text:
Wikiversity talk:Respect pseudonyms

This policy is intended to eventually be merged into a larger policy, but can be applied independently until consensus can be reached those other more expansive policies (such as Privacy policy and Respect people). See Community Review/Moulton's talk page for evidence of a desire for a policy regarding this specific issue. --SB_Johnny talk 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Votes (first version)

 * -- simple enough, and addresses a current need. --SB_Johnny talk 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * this simply isn't enough, was rushed through, and not well thought out. I think effort would be better spent making the respect people proposal better and finish working out any problems with it if people still think there are unresolved issues. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 17:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's actually just from thoughts I've been bouncing around since Rootology's post on the colloquium, so not quite as quick as it looks. I think making very limited and specific policies is a better way to get the overall job done... there's plenty that we agree upon, and we can make those things official while still arguing about what we disagree upon. A simple structure of a few broad policies is much better than having a large amount of small policies to keep track of, but small policies is better than no policies at all. Small policies can of course be put together over time to become broader policies, and it's easier to plant one row at a time than to try to sow the whole garden in a day. --SB_Johnny talk 19:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal is also too restrictive in that it tries to limit too much. When a person has made information about themselves publicly available whether it be on their own personal website or through an interview from a news source like the New York Times or the Washington Post than that information can no longer be considered private. If a person wants their privacy they should use a pseudonym or contribute anonymously and not reveal any connection between their real life identity and their pseudonym, just like they shouldn't give permission to a news reporter to reveal personal information that they don't want made public. Once one news source has released information, all other news sources are likely to also report it. There is such a thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy and such a thing as an unreasonable expecting of privacy, and this proposal expects too much. With this sort of approach we might as well have a No Biographies policy
 * This proposal is also too restrictive because people who don't use Wikiversity aren't covered by this proposal. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * with the part about linking to a website. It should at most be against linking to a specific page at a website for the purpose of outing someone. Suppose I link to Wikipedia and somewhere at wikipedia is a page that outs someone (perhaps because they are socking). Suppose I link to a talk page somewhere and afterwards, someone adds outing data. WAS 4.250 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really feel like I've put in enough work lately around Wikiversity to be enfranchised, so won't vote.. but have to agree with WAS - great intentions, but we know where they lead..... a bad idea. Privatemusings 04:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC) and happy to engage in further discussion at an appropriate spot

Suggested change
I can't support this as-is, but if we change "linking to an external website" to "linking to an external web page," I think I could support it. "Website" is too broad and a little vague. It could be taken to mean an entire forum couldn't be linked to if one thread somewhere in there has a post that is against the policy. However, I would agree that linking to a specific page that includes "outing" is rude and unnecessary. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt: I think for this proposal to make any sense, there needs to be a level of personal responsibility. People need to do there part. Like don't disclose that you use a certain pseudonym on a personal website where personal information about yourself is included, if you don't want people to refer to you by another name. If you're name isn't out there because of you and yet someone manages to figure it out and make the connection, than by all means Wikiversity should do something about it when used here. I see this as being similar to what's said about editing: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Basically, If you don't want your name to be used mercilessly by others, do not make it easy for people to figure out your name. --darklama 15:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, to be blunt in turn, that sounds like blaming the victim to me. This happened to Moulton on Wikipedia, he retaliated by doing the same, and a few months later Wikiversity became a battleground. There's absolutely no need to refer to or address someone in a way other than they prefer, and absolutely no reason not to have it in policy that people can expect that the courtesy be extended to them. Wikiversity should be a safe place for people to participate, teach, and learn, and it's not unreasonable to expect that the kind of behaviors leading up to our current situation will never be tolerated again. --SB_Johnny talk 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Absolutes are too black and white. Wikiversity shouldn't be making rash decisions based on the actions of one person. If someone is writing a biographical learning resource, they would have a very good reason to use a person's name. If someone is writing a learn resource and wants to discuss people who responsible for currently shaping ones understanding of a subject, they would have a very good reason to use a person's name also. Anyone who might be worth learning about and teaching about is a potential Wikiversity or Wikimedia contributor as well.
 * I see this sort of proposal as being like saying "Since a person keeps putting forks in electric outlets, people shouldn't be allowed to have electric outlets in there home any more." I see your argument as saying "You shouldn't blame the person for putting a fork in an electric outlet, its the electric outlet's fault." I think this approach will get more in the way of learning and teaching, than it will make people feel save, in the same way as removing electric outlets to make people feel safe would leave people in the dark. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Again, your analogy seems to imply "punishable stupidity" on the part of those who don't cover their tracks. "Do not make it easy for people to figure out your name" leaves things a bit open... who decides what's easy? This is about making people feel comfortable, and as much as you might dislike black/white or good/bad distinctions, such distinctions are much easier and simpler to abide by and rely upon as opposed to fuzzy-gray-wafflish statements which will encourage any abusive troll to see it as an opportunity to play the game of "push the envelope".
 * All that aside, I don't see why someone would need to violate this policy in order to discuss a fellow wikimedia contributor, unless there was a serious conflict on interest that explained that person's behavior (and even then, it still might not be necessary). --SB_Johnny talk 23:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * The Wikiversity community could decide what reasonable precautions a person needs to take, when its reasonable or unreasonable to use a person's name, when a person's name is or isn't relevant to a learning project, and define what's easy. I just disagree with the assertion that using a person's name is never reasonable. I also think its unnecessary to make people feel safe or comfortable with using Wikiversity.
 * A Wikiversity participant may need to violate this proposal in order to write learning resources about researchers, politicians, scientists, mathematicians, astronauts, etc. who are leaders in there field or have made substantial contributions to there field, if they happen to also be Wikimedia contributors as well. Writing about anyone listed on Famous Wikipedians or w:Category:Notable Wikipedians for instance would likely require violation of this proposal. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * The people in those categories made it clear who they were on the wiki, so it wouldn't apply. --SB_Johnny talk 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * There are probably many more famous or notable Wikipedians written about that people don't know are Wikipedians because they didn't make it clear who they were on the wiki. Wikiversity shouldn't be limited to writing only about famous/notable Wikimedians who have made it clear who they are on wiki. I think this proposal makes learning about people who would normally be covered in a course harder. A catch 22: You can't respect pseudonyms if you don't know a person is a Wikimedian and uses a pseudonyms, and you can't write about such a person who would otherwise be written about if you must only refer to them by their chosen pseudonym. Wikiversity participants would basically have to give up writing about anyone who doesn't use there real name on Wikiversity in order to make sure they were safely not violating this proposal.
 * To summarize my reasoning: "You must refer to Wikimedians by there chosen pseudonyms" means "You mustn't refer to Wikimedians by there real name". Anyone is a potential Wikimedian so therefore "You mustn't refer to anyone by there real name". --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 13:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * You can discuss them using their pseudonym if you're discussing them in the context of their activities within Wikimedia. If you're talking about someone notable otherwise, there's rarely going to be any reason to discuss their activities within Wikimedia. If there is a good reason to make a connection between a real name and a pseudonym, just ask them if it's OK. I guess maybe a "just in case" clause could be added where if this really is getting in the way of something, an exemption could be requested on community review. --SB_Johnny talk 13:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

enforcement
Congrats on crafting a policy proposal that makes sense. But enforcement provisions are lacking. The penalty for murder is not the same as the penalty for driving over the speed limit. I propose that the penalty for breaking this proposed policy be limited to deleting any questionable edit made by that person; so that someone like myself is given wide latitude in linking, but someone like Moulton who appears to have deliberately tried to see how far he could push be liberally redacted. "Yo, Joe, the more you appear to be upsetting people for no good reason, the more no one cares if your edits are reverted." WAS 4.250 12:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 * IOW, warn first, then take other measures if the warning is not heeded? Seems fine to me... honestly I think all the policies should be enforced in that matter, but for the time being it's probably a good idea to put that within the policy, since very few policies have managed to pass community approval or survive edit warring :-). --SB_Johnny talk 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 * The enforcement paragraph you added probably represents consensus; even if blocking is for practical purposes not possible with some technically competent persons. I suppose there are people at Wikipedia that are as motivated as Moulton and and can be counted on to waste as much time as he does in undoing whatever he does at Wikiversity. Oh well, Moulton enjoys tilting at windmills and some others enjoy what they perceive as punishing others. Win-win?? WAS 4.250 16:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, we haven't put it to a vote yet to see the consensus, but hopefully it's simple enough and reasonable enough (I'll maybe put it on sitenotice today or tomorrow to get wider input).
 * This isn't just about Moulton, btw... there have been a couple of other incidents (but in those cases the people who put that sort of content on a page voluntarily removed it without need for policies or even threats of sanctions). For my part, I want to have this as a policy so that it's just clear that nobody can do this, thus creating a comfort zone for people when deciding whether or not to take part in projects that study Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedians who make those projects happen. --SB_Johnny talk 17:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes (version of 12 Feb 08)
The version of 12 February, 2008 differs from the original in a number of ways, so better to restart the vote here:

