text:
British Empire/Tudor Origins

Introduction
This module covers the period 1485-1603. Student Feedback and discussion of content is encouraged on the discussion page accessed by the tab above.

Resources

 * Timeline

The Renaissance Concept of Empire
The first person to use the phrase British Empire was the Elizabethan John Dee. The term appears in his 1576 book entitled General and rare memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation. His concept of Empire was based on Dante's Monarchia. This book, written sometime around 1308-1318, placed the judicious revival of Roman Law by Frederick II (Holy Roman Emperor 1220–1250) in a broader picture. In a world riven by strife between the papal powers and secular authority, Dante proposes a single spiritual ruler, the pope, and a single temporal ruler, the emperor, embodying a divinely ordained political structure. The emperor should be a universal ruler of the world, and Dante argued that the Roman Empire was divinely ordained, and served as a model for Holy Roman Empire. Such a universal monarch could establish universal peace and help humanity realise an earthly paradise. Using Fredrick II's concepts of Necessitas, Justitia and Providentia Dante depicted a secular world governed by reason, restoring the imagined universality of Roman rule, above any nationalistic sentiments and unifying Christendom.

As Charles V upon becoming the Holy Roman Emperor (1520) embarked on military campaigns which led to him taking first Francis I of France (1525) and then Pope Clement VII prisoner, there was a revival of interest in Dante's political thought. Mercurino Gattinara, Louis of Praet and Alfonso de Valdés, for example, were courtiers of Charles V who promoted the idea that the Emperor was reviving the Roman Empire. The painting of Charles V by Titian also presents him in a heroic role reminiscent of of roman imperialism. Likewise Ariosto's Orlando Furioso glorifies the reign of Charles V's ancestor and namesake Charlemagne and also the founder of the Holy Roman Empire. Ariosto includes a prophetess, who describes how God kept the lands unknown to Romans aside, waiting for a new emperor to arise as world ruler, i.e Charles V himself. In this, Ariosto was mobilising the Matter of France behind this revival of the Roman Empire. The Matter of France was one of the three elements of Western European medieval literature alongside the Matter of Britain and the Matter of Rome. Ariosto's Orlando Furioso was translated into Scots in 1590 and English in 1591 - specifically ayt the behest of Elizabeth I.

After England's break with the papacy became stabilised in the reign of Elizabeth I, the intellectual ingredients were there for the adaption of the Imperial ideal for shoring up the regime through replacing the Matter of France with the Matter of Britain and promoting the English throne in to the centre of world history. However, this process departed from the medieval understanding of Empire as it was rooted in scientific advancement, particularly in the areas of navigation and geography. Dee has a curious position - on the one hand a magician, yet on the other a scientist. Nevertheless he played a key role as an adviser to most of the explorers around the court of Queen Elizabeth, providing an English translation of Euclid as well as developing the concept of the British Empire.

Creation of a British Identity
During the middle ages a British identity was developed around the legendary figure of Brutus of Troy. Paralleling Virgil's Aeneid, Brutus was a Trojan who founded London before the Roman conquest of Britain. Originating in the ninth century Historia Brittonum the legend was amplified by Geoffrey of Monmouth, whereby Brutus, as son or grandson of Aeneas, linked Britain to the history of Rome and its Empire. These legends then went on to extol the exploits of the legendary King Arthur.

The Tudor dynasty traced their ancestry to Rhys ap Tewdwr, a former Ruler of the Britons, and the Tudors consolidated a British identity around their rule. Nine days after the Henry VII seizure of the thrown at the Battle of Bosworth Field, Caxton published Morte d'Arthur, Thomas Malory's story about chivalry based on the exploits of King Arthur and his Round Table. Henry VII named his first son Arthur, however he died in 1502, aged 15. Although the term Briton had come to mean Welsh, through the Matter of Britain, the British identity became a vehicle for an expansionist vision challenging the supremacy of the Holy Roman Empire, particularly after the Church of England had broken with the Church of Rome and the protestants in Flanders had challenged the Hapsburgs in 1566 with the Beeldenstorm.

Just as the the British identity was developed as an ideology around the court, Brythonic communities under the English crown had their political and cultural autonomy eroded. Firstly Welsh Law was harmonised with that of England through Henry VIII's Laws in Wales Acts passed between 1535–1542. Then in 1549, the Duke of Somerset led an army to impose the English language Common Prayer Book on the Cornish speaking inhabitants of Cornwall. This reflects the change in the way people thought of and related to these materials. In the Low Countries and England the merchant class had been emerging as a powerful force since the Fourteenth Century. They were developing what came to be called "Bourgeois society" and the economic system known as capitalism. Part and parcel of this was the development of the nation state, a canon of national literature, an increase in grammar schools, as the former Cathedral Schools were largely swept away with the dissolution of the monasteries. The impact of printing, along with the bible reading which was an essential part of protestantism, ensured that there was a spread of literacy and that people developed new ways of relating to written texts. Likewise the theatre evolved, particularly in London, with a new strata of professional actors who wanted to be treated on a par with merchants. Medieval theatre was being superceeded by Renaissance theatre. It was in this context that William Shakespeare came to have such a remarkable impact on the development of Modern English, perhaps alongside William Tyndale, who translated much of the Bible. The British Identity which emerged with the British Empire was as much a product of modernism, as a vehicle for its spread and acceptance. The renaissance enabled the Englishman and those he conquered to be "reborn" as Britons.

Rise of Protestantism
England went through changes, especially during Henry VIII's reign. Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon had not produced a son. So he wanted to divorce her and marry Anne Boleyn. Henry had already got special dispensation to marry Catherine, who was the widow of his brother Prince Arthur. Henry tried to get his first marriage annulled, but Pope Clement VII would not allow this. He was at that time prisoner of Charles V, Catherine of Aragon's nephew. Henry proceeded to Mary Ann Boleyn in secret. While the divorce was contrary to the principles of Catholicism some protestant theologians also condemned it. The divorce and the consequent excommunication of the King by the Roman Catholic Church was as much a product of Realpolitik as theology. Thus, in 1534 Henry VIII founded the Church of England as a protestant church. Although Henry sanctioned the destruction of images of the saints, he was not an ardent protestant. His main concern was to have a legitimate heir to the thrown. In this sense he can be regarded as a Politique, i.e. a ruler more concerned with affairs of state than religion. Nevertheless, he did sanction the publication of the Great Bible in 1539. When he died in 1547, he was succeeded by his son, Edward VI. But, Edward was only nine years old. This meant that he was too young to restrain the ardent protestants. In 1549, Thomas Cranmer introduced the Book of Common Prayer. This, for the first time, brought together both the daily cycle or prayers and other special liturgies written in the English language. This lead to a the Prayer Book Rebellion in Cornwall, where the population spoke Cornish. The defeat of the rebels - backed by the Roman Catholic church - accelerated the demise of Cornish and the political integration of England. However in 1553, Edward VI died. An attempt was made to keep a protestant on the throne. Lady Jane Grey became Queen of England for 9 days. However, popular support swung behind Mary I, the daughter of Henry VIII by Catherine of Aragon - and a Catholic and she successfully seized the throne. In 1554 she married married Philip II, son Charles V and later King of Spain. Mary shared his ardent catholic views, and during her brief reign of five years, she persecuted the protestants, burning such notable clerics as Thomas Cranmer himself. She died in 1558 without producing an heir, and so ending the attempt to draw England into the dynastic network of the Hapsburgs. Mary was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth I, the daughter of Ann Boleyn. As her claim to the thrown rested on the validity of Henry's divorce, she espoused the protestant cause and spurned Philip II proposal of marriage. Thus began a reign of 45 years during which England's aspiration for a British Empire really took shape. She was a pragmatist as regards religion. She became head of the church of England but did not involve herself directly in religious controversy. The more radical puritans were held in check by the Elizabethan religious settlement, which created the basis for Anglicanism as the state religion. The Church of England became the national church fulfilling a political role as much as religious. The Act of Uniformity made attending church compulsory, and Catholicism was treated more as a political than a religious problem. This became heightened after Elizabeth was excommunicated in 1570. Elizabeth's reign was marked more by the political support of the protestant cause - something which was intermingled with the commercial interests of the growing band of merchants in London and their trading endeavours in the Low Countries and North Western Germany (such places as Emden and Hamburg). Englishmen fought, and Philip Sydney died there (Battle of Zutphen, 1586). However with the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, protestantism's continuation in England was assured.

