text:
Wikiversity talk:Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010

Note: This Wikiversity community discussion has been censored.

File:Falsification of logs.png
Why is this an "example of a falsified log entry"? Why, if there are some concerns about the page protection haven't these concerns first been raised before the log entry is being described as "falsified"? What are those concerns? If concerns are raised they can be addressed. If anyone with concerns doesn't bother to raise them and in so doing give an opportunity for attempts to be made to address them then it seems a bit harsh to start just using this is an apparent example of the falsification of logs. I have on numerous occasions made it clear that I do make mistakes like everyone and I have acknowledged many over the years. Perhaps this is an example of another mistake? I'm not sure but clearly JWSchmidt has concerns so lets hear them and I can reassess my action. Adambro 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Please provide links to the "excessive vandalism" at Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010. --JWSchmidt 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm sure you know where the page history is. Each instance where the blocked user evaded their block to edit I consider to be effectively vandalism. It seemed reasonable to assume that such edits would continue unless the page was protected. Adambro 17:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The block of Moulton was a bad block, imposed by an outsider who did not follow Wikiversity procedures. I consider your enforcement of the ban against Moulton is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. You definition of "effective vandalism" does not sound like any Wikimedia view of vandalism that I am aware of. Vandalism is an inherently disruptive or destructive behavior." If you follow the link to Wikipedia it says, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Moulton's edits were not vandalism. --JWSchmidt 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Like I've said, I consider edits made which involved evading a block to be vandalism, regardless of the exact nature of the edit. Moulton is blocked. Regardless of your opinion of the circumstances in which he was originally blocked that is a simple fact. I also understand that the block has been extensively discussed by the community and recent attempts have been made to try to enable unblocking. Despite my reservations about this, I used my admin rights on Meta to try to facilitate those efforts. Those efforts collapsed because Moulton couldn't resist deliberately provoking another editor by doing exactly what he had been asked not to. That he remains blocked is because the community do not consider it appropriate to unblock him. I will continue to respect that by enforcing the block and consider any edit made by evading that block to be vandalism because it goes against the wishes of the community that Moulton doesn't edit. I don't agree that enforcing this block violates WV:CIVIL. Adambro 17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Your considering something to be vandalism doesn't make it vandalism. The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right name. WAS 4.250 17:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * You are right that me considering something vandalism doesn't mean it is. Equally though, that someone else might say it isn't vandalism, doesn't mean it isn't. There is degree to which it is a matter of personal opinion. I've explained why I consider it to be vandalism but anyone is free to disagree with my opinion. Adambro 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Come on Adambro, you've invented a bogus justification for your falsification of the logs, don't try to stick to such a transparently fallacious excuse. Your view of "vandalism" contradicts the position adopted by the Wikimedia community. I advise you to not pursue Moulton to your doom. Moulton is a better contributor to Wikiversity than most sysops I know. Please stop disrupting Wikiversity by enforcing a bad block. If you can't do that, at least change the log to say "Adambro's personal view of effective vandalism" rather than "excessive vandalism" --JWSchmidt 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I won't be changing the log. It should be obvious that anything I say involves me expressing my personal opinion and that I'm not stating it as fact. I don't agree that enforcing the block is disruptive to Wikiversity. The community is free to decide to unblock Moulton. They haven't done so. Adambro 18:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Adam, it would behoove you to listen to the wisdom of WAS 4.250. He is older and wiser than any of us here. The right name for my unwelcome edits here is Civil Disobedience.  I have no objection to you labeling my participation here as Civil Disobedience, for that is precisely what I am doing, for the express purpose of illustrating the lessons we learned in the 20th Century from Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King.  Are you, perchance, familiar with Henry David Thoreau's classic essay, "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"?  —Moulton 05:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is legitimate to consider all edits by a blocked editor as "vandalism," on the face. That is, they are edits which are contrary to policy, and deliberately so, they add harmful or otherwise prohibited content. Policy provides for discretion in blocking by all administrators and others with the tool. A block may be a "bad block," but any block could be accused of being "ban." "Bad block" does not create a right to edit. Rather, due process requires appealing a bad block, or abandoning editing. If there is no community right to revert or prevent edits under block (typically assigned to custodians here), "block" becomes meaningless. JWSchmidt has hopelessly confused this issue by conflating an allegedly bad block of Moulton with, then, a claim that other administrators supporting the block are abusive. Is the issue here really what term Adambro used for the Moulton block-evading edits? This insistence on particular language -- or criticism based on the language used, rather than the substance -- is typical of "wikilawyering," and it's what I've seen coming from JWSchmidt regularly since I started observing Wikiversity in March. Please remember, I came here, from a position of sympathy to Moulton; but I also had deep wiki and on-line community experience and knew that matters were often more complex than they appeared.

By the way, WAS 4.250, how old are you? Moulton once complained to me that it was all very well for someone as young as I to urge patience, but he was getting old.... As it happens, and I explained, I'm older than him -- and have prostate cancer to boot. Stage I, to be sure, but it makes me quite aware of my limitations. Bottom line, I understand why Moulton was complaining and I understand how he was also off and continues to be off, requiring us to continue to block him unless something shifts. In him. I understand why JWS was upset, and likely why his reaction to that has kept him, and to some extent Wikiversity, from moving on. None of these are mysterious, in fact, though I'll admit to being a little surprised at how intransigent Moulton turned out to be. I'd not researched the underlying events deeply enough.... --Abd 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * You wish to evaluate me according to unverifiable claims of my age???? - WAS 4.250 10:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, an evaluation was proposed by others incorporation what seemed to be a possibly incorrect assumption about age. It appears below that you do not wish to disclose your age, which is fine. It is not obligatory at all. --Abd 14:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'd not researched the underlying events deeply enough...." Surely your enthusiasm and verboseness makes up for any lack of actual understanding. - WAS 4.250 10:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Understanding develops with experience. "Deeply enough" in this case refers to seeing the other side from Moulton's, through tracking down and reviewing the evidence he's provided in many places. The situation is complex enough that my sense is that not even the players understand it well. --Abd 14:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:WAS_4.250 WAS 4.250 20:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 * ) Your behavior of creating unnecessary drama is just like Barry's, so by the famous Duck Test you therefore are block-able as a sock of Barry (or is that a shoe?); so prove your loyalty and fitness as someone with the power to block and block yourself.  ... (Sorry, as I'm 120 years old and have had all my organs removed due to cancer, I'm not responsible for my bitter cynicism.) (/:))  WAS 4.250 10:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From this brilliant analogy, it seems that, indeed, all the organs were removed. I'm surprised that the cynicism persists in spite of the removal of the organ that sustains it. My condolences. I do have the power to block and block, but if I use that power contrary to community consensus, I'd lose it quickly. What I'm seeing here is post-facto criticism from an editor who could actually intervene to help with the situation, but who chooses to sit back and take potshots. How about asking for admin tools, WAS? Wikiversity has the most liberal policy about granting them. I'll assume that I can't mentor yet, or I'd offer. And if you can't find any admin to offer to mentor, well, that would say something, eh? --Abd 14:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:WAS_4.250 WAS 4.250 20:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Please take up a scholarly review of this peer-reviewed essay which first appeared on the P2P.Org web site:

 * The Governance Model of Wikipedia

 * Moulton 00:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Nice essay, Barry. Pretty accurate except for a few facets overlooked. As to scholarly review, you're welcome. I'm not a scholar, I'm a revolutionary. Okay, a revolutionary scholar.... not a scholar of revolution. --Abd 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you. What do you see as missing, that needs to be addressed?  Moulton 03:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "otherwise prohibited content"
 * Why should any constructive and good faith contribution to Wikiversity be called "prohibited"? Removing such edits from Wikiversity disrupts Wikiversity. Every edit at Wikiversity should be judged on its own merits, and certainly not judged by the rules that apply at Wikipedia.

 * "due process requires appealing a bad block, or abandoning editing"
 * Abd, quote the Wikiversity policy that supports your claim. An honest Custodian would remove a bad block, not wikilawyer about some imagined need for "appealing."

