text:
User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Blog/Learning Persian & Arabic Weblog

The Perso-Arabic Alphabet:
The six vowels and 23 consonants of Persian are written using a modified version of the Arabic alphabet with four extra Persian letters to represent sounds which do not exist in Arabic. Its Persian name is, which is the equivalent of the English “ABCs”.

Transcription
UniPers is used as a guide to pronunciation in this book:

Pronunciation
Most letters in this system of transcription can be pronounced like their English equivalents, but some deserve special attention.

Differing Systems of Transcription
There are several different systems of transcription in use for Persian, and no one official system. This can cause difficulties when more than one textbook is consulted, and may lead an absolute beginner to confuse the different letters. There are too many differences to be listed here, but it is useful to be familiar with the most significant examples:

Some common differences include:

 * may be transcribed as ā, á, A, aa, or a. For example,  may be written elsewhere as bābā, bábá, bAbA, baabaa, or baba.  In texts where ‹â› is transcribed as a, the short ‹a› sound may be written as æ or there may be no written distinction between the long and short sounds.
 * Short ‹a› may be transcribed as æ, especially in texts where a represents long ‹â›. For example,  may be written elsewhere as æbr and  as baba.
 * may be transcribed as ch or č. For example, may be written elsewhere as chetor or četor.
 * may be transcribed as kh. For example, may be written elsewhere as khub.
 * may be transcribed as sh or s. For example, may be written elsewhere as shoma or soma.
 * Long ‹u›, may be transcribed as oo. For example, may be written elsewhere as doost.

Learning Persian from English with Rumi

 * http://www.khamush.com/persian/

Dīwān-i Shams
Source: http://www.enotes.com/classical-medieval-criticism/jalal-al-din-rumi
 * Dīwān-e Kabīr, Dīwān-e Šams-e Tabrīzī (The Works of Shams of Tabriz) (Persian: دیوان شمس تبریزی) or Dīwān-e Šams
 * I sourced this from Scribd and though the Persian is not in Unicode it has attendant English translation.
 * "The Diwan, which was written over a thirty-year time span, is thought to have been started after Shams's arrival in Konya in 1244. Comprising approximately 40,000 verses, it contains poems which focus mainly on various mystical states, such as spiritual intoxication and ecstatic love. Scholars believe that many of the poems in the Diwan were composed spontaneously by Rumi while engaged in mystical dancing."

Mansur_Al-Hallaj
"He believed one had to go beyond the forms of religious rites to reach divine reality."


text:
Motivation and emotion/Wikiversity/Orientation

Welcome to English-language Wikiversity (http://en.wikiversity.org). Much of the learning material and activities for motivation and emotion utilises Wikiversity.
 * Where am I?

Wikiversity is a wiki for free and open educational resources. It is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation along with sister projects such as Wikipedia and Wikibooks. For examples of Wikiversity content, try visiting a random page.
 * What is Wikiversity?

The site provides announcements, discussion, assessment submission, and marks. It is for formally enrolled students who wish to receive institutional accreditation.
 * What is on UCLearn?

The unit's Wikiversity home page links to content such as lectures, tutorials, and assessment guidelines. You can also explore the content via Category:Motivation and emotion.
 * How is the content organised?

By registering a Wikiversity account, you will get a user page which is a good place to write about yourself, keep notes, and add links of interest. As the unit unfolds, you will author material on Wikiversity. Editing using a registered account (rather than anonymously) helps to track and organise your contributions.
 * Create an account

The tutorials will teach necessary skills. To learn more about Wikiversity yourself, try the guided tours and see Help. You can also ask questions at the Colloquium which is the Wikiversity community hub.
 * How can I learn about using Wikiversity?

Post questions or comments to the discussion forum.
 * Want to know more?

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


text:
User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima/Colloquium

Proposal to create a Cite namespace
KYPark wants to create a namespace (Cite) that has reference entries that could be used on multiple pages as a template. I will let him explain it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

KYPark
Prompted by User talk:KYPark, may I cordially ask the WV community members concerned to draw a consensus on the creation of the Cite: namespace, each of whose pages will essentially contain the citation or bibliographic record on a document? For further information, please refer to User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima, which keeps evolving, as everything ever evolves, I guess, whether naturally or culturally. BTW, I'm just a newcomer to WV, unaware of its culture and the right way I have to behave in it. Please do me lots of favor and justice. Thank you. --KYPark 06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Adambro

 * As it stands, from reading the discussions that took place at User talk:Ottava Rima, I'm yet to be persuaded of the value of a cite namespace. I think it would create a lot of work for not a lot of benefit. Each reference would need another page whilst many sources will only ever be used in one page. Spreading content across pages unfortunately creates more targets for vandals and so more pages that need to be watched and potentially requiring protection. I think the current system of citing sources is satisfactory. Adambro 07:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: a lot of work -- I expect academics would do a lot of it to help themselves. kk :-) --KYPark 09:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: many sources will only ever be used in one page -- WV need not bother having such trivial sources or pages. The greater repetition or redundancy, the greater satisfaction. Hence the first-thing-first principle. --KYPark 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: vandalism -- The nature of citations or bibliographic records is so objective that sane vandals would not bother them. --KYPark 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "sane vandals" sounds like a good example of an oxymoron. Adambro 09:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed in a sense. But sadly, to tell the truth, I've been so often made to feel like one here (I can't exactly figure out where), though I may be one in no way. Could you prove I'm insane anyway so far? I hope not, even though I've been treated as such too often here, not in WV. That is to say, "sane vandals" is too uneasy a term for you to use definitely. I guess there are lots of "sane vandals" suffering a lot unjustly by name of vandalism, as pagans suffers by name of anti-christianity in the West. --KYPark 10:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

 * I could see some merit if there was a Commons like project for reference entries that would allow one reference to be used in thousands of pages, however, I honestly don't feel that even in such high user that having a page dedicated to one sentence that is easily copied and pasted is worth while. On a much smaller scope (i.e. just Wikiversity), I see even less of a point. I have created hundreds of pages that use references, and I find copying and pasting easy. Templates, in general, take up a lot of space and room for little gain. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Recall that each page will essentially contain the citation or bibliographic record on a document, which may be called the citational, transclusive or onlyinclude content that will be nested between the beginning and ending onlyinclude tags.
 * This essential content may well be compared to the tip of an iceberg, that is, the explicit, superficial, minimum-essential part of the whole page. That is, there is the massive, non-transclusive content or added value, which may be compared to the huge submerged mass of the iceberg. It should be pre-determined which features of a document should be added to the tip. The User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima may be taken into account.
 * Simply, such a Cite page could serve as a notepad, as it were, for learning and annotating anything from a scholarly document, whether a book, journal article, or whatever formal documentation. It may be regarded as a grass-roots or bottom-up building block of scholarship, whether research or learning, based on scholarly documentation. Such was the common idea of most hypertext prioneers, including Vannevar Bush, Ted Nelson, and Tim Berners-Lee in particular.
 * In a sense, most WP and WV articles are a top-down digest or synthesis of various scholarly documents, each of which in turn is such a one. Then, scholarship may well be said to begin with a web of grass-roots or source documents, which may be embodied as a Cite namespace!
 * --KYPark 01:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Just checking in briefly with this idea. I put some references on their own page, then transclude them e.g., Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/Howell/2010 - what links here. What advantage would there for be for locating something like this in a separate namespace? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I suppose the argument is that it helps to keep all references well organized and you know that they are being used as references. -- dark lama  12:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Absolutely amazing, Jtneill! You've been already transcluding citations, though perhaps less easily or less plausibly than using the proposed Cite namespace. Your hierarchical and project-oriented way looks too special and hard for any editor to locate citations, I fear. Now my proposal seems to have been deliberately made for an easy alternative to your way of controlling citations. A definitely easy way would facilitate the weaving and other controls of citations. Please go to:
 * Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks to notice the links I've added in front, and
 * Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/AllenBennett/2008 to be advised of the possible extension of citational pages, whether yours or mine, toward the additional contents or features beyond the mere transclusion of a citation. Also note the above page could be very simply named Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 for easy location and use!
 * --KYPark (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What if jtneil decided to add additional citations by Allen & Bennett from 2008? Where would they be located? The page name seems to severely limit the number of possible citations. -- dark lama  11:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Recall Cite:Vannevar Bush 1945 AWM where the suffix "AWM" stands for "As We May Think," the article of Atlantic Monthly 176 (July 1945), pp. 101-108. Books, eg, Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 are more likely to do without such a suffix. Along with this author-year naming convention, we might also attempt to do with Cite:As We May Think, Cite:World Brain, etc., depending on their celebrity.
 * --KYPark (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Again, partly in response to Ottava's comment concerning a Commons namespace for citational transclusion to sister projects, WV should not be adversely affected to have a Cite namespace and make its entry easier as much as the transclusion from the Commons entry. And, any WMF community members concerned may read this Colloquium and preceding discussions first and perhaps invite me there.
 * --KYPark (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Jtneill