 * 1) -- I heavily agree. I want to remain anonymous in Wikiversity. This is the place for new ideas. And new has always been subject to fear, dislike, disagreement, discouragement, avoidance, anger, and attack. "Truth survives us.  But first makes us angry."  wikiversity can easily avoid fights. remaining anonymous avoids the fight to reach out of wikiversity. Saeed.Veradi 09:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Anonymity on the wiki is very important to many people, and the community needs to support those who choose to be anonymous. --SB_Johnny  talk 11:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) *comment. The proposal has serous flaws that should be discussed before it is put to a vote. --JWSchmidt 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) - The current version addresses an important concern of many contributors and this policy is clearly needed given past abuse.  --mikeu talk 15:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) * On the first sentence: "Wikimedia contributors have the option to remain anonymous, by choosing a pseudonym as their user name. This choice needs to be respected by other Wikimedia participants" -This is not the place to discuss a wikimedia policy.   It should be proposed at . - Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) *The policy relates to behavior on Wikiversity, but none of the wikis require the use of real names (as opposed to Citizendium, our "cousin project"). --SB_Johnny talk 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) *If the policy relates to Wikiversity, then it should say such ... "Wikiversity contributors". If this is an inter-wiki issue, I agree with Hillgentleman that it should be discussed at Meta. Historybuff 08:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) *It relates to what's acceptable on Wikiversity, but most of the problems we have seen with this is people connecting the names and pseudonyms of Wikipedia contributors, so "Wikimedia contributors" describes who is "protected" by the policy. You kinda missed the circus on that one, Historybuff :-). --SB_Johnny talk 12:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) **I was on a break but a little about what went on -- but I think that might help, as I wasn't a party to the dispute. I understand that this is a specific situation, but our community should focus on dealing with WV. Cross wiki policy should be formulated cross wiki. Otherwise, what stops someone from migrating to another project and doing the same thing? Historybuff 21:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) as per Saeed.Veradi and SBJohnny.  There are many good reasons to remain anonymous and other venues protect anonymity.  WV should as well.  --AFriedman 21:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Reluctantly because I cannot abstain.--John Bessa 19:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * . This is instruction creep.  Try to get a feedback from other wikimedians at wikimedia forum even if you intend to apply this rule only to wikiversitans. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is "instruction creep"? --AFriedman 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note there, but I'm not sure why you think this is instruction creep. --SB_Johnny talk 18:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Read at instruction creep.--Piotrus 14:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed the note at meta:wikimedia forum and came here out of curiousity. There is nothing in the suggested policy that contradicts policies or common practise in Wikimedia projects. If you would not accept anonymity/pseudonyms however this would as far as I know be the first Wikimedia project to do so, and that might be a meta issue. Regards, Finnrind 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Finnrind, In the beginning but not afterwards, Wikipedia logged the ip-address as well as the user name for every contribution; there was no anonymity to speak of. Anonymity is not as sacred or fundamental as you are painting it.  SBJohnny, Your comment on wikimedia forum misrepresented my position;  I have not said this proposal runs against any existing policy; but it is an instruction creep in the sense that it unnecessarily restricts the freedom of wikiversitians:  your concerns should be covered by civility and privacy policies;  "respect psedonyms" can easily become a slogan and misapplied (like people who say "no original research on wikipedia" often forget to read the policy itself), and even become a political tool.   The spirit of this proposal applies equally in every wikimedia project; and if this is such a good and useful policy, I don't see why it shouldn't be reciprocated in every wikimedia project;  that is why I suggested that you left a note a the wikimedia forum.   I don't think, for example, it would be adopted in English wikipedia, for I believe existing policies already cover what should be covered.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 08:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's covered on Wikipedia under w:WP:HARRASS. How could this become a slogan? --SB_Johnny talk 10:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Thank you, Johnny. That is what I want.  It is not that we want to respect pseudonyms for its own sake, but we want to forbid use of real-life identities as a form of harrassment.  2. As I said, wikipedians use "No original research" (which is really about providing valid sources to your contents) as a slogan and I have seen some experienced wikipedian claim that the entire Classical Chinese wikipedia is original research.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say this could be a general (non-binding) guideline for dealing with pseudonyms, but the policy should be about such fundamental issues as civility, harrasment or privacy. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it really needs to be binding, to be honest. It's not just aimed at harassment, but also to ensure that pseudonymity/anonymity are respected in the course of creating Wikimedia-related research projects. One rather crucial difference between Wikiversity and the other Wikimedia wikis is that editors themselves can become the subject of study: on the other wikis, you generally only talk about a user in the context of a dispute. Here, we might study how a particular contributor helped to create content, or perhaps contributed to policy, etc. In that context, someone might want to make a connection between pseudonym and real-life identity without any intent to do harm. In that case, the policy simply requires that you get permission from the user to do that, and provides for cases where that connection is extremely important but permission is denied or the person couldn't be contacted.
 * For example, one of the Wikimedian Demographics surveys asks about sexual preference. If someone is using that data to create a learning resource, I don't think it would be such a great idea to permit researching the responder's real identity. I've also gotten some feedback from people I contacted about participating in Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections about this issue, since many of the contributors to those articles are pseudonymous, and are a bit uncomfortable about being the subject of or participating in a research project here because of the "outing" issue (even if the "outing" is not done in a malicious way).
 * FWIW, I would be happy to adopt a version of the HARASS policy here, but it's a huge policy, and I suspect it would be easier to evolve a Wikiversity-appropriate version by putting together smaller policies which can later be merged into larger ones. However, this policy isn't just about malicious behavior, it's about respecting people's choice to use a pseudonym :-). --SB_Johnny talk 13:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 * . See section below for rationale; oppose anonymity on principle.--Piotrus 14:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a general policy on respecting people, harassment or ethics would make better sense. This proposal is too sketchy and completely misses the mark. I don't think this proposal would make people feel any safer about being the subject of a learning project. This is instruction creep because it tells people not to do something, which is more likely to make people do it than not do it. I think the Wikiversity community would benefit from a more thoughtful policy that discusses appropriate or acceptable ways to create learning projects about people or Wikimedia contributors, rather than telling people what not to do. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * . Ditto on darklama. --Swift 07:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * . Anonymity is important for some contributors and students. StuRat 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot support allowing users in a academic context to craft content without having the accountability of a real name and real identity. People have no need to create a separate identity to work here and shouldn't be. I have no problem with teaching fluffy125, but I utterly refuse to be taught by fluffy125. Geoff Plourde 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You decide what is true by who says it? - WAS 4.250 18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll be hard pressed to find someone for whom it does not play a role. Similarly, few judge solely based on that factor. You can't draw either extreme position from any of the arguments here. --Swift 06:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymity is evil
Read my essay here. And in academia, people are used to their real names. Anonymity will simply encourage more trolling. Wikiversity editors should be encouraged to declare their real name and position within the academia.--Piotrus 14:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a similar premise to Knol, Google's answer to Wikipedia. I think both approaches work, and perhaps Wikimedia should be the venue for anonymous contributions because it has historically been so.  --AFriedman 15:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 * It is not possible for Wikiversity to guarantee that someone making an edit at Wikiversity is who he claims to be. WAS 4.250 11:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with that? --AFriedman 16:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't think WAS 4.250 was saying that's a problem, it's just a fact :-). If there were a real need to do so, we could do something like that through OTRS or a similar system, but I don't see why we would need to (it's not like we're granting diplomas or anything).
 * Piotrus, we already have anonymity as a matter of fact: anyone can make an account under any name and just start editing (even more, you don't even need to make an account!), so the point here is to avoid trolling/witch-hunting/etc. It's fine to encourage people to use their real names, but if they prefer to use a pseudonym their choice should be respected. --SB_Johnny talk 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I am split. Anonymity may impede our desire to achieve respect amongst brick-and-mortar institutions, especially since many names seem silly, but the whole concept of wiki-ness provides a level of freedom that actually creates security.  This idea of "security through insecurity" is counter-intuitive but undeniable--a major break-through when it first happened.  I guess anonymity is going to have to stay.  In my case I use a pseudonym, but I will probably make it my real name in the future. --John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 17 February 2009

