text:
User talk:S Larctia/Archive 1

September/October 2011
 Hello S Larctia, 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. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

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.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * 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.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 14:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

About Wikiversity inclusion policy
. Without impinging on academic freedom, Wikiversity cannot really vet research as valid or invalid. We do allow original research here, typically with disclosure. Sometimes it take some time before things are properly tagged. We have the highest latitude in user space. I'm not convinced that I understand what the user is doing, but it seems that he's examining a linguistic phenomenon, a concept.

Absolutely, this was inappropriate for Wikipedia, that was blatantly obvious. However, it's generally fine here. Precedent at RfD for articles like his: the RfD is generally a waste of time. Usually users, here, will be cooperative as to how they place and contextualize what they do, and others will be tolerant.

Next time you see a user putting up OR on Wikipedia, suggest they come here! You may find it more efficient than blocking or banning the user. Under some conditions, WV resources can be linked from WP articles, to show a place where a topic can actually be actively studied, rather than merely read about with an encyclopedic summary. Your loss is our gain, and our gain can also be your gain. Users active building resources here aren't active trying to build inappropriate articles there.

Hey, it worked for me. A year ago I cudn't evn spel adminerstrater, and now I are one.

Meanwhile, I'm a bit concerned that your post here could be seen as cross-wiki harassment. Just sayin'. Let's not go there, okay? --Abd 15:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia history and your attempted intervention here
S Larctia, taking a look at your Wikipedia contributions, I notice that you just registered the account August 31, but by Sept 2, you are editing a template to decline a request, and within a couple of days you are diving into AfDs, including filing them, and doing many other things that ordinary Wikipedians sometimes don't touch for years, with, then, an AN/I report that resulted in the block of a Wikipedia editor with over 8,000 edits and three years of no blocks, and no warning.

Let's say, S Larctia, that the situation is obvious. Please do not bring disruption to Wikiversity. You are welcome to help, regardless of your history -- we don't care what you have done at Wikipedia -- but we also take a dim view of harassment. Thanks. --Abd 17:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved your research project into your user space
It's now at [link removed that created double redirect]. Link was to "User talk:S Larctia/A comparison of the responses of the Wikiversity and Wikipedia communities to copyright violations and other disruptive editing" This page is now at User talk:Abd/Wikipedia, Wikiversity and disruptive editing --Abd 23:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In your user space, you will have great freedom to develop this, though caution should remain, because user space pages are still subject to civility restrictions. They need not be neutral, they may be drafts, etc. You may maintain "ownership" of the page in your user space, normally, that is, you may ask that others refrain from editing it, or you may allow others to contribute. It's up to you. I do recommend that you allow all editors to comment on the attached Talk page. Ownership of pages in user space is not absolute.

Meanwhile, you seem to be implying that there is some serious problem with copyright violation here, and that this is related to "banned users." Do you have any examples of copyright violations here that would need examination? There is a discussion taking place on User talk:Marshallsumter about this. If you know of actual copyright violation, real or merely in your opinion, would you please point it out so that it can be reviewed? Thanks. --Abd 14:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Abd, if you insist on ordering people around, I will have to go and find my block button. While I'm looking for the button, perhaps you'll look for your sense of egalitarianism. --SB_Johnny talk 21:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider becoming a custodian
I am fully aware that this username is either a fresh start or a secondary account. I will happily act as mentor if you would like to take the local tools for a spin, because I really think this project needs at least one more admin with a realistic and pragmatic view of things.

Cue wall of text from Abd... --SB_Johnny talk 21:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I would support the temporary adminship if it followed the pattern of Salmon of Doubt and that there was a community known standard that this would not result in a full nomination in addition to having clear and strict ways of removing if there are any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * It's really interesting to me, Ottava, that the "Salmon of Doubt affair" has become a positive model a couple-few years later. However, I'm not sure why you think that a "full nomination" was off the table. Good people is good people, as far as I'm concerned. --SB_Johnny talk 22:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Salmon of Doubt was positive. :P I think it made sense to have a structure where he went through, didn't get nominated at the end, etc. He did a good job in doing his games and then getting rid of them and moving on. :P Plus, if he would have just told me in the beginning who he was I would have had a lot less concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously impressed
I am, by your Candidates for Custodianship responses. That was excellent. I don't even care if you were sincere or not, but, in fact, I think you were. People who aren't sincere are not usually so able to so well imitate that kind of depth of understanding.

Hey, based on your comments, would you consider shifting your position on my candidacy? Up to you, of course. It has no effect on my support of your candidacy, which, to be clear, I now support, providing only a willing mentor (permanent custodian! -- I'd do it, but I'm not permanent, not yet!) and a closing 'crat. I suspect, now, that the candidacy will be successful, with or without a shift by you, but ... whatever. Good luck in any case. --Abd 23:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I now see that you did revise your vote. Thanks. To me, "permanent" isn't that important. What matters for custodianship is that with the tools I can do more than talk about serving the community, I can better serve it. Seems you have a similar idea.
 * However, please do understand that I have been a probationary custodian for about three months total. The first two periods ended, shall we say, abnormally, but not because of many bad custodial actions -- if any --; rather because of what amounted to, when examined closely, strong opposition by one former custodian; in the second period that same user was attacking the entire 'crat community, all three active 'crats. (Because they had allowed me to be a probationary custodian again.) One of the 'crats apparently concluded, and may have maintained the position, it seems, that it was All My Fault. I don't think so. But my point is that I do know the difference between my own opinion and the community consensus, and when I was desysopped both times, the disruption continued. It really was not about me at all. I have not been acting "deferentially," i.e, avoiding controversy. I'd have done nothing differently if I were a permanent custodian. --Abd 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Probationary custodianship
You are now a probationary custodian. Thanks for helping out - let me know if I can do anything. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in How to be a Wikimedia sysop/Wikiversity -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about beyond scope
I see you deleted PROVERBS FOR YOUTH and Human as being beyond scope. Can you explain how you reasoned that those two pages are outside Wikiversity's scope? -- dark lama  16:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks like the first one was duplicate material and a repost of work previously deleted, rather than beyond scope. Still haven't been able to come up with an educated guess for why Human was deleted on my own though. -- dark lama  17:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity, to me, is a repository of intellectual resources in a wider sense than Wikipedia is. However, I do not believe that a list of proverbs, selected for personal reasons, without commentary, falls under this scope. As for "Human", that simply isn't a useful educational resource. It's written in poor English and contains next to no information. If a young person or student wishes to write an essay on such a basic topic, I think they should put it under another title or in userspace. "Human" isn't really a topic at all (the topic is humanity), and a red link would encourage an editor to create a useful resource there. S Larctia 20:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll stick to deleting non-controversial blank pages and vandalism. No harm's done, I've got the message.S Larctia 11:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity is more than a repository for intellectual resources. Wikiversity is also a place where people can learn through interaction and sharing with one another. Generally there is an emphasis at Wikiversity that people need to put a greater effort into finding ways to turn people's good faith efforts into learning opportunities.
 * A list of proverbs may be just the starting point for intellectual learning. From there many learning paths may unfold, depending on the interest of participants at Wikiversity. Young learners could be asked to share what they think the proverbs means or what significants the proverbs have and from there it turns into a course on philosophy and/or cultural studies.
 * Generally poor English is a poor reason to delete and may discourage people from sharing their knowledge. AGF applies to resources written in poor English. As long as people are trying to share knowledge their effort should be appreciated. Also by correcting poor English, people may learn how to use English a bit better, which provides another opportunity to learn at Wikiversity which is important. The resource could have been renamed to Humans or Humanity if you felt that is more descriptive of the topic.
 * I guess I should also go ahead with letting you know, with few exceptions, you shouldn't delete any page that isn't obvious vandalism without community consensus, because it is likely to be challenged otherwise. I myself have at times thought no page might encourage creation of useful resources than what was currently present, and the community hasn't agreed. -- dark lama  21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Darklama, seen in isolation, the first might seem problematic (and, S Larctia, listen up! notice Darklama's apparent inclusionist approach. It's common here.) However, PROVERBS FOR YOUTH was mainspace created by Mr. burmese etc., almost certainly. I originally moved all of this user's pages into that namespace, once it existed. I've been attempting to communicate with the user, to no avail. No response, and mainspace pages continue being created. So I started to just delete them, most of the content was duplicated, and I've started to block IP and at least one account (possibly the user's real name). I'd happily help this user to do what's legitimate, and the user might be able to contribute userful educational resources. But cooperation is essential. I agree with the deletion of that first page. It is beyond scope. It would be allowed in the user's user space, and that's where I think we want the user to learn to place pages like this.

