Jump to content

Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/12

Add links
From Wikiversity
Filing cabinet icon You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants.
Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page.

File:Pearlek 2372.jpg

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


An unused non-free file. --Simone 11:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is one of many such user page photo uploads, it was apparently assigned by an instructor.
  • User does not fill in license information, probably not understanding what to do. Claims photo as "own work."
  • The user claims "fair use." That seems to have been common for these photos. Probably the students were told to fill that in.
  • User's primary language is probably not English. The chance that the user would understand the Terms of Use, especially since the critical information is probably not on that page, is low.
  • 01:52, 18 October 2011 I restored the file, because this was one of a series of such deletions and the fundamental issue is unresolved, and there has been no clear communication with the user as to her intentions.
  • 09:32, 18 October 2011 Bilby notified the user of the license problem. The notification was civil and polite, even welcoming, but telegraphed a conclusion that the file was going to be deleted by policy.
  • 09:51, 18 October 2011 User blanked her user page, which is obviously a response, from the timing, to the user talk page notice. She has email enabled and would see that quickly.
  • 11:11, 18 October 2011 Simone files this RFD citing that the file is unused.
It's looking to me like we drove away a potential user. It might not have made any difference. This set of images and pages seem to have been added only as an exercise for the class. The user had no other contributions. I have an Asian daughter, and I know a bit about Asian culture. That the user would just delete her page is not a surprising response.
The fundamental issue here: Do we wish to require and enforce that all users who wish to put a photo of themselves on their user page must therefore license that photo for free user everywhere, by anyone, for whatever purpose? Or may they reserve the right to disallow such usage? I can say that I've been thinking of uploading a photo of myself here, and maybe of my family. Probably not, if this policy stands without allowed exceptions.
Connected with this issue: some are claiming that we have no right to permit such files. That's not how I read Foundation policy. We can decide to permit them, as long as our permission is limited in certain ways. We could decide to permit only specific images on specific pages, but that is inefficient and really impractical, long term. We could, instead, decide to permit users (in a list of narrow exceptions to the general policy) to restrict re-use of photos on their user pages, based on the educational purpose of building educational community. --Abd 17:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll agree, but notice, "she has probably chosen to leave the project," if that's the case, very likely, because of this process. How about we wait to see what her response to the query is? She may even want the image deleted. I asked. --Abd 18:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh! I miss your point entirely, by the time we reach any consensus we will have given her enough time to reply. Regardless of her wishes the copyright remains nebulous, let me be more clear about my thinking, that until we have better policies we have to delete images that are not made freely available. Overall, my opinion about user images is as follows: We should only allow images that do not directly fall under the purview of commons. Commons has experience, policies, discussions, etc relating to user images. User images should probably all be at commons anyways. Thenub314 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming a policy here, that we will not allow restricted rights files for user images, period. Commons has strict free content policy, it has no exemption doctrine, and there is good reason for that. Commons is for free content, period! Local files are, in fact for, among other things, free use files, because those depend on specific rationales. --02:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs)
I am not assuming a policy but stating an opinion. We should allow uploads to WV only when a upload to commons is not possible and only when it is strictly necessary. I remember when commons was discussing user images, and I never came back around to find the outcome. If they allowed no exception to the policy I trust it was well reasoned and is the right decision. That doesn't change my opinion about user images, in my humble opinion they belong at commons. Thenub314 04:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Since we were discussing the WMF family in other contexts, I would point out that having user images at Commons is already the norm at several other WMF wikis. Thenub314 04:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The basic problem is that a user may wish to put up an image to promote community with other users here, and not wish to allow anyone and everyone to reproduce that image anywhere and everywhere. Commons, by site definition, cannot accept such an image. We could allow this, for limited purpose, which purpose would be, exactly, encouraging community. It's a legitimate purpose, and it does not actually impact re-use, unless re-use of our user pages is considered more valuable than developing community. User pages are here precisely for developing community here, which is quite different from mainspace. Indeed, this principle could apply to user space entirely, allowing users to develop other content here that they do *not* wish to release without restriction, and they could set such restrictions with explicit licensing. Yes, this could require some changes, to make it all that explicit, but it could greatly simplify some things. --Abd 18:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as I gather you were informed, it seems that we can't allow this. [3] The WMF does not believe that allowing users to upload non-free photos for their user pages would be compatible with the purpose of the exemption policies. - Bilby 00:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What has been revealed does not mean that we cannot allow this. However, the proposed exemption is not in our EDP policy, and it would need to be. The actual WMF policy does allow exemptions, and the language is not completely clear. Issues of fair use and restricted use by a copyright holder have been mashed together. This image was called "fair use" by the user, but was really a permitted use, not "fair use." It's a mess. My issue is whether or not we should be, as a community, enforcing a policy which furthers neither the overall purpose of the WMF resolution (as it appears on the face) nor our own optimal function as a community, but which only falls afoul of what may be accidental application to what was not being contemplated. I have been unable to find any specific discussion of this narrow issue (user space presenting non-free but permitted images of the users themselves). The application of WMF policy being proposed (and enforced) makes no distinction between user space and mainspace, and, indeed, is more stringent in user space than in mainspace, which seems backwards (that makes sense for some conceptions of fair use, not for permitted use, and "free use" was designed for the re-use of mainspace.) This will be a long-term discussion, I'm sure, and it involves basic policy issues that do not seem to have ever been completely resolved. See User:Abd/Fair use policy for an Assembly committee page. (See WV:Assembly for the main Assembly page.) --Abd 22:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has stated that the proposed exemption is not possible. That does seem to reveal that we can't do this. The rest appears moot. - Bilby 23:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has been six weeks since the user responded by removing the image from her user page, and she hasn't subsequently responded to Abd's message. I think we need to assume that the uploader isn't intending to modify the license, and the license itself remains incompatible with WV policy. - Bilby 07:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikipediaOS

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


I think WikipediaOS should be deleted because it is almost a tautology, at least the way it is presented now. (See Talk:WikipediaOS#Criticism) --Bernhard Fastenrath 11:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. This is an active resource, relatively speaking, created by an apparently well-qualified academic. I'm mentioned on the page, but I have not contributed to it. The criticism section on resource Talk is only the criticism of Fasten. Research that is useless or "almost a tautology" to some may not be so to others, and obviously we have several long-time users who have worked on this resource. I don't agree, as a preliminary judgment, with the "central hypothesis," therefore it is far from a "tautology" for me. --Abd 15:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - we don't delete research projects of any quality unless there is obviously no intention to do real research (i.e. one badly punctuated sentence) or there are copyright or legal issues with the research, or the researchers themselves have requested it. Fasten, I agree with most of your criticism of the research, but the fact is that the research project can be improved, and deleting it is therefore not a step in the right direction. --S Larctia 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - I'd like to see more on methodology (simply from a research perspective, not from a keep or delete one), but it seems viable to explore this as a potential line of research. The tautology claims have some value, but that's something worth exploring as part of the project. - Bilby 23:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Determinism and the Problem of Free-Will/Content to be Synthesized

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
moved per comment below, without objection. --Abd 23:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this page contains little useful educational content. S Larctia 16:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this page may be intended to be read in connection with Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Determinism and the Problem of Free-Will. -- darklama  16:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Having seen that page, I'd suggest moving it to another subpage of Historical Introduction to Philosophy if we decide to keep it, as it's not a suitable top-level resource in any case. S Larctia 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to subpage. checkY Done. Good, S Larctia. The page name is blatantly inappropriate for mainspace, the content is merely notes or ideas. This was clearly a personal working page of the creator, see [4] and should have been created in user space in the first place, and we'd not be paying any attention to it -- until and unless we start a "user space cleanup project." It looks like there were some students in a university philosophy class who were flopping about, with the dim-sighted leading the blind. (No blame in that, "dim-sighted" here merely means "newbie" from the point of view of deeper experience.) However, once I noticed that the page is actually linked from the philosophy page, I now see it as part of a group project, and am moving it to a subpage, Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Determinism and the Problem of Free-Will/Content to be Synthesized. When editor(s) complete or verify that the synthesis has been accomplished, we may delete the page. From the diff I give, it's likely that there are many scratch pages from this class. Some may have been deleted, so this cleanup may take some custodian work. We should not make these decisions one at a time, this should be done with a view to the overall philosophy resource. It's quite possible we would decide to delete them. Thanks for raising these issues, S Larctia. --Abd 19:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSSN UNILAG