Development of Financial Structures and Trade
During the Tudor era there was a steady rise in agricultural prices, particularly following the debasement of the currency by Henry VIII. Landlords were hard hit by this. Some coped by instituting more ways of getting money from the land. There were large scale enclosures of open land in central England, and the sale of land resulting from the dissolution of the monasteries added to transformation of English agriculture. Many tenant farmers were evicted, and land was given over to sheep, producing wool. The sale of English wool in Flanders had entailed the political and economical involvement of the two countries in each others affairs for some time. However, increasingly, the wool was worked up to cloth in England, often with Flemings relocating to England. The Merchant Staplers, enjoyed a monopoly over the export of wool through Calais - which was still in English hands until 1558. However following its loss, the Merchant Adventurers grew in prominence, engaging in the wool trade elsewhere. English merchants had been learning from the business techniques of the low countries for generations. However, drawing from his experiences in Antwerp, Thomas Gresham developed the Royal Exchange in 1571. This was modeled on the bourse in Antwerp. The Levant Company was founded in 1581. It developed Factories - i.e. trading centers in the already-established commercial centers, of Aleppo, Istanbul, Alexandria and Smyrna, all within the Ottoman Empire. Although initially a joint-stock company, the company evolved into a regulated monopoly. However by 1600 the East India Company was founded, which was to become a major factor in the development of the British Empire. By allowing merchants to share the risk on long distance journeys to India and the Far East, it made access to the highly profitable spice trade viable for a business man who otherwise would have been too scared to risk every thing on one venture. One area in which English merchants were involved from an early stage was the Slave trade. Elizabethan sea dogs such as John Hawkins and Francis Drake were prominent in combining this with piracy. In London itself, over half the city had belonged to the monasteries. With the dissolution of the monasteries, the city was transformed. With the technological developments in ship building and the navigational arts, the more worldly mentality of protestantism, all the ingredients were present to propel the merchants of England, and London in particular, into a prominent position in world trade. Attempts were made to develop colonies in North America, notably by Sir Walter Raleigh who was involved in the Roanoke Colony.

Developments in Science and Technology
There was a world wide spread of science during the period of the Tudor dynasty. Printing was a major factor in this. Although metal movable type had been in use for over 200 years in China and Korea, Its development in Europe in the fifteenth century. William Caxton brought this technology to London from Flanders in 1476. The new trade flourished. The first blast furnace in England was developed in Buxted, the Weald during 1491. The Weald became a centre for iron trade, peaking in 1590. The iron was especially useful for making canons for the growing English fleet. Thomas Gresham made arrangements for the proceeds of the Royal Exchange to fund Gresham College whereat the professors had to provide public lectures. Established in 1597, this college filled the need for public education in the new sciences, there being no university in London at the time. Much of the intellectual life was conducted through the Inns of Court, which housed the lawyers in premises very similar to the Oxbridge colleges. The period saw such people as John Dee emerge. Not only did he write the forward to Henry Billingsley's English translation of Euclid's Elements in 1570, but followed this up by publishing General and Rare Memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation in 1577. Meanwhile the physician William Gilbert, not only promoted the new Copernican view that the earth revolved around the sun, but also started the development of an understanding of electricity and magnetism. Another Copernican, Leonard Digges is credited with developing the telescope and the theodolite. He published Pantometria in 1591. The printing press allowed for the mass production of these works, being either written in English or of scientific works translated into English. The streets of London were also transformed as coaches took to the street of the growing city, a development regarded by some as a Dutch import. Although England was not always at the fore front of scientific innovation, there developed a culture which was ready to adopt a range of new technologies which often appeared elsewhere. During this period, the Dutch are credited with many new technologies. Just a few miles from England across the channel, the Dutch shared in the rupture with religious constraint imposed by the Roman Catholic Church. From being isolated on the fringes of Europe, the European discovery of the Americas placed England in a position to become a centre of new technologies, and other new ways of thinking which laid the basic foundations of Science.

Other Resources
Natural Science 14-17th century

Creation of Naval Power
In 1495, Henry VII had the first drydock in Europe built at Portsmouth: five royal warships were built during his reign. This included two which were the new four-masted carracks. Henry VIII continued expanding and developing the English Navy as a standing armed force of the state. He had a series of great ships built,such as the Mary Rose, the Peter Pomegranate and the Henri Grâce à Dieu. These were purpose built warships, equipped with gunports, making them more effective than the converted merchant ships which had previously been used. Henry VIII also built a series of coastal defences known as the Device Forts first in 1539 and then again in 1544. In 1542 he established the Council of the Marine to oversee administrative affairs of the naval service. During the reign of Edward VI and Mary I, the development of the Navy was not a priority. However, with the return of protestantism under Elizabeth, once again there was a growing concern that England should be able to defend itself through its navy. In 1563 Lord Burghley (William Cecil) introduced Cecil's Fast, which imposed punishments for eating meat during lent and on certain other days of the week. This was imposed - not for religious reasons, but to ensure the population consumed enough fish that an adequate number of seamen could earn their living. Thus it would be possible to maintain sufficient ships and crews who could defend England in time of war. John Hawkins became treasurer of the Royal Navy in 1578 and was responsible for developing English seapower to a level that the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was possible. He worked with Mathew Baker on the production of the English race-built galleons, where the fore- and aft-castles were lowered, making a more maneuverable ship than the galleons of the Spanish fleet. While the English victory over the Spanish Armada ensured the continuation of both English independence and protestantism, the ongoing The Anglo–Spanish War (1585–1604) did not have such a conclusive effect. While the English continued to defend not just England but also their acquisition of Ireland, they were unable to establish naval supremacy. The English Armada failed in 1589, and the sporadic war made it hard for the English to develop North American colonies, while they only contained but failed to disrupt the Spanish colonial empire in the Caribbean. Nevertheless, during Elizabeth's reign, the English fleet grew from strength to strength. Much of her navy were actually privateers, private vessels kitted out for combat with letters of marque authorising them to attack the monarch's enemies. The combination of technological innovation in ship building, a coterie of explorers around John Dee and Richard Hakluyt, the advent of printing which allowed information to be circulated more easily and a fluid relation between the state's Royal Navy and the fleet of merchant ships in private hands all served to help England to project itself across the world and establish itself as a maritime power. The Dutch also around this time developed an independent state based on maritime trading across the North Sea from England at the mouth of one of Europe's biggest rivers, the Rhine. There was a significant sharing of know-how between these two emergent nations. During the Tudor period, the English and Dutch shared the protestant religion, and both found themselves often at war with the Spanish Empire. This provided the context for the emergence of England as a naval power.

Other Resources

 * Henry VIII and his Navy, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich

Key Individuals

 * Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Queen Elizabeth I, Queen of England

title: British Empire/Tudor Origins


text: Template:British Empire/Nav

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

title: Template:British Empire/Nav


text:
Category:British Empire

This is a course divided into several modules

title: Category:British Empire


text:
Portal:Neural Symbolic Learning and Reasoning/Feature

If you have an interesting article in the area of Neural Symbolic Learning and Reasoning, please put it here!


text:
Portal:Neural Symbolic Learning and Reasoning/Topics

List your research topics here.
 * Artificial Neural Networks


text:
English basics/101 q2 clicked4

Try again!

A woman

title: English basics/101 q2 clicked4


text:
English basics/101 q2 clicked14

Try again!

A woman

title: English basics/101 q2 clicked14


text:
English basics/101 q2 clicked314

Try again!

A woman

title: English basics/101 q2 clicked314


text:
English basics/101 q3

A girl

title: English basics/101 q3


text:
English basics/101 q3 clicked1

Try again!

A Girl

title: English basics/101 q3 clicked1


text:
English basics/101 q3 clicked21

Try again!

A Girl

title: English basics/101 q3 clicked21


text:
English basics/101 q3 clicked321

Try again!

A Girl

title: English basics/101 q3 clicked321


text:
Talk:British Empire/Tudor Origins

Discussion of Content
The idea is that each section should be about 500 words long.Harrypotter 16:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Student Feedback
Please spell throne properly (ie not thrown..twicwe), it undermines the excellent content

title: Talk:British Empire/Tudor Origins


text:
English basics/101 q3 correct

Correct!

| CLICK HERE

title: English basics/101 q3 correct


text:
English basics/101 q3 clicked2

Try again!

A Girl

title: English basics/101 q3 clicked2


text:
English basics/101 q3 clicked12

Try again!

A Girl

title: English basics/101 q3 clicked12


text:
English basics/101 q3 clicked312

Try again!

A Girl

title: English basics/101 q3 clicked312


text:
English basics/101 q3 clicked3

Try again!