 * Human, however, was created as a stub by Jtneill. The editor who created the text is a new editor, and his English is not great. However, this is an attempt to create an educational resource. Part of the Wikiversity philosophy is learning by doing. Students --- and we are all students, "scholars" is the term often used by old-time Wikiversitans -- write papers, effectively. These are not expected to be developed, authoritative resources. Do remember that Wikiversity is also for young editors. The pages may be, rather, seeds that can grow into more developed resources. Some essays might be subpages, and that includes even material that is "wrong." We handle this by building structure, at least that's my concept. This idea seems to be popular here, and it allows us to be highly inclusive without being, ultimately, anything other than neutral. Genuine neutrality *incorporates* all POVs. I'm undeleting Human; if you still wish to ask for it to be deleted, WV:RFD would be appropriate. And thanks for your work. Little by little, we go far. --Abd 17:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes at first I saw the first one in isolation. However I than noticed S Larctia had blocked the contributor that created it and from there found some more details. I was thinking of going to you next as I noticed you might be the reason why S Larctia acted in the way they did. I'll air my thoughts here now though, since you injected here, and S Larctia could possibly benefit from it as a probationary Custodian.
 * I wonder if the move to user page resulted in the user being unable to find the page and that is why they kept duplicating it. I wonder if they have not seen the comments left on their user discussion page, as they seem to rarely be logged in for whatever reason. I wonder if they might have difficulty with English, as the grammar seems a bit odd, and two dissimilar IP addresses used both originate from Cambodia. I wonder if finding someone who can write in Khmer would help the situation. You mentioned on Mr. burmese's discussion page that Wikiversity isn't an Encyclopedia, which suggests you probably believe the material belongs at Wikipedia. I noticed doing a Google search similar pages were deleted from Wikipedia too. I have doubts that the move to userspace made sense, essays are allowed in mainspace. I think it is likely unfortunate the user has to be blocked due to lack of communication, but that doesn't mean all their contributors should be regarded as inappropriate for Wikiversity. -- dark lama  18:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Darklama, the original pages were created by IP. I don't recall the exact history. I think I moved one of the pages to User:Abd/Playspace; but in any case, the user registered Mr. burmese, and began creating pages in that name. They were moved to Mr. burmese userspace and redirects were left in place for a time precisely so that the user could find them. I think he did find at least one. The user continued such page creations in mainspace. Then registered more accounts. See User talk:Mr. burmese. I've been willing to go further than any custodian of whom I'm aware to allow this user to at least have the pages on himself and his family in his user space. But he's not cooperating. No responses to any comments or warnings.
 * We may disagree about what belongs in mainspace. Essays belong there, my opinion, but generally not at the top level. And this is complex issue, having to do with overall Wikiversity organization, which was never a settled thing. Essays do belong on Wikiversity, generally, i.e., they can find a place. I've moved things I thought inappropriate for mainspace to user space because it's clear they can be there. If I left them in mainspace, good chance they'd be deleted. I've seen, looking back, plenty of stuff deleted at RfD that wouldn't have been touched if it had been in user space. --Abd 04:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Z-test & deletion
Thanks for jumping in and being bold by speedy deleting some pages. Another option is to develop such pages. FYI, I've restored and subsequently expanded Z-test. Note also to check what pages link to a page considered for deletion, so we don't also create broken links. If in doubt (i.e., most articles except obvious vandalism), can I suggest using an article's talk page and/or contacting contributors first, to establish some context, then nominating for either speedy deletion or deletion at RFD so that the proposed deletion can be reviewed? Perhaps you could review pages currently nominated for speedy deletion and if you haven't already, check out the proposed deletion policy WV:D. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought it was alright to delete pages which.are blank under any circumstances. It's better to have a red link than a contentless page.S Larctia 12:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest deleting blank pages only where they're clearly tests/experiments by new users, or don't serve any particular purpose and the author is no longer active etc. I'm not sure we simply delete blank pages as a matter of practice - pages on WV tend to be maintained by a single author, who may have had some clear intention in creating placeholder pages and will not benefit from a red link. Perhaps contacting users via their talk page, or slow deleting... That said, as James has mentioned, we don't really have a fixed deletion policy. If in doubt, don't hesitate to add a link to RCA for a second opinion. --Draicone (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I want to encourage your efforts to clean up Wikiversity. That's on the one hand. On the other, there are ways to do it that can be more welcoming and less disruptive. Before I had a very strong sense of the community consensus here, which made me a bit bolder, and when I was a custodian before, I would add a speedy deletion tag to a created article, and if the article had an indentifiable author, I'd notify the author. I'll still do that sometimes, when there is the slightest doubt for me. Whether or not to notify an IP editor who likely won't be logging in again with that IP and who therefore is unlikely to ever see the notice, is a judgment call. I've increasing inclined toward no, don't notify, but as far as possible, encouraging registering an account. For better or worse, registered editors get better treatment than IP editors, when it's marginal.
 * So I'm suggesting here that, with anything remotely possible to be accepted as a user page, at worst, and where you think that even that is unlikely, given that you are new here, either userfy or add a speedy deletion tag to create three things simultaneously.
 * An author or someone else may disagree by removing the tag. Unless this is obviously a vandal, from other edits, that seals it. No deletion without RfD.
 * Another custodian may agree and delete.
 * If there is a decent lapse, and after notification or other reasonable effort to detect opposition, you may then delete it yourself.

 * Note: this response accomplishes the goal of cleanup, it merely does it a bit more patiently. We have tons of crap. A little crap existing for a little longer does practically no harm.
 * One more point about blank pages. Sometimes a user blanking a page is requesting or intending page deletion. Sometimes they just intend to later improve it. Sometimes they are actually vandalizing or disagreeing with content. We will often assume the first. We routinely delete blank pages, but not knowing the level of your prior experience, I'll note that history should always be reviewed.
 * The real point is to be careful about being heavy-handed. At the same time, though, don't go for the other extreme, doing nothing. I really like what you've been doing, even though I'm making some suggestions about it. Thanks. --Abd 20:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On deletion in general (quick note from the "mentor")
It's good to see that the community has engaged you in what looks like a very constructive manner... there's pretty much nothing I could have told you ahead of time that would make the community's preference as clear as the reaction you've gotten from "being bold". You're definitely not "doing it wrong", at least not IMO.

To the other folks commenting here: I think the tone in these discussion has been truly laudable. If we're going to move the mentorship system forward and try to keep custodianship as a "no big deal thing", we should also see deletion and undeletion as a no big deal thing too.

S Larctia, if this "trial by fire" becomes stressful or annoying, you know where my talk page is. --SB_Johnny talk 18:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, SBJ. Disagreement, when approached constructively, is a sign of a healthy community. --Abd 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File copyright and licensing
You should inform users about issues with their uploads and give them at least a week to correct it. You can use to inform users about what information is needed. -- dark lama  12:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, in most cases I am doing that. When the user has been inactive for several months or longer, it seems unlikely that they will be around to correct it. Unambiguous copyright violations can presumably be deleted without any warning. Thanks. --S Larctia 14:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with deleting files that are not currently in use and were uploaded some time ago. I have doubts that my opinion reflects consensus though. You may wish to consider that inactive accounts are not necessarily an indication that a person is no longer present. People sometimes register an account for one off contributions, while continuing to learn by reading resources at Wikiversity long after the one off contributions. One off contributions may also be due to a person being mostly active at other Wikimedia projects. A message left on a person's talk page may notify that person by email too if they set that up in their preferences, and people have at times responded to that. For files in use, I suggest finding a replacement before deleting the file with the copyright issue, to minimize degrading resources for learners. -- dark lama  16:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'll try to notify the uploaders of all files which I delete, but only bother with the one week period for files which are not obviously copyright violations when the user has been active recently. Thanks. --S Larctia 16:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Choice of deletion reasons
deleted "History of Archaeology"  (Vandalism. Please help fellow participants learn: content was: "The earliest known bone fossils in existence are those from a "Tetchy Murphy."" (and the only contributor was "129.81.215.82")) (view/restore) Just FYI, I would have gone for the test page reason - it's a bit more AGF (and I've added a 'Welcome to Wikiversity' to the reason); it also includes a link to the sandbox. If nothing else, newcomers can experiment with the sandbox and get familiar with the wiki system, so that they're better able to contribute in future, even if to a different wiki. --Draicone (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'd missed that. The test reason is a great general reason, but yes, in this case that was an appropriate choice of deletion reason. --Draicone (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of alleged copyvio
User talk:Mr. burmese/Myoma U Than Kywe. Our user is almost certainly the author of the material. The deletion itself is fine, because this user is being totally unresponsive to suggestions and warnings and even blocks. However, deletion policy does suggest warning a user of impending deletion before deleting material based on copyvio. Copyvio is actually not an emergency, but I do suggest putting the wheels in motion. I'd have speedy tagged the page, if copyvio were the only issue (it's not), and warned the user, and I'd have waited a decent period, maybe weeks, before actually deleting. The tag sets the wheels in motion, because we review the category frequently. I might use a slow deletion tag instead; that's my invention (though it had some support and no opposition when suggested). Category:Slow deletion. It just gets reviewed less often, leaving speedies for more obvious cases. The idea would be to give the user time to establish ownership of the material, if possible. We might even establish slow deletion by month. The point is to set up process that gets the job done, while still providing maximum respect of our users.