 * "a claim that other administrators supporting the block are abusive"
 * In my view, anyone who supports a bad block is violating Wikiversity policy which warns against calling for an unjustified block. Sysops who enforce rules from other websites at Wikiversity by blocking Wikiversity community members or deleting and protecting pages are abusing their Custodial tools. Blocks for non-vandalism should be made by community consensus, not by sysop whims.

 * "Is the issue here really what term Adambro used for the Moulton block-evading edits?"
 * No, the issue is falsely calling good faith edits "vandalism". Anyone who would call my insistence on honesty by Custodians "wikilawyering" certainly should not be a Custodian.

 * "This insistence on particular language"
 * The insistence is on honesty.

 * "I understand why JWS was upset, and likely why his reaction to that has kept him, and to some extent Wikiversity, from moving on"
 * Abd, please explain how insisting that sysops be honest is doing damage to Wikiversity.

--JWSchmidt 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * It isn't. But that's not what you are doing. --Abd 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Moulton
I've known John and worked with him on Wikiversity (and off-wiki) for two years. I found John to be a diligent and conscientious scholar and researcher who was unfailingly helpful to others. John and I haven't always been in 100% agreement, but we've nonetheless managed to craft valuable and useful content (both on-wiki and off), and we've enjoyed working with each other. John has a high level of personal integrity and ethics -- a trait that occasionally got him into difficulty with the less scrupulous members of the community. I was appalled and chagrined to see John treated abusively by a handful of admins here during the time I've worked with him. I was gratified to see Leigh Blackall and James Neill stand up for John in the recent kerfuffle when Adam veered off the rails. —Moulton 03:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "useful content" <-- I've been thinking that History of Wikiversity should be updated. Maybe Community Review/Problematic actions can serve as a page for accumulation of data. Moulton, do you know if there is a paper trail for the events leading up to the bad block that was imposed on you? Who asked Jimbo to come to Wikiversity? Such things should be on the public record. --JWSchmidt 04:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, there is a paper trail, although most of it is not located on-wiki, since it was almost entirely expunged in the cover-up. As you may recall, Jimbo privately threatened to block me in this exchange, which was witnessed in real time by Alison Cassidy, a well-respected diagnostic engineer at Apple Computer.  Before that, there was the flap over the contents of the biographical sketch on my user page. There remains these unanswered questions on Jimbo's talk page here.  The deleted pages are mostly salvaged and reprised here.  There is this lengthy discussion at Wikipedia Review when Jimbo summarily deleted the pages on Managerial Ethics.  And just today, SB_Johnny recounted his version of the events.  There may be other relevant IRC logs (some of which you may well already have), although there may have been another IRC channel just for Admins.  —Moulton 04:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Vandalism doesn't make any attempt to describe vandalism. Could we develop something out of this conversation? My view is that vandalism is something like in the real world, where property is intentionally defaced or damaged. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There was an attempt to improve the description of what constitutes vandalism by quoting Jimbo. Of course, that attempt was treated like vandalism, repeatedly. Adambro violated policy while preventing the Wikiversity community from exploring the important issue of what constitutes vandalism. For the past two years, many Wikiversity community discussions and the development of needed policy have been disrupted by a few sysops who abuse their power, Adambro is just one example. --JWSchmidt 11:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not an "attempt to improve the description of what constitutes vandalism", it was an attempt to use a proposed policy to effectively protest about Jimbo. Are you seriously suggesting that you think it is appropriate to include that in our vandalism policy? As I have explained, I don't accept your suggestion that I violated the rollback policy. That policy says it is "for quickly undoing edits which are blatantly unproductive such as vandalism". Can you not accept that it doesn't just say it is for dealing with vandalism but also other edits which might be considered "blatantly unproductive". Whilst you of course disagree, I remain of the opinion that your edits were "blatantly unproductive". Adambro 11:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "blatantly unproductive". The edit that was repeatedly reverted by Adambro was constructive. If Adambro did not like the edit then Adambro should have stated his alternative view of vandalism on the talk page. Adambro, rather than edit collaboratively so as to improve a needed Wikiversity policy, you disrupted Wikiversity and violated policy. --JWSchmidt 11:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly, since it was your edit, you aren't going to accept that it wasn't productive so I can't say I'm too concerned by your assertions that it was productive. However, you repeatedly state that I've violated the rollback policy yet seem to avoid actually discussing whether that is true. As I've asked, isn't it the case that the rollback policy doesn't say rollback should only be used to deal with vandalism? Adambro 11:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I can't say I'm too concerned by your assertions" <-- This is exactly your problem Adambro, you don't collaborate with honest Wikiversity participants, you just do your own thing, even when you are violating Wikiversity policy. The only reason you've gotten away with disrupting Wikiversity is because of threats that were made against the Wikiversity community. --JWSchmidt 12:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You again conveniently don't address the issue of the scope of the rollback policy. Adambro 12:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only issue is a few sysops who abuse their power by making specious claims about what constitutes vandalism and disruption. --JWSchmidt 12:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 * On the one hand, JWSchmidt is raising issues about a description of intention, i.e., the reason for an action as distinct from the effect and function of the action, with only one reasonably clear purpose: to impeach the actor. On the other hand, Adambro does appear to accept that the edit rolled back was not clearly "vandalism" in the blatant sense, but hasn't taken the obvious step of apologizing for, say, some unintended implication. Did Adambro make a "specious claim"? Only if we interpret "vandalism" in the strictest sense, edits with only a purpose of defacing content. But edits that are contrary to known policy (whether explicit or implicit) can also be called "vandalism," in a loose sense. And really, the point here would be whether or not the use of rollback in a specific case -- which JWSchmidt doesn't clearly describe -- was abusive. That is a separate and distinct issue from whether or not there was some problematic description of the action by Adambro. Because there is an apparent intention to defame Adambro -- and "a few sysops," though there is no sysop supporting JWS's positions -- it's impossible to resolve the specific issues here, because it is not really about "vandalism" and "rollback policy." It's about "bad sysops."
 * "Abuse of power" involves two things: abuse of tools and abuse of reputation or position. The latter is not really sysop abuse, it's user abuse, and should be separated. This is a CR on JWSchmidt, not Adambro, and he's attempting to divert attention from his own behavior by multiplying charges against others, demanding response, demanding full evidence for every claim by any user critical of his behavior (or that of Moulton), and generally by demanding, demanding, demanding, the opposite of the listening he promised. I suggest he start listening. It's never too late, and Wikiversity is, rather obviously, a very forgiving community. But it cannot long continue to forgive what isn't acknowledged as an error, that continues to be repeated. --Abd 14:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "what isn't acknowledged as an error" <-- If something is not an error then you will wait a very long time for me to admit that it is an error. Abd, you can call anything "vandalism" but it is not rational to expect other people to go along with a contorted definition of vandalism. False charges of "vandalism" are a very serious matter. Custodians are empowered to deal quickly with obvious vandalism. Any sysop who starts wildly applying the term "vandalism" to anything that is not obvious vandalism should expect to defend their claim with careful reasoning and evidence. Very early in this discussion I pointed to useful definitions of vandalism (at Wikiversity and Wikipedia) and it is only fair that other people do the same if they want to suggest an alternative definition of vandalism. My view of what constitutes vandalism is not swayed by quirky personal definitions of vandalism. "edits that are contrary to known policy (whether explicit or implicit) can also be called "vandalism," in a loose sense" <-- but not when a scholar's reputation is on the line. If I stand by and let someone falsely label a Wikiversity participant's edits as "vandalism" then I know the next day the next step in gaming the system will be an unjustified call to ban the vandal. Good faith edits are not vandalism. Period. Making false claims in log entries is the subject of another community review. I mentioned one particular falsified log entry in the community review of my behavior because it was a convenient example that was literally in my face while I composed my reply to WAS 4.250. "This is a CR on JWSchmidt, not Adambro, and he's attempting to divert attention from his own behavior" <-- I'll let the community decide. If the actions of other people are relevant to the discussion of my Wikiversity participation that I have the right to discuss the actions of other people. I request that Wikipedians observing this discussion not try to game the system by trying to invent reasons to place restriction on what I can say. WAS 4.250 asked me about my aspirations for Wikiversity and if they have been attained. It was natural for me to discuss a few examples of what deflects from advancing the Wikiversity mission. Falsely placing the label "vandalism" on a good faith edit was simply a convenient example for me to mention, entirely relevant to the discussion and not an attempt to divert attention from my own behavior. I have ample opportunity to discuss the actions of other people at the other community review. And really, the point here would be whether or not the use of rollback in a specific case -- which JWSchmidt doesn't clearly describe -- was abusive. <-- The specific case is now the subject of the other community review. See "case #3". "there is an apparent intention to defame Adambro" <-- My intention is move Wikiversity towards fulfillment of its mission. I have the right to object to sysops who abuse their power by violating policy and falsely calling good faith edits "vandalism". Correcting the errors made by sysops does not constitute an effort to defame anyone. it is not really about "vandalism" and "rollback policy." It's about "bad sysops." <-- Abd, please support this wild accusation with reasoning and evidence. Start at the other community review. There you can read about #Rollback|rollback policy and vandalism. "bad sysops" <-- The community review is about bad actions that have disrupted the Wikiversity community. Notice what I have called for: policy improvements and protections against problematic actions that disrupt Wikiversity. I suggest he start listening" <-- Are you suggesting that I have not been listening? I've made a good faith effort to respond rationally to ever question and request. Is there a |specific question or request that you want me to respond to? --JWSchmidt 17:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback of IP edits to this page
I rolled back IP edits to this page restoring a Moulton comment. This page has been unprotected to allow IP editors to comment. Moulton is a blocked user and his edits may be reverted on sight; however, my view is that any registered editor may revert them back in, taking responsibility for them. JWS, for example, if he wants the Moulton edits to show here, may revert them back in. If IP traffic on this page becomes too heavy, and if it appears to be sourced with Moulton or somehow allied with him, it may be necessary to return to semiprotection. I hope not, I prefer that all readers be allowed to comment if they wish, and that includes Moulton. A reverted comment is still a comment and may be normally be read by anyone. Because this CR is about JWS, he should be able to present whatever evidence he chooses, within reason, and Moulton comments, if they do not specifically violate policy, may be part of that. --Abd 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Penninghlhd