A Girl

title: English basics/101 q3 clicked3


text:
English basics/101 q3 clicked13

Try again

A girl

title: English basics/101 q3 clicked13


text:
User talk:Troubadour~enwikiversity

I've just been reading a number of the essays in "Philosophy of History," and their is very poor attribution. At the very least, there should be a date given for each of these essays.

--Troubadour 12:42, 9 August 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 Troubadour. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Troubadour~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 23:45, 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) 06:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Troubadour~enwikiversity


text:
User:KnuxD

Who Am I
Hello I'm KnuxD.

title: User:KnuxD


text:
Dramaturgy

"'Whereof we cannot express a theory, we must tell a story instead.' --Umberto Eco"

Welcome to the Wikiversity learning project on dramaturgy. Participants in this learn-by-doing project will explore how to use drama to promote learning.

Dramaturgy, Drama Theory, and the Bardic Arts

 * The topic of this page section originated on another page.

Dramaturgy is a sociological perspective that argues that human actions are dependent upon time, place, and audience. Dramaturgy is also the art of dramatic composition and the representation of the main elements of drama on the stage. Dramaturgy examines the context of drama and to understand context may include many workshops in enacting drama. Drama theory is based on Game theory and is used to analyze and develop new theories as to the causes of drama, which can include a fair amount of mathematics. The Bardic Arts is about crafting, telling, and producing educational stories and dramas.

Dramaturgy, Drama Theory, and the Bardic Arts are all very similar topics. What topics are covered in a course depends on the focus or objective of the course. In Dramaturgy, you might study the beliefs and ideals of the Nazi party in the context of World War II to understand the context of the drama that unfolded. In Drama Theory, you would study Clancy's Theorem and the Vexagon Diagram. In Bardic Arts, you would study character development, storyboards, crafting stories, and storytelling.

Drama has a dramatury, and dramatury has the element drama. And we need the Bardic art to attend symbolism.

Reading

 * A pedagogical model for teaching scientific domain knowledge by Barry Kort and Rob Reilly
 * Dramaturgical Teaching in the Leadership Classroom: Taking Experiential Learning to the Next Level by John E. Barbuto
 * The Crucible - a central work in the canon of American drama
 * The Bardic Arts by Barry Kort
 * Perceval, le Conte du Graal - "If any member of this community should become the ruler of an alien community, see to it that they are given their rights."
 * The hero's journey: how educators can transform schools and improve learning by John L. Brown, Cerylle A. Moffett
 * The hero journey in literature: parables of poesis by Evans Lansing Smith

Participants

 * Beetlebaum Blocked alternate account of User:JWSchmidt, not blocked. --note by Abd 06:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gastrin Bombesin Blocked editor here, account is Moulton on Betawikiversity. --note by Abd 06:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd Not yet blocked. Learning about Wikiversity and Dramaturgy.
 * you? please join the fun

title: Dramaturgy


text:
Talk:Dramaturgy

Wikiversity
Kort and Reilly discuss the benefits from using story telling as a tool for passing knowledge to learners. Can we make use of story telling as a tool for communicating a complex body of information that is of great importance to the Wikiversity community? The motivation for making such an attempt is the reaction shown at the community review where a page section was created called "Need for a synopisis". I agree that a synopsis would be useful. A short abstract was provided when the community review of "problematic actions" was started, but after 10 days the review is not quite in mature form. However, it might now be possible to write a synopsis. Can story telling help create a narrative that will engage the audience?

Does the format of a "community review" defeat efforts to fully engage the audience with story telling? Can a review of "actions" include the complex relationships between the actors and the actions? Is there an existing story, a familiar plot structure that can stimulate reactions and provoke the audience to corrective action for the problems that have deflected Wikiversity from its mission?--the winner..... Beetlebaum 05:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The "Community Review" is an adversarial proceeding, comprised of a litany of complaints and allegations of wrongdoing, haphazard defenses and dismissals, and some unethical deletions of otherwise valid complaints. What the adversarial review does is sharpen up the conflict so that it can better be understood.  However the "Community Review" is not an instance of Action Research and is more likely to exacerbate and compound the problems rather than to solve them.

 * It would have been more accurate to entitle the "Community Review" by it's true purpose, a expression of indignation. To that end, one of my didactic characters, Montana Mouse, sought to plant that idea...

Preamble to the Declaration of Indignation
We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident — That all Scholars are Created Equal and are Endowed by their Creator (and by the WMF Mission Statement) with Certain Unalienable Rights, and that among these are Login, Edit, and the Pursuit of the Ground Truth.

--Montana Mouse 11:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The purpose of a story is to successfully communicate an idea or insight that cannot readily be communicated through an adversarial proceeding such as the one manifested by so-called "Community Review."

 * --Moulton 22:53, 26 July 2010 (CDT)

 * I'm thinking of a kind of "dialog" where "problematic actions" are one "voice", with links to the community review, and the second "voice" is provided by links to the specific proposals for change. It seems like there needs to be a third "voice", that of "Wikiversity past", the dead community members in a kind of chorus, revealing what Wikiversity was in the "good old days". --the winner..... Beetlebaum 05:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The third voice might be the Greek Chorus (the non-participating "audience") who are attending the drama, reacting to it, and anticipating the climactic ending.  --Moulton 10:29, 27 July 2010 (CDT)

 * Trevrizent said, "Through your tenacity of purpose you have changed the law." That power is within us.--the winner..... Beetlebaum 15:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Drama Theory, Dramaturgy, and the Bardic Arts
The topic of this page section originated on another page.

 * Moulton, can you explain the distinction between "drama theory" and "dramaturgy"? Where is the "Dramaturgy Workshop"? --JWSchmidt 20:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Drama Theory encompasses theory and analysis of drama. It need not include a laboratory workshop section.

 * Dramaturgy includes lots of laboratory workshops in enacting drama, with less emphasis in the mathematical aspects of the underlying Drama Theory. You have to understand that Drama Theory includes a fair amount of mathematics.  Dramaturgy usually doesn't go that deep into the analytical theory of dramatic structures.

 * The term "Dramaturgy" is widely used in Europe. In the US, we are more likely to use the term "Drama Theory" (which is an extension of "Game Theory").

 * There is also the term The Bardic Arts which is more about producing educational stories and dramas. Drama Theory, Dramaturgy, and the Bardic Arts are all very similar. It just depends on the focus or objective of the course. In Drama Theory, you would study Clancy's Theorem and the Vexagon Diagram.  You might not spend much time on that in a Dramaturgy Workshop or in a course to develop the Bardic Arts. The Bardic Arts is more about StoryCraft and StoryTelling.

 * The Dramaturgy Workshop is synonymous with the English Wikiversity. About two years ago, the English Wikiversity was expanded and transformed from a traditional Online Learning Community into a Dramaturgy Workshop specializing in Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd.

 * Moulton 20:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I doubt if all members of the Wikiversity community recognize Wikiversity as synonymous with a Dramaturgy Workshop. It might be constructive to explore this idea at Dramaturgy Workshop. --the winner..... Beetlebaum 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, there could be a subpage here, Dramaturgy/Workshop, to do exactly that. —Moulton 06:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dramaturgy


text:
English basics/101 q1 clicked24

Try again

A man

title: English basics/101 q1 clicked24


text:
English basics/101 q1 clicked324

Try again!

A man

title: English basics/101 q1 clicked324


text:
English basics/101 q3 clicked32

Try again!