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Result of discussion is delete.--SB_Johnny talk 15:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope. If this wasn't (partly) promotional, Wikipedia might be a more appropriate project for it. Mathonius 17:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The real problem here is how the page is placed. We have not developed clear guidance on how to place pages in the Wikiversity structure; we then end up with chaos. Education requires structure or it is highly inefficient and unreliable. The page here is on a particular chapter at UNILAG of the Muslim Students Society of Nigeria. Student organizations are a part of the educational process.
If we had a page on MSSN, this could be a subpage, and would be quite appropriate there. I'd question, though, whether we should have a top level page on that organization. I could see using Wikiversity space for educational organizations like MSSN, but better, having a top-level page, Student organizations, with subpages, so this would become, say, Student organizations/Muslim Students' Society of Nigeria/University of Lagos. We do have pages that are being used to organize educational activities. Short of that, a page like this should be userfied, it's harmless at worst, it's clearly related to education, and it is unwelcoming to delete the first effort of a registered editor.
I'd have userfied promptly, with a welcome, and a discussion with the page creator as to how to place the page. This page is fine userfied, with the user being responsible for the content. RfD is not where we should begin, see Wikiversity:Deletion policy. Unfortunately, I don't have time today to begin that discussion, so I haven't touched the page.
"Partly promotional" is not a negative here if there is an educational purpose. It is possible that MSSN UNILAG is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but often with societies like this, where media mention may not be in English, it can be difficult to find adequate source. Users here may host versions of Wikipedia articles, including material deleted on Wikipedia for lack of notability or sufficient reliable source, and where the pages have adequate educational purpose, they may exist in mainspace. --Abd 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not intended to be an educational resource. This should probably be covered on the University of Lagos Wikipedia article. Also "the MSSN-UNILAG has continuously taken the lead in spreading the tentacles of Islam ". I didn't know Islam had tentacles. --S Larctia 19:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed the "tentacles" thing. It's almost certainly an error in English usage. The author probably meant something like "influence," in a positive way, not realizing that "tentacles" is used for influence, all right, but only for corrupt influence. Your argument, SL, indicates userification, not deletion. I'm assuming that the creator is involved, so this is really about that user. We allow pages like this, in user space. --Abd 01:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. Wikiversity can't be used as a free webhost. Unless this page is going to be used in the context of some future research/education, I don't know why it should be allowed in userspace. S Larctia 15:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A student organization is part of the overall educational process. It's related to Wikiversity's purpose in that way. The question for me is where to put it. We do allow school-specific pages. So we might allow a page on the University of Lagos, for example, which then would link to a subpage on MSSN UNILAG, as a University student function. The point is that we have a Wikiversity registered user involved with this student association, obviously. We should welcome the user, not reject him (and deleting his first page is and will be perceived as a rejection, compared to addressing placement issues in a positive manner and userfying, at least temporarily). We are also deficient in resources relating to Islam. Muslim students, which may be recruited for Wikiversity if we are welcoming here, may assist us in developing these. The "not a free web host" argument can easily be over-applied. We are normally tolerant, as an example, of a user describing themselves and their interests on their user page. We aren't so tolerant of a user clearly using their user page to promote some non-educational activity. If you think our normal practice is incorrect, please help clarify our guidelines; for example, WV:Deletion policy. --Abd 15:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:786643809490c8f831c6c3 medium.jpg

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Result of discussion is delete.--SB_Johnny talk 15:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file is claimed as fair use, but there's no clear rationale. I personally believe that this file cannot be fair use, because it is an image of a living person, and therefore replaceable with a free image of that person. The file does not significantly contribute to the educational resources it is used in. --Simone 07:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per Simone, being of a living person it is potentially replaceable by a free-use equivalent, so it runs afoul of WMF policy. However, it also seems to be used decoratively - only a passing mention is made of Thomas Graedel, and a photograph won't particularly assist with the reader's understanding - so it doesn't seem to meet the requirements of the exemption doctrine. - Bilby 09:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending investigation. "Living person" is not intrinsically contradictory to "fair use." "Potential replacement" is not "replacement," and requires someone to go to what may be substantial effort (and it might still not be possible). The image does contribute to the resource, by contributing to the "feel" of the resource. Graedel may only be mentioned once, but is a significant figure in the field, and the core of the resource is from or about his work. Thus to students of the field -- i.e., those who created the resource, DFE2009 Worldwide Package Cushioning, which is part of the Design_for_the_Environment courses -- Graedel is important. I'm undertaking the following actions:
  1. Reorganizing the DFE pages into a hierarchical structure to make the connections between them obvious, following efforts I've been undertaking elsewhere to emphasize project structure using subpages, similar to WikiBooks practice.
  2. Requesting permission for the photo (or a replacement) from Professor Graedel; it appears that this photo comes from this page.
  3. Tagging the image with an appropriate fair use rationale.
  4. I will also replace the image with a lower-res version, to reflect the actual usage, as I have time; someone else could do this for whom it is easier.
  5. Notifying Wikiversity users who participated in the development of the involved resource, by email where possible.
In addition I propose that we
  1. Consider and develop procedure for quickly identifying images where licensing issues exist, so that we don't have a discussion years after the fact. The goal and tone of this procedure should be helpful and supportive of the users, who, after all, put hours of work into our resources.
  2. Elaborate on our own fair use policy as appropriate for a learning environment.
Fundamental to "fair use" in copyright law is lack of harm to the copyright owner. When we lose sight of that as an operating principle, we become subject to bare legalities and regulations that are designed to avoid harm as a general rule, but which may not apply well to a specific situation. We should remember the purpose of WMF fair use policies, and not get lost in mere technical compliance with general rules.
It would be an error, though, to simply ignore the rules. We should develop our own fair use guidelines that fully satisfy the intentions of the WMF policy, and we should insure that our policy is acceptable to the WMF. Our purposes here, in the creation of educational resources, and in the operation of educational process, may suggest different fair use policies than those developed for encyclopedic or similar usage.
I thank Simone for assiduous work cleaning up Wikiversity. This is an important issue to raise. --Abd 15:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if we got an OTRS ticket giving us the right to use the image commercially, I'd have no issue with keeping it. I'd rather we deleted it pending review, rather than keeping it. It's not much of a hassle to restore it if Yale do give us permission to use it, but having it up there in violation of copyright probably isn't going to aid our request.
Why don't we take a look at our policy, which says "Fair use content is used only if its presence can significantly increase understanding of the topic and if its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." ? I'm afraid that the picture of Graedel, while perhaps appropriate if the file was free, can't be claimed as fair use simply because the resource would explain the SLCA just as well without it. --Simone 16:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have, as a first step, requested permission or an alternate image from Graedel. There is a pedagogical issue here. What is an "effective learning resource"? There are subtle aspects of this that are not easily codified. I'm asserting that the removal of the image will damage the resource. Yes, the bare explanation is still there. Does it help to understand the material, that we can see an image of the person who developed, apparently, the concepts? As a practical matter, as someone concerned with education, yes, it does help. It keeps a student engaged. Students are human, they are not learning robots.
Again, I urge that we focus on whether or not this alleged fair use damages the copyright holder, whoever that is (we don't actually know). If it causes no damage to the copyright holder, and if a user believes that it serves an exempt purpose, no matter how small, legally, it's fair use, or may safely be assumed to be so. The copyright owner can eliminate this assumption as fair use in a flash, simply by a request to take it down. While a user could contest that, as a practical matter, the WMF would not, I'm sure. (I.e., should the usage be necessary, not merely somewhat useful for education, the WMF could refuse to take it down, asserting fair use as a legal defense. But I'd not advise it. Too expensive, too risky. --Abd 16:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you have been in contact with the subject, it seems that a free-use image is possible. Above you state "we should develop our own fair use guidelines that fully satisfy the intentions of the WMF policy". We do have such policy. However, the WMF policy is extremely clear on this matter: "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals" (emphasis mine). [5] Including a non-free photo of a living person clearly goes against WMF policy, unless it can be shown that this is a special case. I haven't seen any suggestion that this is. (The exceptions are generally when there is something historically significant about the photo of the person, or where the person is jailed, making it impossible to get a free photo). Given that this photo is very much incidental to the article's subject, I can't see any justification for keeping it against WMF policy.
The question should not be "does it damage the copyright holder", but does it meet the relevant WMF and Wikiversity policies, which we operate under. - Bilby 22:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Bilby here that ignoring the rules probably isn't a good idea in this situation. The rules exist for a reason. --Simone 22:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of damage to copyright holder is the sine qua non of ordinary fair use. It is not the whole story, but the question is actually quite complex and our guidelines are primitive, not addressing anything like the scope of possible situations. A policy which says "This list only!" is asking for trouble, if that list does not address common needs. Yes, the rules exist for a reason, and I assume that in discussion, those reasons will come up. --Abd 00:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some history. [6]. This was about the "DFE2008" projects. The instructor for that course was User:SRego. This user was obviously not the instructor for DFE2009, who was User:Thomson, so the comment on the same issue in 2009 probably went absolutely nowhere, and because there was no followup, no development and enforcement of clear guidelines as needed, we continue to have a mess, with each instance being addressed ad hoc and inefficiently. --Abd 17:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the resource to be reused outside of Wikiversity, the photo would likely need to be removed first. The resource does not attempt to educate who the person in the photo is, and what or how this person is significant to the topic. Any mention of the person appears to be in the context of giving credit for citing some of their work. In the context of the resource the person's work is the focal point, not the person himself. Any damage by the use of the photo is likely to be to usability of the resource outside of Wikiversity and to anyone that may wish to reuse the resource without any understanding of their country's copyright laws. That can also negatively impact Wikiversity's credibility and people's opinion of the useful of Wikiversity, which also damages Wikiversity. -- darklama  17:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The legality of usage outside would depend on the purpose and character of that re-use. Contrary to what Darklama claims, the resource does indicate the importance of the person. Because fair use *is* permitted, the spectre Darklama raises is inevitable, and it's already the case that any user re-using WMF content must look out for fair use images and content. Darklama is, at least, raising the real issue behind the "fair use" flap: it's about republication, not about what we might otherwise think is our purpose, providing content for people to read and use and participate with! It is not about "copyright violation," every usage in the WMF can be claimed to be under fair use, because of the overall educational purpose, and where an image does not actually do harm to the copyright holder, that's quite solid. And if it does harm, there is no cause of action against the WMF unless it fails to respect a take-down notice. We need to make a choice: when the purposes are in conflict, which do we follow: the goal of the best content (within what is legal) or the goal of "free re-use" which includes sale of the content for profit? We cannot always have both. Further, if we have to judge each and every usage as to whether or not the educational purpose is strong enough, which can be highly subjective, we have a mess. --Abd 18:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The legality of usage at Wikiversity depends on the purpose of that use as well, plus additional restrictions that WMF declared in the licensing policy resolution. Yes, every use of copyrighted material could attempt to claim "educational fair use" and that would likely be considered an abuse of "educational fair use" unless the work is actually used to educate. How does the resource educate and indicate the importance of the person? Did you read the part in the resolution that states, "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals"? Is this person dead? -- darklama  19:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read all the materials with care. Why would you assume otherwise? Notice the word "notable." Is this individual notable? This is a good example of a policy that was obviously written with Wikipedia in mind. If Graedel isn't notable, why would there be any legitimate usage for a picture of him? But if he's not notable, finding a picture might be difficult. You are aware of where this picture comes from, right? It's available for free, I can download it at any time, in the same resolution as our image, whenever I like. Since the image links to the faculty web site where the image sits, there is no way that this could harm the copyright owner, whoever that is. Wikiversity may cover people who aren't sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article -- such as students!, another current RfD --, and this could be an example. So: no legal reason why this image cannot be hosted. The professor in question has been notified by email at the address given on the faculty page, with information, permission, or denial of permission requested. No response yet.
I really want this to be clear: the problem here is not "illegal content." The image here is not "illegal." Period. That means no criminal and no civil liability. There is a slightly higher risk with that student image, because that might be owned by the photographer, not the student. Still, the person most at risk would be the student, who uploaded it. The real issue is about WMF policy that goes beyond the requirements of law. Straight? --Abd 00:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting my argument (a straw man). My argument is both the file's use and your argument are inconsistent with the stricter requirements set out in WMF's licensing resolution. The photograph of the professor may also be owned by the photographer or the by the University since the photographer was likely doing a job as an employee of the University. However who owns the rights is only relevant as so far as who can give permission to use the photograph freely. Why do you continue to use strawman arguments and arguments inconsistent with WMF policy when you realize the issue has to do with a WMF policy that goes beyond the requirements of law? The reason for deletion is policy. If your intention is to convince me that my interpretation of policy is incorrect, you will continue to fail as long as you focus on strawman arguments and arguments that are inconsistent with current policy. If your intention is to convince me what the policy should be, this discussion is the wrong place for that. To bring the discussion back to policy: WMF's license resolution specifically mentions the need for fair use images to be used to educate and mentions photographs of living people as not qualifying. I previously stated that the resource (DFE2009 Worldwide Package Cushioning) seems to only cite the work of the person in the photograph and you seemed to disagree. I saw no information or argument in your stated disagreement that might sway me to change my position. How does DFE2009 Worldwide Package Cushioning educate readers about the person in the photograph? A concise answer to that question is about the only piece of information that might sway me to reconsider supporting the deletion of the file, short of the copyright holder agreeing to release the photo under a copyleft license. -- darklama  09:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you state many things that are obvious and that I agree with. WMF policy allows us to make exceptions, and we do make exceptions, but the problem is that we require some specific rationale, and then we are judging the rationale. It's obvious that the students who created that page believed the photo of the man was useful for the purpose of the page, which is two-fold, it's to educate those who create it, and it's to educate those who read it. "Education" is not merely stuffing one's head with facts, it also has to do with much subtler shifts in our understanding. Seeing a photo of the man who developed the views expressed on the page educates us both about the topic and about the man. The issue, then, is how important is it? Some here are certainly saying it's not important. Obviously some students would disagree with that. I consider this issue of strong requirement for "free use" licensing troublesome. It's not about educational purpose, at all. It's a policy stemming from an entirely different agenda. It's asking us, including our users, to do the work of a republisher for free. Where in the world is this coming from? The policy as it is requires us to make subjective judgments, and that sets up conflict. That class is over and those students won't have a cow if the image is removed, but sometimes these image removals do seriously offend users. And we need a clear policy that the whole community has signed on to, if possible. Otherwise this issue will continue to cause trouble, now and/or later.
There is no doubt but that the file usage is legal. Yes, the WMF has created, as you state, a policy that is stronger than the law requires, but then it, in the same document, allows us to set aside that policy, with language that actually leaves us quite free. Yet apparently some here believe that they have divined the intention of that policy, and believe that it prohibits us from creating our own EDP -- or making specific file decisions -- in conflict with their interpretation. This is why I'm beginning an Assembly study of the fair use problem and the EDP. It's worth the kind of effort that is involved in such a careful review.
Basically, you've asked the wrong question, Darklama. I don't find that I should even judge how the photo helps educate readers "about the person in the photo," specifically, and even to do so would require explaining concepts that we may not even have common language for. What I'm saying is that we are denying the interpretation of the authors of the page, and it's clear to me that there is sufficient educational purpose for the file, worst case, to justify a claim of fair use at some level. What's happening here is that users are insisting that the benefit be great, and I'm seeing the same argument coming up even when the users probably have no clue about the actual topic of the article. They are looking for a very specific rationale for the image, without understanding. That's not how Wikiversity works, when it's working. I'm looking not just at this file, but at our procedure. How do we determine what is fair use? We are showing, here, a Wikipedian attitude, similar to the debates that rage on Wikipedia over things like notability and neutrality, which are almost inherently subjective. It's a formula for endless debate and user burnout. This is an example where our normal methods of resolving disputes by forking fails, because users are claiming the right to control the content, excluding what others want. If it were illegal, sure. But it is not illegal, period. --Abd 03:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jibby.jpg