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 21:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Page blanking
I noticed you blanked the page of several articles you created. Are you seeking to have the pages deleted completely or making room for a rewrite? Is there a problem I can help with? Geoff Plourde 19:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Geoff, I indeed like to have the pages on Neural Symbolic Cognitive Agents deleted completely. The reason is copyright. I have setup the Neural Symbolic Learning and Reasoning research project page for online collaboration, but found out that there can be conflicts when we want to publish original research to conferences and journals, because of the creative commons license. Is there a way to work around this, meaning can we can write articles on Wikiversity and still be able to publish them to conferences and journals with conflicting copyright licenses? If not, we will probably stick to writing about secondary research only. Furthermore is it possible to protect the research project page and all its subpages so that we can manage who can edit? --Leo de Penning 07:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Leo, I'm not a lawyer so I can't give a definite answer on the copyright issues. Jtneill is a academic from the University of Canberra who might have a better answer/know who to ask. I'll delete the pages in question shortly. I think you could write the rough drafts on Wikiversity and keep the final off, which might be a workaround. With regards to locking pages, we aren't really set up to do that. I don't think you'll have problems with people editing your pages though (except maybe for spelling or code problems :P). Regards, Geoff Plourde 03:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm noticing some pages are used on other pages and transcluded in. Could you please list which ones you want deleted and delink them? I'd really hate to wreck your pretty formatting when I go through on a deletion spree. Geoff Plourde 03:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no other pages I like to have deleted. Thanks for all the info! And in the future I will use the deletion templates when nescessary. --Leo de Penning 08:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You can request that a page be deleted by placing, on the page, a deletion template. If you are the only author, it's simple. Place this:, when you are logged in. A custodian should see this pretty quickly, will look at the diff and page history to verify that you are the only author, and delete it with no further ado. If you want to keep a blanked page, that can cause some trouble because blanked pages may be routinely deleted. So put some content on the page, such as, on the Topics page, if you want that transcluded page kept, instead of blanking, you could put "No topics at this time."

Using Wikiversity to hold drafts where you want to reserve copyright is problematic, because you are granting rights under our site license, and that isn't revoked by blanking or even deletion. It may depend on the journal to which you are submitting the paper.... As to locking pages, it's possible to protect them, but then you could not edit them, and you'd need to ask a custodian to help every time you wanted to make a change. If you want others not to edit a page, you can put the actual page in your user space, generally you have the right to ask others not to edit such pages. If they do, you can just revert the changes. Be sure that the request to not edit is clearly stated so that someone doesn't waste their time editing just to have it reverted. --Abd 04:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With regards to putting up notices to let people know to avoid those pages, see here Geoff Plourde 05:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, Geoff. I hadn't seen that or seen it used. It would be within custodian discretion to enforce or decline to enforce that. --Abd 16:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

About licensing your works
Well, if you have just published some edits here under cc-by-sa 3.0 license, they can be freely distributed and changed under this license. I.e. if you dont want people to change them you can put it into your user name space (e.g. user:Penninghlhd/Why potatoes doesn't grow…). Usually user namespaces are respected and people doesn't change those works. But than the purpose of Wikiversity is lost if everything is in user namespaces.

Other opportunity is to publish them elsewhere e.g. on your own installation of MediaWiki where you can manage user rights.

So if your works which were placed here will be deleted. It depends if someone already copied them or not. If so he/she/it can freely change them and distribute them under the conditions of cc-by-sa 3.0 license elsewhere.

I.e. once you are an author of a "work" you can share your work under every license you like. I.e. you can share your work here on Wikiversity under cc-by-sa 3.0 license and in the same time share it elsewhere copyrighted and get a money for its use. Only conflict may come if you will see someone who is using that work and he/she didn't pay for the permission, because he/she can say, that it is a reuse of the work you published under cc-by-sa 3.0 licensed. So as an author of the work, you can release it under what license you like and it doesn't depend if these licensed are in conflict.

So in general if conference organizer doesn't call for "exclusive" agreement/license everything is OK.

The problem might came with impacted articles as many of them want "exclusive license", which means that you cant publish the same work elsewhere. But I think you may try to come to terms even you published already that work elsewhere: but it will be hard. As "exclusive agreement/license" is on what the magazine earn.--Juan de Vojníkov 09:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Relationship student-school, teacher-school
Note that you should also know the laws of your country and agreements with your employer. As in some countries (e.g. Czech Republic), if releasing "works" of students even the school/research institute should agree with such release and in the case of teacher or employee only employer gives permission to release it.--Juan de Vojníkov 09:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Penninghlhd


text:
Portal:Neural Symbolic Learning and Reasoning

penninghlhd

Today's featured article is:

The project's main research topics are:

The following people are active participants in this research project:

The following topics are planned for the near future:


text:
User talk:Camila~enwikiversity

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 21:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Camila~enwikiversity


text:
User:Lumila

GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRICS

Morphometrics is a quantitative way of addressing the shape comparisons that have always interested biologists (Zelditch et al. 2004). In this sense, Geometric Morphometrics could be defined as the study of form in two or three dimensional spaces (Bookstein 1982) allowing in-depth investigation of morphological change. Instead of focusing on multivariate analysis of a set of linear measurements between points, Geometric Morphometrics (GM) intends to study changes in size and shape, taking as a point of departure displacements in the plane (2D) or space (3D) of a set of morphometric landmarks. The two- or three- dimensional spatial relationship of these landmarks is always preserved throughout the whole analysis, which allows to accurately build shape and size of the specimen studied. The set of analytical and graphical methods, collectively called Geometric Morphometrics (GM) was developed during the '80s, although it dates to biometricians from the nineteenth century. The way to capture the geometry (and therefore the size and shape) of the object of study is by means of morphometric points or landmarks. The latter are characters based on coordinates from which it can be deduced the shape of the bodies and then study and compare using the appropriate methods for describing and analyzing the differences. A landmark is a point in a two- or three- dimensional space which corresponds to the position of a particular trait on an object (Zelditch et al. 2004). The choice of landmarks depends on the biological question to be answered: depending on the purpose of the study, the homology of the landmarks can be purely operational (from a geometrical correspondence between the landmarks on the objects to biologically homologous structures). For example in osteological remains a landmark can be defined as the point which marks the trace of a muscle attachment, or the foramen which marks the passage of a neurovascular bundle. Landmarks with the same name, counterparts in the semantic sense of the term, are assumed to correspond in the same way all over the objects in the sample studied. Thus, the landmarks can be specific points on the object that show any phylogenetic, structural, functional or developmental significance (Lele and Richtsmeier 2001). There are three types of landmarks called Type I, II and III by Bookstein (1991); traditional, confused or "fuzzy" and built, by Lele and Richstmeier (2001) and anatomical, mathematical and pseudolandmarks by Dryden and Mardia (1998). The coordinates of landmarks are Cartesian coordinates which locate the position of each landmark, on the plane (x, y) or space (x, y, z) with respect to an axis system. By definition, Morphometry is the quantitative study of form. In these studies, the form of an object is decompose into size and shape, and is defined as the total geometric information that remains after removing the effects of translation, rotation and scale from the object (Bookstein 1991, Dryden and Mardia 1998). In traditional morphology, there is no single and precise definition of size: any definition is closely linked to the type of analysis to be carried out. For example, the size of the object of study can be defined as an area, length, weight, volume or centroid. In most tests, the size is represented by a single measure (eg total length, total weight) by a linear combination of measures (eg arithmetic mean) or the relationship between measures (eg area, volume, geometric mean). None of those ways of measuring the size is inherently better than another, but the choice of type of measure is very important to get relevant results according to the analysis used (Richtsmeier et al. 2002). The most commonly size estimator used is the centroid size. The centroid size equals the square root of the sum of the squared distances of landmarks from a set with a previously defined centroid or, in the same way, the square root of the sum of the variances of the landmarks around the centroid in x and y directions (Bookstein 1990, 1991).The centroid size is used because, in the absence of allometry, it is supposed to be uncorrelated with any variable in shape (Bookstein 1986) when the landmarks are distributed around its mean independently and have small and equal variances at each point and in each direction. The centroid size is the size measure used to scale a configuration of landmarks in such a way that it can be projected as a point in the space form of Kendall. Shape is all the geometrical information that remains after removing the effects of translation, rotation and scale in the object (Bookstein 1991, Dryden and Mardia 1998, Kendall, 1981).

Bookstein, F.L., 1982. “Foundation of morphometrics”. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13, 451- 470. Bookstein, F.L., 1986. “Size and shape spaces for landmark data in two dimensions: comment”. Statistical Science 1, 238-242. Bookstein, F.L., 1990. “Introduction to methods for landmark data”. In: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL (eds), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop; Special publication of the University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology 2, 215-225. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Bookstein, F.L., 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data. Geometry and biology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dryden, I.L., Mardia, K.V., 1998. Statistical shape analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Kendall, D.G., 1981. The statistics of shape. In: Barnett V (ed), Interpreting multivariate data, 75-80. New York: Wiley & Sons. Lele, S.R., Richtsmeier, J.T., 2001. An invariant approach to statistical analysis of shapes. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Richtsmeier, J.T., Burke Deleon, V., Lele, S.R., 2002. “The promise of Geometric Morphometrics”. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 45, 63-91. Zelditch, M.L., Swiderski, D.L., Sheets, H.D., and Fink, W.L., 2004. Geometric morphometric for biologists: a primer. London Academic Press.

title: User:Lumila


text:
Geometric morphometrics

Morphometrics is a quantitative way of addressing the shape comparisons that have always interested biologists (Zelditch et al. 2004). In this sense, Geometric Morphometrics could be defined as the study of form in two or three dimensional spaces (Bookstein 1982) allowing in-depth investigation of morphological change.

Instead of focusing on multivariate analysis of a set of linear measurements between points, Geometric Morphometrics (GM) intends to study changes in size and shape, taking as a point of departure displacements in the plane (2D) or space (3D) of a set of morphometric landmarks. The two- or three- dimensional spatial relationship of these landmarks is always preserved throughout the whole analysis, which allows to accurately build shape and size of the specimen studied.

The set of analytical and graphical methods, collectively called Geometric Morphometrics (GM) was developed during the '80s, although it dates to biometricians from the nineteenth century.

The way to capture the geometry (and therefore the size and shape) of the object of study is by means of morphometric points or landmarks. The latter are characters based on coordinates from which it can be deduced the shape of the bodies and then study and compare using the appropriate methods for describing and analyzing the differences.

A landmark is a point in a two- or three- dimensional space which corresponds to the position of a particular trait on an object (Zelditch et al. 2004). The choice of landmarks depends on the biological question to be answered: depending on the purpose of the study, the homology of the landmarks can be purely operational (from a geometrical correspondence between the landmarks on the objects to biologically homologous structures). For example in osteological remains a landmark can be defined as the point which marks the trace of a muscle attachment, or the foramen which marks the passage of a neurovascular bundle. Landmarks with the same name, counterparts in the semantic sense of the term, are assumed to correspond in the same way all over the objects in the sample studied. Thus, the landmarks can be specific points on the object that show any phylogenetic, structural, functional or developmental significance (Lele and Richtsmeier 2001).

There are three types of landmarks called Type I, II and III by Bookstein (1991); traditional, confused or "fuzzy" and built, by Lele and Richstmeier (2001) and anatomical, mathematical and pseudolandmarks by Dryden and Mardia (1998). The coordinates of landmarks are Cartesian coordinates which locate the position of each landmark, on the plane (x, y) or space (x, y, z) with respect to an axis system.

By definition, Morphometry is the quantitative study of form.In these studies, the form of an object is decompose into size and shape, and is defined as the total geometric information that remains after removing the effects of translation, rotation and scale from the object (Bookstein 1991, Dryden and Mardia 1998). In traditional morphology, there is no single and precise definition of size: any definition is closely linked to the type of analysis to be carried out.

The size of the object of study can be defined as an area, length, weight, volume or centroid. In most tests, the size is represented by a single measure (eg total length, total weight) by a linear combination of measures (eg arithmetic mean) or the relationship between measures (eg area, volume, geometric mean). None of those ways of measuring the size is inherently better than another, but the choice of type of measure is very important to get relevant results according to the analysis used (Richtsmeier et al. 2002). The most commonly size estimator used is the centroid size. The centroid size equals the square root of the sum of the squared distances of landmarks from a set with a previously defined centroid or, in the same way, the square root of the sum of the variances of the landmarks around the centroid in x and y directions (Bookstein 1990, 1991).The centroid size is used because, in the absence of allometry, it is supposed to be uncorrelated with any variable in shape (Bookstein 1986) when the landmarks are distributed around its mean independently and have small and equal variances at each point and in each direction. The centroid size is the size measure used to scale a configuration of landmarks in such a way that it can be projected as a point in the space form of Kendall.

Shape is all the geometrical information that remains after removing the effects of translation, rotation and scale in the object(Bookstein 1991, Dryden and Mardia 1998, Kendall, 1981).

title: Geometric morphometrics


text:
Plant microtechnique

The microscopic analysis of herbal drugs is necessary for the characterization and identification of species, with major implications in quality control, forensic investigation and identification of archaeological materials, among other uses.

Sectioning
The safety razor blade can be used to produce sections which are thin enough for study under magnifications of 100-400x. As each section is cut it will slide onto the knife blade, lubricated by 50% alcohol solution. The section can be examined temporarily in water (a 50% glycerin solution will be needed if the section is meant to be kept for several months). The sections can be transverse, longitudinal and tangential.