 * One thing that I like about Wikiversity (and indeed, any WM project) is that you don't have to be a respected professor to get your 2 cents in. This forum isn't about how many letters you have after your name, but rather the quality of your contributions. And really, that should be what you are judged by, not what name you use to edit or whatever else. Whenever you can game a system (and even those systems that force you to use a "real" name can be gamed) there will be trolls. The question is, do you focus on the trolls or the quality contributions? Historybuff 21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The choice to be anonymous should be sancrosact and those who purposesly out other users should not be permitted to be a part of this project. Just my two cents. Users should be addressed by the name that they choose. I am one who has chosen to use my own. Those seeking tenure in real institutions might be discouraged from participating if the felt that a conflict here might be linked to them IRLMurray F. White 00:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I have a degree of anonymity, as my username is that of my website projects. If people do need to use their real names to edit, shouldn't they email OTRS with an identity-verifiable email (e.g. yourname at placeofemployment.com or .co.uk) maybe possibly with a link to a website/domain they own, if they have one?
 * I don't use my real name for privacy reasons, but it makes sense to respect pseudonyms. --Sunstar NW XP 11:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 * (Object) In principle I think anonymity should be allowed. On Swedish Wikipedia (a special case maybe), I heard of an editor creating an account with his real name. He became privatelly harassed for some editing conflict. This is not the normal, and I'm not anonymous actually, but you have to surf through my jungle of private pages on a diversity of pedias in order to find my real identity. A certain degree of privacy is to be preferred in most cases, even though anonymity is also needed in a few cases. I think that the culture not the policies shall regulate this. rursus 08:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm contradicting myself, and speaking rubbish. My unconfused standing point is: this policy proposal shall be a policy. For the rest, ignore everything that doesn't fit that pattern. rursus 09:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible reasons for a need for anonymity
It seems the consensus is for preserving anonymity, but I want to provide a real-life example of why anonymity might be necessary on the Internet. Three years ago I was alarmed by an event in Mexico: a real estate developer bulldozed a dog shelter with the dogs still inside. I joined a group to protest this event on the Care2 activist community that called for a Mexican boycott. Suddenly I found myself pursued by what I (still) believe are nationalist gangsters. From what I know about the topics of cultural bias and gangsterism (both tending to killing) I felt it prudent to shorten my last name to its first initial. I found a topic on the Blaming the Victim wp page that might be helpful: Just World Hypothesis. From the page, there seems to be denial that they world can be a dangerous place. Extending that, perhaps predatory people might want to strengthen the misconception to make victimization easier.--JohnBessatalk 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 * John, Your problem can be dealt with in a general policy of privacy.  Pseudonym is just one aspect of privacy.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 17:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point (I will let it pass).--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 19:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't get Hillgentleman's point either. What has privacy policies of hidden user settings to do with the risk for foul and illegal behaviors from aggressive harassers, criminals and power abusers? Have I understood this anonymity thing wrong? rursus 08:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

more discussion?
Both viewpoints have merits. A solution could be to allow anonymity and make a way for admins or scholars to know if someone is an academic--which seems to be considered important by the main opponents of anonymity. However, academics also generally greatly respect freedom of speech and freedom of thought--such as for thought: libraries not having to give circulation records to the government. That is because librarians think people should be allowed to study anything--even if it is controversial--without a threat to their education. Libraries may not have some books such as in the case of weapons of mass destruction, so one would probably have to check out many books and learn much from other sources, but that is not the point here yet.

What if someone publishes something so controversial that it either verges on illegality or is even reasonable (or about a subject that people deserve to study if they want) but non-mainstream? In certain cases it is likely few people would want to reveal their name, though if they think it is important they may state their interests and reveal their knowledge that way and by writing. For that reason it seems one cannot argue all the reasons for non-anonymity in a page as short as this.

Hence, I may vote for anonymity, but what is the Wikimedia privacy policy, really? Libraries have been pressured to release circulation records, but some strongly resisted. If Wikimedia is pressured or threatened/bribed by 'the law' to give info on authors, would they do so?

Perhaps those who want such records can find out most any IP address communication record if they work at it, so a question should not only be 'Is anonymity good?' but 'What can we do to protect anonymity?' Surely there is a way to do that and make Wikimedia better for academics. Until there is more discussion on such of these topics to clear them up I do not think I will vote (also to respect both sides.)--Dchmelik 02:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The wikimedia privacy policy is something to protect the foundation rather than individual editors. It is silent on this (community) matter.  If anything, it is more like  "we cannot guarentee the privacy of our editors - use wikiversity at your own risk." Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella wording
I am a bit confused by the wording here. It says Wikimedia editors. Are we talking about a project-specific issue? I do not see how we, here in The English Wikiversity have the jurisdiction to talk about ALL Wikimedia. Please correct me if I am wrong and I did not understand the issue. Thank you. Kushal one 01:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 * This proposal currently sets its scope to
 * ...addressing or referring to Wikimedia contributors on Wikiversity... (emphasis mine)
 * The reference to Wikimedia contributors may just have been put in to show that people frequently contribute to multiple projects and may have different preferences on each.
 * Not that it matters much. There is evidently no consensus for this. --Swift 02:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity talk:Respect pseudonyms


text: File:Comparedeformedstructures.JPG

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

title: File:Comparedeformedstructures.JPG


text:
User:Capkanada

I love to learn, prefer to be useful, and like to combine the two. :)

title: User:Capkanada


text:
User talk:Articer

 Hello Articer, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! SB_Johnny talk 19:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your project
Are you intending to make a general learning resource about bowel problems? If so, it's probably better to use subpages to keep them all within one project, rather than using the "wikipedia-style" names where pages correspond to terms defined. Let me know if you're not sure how to do that. --SB_Johnny talk 19:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Page you created is being considered for deletion.
See. Given the state of this page, you could simply move it to your user space if you want to keep it. If you need help, please ask. --Abd 02:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Articer


text:
User talk:Capkanada

 Hello Capkanada, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! SB_Johnny talk 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Capkanada


text:
User:Eas4200c.f08/HW report table/The best of HW7

 Under construction; not final (but close to being stable after a couple of weeks). 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. In fact, due to time constraint, I only selectively looked at a few important features. On the other hand, I also added some annotations (e.g., related to errors) in the HW reports that I looked through for the benefit of everyone. Eml4500.f08 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 * classnotes graded over 100%
 * non-symmetric thin-walled open cross section with stringers
 * centroid location
 * inertia tensor
 * shear flow
 * model problem: C-section. NOTE: Essentially a similar problem as in Exam 3 (at least the beginning; just neglect the skin), in case you did not do this HW problem, but only copied down what I wrote in class !! I did not see many teams completed this HW problem, as assigned in class.
 * closed sections
 * single-cell sections
 * without stringers
 * with stringers
 * multiple-cell sections
 * without stringers
 * with stringers
 * recommended software to improve productivity. Most useful: Team VQCrew, discuss how best to type latex equations, write wiki articles, draw figures in different stages of learning to become experts.
 * writing wiki articles
 * writing latex equations
 * drawing figures
 * Mediawiki (on Wikiversity) vs. WebCT (on E-learning at UF): To set the proper context for this section, I included below my original e-mail requesting a team consensus on a comparison between Mediawiki vs. WebCT. General comment: Non-cooperative work. Some teams even admit that they never met together as instructed per cooperative learning techniques, with each team member taking turn to work on a lecture. Team Aero (with annotations): "the scope of collaboration did not extend as far as was perhaps intended. In general, the assignment was divided based on lecture days and each person made their own posts with little editing." There was not much of a cooperation. Here is a most-telling example.  The result is often a mosaic of incoherent pieces put together, without a flowing story.  Absenteism and workload. If each student (in a typical team of six) did 1/6 of the work, took care of one lecture once every two weeks, but received 34% credit for the course grade, and yet did not attend all lectures, it is not clear why some of these students said that there was too much work, and what they would use the rest of their freed-up time for !?  At least, Mediawiki allowed some students to free up their lecture attendance.  Young Einstein was famous for skipping his classes (for thinking about physics), and learned from the math notes of his friend, but he was one in a billion... It would be a wild stretch of imagination to think that we had a Young Einstein in the class... Students who regularly attended lectures would do better in exams than they potentially could otherwise, regardless of their own level. Lecture notes taking seems to be a lost art with in the digital age of powerpoint presentations.  While many students continued to take good notes (and even scanned them to e-mail out to their teammates who did not attend lectures), many others just relied either on their teammates' notes, the textbook (some lectures cannot be found in the textbook), or the digital photos they took of my transparencies (hand-written in real time in class) using their cell phones, even though I mentioned in class that it was not possible to do math or mechanics without writing, and did referred to the effect of writing on remembering that I read in Carl Sagan's The Dragons of Eden.
 * collaboration
 * parallel team work across the internet
 * math equations
 * incorporation other media (video, audio)
 * accessibility

EML4500, The best of HW7
 * matlab problem graded over 100%
 * shear buckling of rectangular plate
 * simply-supported boundary conditions
 * buckling shape: analytical expression and plot. Best solution: Team Aero6, the buckling shape should have one bump, instead of many bumps.
 * clamped boundary conditions
 * NACA airfoil, analysis of shear flow
 * single-cell with stringers
 * results:
 * Team VQCrew, best presentation of results, but not sure that results are correct, as also recognized by the team.
 * 3-cell with stringers
 * results:
 * Team VQCrew, best presentation of results, but not sure that results are correct, as also recognized by the team.


text:
User talk:Stress9/HW7

Templates: $$\displaystyle \clubsuit$$ Copyright violation / plagiarism: Completeness: Team contribution: Correctness: Artistic aspect: Comments: Overall rating:

 Note: The Overall rating: here is more of a "gut feeling" than a formal quantitative grading. Follow our list of criteria for formal grading and commenting. In case of a tie, let's favor new teams for the top-3 positions. Specific comments are given for a few teams, with a focus on the top teams to serve as a standard that other teams are measured against. The best of HW# wiki page for each course is the grading standard; I also add some annotations in the HW reports that I looked through so to warn you of errors, incompleteness, etc. As you grade and see the best features in the HW reports, do not hesitate to add the teams with these best features to this wiki page. FEAD: Ready for grading. Eml4500.f08 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC) AERO: Ready for grading. Eml4500.f08 04:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

=EML 4500=

User:Eml4500.f08/HW_report_table

General comments for HW7

 * The The best of HW7 is the grading standard, which is also accessible at the bottom of the HW report table.