 * Thanks for the ideas and explanation KYPark. Maybe you could create some citations starting with Cite: as a demo. Would they need to be created in a namespace? Or could such pages just be named Cite: (without it being a namespace)? I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea - especually as I transclude some commonly-used references such as textbook references within a course. I do tend to like in that case that the transcluded references are within the sub-folder structure - but the final reference could still sit within Cite: and be transcluded from there. But I am doubtful that such a namespace would be used very much. Has this been proposed and discussed elsewhere on the sister projects e.g., Wikipedia? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * WV is the first WMF project to which I proposed this new grass-roots documentary namespace, from which, it seems to me, WV would benefit most from the researcher's, teacher's and learner's perspectives. Meanwhile, such a documentary system is not really new without but quite implausible so far, I fear. The CiteSeer and the ACM Portal are limited to computer science and too automated. The Google is developing a sort. This mundane state of the art is as far as my knowledge goes. I would not deny that my proposal may be worth an independent WMF project, but make it simple. as I see simple is beautiful!
 * Suppose you passionately take notes on cards, as old scholars and students used to do. There you put down the source at the end, as well as a passage, quotation or annotation, tediously as many times as the number of notecards you make from the same source document. With the corresponding Cite page established once and for all, however, anyone could do without this tedious repetition, and that much more easily on Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 than Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/AllenBennett/2008.
 * Quotation is selection. Also consider how to select a specific notecard from the messy mass. (Also consider how to find your car out of the huge car park after you've forgot the parking location.) The celebrated hypertext pioneer Vannevar Bush (1945) took these two kinds of selection very seriously, as he used the term more than twenty times in his 8-page article! Read at least the first 4 paragraphs of the section 6 there to understand his motivation. He named his ideal machine the memex that would free you from that messy mass.
 * It took exactly three decades for many people to begin to take his ideal very seriously. Since 1975, cognitive science began to emerge to study the hypertext-wise mind map, cognitive map, conceptual map, mental model, and many other parodies. Bush (1945) "As We May Think" was to suggest that hypertext is not so much grouped and selected hierarchically as associatively as the way we may think, hence the title. Associationism, behaviorism, experientialism, contextualism, social constructivism, and the like were merging into a revolutionary power against rationalist nativism or innatism.
 * Soon a variety of hypertext systems were mushrooming, including Enquire (1980) and Guide (hypertext) (1982) from the UK. The development at the University of Maryland is highly remarkable in the US, resulting in The Interactive Encyclopedia System (1983) and NoteCards (1984), 3 years earlier than the celebrated HyperCard (1987) of Apple Computer. WP and WV pages are (like) such cards; the namespace is simply the card box, deck or cabinet.
 * In the beginning, there was a namespace in WP, now called the main namespace, where all the main pages are parked, located or "created equal" rather than levelled "down from subclass to subclass" (in terms of Bush 1945) or from subpages to subpages in WV parlance. Now all WMF projects have essentially one main namespace and some extra namespaces marked by a colon, such as Wikiversity, School, Topic, etc. of WV, in addition to User, Talk, Category, Template, etc. in common. Each is quite homogeneous in kind. The Cite would be another for the reference kind.
 * Pages parked equal in the main namespace should be marked or named proper or unique, avoiding overlapping. Then anyone can be very easily selected by virtue of its proper name, and you need not go up and down the ladder of subdivisions such as Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/AllenBennett/2008.
 * Instead of such a long hierarchy, you could simply have Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 in the proposed Cite namespace, or even more simply Allen & Bennett 2008 in the main namespace. The simpler the better. Then why the Cite namespace? It is mainly to save the main from being overcrowded with too many Cite pages, which quite differ in kind from the main pages and may eventually count to millions.
 * The main namespace, looking like a grab bag, is making life easy or simple, but disregarding the grouping or categorization of relative pages one way or another. The Category pages are partly to make for this default. The idea of subpages is another breakthrough. For example, any pages relating to any textbooks are grouped under Category:Textbooks, while some pages relating to psychological textbooks are grouped under Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks.
 * --KYPark [T] 08:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Sooner or later I will try to edit Cite:As We May Think, Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008, and the like under the Category:User:KYPark.
 * --KYPark [T] 09:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for these excellent examples, KYPark. The idea of a Cite: namespace is growing on me. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 * My great pleasure. I hope it grow fruitful. -- KYPark [T] 09:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Abd

 * I think this is an excellent idea.

 * On Wikipedia This would be a place to build information about sources. Discussion of sources often takes place in articles, when, in fact, the information could cover many topics. Does the source generally qualify under WP:RS. Often this is a debate that takes place in an article, based on the perceptions and POVs of the editors of the article. The Cite page and attached Cite talk page would be a place to form neutral consensus on the source itself. Is it "self-published," or is the publisher independent? I've attempted to use Naturwissenschaften as a source and the argument comes back that this is a "life sciences journal," which is not true. But it can look that way. How many times does this argument need to be repeated? That is a question that was resolved under mediation, with consensus, but where would this information go? Cite space. Naturwissenschaften is a multi-disciplinary journal where the majority of articles, which are typically cross-disciplinary (that's what they prefer), happen to have something to do with the life sciences. But they have always published in all fields related to the natural sciences.

 * On Wikiversity, the Cite space would be like a university library. It might be organized through categories into topics, and one could quickly find all articles that use a reference. How much work would maintaining this be? Some. But it can be built slowly. As to vandalism, it would be entirely possible to semipro the entire space, for example, and to have, then, suggestions from IPs, on a page for that, allowing any registered editor to act in semi-administrative capacity. Besides, WV is still small, and I can monitor all the activity. Have a new space will not create new vandals, just a different space for them to use, it would still show up in Recent Changes.

 * I think it's worth trying. It costs very little, if anything, if I've understood this correctly. It would allow the use of a common citation format, if we wanted to specify one. But it's also possible to have alternate pages according to various citatation standards. Diversity is important, but the question is always which is more needed: diversity or efficiency. If it will take a huge battle to decide on a single standard, then we could define a number of them, and this is something that can be handled with templates.... --Abd 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot for your positive support, Abd. You got it from the very beginning, I thought. One thing I like to reassure you at the moment, however, is that the Cite should be far more than the librarian site just for sight. Yes, it is a library or collection but of the whatabouts of the library resources, that is, of information of information, the second-order or meta information. I wish this could be a melting pot or center for diverse information users with their own perspective or point of view, which should rarely be a shame! The confirmation bias is deeply engraved in the living, from the recent psychological perspective, which though may be no more than a point of view. Such is Karl Popper's argument in Conjectures and Refutations that all scientific theories are essentially conjectures, hence the name of the book. NPOV is an easy word but a hard warrant indeed. How could you make certain the neutrality of anything without a thorough tour through the messy massy mazy marsh of soures of sources of sources? The best thing we could do would be to allow readers for the easier tour and the final judgment. See Reader-response criticism and  User-centered design.
 * "Consider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of mechanized private file and library. It needs a name, and to coin one at random, 'memex' will do. A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory." -- From:Cite:As We May Think.
 * Perhaps more comments may follow later.
 * -- KYPark [T] 03:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

KYPark 2
Ladies and gentlemen, please have a look at Category:Linda Smith 1980 and the like Category (instead of Cite) pages, all converging to Category:As We May Think, where all of them gather together as a citing successor. From "edit this page," find how easy it is to weave such an objective, historiographical, causal web of preceding and succeeding scholarly documents, in sharp contrast to the non-causal hence rather arbitrary semantic web, conception of conception of conception (cf. citation of citation of citation), or simply intension, one of which Wikipedia and Wiktionary pages look like. There are two kinds of things in your world: what you have to pinpoint or enumerate and what you have to persuade. No doubt, the latter is what troubles you most.