Peeling
The epidermis of most leaves can be readily removed by the scraping method. First place a square of leaf on the slide (keeping the leaf irrigated with a few drops of sodium hypochlorite). Then hold the leaf with a cork and scrape gently with a razor blade. Finally trim off the thin part, transfer to a dish with tap water and brush off loose cells. Then it will be ready to be mounted on a slide. With some materials it is unnecessary to scrape the leaf. In these cases the peeling is done by folding the leaf to break the surface, and either stripping directly, pulling one part of the leaf downwards relative to the other, or by holding as thin a layer of the surface as possible between forceps and peeling it back.

Clearing
When the study of sections with their inclusions is finished, another observation will be conducted, with "cleared" sections. Sections can be cleared by transferring them from a dish of 50% alcohol solution to a dish of water with a brush or fine forceps. Then they are placed in a petri dish containing undiluted sodium hypochlorite (household bleach).The time needed for cell contents to dissolve away is usually of 5 minutes, and can be determined by visual inspection. After immersion in the bleach, the sections are thoroughly washed in water (it is recomended to use fine forceps instead of a brush because its bristles will dissolve).

Staining
There are several staining combinations that may be used to enhance details within sections. Sections of freshly cut material should be washed gently, to remove cell debris which will obscure details once the section has been stained. Specific stains are prescribed for particular characters:

Reagents used for the microscopic examination:
1% aqueous methylene blue: All cell walls turn blue, except cutin or cutinized walls which remain unstained.

Phloroglucin/HCl: The phloroglucin is added to the section, and then the diluted HCl. Lignin turns red.

Sudan III: is a reagent for triglycerides detection, which turns them red.

Lugol’s solution: is a reagent for starch detection, which turns them blue or violet.

Rutenium red: Mucilage and some gums turn pink. Sections can be mounted directly in the stain.

Identification of microscopic botanical characters
The following are some particular features and the families where they can be found. Not all members of the families listed will necessarily show the features mentioned, but the features regularly occur where indicated.

Leaf
Anisocytic stomata: Brassicaceae, Plumbaginaceae.

Anomocytic stomata: Berberidaceae, Capparaceae, Liliaceae, Polygonaceae, Ranunculaceae

Diacytic stomata: Acanthaceae, Caryophyllaceae.

Latex-containing cells: Apocynaceae, Convolvulaceae, Papaveraceae.

Laticifers, articulated: Papaveraceae, Euphorbiaceae.

Laticifers, non-articulated: Apocynaceae, Asclepiadaceae.

Paracytic stomata: Juncaceae, Magnoliaceae, Poaceae, Rubiaceae.

Peltate hairs: Bombacaceae, Elaeagnaceae, Oleaceae

Sclereids: Margraviaceae, Oleaceae, Theaceae, Trochodendraceae.

Silicified hairs: Poaceae.

Stinging hairs: Euphorbiaceae, Loasaceae, Urticaceae.

Stem
Cluster crystals: Bombacaceae, Cactaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Malvaceae, Rutaceae, Tiliaceae, Urticaceae.

Cystoliths: Cannabinaceae, Moraceae, Urticaceae.

Raphides: Balsaminaceae, Dilleniaceae, Liliaceae, Margraviaceae, Rubiaceae.

Solitary crystals: Flacourtiaceae, Mimosaceae, Papilionaceae, Rutaceae, Tamaricaceae

Superficial cork: Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Corylaceae, Fagaceae, Labiatae, Meliaceaae, Proteaceae.

Softwood
Resin ducts (axial): Picea, Pinus (Gymnosperms)

Use of monographs and micrographs
Monographs may contain schematic drawings of the main microscopic features of powdered drugs, which are useful in the comparison and identification of specimens.

title: Plant microtechnique


text:
Housing rights in Argentina

Housing rights in Argentina

Inhabiting a worthy house helps to guarantee other human rights. Adequate housing should have access to safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities, site drainage and emergency services; adequate housing should provide enough and adequate space for a comfortable life and protection from cold, heat, rain, wind, dust or other risks to health. Adequate housing must also be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, educational centres and other social facilities. Living in a place with those features facilitates the satisfaction of other rights: health, privacy, rest, education, work.

The Argentine republic has a Constitution which contains two articles related to housing rights.

There is an article incorporated in 1957 (14 bis) which mentions explicitly, among other issues, the right to a house: “In particular, the laws shall establish:... access to a worthy house.”

In 1994 a series of international human rights treaties were incorporated to the Constitution (article 75, paragraph 22) obliging the nation to comply with these new commitments. Several of those treaties contain points about housing but the more relevant and extensive instrument related to this topic is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) that establish the content of the right to adequate housing and how the State should proceed in relation to forced evictions. The ICESCR says that:

An adequate house must have: Legislation about forced evictions should contain measures which:
 * Legal security of tenure
 * Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure
 * Affordability of the household costs
 * Habitability
 * Accessibility to those entitled to it
 * Location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools and other social facilities.
 * Cultural adequacy
 * Provide the maximum security of tenure to occupiers
 * Are adjusted to the ICESCR
 * Regulate strictly how forced evictions must be carried out

The articles and the treaties mentioned should guarantee the housing rights in Argentina. However, in spite of the existence of those legal instruments a large part of the population is still having housing problems, huge difficulties to have access to a place to live in and is exposed to forced evictions, done by the same state that should protect them. Those legal instruments also require the State to invest the maximum available resources to meet the housing goals.

Observing the present habitational situation and knowing the contents of the current legislation there is a contradiction that poses some questions related to this topic.
 * Who, having the possibility, does not comply with the norms?
 * Is it possible to solve housing problems only with the legal framework?
 * What other actions could be made to improve the habitational situation?

title: Housing rights in Argentina


text:
User talk:Yesi707

 Hello Yesi707, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Plant microtechnique
Hi, I have found out page Plant microtechnique and add in to the category Botany. Is that right or other categories are also relevant. We are adding pages on Wikiversity to categories to sort them using different topics.

And by the way, what about to add in some pictures. You can brows Wikimedia Commons. Or upload your own ones.--Juan de Vojníkov 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yesi707


text:
User talk:Ejs~enwikiversity

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 22:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Ejs~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Laispardini

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 22:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Laispardini


text:
User talk:Lumila

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 22:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Geometric morphometrics
Hi, is this your work or copy from somewhere? And into what general topic we can set it?--Juan de Vojníkov 16:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lumila


text:
Microeconomics/Consumer Theory

Consumer Theory
The aim of this section is to explain a fundamental problem in economics, the derivation of a consumer’s demand function, in a very simple way. The article is organized as follows:

 * Conceptual review of assumptions in demand theory
 * Description of the Utility Maximization Problem
 * Derivation of the Expenditure Minimization Problem
 * Relationship between both problems

Assumptions
The consumer theory assumes that the consumer is rational. This implies that his preferences satisfy the following properties:

1. They are complete; that is, given any set of possible bundles of goods, the consumer is always capable of deciding which one is preferable to the others and then ranking them in terms of preference.

2. They are reflexive; it means that any bundle is at least as good as itself.

3. They are transitive; meaning that if a bundle $$A \,$$ is preferred to a bundle $$B \,$$, and this bundle $$B \,$$ is preferable to a third bundle  $$C \,$$, then it is implied that the first bundle $$A \,$$ will be preferred to the bundle $$C \,$$.

4. They are continuous; there are no big jumps in the ranking of alternatives.

The fulfillment of these properties ensures that consumer’s preferences are consistent and can be represented by an utility function, $$U(.) \,$$ such that if bundle $$A \,$$ is preferred to bundle $$B \,$$, then $$U(A)>U(B) \,$$

The locus of all bundles that give a certain level of utility to the consumer constitutes an indifference curve (or level curve), which is the usual way of representing preferences. Nevertheless, in spite of these four properties, there is still the possibility of having “special cases” such as the existence of perfect substitutes or perfect complements, among others, which lead to special shapes for the indifference curves. For avoiding these cases, two additional properties are assumed:

5. Preferences are monotonic, or “more is preferred to less”; this implies that, given any set of two bundles, if one of them contains at least as much of all goods and more of one good than the other, then the first bundle will be preferred to the second.