 * classnotes 50% + matlab problem 50% = 100%

 * contributing team members: I noticed that not all team members contributed to the HW reports; see e.g., Team Aero6 HW4. Non-contributing team members get zero HW grade. Please revisit HW1 to HW7 to check on contributing team members; non-contributing team members should get zero HW grade.

Specific comments on team HW7 reports
=EAS 4200C=

User:eas4200c.f08/HW_report_table

General comments for HW7

 * The The best of HW7 is the grading standard, which is also accessible at the bottom of the HW report table.

 * classnotes 50% + matlab problem 50% = 100%

 * contributing team members: I noticed that not all team members contributed to the HW reports; see e.g., Team Aero6 HW4. Non-contributing team members get zero HW grade. Please revisit HW1 to HW7 to check on contributing team members; non-contributing team members should get zero HW grade.

title: User talk:Stress9/HW7


text:
Template talk:One Box Section E

Aim to include edit sections ...

title: Template talk:One Box Section E


text:
User:A PLAIN USER

I'm a plain user. rawr. --A PLAIN USER 21:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User:A PLAIN USER


text:
Metaphysics (Alternate View)

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE LAWS UNDERLYING REALITY OR A THEORY OF EVERYTHING Calgea 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Basics
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

Bertrand Russell said, "The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating and end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it."

Say goodbye to our physical universe
For an Alternative View (AV) of every ‘thing’, assume the following statement is true. The physical universe exists.

The _____ is the definite article pertaining to one. Physical__ pertains to atoms and energy. Universe__ means an all inclusive self contained oneness. Exists_____means to be present, measurable.

However, the following are not physical: Ideas, Dreams, Time, Distance, Color, and more. One cannot have a universe and have leftovers. Ergo, the above statement is false.

Start over and assume the following statement is true.

The physical universe exists and the nonphysical universe exists.

This is like having two baskets. If something doesn’t fit in one basket, then it must fit in the other basket. However, one cannot have two universes. Ergo, the above statement is false.

Start over and assume the following statement is true.

The nonphysical universe exists.

If this is true, then what do ‘physical’ and ‘exist’ mean?

Exist
The Universe Exists.

What does exist mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes

Rene Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.”

It is illogical to say “I think, therefore I am not.” If I exist, then I exist in The Universe, because there is no other place for me to exist. If The Universe exists, then it must be a thinking entity. Ergo, I am a chip off the old block.

Are there others in The Universe? If the answer is no, then how am I to explain our physical universe. Ergo, there are others in The Universe.

If the others are identical to me and I’m a zero, then adding a zillion zeros is of no help. Ergo, there are others in The Universe, and they are all different. So, what can I assume about these ‘others’ which I will call Beings?

Being
A Being in The Universe has a mind which does its thinking and reasoning. It also has a memory for storing ideas. I have a mind that processes ideas. Ideas enter my mind. They stay for awhile in my memory before departing. I have an ability to reason, i.e., analyze and synthesize ideas. Ergo, I am a Being in The Universe.

There are other Beings in The Universe, and they communicate with one another by exchanging ideas. However, they differ in their ability to reason logically.

Purpose
What is the purpose of our physical universe?

Beings exist in The Universe, and they differ in their ability to reason logically. Their problem is what to do with the most illogical Beings?

There are no padded cells in which to confine them, because padded cells are physical, and The Universe is nonphysical.

Even if there were a place of confinement, who decides who is illogical and who is not?

Given a place of confinement, how long should an illogical Being be confined? Upon release, will the Being be better or worse after confinement with other illogical Beings?

To solve this problem, a group of the most logical Beings created what we call our physical universe.

Our physical universe is a self contained set of interacting logical ideas. Since it is self contained, it is a universe but not The Universe. Think of a circle or sphere. Self contained means ideas do not cross this boundary in either direction.

Beings, who start to think about these ideas of their own volition, are born into our physical universe. Their minds process the interacting ideas, and they think the ideas are real. When born into our physical universe, it defines one as an illogical Being and in our particular cases, illogical human Beings.

Death returns a mind/Being to its original position with only an awareness of The Universe. If still illogical, the Being recycles into the physical universe for another life cycle.

The purpose of our physical universe is to teach us how to reason logically. One’s purpose in our physical universe is to learn how to reason logically. Our physical universe is a school and a teacher.

Components
Our physical universe is a self contained set of interacting logical ideas. Let’s consider these ideas.

SPACE
Let’s start with the idea of a point. A point is the idea of a position. A point has no length, width, or depth.

Think of a sphere of points surrounding this first point. This sphere has a radius of one point and a physical radius of zero.

Think of a zillion spheres and you are thinking of the field of Space which still has a physical radius of zero. A field is a set of points with specific properties.

GRAVITY
At the limit of Space, let the boundary or surface points move inward and form incoming radial lines so that the field of Space begins to contract. When these radial lines reach the original point, they represent the field of Gravity.

RAY
As the field of Space contracts, the incoming lines of Gravity convert to an outgoing linear field called Ray.

KONE
As the field of Space contracts and at the limit of Space, Ray converts to circles which expand as they reflect along Ray to the original point. This set of expanding circles is the field of Kone.

ELECTRO
The circle at the bottom of Kone is the field of Electro. As the field of Space contracts, the points on the circumference form incoming radial lines.

MAGNO
As the field of Space contracts, the incoming opposing radial lines of Electro meet at the center and turn toward Ray. They continue to turn to form the toroidal field of Magno.

SPIN
As the field of Space contracts and with the advent of Magno, Ray begins to rotate and produce the field of Spin.

SHELL
As the Space field contracts, Ray increases its rotation rate. At the limit of its rotation, the fields of Ray, Kone, Electro and Magno interlock to form a Shell field.

LINEAR MOTION
As the field of Space contracts and with the advent of Shell, there are two co-located centers: the center of Shell and the original point. The center of Shell prevents the conversion of Gravity to Ray. Instead, the incoming opposing radial lines of Gravity convert to a field of Linear motion, and the Shell moves outward.

After the two centers separate, Gravity continues to convert to Ray at the original center or point. This Ray moves to the center of the Shell which continues to convert Gravity to Linear motion. It looks like Ray is pushing the Shell outward, but this is an illusion.

Centers
As the field of Space contracts and at the limit of Space, Shell reconverts to Space and other fields. It unSpins. There are now two centers, and they both convert their incoming lines of Gravity to produce two Shells which also unSpin. There are now four centers, and the process continues to produce zillions of centers as Space continues to contracts

Normal SHELL
Eventually, these centers coat the Shells and prevent them from contacting the limit of Space. That is, they do not unSpin. Instead, they become normal Shells.

Small SHELL
As the field of Space contracts, the conversion process continues. This is also true for the centers of the normal Shells. However, Ray only goes to the surface of the normal Shell. Therefore, for each normal Shell, the conversion process produces a single small Shell inside its normal Shell.

Smallest SHELL
As the field of Space contracts, a normal Shell containing a small Shell makes contact with the limit of Space and unSpins. This frees the small Shell which repeats the conversion process to produce inside a smallest Shell.

Big Bang
As the field of Space contracts, it approaches the end of its compression period. Space produces Spin, and all Shells rotate in a single direction. The temperature climbs, and the centrifugal force is enormous, but there is no space for the Shells to expand into. Space continues to contract until these conversion processes are no longer possible. At this point in time, the surface of Space has wrapped itself around many Shells. Also, the surface of Space makes contact with many of the Shells. They unSpin, and a Big Bang occurs. The Shells of our physical universe expand to look like a large, rotating disc.

Our physical universe cycles from one Big Bang to the next. We are now in an expansion period. Also, the above creation just repeatedly moved points out and in.

Translation
Our physical universe is a self contained set of interacting logical ideas. We process these ideas and think they are real.

Our physical ideas comprise the field of Space and ten other fields: Gravity, Ray, Kone, Electro, Magno, Spin, Shells, and Linear motion. There are three sizes of Shells: Normal, Small, and Smallest. Except for their size, they are identical. These fields are often called energy fields, and they reconvert to Space with the passage of time. The task now is to translate the above terms into more familiar terms. Please click the translation link below to go to the second page of this article.

title: Metaphysics (Alternate View)


text:
Metaphysics (Alternate View)/Translation

Translation
Our physical universe is a self contained set of interacting logical ideas. We process these ideas and think they are real.