A girl

title: English basics/101 q3 clicked32


text:
User:Chi-Vinh

ja:Portal:生命科学

title: User:Chi-Vinh


text:
User:Trevinci

Welcome in my user page.
 * My main and talk page is in italian language at:

Utente:Trevinci.it - Discussioni utente:Trevinci

 * and in english language at:

User:Trevinci.en - Talk page:Trevinci.en

Ciao from Italy!

title: User:Trevinci


text:
User talk:Trevinci

 Hello Trevinci, 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. --Adambro 15:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Trevinci


text:
Talk:Materials Science and Engineering/Equations/Quantum Mechanics

in the derivation of time independent wave equation when half mvsquare is replaced by ekinetic. by mistake it written only E in the equation while E carries the meaning of being total energy in the following equation


text: File:EGM6341 Fig12-2.svg

title: File:EGM6341 Fig12-2.svg


text: File:EGM6341 Fig12-3.svg

title: File:EGM6341 Fig12-3.svg


text: File:EGM6341 Fig12-4.svg

title: File:EGM6341 Fig12-4.svg


text: File:EGM6341 Fig16.svg

title: File:EGM6341 Fig16.svg


text: File:EGM6341 Fig 18.svg

title: File:EGM6341 Fig 18.svg


text:
User talk:Darklama/JWSchmidt and policy development

Hi JWSchmidt. Following on from a recent discussion which seems related, I note that in September 2008 you added betawikiversity:Wikiversity:Research guidelines/En to Template:Official policies. Looking at your contributions at the time, both here and on beta, I can't find any discussion in which the community decided this should be considered an official English Wikiversity policy. Could you clarify exactly what were the circumstances which prompted you to label this as an official policy? Should it still be labelled as such? Thanks. Adambro 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * When Wikiversity was launched in 2006, the Foundation mandated development of research policy. During the first six months of the Wikiversity project, the on-going process of developing research policy was widely advertised to the community and related discussions were held in multiple Wikiversity community forums. Consensus for the policy was developed in the usual way, by discussion and collaborative page editing. The research policy applies to all language versions of Wikiversity. "Could you clarify exactly what were the circumstances which prompted you to label this as an official policy?" <-- The research policy became official in February 2007, as mandated by the Foundation. At a later date, I noticed that some Wikiversity community members were not aware of the research policy, so I made a link to it from the the policy template. --JWSchmidt 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your assistance with this. Adambro 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have links for the Foundation mandate and the various Wikiversity community forums where the research guidelines was discussed? -- dark lama  21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Two good starting points are History of Wikiversity and BetaWikiversity:Policies/En. One of the major discussions was an BetaWikiversity:IRC meeting about research, held shortly after the deadline for completing the research policy. In many cases, people who were interested in research were directed to the ongoing development of the research policy from community forums like the Colloquium by way of the research portal and related pages about research. The sitenotice and the mailing list were also used to involve the community in the process of developing research policy. --JWSchmidt 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Don't worry about policies and guidelines, start working on things and let the policies come in later" seems to be contrary to your claim of a Foundation mandate. Can you provide a link to where the Foundation mandate was made and what was said that you took for a Foundation mandate? Do you know if the 6 month review that the Special Projects Committee was suppose to do ever took place? I noticed the Special Projects Committee that was to oversee Wikiversity became inactive in 2007. If the SPC 6 month review took place, do you have a link to where I can read it? -- dark lama  00:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 * You can ask James to explain his email, but I don't see how his email is relevant. Not many people were interested in research and even fewer were interested in doing the work of creating research policy, particularly people with no research experience. "Can you provide a link to where the Foundation mandate was made and what was said that you took for a Foundation mandate?" <-- I already provided a links to the "mandate"; see above in this section. "..... guidelines should be developped, *in particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that these guidelines are as much as possible developped on the beta site (in particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common goal and a few common non negociable rules." If you want more information, I suggest that you contact Foundation staff.

 * "Do you know if the 6 month review that the Special Projects Committee was suppose to do ever took place?" <-- That would be a good question for someone on the Foundation staff. --JWSchmidt 07:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I'm only interested in understanding your motivations and conclusions. What the Foundation staff thinks at the moment isn't part of my inquiry. Did you at any point ask Anthere if his comments were a Foundation mandate? Anthere and other members of the Special Projects Committee suggested in the same email discussion that NPOV should be a fundamental part of research at Wikiversity. What conclusions lead you to believe that the Foundation mandated a collaborative research policy, but that NPOV was not part of the Foundation mandate for collaborative research? Why did you ignore James Hare's call to work on resources and let policies come later? You say that policies were needed due to a Foundation mandate. How do you know that the proposals you put forward as policies satisfied any Foundation mandate if you unaware of any 6 month review? -- dark lama  13:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 * "Did you at any point ask Anthere if his comments were a Foundation mandate?" <-- No. I saw: During these 6 months, guidelines should be developped, *in particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that these guidelines are as much as possible developed on the beta site (in particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common goal and a few common non negotiable rules, which was a clear mandate from the Wikimedia Foundation Board.

 * "Anthere and other members of the Special Projects Committee suggested in the same email discussion that NPOV should be a fundamental part of research at Wikiversity." <-- Darklama, please quote what the members of the Special Projects Committee wrote about NPOV.

 * "What conclusions lead you to believe that the Foundation mandated a collaborative research policy, but that NPOV was not part of the Foundation mandate for collaborative research?" <-- Darklama, do you have evidence that I held such a belief?

 * "Why did you ignore James Hare's call to work on resources and let policies come later?" <-- What evidence do you have that I ignored his "call"?

 * "How do you know that the proposals you put forward as policies satisfied any Foundation mandate if you unaware of any 6 month review?" <-- Darklama, do you have evidence that I knew that? I simply did the best I could to do what the Board asked be done. --JWSchmidt 14:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 * "I", "I", "I", etc. I does not equal "community". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You believe there was a Foundation mandate, but because you did not ask there are also no facts to back your claim of a Foundation mandate. I believe anyone can look at the email and can conclude there wasn't a Foundation mandate as well, and I believe to believe so is just as reasonable.

"When Wikiversity was launched in 2006, the Foundation mandated development of research policy."

That statement seems to suggest that you still hold the believe that the Foundation mandated development of a research policy.

 * James Hare called to let policies come later Aug 14, 2006.
 * You began making scholarly ethics policy Aug 16, 2006.
 * You began making research policy Aug 30, 2006.

Two days after his call you begin making policy, that suggests you ignored his call. -- dark lama  15:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 * *"there are also no facts to back your claim" <-- This email is a "fact" and this statement: During these 6 months, guidelines should be developped, *in particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that these guidelines are as much as possible developped on the beta site (in particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common goal and a few common non negociable rules, was a clear mandate from the Wikimedia Foundation Board.

 * "I believe to believe so is just as reasonable" <-- Darklama, I suggest that you contact Florence Nibart-Devouard and ask her if she agrees with you.

 * "that suggests you ignored his call" <-- Only if you make a bad faith assumption. --JWSchmidt 21:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that you did the best you could. My concern is that you made policy on your own without the community's consent or consensus. I believe some conflicts could have been avoided, if that hadn't been done. Suggesting a correlation isn't a bad faith assumption. I'd have to be assuming that you had bad intentions before I was making bad faith assumptions. Instead of answering why you ignored James Hare, you asked for evidence, and I provided the evidence that suggests you did. Now you are avoiding the question by suggesting that I'm assuming bad faith. I think a lot of people at this point would assume there must be a reason why you are avoiding the question. I think a lot of people would assume the reason is due to either a guilty conscience, or because you have something to bad to hide. As for me, I'll just keep asking questions. Why don't you want to answer "why did you ignore James Hare's call to let policies come later"? Do you want to avoid people understanding your motivations? Do you want people to avoid examining the reasons for turning proposals into policy? Do you want people to speculate? Do you want people to make assumptions about you? Do you care if people make assumptions? Do you care if people act on assumptions? Do you not remember your motivations? Do you not remember your reasons for turning proposals into policy? Are you unable to explain why proposals you turned into policy should be followed? -- dark lama  12:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 * "you made policy on your own without the community's consent or consensus" <-- Darklama, please provide your favorite example of where I made policy on my own without the community's consent or consensus and then we can discuss that example.

 * "some conflicts could have been avoided" <-- Darklama, please indicate your favorite example of such a conflict so that we can discuss it.

 * "I provided the evidence that suggests you did." <-- It is very easy to be mistaken about one's assumptions. As a scientist I have extensive training in the identification of mistaken assumptions about what evidence can tell us.

 * "I think a lot of people would assume the reason is due to either a guilty conscience, or because you have something bad to hide." <-- Those are bad faith assumptions. If you wanted to assume good faith you might ask, "Are you avoiding the question?" I'm not avoiding any question. You have been asking about my reaction to a post that was made in a discussion forum almost four years ago. I have no memory of having seen that discussion forum post in 2006. I asked you for evidence that I had ignored that 2006 discussion forum post with the hope that you might direct my attention to something I wrote in 2006 about that discussion forum post. I've looked back at the Wikiversity edit history and #wikiversity-en chat logs and I suspect that I had no idea who Mr. Hare was and I simply paid more attention to Cormaggio's repeated calls for developing research guidelines.

 * Why don't you want to answer "why did you ignore James Hare's call to let policies come later"? <-- Darklama, you have no basis for assuming that I don't want to answer that question.

 * "Do you want to avoid people understanding your motivations?" <-- Darklama, if you are curious about my motivations then try asking a question like, "What are your motivations?"

 * "Do you want people to avoid examining the reasons for turning proposals into policy?" <-- No.

 * "Do you want people to speculate?" <-- Speculate about what?

 * "Do you want people to make assumptions about you?" <-- Making assumptions about people is a normal part of human interactions. I don't wast time wanting it.