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Result of discussion is delete. --SB_Johnny talk 15:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file with no educational transclusions. Abd disagreed with my deletion, so I'm bringing it here for some community input. --Simone 17:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm a bit confused as to why this one is being discussed here. However, I have four problems with it. The uploader included the ""fair use" tag, so the assumption is that she chose to do that, and thus there's no particular reason to question the actual copyright status of the image. Given that: it is of a living person, and these are assumed to be replaceable with free-use equivalents; the only prior use of the image was on a user page, and non-free images can't be used outside of mainspace; and there isn't any significant educational role in the image, as it is not being used as part of a learning resource, but as a photo of the user. (I did consider that it may be needed as part of the course requirements, as I thought it might make sense to ignore the image until after her work was graded. However, the class finished some months ago). Thus when removed from the userpage where it can't really be added, the image has no other use on Wikiversity, so it becomes an unused fair-use file. - Bilby 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending investigation. There is a high probability that the user simply failed to understand the upload licensing issues, and that this can be fixed. I tagged the file with a Category:Slow deletion tag so that it won't fall in the cracks, and I appreciate the work that Simone and Bilby are doing with cleanup, but my own approach as a custodian is service to the users, all users. Thus my goal is to help this user satisfy licensing requirements. Process is beginning to examine our Exemption Doctrine Policy to see if it is adequate for our usage. Basically, as it might apply here, it serves an educational purpose for our users to build community with other users. It is not clear to me why fair use is not allowed in user space; it is as if our educational purpose is somehow separate from the formation of a user community. (By "fair use" here I mean that I could run a web site and use the file in this way, and have no legal liability. Fair use is not copyright violation, period. The problem is that fair use can be legally difficult to define. One court's comments on a dispute involving fair use was "Chill.") In addition, I recall (I'm not sure) that putting a photo of oneself on one's user page was a course requirement. Certainly most students did it. I appreciate Bilby's expression of patience in waiting until after grading was done. All this could have been handled simply, however, by requesting clarification of the license situation with the user, then waiting an appropriate time, and that has been very common. I created Slow deletion (it was discussed in a prior RfD) to avoid stuff falling in the cracks. I know that when I find a problem file, if I wait to do something, I might forget about it, and this has obviously happened many times. (Some of the files Simone and Bilby have been finding were the subject of warnings long ago. Forgotten.) We can develop a more sophisticated tagging system, and this can be part of our guidelines to handle EDP copyright issues.) --Abd 18:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I night need to clarify this. The user uploaded the file under a fair use license. We need to respect that, unless the user chooses to relicense the image (if they can - as it is portrait they may not own the copyright, as it is likely to belong with the photographer), or upload an alternative free use image. Thus right now all we know is that the user declared it to be non-free, in which are we cannot use it in userspace. And as it is unused except in userspace, we cannot host it. If the EDP is changed to accept fair use outside of mainspace, such images might be permissible - although that's doubtful in this case, and I'd oppose such a change. As things stand, though, we cannot keep the image, and we can't keep the image on the assumption that one day the EDP might possible be altered. - Bilby 00:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a misunderstanding of the function of policy on WMF wikis. Policy sets defaults, even strong defaults, but none of us have any obligation to enforce policy. EDP says it's policy, but is it? How did it become policy? I agree that our EDP does set a default, even given how it was created, but not that it overrides community consensus. (By the way, the creator of our EDP, JWSchmidt seems to have a different view of its interpretation than what is here being expressed by some, see discussion on his talk page over a file he created and uploaded in 2007.
This RfD is a request seeking community consensus, not an opinion of compliance with policy or not. Policy does not control community consensus, it's the other way around. Even WMF official policy does not actually control the community, for the WMF depends on the community for enforcement, normally. (When the WMF wants to assert authority, it has means to do so. It's rare, because of the damage done by heavy-handedness to communities. There had better be a good reason, and I'd want to know it if I was on the board!) Look at the file situation, piles of license problems. Is the cleanup initiative coming from WMF orders? If it is, they've been awfully quiet about it! I want a coherent policy because I want to avoid this mess, I want a policy that all of us will stand behind and enforce, routinely and without disruption. I want it to be easy for custodians and users. --Abd 01:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to your question, "is the cleanup initiative coming from WMF orders?", the answer is yes, per the Foundation resolution on licensing. It is about four and a half years too late, so I don't see this as a rush (at this point, why panic?), but we're well behind the expected schedule. - Bilby 01:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note. Bilby placed a speedy deletion tag on the file. Any user may remove such a tag, normally. Because the matter was under investigation, I removed the tag and replaced it with a Slow deletion tag, to ensure that the matter would not be forgotten. S Larctia apparently did not review the history to see that, but saw the file being discussed and made a decision to delete it. Normally, speedy deletion is not proper after a tag has been removed. RfD is the remedy. Thus S Larctia's deletion was, from one point of view, improper. There is another point of view, to be sure, and this is why we need clearer guidelines on these issues and our procedures. Does "fair use" in user space trump our ordinary deletion procedure? If it does, I'll ask what goal is being served. It's really a major overall philosophical issue, which is more important, a vibrant community and vibrant educational resources, or "free content" that anyone could package and sell without looking for fair use images to remove? That's the bottom line, really. This is not about protecting the WMF from charges of copyright violation, period. There is no risk to the WMF. --Abd 18:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, this image has no educational value, no fair use rationale, is entirely replaceable, was explicitly released as a non-free image. Why vociferously defend something which goes against the spirit and the practise of the WMF's copyright policies. There is a tiny "risk" to the WMF associated with each image which may constitute a copyright violation. There is a fairly large problem in having thousands of images with no appropriate licensing. This is a lot of fuss to be having over one inactive user who wanted an image of herself on her userpage, but that image not to be redistributed or edited. Fair use images don't belong in userspace, fair use images of living people are impossible per WMF. Niether of us are lawyers, but the WMF employees who drew up the meta-project copyright rules are. The point of the global policy on EDPs is that it prevents local communities having policies which tolerate copyright violations. Simone 11:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Unused" is technically correct, but only because Bilby revert warred to remove the usage. I'm now undoing that removal, because you can't find the usage so easily without the link. This is the same issue as #File:Pearlek 2372.jpg also now under discussion. Bilby and Simone have been removing links to many images and then promptly tagging or actually deleting them as unused. --Abd 18:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed because its use was against the current policy. As has been explained by multiple people, on multiple pages. - Bilby 18:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the tail wagging the dog. If the file is deleted as having no rationale, the link is still allowed. We can have redlinks on our user page if we want. If the file is allowed but restricted, there might be an issue. What Bilby is doing is assuming the outcome of this discussion, and doing what we normally do not allow, that is, adverse editing of a user page, by an editor not the user. We do not need to dump these issues on our users, and these users in particular are working with English almost certainly not being their primary language. Make it difficult for them, they will very likely go away. They might go away anyway, we can't help that. But we can make this place as welcoming as possible, and we can do it fully consistently with WMF policy. --Abd 18:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a link - it is adding an image to a user page. That image is not permitted on that user page. Removing the image from the user page is exactly what we are supposed to do. Because: a) non-free images are not currently permitted outside of mainspace; b) the image is replaceable; c) the image does not appear to serve an educational role as defined by policy; and d) the image does not have a fair use rationale for that page. - Bilby 18:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not throw around accusations like edit/revert waring. It only serves to poison the dialog because there is no clear definition of how many reverts is a war. There is a disagreement, it has now been brought to the community's attention and we are discussing. It is fair to point out that the image is not used because we removed the link, but we don't need the label. 18:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Until we get some policies past about user images, acceptable licenses user images, etc. I feel the default point of view has to be that you can upload an image of yourself if your making it freely available for use by the public. I tend to think we should have something better on the books then that, but until we do we should delete. Thenub314 18:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Course involved. This applies to another RFD and to more threatened user page image deletions coming. The course is Icns141. The teacher's account is User:Icns141. There are lists of users at Icns141/Archived Homework/Term 2, Sect 1, 2010/2011 and Icns141/Archived_Homework/Term_2,_Sect_2,_2010/2011. There are also older lists of users that have been deleted. Almost every user on the visible lists linked here, that I've looked at, uploaded an image for their user page. Various responses exist to the licensing field in the template that they apparently used. I'm suspecting that a whole set of users, this year, received advice that led some of them to claim "fair use" for what was really their own photo, such as File:Yuri Nagayama.jpg. Yuri was in the ICNS141 class, apparently, according to her upload summary, but that user isn't linked from any list. What I'm getting is that the assignment was given in the class at the university, not on-line, and instructions would have been given there. From reviewing upload logs I see many user images of themselves, with "license issues," obviously coming from the same class. I see files that have already been deleted by Simone. --Abd 02:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ELEN7015_sol_a.jpg and ELEN7015_sol_b.jpg