Our physical ideas comprise the field of Space and ten other fields: Gravity, Ray, Kone, Electro, Magno, Spin, Shells, and Linear motion. There are three sizes of Shells: Normal, Small, and Smallest. Except for their size, they are identical. These fields are often called energy fields, and they reconvert to Space with the passage of time. The task now is to translate the above terms into more familiar terms.

SPACE
Basic Cycle Rule (Partial)

During an expansion period of our physical universe, Space converts to incoming lines of Gravity at the outer limit of Space. At the center of Shells, i.e., inner limits, the incoming opposing lines of Gravity convert to expanding spheres of Space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell

Maxwell believed there was an ether between the objects in space that allowed the propagation of light waves as air did for sound waves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Michelson and Morely conducted their experiment to test for an ether and found none. They were looking for light interference. The results of their experiment led others to believe that space was a void.

To reduce vibrations, their test apparatus sat on top of a block of marble, which floated in a pool of mercury. It never dawned on them the marble and the mercury were generating Space like a three dimensional artesian well.

Which view is correct? Is Space a void or a field?

There are those who believe our physical universe started with the Big Bang. They believe there was nothing before the Big Bang and something came from nothing. They have no purpose for our physical universe. It just is. Some of them believe in the void of space.

Does this sound like logical reasoning to you?

If space is a void, is it finite or infinite? If it is finite, what is on the other side? If it is infinite, is it full of matter or is all the matter in our local area? If space is full of matter, one runs into Olber’s paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

If all the matter is local, then how did it happen? Given the Big Bang, did something come from nothing?

The following assumes Space is a field. From inside the physical universe, Space appears infinite and centers approaching the outer limit lose their energy and become a point in Space. From outside, i.e., in The Universe, Space has a zero physical dimension. Space and its energy fields are all part of a oneness. Let’s look at another part of this oneness.

GRAVITY
Basic Cycle Rule (Definition)

During an expansion period of our physical universe and at its outer limit, Space converts to incoming lines of Gravity. At the center of Shells, i.e., inner limits, the incoming opposing lines of Gravity convert to expanding spheres of Space. The incoming unopposed lines of Gravity convert to Linear motion at the center of Shells. The direction of motion is the same as for the incoming unopposed lines of Gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Newton’s Gravitation Law

Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force along the line of the centers of the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.

where:
 * $$ F = G m1 m2/ r^2$$
 * F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,
 * G is the gravitational constant
 * m1 is the mass of the first point mass,
 * m2 is the mass of the second point mass,
 * r is the distance between the two point masses.

Object equals something perceptible by one or more of our senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing, i.e., the substance out of which a thing is or can be made.

Mass equals the amount of matter.

In science, matter is commonly defined as the substance which physical objects are composed. Matter takes up space. In philosophy, matter is that element of an object without which it would not exist.

Object = something, material, thing; Mass = matter; Matter = substance, object.

For this article, mass pertains to the number of Shell centers. Since there is no practical way of counting the number of these centers, Newton’s definition is acceptable.

To better understand his equation, imagine our physical universe has only two Shell centers. One is at the original point, and one is a zillion light years away. Each center is busy converting its incoming opposing lines of Gravity to expanding spheres of Space.

However, between these two centers, there is one missing line of Gravity. Each center intercepted the other center’s incoming line of Gravity. Ergo, each has one incoming unopposed line of Gravity which converts to Linear motion. The centers move toward each other.

Therefore, the force of Gravity is a compressive force, not an attractive force, and one can forget about the ‘action at a distance’ concept.

To better understand his equation, imagine there are two objects in our physical universe. One object is at the original point and has two Shell centers. The second object is a zillion light years away and has three Shell centers. There are now six missing lines of Gravity between the two objects. Ergo, there are six unopposed lines of Gravity coming into each object which are converting to Linear motion.

Therefore, the force of Gravity between two objects is a product of their masses.

To better understand his equation, look at a sheet of polar graph paper. The circles represent expanding spheres of Space. The radial lines represent incoming lines of Gravity. Imagine a mass of one at the center of the paper.

Locate a second mass of one two-inches from the center. Let this mass have a radius of one unit and a diameter of two units. Draw lines from the center of the paper to the ends of the radii. Let this triangle represent a cone.

The incoming radial lines of Gravity stay perpendicular to the expanding Shells of Space. The cone for this second mass is intercepting the incoming radial lines of Gravity intended for the first mass at the center of the paper.

Move the second mass of one to the one-inch mark and redraw the cone. Extend the sides of the cone to include the two inch mark. Look at the radius at this two inch mark. The radius has doubled and the area of interception has increased by the square.

Therefore, the denominator $$(r^2) $$ controls the amount of incoming radial lines of Gravity each object intercepts which would normally go to the other object.

Look at the sheet of polar graph paper. In Newton’s time, the circles represented the field of gravity about a piece of mass. This field extended to infinity whatever that meant. A problem occurs when the mass converts to energy and ceases to be. What happens to the gravity field?

RAY
Ray is an ubiquitous linear field. In space, Ray is known as a neutrino. In a thunder cloud, Ray is known as lightning. In a house, Ray is known as electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_coil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer

Electron
During the compression period of our physical universe before the present expansion period, incoming lines of Gravity converted to Ray at the center of a Shell. This is also true for our expansion period. It is a left over trace process. Ray moves from the center of a Shell to its surface and converts to light, see below. There is a disturbance on the surface of the Shell which we call an electron. As Ray rotates, it creates the illusion of an electron in orbit. The side of the disturbance with Ray is the positive side. The side without Ray is the negative side. Thus, the electron appears negative.

Tesla Coil
Assume a basic operating Tesla coil. Touch the top of the coil and withdraw your finger. An arc of light appears between one’s finger and the top of the coil.

Note: One does not see light moving from one position to another. One only sees the light entering one’s eyes.

In this case, the coil generates Ray. Ray fires from the top of the coil to the nearest Shell which in this case is in one’s finger. As the separation distance increases, Ray continues to move from Shell center to Shell center. At each center, Ray converts to light and part of that light reaches one’s eyes.

Be aware, Tesla did not know he was working with energy in one dimension.

Radiometer
A radiometer is a horizontal wheel in a vacuum jar. Attached to the wheel are black and white vanes. When hit with radiant light, the black vanes recede. When hit with fluorescent light, nothing happens. Ergo, light is not the cause of the movement of the vanes.

Radiant light like an Edison lamp or our sun emits Rays. These Rays hit the black surfaces and convert to Linear motion. When these Rays hit the white surfaces, they convert to angular motion, i.e., Spin, and then they reconvert to Rays. In a fluorescent lamp, Ray travels from one end the tube to the other end but not out to the radiometer.

Heat
Hold your hand near a burning log. As Carbon and Oxygen combine, angular energy or Spin converts to Ray. Ray fires in many directions. The Ray that hits your hand converts to Linear motion at the normal Shells in your hand and to Spin for the small Shells. The normal Shells in your hand move in a random fashion and one senses a rise in temperature.

Neutrino
Neutrinos are elementary particles that travel close to the speed of light, lack an electric charge, are able to pass through ordinary matter almost undisturbed and are thus extremely difficult to detect. Neutrinos have a minuscule, but nonzero mass.

In this model of our physical universe, Ray is Neutrino. Ray is energy in one dimension. As such, it has the capability to pass through the Earth without hitting anything. However, there is no information on the length of a Ray or the amount of energy contained in a single Ray as it travels through space. While Ray might be the basis for string theory, there is no information to suggest such a relationship. Also, it has no mass.

Electricity
Lightning is a dramatic example of electricity. As a cloud moves through the air, Linear motion converts to Spin, and the neutrons in the atoms, e.g., Oxygen atoms, increase their rotation. Also, there are Oxygen atoms between the clouds and the ground. Ray moves between these atoms and each increases its amount of Spin. Near the ground, something happens, and an Oxygen atom converts its orbital energy to Ray, and Ray fires at the ground. This sets off a domino effect that moves upward to the cloud. As many Rays fire downward, they hit other mass centers below them, and the Rays convert to light. We see a flash of lightning. Ray also converts to Linear motion, and some moments later, we hear the resulting thunder.

On a smaller scale, think of a AA battery sitting on a shelf. A slow chemical change takes place as orbiting neutrons convert their energy to Ray like the clouds did. Ray leaks out the top, and in time, the battery is dead.

This time, connect a wire from the top to the bottom of the battery. Ray flows through the center of the wire and returns to stimulate the chemical reaction to produce more Ray. In most cases, Ray also excites the atoms in the wire, and it melts.

The above direct current example sends Ray through the center of the wire from center to center. It excites these centers, and they sent Ray to the surface. This increase in electrons is measured as an increase in current flow only it is not the electrons that are flowing. Also, as a Ray moves through a wire, it cannot convert directly to a perpendicular Ray. Ray first converts at a mass center to Magno and then from Magno to a perpendicular Ray. Thus there is a magnetic field about the wire.