6. Preferences are convex; that is, any combination of two equally preferable bundles will be more desirable than these bundles.

These five properties confer a special shape to level curves: they are downward slopping and convex.

Utility Maximization Problem
This section develops the Utility Maximization Problem (UMP) for the simplest case of only two goods. The model can easily be generalized to $$N \,$$ goods.

Assume that there are two goods, $$x_1\,$$ and $$x_2\,$$, whose prices are $$p_1\,$$ and  $$p_2\,$$, respectively. The consumer has a fixed amount of income, $$m\,$$, for spending on consumption, and his preferences are represented by a generic utility function, $$U (x_1, x_2)\,$$ , with $$U_1\,>0$$, $$U_2\,>0$$. The consumer’s aim is to obtain the maximum possible utility but he is constrained by his level of income. He cannot spend more than $$m\,$$, thus he faces a budget constraint: $$p_1x_1+p_2x_2 = m\,$$1

Formally, the problem can be formulated as follows:

Max   $$U (x_1, x_2)\,$$          subject to          $$p_1x_1+p_2x_2 = m\,$$

And it can be solved by the Lagrange Multipliers method:

Max             $$L = U (x_1, x_2) +  \lambda \left({m - p_1x_1 - p_2x_2}\right)\,$$

$$\left\{{x_1,x_2, \lambda}\right\}$$

The first order conditions (FOC) are:

$$ (1) L_1 =U_1 -  \lambda p_1=0\,$$

$$ (2) L_2 =U_2 - \lambda p_2=0\,$$

$$ (3) L_\lambda = m -p_1x_1-p_2x_2 =0\,$$

Note that conditions $$(1) \,$$ and $$(2) \,$$ imply that $$\frac{U_1}{U_2} = \frac{p_1}{p_2}$$. That is, the marginal rate of substitution (MRS) must be equal to the relation of prices, and it means that the indifference curve must be tangent to the budget constraint.

The second order conditions (SOC) are:

$$ (4) \left|H_U\right|=\begin{vmatrix} U_{11} & U_{12} &-p_1\\ U_{21}& U_{22} & -p_2\\  -p_1  & -p_2 & 0 \end{vmatrix}>0 $$

It can be demonstrated that the SOC imply that indifference curves are convex. The reciprocal is true only for the case of two goods.

The solutions to the FOC are $$x_1^M$$,$$x_2^M$$,$$\lambda^M \,$$.They depend on prices and income, thus they can be written as $$x_1^M(p_1,p_2,m)$$,$$x_2^M(p_1,p_2,m)$$,$$\lambda^M(p_1,p_2,m) \,$$.The functions $$x_1^M$$ and $$x_2^M$$,< are the Marshallian Demand Functions. They represent the amount of goods $$x_1\,$$ and $$x_2\,$$, that the consumer is willing to purchase given their prices, income and tastes.

Another concept that emerges from the UMP is the Indirect Utility Function, and it can be obtained by replacing the Marshallian demands into the utility function. By definition, it also is a function of prices and income, then it can be written as $$U^*(p_1,p_2,m)\equiv U (x_1^M(p_1,p_2,m),x_2^M(p_1,p_2,m))$$. Intuitively, it represents the maximum utility that the consumer can achieve for any given values of $$p_1,p_2,m \,$$.

Note that, because of the Envelop Theorem, it must be the case that $$\frac=\lambda^M(p_1,p_2,m)$$. It implies that the Lagrange multiplier can be thought as the marginal utility of income. That is, it represents the rate of change of the maximum utility that is derived from an infinitesimal rise in income.

1 Striclty, the constraint is $$p_1x_1+p_2x_2 \leq m$$, but the monotonicity assumption ensures that he will spend all his income.

Expenditure Minimization Problem
The Expenditure Minimization Problem (EPM) is the dual problem of the UMP and it can be thought as follows. Consider a consumer who gets utility through the consumption of the two goods. In this case, there is no restriction on the income to be spent, but the consumer must be on a certain level curve, $$U^0 \,$$. Given this constraint, his objective is to reach this indifference curve with the minimum possible expenditure. Therefore, the problem is:

Min   $$G = p_1x_1+p_2x_2\,$$          subject to          $$U (x_1, x_2)= U^0\,$$

Again, this constrained optimization can be solved by the Lagrange Multipliers method:

Min             $$L = p_1x_1+p_2x_2+  \mu \left({U^0 - U (x_1, x_2)}\right)\,$$

$$\left\{{x_1,x_2, \mu}\right\}$$

The FOC of this program are:

$$ (5) L_1 =p_1 - \mu U_1=0\,$$

$$ (6) L_2 =p_2 - \mu U_2=0\,$$

$$ (7) L_\mu = U^0 - U (x_1, x_2)=0\,$$

And the SOC are:

$$ (8) \left|H_E\right|=\begin{vmatrix} -\mu U_{11} & -\mu U_{12} &-U_1\\ -\mu U_{21}& -\mu U_{22} & -U_2\\  -U_1  & -U_2 & 0 \end{vmatrix}<0 $$

Note that conditions $$(5)\,$$ and $$(6) \,$$ imply the same tangency condition than the UMP: $$\frac{U_1}{U_2} = \frac{p_1}{p_2}$$. In this program, it means that the expenditure function must be tangent to the indifference curve $$U^0 \,$$.

Solving equations $$(5) \,$$ to $$(7) \,$$ gives the optimal levels of $$x_1^H$$,$$x_2^H$$,$$\mu^H \,$$.The demand functions $$x_1^H$$ and $$x_2^H,$$ are the Hicksian (or Compensated) Demand Functions. Note that these demands depend on prices and the utility level, therefore they are denoted $$x_1^H(p_1,p_2,U^0)$$,$$x_2^H(p_1,p_2,U^0)$$,$$\mu^H(p_1,p_2,U^0) \,$$.

The function resulting from replacing the Hicksian demands into the expenditure function gives the minimum expenditure necessary to reach $$U^0 \,$$ for any given values of $$p_1,p_2,U^0$$. It is called the Indirect Expenditure Function and is denoted $$E^* \equiv p_1x_1^H(p_1,p_2,U^0)+p_2x_2^H(p_1,p_2,U^0)$$.

Again, the Lagrange multiplier has a special interpretation. The Envelop Theorem implies that $$\frac = \mu^H(p_1,p_2,U^0)$$, meaning that the Lagrange multiplier represents the rate of change of the expenditure function given a change in the utility level to reach.

title: Microeconomics/Consumer Theory


text:
User talk:Mrsgibson1

 Hello Mrsgibson1, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mrsgibson1


text:
Motivation and emotion/About/Schedule

 * W02 (Fri) – Topic selection recommended
 * W04
 * Mon 9am - Quiz 1 due
 * Mon 9am - Topic selection due (optional) - no extensions
 * Fri - Last day to withdraw without penalty (Census day)
 * W04 (Fri 9am) – Topic development due - no extensions
 * W06 (Mon 9am) - Quiz 2 due
 * W08
 * No classes - Mid-semester break
 * Mon 9am) - Quiz 3 due
 * Fri - Last day to withdraw without incurring fail
 * W11 (Mon 9am) - Quiz 4 due
 * W11 (Mon 9am) – Book chapter due
 * W13 (Mon 9am) - Quiz 5 due
 * W14 (Mon 9am) – Multimedia presentation due
 * W15 (Mon 9am) – Quiz 6 due
 * W17 (Mon) – Results released

title: Motivation and emotion/About/Schedule


text:
Talk:Northern Arizona University/Philosophy of Law/Wikibook/International law papers: vol. 2

International Law is a Systematic Movement Taken by Nations Diplomatically... by i Mahmud


text:
User talk:Greniea14

 Hello Greniea14, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 04:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Greniea14


text:
User talk:JWSchmidt/First half 2010 discussions

Note: this is an archive of old discussions. Please do not edit this page. Continue these discussions at User talk:JWSchmidt. There are other archives at User talk:JWSchmidt/Discussion archive.