In the beginning, the World Wide Web began with the two things: the semantic and the historiographic webs, simply the keywords and the reference numbers. Eventually, Tim Berners-Lee seems to have preferred the former (semantic web) to the latter (historiographic web) after all. Meanwhile, compare the traditional use of the Category namespace with the revolutionary use of cause-effect chain reactions for a historiographical, causal web!

-- KYPark [T] 10:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * KYPark has requested comment on this. --Abd 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima/Colloquium


text:
Human Legacy Course/Fertile Crescent Empires

Human Legacy Course I Fertile Crescent Empires LECTURER: Mr. Blair

Previous Lecture / Course Page / Take The Quiz / Next Lecture

Hello and welcome to Lecture 2 of Week 2. In today's lecture, we will be looking at the Fertile Crescent Empires. Our first question of the day is:

Why did the once mighty city of Babylon fall? Dust filled the sky as the army of heavy war chariots thundered toward the city of Babylon. Each chariot was drawn by two horses and carried three soldiers armed with spears and bows, ready for combat. Foot soldiers marched alongside the chariots, gripping spears, swords, and axes as they stared grimly ahead at the city of Babylon. The hardened warriors already had two victories to their credit, but Babylon would be their greatest prize. As they drew near the city, the Hittite chariots rushed ahead, breaking through the ranks of the Babylonian army that had set out to meet them. With their king himself leading the final charge, the Hittites captured the city in a lightning strike. The Babylonian soldiers were no match for the Hittites.

In celebration, the victorious Hittites looted Babylon of its wealth. Yet for reasons now lost to time, they chose not to stay and rule the city. Instead, the Hittites loaded up their booty and returned home, some 500 miles to the west. The people of Babylon heaved an amazed sigh of relief. True, they had suffered a great defeat, but the city was still theirs. However, the Hittites’ stronger iron weapons had done their damage. In their weakened state, the Babylonians soon met defeat at the hands of other invaders, this time for good.

The Hittites
As the Babylonian Empire declined, other civilizations prospered in and around the Fertile Crescent. Nomadic tribes from the mountains and deserts moved into the region as well, drawn by its wealth. As tribes battled each other for land, a pattern slowly emerged in which control passed from one empire to another.

Indo-Europeans
The tribes who invaded Mesopotamia included the Indo-Europeans, several tribes who spoke related languages. The Indo-Europeans may have come from the steppes, or arid grasslands, north of the Black Sea, driven out by drought, conflicts, or a lack of resources. By studying modern languages, scholars can tell that Indo-Europeans gradually spread west and south from that area.

Hittite Military Might
The Hittites, a warlike Indo-European tribe, developed in Southwest Asia. About 2000 BC, they settled in Asia Minor, which is now Turkey. There, the Hittites conquered the surrounding people to build a strong empire.

The Hittites’ success came largely through their use of the horse-drawn war chariot. The Hittite chariot was heavy and slow, but very powerful. Whereas most chariots of the time held only two soldiers, Hittite chariots held three. As one man drove, a second fought, and a third held shields for defense. This extra defender enabled the Hittites to move their chariots in close to enemy forces while staying protected, easily crushing most foes.

With these advantages, the Hittites expanded their empire beyond Asia Minor. About 1595 BC, they sacked Babylon. This conquest weakened Babylon, which soon fell to another nomadic tribe, the Kassites, who ruled southern Mesopotamia for almost 400 years.

Hittite Culture
The Hittites, like the Akkadians and Babylonians, blended their culture with the cultures around them. For example, they used Sumerian cuneiform to write their language. In addition, they developed a law code similar to that of Hammurabi.

The Hittites did make a crucial contribution of their own to Near Eastern culture. They were the first people in the region to master ironworking techniques. The Hittites used iron mostly for making ornaments, though later peoples adopted it for tools and weapons.

Hittite rule reached its peak in the 1300s, but the Hittites remained a strong force in western Asia until about 1200 BC. Their empire then fell to powerful raiders, known to historians only as the Sea Peoples.

The Assyrians and the Chaldeans
After the Hittite Empire fell, other peoples fought for dominance in western Asia. In time, the Assyrians used fierce determination and military might to become the supreme power in the region.

The Assyrians
The Assyrians were originally from northern Mesopotamia, near the city of Assur along the upper Tigris River. There, they grew barley and raised cattle. Like others in the region, the Assyrians also adopted many aspects of Sumerian culture.

Because the Assyrians’ land received fairly good rainfall and lay along major trade routes, many tribes invaded, seeking to control the area. Over the centuries, the Assyrians had often been dominated by other people.

The Assyrians briefly gained power in the 1300s BC and built an empire, but it did not last. Then about 900 BC the Assyrians regained strength. They built a new empire, which came to include all of Mesopotamia as well as parts of Asia Minor and Egypt.

The Assyrian War Machine
Assyria’s power relied on its military. Frequent warfare had hardened Assyria into a fierce warrior society. Its army included not only war chariots and foot soldiers but also a cavalry, all armed with iron weapons. In addition, Assyrian soldiers were masters of siege warfare. They used battering rams to pound through city walls or dug beneath the walls to weaken them.

Assyrian warfare also relied on terror to awe enemies and to control conquered areas. To spread fear, the Assyrians often killed or maimed captives. An Assyrian king recalled,

''“Many of the captives I burned in a fire. Many I took alive; from some I cut off their hands to the wrist, from others I cut off their noses, ears, and fingers; I put out the eyes of many.”''

Captives who lived were enslaved. In some cases, the Assyrians also split up and resettled conquered people to keep them from rebelling.

Assyrian Rule
The Assyrians created an efficient system to govern their vast empire. Kings ruled through local leaders, each of whom governed a small area of the empire. In that area, the local leader collected taxes, enforced laws, and raised troops for the army. A system of roads linked the distant parts of the empire. Over these roads, messengers on horseback raced with orders, troops moved with ease, and merchants carried on a thriving trade.

To maintain peace across the empire, the Assyrians ruthlessly punished anyone who opposed them. They were widely known and feared for their harsh treatment of anyone who opposed them. One Assyrian king boasted of his treatment of a group of rebels: “I fed their corpses—cut into small pieces—to the dogs, the swine, the wolves, the vultures.” Such brutality fueled bitter hatred toward the Assyrians.

In spite of such brutality, the Assyrians produced great cultural achievements. Perhaps the greatest was the library in Assyria’s capital, Nineveh. This huge library included more than 20,000 cuneiform tablets collected from across the empire. Among them were many from Mesopotamia, including the Epic of Gilgamesh. Today the texts this library preserved are a valuable source of information for scholars.

Like many other empires, Assyria began to decline over time. As the empire grew larger, the Assyrians found it harder to control. Seeing their chance, the Chaldeans, who lived in southern Mesopotamia, and the Medes, who lived in what is now Iran, joined forces. In 612 BC they captured and torched Nineveh. With its capital and government gone, the Assyrian empire came to a sudden end.

The Chaldeans
As Assyria crumbled, the Chaldeans swooped in to pick up the pieces. Taking much of southern and western Assyria, the Chaldeans formed their own empire.

The Chaldeans made the old city of Babylon the capital of their new Babylonian empire. Nebuchadnezzar II, the most famous Chaldean king, was known as both a warrior and as a builder. He fought the Egyptians and the Jews, capturing the Jewish capital of Jerusalem and taking many of its residents to Babylon as slaves. He also rebuilt Babylon into a place of splendor. Numerous palaces and temples, including an immense multistoried ziggurat, filled the city, and the Euphrates River flowed through the center. For himself, Nebuchadnezzar built a grand palace that, according to legend, featured the famous Hanging Gardens. There, thousands of trees and flowers grew on the terraces and roofs as if hanging in the air. Ancient writers listed the Hanging Gardens of Babylon as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

The Chaldeans, who like many others admired ancient Sumerian culture, studied the Sumerian language and built temples to Sumerian gods. The Chaldeans also developed a calendar based on the phases of the moon and made advances in astronomy. In Babylon, scholars charted the positions of the stars and used them to track economic, political, and weather events.

In spite of its achievements, the Chaldean Empire was short-lived. In 539 BC, less than a hundred years after they conquered the Assyrians, a people called the Persians conquered Babylon. With that event, the Chaldean Empire came to an end.