Passing a copper wire through a magnetic field converts Linear motion to Ray which runs along the wire. Likewise, running Ray through a wire in a magnetic field converts Ray to Linear motion. In our real world, there is a prime mover that turns a generator to produce electricity which runs along the wires to turn a motor.

In a generator, when Linear motion converts to Ray in the magnetic field, the existence of Ray causes an immediate reconversion back to Linear motion in an effort to stop the movement. This backward force is not enough to stop the prime mover from turning the generator. However, it does change the field environment at the mass center. Linear motion now converts to a perpendicular Ray that must continuously convert from Electro to Magno as at a light center. This oscillation takes place at a center but this center does not move along the wire. So, how is the mechanical or Linear motion energy carried along a wire to a load? It appears that this oscillation changes the environment for the mass centers near the surface of the wire. Ray then moves from mass center to mass center along the surface to the load.

KONE
Nothing is known about the field of Kone. However, its existence can be tested as follows.

Omit the marble and Mercury pool and reproduce the Michelson and Morely apparatus. Adjust the mirrors for total light interference. Clone the apparatus. Use the output of one apparatus as the input to the cloned apparatus and recover the input light.

The total light interference will produce blackness. Since energy cannot be destroyed, the energy is still oscillating in fields but not the electromagnetic (EM) field.

This article says the oscillation is occurring between the Kone and Magnetic fields. Our eyes did not evolve to detect these fields, so they appear black.

Subtract a letter from each letter in the EM spectrum to define a DL (Dark Light) spectrum. This Dark Light spectrum also pertains to dark matter, dark energy, and sun spots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

ELECTRO, MAGNO (light)
A light center pertains to a point, i.e., center, called a photon or quantum of light. Light also pertains to a stream of centers called the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. Visible light pertains to a part of this spectrum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#The_laws_of_thermodynamics

During the compression period before the Big Bang, the fields of Gravity, Ray, Kone, Electro, Magno, and Spin existed at centers. After the Big Bang, those centers that did not become mass centers moved outward to dissipate their energies and become points in the Space field.

After the Big Bang, the origin of a light center starts at a mass center which converts incoming energy to Ray. Think of a Shell as a golf ball. Ray fires at a dimple and moves on to the next dimple. As Ray fires from one point on the surface of a Shell to another point, it gives the appearance of an electron in orbit. However, this action by Ray is discrete, and the point on the surface of a Shell is a pseudo center called an electron.

At a pseudo center, a small amount of Ray exists with a small amount of Spin or rotational energy. However, Ray cannot rotate from vertical to horizontal due to this Spin; Ray is not a stick. In order for Ray to appear to rotate, it must convert to another field. In this case, Ray oscillates in the fields of Electro and Magno. The amplitude of these fields represents Ray’s energy. Initially, Ray oscillates in a plane tangent to Shell.

This pseudo center has no mass and pops off with the coming of an expanding sphere of Space due to the Basic Cycle and becomes a light center. The velocity of this light center if emitted from a moving object is not the sum of light’s velocity plus the object’s velocity. The sphere of Space does not exist on the object.

In line with this new light center, the mass center produces another light center. These are discrete centers with a gap between them. The energy in this stream of light centers depends on these gaps. As the gap size decreases, one says the frequency of the light stream increases, and its energy increases.

During an expansion period, these light centers no longer convert incoming radial lines of Gravity. This means Gravity does not bend light since there is no Linear motion field associated with these light centers. These centers do not move like the centers of Shells. Instead, they move outward with the expanding spheres of Space resulting from the Basic Cycle. It is these spheres of Space that move outward with the speed of light.

Sir Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment to show the bending of light by gravity as predicted by Einstein. The test occurred during a total eclipse of the sun. A star behind our sun was seen before its time. All believed gravity bent the star light which was heading out into space. The bending was great enough so one could see the star light before its time on Earth.

This article provides a different interpretation of the results. In this case, Space is not a void as believed by Einstein and others. The star light seen by Sir Eddington was originally headed into our sun, on the other side of course. As the light approached our sun, the expanding spheres of Space pushed the light away from our sun. Each quantum of star light continued in a straight line and effectively stepped around our sun before continuing on its way to Earth.

MAGNO
Magno is our familiar magnetic field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis

Most people know one end of a bar magnet is the North pole and the other is the South pole. They also know the Earth has a magnetic field with North and South poles. They also know opposites attract and like poles repel. But, few know why there is a pole in the first place, why the poles are different, and why they interact as they do.

An Iron atom comprises four normal Shells. There are six orbiting neutrons in each of these Shells. In their four intersections, there are also six orbiting neutrons plus one central neutron in each of the intersections. These orbiting neutrons or small Shells act like gyroscopes. The centers of these small Shells convert incoming lines of Gravity to Ray, and each gyro produces one combined Ray. When these gyros have the proper alignment, their Rays oppose each other at the center of the Iron atom and convert to Magno. The lines of Magno leave the center of the iron atom and circle around to re-enter the atom. The incoming lines of Magno recombine at the center of the atom to produce a Ray. This perpendicular Ray leaves the iron atom.

The side of an iron atom with Ray is its North pole.

Look at the ends of a bar magnet and imagine a funnel at each end caused by its magnetic field. Each funnel guides incoming lines of Gravity into the Shell centers in the bar magnet. The funnels are the same at both ends.

Place two bar magnets so their opposite poles are close to each other but not touching. The funnels between the magnets all but disappear. This results in more unopposed incoming lines of Gravity at the ends of the magnets. This Gravity converts to Linear motion and moves the bar magnets toward each other. One says opposite poles attract.

Place two bar magnets so their like poles are close to each other but not touching. The funnels between the magnets widen. This results in more unopposed incoming lines of Gravity between the like poles of the magnets. This Gravity converts to Linear motion and moves the bar magnets away from each other. One says like poles repel.

Hitting a magnet disorients its internal gyros, and it loses its magnetism. Hysteresis is the lagging of an effect behind its cause, as when the change in magnetism of a body lags behind changes in the magnetic field.

A model of our universe is not worth much if the theory cannot be tested. So, set up a radiometer in an almost dark room. Hold a strong bar magnet close to the black vanes, and watch Ray from the North pole move the vanes.

SPIN, LINEAR MOTION
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Simple_Pendulum_%28AV%29 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Conical_Pendulum_%28AV%29 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gyroscope_%28AV%29 http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/One-Planet_System_%28AV%29

For a better understanding of Spin and Linear motion, visit the above sites for the Simple Pendulum, Conical Pendulum, Gyroscope, and Kepler’s Laws. In most physics books, the equation for the conical pendulum is wrong. The above ideas present additional ways to test the above model. Please click on the Shell and Energy link below to go to the third page of this article.

/Shell and Energy/


text:
Metaphysics (Alternate View)/Translation/Shell and Energy

SHELL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Velcro is a trademark. It is used for a closure consisting of a piece of fabric of small hooks that sticks to a corresponding fabric of small loops.

A Shell is a self interlocking set of fields. Think of a small ping-pong ball. Or, imagine a very small bar magnet spinning at the speed of light. Think of a line of Magno which leaves the North end of this bar magnet and immediately loops back to its South pole. The rotation rate is so fast the surface of the Shell has no polarity. The loops are all over the surface like part of a Velcro strip. When you touch something, you sense the contact of the Shells.

There are three sizes of Shells: Normal, Small, and Smallest. Their common names are: atom, neutron, and subneutron. Except for their size, they are identical. Our sun is a large collection of normal Shells. It is also possible to have neutron stars and black holes. Free neutrons and subneutrons within our sun gave rise to explosions which produced our planets. A large collection of subneutrons will produce a black hole. Their income lines of Gravity are very intense. Their Gravity will push other Shells into the Black Hole where they are reconverted to Space.

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Births_%28AV%29

A Hydrogen atom comprises a small Shell or neutron inside a normal Shell. When the two centers are co-located, they count as one. Otherwise, they count as two centers. On the average, the number of centers is 1.00797, which is its atomic weight.

Adding an orbiting neutron to a Hydrogen atom converts it to a Deuterium atom with an atomic weight of 2.0141.

In our sun, the force of Gravity is so strong at its center, it stops two Normal Shells, and they unSpin. The two free neutrons enter two different Hydrogen atoms to produce to two Deuterium atoms that combine under pressure to produce a Helium atom. A Helium atom comprises two Deuterium atoms. However, the two orbiting neutrons have lost their fields of Spin, and they exist in the intersection of the two normal Shells to pin them together. Helium’s atomic weight is 4.0026.

A Carbon atom comprises six Deuterium atoms in a ring. Again, the six orbiting neutrons lose their Spin and act to pin the normal Shells at their six intersections. The atomic weight of Carbon is 12.01115.

Atoms in our periodic table are stable atoms created by neutrons pinning Shells together at their intersections.

When two Hydrogen atoms combine to form a Hydrogen molecule, they have an unpinned intersection.

A solid is a set of atoms with many unpinned intersections. A liquid is a set of atoms with a few unpinned intersections. A gas is a set of atoms with near zero unpinned intersections.