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Undelete for review, add slow deletion tag. --Abd 18:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Revised, see below --Abd 00:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are from the solution to the problems in the same lesson (Teletraffic engineering/Trunking)

Here the solution should simply be described in some other way, if we can't confirm copyright release. –SJ+> 06:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two images are graphs based on the data included in the table available in the section where the two images were used. Uploader claimed to have created the two images, but didn't include a license or permission to use notice. -- darklama  13:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they are graphs of the data in question, then I would definitely move for them to be undeleted. Not only is it likely that they were created by the uploader, there's minimal creative work involved in their generation. –SJ+> 15:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is minimal creative work involved. Surely that is reason enough why anyone could easily create a free alternative? Possibly even better, someone could use EasyTimeline to generate the graphs using the available data to allow it to be easily edited. -- darklama  15:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I similarly suggested above, in the request for ExampleA.jpg_and_ExampleB.jpg. --Abd 16:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While replacing a presumably-free image with an obviously-free image is always valuable, that doesn't mean that deleting an image without replacement is. In the context of the authors of this course, who are already releasing all of their own textual work under a cc-sa license, it is a bit pedantic to delete the images they upload because they remembered to paste in a license template for some and forgot to do so for others. That said, if you are mainly concerned about image reusability, a media migration campaign to move all images over to commons wouldn't be a bad idea. –SJ+> 04:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy deletion in one week. Deletion may be delayed if a registered user takes responsibility for this page and removes the tag. --Abd 17:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed tags. The user obviously consented to the site license at the time, license information should be filled in per that consent. I haven't done that because I haven't checked to confirm the original licensing, so the "no license" category is still there. --Abd 16:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 per site upload consent. --Abd 00:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am opening this discussion back up because I do not believe it is appropriate to arbitrarily add a license to another user's work. Unfortunately if the user is unable to add license information then the file should be deleted. Thenub314 03:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the other two images by the uploader, I'm afraid that without any clear indication that the works have been released under a compatible license, the assumption must be that they haven't been. In which case the two images don't meet the WV:EDP, so they can't be claimed under fair use. - Bilby 13:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on ExampleA.jpg and ExampleB.jpg; the case is even clearer here, since anyone with Excel could produce similar and indeed better images.--Poetlister