The Phoenicians
As great empires rose and fell, smaller states also emerged in western Asia. In an area called Phoenicia, city-states like Sidon and Tyre (capital of the Phoenicians) emerged as trading centers. Though the city-states of Phoenicia often came under the rule of foreign empires, the Phoenicians built a wealthy trading society whose legacy is still felt today.

Growth of A Trading Society
Phoenicia lay at the western end of the Fertile Crescent, along the Mediterranean Sea. Today most of the region once know as Phoenicia is the nation of Lebanon. The land of Phoenicia rose from a narrow coastal plain to rugged hills and mountains. Because farming was difficult and resources were limited, the Phoenicians turned to trade and the sea for their livelihood. They became expert sailors, dominating trade on the Mediterranean and sailing to ports in Egypt, Greece, Italy, Sicily, and Spain. Their ships even passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Phoenician explorers sailed south along the west coast of Africa as far as modern Sierra Leone, and possibly even farther. Some historians also think that the Phoenicians sailed to the islands of Britain to obtain goods.

As trade grew, the Phoenicians founded colonies along their trade routes. One of the most famous colonies was Carthage, on the coast of northern Africa. Carthage later became a powerful city in the Mediterranean in its own right.

Trade brought Phoenicians great wealth. Local resources, although limited, included valuable export items. Giant cedar trees from Phoenicia were prized for timber. A local shellfish produced a purple dye used to color fabric, a fabric that was costly but popular with the rich. The Phoenicians invented glassblowing—the art of heating and shaping glass—and glass objects became trade items as well. Other exports included ivory carvings, silverwork, and slaves.

The Phoenician Alphabet
Trade was not the Phoenicians’ only achievement. Perhaps their greatest achievement—and their most influential legacy—was their alphabet. To record their activities, Phoenician traders developed one of the world’s first alphabets. Letters and alphabets, which can be combined to form countless words, are more flexible than writing systems that use symbols or pictographs to represent words or ideas.

The Phoenician alphabet consisted of 22 letters, all consonants. As Phoenician traders traveled from port to port, many people adopted their new alphabet because it made writing easier. Among these people were the Greeks, who expanded the alphabet to include vowels and modified some of the letters.

The Phoenician alphabet influenced not only the ancient world but the modern one as well. The Greeks’ modified version of the old Phoenician alphabet is the ancestor of the modern alphabet we use to write the English language. Many civilizations, including our own, have benefited from the innovations of the seafaring Phoenicians.

Assignment
That is the end of this audio lecture. Here is your assignment:

 * Question #1: Who were the Indo-Europeans, and how have scholars traced their migrations?
 * Question #2: What was the major cause of the Hittites’ success as empire builders in Asia Minor?
 * Question #3: Do you agree or disagree with the position that ironworking was the greatest contribution of the Hittites? Support your answer.
 * Question #4: Who was Nebuchadnezzar II, and what legendary Chaldean achievement is associated with him?
 * Question #5: What were some of the key achievements of the Assyrian and Chaldean empires?
 * Question #6: Was the Assyrian use of terror and brutality as a means of control successful? Explain your answer.
 * Question #7: Where and what did the Phoenicians trade?
 * Question #8: Why did the Phoenicians focus on trade by sea for their livelihood?
 * Question #9: Why is the Phoenicians’ alphabet considered one of their greatest legacies?

Thank you very much for listening to this. Goodbye.


text:
Wikiversity:Child protection policy

This policy addresses concerns related to protecting our younger participants to keep them safe.

General
Wikiversity participants often assume a level of maturity on the part of learners. Learning resources and discussions may reflect this assumption. Parents are strongly advised to supervise their children and review resources before giving their child or children permission to use and contribute to Wikiversity.

A machine readable notice must be placed at the top of resources intended to be appropriate for children, containing a general disclaimer which will hopefully permit access by child protection software. Resources intended to be appropriate for children must not depict adult situations, including files of an explicit or sexual nature, sexually suggestive content, discussion of drug use, or similar material. Resources without this machine readable notice may not be appropriate for children.

Resources which no longer intend to be, no longer are, or are not appropriate for children must not include this machine readable notice. If you add inappropriate material or files to resources intended to be appropriate for children, you may be blocked for 7 days, unless there is a consensus that the resources in question should no longer attempt to be appropriate for children and the notice was removed beforehand. If a decision to block for more than 7 days is needed, discussion will begin at Community Review.

We are endeavoring to see whether child protection software can filter works which do not contain a machine readable notice.

Bullying

Wikiversity has a zero tolerance policy towards bullying. You are expected to act with civility towards one another. If you condone or bully another person you may be (temporarily) blocked. If you feel that another person on Wikiversity is behaving in a way that is distressing, please tell a responsible adult to notify the custodians. Do not continue to communicate with the other person. Do not give out personal information to anyone.

See also: Civility

Pedophiles
Wikiversity has a zero tolerance policy regarding pedophiles. Anyone condoning pedophilia or identified as a pedophile will be blocked indefinitely. If you are a younger editor and feel that another person on Wikiversity is behaving in a way that you feel threatens your personal safety, please tell a responsible adult to notify the custodians. Do not continue to communicate with the other person. Do not give out personal information to anyone.

Action
If you believe a person is violating this policy, please report it at Request custodian action. If a decision by the community is needed the discussion may be moved to Community Review for review by the community.

title: Wikiversity:Child protection policy


text:
Human Legacy Course/Quiz 5

{Please tell if this statement is true or false. If it is false, explain why: The Hittites were a warlike Indo-European tribe that settled in the region known as Asia Minor around 2000 BC. -False; The Hittites settled in Europe. +True -False; The Assyrians were a warlike Indo-European tribe that settled in the region known as Asia Minor around 2000 BC. -False; The Hittites settled in Asia Major.
 * type=""}

{Please tell if this statement is true or false. If it is false, explain why: The Hittites refused to learn from others or to blend elements of different cultures into their own. -True -False; They used the Phoenician alphabet and developed cities. +False; They used Sumerian cuneiform and developed a code of law similar to the Code of Hammurabi. -None of the Above.
 * type=""}

{Please tell if this statement is true or false. If it is false, explain why: The Assyrians’ power rested in their ability to negotiate peace with neighboring countries. +False; Assyrian power relied on military strength. -False; Assyrian power relied on service from their slaves. -True -None of the Above.
 * type=""}

{Please tell if this statement is true or false. If it is false, explain why: Under the Assyrian system of government, kings ruled through local leaders, each of whom governed a small area of the empire. -False; Kings ruled through state leaders. -False; Local leaders governed large portions of the empire. -False; This was under the Phoenician system of government. +True
 * type=""}

{Please tell if this statement is true or false. If it is false, explain why: Because farming was difficult and resources were limited, the Phoenicians relied on trade and the sea for their livelihood. -False; The Phoenicians relied on their knowledge and the alphabet for their livelihood. -False; Because trade was difficult and resources were limited, the Phoenicians relied on farming and the sea for their livelihood. +True -None of the Above.
 * type=""}