A subhydrogen atom comprises a subneutron inside a neutron. When the two centers are co-located, they count as one. Otherwise, they count as two centers. On the average, the number of centers is 1.00797, which is its atomic weight.

It is possible to have subcarbon, suboxygen, etc. Some day we may have a subperiodic table.

A Hydrogen atom comprises a neutron inside a normal Shell. However, this neutron need not be an empty Shell. It could be a subhydrogen atom or a suboxygen atom. If true, it will behave different than a simple Hydrogen atom. In other words, our world at the atomic level is very different.

LIFE
A stable Oxygen atom has fourteen neutrons circling in two orbits within a normal Shell. The fifteenth neutron acts as an anchor and resides just outside the empty center of the normal Shell. This provides sixteen centers. However, the fifteenth neutron passes through the empty center from time to time. When the two centers are co-located, the mass count drops to fifteen. On the average, the mass is 15.9994 which is its atomic weight.

UNSTABLE - Life as we know it starts with an unstable atom. Think of two Oxygen atoms side by side. Let one of them be hit with energy in the form of Ray. Let one neutron in this one atom be forced into the other atom, and all neutrons move in an unpredictable manner in their own orbit.

The atom that Gains a neutron becomes the G (Gent) atom and the atom that Loses a neutron becomes the L (Lady) atom. The G atom will evolve into the male of the species since it starts with more energy. The L atom will evolve into the female of the species.

GROW - Let these unstable atoms make contact with stable atoms and cover themselves with the stable atoms. There are three outcomes: Zero, One, and Two. The zero-hole refers to an unstable atom completely covered with stable atoms so there is no opening. The one-hole has one opening and will evolve into an animal. The two-hole has two openings and will evolve into a plant.

EAT - Select a G1 atom. As it grows in size, let it draw energy, Spin, from the stable atoms it contacts at its open end.

REPRODUCE - Let this energy accumulate in the G1 atom so that the G1 atom begins to make some of the other inside atoms unstable. Let this G1 one atom reproduce G and L unstable atoms.

EJECT - Let this G1 atom now rid itself of unwanted stable and unstable atoms.

An UGERE molecule is alive when it is unstable and able to grow larger, consume energy, reproduce, and rid itself of stable and unstable atoms. When it is no longer able to perform all of these functions, it is dead or dying.

Let a zero-hole molecule be within an animal. Let an event happen which converts it to a one-hole molecule which becomes alive. It is known as a cancer.

Let an animal reproduce unstable atoms on an 80/20 ratio. Let this ratio change over time to 20/80. We say the animal went through a sex change. For a human, a man becomes a homosexual, and a woman becomes a lesbian.

ENERGY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

 * $$E = mc^2 $$

To understand Einstein’s mass (m) to energy (E) equation, look at a sheet of polar graph paper. Select the largest complete circle and assume it has a radius of ‘c’ which is the distance a quantum of light travels in one second. Let this circle represent a sphere.

Return to the time before the first Big Bang. Let the first incoming radial lines of Gravity start inward and stop at the surface of this sphere. Now let the lines of Gravity continue and stop again at the center point. All of the Gravity within the sphere will convert to Ray and other fields and produce a normal Shell, that is, a mass of one.

Assume for the moment a mass of one (m1) at the center and a second mass of one (m2) at the surface of this sphere. Use Newton’s Gravitation Law to determine the force (F) acting on the mass at the surface.

 * $$ F = G (m1m2)/(d^2) $$ or
 * $$F = G 1/c^2 $$

Energy (E) equals force time distance [c] for one line of Gravity.
 * $$ E = G 1/c $$

The volume of this sphere is (4/3) pi $$(c^3)$$.

This provides the total energy for a mass of one.
 * $$E = G (4/3) pi (c^2) $$

Set $$G = 3/(4 pi) $$ and one has $$ E = mc^2 $$.

Einstein’s equation gives the energy for a mass of one, but it doesn’t say where the energy is.

Thermodynamics
First law of thermodynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.

This reads as follows in this article; the total Space and energy of the universe remains the same.

There is the field of Space and ten other fields. These ten fields I call energy fields. However, energy is not a property of our physical universe. Energy is the capacity to do work. Work is the ability to transfer one field to another field. The common view involves moving a mass from one point to another point or converting the mass to other fields.

As I have defined my physical universe, it is a self contained set of interacting ideas. It starts as an ideal of a position, a point. Adding more spheres of points produces our Space field, which contracts to a Big Bang. Our physical universe cycles from one Big Bang to the next. No ideas enter or leave this universe.

Second law of thermodynamics

The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

For a closed thermodynamic system, entropy is a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. It is a measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

This model says Space is expanding and everything else is reconverting to Space.

Third law of thermodynamics

As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.

This defines the conditions for the start of another contraction of our physical universe as it cycles from one Big Bang to the next.

Cosmology
Look at a sheet of polar graph paper and imagine you are looking down at our physical universe. After the Big Bang, it spiraled outward. As the distance from the center increases, the angular velocity slows. Assume it is not relevant. This means the clouds of Hydrogen gas moved out along the radial lines. Time passes and Gravity compresses them, but the galaxies continue to move along the radial lines. This outward movement is due to Linear motion provided at the Big Bang. It can only be slowed, stopped, and reversed by Gravity which takes forever.

Imagine two galaxies moving outward on two adjacent radial lines. Both are crossing the first circle when an astronomer measures their separation. When the astronomer crosses the second circle, she repeats the measurement. To her surprise, she finds the second galaxy is not at the second circle as predicted. It is at the third circle. It appears to have accelerated. This is impossible. What happened?

There is no mystery. Both galaxies generated a vast amount of Space The thickness of Space increased between them. Light from the second galaxy just slowed down as it moved through the thicker Space. The astronomer thought space was a void and did not account for the increase in thickness.

Faster than light
Imagine a space ship accelerating under rocket power. What happens as it approaches the speed of light? The Basic Cycle is still in effect. The space ship generates Space in the direction it is traveling. As the ship approaches the speed of light, a Space wall builds in front of the ship preventing any increase in speed. Gravity cannot convert to Space in the direction of motion. Instead, it converts to Ray. The space ship is now moving with the expanding Space.

This dense Space permeates the space ship. However, the distance between the pilot and his console remains the same. Viewed from outside, the space ship has contracted in the direction of travel, but all appears normal inside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

To travel faster than light, it is necessary to overcome the Basic Cycle and convert the incoming opposing lines of Gravity to Ray. This happened during the compression period and should be possible during the expansion period.

Time
Our physical universe cycles from one Big Bang to the next so time is continuous. One can mark time zero at any point or event. I’ve marked it at the time of the Big Bang. Ergo, time runs from one Big Bang to the next and does not slow down for humans. Likewise, cause and effect are continuous. A human is aware of time in that he or she processes ideas in a serial fashion.

Clocks are a different story. If two clocks are traveling at different speed, the faster moving clock will appear to slow. Like the space ship, the atoms in the faster moving clock have to move through thicker Space. This is also true for atoms in an animate object, and the object appears to live longer.

There is no traveling back in time. The ideas that comprise our physical universe only exist now.

Philosophy
If the above model is valid, it means that every ‘thing’ is nonphysical. This in turn means the relationships between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value need to be reexamined.

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Theology_(AV)

For example, in his book on the history of western philosophy, Russell talks about Plotinus. Plotinus believed in the recycle of the soul, but memory doesn’t carry over. The universe is a life organized effective, complex, all-comprehensive, displaying an unfathomable wisdom. Also, many philosophers bring a God into their view of our universe, and this needs closer examination.

On the physics side, scientists and mathematicians seem to be driving toward quantum light, quantum gravity, quantum time, quantum space, and so on. They seem to be reaching for the points which formed the bases for the above model.

The point is the above model and ideas are not unique or original, but be aware, no one agrees with the above ideas.


text:
United States Law/Evidence

The Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts (FRE) replaced a body of common-law rules of evidence. The FRE are for use in United States Federal Courts.

Students of Evidence law should note, however, that Evidence Codes in State law in the United States largely mirror the FRE, with additions, editions, and exceptions to the rules comprised and compiled in the FRE. Evidence law students should refer to a compilation of the Rules as promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States. Headings and brief descriptions of the rules will be listed below.

Caselaw interpreting and applying the rules will be thereinafter cited, to assist Evidence law students as to a comprehension of the application of the FRE to and in trial law, both oral and briefed, both civil and criminal.

The FRE currently have Eleven Articles:

Rule 101. Scope.
Prescribes the federal courts in which the FRE are applicable. Also refer to Rule 1101 as to the extent thereof and exceptions thereto.

United States v. Monsanto, 924 F.2d 1186 (2d Cir. 1991). Also as to Fed.R.Evid. 1101.

Rule 102. Purpose and Construction.
Prescribes the general purposes of the FRE.

United States v. Opager, 589 F.2d 799 (5th Cir. 1979). As to Fed.R.Evid. 608.