ExampleA.jpg and ExampleB.jpg

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Delete, licensing problem. --HappyCamper 05:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete for review, per request, tag for slow deletion. --Abd 17:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Revised, see below --Abd 00:17, 1 November 2011[reply]
Reopened for further discussion - Bilby 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are used in the notes for this lesson: Teletraffic engineering/Trunking. Deleted after the initla uploader had gone away. Some description of what was there is appropriate even if we can't confirm copyright release. I would like to see the image before confirming that they should have been deleted, however. –SJ+> 06:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some description of what the images illustrated were already included in the text. I edited the text to remove references to the figures. Is that satisfactory? The uploader claimed to have created both images, but didn't indicate permission or what license the images were released under.File:Trunking.jpg which hasn't been deleted yet actually has similar problems. No license or permission to use notice is included, the style is similar to the two images you want to look at, but the uploader claims a different source other than themself for this one. -- darklama  13:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems backwards to me - I would say two created by the uploader should probably be reinstated barring a takedown request, and this one which is sourced to someone else from 2001 should probably be deleted. –SJ+> 15:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see this argument. It's true that the WMF has no legal problem if there is no takedown notice, however, when I've made this argument, it's commonly been heavily rejected. Darklama's position is more solidly aligned with consensus.
It is possible that some fair use version of the file could be created and uploaded by someone who can see it, claimed as a "fair use" version, referencing the original upload, perhaps. Something that functions for the resource. What do people think? --Abd 16:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are people that wish to reuse the image to know what if any permission is given when no license or notice is included? -- darklama  15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The implicit license of images created by the uploader is better than the lack of either implicit or explicit license for images created by a third party and uploaded by the user. Neither is ideal, from the perspective of reuse. –SJ+> 04:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree neither is ideal, from the perspective of reuse. I think that is part of why images end up being deleted so pedantically. What implicit license is implied when the creator uploads an image without license information? CC-BY-SA? GFDL? Public Domain? Ideally, I think people shouldn't be able to upload images without including license information. However that wouldn't resolve images already deleted due to lack of license information. -- darklama  09:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an implicit license, consent to which is legally assumed unless the user claims the contrary with the upload. It's the same license for all contributions, and we don't see RfDs for whole pages uploaded as the work of a user. The site license implies all that is needed for the content to be re-usable, and that's true even if the user doesn't claim "own work." Does this edit have "own work" noted with it? If we followed the principle being asserted by some, here, we'd have to delete practically the whole site. This is technical enforcement gone mad, completely divorced from the original intentions, the tail wagging the dog. --Abd 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abd seems to be suggesting that the images be undeleted and tagged as fair use. The only issue I can see with that is the WMF resolution regarding media requires that projects minimize their use of fair use to only cases where a free alternative is simply not possible. I think free alternatives are possible here, what do you think? -- darklama  09:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As we allow images to be uploaded under non-free licenses and under licenses other than the site license, I don't feel that we can guess at the user's intentions and add a license without some sort of clear indicator as to their wishes. As there is no such indicator, I'm concerned that it would be unethical to set the license. - Bilby 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with Bilby. It doesn't seem appropriate to apply default license when we allow uploads of various licenses to be included. If the user is not interested in providing license information we should take down the image. Thenub314 03:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thinking about it, the default status for new original works is that they are protected unless the rights holder expressly surrenders those rights or, in the case of CC licenses, retains copyright but permits free use. If the images were found online without copyright tags, the assumption would be that they could only be used under fair use. My feeling is that as we don't know the intention of the uploader, the same assumption should be applied here - assume that they are not free use unless explicitly told so, and thus they can only be used under the fair use provisions. Unfortunately, they are also easily replaceable by free-use equivalents, so that doesn't help keep them. - Bilby 13:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As there is no evidence that they are not copyright, they can only be used if "Fair use" applies. It does not apply, because anyone with the necessary expertise could draw similar diagrams, so they are replaceable.--Poetlister 10:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is easy to prove that they are replaceable, by replacing them. I'd suggest that if these files are replaced by files with no license issues at all, they'd be deleted with no controversy at all. They'd be unused. Poetlister's argument that "there is no evidence that they are not copyright" is simply false. The user specified that they were "own work," and the act of upload, just like the act of writing comments here, is a release under the site license. --Abd 17:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The user, by claiming that the images were there own work, was asserting the right to upload them, and granted a license by the act of upload, per notice provided, surrendering the option to later restrict them. There is absolutely no copyright issue here, in reality. Had the user not claimed "own work," there could be. The one who requested the undeletions is a WMF board member. I don't think he'd suggest something illegal, and he later explictly addressed what he called the "implicit license." I added that license based on the file history, so as far as later usage by others is concerned, they have a license they may rely upon. The user, with the upload, could have asserted a different licensing, but by failing to do so, was releasing the images under CC-by-SA. --Abd 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What notice are you preferred to as having been provided? Uploads differ in that there is no notice along the lines of "by uploading you agree to our site license" as there is for text contributions. There would be no purpose in asking uploaders to pick a license, if they had to agree at a minimal to the site license for images too. -- darklama  17:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note my error. It appears that image upload process does not specify a default license, as is specified for text through normal editing. I just confirmed that the upload notice at the time of the upload was similar. (I'd looked for this before, I don't know why I didn't find it then.) I have no idea why this was not done, as a generic process for all uploads, but it wasn't. A strong legal case could be asserted that, nevertheless, the upload of the files and the use of the files under CC-by-SA, by the same user, with no further fuss, was a consent, and, as Sj asserted in his request and comments, it's reasonable. However, I'm not seeing any support for keeping these files from any users other than Sj and myself. If the situation stays this way, I'll withdraw my objections to deletion. --Abd 17:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you also see at the bottom there where it includes the notice "Images without proper information about their source and their license will be deleted"? -- darklama  18:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

A bibliography for Bible students

Now that User:Poetlister has been community banned here, we need to reassess all his/her contributions. It is clear that this article has no real educational value. It is a carefully handpicked list of books designed to bolster his/her controversial views on Bible translation. To see the bias, just look at some of the authors included: Y. Aharoni, E. Tov, L. J. Greenspoon, M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, C. D. Ginsburg, S. Z. Leiman, J. H. Hertz, N. M. Sarna, U. Cassuto, M. Zlotowitz ... the list goes on and on.--Improver 12:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Usually controversial and biased resources are within scope because they can provide students with unique learning opportunities that are often outside the scope of other projects. -- darklama  15:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for information that supports your assertion that these are controversial. It seems to me that the fact that you list so many authors signifies that at the least their views may be one valid school of thought on the matter. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for you/someone to add resources to that list that would work to have more points of view represented? Keep for now, unless there is more unequivocal evidence that this bibliography is somehow invalid. I'd also note that while User:Poetlister suffered a global ban, he has continued to contribute to Wikiversity under watch from user:Abd, see User_talk:Poetlister for information on that. (Pardon my ignorance on the topic, have since learned more). MyNameWasTaken 19:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I welcome Darklama's agreement that this list is controversial and biased. I agree that sometimes such resources have their value by encouraging people to think. However, I argue that this is not the case here, because few readers would have the subject knowledge in Bible studies to realise what is going on. This list is only an adjunct to Poetlister's grandiose project to translate the Bible singlehandedly, following his/her own set of rules. That project was created solely because Poetlister was unable to control the translation going on at Wikisource. I could indeed amend the current list, but it would involve such huge alterations that it would be better to junk it and begin again. MyNameWasTaken is clearly misinformed. Poetlister indeed created a sockpuppet, Poetlister1, in a transparent attempt to bypass the community ban here, and was abetted by then custodian Abd. However, the sockpuppet was speedily blocked and Abd himself has now been blocked too. I see no evidence that there is a single custodian here who would unblock Poetlister1 to continue this list or do anything else on WV. Probably an irrelevance, but MyNameWasTaken is working on a statistical resource and Poetlister is said to be a well-known statistician.--Improver 13:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I've since sought out more information about the Poetlister situation, so please ignore my above misinterpretation of the situation based on the conversations I had seen on the subject. You are correct in your assumption of irrelevance. My project has absolutely no connection to Poetlister, of whom I was unaware of prior to entering this discussion. Rather, my Intro to Statistics project is based around porting the openly licensed and peer-reviewed course materials from Saylor.org to Wikiversity. MyNameWasTaken 04:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - firstly, I know very little about the subject of the bibliography, but the bias? indicated by Improver escapes me. It looks like a lot of effort to provide a learning resource. You've got to be kidding with wanting to delete a resource the sole contributor of which is not at present free to defend. Marshallsumter 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had hoped that the list of authors I gave would be enough. But perhaps a compaison with this list would help, together with this and this. I don't think that you'll find any of the authors I noted on those links. I fail to follow Marshallsumter's logic. If an editor makes several articles and is then banned, are we debarred from asking for their deletion? Still, I would like to hear from Poetlister on this topic so will ask for an unblock.--Improver 12:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used the 'find' on my browser and picked seven names from your first list 850 Books for Biblical Expositors and five are listed on the resource you wish to delete. I believe you are free to add those that are not, under apparently appropriate categories. The list may by copyrighted to an entity called "The Master's Seminary". But you can add the pdf to the 'External links' if it's not already. Your second example is the same as the first, I will check the third later. Marshallsumter 15:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


encyclopedia articles written by one user

MrFidaAliEngr (talk | email | contribs | stats) has written several stubs of encyclopedia articles. He has been warned several times in his talk page, but he has continued. Some examples:

And pages that consist mostly of his personal opinions:

--79.144.174.39 14:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation and emotion/Book/Shopaholic

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


Please delete this as I was forced to put this on Wikipedia by my lecturer. Otherwise, I would have failed the course. This is all my work. With the exception of others fixing my spelling mistakes and adding some pictures. I am happy for the pictures to remain, but not the content. I am not an advocate of bullying or being forced to put up my essay. Please kindly remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.72.26 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[7][reply]