 * "Do you care if people make assumptions?" <-- Making assumptions about people is a normal part of human interactions. I accept it as a fact that people make assumptions and I don't devote mental effort to caring about it, any more than I care that grass is green.

 * "Do you care if people act on assumptions?" <-- I sometimes have to deal with the consequences from when people act on unwarranted assumptions.

 * "Do you not remember your motivations?" <-- For many trivial matters, like a discussion forum post from someone I did not know four years ago, a discussion forum post that I might have read and almost instantly forgotten, for such a thing I am not likely to remember any specific motivation related to it.

 * "Do you not remember your reasons for turning proposals into policy?" <-- What policy?

 * "Are you unable to explain why proposals you turned into policy should be followed?" <-- No. --JWSchmidt 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure Anthere's email and what Anthere wrote in the email are facts. However Anthere never in the email refers to their comments as a Foundation mandate which is also a fact. What you think Anthere's means in his email is an interpretation and not a fact. What you think of Anthere's email and how you interpret Anthere's email are facts about you and not facts about Anthere' email. You never asked Anthere if it was a Foundation mandate which can be an assumed fact because you responded with "No" when asked "Did you at any point ask Anthere if his comments were a Foundation mandate?" You don't know that Anthere's comments were a Foundation mandate is a reasonable conclusion from your answer. That the Special Projects Committee was to review Wikiversity in 6 months from its creation is also a fact that you and I seem to agree on. Another fact is you wrote that "one of the major discussion was an IRC meeting held, shortly after the deadline for completing the research policy." Wikiversity wasn't shutdown which is also a fact. I think a reasonable conclusion drawn from the fact Anthere never in the email refers to their comments as a Foundation mandate, the fact that a 6 month review of Wikiversity was to happen, your statement that discussion happened after the deadline, and the fact Wikiversity wasn't shutdown, is that there was no Foundation mandate. Please identify and explain any mistaken assumptions you think I've made.

You wrote, "I've looked back at the Wikiversity edit history and #wikiversity-en chat logs and I suspect that I had no idea who Mr. Hare was and I simply paid more attention to Cormaggio's repeated calls for developing research guidelines." You could of said that before when I asked why you ignored Mr Hare's email. Do you agree that Wikiversity participants have a duty to ensure that pages marked as policy accurately represent what the Wikiversity community wants? -- dark lama  21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 * The email from Anthere did not fall from the sky. There were months of discussions leading up to that email and following the email. The main mistake you are making is assuming that you can understand the meaning of Anthere's email without knowing the historical context of that email. If you don't trust me to correctly frame the context of the email for you then you can ask other people. I've already suggested that you contact Mr. Hare, Florence Nibart-Devouard and another obvious source of information is User:Cormaggio who worked with Florence on the Special Projects Committee. This is a perfect example of where public IRC chat logs would be useful. I have chat logs of meetings held in #wikimedia-spcomm where the need for Wikiversity research policy was discussed and chat about research guideline development from #wikiversity-en. Misguided belief that such chat is "private correspondence" cripples the ability of the Wikiversity community to be informed.

 * "You could of said that before when I asked why you ignored Mr Hare's email." <-- I only today had the time to search for and read those old chat logs. During the first week of Wikiversity there was daily IRC chat about research as well as development of wiki pages about research. There were also many other on-going concerns that had to be dealt with and nobody could give adequate time and thought and on-wiki discussion to everything. People did the best that they could do under difficult conditions, often sacrificing their real-world commitments in order to devote time to getting Wikiversity established.

 * Darklama, I am very skeptical about the idea that anyone can ever "ensure that pages marked as policy accurately represent what the Wikiversity community wants". Most Wikiversity community members never read policies. Policies are mainly guidance for a few people who would otherwise disrupt Wikiversity if policies did not exist. Policies are mainly tools for helping keep people on track towards the Wikiversity Mission. The important thing is that a policy supports the Wikiversity Mission and helps prevent misguided people from disrupting the Wikiversity community. Wikiversity participants have a duty to make sure that policies keep people on track towards the Wikiversity Mission. --JWSchmidt 23:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone to know what the right context is any more and this isn't about lacking trust. For me this hasn't been about who is right or wrong, but about whether what happened in the past is still good for Wikiversity today. I only asked questions about a Foundation mandate because over the last two years you appear to be suggesting that Wikiversity policies shouldn't be questioned and subjected to review because of some Foundation mandate. My questions about the Foundation mandate is only an attempt to understand your argument/reasoning. I'm interest in moving forward, but your arguments/reasoning seems to be reflecting on what happened in the past, which I think keeps Wikiversity from moving forward and I guess it seems like Wikiversity cannot move beyond that until your reflections on the past is understood by people that weren't there. Right now you seem to be suggesting that only someone with historical knowledge of the context in which things happened is able to make an informed decision on whether policies like the research policy is still good for Wikiversity today.

IRC chat logs have been published in the past when people consented like the IRC discussion that lead to using Custodian as the name for the sysop group. Using the same arguments you use today, one could say that the decisions for what is or is not mandatory were made in secret off-wiki discussions. Haven't you been a strong advocate that decisions shouldn't be made off-wiki? Did your attitude change since than, or do you not remember?

As for examples, lets use a favorite of yours. You say the block and rollback tools should only be used for obvious vandalism. Please explain why you believe the block and rollback tools should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism. -- dark lama  00:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Policies exist as wiki pages with an edit button and a talk page. It would be absurd for anyone to suggest that policies should not be questioned.

 * "you seem to be suggesting that only someone with historical knowledge of the context in which things happened is able to make an informed decision on whether policies like the research policy is still good for Wikiversity today" <-- Darklama, I can't imagine how it would seem to anyone that I suggested that.

 * "one could say that the decisions for what is or is not mandatory were made in secret off-wiki discussions" <-- Darklama, what are you referring to as being "what is or is not mandatory"?

 * Many decisions are made off-wiki. Wiki participants make most of their decisions about wiki participation off-wiki. Problems with off-wiki decisions can arise when decisions are purposefully made off-wiki because the people making the decisions know that what they want to do will disrupt a wiki community and would be contested were those decisions made by way of on-wiki community discussion. Such disruptive off-wiki decisions are what I object to.

 * "Did your attitude change since than, or do you not remember?" <-- What does "since than" mean?

 * "Please explain why you believe the block and rollback tools should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism" <-- The rollback tool was created as a tool for dealing with vandalism. If you want to revert something other than obvious vandalism then a reason should be provided. In the case of blocks, Wikiversity policy authorizes blocks in only a few situations, particularly: "Most frequently, blocking occurs in response to obvious and repeated vandalism." There are a few other uses for the block tool that are prescribed in policy, but for anything other than obvious vandalism there should be warnings and discussion and consensus before the block. --JWSchmidt 02:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

By "what is or is not mandatory" I am referring to the Foundation mandate that you wrote was discussed off-wiki and you wrote is needed to understand the context of Anthere's email. One could say the off-wiki discussion of the Foundation mandate was purposely decided off-wiki in secret because people knew what they wanted to do would disrupt the natural development of the Wikiversity wiki and would be contested had that discussion been made by way of on-wiki community discussion. So why didn't you object to such a off-wiki decision? What I mean is "Did your attitude about decisions being made off-wiki change since the off-wiki decision that you wrote took place and that you wrote provides the context for the Foundation mandate?"

There is a game show called Jeopardy, where the answer is given and where the contestants guess the question. Your answers about rollback and blocks suggestions you were answering the questions "When should rollback be used?" and "What is the block policy?" I didn't ask those questions. I asked you to explain why rollback and blocks should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism. How is the current pages that discuss rollback and blocks important to your explanation of why rollback and block tools should continue to only be used for obvious vandalism? Quoting pages doesn't explain your reasons for believing rollback and block tools should continue to be only used for obvious vandalism. If you don't believe the rollback and block tools should only be used for vandalism please elaborate further. If you believe the rollback and block tools should only be used for vandalism please also elaborate further. -- dark lama  14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I have described Anthere's statement, "..... guidelines should be developed, *in particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that these guidelines are as much as possible developed on the beta site (in particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common goal and a few common non negociable rules", as constituting instructions and a mandate. I would not say that research guidelines were mandatory. I do believe that in order to support research projects at Wikiversity it is useful to have research guidelines.

 * What was "purposely decided off-wiki in secret"? I'm lost. What is "the off-wiki decision that you wrote"?