For reference, from WV:Deletion policy: speedy deletion is used for Copyrighted works clearly used without permission. May delete one week after current contributors are notified."'' In this case, the lack of permission is not clear, or is debatable. The policy establishes a one-week minimum. Notification would be through the speedy tag and the user's talk page. Should we notify IP editors? We cannot treat them as the owner of the material, they would need to register. We might notify and encourage registration. --Abd 16:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

ASCII art
You notified the wrong person. I did not create nor am I in any way the maintainer of that page. I changed a category on it. The person that created the page copied it from Wikipedia where it was up for deletion. At the time I came across it, I assumed good faith. However that person is blocked at Wikiversity now, and anyone else adopting and turning it into an educational resource is less likely now. Juan de Vojníkov asked why it was previously deleted on the discussion page, so maybe they have a use for it. -- dark lama  20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you might want it because you undeleted last time someone speedied it. --S Larctia 21:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

About certain uploaded files
. See RFD. I undeleted this at the request of Sj, who happens to be a WMF Board member, but was here just trying to help with a resource. I notified him, he hasn't responded. No user has been willing to take responsibility for this file, so ultimately I placed a speedy deletion template on it to provide a clear up-down decision. I can't take responsibility for investigation as Sj had suggested might happen. I do agree that the user seems to have intended to grant license, and we might assume that, but I can't personally take on every such case. Any user may disagree and remove the speedy template (as you did, until you reverted yourself), and I'd not object. That user becomes responsible for the "copyvio," legally, which, as a practical reality, means nothing. The author isn't going to sue, period. Better to worry about being struck by lightning. We don't ask users to sign special releases when submitting text, and the copyright/license issue is really no different there, as to "self-authored" text or images. We merely allow users to specify a different license or to, for example, claim fair use.

Hmmph. I've convinced myself, so, for the benefit of the project, I'm taking responsibility, assuming I confirm that this is, on the face, authored by the uploader. Thanks for the opportunity to review this. If you disagree, I consent to your replacement of the speedy deletion tag, or, after that original week, to deletion itself. --Abd 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much sure that any own work uploaded comes under the GFDL if not otherwise specified. It's a bit of a grey area. --S Larctia 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm correct, at the date of upload, it would have been GFDL only. It's now GFDL and CC. But before I change the license information on the page to GFDL, per the user's stated "own work" and the fact of upload under the site license existing at that time, I'd like to see confirmation of that. I couldn't find it in the few minutes I had. I was willing originally to undelete based on a need for pages to review by non-custodians, i.e., temporary fair use. But we can do better than that, I think. Thanks for your comment. --Abd 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Motivation and emotion/Book subpage deletions
Thanks for trying to keep en.wv tidy via speedy deletes. FYI, students are currently developing subpages as assessment exercises - many of their pages are in the early stages of development and may not contain much content. Before consideration deletion could you please take a look at:
 * 1) Date of most recent edit
 * 2) Who has been editing - it may be a new user (in which case you might offer to help them e.g., via their talk page) - if I'm the editor, then I might be trying to help the user get started
 * 3) What pages link to this page (e.g., if its listed on Motivation and emotion/Book with a listed author, then the page is likely to undergo considerable development over the next 2 months. Please try to avoid creating broken links. If you delete a page, it's also your responsibility to fix/correct dead links.

I've restored the Grief, Achievement Motivation, and TV/Happiness subpages. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I simply assumed that they'd been blanked because they weren't needed anymore. --S Larctia 06:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do always check "What links here." I can understand a reluctance to leave blanked pages alone; it's noticed now, and might not be noticed again for a long time. You might consider using slow deletion tags, that was invented to allow a "notice" of a problem page to lead to eventual deletion unless someone removes the tag. I just placed Category:Slow deletion January on some pages where I'm allowing that long for a user to take responsibility for them. While some users do blank pages as an intention to delete them, blanking is also used just to get incomplete pages cleaned, with the idea that the prior work can be accessed in history.
 * I'm working on process that is both maximally welcoming and assisting, but that also results in cleanup.
 * In this case, however, these are part of a page structure being actively monitored and maintained by Jtneill. There are other pages being maintained by various teachers and professors. Generally, we can leave pages that are part of an active class structure alone, and if a teacher needs assistance, we can make sure that they know how to get it. So it can be useful to be aware of general class activity. I've seen teachers want blanked pages to be deleted, and others who don't.
 * This points to Wikiversity being more than a collection of "educational resources," thought of as fixed documents developed to be used elsewhere. Wikiversity is also a collection of "educational processes," including "learning by doing."
 * Thanks for all your efforts, they are appreciated. --Abd 17:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of page breaking redirects and links
I was checking broken redirects and came across deleted pages Wikipedia, Wikiversity and disruptive editing and the associated Talk page. This page was created by you, and normally we do honor author requests. However, the page received comment on the attached Talk page, and was linked from your probationary custodianship request page. It does actually raise issues of interest, as well. I don't think it should be deleted without an RfD. Will you consider undeleting it? If you stated things there that you no longer support, you could strike them or even remove those comments, or -- better -- explain how your opinion shifted. You could even blank the whole page (with a note), but for transparency, the material should be visible to all Wikiversitans, at least in history, and it was created in mainspace (and moved back there from a move to user space, which would have given you more control, that was the idea!). The page may find better placement than what's current. Thanks. --Abd 17:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response on my Talk page and in your undeletion. --Abd 12:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One detail left on this. You deleted the Talk page with extensive comments by me, after having moved the resource page to your user space. That broke a link as well as deleting my comments. I'm undeleting it and moving it to your user space, if you don't want to host it, I will. The two pages should be kept together, don't you think? (We've never really addressed the issue of talk pages attached to user space pages, this is kind of an unusual case, given its moves back and forth between user space and mainspace).--Abd 23:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider.
I suggest you reconsider this. No need to further complicate the block log at this time, but your response here worries me. You seem to have taken my action personally. Had this been a registered editor, with the same edit history, we'd have indeffed last month. We don't indef IP, generally, we often don't even block it for single-edit vandalism, because of the likelihood of the vandal simply acquiring new IP, and thus the block may do no good and some harm. However, this has been stable IP for a year, as to Wikiversity edits. The IP, and what may be the same user, has also vandalized Wikipedia, going back to 2007..

If I did indef, I'd place a notice on the Talk page explaining the history and describing how to appeal the block, just in case a good-faith user ends up stuck. --Abd 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry about my uncivil reply. It was wheel-warring on my behalf to change your block - I should have discussed it with you first. However, I still feel that my original decision not to block the user constituted an administrative action. Please in the future discuss such matters with me before you decide to make a different administrative response. Blocks should be guided as to preventing current disruption on Wikiversity: the user stopped vandalising pages after the "final warning", and for that reason I decided to act with restraint. Considering the history of the IP, I'm probably being rather naive to assume any form of good faith here, but vandals can become contributors, and unduly long blocks can deter positive contributions. Even static IPs can be used by more than one person. My behaviour was unacceptable, but I hope you can understand my irritation concerning what I felt at the time was an appropriate decision about the vandal. Thanks. -- Simone 14:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will agree that it might have been better for me to discuss the matter with you first. However, you had taken no action beyond warning the IP, and I wanted to prevent further problems for global RCP. The circumstances clearly warranted some kind of block, so the question would be how long. Given that I was, in fact, conversant with the situation, and that my time was limited, I acted. Yes, vandals can become contributors, and, in fact, there is no practical obstacle to this particular vandal becoming a positive contributor. It's merely quite unlikely. In reality, if this vandal wants to become positive, the vandal will simply register an account, using some other access, and will then be able to contribute away. The chances that we would checkuser the account are about zero. Would you want to have your positive account be associated with old vandalism? Yes, a static IP can be used by more than one person. However, looking at the contributions, that's all theory and no substance. This IP has only been used to vandalize, for more than a year, here and on Wikipedia. It's possible this goes back to 2007.
 * In any case, thanks for your apology, it's accepted and, more than accepted, it's appreciated. --Abd 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your tone of voice
I just read this from you on my talk page.