  • Keep - licensed irrevocably under CC-BY-SA-3.0, valid learning resource. You weren't obliged to put this on Wikipedia, or Wikiversity for that matter, as you could have failed your course if you so chose, so there is nothing inappropriate about our use of this content. --Claritas (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I was obliged to put it up on wiki and forced against my will to register. What do you mean I could have chosen to fail the course? Clearly, that was not an option since I had already paid almost 20,000 dollars AUD for the degree excluding the loss of wages for 3.5 years as I was a full time university student. Miz.mira (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless there is something about this learning resource I'm missing. It reads well and has an important message. The discussion is also quite complimentary. --Marshallsumter (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above, thye material was published under irrevocably under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Any beef with the lecturer should be taen up with them, but the resource cannot ne withdrawn.Leutha (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This my intellectual property and this is in breach of UC's intellectual property policy if not removed. This is not equitable and if not removed the University of Canberra is not respecting the rights of the originator (being me). According to section 4.2 of the intellectual policy agreement. The University agrees that originators retain copyright in any materials, other than course materials, created by the originators in the course of fulfilling their contract of employment with the University except where an agreement to the contrary has been negotiated between the University and the staff member. This is in breach of the "Use" of intellectual property rights as teacher does not have my informed consent for my IP to remain on Wikipedia. If IP remains on wiki the originator (Miz.mira) forefits her rights of retaning copyright and this is in breach of the Intellectual policy. [User:Miz.mira|Miz.mira]] (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument is fallacious. You licensed this irrevocably under CC-BY-SA, and as such, despite your university's policy, we have the right to use it as long as we follow the terms of your license. --Claritas (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consent given under duress is not valid, so the CC licence does not stand and retaining the article against the wishes of the author is a copyvio. Anyway, had the author asked for a speedy as sole author seeking deletion, it would probably have been granted.--Collingwood (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think "under duress" is speculative. Another speculation is maybe the school, college, or university where the author went to legally owns the copyrights for the work, and by requiring the essay to be posted or fail, the school, college, or university granted Wikiversity an irrevocable license. I think either argument is weak and not something that can be easily verified or disproved. Wikiversity:Deletions recommends for requests to only speedy delete when there is no substantial history. -- darklama  20:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -the university does not own my work nor the copyrights to my work. I am the only author and this is all my thoughts and ideas. I was forced to put my own intellectual property up. Consent was given "under duress" I was forced against my will, otherwise I wouldn't have put it up. I took this up with my lecturer and he advised that if I wanted my work to be deleted, I had to put it in writing on wiki. If I didn't put my work up I wouldnt have received my undergraduate degree in Psychology. I was obliged to put the learning material up as this was part of the assessment and not because my school required me to publish. The only person who wanted me to was my lecturer and he was marking my work. Miz.mira (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
      1. Agree that the University of Canberra (UC) does not own a student's work - this is clear in UC's intellectual property policy.
      2. The first I became aware of the student's concern about contributing his/her work was when content removal first occurred approx. 3 weeks ago - 4 1/2 months (November 2011) since the shopaholic page was previously edited and that the unit of study, Motivation and emotion for Semester 2, 2011, was completed.
      3. I disagree that the student was "under duress" and "forced" to post work on Wikiversity under a CC-BY-SA-3.0. This is not evident in the unit outline, is not a position that I endorse as the unit convener and it would not be a position that I would expect the institution (UC) to support. If a student seeks alternative format for the assessment items, then this can be negotiated. In this case, the student did not request an alternative assessment. Lecture 2 in the unit explained the assignment, Wikiversity, licensing, and the unit's approach to collaborative online authoring. So, I don't think that consent to contributing to Wikiversity under CC-BY-SA-3.0 was under duress.
      4. Disagree that the page represents solely the students' work. In fact, this page is one of the better examples of collaborative writing, with many contributions during the development of the page by myself and by other students (see the page history and the talk page), with considerable collaboration between the student and myself offline (face to face and via email) about the chapter's focus, its content, and its development. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I spoke to you in the beginning of the semester and told you that I did not want to register for wiki and utube. You did not give me an altimatum. In fact, you stated verbally and written that those who use more open forums and callaborate will receive more marks compared to those who do not. In addition, the only callaborative input that i used in the book chapter was some pictures and spelling. I choose not to use peoples content suggestions as It was beyond the scope of my work and I wanted it to be my own work since we receiving indiviual marks for it. James, I want my work off please. I dont feel comfortable discussing this on wiki and if I cant get my work removed. Where to from here? Miz.mira (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Feel free to make any evidence to support your claims public. Please also feel free to contact me and discuss the matter directly. This deletion request for the Motivation and emotion/Book/Shopaholic page is a Wikiversity community matter - it is not for me to decide. In the conversation you refer to early in Semester, I explained that the book chapter assessment item (worth 55% for the Motivation and emotion unit) included a social contribution component worth 10%. Thus, this social component represented 5.5% of the total marks for the unit and was assessed by publically logged contributions made to other people's chapters. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. {{speedy delete}} I am the sole owner and originator and forced to put up. This subject was mandatory to complete in order to get my degree but not the wiki component. I tried to discuss this with the convenor at the beginning of the course but was advised that this was the only way to do it. I actively engaged in course not because I wanted to but because it was being assessed. I followed up this matter again after the couse ended but still no resolution.Miz.mira (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are not the sole owner of the shopaholic page - there were many contributors. You were not forced to contribute. Please present evidence to support your claim that you were advised that "this was the only way to do it". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • It was verbal. I didn't record our conversation. The amount that others contributed was not very much considering social contribution was only 5.5% out of 100%. I have looked at the edits and history of others and as discussed before no-one added to the content they only recommended and fixed up spelling mistakes. Miz.mira (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I didn't record our conservation, either, so we obviously have different recollections. The page history, talk page, the unit's Moodle forum, and email correspondence demonstrates considerable collaboration by others, particularly myself. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • you just made 38 edits in the last 30 minuets? Considering that you just made so many edits. The book chapter is almost verbatim as the old one that I originally posted. I just compared my original to the one on Wiki concurrently and the paragraphs are still the same. Granted you did delete some stuff.Miz.mira (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes, I have been continuing to develop the resource - as the deletion template invites, please be bold and continue to improve the resource. Where is your "original"? In my opinion, this was and continues to be a collaboratively-developed resource which was workshopped in class, shaped through online and offline discussion, and which incorporated the feedback and work of other students and myself, with yourself as the lead developer of the initial content. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dear wiki community, I am now a subscriber to wiki, although it was never my intention to become a subscriber. This published document continues to hold me in membership against my will. Clearly If other options were made available to me I would have submitted my course work another way. I have successfully completed my degree and have never been required in other subjects to do it this way. In the past with all my other teachers, all that was required was an essay and this was never published . In addition, putting up work on wiki or screenr is not a requirement by the Australian Psychological association. Additionally, if you read the response from my teacher (J Neill) see above, item 1, clearly it is not the intention of the University to force me to retain this published article and clearly I would prefer to have this article removed. In the absence of anyone demonstrating that their intellectual property rights are being infringed by such deletion, I would respectfully request that said document now please be removed. In further support of this request, no other options made available on submitting unless it was pulic domain. Secondly. I was a third year undergraduate student at the time and I don't want to ill inform the public on treatment for compulsive buying disorder (ICBD). ICBD is real and serious. It can overlap with other serious mental illnesses. I am not in the position, in writing a self help book chapter on helping others with it. Overall, I never wanted to put it up on wiki and if I was made aware of other options I wouldnt be here wasting our time trying to delete it. Miz.mira (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to help move towards some resolution, I suggest that concerns about University of Canberra be separated from concerns about Wikiversity:
      1. Concerns about the accrediting-institute (UC) should be taken up directly with the institution (e.g., dissatisfaction with the teaching/assessment for the unit), normally by directly discussing concerns with the unit convener (to date this hasn't occurred). Alternative assessment is always an option and available, but the student did not request or pursue this. UC assessment policy states that "3.12 The onus rests with the student for clarifying with the unit convener any doubts about the requirements of particular assessment items or procedures." Thus, it is students' responsibility to raise the concerns and pursue alternatives, or withdraw from units, if they do not wish to participant in the assessment activities. As it was, the student seemingly embraced the exercise and engaged in considerable face-to-face, email, and online consultation with the unit convener and fellow students in collaboratively authoring the shopaholic book chapter. The concerns about the work being online have been raised retrospectively, five months later.
      2. Of direct relevance to Wikiversity is the request for deletion of the shopaholic page. In my view, it is a collaboratively developed resource, with all authors contributing knowingly under a creative commons license. Thus, I think that a stronger rationale is needed to support deletion and that a better approach than deletion could be to improve the resource.
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears that one of the interlocutors here, Jtneill, is the university professor who made the assignment to Miz.mira to "author a free, online book chapter", as noted in the "assessment" section of the class description of which this essay is a part. Jtneill self-describes as a custodian and bureaucrat here on Wikiversity. I think there are questions of ethics and propriety both here on Wikiversity and perhaps at the real-world university where this class allegedly took place. One is given to wonder whether, in an academic environment, a professor may make an assignment ("author ... a book chapter") that also deprives his student of the authorship and rights of ownership ("free, online") of the student's work. One must then further consider the propriety of that same professor, in a different role in a position of authority on the destination website of this "free, online book chapter", impeding the student's attempts to assert his or her ownership rights over said work. It should be said that the subsequent revisions of the work may or may not create legitimate derivative works, but they do not change the ownership of the underlying original work, or the author's claims to it. And as another commentator has said above, a transfer of ownership or copyright under duress is in fact no transfer at all. If the claim is that the student was aware that the requirement was for a "free, online" chapter and thus the transfer of ownership was legitimate, then the propriety of that requirement, rooted as it is in the dual role of Jtneill as Wikiversity custodian and University Professor, is likely one for the University's Committee on Professional Ethics, or similar body. However, it seems ill-advised for Wikiversity to allow itself to be the vehicle for this appropriation of a student's work, whether technically legal or not. -- Gnetwerker (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that the user above is likely a user from Wikipediocracy (the new version of Wikipedia Review that seeks to criticize Wikipedia and all of its affiliated projects), as seen here. Potentially a sockpuppet too, though I don't know if the user in question has a main account on Wikiversity, so perhaps not. Silver seren (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If your allegation (that I am also a participant on another internet forum) were true, how would that affect my ability to comment here, in a civil and on-topic fashion? -- Gnetwerker (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It brings into question whether your comment and opinion is actually caring about the improvement of Wikiversity (or any other Wikimedia project) or whether it is just meant to find another avenue of criticism. Silver seren (talk)
Criticism is a great way to improve things, especially in the context of a project like Wikiversity. --SB_Johnny talk 09:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, constructive criticism is fine. But criticism for criticism's sake or for the sake of negatively impacting the criticized is not. Silver seren (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the subject at hand, it is definitely something that Miz.mira needs to take up with Jtneill privately and, if not satisfied with his response, then with the proper university department head. However, that doesn't change the fact that when writing the book chapter in question, Miz.mira was knowingly doing so under a CC-BY-SA license and, thus, we have no reason to remove it. If the chapter in question was not of use to the Wikiversity project, then there would be a reason to remove it under that explanation, but the chapter does appear to properly fit what Wikiversity is supposed to be covering. Silver seren (talk)
  • Comment: Copyright and ownership are not transfered by releasing a work under the CC-BY-SA license. A person is free to release their own work somewhere else under different terms or conditions without needing permission from Wikiversity. I think any real-world allegations and grievances that may have occurred should be addressed by the proper authorities, including any claims of being under duress. I think Wikiversity cannot void the license agreement because, in part, Wikiversity isn't a party to or a witness to the real-world allegations and grievances that may have occurred, including any decisions that may have been made as a result. The only thing the Wikiversity Community knows for certain is that the work was submitted to Wikiversity with the intentions to release the work under the CC-BY-SA license. Also the work may have already propagated across the entire Internet, may have been archived or mirrored by any number of websites, may be available indefinitely for anyone to find, and anyone may have a right to continue to use the work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, even if the work was deleted from Wikiversity. At least by keeping a copy of the work on Wikiversity any errors can be corrected, and a medical disclaimer could be added. -- darklama  19:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you seem to be someone of some experience here, what is your commentary on the propriety, within the Wikiversity sphere, of a professor, who is also a Wikiversity "custodian", obligating a student to post work here? I ask without implying agreement on the comment regarding CC-BY-SA. -- Gnetwerker (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware there have been many works initiated at Wikiversity and at other Wikimedia projects by students in collaboration with their professor or teacher for many years now. I'm not aware of any how many, if any, of those works were the result of a professor or teacher obligating their students to post their work. I think professors and teachers have an obligation to properly educate and inform their students what Wikiversity's scope and license are, help maintain an environment that is inclusive of the rest of the community, and ensure all policies, guidelines, and processes are followed, if they wish to remain welcome at Wikiversity or any other Wikimedia project. I would have to be involved in the real-world school to have a strong opinion either way on whether requiring students to post their work to Wikiversity is appropriate or not. In general, I am not sure how I would feel about being obligated to post my work to Wikiversity. In my experience, a policy against obligating students to post their work would be unrealistic and difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. I think the custodian role is only of concern if there was a consensus to block a professor or teacher who was also a custodian. I'm not sure what problems a professor or teacher also having a custodian role could cause or what relevance the custodian role has with being a professor or teacher. -- darklama  22:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I was unclear. As regards your last statement, it appears that Jtneill is the professor who made the assignment, the person opposing the author's request for a good-faith deletion of the submission, and finally the custodian who blocked the author for trying to delete her submission (which he assigned). Quite a small circle there. -- Gnetwerker (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have inquired into what the intentions of the person who deleted the page's content was since he or she had contributed to it previously and there were other contributors to the page. If I understood the intentions were to delete the page, I might have either made a request here on that person's behalf or for myself if I opposed. I would have at least explained the proper way to request speedy deletion to avoid having any future edits reverted as vandalism. I think I wouldn't have reverted as many times and the other person probably wouldn't have reverted as many times either. I might have been able to avoid a block and reduced the number of reverts by having engaged the person sooner in discussion. I think I would have only blocked if the page's content continued to be deleted after I had initiated discussion with the person, or began discussion here and informed the person. I think opposing deletion itself is fine, just the response could have been better. -- darklama  00:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately I have to lean toward the side of delete in this case. After talking to Jtneil, it does seem by and large this user did make most of the edits involved. The assignment statement would have sounded compulsory to me as well. It is undoubted a blow to the book, but Professors have quite a bit of leverage over there students. Unfortunately as I know form personal experience this leverage is easy to use accidentally, I don't think any of us like the idea of using students to develop content that don't want to. That definitely steps away from the collaborative aspect of our mission. SB_Johnny does make a good analogy, but I would hope the art class would also have provisions for students who do not want their work displayed publically. Thenub314 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This student needs to file an OTRS ticket with the Wikimedia Foundation and be in touch with a real person there. We aren't in a position to deal with an offline issue that has apparently spilled into the online domain. --HappyCamper (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following message from editor Miz.mira was originally posted—apparently in error—to the section above, and then removed from there without comment by an unregistered editor. Since it would appear to have been intended for this section, I have reposted it here. Given the propensity of some editors on Wikipedia (hopefully Wikiversity is different) to shout "LEGAL THREAT!!" at any mention of lawyers, or anything vaguely resembling legal language, I had briefly considered trying to protect Miz.mira from precipitate administrative sanction by redacting—with an appropriate indication, of course—the second sentence of her message. However, since that sentence is quite clearly not a legal threat, anyone attempting to instigate such an administrative sanction on that basis will reveal themselves to be both a moron and a jerk. I trust no-one here will be so foolish as to do that. [Gratuitous and unhelpful speculation]
David J Wilson (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wiki community,