Rule 103(a). Effect of erroneous ruling.
Harmless error occurs when a substantial right of a party is not affected by admission or exclusion of evidence.

Rule 103(a)(1). Objection.
Adverse party to admission of evidence requires timely objection or motion to strike to preserve objection. May require statement of specific ground for objection.

People v. Dunham, 559 N.W.2d 360, 220 Mich. App. 268 (1997). As to Fed.R.Evid 103(a)(1), 103(d), and 404(b).

Rule 103(a)(2). Offer of proof.
Adverse party to exclusion of evidence requires the making of the substance of the evidence known to the court. No requirement for objection or offer of proof to preserve claim on appeal.

Fox v. Dannenberg, 906 F.2d 1253 (8th Cir. 1990).

Rule 103(b). Record of offer and ruling.
The court may additionally characterize the evidence. The court may direct the making of an offer in question-and-answer form.

Rule 103(c). Hearing of Jury.
By no means is the jury to be made aware of inadmissible evidence. Statements or offers of proof are to be made outside the awareness of the jury.

United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir. 1981).

Rule 103(d). Plain error.
"Taking notice of plain errors" may be made even when not brought to the attention of the court by exception. Ex gratia, a prima facie showing of prima facie proof of plain error may be made on appeal, notwithstanding a party's failure to object in the trial court or in the court below the appellate court.

Rojas v. Richardson, 703 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1983). Also as to Fed.R.Evid. 403.

Rule 104(a). Questions of Admissibility Generally.
Only rules of privilege and not other rules of evidence are to be considered when the court considers preliminary questions such as witnesses, privileges, or admissibility of evidence (usually through a motion in limine, which, if granted, becomes an order in limine that evidence be admitted or excluded preliminary to trial).

United States v. Campbell, 73 F.3d 44 (5th Cir. 1996).

Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992). Also as to Fed.R.Evid. 804.

Rule 104(b). Relevancy conditioned on fact.
Also known as "conditional admissibility", or "connect[ing] up", if a prima facie showing is not later made as to a "fulfillment of the condition", the conditionally-admitted evidence will thereby and thereafter be excluded at trial.

United States v. Platero, 72 F.3d 806 (10th Cir. 1995). Also as to Rules 104(a), 412(a) and 412(c).

Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74 F.3d 1397 (2d Cir. 1996) Also as to Rules 104(a) and 901.

Rule 105. Limited Admissibility.
Provides that the court instruct the jury "[w]hen evidence is admissible as to one party for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose."

Government of the [United States] Virgin Islands v. Mujahid, 990 F.2d 111 (3d Cir. 1993).

Rule 106. Remainder of Related Writings of Recorded Statements.
Sets forth that adverse party is to have additional, usually penumbral, evidence in the form of a "writing or recorded statement" admitted when such evidence ought to be admitted "in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it."

United States v. Sutton, 801 F.2d 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

Rule 201(b). Kinds of facts.
No reasonable dispute can be had against judicially-noticed facts according to this rule. These are generally limited to "(1) generally known [facts] within the territorial jurisdiction...or (2) capable of...determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."

Barber v. Ponte, 772 F.2d 982 (1st Cir. 1985).

Griswold v. Commonwealth [of Virginia], 452 S.E.2d 287, 19 Va.App. 477 (1985).

Rule 201(c). When discretionary.
A court may take judicial notice sua sponte, or upon motion made by either party.

Barber v. Ponte, 772 F.2d 982 (1st. Cir. 1985).

Rule 201(d). When mandatory.
Upon request, and when the requisite and qualifying information is provided to the court, "[a] court shall take judicial notice..."

Rule 301. Presumptions in General in Civil Actions and Proceedings.
When a presumption arises, the "party against whom it is directed [has] the burden of going forward with the evidence" to prove or rebut it, however this burden does not shift to the imposing party to the extent of "nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast."

United States v. Ahrens, 530 F.2d 781 (8th Cir. 1976).

In re: The Yoder Company, 758 F.2d 1114 (6th Cir. 1985).

Rule 302. Applicability of State Law in Civil Actions and Proceedings.
Where State law provides "the rule of decision", such State law prevails in determining the effect of a presumption with respect to a "fact which is an element of a claim or defense."

Monger v. Cessna Aircraft Company, 812 F.2d 402 (8th Cir. 1987).

title: United States Law/Evidence


text:
Youth studies

Wikipedia

 * Youth studies is an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to the study of the development, history, culture, psychology, and politics of youth.
 * Youth voice refers to the distinct ideas, opinions, attitudes, knowledge, and actions of young people as a collective body.
 * Positive youth development youth development (PYD) programs are designed to optimize youth developmental progress.
 * Youth culture refers to the societal norms of children, adolescents, and young adults.
 * Youth politics is a category of issues which distinctly involve, affect or otherwise impact youth.
 * Youth empowerment is a process where children and young people are encouraged to take charge of their lives.
 * The youth rights movement seeks to grant the rights to young people that are traditionally reserved for adults, due to having reached a specific age or sufficient maturity.
 * Youth participation is the active engagement of young people throughout their own communities that can many forms, including decision-making, sports, schools and any activity where young people are not historically engaged.
 * Youth service is widely recognized and valued by society, with minimal or no compensation to the server.
 * Youth work is community support activity aimed at older children and adolescents.

Call for essays
Please contribute an essay or article on . Enter title that is not already on the list below and start your draft. If you wish to change your title, or have any other questions, visit us at Colloquium.
 * List of contributions

title: Youth studies


text:
Portal:Marine engineering/Participants

The histories of Wikiversity pages indicate who the active participants are - you can find this by clicking the "history" tab, beside the "edit" tab at the top of the page. If you are a student in this Department, please add your name below. Active participants in this Learning Group:
 * Gurpreet Singh Grewal - Undergraduate Student Naval Architecture

title: Portal:Marine engineering/Participants


text:
Portal:Organic chemistry/Textbooks

 * Solomons and Fryhle (ISBN 978-0471417996) ~$160
 * Wade (ISBN 978-0131699571) ~$170
 * Carey (ISBN 978-0073311845) ~$175
 * McMurry (ISBN 978-0534389994) ~$150

 * Organic Chemistry by Clayden, Greeves and Warren, Oxford University Press, 2012 (ISBN 978-0199270293)
 * A Guidebook to Mechanism in Organic Chemistry by Sykes, Prentice Hall, 1996 (ISBN 978-0582446953)

title: Portal:Organic chemistry/Textbooks


text:
Portal:Organic chemistry/News and events

 * 9 July 2021 - Isomerism, Chirality and Stereochemistry started!
 * 10 December 2020 - Functional Groups started!
 * 19 April 2013 - Deoxyribonucleic acids started!
 * 7 Nov 2007 - Lessons 1.1 - 1.3 revised
 * 4 Nov 2007 - Updated links, resources, articles
 * 24 Oct 2007 - New department interface!
 * 6 Jul 2007 - Department of Organic Chemistry founded!


text: Talk:Educational Media Awareness Campaign/Art/POTD 8


text:
User:Celedron

Ren McRoe:

 * Born: March, 17 1998- WAC, Smeagolville

Nationality: Smeagolvillian

3rd Mayor of Scranton- Preceded by: Ziv McZoZi

1st Attorney General of Smeagolville- Succeeded: by Morva McSmeagolson

3rd Lt. Ambassador of Smeagolville- Preceded by: Aaron Boxerman, Succeeded by: (No longer a position)

Political Party: Democratic

Army Rank: Admiral

Early Life

Ren McRoe was born in WAC, Smeagolville on March, 17 1998. Ren was educated at Smeagol Point in EO in 1999. In 2006, Ren reached the status of Admiral, and had recieved two purple hearts for extreme courage and stabbing Sebastion Rook in the thigh.

Embassy Work

Ren started working as a secretary in 2007, and made his way up to LT. Ambassador in 2008. Ren worked with ambassador Gaby Makowski, Sec. of State Doli McSmeagolson and Foreign Minister Cheik McKow. Ren is well known for making significant trade deals with the Hawks. In July of 2008, Ren McRoe advised the then Governor of Smeagolville, Orwen McSmeagolson, that the LT. Ambassador job was pointless. The job was then abolished.

Attorney General

Ren McRoe was the first Attorney General of Smeagolville, serving only two weeks, before taking the oath of office as Mayor of Smeagolville's largest county, Scranton. The most high profile case during Ren's short time as Attorney General was Asher Mayerson Vs. Daalben McSmeagolson. Daalben was being accused of harassment and assault. Daalben was found guilty by the jury, the Governor Seoul McSoSo, the Lt. Governor Mordrid McSmeagolson, and Ren himself. Daalben was the first McSmeagolson to ever go to prison.

Mayor of Scranton

On December 2nd, 2008, Ren was elected Mayor of Scranton. Originally, Ren was facing off against the incumbent Mayor, Ziv McZoZi, but then Ziv went to pursue the Prime Ministership, which he eventually won. Ren was the only candidate on the ballot, so Ren was overwhelmingly elected Mayor of Scranton.

title: User:Celedron