"There are some serious copyright issues with this resource. All of the screenshots are of copyrighted software, and should have a fair use rationale attached. If no claim of fair use is added to the files in the next week, the files will be deleted. Thanks. --Simone 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)"

Is this tone of voice and threatening attitude really necessary? Do you go out of your way to look for reasons to destroy articles?

This was a blunder on my part. Perhaps as you rise through the ranks of administrators of wikiversity you will eventually be accorded the right to ban people like me. But meanwhile I suppose you will have to content yourself with just being a nuisance.

Try to get some kind of perspective on what you do and your place in it.

BillBell 22:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there could be more polite ways to phrased it. Perhaps the use of affirmations like "The screenshots need a fair use rationale by the end of next week to remain at Wikiversity" might be less threatening. Politeness theory suggests that at times, even when it isn't the intent, a threatening tone is inevitable though. -- dark lama  14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There was nothing incivil about my response: I'm sorry that BillBell has interpreted it as threatening, but it really wasn't intended to be. -- Simone 15:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Under the broad brush, anyone can claim any warning is "threatening". If anything, bad behavior like that should be met with threats - we cannot tolerate it in any way and people need to understand that. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand incivility isn't your intentions and I am sorry my comment suggested otherwise. My thinking is if you focus on how including copyright information may help works be kept that people may be more inclined to think you enjoy helping them find solutions, people may be less inclined to think you want to destroy their works, and there may be fewer misunderstandings. -- dark lama  14:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Just placing a unsupported claim of fair use doesn't constitute an appropriate fair use license. I suggest that you add Template:Non-free use rationale and Template:Fairuse to each image, and fill in all the relevant fields of the first for each (the rationales should be fairly similar for each). You might want to lower the resolution of the images: there can be issues with using high-resolution fair-use images of software."

If you look at my user talk page I think you will see that this collection of issues continues to deepen. AFAIAC, given the number of likely readers of my little article, it's just not worth putting any more effort into it. I'm going to let you expunge all traces of it.

BillBell 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we actually discuss the issue, i.e., fair use, as it applies in this case? There is a possible basis for the claim. I see two factors: one is that the usage is educational, and the second is that the usage does not damage the copyright holder, because the copying is de minimus. If anything, the copying will encourage increased usage of the original, i.e., Google. Since nobody mentioned it, the resource is News feeds.
 * The low-resolution solution may not be practical; in any case, it is really just another version of "de minimus" copying.
 * As to "tone," well, administrators only make ad-hoc decisions. Where there is any controversy, and where the content does not constitute an emergency -- this doesn't, in my opinion -- an admin should stand as any other user as to deletion. I.e., Simone, you could place a speedy deletion tag. Another admin would then confirm your opinion by deleting. Or any user may remove the tag, in which case this would go to WV:RFD if someone still wants to delete. So, Simone, you could say that it's your intention to delete, but should not present that intention as a demand or command, as an "or else." But to agree with Darklama, sometimes even the most polite requests will be taken as threats.
 * BillBell, I hope you will consider complying with the request for a fair use rationale template. I think the resource, at first glance, is valuable. If I had time, I'd fill out the template myself. I don't. --Abd 16:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BillBell, please assume good faith on my part. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just explaining what you need to do if you want to keep the images in your resource. I doubt there would be anything controversial about my deletion of the files if they had no appropriate licensing after seven days: this is common practise.
 * Abd, I believe that fair use does apply. However, fair use rationales legally are required for all non-free content. I believe my response was measured. On other wikis, obviously non-free images with no claim of fair use would be deleted at sight as copyright violations. I didn't try to make it sound like a demand, and I apologised to BillBell about the way he understood it. I haven't put speedy deletion tags on the files, because I'd like BillBell to sort out the licensing so we can keep the resource. Simone  20:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get it, Simone. Your response was measured. There is a claim of fair use here, just not in the proper form. I'll point out that any of us could make that claim, because it's about the usage, not about the rights themselves. The uploader is not claiming ownership, per se. So if the only problem is that there is no fair use template filled out, why not just fill one out? I'm certainly not claiming that you are required to do this, nor am I so required. Nor, for that matter, is the uploader. But if nobody fills it out, then we have a technical problem. --Abd 21:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 * You'd created or copied some templates, Simone. I transwiki'd one of them, which is probably better. It might still be a mess.... but one mess at a time. I've appended the two templates you suggested to File:Google Reader Shot 00009.png. What do you think? If this is okay, we could place them on the rest of the images. --Abd 02:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd removed the Wikipedia specific links from the template I copied for fair use rationales. I'm pretty sure that that particular fair use justification is valid. Simone  07:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to Abd and to You
I've been using the 'net too long—and I'm way too old—to have behaved quite so stupidly. Some years ago I was making frequent, almost daily attempts to add content to one section of wikipedia and one user there seemed to take joy in undoing them if they did not meet his personal standards. In the end I gave up. Unfortunately I think I came here with the wrong frame of mind.

Based on what you've given me I'll make another attempt to meet the copyright requirements (and hope that no sysops notice what's there now in the interim).

Thanks for your patience. --BillBell 14:49, 13 October 2011, sig supplied from history by --Abd 15:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Simone, this is a spectacular win for Wikiversity, my opinion. Thanks for your own patience in dealing with this upset user. And thanks to BillBell for being willing to re-assess the situation. --Abd 15:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for you apology, BillBell, it's really appreciated. Please feel free to ask me if you have any future queries about copyright or Wikiversity in general. -- Simone 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up
User talk:82.203.3.16 -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File:ISTE in SL.png
I undeleted this. Please be careful about deleting files which are in actual use in an educational resource. This is essentially an image created by JWSchmidt, one of the founders of Wikiversity. He's a bit indisposed at the moment, as far as editing WV is concerned, though he's still an admin at Wikipedia, last I looked. --Abd 00:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that you are deleting a lot of files. I've only noticed a rare instance where I'd consider the deletion improper or at least questionable in some way, but I certainly haven't looked at everything in detail. So here is what I'm assuming as a default for your deletions based on license issues:
 * For recent uploads, even if not used yet, you ask the user about the file and provide support and plenty of opportunity for response satisfying license requirements before deleting.
 * For old uploads with no usage, you may delete files with unresolved license issues, with notice to the uploader.
 * You exercise extra caution where a file is actually being used in a mainspace resource or in a page apparently intended as a draft for later mainspace usage. You discuss before deletion if there is any doubt; perhaps you tag for speedy deletion instead of deleting directly. (I've done this with notification of the user who uploaded. The tag then insures that the page doesn't get forgotten. I've also started to use Category:Slow deletion for this where extra time might be important.)
 * Blatant copyvio, i.e., extensive copying of a nature that might actually damage the copyright owner, you go ahead and delete on sight, with notice to the uploader.

Having said all this, it's clear to me that we should develop policy on permissions that reflects a deeper understanding of the needs of educational resources and our users, while at the same time ensuring that critical WMF interests are protected. This should be presented so that any user will easily understand what is permitted and what is not, and so that any custodian will have clear guidance on how to deal with problems, including possible procedures to follow to avoid the opposing hazards of an appearance of harsh or punitive response, vs. lack of attention and "anything goes" when, in fact, not everything is okay.

If we do not develop clear guidelines, we continue chaos and massive waste of time, as each example is debated (or, alternatively, we have upset users or a mess). I saw, on Wikipedia, examples where it would have been easy to clarify notability guidelines, and that was attempted, but this was opposed as "instruction creep," or "will encourage wikilawyers," but the result was many, many AfDs, all over the same issue, with occasionally differing outcomes depending on who was watching at the time. Possibly hundreds of hours wasted. The AfD nominators were following the appearance of the existing guidelines, but almost all AfD outcomes reflected actual community consensus to the contrary. The "actual community" apparently did not watch the guideline page!