Despite my request to J Neill not to continue to rebut this issue in public he continues to do so. In addition he has sabotaged my attempt to delete this document by making various changes to the document since my request to delete this document, to influence your decision not to remove said document. I now think it is an opportune time for the University chancellor and my IP lawyer to start to discussions to resolve this issue. My sincerely hope that my application to the wiki community to have this document deleted continues and will be removed soon. Many thanks and kind regardsMiz.mira (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've discussed this deletion request with several colleagues at University of Canberra and formed the viewpoint that, although the student seemingly voluntarily participated in the book chapter assessment exercise at the time, did not seek alternative assessment format, and made edits to Wikiversity irrevocably under a CC-by-SA 3.0 and GFDL licensing, that we would nevertheless prefer deletion as our recommended action in order to demonstrate good faith towards the student involved. The other main contributor to the chapter is myself, and I am willing to support deletion of my contributions to the chapter in order to help support User:Miz.mira's request. The other contributions to the chapter consist mainly of some outstanding IP edits (which are likely to have been by the student) and a relatively small number of edits by other students, HarryMMM (5), Tyrtaeus (2), Noodles&Wedges (2) and Katie-marie88 (1). In discussions with colleagues, we have also identified some improvements to the unit outline for the Motivation and Emotion unit in future so as to more explicitly indicate:
    1. that alternative assessment formats may be negotiated by the student, however the onus is upon the student to do so - see [8]
    2. that contributions to Wikiversity are irrevocably licensed under CC-by-SA and GFDL licenses - see [9]
These changes are intended to help ensure that in future students who choose to participate in the unit and the book chapter assessment exercise using Wikiversity are fully cognisant about doing so and understand the licensing implications of their actions. I welcome any other further suggestions. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the comments above, I believe this now falls under the "Requests" criteria of our guidline on what constitutes a speedy deletion. Given this is the case, I have gone ahead and deleted the page and the talk page. Thenub314 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Joseph Miller

Thank you very much--McYel (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've reviewed the deleted page. It contains bio-type info which would more appropriate to Wikipedia if notability could be established and POV issues would need to be resolved. However, it does not belong on Wikiversity which is for educational content, and speedy deletion was appropriate. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtues/Prudence

I am actively developing the Virtues course, populating one virtue at a time. I will be getting to prudence soon. I ask for your patience and ask you to restore this page. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but the article had not been edited since 9 Aug 2011 - near enough a year, so please do progress it.--Collingwood (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten great things about being an entrepreneur

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


Ten great things about being an entrepreneur, The Top Ten Traits of successful Entrepreneurs and Top ten myths about Entrepreneurs appear to be previews or advertisements for a published book. --Bernhard Fastenrath 14:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the reference to the book can be deleted as hype. Each of the "Ten" pages is the usual motivational palaver associated with anything, this time with entrepreneurship. It can be left perhaps to teach about motivational thinking I suppose. Very few successful entrepreneurs are rich. Those that turn to monopolistic practices like Bill Gates at Microsoft usually become very rich. But that's something other than entrepreneurship. For the majority, it's like any other career: the more people you can control (through such positive motivational means) the bigger and more successful your business becomes even if marketing something completely useless, like the Frisbee, one of my favorite toys. --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted I just looked up the published title on Google Books. Much of the wording on those wv pages is taken straight from the (copyrighted) book. While the wv editor may in fact hold the copyright and be authorized to release parts of the work under a free license, he has not done so through proper channels. Until such time as the book author contacts meta:OTRS to verify his identity and agreement with our license - the material is a copyright violation and should be speedy deleted. If proper permission is given in the future it can be undeleted, though spamish links should be removed. --mikeu talk 01:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more pages by the same editor are a copy & paste from copyrighted works. Research into Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneur have been speedy deleted as copyvio. --mikeu talk 01:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kedar Joshi

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Deleted. Thank you all for your input. I've deleted the pages listed below, because the discussion and the content of the pages show that the educational value is still unclear, and the quality of these resources is uncertain or, rather, it's just not good enough (see the discussion below for more information). Mathonius (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kedar Joshi on India

Bhagavad Gita/The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita

Kedar Joshi Quotes

Should India be invaded by the West?

All works of Kedar Joshi

See rationale 2 below and reply there!

Rationale

Someone tried to add a paragraph in Bhagavad Gita (Wikipedia) article here and again here using the Wikiversity article as citation. We failed to understand the importance of this section and it was removed.

Now the question is who is this Kedar Joshi? An editor has shown Joshi is famous for his anti India rants.

Now, reading from his article:

  • "The Devil has taken the shape of Asia and His heart is India."
  • "Freedom for India is freedom for evil."
  • "India is a cancer." etc.

Unless he is a world class scholar/critic/writer, I don't think these content have any educational value, specially as they contain negative/insulting comment against a country! He writes "India is a cancer" and does not write anything to explain it. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 18:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Rationale 2

I am requesting to verify the educational importance of all works of this author! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 19:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Delete – The quotes have little educational value and only reflect personal opinions, beliefs, or biases. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The quotes are not scholarly analysis but merely personal opinion or belief, reflecting an utter lack of deep thought or analysis. In the article about the so-called Satanic Versesa, Joshi provides no explanation of why they are supposedly "Satanic." Even the word 'Satan' is not a concept of Sanatana Dharma, and the word is nowhere found in the Bhagavad-gita; this is merely a dualistic concept borrowed from Judaism, Islam, or Christianity, which in their turn borrowed the concept from Zoroastrianism. The Bhagavad-gita is certainly worthy of scholarly discussion, analysis and debate, but Joshi's attack misses the point entirely. It does not honestly engage with the text but is a simple-minded, sophomoric rant grounded in ignorance. The Gita has engaged brilliant minds from before the time of Adi Shankaracharya to Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya down to the present, with brilliant modern-day translations and commentaries by scholar-devotees like Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada and Graham Schweig. It is unfair to misrepresent a text as important as the Gita with only the attacks of a jejune, non-philosophical, unsympathetic catcaller like Joshi.