Near Death Experience
Can you comment on The Near Death Experience as Possible Evidence for any Afterlife? Can you put me in touch with others who can comment here? Proxima Centauri 16:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

APPRECIATING YOUR BEAUTIFUL CREATION.
Just to express the appreciation of your beautiful setting. I am venturing into web designing for the first time. Email:- sunnykanb@gmail.com.Mobile no: 234 7030403305.

User:Trout of Doubt
I hope this diff is OK with you, but if not please let me know. It follows on from this discussion: User talk:Adambro. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

one thing at a time
please. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 16:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on "the problem"
copied from Talk:Wikimedia Ethics/Response testing on WMF projects, permanent link.

 * "why people on Wikipedia felt attacked" <-- in 2008 a few Wikipedians did not want it revealed how they conspired to violate Wikipedia policy. In 2010 RTG and others interpreted "ethical breaching project" to mean that it was a project designed to breach ethics. I'm not interested in dismissing anything...I'm interested in continued study of people who called a study of Wikipedia policy violations an "attack" and those who mistakenly viewed as an "attack" Privatemusings' attempt to help Wikipedia. "set an initial tone that was conducive to good faith collaborative work." <-- The learning projects that you mentioned did not set the "initial tone". Both of those project were created as a response to the actions of others...in one case a violation of Wikipedia BLP policy and in the other case it was a response to those who prefer to delete Wikiversity content rather than improve it. Both projects were open to collaboration and I certainly felt that in both cases I was able to participate in collaborative editing that was educational. These projects might no suit your learning style, but I think that is your limitation and not a sound basis for questioning the good faith efforts behind those two learning projects. The correct way to question and improve a learning project is to click "edit" and discuss your concerns with other editors. "without provoking acrimony" <-- I think we have to face facts. Some sysops become acrimonious when their actions are questioned. Some sysops don't like it when their bad blocks are questioned. Some sysops think they have the right to treat non-vandalism edits as if they were vandalism and they become acrimonious when their actions are questioned. Some sysops think they have the right to conspire off wiki to impose emergency desysop procedures when no emergency exists. Those are serious problems that I try to protect Wikiversity from. My defense of Wikiversity is not the problem, the problem is abusive sysops. --JWSchmidt 17:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, JWSchmidt, the problem is not abusive sysops but the lack of effective dispute resolution process that does not involve massive disruption, and that thus cannot handle sysop error. However, that's not the purpose of this resource, to resolve "the problem," but just to develop some information through study. I fear that this project is being used, to some degree, as a coat-rack for long-term dissatisfaction, which I well understand, but this is not the place to address that. The work done here, if anyone is actually going to do it instead of arguing moot or irrelevant points, may help address it, in the end, but I value knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and any strong agenda that we maintain here may easily contaminate our results and make them less valuable. Please help, and, if you have the inclination to at least watch and help keep us on track, sign up for the project. Perhaps part of the value of this project could be in developing procedures that help us to step back and step away from the blaming habits that we can so easily fall into. --Abd 18:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "the lack of effective dispute resolution process" <-- I don't agree. The first part of the "dispute resolution process" is clicking the "edit" button and talking to people. Abusive sysops reach first for the "rollback", "delete" and "block" buttons and conspire in secret to impose emergency desysops when no emergency exists. Until Wikiversity is protected from abusive sysops it will be impossible for this community to function as it should. --JWSchmidt 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(end of copied material)

Yes, JW, that is the first part of the process, but it is not the entire process. There is a lost performative in the passive voice you use about Wikiversity protection. Who or what is to protect Wikiversity from (allegedly) abusive sysops or other disruptive users? How? You have it backwards, in fact. I don't blame you, your view is common. "The problem is those guys." And the implied solution is to get rid of them. But, JW, that is exactly how those guys think! I am, of course, most familiar with Wikipedia, which has gone much further down a blind alley, and which is a great demonstration of how blaming and banning doesn't work in the end. What works is known, and the social technology exists, and it would be foolish for Wikiversity to not take advantage of what is known about real dispute resolution process. As it exists on Wikipedia, it has been misunderstood. The purpose of DR is to resolve disputes, which means that they cease to exist, and not because one side has buried the other, but because consensus was found. Often, when I raise this, the red herring of absolute consensus is raised. It is technically enough if a majority of a community supports a decision, provided that it has been widely considered. Short of that, which is the norm, it is routine to require supermajority, and absolute consensus is desirable, not an absolute requirement.

If real DR process is set up, the majority of disputes will be resolved, I predict it. Some won't be, and there needs to be, then, a fallback, if we assume that some decision must be made. There are classic solutions that work. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. There are innovative tweaks that might be effective that would cost nothing to implement, but we first need to

 * Agree on the value of consensus as a goal.
 * Establish small-scale facilitation of consensus process. This means that if two editors are in conflict and cannot resolve it themselves, they are guided by an experienced editor who have the necessary knowledge and skills. This process should be readily available and easily accessible, and should be required before process involving more editors begins. This means setting up policy pages covering dispute resolution, and setting up a category of editors skilled at this who are willing to take the time.
 * Dispute resolution must be separated from decision process. Decisions may need to be made, sometimes immediately. Typically, any community has officers who are empowered to make ad-hoc decisions, under their own discretion, as needed. These officers do not make law, and they do not convict, i.e., assess blame, and, especially, they do not punish. The wiki adhocracy generally assigns decisions in case of conflict to a "closer" of a discussion, presumably neutral. It's quite efficient, but also it breaks down if it does not connect to a larger structure that can with relative efficiency correct the errors of closers (and administrators).
 * Develop large-scale consensus process, covering the entire community, that is more efficient than the mass discussions that afflict even Wikiversity with its relatively small user base. It would not be difficult, not in itself. It becomes difficult because many have become attached to the mass process, which is easier to manipulate for some, and which is simply knee-jerk familiar to others, those who were seriously frustrated having already left.
 * Develop high-level decision process. Wikipedia has ArbComm, and, as a result, Jimbo has agreed to not overrule ArbComm decisions, and he's respected that even when he clearly disagreed. There are better ways to do it than ArbComm, which was, after all, developed by Jimbo. Wikiversity could pioneer this, but that's beyond the scope of our immediate discussion.

As to your last response, you seem to have overlooked something. You describe "abusive sysops" who act and conspire, as making it impossible for the "community to function as it should." There is nothing that can prevent the community from functioning, fully and effectively, if it decides it wants to do so. The existence of abusive sysops can only affect the community if it only connects on-wiki, and that the community restricts itself to this is the core of the problem, and unless a wiki has been set up to rigorously function in certain ways -- and it has never been done to my knowledge -- there will always be participation bias, typically and especially "founder bias," of all things. Imagine a University where people never talk to each other outside of class, where organizing a strike or massively supported petition, if it were needed, for example, could not be done because it would be repressed. "Disruption not allowed. The University is not a social club." w:WP:Esperanza was crushed. Ever wonder why?

This set of sysops you call abusive have their own vision of the value and purpose of the project, and they act together to that end. Obviously, you disagree with them, and specifically with the actions of one (or more). So you have a dispute. How can this dispute be resolved so that consensus is found? Often, when situations get as bad as they have on WP and to a lesser extent here, those who have not fled yet still believe that "the other side" is intransigent and that consensus is impossible. And, of course, the other side thinks the same. This is nothing that a skilled facilitator would not know how to approach.

If there is good DR process, the truly intransigent will become visible, I guarantee it, and these are the ones that the community (or management, if it's different from the community) will deal with, through protective action. I hope I've made my position more clear. --Abd 19:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Toast either way. With or without jam? Coffee or tea?
Eh? Even though you've been here since 2005, if you are right, you'll be toast. If you are wrong, you'll be toast. Basically, if anyone is paying attention, you'll be toast. It's looking like that's what you want. True? With or without jam? Coffee or tea? --Abd 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron
Just came across this - thought it might be of interest. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete
I Deleted Browse --Qyesq 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Qyesq

Synthetic cells
Any interest in making a 5-10 min audi podcast on this reasearch ?