Wikis were invented to create user manuals. Let's use this one for that! Game? This is going to require something deeper and more effective than our usual process, which, as you might have noticed, seems almost paralyzed as to actually making clear and lasting decisions. That's what I'm up to, addressing this problem. It's more important than, even, our Fair Use policy. --Abd 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright help
I suggest you use file copyright in the future to. -- dark lama  11:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think any work uploaded after June 15 2009, should be considered dual licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA, instead of simply GFDL, because that is what the default for text became. I noticed you have included only the GFDL license for some works created by the uploader where the license wasn't specified. It may be even possible to retroactively dual license any previously GFDL only images like with text, but not as certain about that. -- dark lama  12:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All files uploaded by User:Egm6341.s10.team3.heejun are confirmed as licensed under GFDL. Should I dual-license these ? -- Simone 12:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to do about confirmations of GFDL, maybe ask him/her? I was thinking of cases where no confirmation of a license was made and where you might have been attempting to make a reasonable assumption as to the uploader's intentions. -- dark lama  12:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I use Template:GFDL-presumed in that case. -- Simone 12:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it ought to be GFDL-CC-BY-SA-presumed these days. -- dark lama  12:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, on the other hand the template says "should not be added to images uploaded after November 2006" which probably reflects the Wikimedia Commons practice. I imagine they know better than us the problems with presuming anything. -- dark lama  12:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If a user claims own work, is that sufficient to assume GFDL/Creative commons licensing ? I'd rather not deprecate the value of resources due to technicalities. -- Simone 00:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no local consensus either way on that. I tend to lean towards it not being sufficient. The creator of Template:GFDL-presumed (if true) supported the deletion and explained the original motivation for its creation during the discussion that resulted in the template's deletion at Wikipedia. Back in 2005 at Wikipedia, initially there were no license templates, people didn't request copyright and license info, and the upload form use to say that by uploading files the uploader agreed to the GFDL. The main theme in that discussion also seems to point to people believing it no longer reflects Wikipedia's current practice. At the very least what rational there was for adopting the template here isn't the same because Wikiversity's upload form never stated by uploading people agreed to the GFDL. Wikiversity's upload form has actually stated since November 2006 that files without proper information about their source and their license will be deleted. I don't want to see resources lost either. I also want to see resources be reused. I think the concern over resource loss could be minimized by someone with the inclination leaving messages for each uploader with presumed files requesting more copyright/license info from them. -- dark lama  10:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit histories of files in the presumed category, and the history of the template itself suggests the actual practice isn't to use the template at all. The person who brought the template to Wikiversity also was the one who tagged a few files back in November 2006. You appear to be the only person who has made use of the template since November 2006. -- dark lama  10:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep - I (naively) thought it might be appropriate in that particular situation. Should I just delete the unlicensed files ? It seems the only solution if I can't assume a particular license. -- Simone 10:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think maybe unlicensed files could be kept if they qualify under Wikiversity's fair use exemptions. Maybe we need a new template which mentions the uploader did not provide copyright or license information, but a person believes its use currently qualifies as fair use. -- dark lama  11:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For instance, in Pythagorean Theorem Proof by Picture-Leonardo da Vinci Proof, the files, which are all unlicensed, are obviously a) the own work of the creators of the resource b) of little commercial value. The resource would be essentially useless without the illustrations. It's difficult to claim fair use if the file itself is unlikely to be copyrighted. I'd rather put a free-use license on the files. Simone  16:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the files might be public domain? I suggest asking Wikimedia Commons administrators for advice on that because they deal with copyright issues all the time. An alternative might be to use images created by someone else that have been properly tagged. Take a look at Commons:Category:Pythagorean theorem for your specific example. -- dark lama  17:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find a suitable replacement image. I could create replacement images myself... Simone 17:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You have certainly earned this invitation, I hope you will consider it! I have proposed a new Assembly process to prepare a report on our fair use policy, see Assembly. --Abd 17:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Feeling the Sun
Hi!

While I have not objected too much to your removing the comment about noticing changes in odors when the Sun rises (they do change, but you may not have been watching for meteors at night), have you ever gotten a sun tan? That's how many people are aware the Sun is passing overhead. Yes, it does take awhile before the burn sets in. But, no one has ever gotten a sun tan from a totally dark sky.

Please put the sentence back in. Marshallsumter 02:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand where you are coming from, although as this is tertiary astronomy resource it might be better to write it in terms of the Earth's rotation on its axis, rather than in terms of the sun rising and falling. That's up to you to decide. I've restored the sentence.
 * Can you provide a reliable source for your olfactory astronomy ? I personally have very little sense of smell, but I couldn't find any sources on the internet detailing this. -- Simone 10:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for restoring the sentence. My intent was to have the reader/student try to figure out how. I've actually watched for meteors all night long and was surprised at the changes that occur as the terminator passes. Some flowers only bloom after the Sun rises, while others only bloom at night. I asked a couple of people to see if they could figure it out. They got the touch one correct, but had trouble with the smell one. The tougher part is reasoning that the flowers are opening because of something above rather than below or around, but it is doable. The people I asked had fun trying to figure it out. Depending on location, moisture content changes, breezes occur and other plants change the composition of the air near them which a trained nose can detect. I can look for a source if you like but I didn't feel like giving hints on this one. What do you think?

I will give the rotation part a bit more thought to see if the reader may have a problem. There may be a way I can provide for them to figure out how to know that the Earth rotates without expensive equipment. Marshallsumter 21:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This makes sense now too, and you can certainly include it in the resource (without a source). I think, though, you must put a footnote/spoiler in explaining it, because to those with limited imagination (or in my unfortunate case little experience in this regard) may find the idea of smelling the sun's "movement around the earth" bizarre. -- Simone 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonstandard physics/Dirac large numbers hypothesis
link removed from header. Page is now at Physics/Essays/Anonymous/Dirac large numbers hypothesis. I was also apparently incorrect about the author of the page.... --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You deleted this, apparently pursuant to the notice placed on it. If you read the actual discussion, that RfD was quite a can of worms. It was open for a year, and in spite of a fairly large number of delete votes, many of these were not regular Wikiversity editors, and there are people who show up here who don't understand Wikiversity inclusiveness. It's obvious that there was no real consensus to delete, because no custodian stepped forward to actually delete. Until you, of course. The page was radically changed after the nomination, to address problems. We also have the creator of the page as a registered editor now, Fedosin, I'll want to ping him when I get a chance. Basically, attention to this simply slipped. If someone wants to insist on deletion, the closer indicated an RfD should be brought again. Just not one to last a year!

I undeleted. I'm not sure about other files covered by that RfD, this will take some time, and this should be done visibly, given that Fedosin is actually a physicist, unlike a lot of the people voting! I removed the closure information from this particular page, because the original problems were thoroughly addressed. I have not removed it from the other pages, they should be reviewed, and that takes time and it should not be only me. Fedosin may have something to contribute here.

Please don't delete any of the files covered by that RfD without discussion. Thanks. --Abd 02:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I stumbled on this by accident, and saw that it had a delayed deletion tag ("delete in six months time" if not improved). I simply deleted because it hadn't be edited in the last six months, but having see the discussion, the situation is much more complicated. Hopefully, no harm done ! -- Simone 10:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:S Larctia/Archive 1


text:
User:Trent hop/Is cricket in Australia safe?

=Outline=

For decade’s Cricket Australia has set the benchmark in professionalism. This has stemmed from their coaching and administration structure and planning, to their continued success on the field winning world cups and retaining the number 1 world ranking in all forms. Although in recent years this stranglehold on world cricket has ceased with nations such as India, South Africa and England taking the reins off Australia.