Similarly, the Kedar Joshi on India and the Kedar Joshi Quotes pages are nothing but vanity projects for Joshi to assemble all his stillborn stomach eruptions and ruminations as if they were genuinely profound quotes drawn from scholarly writings of philosophers, thinkers or classical writers; these "quotes" are completely useless. Real quotes from real writers belong on Wikiquote, not here, and they will not be self-posted but contributed, preferably with context and sources, by other people who recognize the significance of, say, Herman Melville, Albert Einstein or Abraham Lincoln.

The sophomoric Mr. Joshi should spend two or three years actually studying the Gita, and then he might possibly be in a position to comment on it intelligently. He needs, for one, to find a competent teacher, as Bhagavad-gita 4:34 advises, and then study with a sympathetic ear while considering the influence of time, place and circumstance. To arbitrarily condemn the text because its word usage or attitudes do not wholly conform to modern science or current social norms is asinine. Of course, the Gita can be critiqued, but it is also possible to interpret its teachings in a way which lead to vastly broadening the mind, as Thoreau proved with his own life's example.

Yes, please delete ALL these articles forthwith. They do not in any way correspond to the teaching mission of a university-style project. — Objectivesea (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the works by the subject have educationaol value; though I'm very inclined to vote delete on Should India be invaded by the West? ~ RogDel (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — These articles seem intended to be vanity and promotional rather than educational. --JorisvS (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — NPOV is not required on Wikiversity. The research topic does not seem to be well developed as yet. A list of quotes about a nation set up initially by the former British Empire, a colonizing invader from the West, at present seems more like a psychological effort to understand something. The quotes also have many themes: religious (devil), political (freedom), legal (corruption), etc. --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem to have educational value; discussing quotes, extracting meaning; there can be ways to go about it; improvement would certainly be a better option than deletion. ~ RogDel (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to quote a comment on the rupeenews article, posted by Ajith on Jan 11, 2012: “Mr.Kedar said these things too. “When I see India, I realise how great England is! When I see England, I realise how great India is!” ...”; the subject seems to have said good things about the Bhagavad Gita too: e.g. in the 1st paragraph of The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita, he says: “This work is meant to be nothing but an honest, academic attempt at bringing out a criticism of the Bhagavad-gita. And although, through this work, I have been highly critical of the Bhagavad-gita, I have pleasure admitting honestly that the Gita does appear to have a profound metaphysic and a spiritually motivating philosophy of life. In fact, it prominently shares similarities with my theories & philosophy, especially the UQV (Ultimate Questioner’s Vanity) theory.” He may not be as mindless an anti-Indian as he often seems to have been projected and thought out to be. ~ RogDel (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This means nothing! Unless we are including every blog post, journal article, Facebook wall posts or Twitter tweets, newspaper article in Wikiversity as study material, there is absolutely no need to include these scraps here.
About Bhagavad Gita there are thousands of much stronger analysis, explanation, commentary etc written by much much better and greater personalities. The list includes names like Mahatma Gandhi, Rishi Aurobindo, Swami Vivekananda, Albert Schweizer, Carl Jung etc. Now, who is this kedar joshi? I am tempted to compare him "a pygmy among giants", but, I don't want to insult a pygmy! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think prior discussion suggests concerns still have not been addressed. These resources need a context, an audience, to express educational objectives, and to explain what it is about. Hypotheses need to be expressed, analyzed, and transparently assessable to allow people to draw their own conclusions. Quotations should include details on the date and publication where a person said something to allow people to find and verify the authenticity of what is being attributed to someone. RogDel previously agreed in the prior discussion to take responsibility for these resources, but these resources have not been improved. I think further development may be difficult or unlikely without someone who is substantially familiar with the person, their works, and their theories taking the time to improve these resources. -- darklama  20:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while the voting on this matter is 4 Delete to 2 Keep, it has not been closed. User Draubb has placed an improve or speedy delete tag on the first article, and an IP has added educational content to this same article placing the article by so doing under Politics (Freedom of expression). User Draubb has graciously acknowledged a conflict of interest with user Tito Dutta but has not voted here. Neither has user Tito Dutta. May I suggest that the deletion tag be removed. When this discussion is closed, a decision can be made on Keep, Delete all, or Closed - no consensus because there are not enough votes. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What User:Draubb has to do here? See my opinion on Draubb. I do not know him. He may call anyone his native friend, but, that should not affect the discussion! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 18:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CC-by-sa-3.0-dual

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


We have a long running and widespread problem with files which have an unclear licensing situation. This template demonstrates part, but not all of this problem. It says the relevant file is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 and CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, where the latter has the non-commercial restriction which means it isn't an acceptable licence. This is very confusing and seems contradictory. It isn't obvious as to whether commercial use is permitted. As part of trying to resolve the wider issue here, I would suggest that this fairly recently created licensing template is deleted.

User:Crochet.david.bot replaced some text used on some uploaded files with this template. I suggest following deletion of this template we undo these changes. See File:Egm6321.f09.mtg36.djvu for an example. You'll note that alongside the problem of the two licences mentioned seeming to contradict each other, the previous statement starts "I agree to multi-license my text contributions" and so it isn't clear that the licence actually applies to the file.

As I've said, deleting this template and then reinstating the text from the uploader won't solve the problems here but I think it is a sensible first step. Adambro 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dual licensing was introduced to cater for both GFDL and Creative Commons license, which were similar but with different wording. This dual license is redundant because one license includes the other, making the second license unneccesary at best and very possibly confusing. This dual license should goLeutha 18:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete I agree - the CC-by-SA 3.0 overrides the CC-by-NC-SA, thus the presence of the second license can only be confusing. - Bilby 23:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and delete all files which use the license, as the "text contributions" template is not a valid license. --Claritas 13:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm suggesting holding off deleting these files even if this template is deleted. There is about 1700 files and most are from the same uploader so I'm hoping we can get him to clarify the situation. Adambro 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was a stupid idea. I hadn't seen quite how many files would be affected - I'd contact the uploader and give him a few weeks to respond for deleting. --Claritas 01:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that this is totally contradictory. CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA-NC are two licenses that clash quite completely. For instance, there is no possible way to apply a CC license to something that combines two existing resources with those two licenses, a problem I have encountered when trying to license educational videos that use CC images. With so many images the uploader should be contacted to clarify which of these two licenses apply to his materials. MyNameWasTaken 18:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Clearly violates the general principle of CC licences.--Collingwood 22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessarily confusing. Either it's a "dual license, pick one", in which case it's equivalent to CC-BY-SA-3.0, or it's a "dual license, follow all terms", in which case it's equivalent to CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0. The images it's used on may need to be deleted, depending on which interpretation the user intended. --Carnildo 23:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Multi-licensing CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA increases flexibility for users making derivatives. See commons:Commons:Multi-licensing. Rd232 (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How would this work? CC-BY-SA gives all the rights of CC-BY-NC-SA so adding the latter gives no extra freedom. Conversely, adding the latter gives the illusion that commercial use is forbidden when it is not. Thus this type of multi-licence is at best pointless, at worst seriously misleading.--Collingwood (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment: Let version-1 by CC-BY-SA + CC-BY-NC-SA at the user's option. User A takes a copy under CC-BY-NC-SA, modifies it, and distributes the modified copy, i.e. version-2. User B accepts version-2 from User A. User B is not allowed to sell version-2 for a profit - commercial use of version-2 is forbidden. Version-1 remains distributable under both licences, but not version-2. But i am not a lawyer... Boud (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: commons:Commons:Multi-licensing explains how dual-licensing provides greater freedom to users and how CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA are compatible. Wikiversity could develop its own multi-license guidelines: Wikiversity:Multi-licensing -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:33, 12 April 2012
  • 'Delete The dual licensing is confusing, as the Commons multi-license page reveals in detail. I support attempts to streamline and simplify the license options. --mikeu talk 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is a guideline of one form or another is needed for multi-licenses, because they can be confusing, need to be explained, should be simple to understand, and introduce questions about what the uploader intended. -- darklama  18:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaqib A.

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


There's some discussion whether this page should be deleted or not (see here). It was tagged for speedy deletion, but that tag has been removed by Draubb. According to the nominator(s), an article like this belongs on Wikipedia, not on Wikiversity. It was actually deleted on the English Wikipedia, because the subject wasn't notable enough. Please share your thoughts below. Mathonius (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: No clear consensus for keeping in main space or for deletion, so have moved to user space. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant Safety Program

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


I don't think this article is notable enough not keep on Wikiversity. Receptie123 (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to user space. The program needs further explanation to justify educational relevance and usefulness in main space. English spelling and grammar also need improvement. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep or possibly move to userspace - about group that has a limited educational appeal. Seems like a localized group, known to a few. Contributor can refocus the topic to provide a resource that is useful for a general audience. - - Sidelight12 Talk 11:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to userspace I do not see a constructive purpose for this because it is simply not an educational material and Wikiversity is not a webhost for these kinds of things. Mainly per Jtneill, but I'd rather see it deleted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: No clear consensus for keeping in main space or for deletion, so have moved to user space. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/12&oldid=2204311"