Sfan00 IMG 11:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 * The idea was a general podcast, that could be listened to by other Wikimedians, (although bear in mind they might not be bio sciences graduates). Wikinews has recently started to make Audio Wikinews again, and I felt that a complex topic like the synthetic cells idea needed a longer specialist report.

As well as covering the actual research, a podcast would need to consider the previous research and present a balanced view on some of the ethical issues..

Way back I came up with a name for a Science Podcast called 'Sunosi' on a different wiki.. I've got no objections to someone using that name to do a podcats on a science related theme.

The objective here though is an interesting (hopefully topical) documentary, as opposed to an 'audio-abstract' or lecture talk..

The other hope is that by getting one podcast it will get some interest for other people making them :)

In terms of practical production, I'd considered using this as a Theme for Sunosi - http://incompetech.com/m/c/royalty-free/index.html?keywords=Eyes+Gone+Wrong

Sfan00 IMG 00:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Virus research
Given your bio-sciences background - I thought this might be of interest:

http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2010/05/breakthrough-cure-for-ebola.html

Sfan00 IMG 15:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello
JWSchmidt wrote:
 * I read some of your blog and was provoked to ask how you think we can actually achieve a reasonably good fundamental understanding of the universe and our place in it. Our brains are available tools for generating beliefs about the nature of reality, but I'm a skeptic about the prospects for any naked brain study of the world leading to beliefs that are well-founded. I say "naked brain" in the same way I would discuss "naked eye astronomy": we gain greater understanding of astronomy by inventing and using new tools (like telescopes) rather than relying only on naked eye observations. Thinking and philosophizing and reaching fundamental conclusions on the basis of "naked brain" observations seems as unlikely to reveal the true nature of the universe as trying to understand the nature of galaxies by looking up at the stars with our naked eyes. Are there any good reasons to believe that pre-scientific philosophical traditions (which rely on "naked brain" observations) can provide us with a coherent and meaningful narrative about the universe, our place in it and how we can have a degree of certainty about the validity of our beliefs? --JWSchmidt 02:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I had a look at your textbook on consciousness, that was you wasn't it in collaboration with someone else on wikibooks? (just by memory). JWSchmidt, I don't think we can come to "a reasonably good understanding of the universe and our place in it". My weblog is just an active meditation on different spiritual traditions and an attempt to grasp the different themes of nonduality that are collapsed into one by different textual traditions. I like the story-telling aspect of spirituality, myth and folklore. I hold that certainty is a possibility about precious little in the human condition. I have a love for the sciences but they are just human constructions. I hold that beliefs are less important than the value of their function which is to give a sense of purpose.B9hummingbirdhoverin'æ•ω•ॐ 06:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * JWSchmidt, I really believe in open discourse and open access of information and learning resources to all peoples. I noticed this for the first time just before: Wikiversity open letter project/WMF Board March 2010. I have been banned from editing Wikipedia and I truly hold that my ban is unjust and unfounded but you can't avail against a bullying mob and there is no current forum of redress and impartial investigation on Wikipedia. I am somewhat heartbroken that I perceive that these projects are being shanghaied by cohorts of politically active non-editors. By non-editors I mean Wikipedians who frequent administration noticeboards and make assertions as to the quality of the contributions of other editors when they provide no citations and rarely qualitatively improve articles. B9hummingbirdhoverin'æ•ω•ॐ 06:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * B9HB, Wikiversity is a freer and more open environment than Wikipedia, and it is only occasionally afflicted by Wikipedians coming here and importing disputes that really belong on Wikipedia, if anywhere. Difficulties here arise when students and teachers here start to set up resources to cover wikis or Wikipedia, so, politically, we need to be careful about that. If a class on "mob rule" is started in a university, when there are mobs marching around outside carrying pitchforks and screaming, it can attract the mob to the campus. There are practical limits to academic freedom, and timing. I understand your heartbreak, but the Wikipedia problem is really a complex governance problem, and Wikipedia was allowed to become "too large to change," except through very slow and inefficient processes, without good governance being set up. Almost everyone with deep knowledge of the subject agrees, and probably Jimbo does as well. Feel free to develop educational resources here, and, sometimes, work here may end up back at Wikipedia, if it meets the stricter Wikipedia "encyclopedic" standards. Quality will out, trust that. Give it time. Wikipedia bans can be undone, and good work on other Wikimedia projects can be a powerful argument for relaxing bans. This is not a comment at all on the justice of your ban, but unjust or at least unnecessary bans are common on Wikipedia, for structural reasons. Don't take it personally, though there may be some personal lessons in it for you! --Abd 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Eukaryotic gene example

 * History imported and merged. By the way, he satisfied GFDL requirements by linking in the edit summary, so an import and merge was not technically needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw that you put in your edit summary: "(endangered resource at Wikipedia, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic_gene_example)" This covers the GFDL requirement when not importing. Many people forget to do this, even those who are well established users. You, however, preserved the copyright information, so keep up the good work. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Inflammatory material on your talk page and special archives.
JWS, I'm going to ask you to please remove material belaboring past problems instead of moving ahead, where the material may be considered uncivil. Putting old "silly nonsense" in your ordinary archive without such a label is what I'd expect of a normal, collaborative editor, and especially of a sysop, which you were and might again be. It should be possible to easily review old discussions, and the only thing better than a single archive or set of archives (generally by date) for that is organized material, but organized by real topic, not by uncivil judgment.

While you may delete material from your Talk page, I would not recommend it for any editor who might be expected to hold themselves to higher standards than the norm, and I'm hoping that your temporary loss of sysop tools is just that, temporary. Please conduct yourself as if you were a sysop, and you might be quite likely to get the tools back quickly.

Moving material to pages with abusive titles is not acceptable, and I considered moving the pages myself, but decided it was better to allow you to handle it rather than having it imposed on you without your cooperation.

I'd urge you to reframe the unfortunate history, both as to March of this year and prior events. There was a conflict. We won, so to speak, if you look at the overall effect and results, but the damage from the conflict will persist for a time, and hasty reconstruction could lead to later collapse. We need to proceed and try to avoid a repetition of what caused problems before, without compromising our mission. There are many ways to approach this, but it will take patience and careful work. Hasty action could simply cause what happened before to repeat. Just not with the same faces.

Because we won, it is incumbent upon us to take the stance of winners, generous and considerate of those who held different positions, and not the stance of bitter losers, or those who would retaliate or blame.

Please return to civil cooperation with the whole community, which ultimately includes editors at other WikiMedia projects. We need not allow small groups of editors to damage our academic freedom, but we also need keep away from gratuitous and ill-considered offense. Please be a part of the solution. If not, well, we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. Thanks for all your past service building Wikiversity, it's very much appreciated, and even thanks for standing up for academic freedom, that was important too. But there comes a day to stop fighting the Revolution and start building the new and inclusive society. --Abd 19:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, Abd, many people here believe that a user talk page is something that is theirs and they have the right to use as they wish. Except for rewriting what people say (thus attributing false statements to them), a person complaining, being upset, etc, is giving a lot of leniency if done on their own user talk page. You don't have to look, no one does. JWS already knows the above and knows the appearances (good or bad) that it gives. JWS, for instance, has said a lot of negative stuff about me but I would think it inappropriate to use it against him. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is generally true for ordinary users, however, custodians are held to higher standards. If JWS wishes to remain an ordinary editor, fine. Or maybe not fine. It depends on other factors. I'll tell you that, on Wikipedia, a user archive named the way he named the archive here would quite likely see MfD, and would likely succeed or the page would be moved to a less abusive name. I've seen user sub pages from admins which were grossly inappropriate, but that's another problem, a political one. That JWS has the right to maintain certain material doesn't make it wise nor does it mean it's useful for the community. I do agree with maintaining wide latitude for editors on their user pages, in general. The advice above is really more about suggestions for moving forward than anything else. --Abd 20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


text:
Talk:The sport workplace

=Feedback= Please feel free to leave comments or suggestions on this course here Robinmcconnell 06:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:The sport workplace