In early 2011 a critical review(argus report) was undertaken by a five man panel including past captains and businessman Don Argus. Once produced on the 19th of August Cricket Australia took immediate action from the review as there were issues concerning team operations and key roles in the national team. The review also identified long term action that would have to be taken to create a stronger link between the state and territory organisations and cricket Australia, as well as the restructure of the high performance system. This paper will discuss to Argus review in further detail and the effect it will have for both Cricket Australia and state organisations, whilst also reviewing and comparing a review undertaken from the English Cricket Board and saw them rise from 6th to 1st in the ICC test rankings in five years, before concluding the effect of the Argus review

Introduction
The game of cricket has for long been known as the Australian favourite pastime and by many considered Australia’s favourite sport. Since 1999 Australia has completed a dominance that has seen them win 3 of the past 4 world cups, holding the ICC number one test ranking for a eight year period and completed the most consecutive wins in test match cricket by a nation of sixteen(CA,2011). After the retirement and transition of several key players and staff, changes were made and results of the team declined. In 2010 the political conflict between members of cricket Australia(CA) were made public and pressure and external expectation was starting to grow, as Australia’s oldest rival England had a vision of winning the Ashes for the first time on foreign soil since 1986/87(England cricket board, 2007). The 3-1 series loss saw Australia fall to number 5 in the ICC test rankings and it was realised that the structure of cricket in Australia had to be reviewed. 2011 saw a critical review undertaken by several past captains and businessmen Don Argus to address issues within cricket Australia. The review critically evaluated the team operations and cricket Australia structure and suggested short term and long term actions that would have to be taken for Australia to resurge their dominance on international cricket. Some would question why such substantial changes in a short period of time, however just recently an example of a critical evaluation that has lead to significant changes and resulted in success is that of England who’s review has lead them to becoming the number one ranked nation in test match cricket in under five years of the evaluation. As business has never played a bigger role in sport, this paper will review the Argus review, whilst comparing it to the critical review undertaken by the England Cricket board in 2007 and whether it’s actions will resolve conflict within Cricket Australia and prove successful business decision. The review will also examine the beliefs of successful sport consultants Ric Charlesworth and John Buchanan and examine their keys values that have made their organisations successful and help Australia once again assert their dominance on world cricket and stay there.

The review
The Argus review was released on the 19th August 2011 with the primary objective of making recommendations to the CA board that will position the Australian cricket team to return leadership in all three formats of International cricket(test, one-day and 20-20). The review was conducted by former test captains Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh, as well as businessmen Malcolm Speed and Don Argus. Fact based data and analysis clearly recommended that there was a need for change. The panel narrowed this down to two specific categories that were, issues within the team specifically and the high performance and state and territory organisations (Cricket Australia, 2011). The panel recommended that immediate changes had to be made to team operations to ensure that people in key roles such as selection and coaching could assist in the team moving forward immediately. The panel focused strongly on the accountability of the performance of the Australian cricket team, with the national coach having a new role that would see them work with state organisation and Centre of Excellence (CoE) to ensure the same strategies and were viewed. Also the restructuring of the national selection panel with employing a full time Chairmen of selectors, compared to the part time that was currently been employed, as well as adding the National Coach and Captain to the selection panel. The panel also suggested the appointment of a General Manager ‘Team Performance’ that sole focus was on the performance of the Australian cricket team. Once these issues had been addressed by Cricket Australia immediately and the people in key roles were appointed, then the focus could start on longer term goals and the evaluation of the team and players be undertaken. For years the team culture of the Australian team had been questioned, since the transition of key players and staff. One of these being sport consultant and former Australian coach John Buchanan explains ‘It cannot be assumed that this culture will continue to generate itself- it must be constantly revisited’ (Buchanan, 2010) and this had become a major flaw by the Australian Cricket team in the eyes of the panel, as players were unaware of their roles within the team and had no clear direction. There were also long term issues identified by the panel that had to be addressed to ensure success for the future. There were two main areas of concern, relating to the communication of between Cricket Australia and state and territory organisations and the high performance system. In the opinion of the panel the strategy of Cricket Australia was of high quality, although it was not on the same line and reinforced as a strategy for state and territory organisations. The panel believes these problems have stemmed to create issues with the development pathway and national competitions and an important reason for the decline of the Australian teams performance. The panel also suggested an adjustment to the national competition and 2-XI competition, as well as restructuring the CoE as currently the panel believed it was not being managed correctly and that high performance players had to be involved in cricket for 12 months of the year, so they are able to step up if required. Since the release of the Argus review, Cricket Australia has implemented several of the recommendations suggested by the panel and had immediate success in their tour of Sri Lanka and only time will tell if other long term issues are fixed and see Australia reach the pinnacle of world cricket again.

The Rival
Many people will ask the question whether the review will save Australian cricket, however Australians do not have to look far to see the success of another country that has used the method of a critical review of its structure of its organisation. The England cricket board (ECB) in 2007 with its five man panel carried out an examination into English cricket and their aims towards the future. From the recommendations of this review the five man panel decided that although results were steady, there was a lack of accountability for players, coaches, selectors and other staff involved with the team. Previously like Australia, England had 2 part time selectors and implemented one full time selector to carry more responsibility on the team whilst adding the coach and the captain to the selection panel. There was also to be comprehensive review of coaching staff and players after each tour or tournament to ensure constant feedback and improvement was occurring. Although the recommendations that were implemented were acceptable, political conflict still surrounded the team, their rock star attitudes (team culture) and their coach Peter Moore. In 2009 this reached the point that Peter Moore stepped aside and Captain Kevin Pietersen was asked to step aside to usher a new era of English cricket with the appointment of ex-Zimbabwe cricket Andy Flower. With the appointment of Flower and new captain Andrew Strauss, the comprehensive review was completed and new goals set, beating the Australia in Australia. Flower and his team implemented a winning culture based on the planning that had been five years in the making from the strength and conditioning prior and during the tour, to the number of games to be played prior to the series. In January 2011 the goals had been completed with a 3-1 victory and since then England have become the number one test nation and aim to become the powerhouse that Australia had held for many years.

=The comparison= When comparing the two reviews, there are many similarities. The fact for decades Australia has led world sport in terms of their business model for success and England have not only mirrored Australia’s model, but developed it to the next level is a tribute to the ECB. It is obvious that Australia is endeavouring to do the same in its review. An interesting similarity of the nations is of those that are in the panel undertaking the review. As past captains and respected businessmen were used rather than members of the organisation, which helps clearly identify issues and conflict within the organisation that may have been avoided in the case of current members conducting the reviews. It is evident that with the political conflict that have plagued both nations, that changes had to be made and both nations have given roles that give individuals chosen more authority for the decisions that are to made, however as a consequence require more responsibility for the performances of the team. Both panels have recognized the importance of the high performance system, both recommending 12 month calendars for those players, to ensure that if called upon they will be up to the demands of international cricket. Similar both panels agreed that a stronger link with state/county organisation was needed to make sure that goals are aligned with the national organisation, so that the development of the sport continued for the future. Although there are many similarities, there are also clear differences that may affect the long term success of the nations. The countries have chosen to address the grassroots level differently, as the Australian panel are aware of the Australian sporting culture placing the threat of other sports poaching potential cricketers and as a result they have recommended the nurturing of players through programs and scholarships. Where in comparison England has place little if any emphasis on the grassroot development, instead putting larger emphasis on their county and high performance teams. Even though the Australian review has only recently been completed the short-term and long term goals have been clearly identified, they have not dwelled on the results, beating particular nations or goals, but improvement as the panel beliefs that if the correct action is taken the results and the one number ICC test ranking will be Australia’s again. In contrast the ECB review was done five years ago and may have been recently updated with new aims and goals. However their review has been developed with the aim of achieving results and success (eg. beating Australia in Australia and getting the number one ICC test ranking) rather than the improvement all facets of the organisation. This therefore places greater accountability for those involved as comprehensive reviews are undertaken after every tour of tournament and consequently may place least emphasis on grassroots or county organisations.

The Conclusion
As only time will tell if the plans and actions that have taken place by cricket Australia will work, the advice from famous sport and business consultants Ric Charlesworth and John Buchanan has provided evidence points toward success in the long term by the plans and actions that have been taken. Ric Charlesworth elaborates in his book ‘staying at the top’, five principles of getting the top in professional sport, quality, teamwork, learning and training, resilience, depth and flexibility. Ric goes on to explain that to a business’s ability to identify the problems and provide solutions gives a way forward for the organisation to move forward and hope for better. By doing the Argus review, Cricket Australia has ensured that the problems have been correctly identified and solutions been provided by those external members involved in the review, as well as implementing one of the five principles of getting to the top, that had been missing for many years. ‘Tactics and strategies are as important in both business as they are in sport but they can only work for you if you have skilled personnel putting them into practice’''(Buchanan,2010).

As John Buchanan has discussed these solutions could be of the highest quality, but if Cricket Australia do not appoint the right personnel, these strategies and solutions will not result in the improvement of Cricket in Australia. That is why the Argus reviews was completed thoroughly and clearly defined the criteria for what personnel is required, so that Cricket Australia picks the person for the role. The fact that roles are now carrying more accountability puts internal pressure on players which should only create a culture of success that will lead Australia back to the top of international cricket. In addition the Argus review has helped establish the differences between Cricket Australia and state and territory organisations and this will help strengthen the relationship s between the organisations to help cricket become Australia’s favourite sport once again.