title: Human Legacy Course/Quiz 5


text:
Wikiversity talk:Child protection policy

Pedophiles
Clearly this section, and this policy in general, is a reaction to some of what has gone on recently on Commons which has resulted in Ottava Rima being indefinitely blocked there. It is my understanding from a quick look at some of the discussions on Commons that there is some kind of WMF level policy on paedophiles. Can anyone assist in clarifying what if any WMF policy on this issue there is? Adambro 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by Sue Gardner, WMF Executive Director. Tyciol was a registered member here, many other WMF projects, and other places. There is multiple bits of evidence revealed that he was an admitted pedophile and an advocate for pedophilia. There are others that have existed in the past but never has there been such disregard for the safety of children as demonstrated on Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the section with some language from to ensure consistency. Ottava Rima (talk)  16:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Gardner writes, "zero tolerance for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy is just common sense". In other words, it's an assumption that needn't be backed up with facts or logic, because the argumentum ad lapidem will suffice. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Files
I don't like the requirement to get permission before using certain files. If anything the requirements should be the same as is suppose to be the case with the use of fair use files. That is files need to be directly relevant to the topic being discussed, and can only be used if its absence would greatly decrease the educational value and completeness of the work. -- dark lama  17:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Permission for identified "private" individuals is required by websites under US law. However, WMF doesn't necessarily follow it based on (what I've been told) counsel stating that we are exempt as a charity organization. However, schools and other institutions do follow the rules, which is why there are parental permission forms and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the Commons policy on the matter, but it was done under the assumption that we have exemptions as a charity and does not consider the potential harm to minors, especially without parental permission (as a minor lacks the legal ability to sign over permission of their image). Remember, these websites are be allowed both non-commercially and commercially, and many parents may be upset that their child's image is used commercially without their permission. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I mean the requirement that files depicting nudity or sexually explicit files require permission from Wikiversity administrators. -- dark lama  18:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we are an educational environment and it is illegal for those under 18 in the US to view such material. So, if we are going to have the pages, the Colloquium (not admin) discusses if the material is appropriate. "Art" is also to be discussed at the Colloquium, as the term describes both Michaelangelo and 19th-century cartoons of people having graphic sex. Obviously, one is allowed in schools and the other is not. Once verified by the community as acceptable, a warning will be put at the top to ensure that those who are not allowed to view the material in their community are warned. This is a measure to allow us to be unblocked by school protection programs such as Lightspeed. We are currently blacklisted by many of these programs for our connection to large amounts of porn found throughout the WMF site. This policy would be a way to justify asking for us to be removed from their blacklists. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * We are also for university level courses, where such depictions can happen. Just as the proposal is requiring children get permission from their parents before posting their own picture and the like, children should also be expected to gain their parent's or guardian's permission before registering and/or viewing any page on Wikiversity. -- dark lama  19:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think part of what we should remember here is that the vast majority of contributors will understand and respect that controversial material should only be used in certain limited circumstances. We should trust contributors to be able to make these decisions themselves and not require formal approval, it just sounds overly bureaucratic. Of course where people disagree those decisions can be discussed but the problem in my view is not really good faith contributors who will on the whole do the right thing, it is vandals inserting inappropriate images. Requiring approval isn't going to do anything to address that problem. Adambro 19:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with Adambro too. -- dark lama  19:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The language is to verify to those like Lightspeed that we have measures to protect students from material that is deemed inappropriate. Right now, we are blocked in many schools because we are blacklisted as part of a WMF blacklisting based on the pornographic content at Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the suggestion that Wikiversity is blocked in many schools, how do you know? I ask because we need to be able to judge how effective any measures we put into place are. Knowing whether schools accept these measures and unblock the site will allow us to assess their effectiveness and improve them as necessary. Adambro 21:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Word of mouth. I've had a project dating back 3 months now about monitoring the ramifications of WMF's pornography on our relationship with schools. The Lightspeed website discusses the rating. Here is their website. I was in brief email contact with them but, in my experience, they aren't too communicable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently they updated our status from R to G, which is nice. I guess that explains why they stopped responding to me (i.e. I guess they figured the matter was settled for now). They were the ones I bothered with. There are others that have blocked and there are programs like "Fortress" that allow schools to do their own blocking. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If they are already satisfied this seems like overkill, not that I agree with deciding policy based on what filters thinks of Wikiversity. -- dark lama  23:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This policy on files appears to be an attempt by Ottava to have a more restrictive policy than is present at Commons. Unless you prevent use of Commons as a repository for Wikiversity, the intent at least is moot. Adrignola 14:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that Ottava does appear to want Wikiversity to be more restrictive than Commons, which I disagree with doing and I see no benefit to doing either. Filtering software can be used for anything and can filter things that a person would not of filtered. While having only some of Wikiversity's contents filtered would be better than being completely filtered, I don't agree with going out of the way to get on or off some list. Wikiversity should not be influenced of swayed by the standards of other organizations.
 * I propose that the section on "Sexually explicit or enticing material" be removed entirely. -- dark lama  14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the users I have talked to on Skype or IRC support the prevention of any pornographic material being used here, whether uploaded or merely linked. It is also against US law to allow access to such material to those under 18. It is a necessary component to defining a proper use of an educational environment. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Off wiki discussions aren't exactly trusted by some people, and at a minimal decisions made off wiki are often considered to hold no weight on wiki. Oh and your still referring to pornography when I am not. Some people consider nude artwork to be pornography and some people do not. Illustrations depicting genitalia even though they may be educational may be considered pornographic by some people and not by others. What pornography is and isn't varies from person to person which is another reason not to have such vague requirements. -- dark lama  16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Commons only allows CC-BY-2.0 or GFDL images. Many images released here are released as part of class room activities with many teachers having the images taken as part of the class. Many images are not licensed to the same standards of the above but in a manner that relies on fair use or other principles, and many images are deleted by user request. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Commons accepts a wider range of licences than that but I think the point is that, since I've not seen any suggestion that we stop accepting fair use, we will always potentially have files upload locally which may raise concerns. There is of course also an enormous number of images on Commons which could potentially be used. This means that whatever happens we are realistically going to need some policy on handling file uploads and the use of files. There are some child protection considerations here but I would note that the first sentence of the current "Files" section deals with images of any individuals, not just minors. We should probably consider moving that to a more general image usage policy. Adambro 14:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see files uploaded by everyone as being able to affect minors, but I would have no problem if a more generic statement is made at a file policy and a more targeted statement is made here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm simply being pragmatic. You can go ahead and have a policy for files that can be uploaded locally, such as fair use files.  But for files that are under a license that Commons accepts, the bureaucratic requirements in the Files section will be ignored.  People will upload the files to Commons and link to them here and bypass it all.  Only a small subset of files depicting individuals or their voices will be fair use and thus subject to Wikiversity policy.  As for files being deleted by user request, any of the 7,000 files here under a compatible license can be uploaded to Commons and the deletion will be significantly more difficult, especially if they are then used at another project.  Just something to keep in mind. Adrignola 15:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Links to here can be deleted, so we still have some control over what content is used and how it can be used. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently so. A user added a picture legitimately hosted on Commons to the policy page and it was removed for not having permission from the person depicted.    Let's boil down what this policy would be: censorship on Wikiversity for the protection of minors. One would think the lessons of people censoring content objectionable to those at Wikipedia at Wikiversity would have been learned.  Also, looking into the background of the indef block of Ottava on Commons makes me believe there's a conflict of interest going on here. Adrignola 21:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did indeed remove the image for two reasons. Firstly, I didn't seem a particularly appropriate image for a policy in my view but also, its removal did illustrate what enforcement of this policy would look like. That isn't to say I agree with it entirely but I do think it isn't really appropriate for us to be using illustrations like this, particularly not in these circumstances. An image of kid apparently being beaten up by another kid is likely to be upsetting to some of those directly involved and their parents. I think it would be insensitive for a website like Wikiversity to casually use such an image to decorate a policy and that is all it was, decoration, it served no real useful purpose. You are right I feel to draw attention to some of the background here in relation to Ottava, who was responsible for initially drafting this, and I did mention this in my first comment on this page. Rightly or wrongly, Ottava has been blocked indefinitely as a result of edits on Commons relating to this subject. My impression is that Ottava holds some strong views on this issue and so it is right that we carefully review what is being proposed to ensure it is proportionate. This policy should provide reassurance that we treat the issue of child protection seriously. It shouldn't scare people away by giving the impression that Wikiversity has a large problem. I think we're heading in the right direction now but there remains a long way to go I feel. Adambro 22:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell...
This policy is currently summarised by the statement: "Information that could potentially cause harm to minors is strictly forbidden to ensure that Wikiversity is an educational environment that is welcoming to schools of all types."

I'm not sure this is an accurate description of the current draft nor would it describe a policy that I could ever agree with. We shouldn't simply forbid "information that could potentially cause harm to minors". I think that is far too broad and could relate to a lot of otherwise legitimate topics. Yes, as an educational website, minors are clearly a key target audience but it isn't the only target audience. I think they key is ensuring that potentially harmful information, whatever that actually means, is limited and only presented here where appropriate.