 * I wrote, "If you want to revert something other than obvious vandalism then a reason should be provided." If you use rollback on something that is not obvious vandalism, then people are easily confused about the reason for the reversion. To avoid such confusion, rollback should only be used for its intended purpose, reverting obvious vandalism. Darklama, I never suggested that the block tool only be used to deal with obvious vandalism. Wikiversity policy explains how the block tool should be used. As I said before (above on this page), Wikiversity policy authorizes blocks in only a few situations, particularly: "Most frequently, blocking occurs in response to obvious and repeated vandalism." There are a few other uses for the block tool that are prescribed in policy, but for anything other than obvious vandalism there should be warnings and discussion and consensus before the block. The Wikiversity community long ago established consensus for imposing blocks on vandals without the need for discussion.

 * "How is the current pages that discuss rollback and blocks important" <-- Darklama, please specify which pages you are referring to.

 * I believe that the rollback tool should only be used on obvious vandalism because that was the intended purpose of the tool and when the rollback tool is used on other edits it creates confusion about why edits have been reverted. It is best to avoid that confusion and provide an edit summary that explains a reversion if the reverted edit is not obvious vandalism. In the case of using the block tool, I don't know why anyone would believe that the block tool should only be used for obvious vandalism. --JWSchmidt 16:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"... as constituting instructions and a mandate. I would not say that research guidelines were mandatory. I do believe that in order to support research projects at Wikiversity it is useful to have research guidelines." Now you've confused me. Mandatory and mandate mean similar things. A mandate is an authoritative and official command or instruction. Mandatory means required due to an authoritative and official command or instruction. Suggesting that one is true, but not the other doesn't make sense to me. Please elaborate on what you mean.

I am referring to:

"The email from Anthere did not fall from the sky. There were months of discussions leading up to that email and following the email. The main mistake you are making is assuming that you can understand the meaning of Anthere's email without knowing the historical context of that email.

...meetings held... where the need for Wikiversity research policy was discussed and chat about research guideline development"

Using your recent arguments, for months "the Foundation mandate" and the development of research guideline is what was purposely decided off-wiki in secret in the discussions/meetings that happened before and after Anthere's email.

You wrote, "I don't know why anyone would believe that the block tool should only be used for obvious vandalism." Over the past 2 years comments by you suggest that you believe that the block tool should only be used for obvious vandalism. You should be clearer about your position and what you mean in the future. -- dark lama  17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 * In this case, Wikiversity participants were given a mandate (given an authoritative and official command or instruction) by the Board to develop research guidelines. "Mandatory means required" I don't view the development of research guidelines as mandatory or required. You can be instructed to do something without being required to do it. Had there been no effort to develop research guidelines, Wikiversity might have been restricted from having research projects.

 * You should ask people who served on the Special Projects Committee how they did their work. I believe that they held public meetings. As I recall, the times for those meeting were not good for me, but sometimes I did go the the committee's IRC chat channel and log the meetings. I doubt if any decisions made by the Special Projects Committee were made in secret. I imagine that the Special Projects Committee evaluated the Wikiversity project proposal, voted to recommend that the Wikiversity project be started, issued resolution 2006-39A (calling for the development of guidelines for research), Anthere then reported to the Board on the committee's resolution, the Board then authorized Anthere to send an email to foundation-l email discussion forum as formal notification that the Board had accepted the committee's recommendations and wanted development of guidelines for research. You would have to ask Anthere if the Board's decision to launch Wikiversity was made in secret or if it was made at a public meeting of the Board.

 * I don't recall there ever being a very good reason for imposing a block of a Wikiversity community member. If there is some other way to deal with a problem, then a block should not be imposed. Many vandals have been blocked, so I tend to emphasize the use of blocks for vandals. I accept the existence of Wikiversity policy which prescribes blocks for a few other purposes in addition to vandalism. Even in the case of the block of User:Centaur of attention, I argued against imposing a block, preferring to let him have his say. I don't think blocks should be used to end a discussion or a debate. For blocks other than obvious vandalism there should be warnings, discussion and community consensus for the block before a block is imposed. --JWSchmidt 00:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


text:
World War I

The First World War
Welcome to the World War I course

This course is an introductory course enabling students to understand:
 * The causes of the war
 * The key players in the war
 * Significant events during the war
 * The consequences of the war

Introduction
The First World War (1914-1918) was the first multinational war of the 20th century. The complex political maneuvers designed to maintain a European balance of power following the end of the Napoleonic Wars lasted from 1815 until 1907. By 1882 the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire were set in a series of treaties and the final formation of the Triple Entente between the United Kingdom, France, and Russia had cemented by 1907. Several factors led to the signing of these treaties including the multinational dreadnought race. After the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, Bosnia, by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip the declaration of War between Austria-Hungary and Serbia followed exactly one month later on July 28, 1914. Which then lead quickly to the continent-wide mobilization which resulted in the First World War.

Initially the conflict was one of a highly mobile nature, with seven German field armies swiftly moving through Belgium and France in an effort to quickly crush France before swinging back east to support the single field army holding back what was assumed to be a slow Russian military mobilization. The First Battle of the Marne in early September 1914 signified the end of mobile conflict on the western front for the next three years, and the "Race to the Sea" digging trenches along the length of the entire 200 mile front. Although the trench warfare of the western front is a common image of the First World War, the war was indeed a truly global affair, combatants fought in Asia, Africa, Europe, and many pacific islands. The ground war was not totally consumed with trench warfare either, the British Middle-East Campaign was a highly mobile, if not disastrous, undertaking.

Also amongst the things new and unpredictable in warfare were airplanes, Her Majesties Land Ships (later known as tanks), giant artillery pieces, chemical warfare, machine guns, high explosives, total industrial focus on warfare, and massive submarine warfare. The largest naval engagement between battleships happened in 1916 off the coast of Jutland in the North Sea, although nations spent titanic sums on battleship building the engagement was a draw and battleships started to recede in the mind of naval strategists for a new concept the aircraft carrier. The legacy of the Great War's casualties is also a stunning one, both Serbia and the Ottoman Empire lost over 10 percent of the countries total population in death's alone. A solid figure for the death toll on all sides is 16,543,125 - with wounded totals of 21,228,811. The ratio of military deaths due to combat versus other factors (such as illness and malnutrition) was for one of the rare times in history higher in terms of combat fatalities. Factors such as the immobile nature of trench warfare and the higher lethality of the weapons (such as gas warfare) involved led to this chilling statistical anomaly.

Course Information

 * All Lessons will be available for people to access. It is recommended that people follow the lesson plan in numerical order (ie: starting with lesson 1, proceeding to lesson 2, etc.)
 * In the introduction, people can post their expectations of the course.
 * In the lessons proceeding the introduction will contain:
 * Lesson Content
 * Questions pretaining to the Lesson Content
 * Any Questions that people have about the Lesson Content
 * Suggested Reading
 * Appendices/extra content if required

The Lessons
People are encouraged to post questions that they have before studying the content about World War I. This section also contains information about the events, before the outbreak of war, which influenced World War I. The intention of this lesson is to read important articles of the Treaty of Versailles, then analyse and evaluate their impacts on the European states. The planned result of this lesson is to answer open questions and to collect important achievements we've made during the course.
 * Lesson 1 - Introduction
 * Lesson 2 - "Europe explodes" - The crisis which lead to World War I
 * Lesson 3 - 1914 - The alliances and their agenda
 * Lesson 4 - The "Schlieffen Plan" - First weeks of war
 * Lesson 5 - The Eastern Front
 * Lesson 6 - Aircrafts, tanks and poison gas - Inventions during World War I and their effects
 * Lesson 7 - War at Sea
 * Lesson 8 - The United States in World War I
 * Lesson 9 - The Russian Revolution
 * Lesson 10 - 1918 - The end of war
 * Lesson 11 - The Treaty of Versailles
 * Lesson 12 - The importance of World War I in the History of the 20th Century
 * Lesson 13 - Conclusion

Glossary

 * Nationalism is the extreme patriotic feeling of a nation.
 * World War I began in Europe in 1914.
 * The Allies were Russia, France and Great Britain.
 * The Central Powers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey, and Bulgaria.
 * The Schliefen Plan was the strategy that called for the Germans to attack France first and then march east to defeat Russia.