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


text:
User:Trent hop/Revival of Australia Cricket

For decade’s Cricket Austalia has set the benchmark in professionalism. This has stemmed from their coaching and administration structure and planning, however in 2010 when the Australia's fierce rivals England came and dominated Australia in Australia 3-1 in the ashes, it was realised that it was time for a change. The Argus review was conducted and produced to introduce change within Cricket Australia and team operations and some have since been implemented to instant success. The Argus review was compared to that of the English Cricket Board (ECB) that was conducted in 2007 and has resulted in them becoming the number one nation in test match cricket and similarities and differences were drawn between the two reports and a comparsion made. It has been concluded that only time will tell if the changes implemented will work, however the Argus report has helped establish weaknesses of the organisation that had for a long time been left untouched due to political conflict.

Introduction
The game of cricket has for long been known as the Australian favourite pastime and by many considered Australia’s favourite sport. Since 1999 Australia has completed a dominance that has seen them win 3 of the past 4 world cups, holding the International Cricket Council (ICC) number one test ranking for a eight year period and completed the most consecutive wins in test match cricket by a nation of sixteen. After the retirement and transition of several key players and staff, changes were made and results of the team declined. In 2010 the political conflict between members of Cricket Australia were made public and pressure and external expectation was starting to grow, as Australia’s oldest rival England had a vision of winning the Ashes for the first time on foreign soil since 1986/87 England cricket board. The 3-1 series loss saw Australia fall to number 5 in the ICC test rankings and it was realised that the structure of cricket in Australia had to be reviewed. 2011 saw a critical review undertaken by several past captains and businessmen Don Argus to address issues within Cricket Australia. The review critically evaluated the team operations and cricket Australia structure and suggested short term and long term actions that would have to be taken for Australia to resurge their dominance on international cricket. Some would question why such substantial changes in a short period of time, however just recently an example of a critical evaluation that has lead to significant changes and resulted in success is that of England who’s review has lead them to becoming the number one ranked nation in test match cricket in under five years of the evaluation. As business has never played a bigger role in sport, this paper will review the Argus Review, whilst comparing it to the critical review undertaken by the England Cricket board in 2007 and whether it’s actions will resolve conflict within Cricket Australia and prove successful business decision. The review will also examine the beliefs of successful sport consultants Ric Charlesworth and John Buchanan and examine their keys values that have made their organisations successful and help Australia once again assert their dominance on world cricket and stay there.

The Review
The Argus review was released on the 19th August 2011 with the primary objective of making recommendations to the Cricket Australia board that will position the Australian cricket team to return leadership in all three formats of International cricket(test, one-day and 20-20). The review was conducted by former test captains Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh, as well as businessmen Malcolm Speed and Don Argus. Fact based data and analysis clearly recommended that there was a need for change. The panel narrowed this down to two specific categories that were, issues within the team specifically and the high performance and state and territory organisations. The panel recommended that immediate changes had to be made to team operations to ensure that people in key roles such as selection and coaching could assist in the team moving forward immediately. The panel focused strongly on the accountability of the performance of the Australian cricket team, with the national coach having a new role that would see them work with state organisation and Centre of Excellence(COE) to ensure the same strategies and were viewed. Also the restructuring of the national selection panel with employing a full time Chairmen of selectors, compared to the part time that was currently been employed, as well as adding the National Coach and Captain to the selection panel. The panel also suggested the appointment of a General Manager ‘Team Performance’ that sole focus was on the performance of the Australian cricket team. Once these issues had been addressed by Cricket Australia immediately and the people in key roles were appointed, then the focus could start on longer term goals and the evaluation of the team and players be undertaken. For years the team culture of the Australian team had been questioned, since the transition of key players and staff. One of these being sport consultant and former Australian coach John Buchanan explains ‘It cannot be assumed that this culture will continue to generate itself- it must be constantly revisited’(Buchanan,pg 13) and this had become a major flaw by the Australian Cricket team in the eyes of the panel, as players were unaware of their roles within the team and had no clear direction. There were also long term issues identified by the panel that had to be addressed to ensure success for the future. There were two main areas of concern, relating to the communication of between Cricket Australia and state and territory organisations and the high performance system. In the opinion of the panel the strategy of Cricket Australia was of high quality, although it was not on the same line and reinforced as a strategy for state and territory organisations. The panel believes these problems have stemmed to create issues with the development pathway and national competitions and an important reason for the decline of the Australian teams performance. The panel also suggested an adjustment to the national competition and 2-XI competition, as well as restructuring the COE as currently the panel believed it was not being managed correctly and that high performance players had to be involved in cricket for 12 months of the year, so they are able to step up if required. Since the release of the Argus Review, Cricket Australia has implemented several of the recommendations suggested by the panel and had immediate success in their tour of Sri Lanka and only time will tell if other long term issues are fixed and see Australia reach the pinnacle of world cricket again.

The Rival
Many people will ask the question whether the review will save Australian cricket, however Australians do not have to look far to see the success of another country that has used the method of a critical review of its structure of its organisation. The England Cricket Board (ECB) in 2007 with its five man panel carried out an examination into English cricket and their aims towards the future. From the recommendations of this review the five man panel decided that although results were steady, there was a lack of accountability for players, coaches, selectors and other staff involved with the team. Previously like Australia, England had 2 part time selectors and implemented one full time selector to carry more responsibility on the team whilst adding the coach and the captain to the selection panel. There was also to be comprehensive review of coaching staff and players after each tour or tournament to ensure constant feedback and improvement was occurring. Although the recommendations that were implemented were acceptable, political conflict still surrounded the team, their rock star attitudes (team culture) and their coach Peter Moore. In 2009 this reached the point that Peter Moore stepped aside and Captain Kevin Pietersen was asked to step aside to usher a new era of English cricket with the appointment of ex-Zimbabwe cricket Andy Flower. With the appointment of Flower and new captain Andrew Strauss, the comprehensive review was completed and new goals set, beating the Australia in Australia. Flower and his team implemented a winning culture based on the planning that had been five years in the making from the strength and conditioning prior and during the tour, to the number of games to be played prior to the series. In January 2011 the goals had been completed with a 3-1 victory and since then England have become the number one test nation and aim to become the powerhouse that Australia had held for many years.

The Comparison
When comparing the two reviews, there are many similarities. The fact for decades Australia has led world sport in terms of their business model for success and England have not only mirrored Australia’s model, but developed it to the next level is a tribute to the ECB. It is obvious that Australia is endeavouring to do the same in its review. An interesting similarity of the nations is of those that are in the panel undertaking the review. As past captains and respected businessmen were used rather than members of the organisation, which helps clearly identify issues and conflict within the organisation that may have been avoided in the case of current members conducting the reviews. It is evident that with the political conflict that have plagued both nations, that changes had to be made and both nations have given roles that give individuals chosen more authority for the decisions that are to made, however as a consequence require more responsibility for the performances of the team. Both panels have recognized the importance of the high performance system, both recommending 12 month calendars for those players, to ensure that if called upon they will be up to the demands of international cricket. Similar both panels agreed that a stronger link with state/county organisation was needed to make sure that goals are aligned with the national organisation, so that the development of the sport continued for the future. Although there are many similarities, there are also clear differences that may affect the long term success of the nations. The countries have chosen to address the grassroots level differently, as the Australian panel are aware of the Australian sporting culture placing the threat of other sports poaching potential cricketers and as a result they have recommended the nurturing of players through programs and scholarships. Where in comparison England has place little if any emphasis on the grassroot development, instead putting larger emphasis on their county and high performance teams. Even though the Australian review has only recently been completed the short-term and long term goals have been clearly identified, they have not dwelled on the results, beating particular nations or goals, but improvement as the panel beliefs that if the correct action is taken the results and the one number ICC test ranking will be Australia’s again. In contrast the ECB review was done five years ago and may have been recently updated with new aims and goals. However their review has been developed with the aim of achieving results and success (eg. beating Australia in Australia and getting the number one ICC test ranking) rather than the improvement all facets of the organisation. This therefore places greater accountability for those involved as comprehensive reviews are undertaken after every tour of tournament and consequently may place least emphasis on grassroots or county organisations.