Whilst I've expressed my dislike of the idea of adding disclaimers to particular pages, I do note that concerns have been raised about this site being blocked by educational institutions. It would be useful I think to discuss a bit about whether we can go some way to dealing with that problem by marking content. The main question I think is how do these content filtering systems differentiate between content? Could adding a particular template help with this? Adambro 19:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think legitimate topics can harm minors. Even if there is a fringe one or two people who do, they would not have the ability to claim that over everyone else. If you have a better summary of the child protection policy, please feel free to rework it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, having a warning about the material at the top is a standard system that would allow us to be in compliance. It is simple and easy. The filters don't differentiate between content. They simply make it so you can't access a website completely. Ottava Rima (talk)
 * So there is a specific warning that we can place at the top of a page that will allow standard content filters to recognize the page as "forbidden content"? That is something we should have a guideline or policy on immediately, with policy about adding or removing such warnings. Some pages, indeed, might only be accessible through transclusion of a page that has the warning, the warning page could be full protected. This might not be hard to develop and enforce. --Abd 21:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A "warning" namespace might cover this.... --Abd 21:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to that, but I have heard word that there could be such a thing. It would be easier to ask for one through the WMF. I was referring only to putting a warning notice at the top of the page as a banner saying "Explicit content not recommended for audiences under ___ age". If others have other suggestions about ways we could deal with it, that would help. We just need -some- way to deal with it so we don't have to have a 100% ban of all material that could be deemed associated with "sexual" content. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikiversity would be better off with some notice than requiring administrator permission to host content, which IMO could just as easily discourage Universities from wanting to use Wikiversity and contribute to Wikiversity. -- dark lama  23:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My discussion with professors has led me to believe that less porn is the only way to get more professors, not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said porn or for the matter anything about there needing to be more or less of anything. What fields are the professors in that you've been talking to? I think talking with a wider verity of Professors in more fields might yield different impressions of what is needed. Different professors will have different needs. Art, Sexology, Biology, Criminology, Medical, etc. Don't get me wrong though, there is probably hundreds of images if not more than that depicting similar things and any given Professor might only need a few for their educational purposes. OTOH what file best conveys what someone is trying to teach will likely vary from Professor to Professor, and limiting their options and requiring permission to use a file isn't likely to be helpful or benefit them in the long run. I think the problem is that the amount seems excessive when seen together. Someone teaching a class knows more about what they need than us, who are we to stand in their way? Personally I think if the mediawiki software kept track of the last time a file was used anywhere that would make getting rid of unused file easier, than there would be less need to speculate on whether any particular file is likely to ever be used. -- dark lama  00:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've talked to those in Literature, Politics, History, and Philosophy directly about the above. And "sexology" isn't an honestly acknowledged subject and is only chosen by a few trendy universities. Universities are against porn in general because most people realize that such things are not academic and done solely to titillate. It is embarrassing to our reputation and not something appropriate for Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lost performative
This proposed policy states, "Identified minors will be prohibited from adding such files, from editing material related to such files, and from other actions that are prohibited under US and Florida law." So, we are to have a list of "identified minors"? Where do we get this information? Self-supplied? How is this to be enforced? What if a minor, doing Recent Changes Patrol, sees and reverts an edit involving sexually explicit material. Do we block the minor? What does "prohibited" mean, in practice?

I think we should first identify what reasonable and realizable goals we'd like to see a child protection policy accomplish. An open web site probably can't protect children from all hazards. A "pedophile" may be able to email a child user. Do we disallow email access for identified minors?

And would this have any beneficial effect at all? Are we going to require proof of age to register? Who is going to monitor and administer all this? --Abd 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be those we know who are minors. We don't have to know their age, but we can delete images when information comes out that they are under age. Prohibited means that we do not tolerate them editing such material and we make it known that there would be a problem. I do not think this will result in blocks, as there shouldn't be that much material to even begin with. It is mostly something to say that we are willing to comply with the law. Email access is not something we can really disallow, but we can warn children about the possible problems that could result from open email access and encourage them to notify about any problematic emails sent to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikiversity would be better off with some parental disclaimer. I think parents should take responsibility and decide what their kids can and cannot do, whether or not their kids can participate at Wikiversity, to decide what material they consider to be age appropriate for their kids, what their kids can and cannot share about themselves. -- dark lama  23:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Parents are not able to violate the law and provide pornographic material to those under 18. So, it isn't just about what parents say or do. Ottava Rima (talk)

COPPA and collection of information, rule
COPPA rules

Other commenters were concerned that including public postings in the definition of collects or collection would confer liability on operators of general audience (i.e., non-child-directed) chat sites for unsolicited postings by children.\17\ The Commission believes that these concerns are legitimate, and therefore the Rule now provides that such sites would only be liable if they (1) have actual knowledge that postings are being made by a child under 13, and (2) when they have such knowledge, fail to delete any personal information before it is made public, and also to delete it from their records.

So, if we collect information about the ages of our contributors, we create a massive administrative burden, it seems to me. I would suggest that we consult with Foundation counsel about this before we dive into our own solutions. We could be creating a monster. We can, however, certainly have a process that sets up standard warnings for content that should not be provided to children. We also can decide not to host such content. But, here, COPPA is concerned about information provided by children and the removal of it. Simply registering an account with an email address and email access provided would be "dangerous" for children. And we really have no way to prevent it or detect it. What does the Foundation want us to do? They are the ones at legal risk. As to risk to children, we may be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.... There is no substitute for parental involvement with children.... --Abd 21:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We wont be collecting information of these users on Wikiversity. However, I personally had to have oversighted three middle schoolers posting up their full names and locations on their user pages before. Applyng for COPPA would be 1. what the WMF has already for registering names (i.e. there is a link to parental stuff) and 2. deleting any personal information from these individuals. The second part would also be part of protecting them in general, as minors don't realize the implication of putting their personal information out on the internet. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Abd. Policy is no substitute for parental involvement with their children. I think providing a clear warning to parents is the only realistic thing that Wikiversity can do. -- dark lama  23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is basically what we would be doing besides removing identifying information for those under 13. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, that isn't what the current proposal is doing. -- dark lama  14:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Additionally, personally identifying information (name, age, location, and email) from children under 13 will be immediately removed and hidden from view." Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is more to the current proposal than that, and there is no attempt to warn parents. -- dark lama  16:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "warning parents" is part of the current registration. I don't really see anything that is different than what we have had already in practice since I started in mid 2008. I was involved in at least 5 oversights of this material. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The COPPA rules about obtaining parental permission doesn't apply to Wikimedia projects. Registration is not required for the use of our websites, and the current interpretation of COPPA is that this restriction applies to sites that require registration and vested participation in what could be a harmful environment.  Where COPPA does apply is, as Ottava Rima mentioned, self-disclosure of personal information by a minor under 13.  This is what we current suppress globally by the policy on meta.  Someone simply revealing that they are 12 without any other information that can confirm this identity does not mean that the user cannot contribute without permission or cannot participate at all.  The purpose of COPPA as it relates to use is to mitigate the users disclosing too much information about themselves.  Keegan 19:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Broaden scope of protection, be advisory
Child protection is about more than privacy and security from abuse (focus being sexual abuse). The practicalities of ensuring age and expecting permission from parents or guardians seem rather unrealistic. Perhaps we could write more in an advisory tone. We should add a section with advice to exercise caution, and seek parental advice before attempting activities described in some wikiversity pages. Some activities may expose children to physical and mental risk.. etc. I think widening the scope, and writing in advisory tones of protection would make this policy better. Leighblackall 05:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia separates their policy that deals with blocks from the page that is advice for parents. We can have two different pages, and the advice page doesn't need to be a "policy". Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I find Wikipedia's separation makes it harder to understand their community standards and expectations. I think advice for parents should be part of any page about child protection. -- dark lama  14:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't good to mix blocking standards with general philosophy or warning. Plus, a page dealing with blocks needs to be policy. A warning to parents does not, nor does it even need consensus. Why not just call the warning to parents "Child protection" or something similar and link that to the registration or the welcome template? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mergers
The "Personal Information" and "Files" sections should be merged with Privacy policy as they relate to privacy more than they do with protection. The "Bullying" section is strongly related to being civil and is something that should apply to anyone not just children. -- dark lama  18:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Policies are allowed to overlap. The Privacy policy should have all material about privacy there. The Child protection policy should have all material about child protection. Overlap is fine, just as there is overlap with civility policies, blocking policies, deletion policies, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy overlaps can lead to inconsistencies that make following policy that much more difficult for people to do. I've incorporated the content of the Files section into the Privacy policy proposal for people to see. The content was broad enough to apply to anyone, not just children. The privacy policy proposal also has a personal information section now, as well as a section for young contributors. I think the only part of the personal information section from the child protection policy proposal that should be kept is the part about requiring permission from parents to register. I think the requirement to have permission from parents to register can be included in the General section somehow. -- dark lama  00:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal Ramification?
Seems throughout this discussion Ottava has been referring to legal issues/concerns. Ottava has also mentioned that WMF's legal counsel has stated that Wikiversity and the other projects are exempt from the very concerns brought up by Ottava. I think there could be legal ramifications or repercussion from making this proposal a policy that could be avoided by respecting what WMF's legal counsel has stated, rather than assuming to know better than WMF's legal counsel which could be seen as wikilawyering. -- dark lama  19:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"machine readable notice"
The current draft of the policy suggests that we mark "resources which are not appropriate for children" with a "machine readable notice". I assume "machine readable notice" means a template of some kind but I before making this policy we need to discuss what such a notice would look like. Another consideration is what would we have to do to "allow child protection software to detect and filter such works" as the policy currently says? Is there some industry standard? I'm somewhat uneasy by this whole concept of marking "resources which are not appropriate for children" though. What definition of content inappropriate for children would we be working to? Are there some widely accepted guidelines or relevent US laws to provide a definition we could agree to adopt? Adambro 20:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This describes a few options for self labelling of content which could be worth investigating further if we did decide to start trying to mark content as not appropriate for children. Adambro 20:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll read up on this, and try and share some concrete ideas soonish... cheers, Privatemusings 01:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