Literature
• Churchill, Winston, ''The World Crisis. 1911-1918 (2007) • Keegan, John, The First World War'' (2002) • Fussell, Paul, The Great War and Modern Memory (2000) • Remarque, Erich Maria, All Quiet on the Western Front (1929)

Links
General: Maps: Sources:
 * Wikipedia: World War I
 * http://www.firstworldwar.com
 * http://www.pbs.org/greatwar
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone
 * http://www.singd.webs.com
 * http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/great%20war/great%20war%20index.htm
 * http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/maps/list-ww1.html - Interesting maps with many details (and an extraordinary point of view)
 * Treaty of Versailles
 * Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

School and Department Links

 * School of History
 * Department of Military History

title: World War I


text: File:EGM6341 Fig2.svg

title: File:EGM6341 Fig2.svg


text: File:EGM6341 Fig12-1 rev.svg

title: File:EGM6341 Fig12-1 rev.svg


text: File:EGM6341 Fig 36.svg

title: File:EGM6341 Fig 36.svg


text:
Category:Empires

This category lists resources concerning the various empires which humanity has thought fit to establish.

title: Category:Empires


text:
Spiritual Daily Journals

I John
Reading Assignment: I John

How to get to know him

 * God will give you what you ask.
 * You have to ask him to introduce himself and his son to you.
 * Have not a love for worldly things.
 * Walk with God and stay away from evil.

Telling the truth

 * True people of God shall not be touched by the wicked.
 * Be careful of lies. The Antichrist is here to deceive you.
 * Jesus is God’s only son, born n flesh.
 * Tell the truth to the world

Repenting

 * If you want to endure forever you have to learn how to love even those who have sinned against you.
 * Keep the old commandment of repenting of your sins.
 * Did you know that it a sin to say you love The Lord but hate your brothers?
 * Stay true to the word of God.

John
Reading Assignment: John Chapters 1 & 2

'''Make way. Better things are coming.'''

 * The Lord can turn worst into best.
 * You have to trust in The Lord.
 * Jesus knows you inside and out.
 * We have to recognize that we all need The Lord to help us.

Reading Assignment: John Chapters 3 & 4

Believe in God’s word

 * If you drink God’s word you shall never thirst again.
 * Show your belief by ministering the true word.
 * God can work miracles through any man.
 * You must stay with The Lord to see miracles happen.

Reading Assignment: John Chapters 4 & 5

How to hear

 * Allow the word of God to enter your body.
 * Listen to God’s word whenever you can.
 * Partake the manna of Jesus sent from heaven.
 * Quench your thirst with the blood of Christ.

Reading Assignment: John Chapters 7 & 8

Doing God’s Will

 * Follow Jesus and stay out of the darkness.
 * Use righteous judgments not according to how things appear.
 * God was here before the generation of man.
 * Let The Lord lead your path.

Reading Assignment: John Chapters 9 & 10

How to get seen by Christ

 * Jesus hears and sees those who worship him and do God’s will.
 * Take action.
 * Let the light of Jesus shine on you day and night.
 * Be obedient.

title: Spiritual Daily Journals


text:
User:JungleJesus

Hello ALL!

My name is Casey Coleman and I am very excited to be a [small] part of this project. At present, my focus is learning. I am now a Senior in high-school. However, I do hope to make as many legitimate contributions as possible.

My educational interests are very technical. I enjoy learning about mathematics, physics, computer science, and the applications of each. I am particularly interested in quantum physics and its applications in computing. So far, I have a working knowledge of Calculus 1 and half of Calculus 2, but have at least glanced many more higher-level concepts, like complex analysis and abstract and/or linear algebra. I have also taken an AP Physics AB class (receiving a 5 on the AB test).

I am also equally interested in the brilliant minds behind the development of the above subject areas. I, too, would like to contribute to those subject areas some day. Naturally, I am fascinated by the different ways a person can become intellectually inspired.

On a side note, if anybody out there knows anything about computation as it relates to the human brain, please contact me by e-mail. This could potentially be my study area in college.

--JungleJesus 23:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

title: User:JungleJesus


text:
User talk:JungleJesus

 Hello JungleJesus, 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) 23:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!
Casey, welcome to Wikiversity! What are your interests? Please let me or anyone else know if you need help with anything. Geoff Plourde 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:JungleJesus


text:
User talk:Bsadowski1

See meta:User talk:Bsadowski1 to contact this user.

Could someone unprotect/semi-protect my userpage? Thanks! --Bsadowski1 02:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I've unprotected it. -- dark lama  02:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Custodianship
You are a custodian, right? Please help me to be a custodian - I need someone to mentor me and accommodate me. Please help on my journey to being a custodian ---Dong! by Draubb
 * I am not a custodian, but a steward. I often do not edit here nor take action unless it's a crosswiki issue (such as rapid vandalism occurring and there are no admins on). --Bsadowski1 (discuss • contribs) 02:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bsadowski1


text:
User talk:Martin Lenoar

 Hello Martin Lenoar, 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) 02:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

your edit
I don't understand this edit. Please revert that edit and put your new content on another page, possible User:Martin Lenoar/Research. --JWSchmidt 03:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I know that it can be difficult to understand how to participate at a wiki website. If you are new to wiki, then you might want to start at Introduction to Wikiversity or Introduction. I suggest that you click on this link: User:Martin Lenoar/Research and then add your information about 'new knowledge' to that page. That would be a good start, then other people will be able to help you more. --JWSchmidt 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Action/Reaction Theory
Thanks for putting you information about Action/Reaction Theory into the User:Martin Lenoar/Research page. I have begun to read that page. What you wrote reminds me of some of the ideas of Terrence Deacon that can be found in his book The Symbolic Species. Also, I wonder if you ever read any of the work of Joseph Campbell. Parts of what you wrote in User:Martin Lenoar/Research reminds me of ideas that Joseph Campbell discussed in one of his books. One of the useful features of wiki webpages is the page section. I think it would be useful to divide the User:Martin Lenoar/Research page into several page sections. What do you think? --JWSchmidt 04:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

 * It sounds like you and I might have similar ideas about Artificial Intelligence. It seems like the easiest path towards Artificial Intelligence is to first understand biological intelligence. I started a few page sections at User:Martin Lenoar/Research and I hope you did not mind my edits there. I suggest that you create more page sections so that no individual page section is very long. Also, for feedback, each page section can have a sub-section called "Discussion" that would facilitate feedback. Also, I think it is useful to provide some references, making connections to previously published work that is related to your own ideas. --JWSchmidt 00:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you expect people to read your ideas, it helps to make the webpage that holds your ideas into a readable page. I made some suggestions for how to help people read and respond to your ideas. This wiki is about collaborative learning, not just dumping a bunch of hard-to-read text on a webpage. We could make a second page (a copy) for your text that could be edited collaboratively, but if your position is that such collaboration is not welcome then I will just move on. --JWSchmidt 09:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 * You might benefit from looking at Help:Wikitext quick reference. If you pasted text from a word processor into the User:Martin Lenoar/Research page, then you could try this trick: in your word processor, replace all of the end of paragraph marks with    and line breaks with   . That will insert code for line breaks (  ) that functions on wiki webpages. You can place this text: at the top of the User:Martin Lenoar/Research page. That is a call to a template that will mark your page as not being available for editing. We can create a new page called Action-Reaction Theory where collaborative editing is allowed. We could link from the top of the Action-Reaction Theory page to the User:Martin Lenoar/Research page so that everyone will see the original version. --JWSchmidt 16:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin, I copy edited User:Martin Lenoar/Research to make it paragraph reasonably, added section headings so you got some kind of table of contents. Generally, the software will treat a single return/line feed from your word processor as if it were just a space. To separate paragraphs easily, just use two of these! Whenever you put one of the paragraph formatting commands in, such as * (bullet) or : (indent), or a section header (various numbers of = signs, on both sides of the header text), this will automatically separate a paragraph there. Use  to force a line feed with no added space. What you saw from the text above, "nowiki" tags, is used to stop the wiki software from seeing a command. I just used them to allow you to see the br command; without "nowiki," that would have caused an actual line feed/return. If you don't like my copy edit there, you can fix it or just undo it. (There are two edits, so you'd need two undos, or you can, in History, click on a version, Edit that version and save it, and you will be taking the page back, skipping all subsequent edits. I probably should have edited the mainspace page... but I haven't looked there yet. Good luck. --Abd 17:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Formatted version
This version of the User:Martin Lenoar/Research page is much easier to read."help me to reach my goal" At this point, it would be useful for you to put some information about yourself and your goals on the User:Martin Lenoar page. Some people use templates to provide information about themselves. I suggest you put a copy of your theory at a page such as Action-Reaction Theory, where I will be able to ask questions and provide feedback, section by section. Categories can be added and changed at any time, as needed. --JWSchmidt 04:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I've started a page at User:JWSchmidt/Martin where I am making some edits to a copy of the text from the User:Martin Lenoar/Research page. Could you provide glossary entries for CEM and UrParticle? I tried to provide some examples for elemental matter...please check those examples and add more examples if possible. --JWSchmidt 18:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The User:JWSchmidt/Martin page is a subpage of my user page. You can start a page in the main namespace such as Action-Reaction Theory. A page in the main namespace could be placed in categories and linked to from directories and content development projects. --JWSchmidt 07:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity
I understand what you said about "predefined help". Someone who comes to a wiki community and asks for help can take the help that is offered or they can reject it. This is a collaborative learning community. If you show little interest in collaborative learning then there is not much that other wiki participants can do with you.