The Conclusion
As only time will tell if the plans and actions that have taken place by Cricket Australia will work, the advice from famous sport and business consultants Ric Charlesworth and John Buchanan has provided evidence points toward success in the long term by the plans and actions that have been taken. Ric Charlesworth elaborates in his book ‘staying at the top’, five principles of getting the top in professional sport, quality, teamwork, learning and training, resilience, depth and flexibility. Ric goes on to explain that to a business’s ability to identify the problems and provide solutions gives a way forward for the organisation to move forward and hope for better. By doing the Argus review, Cricket Australia has ensured that the problems have been correctly identified and solutions been provided by those external members involved in the review, as well as implementing one of the five principles of getting to the top, that had been missing for many years. ‘Tactics and strategies are as important in both business as they are in sport but they can only work for you if you have skilled personnel putting them into practice’''(Buchanan,pg 45).

As John Buchanan has discussed these solutions could be of the highest quality, but if Cricket Australia do not appoint the right personnel, these strategies and solutions will not result in the improvement of Cricket in Australia. That is why the Argus reviewwas completed thoroughly and clearly defined the criteria for what personnel is required, so that Cricket Australia picks the person for the role. The fact that roles are now carrying more accountability puts internal pressure on players which should only create a culture of success that will lead Australia back to the top of international cricket. In addition the Argus review has helped establish the differences between Cricket Australia and state and territory organisations and this will help strengthen the relationship s between the organisations to help cricket become Australia’s favourite sport once again.

Reference List
Buchanan.J (2010). Buchanan If Better is Possible''. Prahran, Victoria, Australia. Hardie Grant Books. Pg1-82.

Charlesworth.R (2002). Staying at the top. Sydney, NSW, Australia. Pan Mc Millian.

Cricket Australia (2011). Australian team performance review .pgs 1-40.

England cricket board (2007). England cricket review. Pgs1-37.


text:
Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Altruism

Comments
Hi Typify, Just saw your comments on my Chapter page (Gambling). Thanks. I haven't looked too much at Risk yet, but when I do, I'll keep an eye out for literature on risk associated with Altruism. AlexMC 11:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Typify, your topic is of particular interest because the concept of 'altruism' features large in my subject of Volunteerism. I look forward to reading more. I have a few articles on altruistic motivations as they relate to volunteerism, if you are interested Crazydaisy 23:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Crazydaisy

If you need some good references for the origins of altruistic motivations, try this article: Rutte, C., & Pfeiffer, T. (2009). Evolution of reciprocal altruism by copying observed behaviour. Current Science (00113891), 97(11), 1573-1578. And if you need a model for a starter, try this one: Trivers, R. (1971). The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57. Jackson997 07:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Typify,

Your chapter is going well although it is a little text heavy - maybe some images or colour to lighten it up? I found the Nazi story both uplifting and saddening. I wonder how it affects others when they read it? I am going to add a link to your page in my chapter as I have some info on alturism and volunteerism. A good ref I am using is Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Tobin, R. M., & Sheese, B. E. (2007). Agreeableness empathy and helping: A person x situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583-599. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583. I am looking forward to reading more :) Ltb 05:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Typify, your chapter is looking really good. This topic reminds me of the article used in social psych this semester. Based on Kitty Genovese, who was killed in New York, and all the bystanders ignored or believed someone else was helping her. (The Bystander effect.) Maybe if more of the bystanders had high levels of altruism, maybe she would not have died. Here is a link to the article *: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=da32013f-253d-42c1-965c-4daaa7864be1%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=105 Good luck with your chapter :) Jemmasanderson 03:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Typify. Great topic you have here and your content is really clear. The only suggestion I have is to separate your "key terms" and your "reference list" so the page flows a little more smoothly. Also at the bottom you could add some links to internal pages in the Motivation book. Just suggestions though :-) Have a great day, TabithaJ 08:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Hope you don't mind I just did some minor spelling edits. You can view it in the 'view history' section and just double check! Content looks really good, great balance between theoritcal, practical and easy to understand. Well done! Naomi 11:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I really like that you talked about the dark side of altruism thought that added a edgy side to the chaper EamesA 12:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Magnolia - interesting reading about Father Kolbe - very good analysis - well done

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


text:
Template:PD-ineligible

Public domain Public domain false false

title: Template:PD-ineligible


text:
User:Shobhit.Sharma.Wiki

Holla. This is Shobhit Sharma and I develop Wikipedia with Username.

title: User:Shobhit.Sharma.Wiki


text:
User talk:Shobhit.Sharma.Wiki

 Hello Shobhit.Sharma.Wiki, 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. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

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.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * 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.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! -- Simone 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shobhit.Sharma.Wiki


text:
Category:Non-free Wikiversity files with valid backlink

__HIDDENCAT__


text:
Talk:Escher/Howard Community College/fall2011/502 BM

90/100 .. no poster .. links to others video? using the word "refine" too much 1sfoerster 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Engineering Projects/Rubberband gun/Howard Community College/fall2011/502 ZSN

100/100 do not use the word "I" in team documentation 1sfoerster 13:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Engineering Projects/Model boat/Howard Community College/fall2011/502 bottle

0/100 ... nothing to grade 1sfoerster 13:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Helicopter/Howard Community College/Fall2011/502 Helicopter

100/100 .. don't say anything personal about yourself or teammates on project page in the future 1sfoerster 13:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind! thanks! Dpatel5391 14:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Engineering Projects/Music projects/Howard Community College/fall2011/502 MusicTeam

100/100 good job 1sfoerster 13:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Engineering Projects/R.O.I.T. wheel robot/Howard Community College/Fall2011/502 CNM

100/100 .. project 1 grading .. good job 1sfoerster 13:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


text:
Bernoulli/Howard Community College

Howard Community College is starting this project in the fall of 2011.
 * /Fall2011/

title: Bernoulli/Howard Community College


text:
Bernoulli/Howard Community College/Fall2011

/502_Desi%27z/


text:
User:1sfoerster/Tape purge

Idea
Cash registers store information from the day in memory. After the store closes, cash registers can print a list of all the daily transactions. This produces a stream of paper that can be 100's of feet long. There is no mechanism to roll the printed receipts back up into a nice, tight, roll. This has to be done by hand. The goal is to create a simple mechanism to replace the hand operation.

College/Universities
/Howard Community College/

title: User:1sfoerster/Tape purge


text:
User:1sfoerster/Tape purge/Howard Community College

Howard Community College is starting this project in the fall of 2011.
 * /Fall2011/


text:
Bernoulli/Howard Community College/Fall2011/Desi'z

Problem Statement
Put the last negotiated problem statement with the instructor or client of the project here.

Team Members
Put each team members name here with links to their personal page here. Real names do not have to be used.
 * User:Mkhan4793/enes100/Bernoulli Effect
 * User:Hsingh8658/enes100/Bernoulli Effect
 * User:Afayyaz6843/enes100/Bernoulli Effect

Summary
Put an overall, one paragraph summary here with links to the team weekly reports.

Poster
Put a graphic in wikimedia, include the graphic here or link to it here. The graphic should be suitable for creating a traditional project poster.

Story
Tell a story of the project. Describe how split up, what the obstacles were, what testing was done, what informal decisions were made, what assumptions were made, what the results were. This is a longer version of the summary with links to all the details collected associated with the project. These links could be to software, links to videos, links to project pages with pictures, etc. Think of the story as a summary of the team weekly reports on one long page rather than a short paragraph like the summary.

Decision List
List all formal decisions made with links to their documentation such as a decision tree or decision matrix.

Material List
Figuring out what to purchase, what to build, what everything costs is a huge part of engineering. Typically there is a list of materials in stock, materials that are ordered, materials that should be ordered next time there is money, materials that have not been fully justified. These issues are part of healthy management of the engineering lab but are associated with a particular college. The detail needs to be published in this "Done" form. However in the project root, just a list of materials is necessary.

Software List
Installing and learning different software packages is part of most engineering project just like the materials list.

Time
Time estimates and actual time consumed measurements helps justify salaries (grades). The only way to gain respect for estimated project time and costs is to practice.

Tutorials
Most projects consist of making instructions to jump start the next team, shrink the learning of tools and software to the minimum, advice on where to purchase materials, how to assemble, etc. Tutorials modified or created are described here with links.

Next Steps
If this is not filled out, the next team may have to repeat each of your steps just to figure out what the next step is. It is best to write this immediately at the end of the project while creating the summary, poster, presentation, and story.

Subjective Critera
While reading these sections, practicing engineers are building up the following impressions about the document. So the following categories are more subjective:

Repeatablitly
Is there enough detail to repeat the work?

Integrity
Proving something doesn't exist or doesn't work usually requires exhaustion. Simply saying "it can not be done" is like challenging a pro basketball player (engineer) to one-on-one basketball (find a solution). It does not inspire respect. All the different ways respect is created can be found throughout the wikibook General Engineering Introduction.