policy
being a bold wiki chap, I marked this as policy, because I believe it should be so. I'd be very happy indeed if improvements were made, and I'd been really really happy if the tag is only removed by an editor who sincerely believes there is something deficient in the written policy, not solely on 'procedural' grounds, which seem to me to be avoidable hurdles. A note here indicating a change which would encourage a dissenting editor to support the policy would also be wonderful :-) Privatemusings 01:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I did undo it for procedural reasons. As for a possible deficient in the written policy, I was the one that proposed the bullying section be merged into the civility policy. Anyone can be bullied, not just children. Everyone should be protected from bullying. -- dark lama  01:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * yes indeedy on the last point - but I think there are still benefits to having a 'bullying' bit here - it seems to me likely to be something that external organisations like schools / clubs etc. look for specifically when assessing whether or not to allow their charges to engage in a project - a little redundancy therefore doesn't hurt us at all, and certainly does help :-)
 * on the 'policy' or not front, perhaps to help keep momentum we could note that barring objections, this will be ratified policy in something like 2 weeks? (do you have any further objections, or do you feel that something should change materially prior to this becoming policy?) - cheers, Privatemusings 06:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that redundancy has its place and has a functional purpose. I'm concerned by policy redundancy mainly because over time policies can change and changes aren't necessarily reflected consistently throughout, leading to conflicting requirements, this can be seen a lot with Wikipedia's policies for example. Arguably consensus elsewhere to change a policy should be enough reason to update other policies where redundancy exists, but experience suggests that isn't always agreed to, even though it makes sense to do so. I think people benefit from consistent policies, so redundancy would be less of an issue for me if there was some way to ensure that this would never become a problem for Wikiversity.
 * I have mixed views personally on how best to decide when a proposal should be a policy, but Wikimedia projects have a tradition of requiring discussion with a clear show of support or opposition to a proposal with a proposal only becoming a policy if most people share the common view that the proposal should be a policy. I'm not sure if any other method is considered an acceptable way for proposals to become a policy, or if Wikimedia projects are free to come up with other ways. I'm not sure who could be asked to find that out, maybe Sj would know. I'd be fine with adopting this policy without discussion when people start following it on their own and most people don't object when its followed, if that were a possible option. -- dark lama  13:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Discriminatory language
Child molestation is a crime in most western countries. Pedophilia is not. A law abiding pedophile would be hard to identify and probably shouldn’t be blocked. For example, breast feeding is pleasurable for most mothers. Should mothers who breast feed be blocked? What about an Afghan soldier who mentors a post pubescent boy? Should he be blocked simply because such relationships typically violate western child protection laws? --KBlott 03:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone who advocates pedophilic ideology are banned from teaching or being in positions of power around children in most Western Countries. In many, they are also put into mental institutions. Sue Gardner has stated that banning pedophiles is "commonsense" and this community agrees. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of us are victims of child molesters. Most often the perpetrator is a family member.  Such child rape leaves an indelible scar on the victim’s psyche.  This scar persists for life and is visible to anyone with feelings.  I understand that it is hard for you to acknowledge that not all pedophiles are criminals.   People should not be blocked from editing simply because they are mentally ill.  On the contrary, a chemically castrated pedophile should be welcomed to edit.  That way his actions can be carefully monitored by police.--KBlott 02:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The police don't monitor activities here, and are more than a tad unlikely to do so. We can't tell if someone is chemically castrated or not, if they continue to be, and whether or not the drugs are effective. Given that, the current approach seems to be the best course, as it only applies to those advocating paedophilia or identified as paedophiles. I'd add that, per Ottava Rima, this aspect has community support across the projects.
 * Personally, I don't see this as assuming that all paedophiles are criminals, just that in this environment the community has felt that banning identified paedophiles is the best way to protect children here - and given the nature and scope of the project, I can't see a better alternative, either. - Bilby 12:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Someone who advocates pedophilic ideology are banned from teaching or being in positions of power around children in most Western Countries." Do you have a citation for that? Bilby, I realize you may be simply the messenger here, but I don't see how banning identified pedophiles would protect children, since it would do nothing about the unidentified pedophiles. A person who wished to prey upon children would be likely to refrain from identifying himself as a pedophile, since that could draw scrutiny toward his interactions.

 * But at any rate, Wikimedia projects are not the typical places where people interested in those kinds of relationships or interactions would tend to seek out partners. There's not as much privacy, for one thing (unless people go to email), and the sites are not geared toward sexuality, so attempts to strike up relationships would be off-topic and therefore frowned upon even in the absence of this sort of policy.

 * It may be true that several Wikimedia projects have adopted or considered some kind of child protection policy with similar wording as this one, but that doesn't mean that it's wise to do so here. Wikiversity has special concerns with respect to academic freedom. Harris Mirkin, chairman of the political science department at the University of Missouri's Kansas City campus, wrote an essay that would have gotten him banned by the Wikipedia ArbCom pursuant to that project's policy of indefinitely blocking editors who engage off-wiki pedophile advocacy. Of course, some legislators argued, "Legitimizing molestation doesn't fall under academic freedom." But as Sheldon E. Steinbach, general counsel of the American Council on Education, commented, "The appropriate place to debate the legitimacy of a professor's thought is in the marketplace of ideas. Today's heresy often becomes tomorrow's orthodoxy."

 * Lenore Skenazy's Free Range Kids devotes several pages to the topic of internet predators, noting that according to research by David Finkelhor, the kids who attract sexual remarks, comments, or overtures online tend to be kids who are going to sexually oriented sites, and are appearing online in a sexualized persona, using sexy names or decorating their network sites with suggestive stuff. According to Finkelhor, most of the remarks received by kids "were the Internet equivalent of wolf whistles", including annoying but basically nonthreatening questions like "What's your bra size?" and "Are you a virgin?" Two-thirds of the youths who received these commments reported that they were not upset by them, and almost all of them handled the solicitations "easily and effectively" (e.g. by ignoring the question or telling the sender off). Also, a year-long study by Internet Safety Technical Task Force found that the people trolling for underage sex are usually not dirty old men, but people of roughly the same age as the people they're soliciting.

 * See also the Wikipedia article on the topic (which was pretty informative before it was butchered by [redacted by Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC) ]. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 * The proposal is not policy, it's a suggested policy, and is poorly written in certain ways.
 * Discussion of "child protection" seems to rapidly become discussion of "pedophilia," in spite of active pedophilia likely being low in frequency as to what is actually harming children. I find it offensive that Leucosticte describes Mirkin as if the late Mirkin's work was "pedophile advocacy." Mirkin made a pointm published academically, about social hysteria on the topic, something many have noted. The hysteria does not protect children, but possibly harms them. I don't see that anyone is working on making this page policy; if so, we'd need to fix the language, it was not soberly written.
 * There is apparently an overall WMF policy that is unwritten, it's been called a "zero-tolerance," but what exactly it is that is not tolerated is not clear. The Wikipedia policy, Child protection, has as lede:
 * Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely.