If you feel that your contributions are 'new knowledge' then it might be that your ideas could go on a page in the main namespace and be placed in Category:Research.

The purpose of the 'school' namespace is to proved wiki pages where Wikiversity participants with shared interests can collaborate to develop Wikiversity content for specific subject areas. I understand why you say that A school for me is something where something is being tought which has been established and proven already", but wiki pages that have names starting with the "School:" prefix have a special purpose at Wikiversity as discussed at Schools.

You say "it does not have any projects or lessons", but it is easy to create a learning project for any topic. The easiest thing to do is just to add subsections to a page for discussion. For example, it would help me if you could provide some examples at User:JWSchmidt/Martin. Also, please respond at Discussion of terms in the glossary.

This is information that you could put on your user page: "I am not a critic but an observer. Which means I am standing outside and refer to what I see. Which includes if it works or not and why, but not if it is 'right' or 'wrong'. Therefore my observations are never personal or used to change the status quo. If somebody wants it this way, fine, but I reserve my right to stay outside." You can also make links from your user page to other wiki pages that you are interested in.--JWSchmidt 00:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Energy Signature
"Did you realise that if an energy signature can be found on smaller matter the way I propose that it would upset most of the teachings and theories which are accepted today?" I don't understand what you mean by "Energy Signature". I think it would be useful if you could give some more explicit examples of "energy signatures". The example of "natural oscillation frequencies" for glasses is a start, but there are existing theories for resonance in physical systems. For example, I think you should provide a specific example of what you mean by "energy signature" in a molecular system. I am working through the User:JWSchmidt/Martin and asking for clarification and examples. I think it would be best if you replied at User:JWSchmidt/Martin rather than on my talk page. --JWSchmidt 18:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ACR
I'll try to find some time so I can look at ACR. Maybe Wikiversity needs a place for listing such pages that are in need of evaluation by others. --JWSchmidt 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Intuition on the Colloquium
I just want to say that there was so much in your statement that I will to have to hack it to pieces to get the meat out (tough nut), but I don't want to pollute your talk page, so I am putting it here on google docs. If you want, send an email, and I will make you a collaborator.--JohnBessatalk 19:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough
I appreciate that I may have changed the meaning of your writing by de-constructing it-- deconstruction is the first phase of wiki information construction. It is good to see ideas about collaboration here on Wv, and it exists, but usually spread out over time, making efforts solo, even if the page has various editors. Same is true at the WP for lesser pages. I think that solo efforts should optionally remain solo, and a way to preserve that is to put pages under your namespace, which, I have found does not affect SEO badly.

You are discovering the idiosyncrasies of the Wp, everyone seems manic -- could be the whole Internet. At the moment I am locked down in psychopathology for 4 more weeks, so I am not sure how much I can contribute. My writing will appear on Counseling, but I am having issues with that as well, as my program is counseling, but isn't counseling, if you know what I mean.

I should say that I am interested in protecting the Wp as a refuge for people who have been silenced on the WP, which happens especially as part of politics. --JohnBessatalk 20:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

 * John, please take your time. I have plenty.

 * I don't want to be hard on you but I do not think that we will get far. The same you said about my statement on the colloquium I could say about your answers. This is something I don't think many people realise: If it sounds odd to you what other people are saying then it is also true that what you are saying sounds odd to the other person. A sample would be "--deconstruction is the first phase of wiki information construction"? It might express exactly what you want to tell me, but for me it only raises more questions. E.g. when are you going to fit it together again, before or after you have made your judgment? Another sample: What is SEO standing for? You see I am not only new to WV but also to the Internet.
 * When I looked for a place on the Internet to offer my discovery then I first came across Wikipedia. I was told that they do not accept 'new knowledge' and was referred to Wikiversity. I thought that that was a wise policy when you are just trying to be an encyclopedia which is a lookup place for already accepted knowledge. But WV tries to give the impression that it is not like WP. But other that I am able to open a project and my own pages, there is no collaboration to help me with my discovery. I did not join WV to help to run WV, but I need some intuitive help (collaboration) from people which I thought are scientists. I thought that my discovery is important enough that it should be made known to the public so that it can be researched and evaluated faster then I can on my own. I ended up to be in the exact situation where I was before I joint WV. I could just simply have carried on at home. A age old problem, Newton did not even try to offer his discoveries until very late in his live. I wanted to persue mine solo too, until it offered possibilities nobody thinks are possible. Since I did not come to change WV I will just carry on to offer and hope, sadly like most of the soloists on WV, that somebody might take note (maybe with a little help).

 * If you are interested of what I am talking about then visit ACR. There might be even something for you as a psycologist: "Everything what makes a human is learned". I explained why this has to be on ACR/ACR&Creature. You might also enjoy the little story on User:JWSchmidt/Martin, "A real possibility". Which, I think, is a demonstration how easy somethings could be explained what is so fiercly disputed all over the world.

 * As I said, fair enough! SEO has a link on it, but I will tell you it's Internet fame and glory, the attention your writing gets.  Deconstruction is what we HAVE to do anyway, because the option is plagiarism.  I write about it in Wikiversity Studies, but title it Wikiology, where wiki byte code is complete deconstruction of prose into Headings, descriptors, and lists of bullets that have descriptors and links; prose is built from there.  It's all well thought out and concrete, just not enough time to impolement.  I am not a pscyhologist, but working on a counseling degree where my goal is a PhD in tribal community counseling for the natural natives (I live in Canada).

 * I am working on an example of deconstruction right now: a converstion with some microkernel hacks about the correct pathway for open and free OS development. This all has to pulled apart and turned into a flow chart of options: XNU (or OSX Darwin microk seems like the choice of choice, but has barriers:  Microkernel Project planning

 * --John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 17:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Martin Lenoar


text:
Talk:University of Canberra/RCC2010/Schedule

whether I can make it or not, I'd be interested to hear folks reactions to the IT debate just finished - the green's Ludlam was very impressive I thought. The future of Australia's connectivity / nbn etc. would probably be an interesting item for the schedule somewhere? Privatemusings 04:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I'd be in that Private. Not too sure how the agenda building plays out. I imagine that if you're interested in leading the session, you put it in a time slot that suites you, and we rearrange it based on numbers of people interested in sessions over all. Leighblackall 22:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Esha434

 Hello Esha434, 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. --Geoff Plourde 06:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Geoff Plourde 06:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 Hello , you can call me Jacob Frank. I'd like to be your mascot and welcome you to Wikiversity. Even though I was a plain and untutored man back in 18th-century Europe, that still didn't stop me from contributing my ideas to the world. Neither should it stop you. As a religious leader who developed the doctrine of "purification through transgression," my advice to you is to be bold and to ignore all rules—yes, these are two of Wikiversity's official policies! Happy editing.

Motivation and emotion
Hi. Welcome to the unit and to Wikiversity! I look forward to learning with you and I hope you find the topic and the unit rewarding. Please feel free to let me know if you have any suggestions or would like help at any point along the way. Sincerely, James Neill, -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Images
Well done - I think you're the first in the class to work out uploading to commons! Just note that at least for some of those images, the copyright isn't clear - and so uploading them to commons (which requires free licensed images) will most likely end up with the image being deleted. So, when looking for images, use either advanced searched (as we looked at) with Flickr, or try advanced search on Google Images (with commercial re-use licensing options specified) or try http://search.creativecommons.org. There should be no problem with uploading and using image you find in this way. I hope this helps. Thanks for adding some colour and life :) Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey
I was just checking out your page. It looks awesome !!! Hamish24 10:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Esha434


text:
Talk:Charles V

How to develop this page
Please see Tudor Origins of the British Empire which develops some of the points here. It might be useful if this was developed as a page on Charles V which could be used in relation to that other page.Harrypotter 07:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles V


text:
University of Canberra/RCC2010/Wikis for Community Consultation

Hoping to get to the conference by 3pm, I would be interested in a discussion about using Wikis for Community Consultation and Event Planning and Co-ordination. SLUG has been exploring the latter. Not everyone (all the speakers) seem to be able/want to play the Wiki game.