pretty well in Spanish as well. I'm not too fond of profiles, but I suppose they are necessary. I certainly will not make mine elaborate or ostentatious- that's just not me. And finally, I am facinated by Wikiversity and all of its many potentials. :) I'm being very lazy about this as I have copied verbatum from my Wikipedia account. TFBCT1 01:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User:TFBCT1


text:
User:Annareihl

My name is Anna.

I attend school in Seattle, WA. I am attempting to earn my Bachelor's degree in Digital Filmmaking and video production.

In my spare time, I walk to the ferry terminal, wait for Bremerton ferries that are few and far between, and have developed a hatred for the Washington State Ferry System.

But, it has allowed me to catch up on my reading, which is cool.

title: User:Annareihl


text:
Portal:Preparatory Academy/Recommendations

These course recommendations are based in part on the University of California entrance requirements. You must get a 3.0 in these courses for them to count. These recommendations are designed to produce a well rounded individual capable of performing at a college level.

 * Four Years of English
 * Four Years of Mathematics (3 required)
 * Four Years of Social Sciences (2 required)
 * Three to Four Years of Sciences (2 required)
 * Three Years of a Foreign Language (2 required)
 * One year of a Visual or Performing Art
 * One year of a college preparatory elective


text:
User talk:Eas4200c.f08.aero6.ortega

User:eas4200c.f08.aero6.ortega/HW4 test

Don't do a double upload
If you upload an image in Commons, don't upload here. Image in commons can be used here without a local upload.Crochet.david 07:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eas4200c.f08.aero6.ortega