 * Discussion of this typically conflates "pedophilia" with child molestation. Pedophilia can be considered a sexual orientation, thus the policy conflicts with other policies prohibiting discrimination for sexual orientation. "Inappropriate adult-child relationships" is not defined. There is an obvious meaning: "whatever we think is inappropriate."
 * It is not simply "illegal relationships," which vary with jurisdiction; further, there is academic study on the topic which contradicts common wisdom. So what does Wikipedia follow? If you guessed "common wisdom," you'd likely be right.
 * There is little or no disagreement on the Wikipedia community prohibiting the use of Wikipedia to solicit sexual relationships with minors, and acting to protect minors. However, beyond that, as to banning for off-wiki advocacy, there is a lot of disagreement, and the matter was essentially decided by WMF fiat. Who decides what is "inappropriate"? The answer is, for Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee, and allegations must be private, not public. And yes, this makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but, then, "anything to protect the children!" I.e, the hysteria that Mirkin covered.
 * It is not our place to criticize the Wikipedia policy. Discussing the actions of individual editors on Wikipedia is well-known to cause disruption here. The attached page is a proposed policy here. I suggest we let sleeping dogs lie, and I will be requesting revision deletion for the outing, so I'm redacting it here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Mirkin's essay was pedophile advocacy. I said that it would have gotten him banned by the ArbCom pursuant to enwiki's policy against pedophile advocacy. This is because of how broadly "pedophile advocacy" is construed on enwiki, especially since there is little or no effective community oversight of those decisions, given the secretive nature of those ArbCom proceedings. People can vote the ArbCom members out, but it's hard for them to make informed decisions with regard to that, if they don't have the facts available to them. To find those facts, they would have to take the initiative to search around off-wiki (since it's forbidden to discuss those matters on-wiki); few voters will make the effort or know where to look if they do make the effort. See transparency.

 * The experience of enwiki with a similar policy is relevant to the decision of whether to adopt this policy at Wikiversity. If it's caused a lot of problems there, then perhaps it would cause similar problems here. Wikiversity, fortunately, has no ArbCom, so the damage inflicted by such a policy would probably be limited relative to what we've seen happen at enwiki with the great purges (documented at the since-deleted Ham & Eggs page, archive available here.

 * There seems to be growing consensus that pedophilia may be a sexual orientation, based on such characteristics as age of onset, correlations with sexual and romantic behavior, and stability over time; see wiktionary:Talk:pedophilia. What would be the implication of that? Society has often been willing to discriminate against some sexual orientations (e.g. homosexuality) while condoning others (e.g. heterosexuality). So this is nothing new.

 * Part of the justification has always been the alleged harm that people with these orientations could cause to children (in the case of gays, the adopted children of gay couples). Tom O'Carroll writes, "Nowadays, children are in a remarkably analogous position to that of the white women who used to be 'protected' by lynch mobs of Ku Klux Klansmen in the American South. The dominant white male culture of the old South in the slavery era held that women, like today's children, were not sexual beings; they were pure."

 * We've seen this type of persecution happen over and over again, with different groups as the targets; and we know what kinds of epithets used to be hurled at those who were allies of blacks and gays. It's the same way with teleiophilic/orthosexual allies of pedosexuals. After this, it will probably be some other group. This is the pattern that Mirkin identified.

 * It's interesting that these proposals have always been called "child protection" policies (although the original proposals by MZMcBride over at enwiki and meta were called "Pedophilia"). Wikis tend not to be all that great for social networking, compared to other social media. It seems like a red herring to suggest that kids are likely to meet up with pedophiles in the wikisphere; I've never heard of any recorded instance of it happening.

 * I agree with the revisiondeleting, if that was indeed outing of a user who didn't want his identity revealed publicly. That possibility hadn't occurred to me. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 * This gets way too complicated, way too quickly. Leucosticte, you know what happens with discussions where "pedophilia" is involved. It is possible to study the topic, and WMF policy and its history, but it would have to be done with rigorous adherence to ethical guidelines and neutrality policy.
 * If it is "criticism" of Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors, it will attract very unwelcome attention. Indeed, Jimbo lost his Founder tools as a (partial) consequence of using them here, to deal with Wikipedia criticism. (And the other major cause was his unilateral deletion of "porn" on Commons, so this is actually related.) Nobody is pushing this policy here. Arguing against it is inviting argument for it to appear. Wikiversity is not prepared to handle this, my opinion. Don't push it.
 * If you wish to do anything related to this topic here, ask on my Talk, and I'll point you to some precedents where work on a hot topic was allowed. I recommend you revert your last contribution to this proposed policy page, and you may blank my response, and drop it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "it would have to be done with rigorous adherence to ethical guidelines and neutrality policy." That's fine. Rejecting these kinds of child protection policies actually furthers the goal of adhering to a neutrality policy. The essay that resulted in the block from meta specifically criticized Wikipedia for carving out an exception to its NPOV policy.

 * "Nobody is pushing this policy here." Then why does the page say it's a proposed policy, rather than a rejected policy? If no one is around who would push for it, then there shouldn't be an objection to closing it as rejected. If there is no such objection, then I will do exactly that. Of course, anyone would be free to revert, if they wished to reopen discussion.

 * "Arguing against it is inviting argument for it to appear." So in other words, you're looking for security through obscurity. That's not very reliable. At any rate, people can just refrain to participate in conversations they don't deem useful. If that is their choice, then the threads will go dormant and eventually be archived, with no harm done. It happens all the time. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 23:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Virtuous pedophiles"
Abd writes, "This gets way too complicated, way too quickly." Perhaps it's best to split the topic up into its separate parts, and debate each individually. For example, suppose someone were to write on his off-wiki blog, "I'm a pedophile, though not of my own choosing. When I became a teenager, I discovered I was primarily attracted to children, although I wished then, and wish now, that I weren't. I believe that sexual relations between adults and children are harmful to children, and therefore I would never engage in such behavior. However, given that almost a quarter of the U.S. population is under 18, it would be inconvenient to avoid minors altogether. In fact, like many non-pedophiles, I also have non-sexual interests in teaching, parenting, etc. children."

Should such a person be barred from interacting with children via the wiki? The proposed policy states, "Wikiversity has a zero tolerance policy regarding pedophiles. Anyone condoning pedophilia or identified as a pedophile will be blocked indefinitely." Thus, if the off-wiki blog post were to be linked to a Wikiversity user, then he could be blocked indefinitely. Should that be the case?

A friend of mine, a supporter of Virtuous Pedophiles and self-described "Asexual Androgynous American Entrepreneur in their 20s", writes, "Heh... I'll be interested to hear what they say to that. I personally think censorship in all forms should be banned and I get easily frustrated in general about society's view of sexual attraction to children. Regardless of whether or not it's an orientation or an illness.... We should probably stop locking up our sick people and throwing away the key. If it's an orientation, that shows a problem with society. I would argue, again, children are being too sheltered, have too few rights (well, no rights, really), and sex is wrongly taboo. Also, if the kid's online, kid better be ready to handle being online. Guess I can't edit articles though for thinking this way. I was hoping to get with an eight-year-old by rewriting the article on the Australian Aboriginal Astronomy Project. I know that's the hot thing with kids these days." Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Handal

 Hello Handal, 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! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Handal


text:
User talk:Adu Paul

 Hello Adu Paul, 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! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Adu Paul


text:
User talk:Justindeal86

 Hello Justindeal86, 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! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Justindeal86


text:
Sindarin

Unit Summary

 * Course code: ALE-U-EDH1
 * Suggested Prerequisites:
 * Time investment:
 * Assessment suggestions:
 * Faculty: Humanities
 * School: Language and Literature
 * Department: Tolkien Languages
 * Stream: Elvish stream
 * Level:

Course Contents and Goals
This course will provide you with a complete knowledge of Sindarin, most spoken in Middle-Earth of the languages invented by Tolkien. This language is more or less the version devised in the Lord of the Rings (see the problem of the canon).

Learning materials
The following are principal learning devices used in this course, to which every lesson refers. Other materials may be required from time-to-time and their links will be provided in each lesson.

Textbooks for this course

Lessons

 * 1) Lesson 1

title: Sindarin


text:
User:Darenolson~enwikiversity

Daren Olson is an instructional designer with a PhD degree in Instructional Technology from Utah State University.

title: User:Darenolson~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Darenolson~enwikiversity

 Hello Darenolson, 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! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Darenolson. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Darenolson~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Darenolson~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Gallade42

 Hello Gallade42, 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! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gallade42