Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/7

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.

Church of Scientology NOT DELETED

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

No Consensus. --Abd 14:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikiversity:Colloquium#Scientology. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion was moved to archive from inactivity, see Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/April_2010#Scientology. The general sense appeared to be that the page should be edited or the information restructured, which is an ordinary user process. I'm closing this as resolved, no consensus to delete, no prejudice against future filing after opportunity to fix the resource(s). --Abd 14:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Digital - DELETED

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

This seems like an advertisement to me. Very little content on the page, prominent name-dropping, and the misspelling don't seem to add up to anything educational. --Trinity507 21:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my impression is the same. I think Wikiversity is better of without it; we can't be a free advertising space... Can we? Ever wonder 21:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sole contribution of user, no connection with a learning resource, nothing significant lost by deletion. If they want to create a course on Web Design or like that, fine, and they could mention themselves, presumably, but this isn't anything like that, it's just an ad. Actually, they'll be better off without this embarrassing piece, their spelling definitely isn't "impeckable," nor are their grammar. Do them a favor and delete it. --Abd 02:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as obviously promotional content. Stuff like this can be speedily deleted. Adambro 09:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The invisible DNA - NOT UNDELETED

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

Not undeleted.. There was no support for undeletion. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

must be restored why the invisible DNA figures on the cover picture of Watson's book: ADN le secret de la vie. Stéphane Andre Schmutz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.48.57 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many problems. First, it has been deleted in various forms dating back a long time now. It has been recreated on multiple pages with multiple names. It was amazing how many pages I found with the same thing mostly promoting an extremely fringe idea that no one but his own website would promote. The page was spamish and also contained copyvio from his website. If anyone goes to the french wiki, here and elsewhere, you will see many more of the problems that -they- discovered. The IP snuck in all the pages here thinking that since we are not French nor Wikipedia we might not know the complicated history. Simply put, the author of the website is trying to use Wikipedia and Wikiversity to legitimize his claim when, any search for the man, doesn't even show an advanced degree in the subject. Instead, his website is there in hope to sell books that have no real scientific or academic basis, and we shouldn't be helping that. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not impossible that a learning resource here could be created that covers the "fringe theory," or whatever it is. However, the deletedpage isn't it, it is nearly incomprehensible. If the author of this page wants to see something here, I suggest the following: first, register an account and use only that account, do not create marginal stuff as an IP editor, it is highly likely to disappear. Second, ask for help from someone with experience. I'm actually new here, and an administrator on probation, but I'd be willing to help. Start with a proposed resource in your (registered) user space. Keep it simple, explain what "Invisble DNA" means, so that anyone can understand, or at least anyone with some background in science. If you are involved with the theory, and not merely someone interested in it, disclose that, openly. We can work with it, and our rules are different from Wikipedia. For now, I'd say, this page remains deleted. If you need a copy of it, ask me on my Talk page, I can provide it to you if you are a registered editor. If something usable is developed in your user space, it can then be moved into mainspace, and, if you have had help and cooperated, it will last. Even if it mentions the book. The disruption of multiple creations must stop. Okay? --Abd 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note - the repeated copyvio, produced in over a dozen articles, consistently recreated, and put on multiple wikis was the main reason why this was completely wiped and pages protected. The actual merits of the "science", be it fringe or not, were not considered. The matter dates back a few months, but there have been so many different pages that I do not remember which was the original or what the original IP was. The user relied on multiple IPs on different networks, but all seemed to be saying the same thing (as if they were the same person). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to explain that, actually, it was assumed by me. --Abd 23:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music and learning [USERFIED]

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

I request undeletion of Music and learning. This learning resources was deleted as "Beyond scope", but the Music and learning learning project was a valid Wikiversity learning resource. The out-of-process deletion of this developing Wikiversity learning resource was a disruption of both the Wikiversity Mission and the Mission of the Wikimedia Foundation and is now the subject of community review. --JWSchmidt 22:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was misnamed to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heh.... so rename and undelete - it seems very silly to me to be deleting things in this manner, rather as if some are under the delusion that pressing 'delete' is a viable methodology to decrease disruption, and build a harmonious community. I think it's not a very good idea, so yeah, 'undelete' please :-) Privatemusings 00:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest undelete and move to user sub-page. Deletion for such a page should be on the basis of documented discussion and consensus. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Per the comments above, I have restored the page and moved it to User:JWSchmidt/Music and learning. Diego Grez 00:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School of Mathematics - NOT DELETED

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

I rolled up my sleeves and got ready to merge and found there was not much to be merged. Judging from the talk page of this resource it was created in error and the original author felt it should be deleted. The page harms the project by causing people like myself to get lost have have no good idea where to get started contributing. Even worse is that the community cannot offer any advice on the matter has evidenced by a lack of replies to this post and This conversation. (I don't mean to single out Adambro, he has been very helpful to me here so far). This sort of confusion has kept me from contributing more seriously, and who knows, possibly others as well. Thenub314 10:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that School of Mathematics and School:Mathematics have different, useful content and that the page in question could be moved to something like Learning mathematics as suggested here and that School of Mathematics could then be redirected to School:Mathematics. None of this would require deleting or custodial tools and could be done by any editor. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice this suggestion to turn this into a resource on learning mathematics. Now I grant that it may represent a particular point of view on how to learn mathematics but whose point of view? The significant contributor is one of the people to suggest this page be deleted as a mistake. I also find it notable that another editor noticed this suggestion and also still suggested it be deleted. Now I am new here, so this conversation is a bit of an educational experience for me. But do we really keep a POV resource when the only person to suggest or agree with this POV later decides it should be taken down? Thenub314 09:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an open question. Content contributed is no longer owned by the original creator. The page has since been (a little) modified and could continue to be so. In general, I would prefer to see potentially useful content adapted/improved (which I think is quite possible in this case) than outright deleted. The original author's comment on the talk page was "I wrote this page quickly one night, when I was astonished by the apparent fact that the Wikiversity "school of mathematics" page did not exist. However, after I wrote it I found this page: [1] . That seems to be the real Wikiversity "school of mathematics" page. Now I think that this page I wrote should probably just be deleted. --Singularitarian 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)". So, it isn't a deletion request, but a suggestion. I think the page should be treated on its merits. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is my personal opinion is an impediment rather then a resource, but your correct it can be dealt with without administrative tools. So I withdraw my request for deletion. Thenub314 12:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the redirect was deleted as being unnecessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as kept. Page was renamed to Learning mathematics for use as a resource as suggested. -- dark lama 21:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Wilson (USERFIED)

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

Closed as keep. Userfied to corresponding user name (User:Kempoguy22) Diego Grez 16:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been a user page at some point, but it is unclear for which user as it has been now touched up by a few editors. The long and short of it is, I can't see what this resource is supposed to be about. Thenub314 21:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the page seems to be established by this followed by this. --Pi zero 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems to me this page can safely be moved into that users space, which I will just go ahead and do. Thenub314 16:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dramaturgy UNDELETED/USERFIED (Music and learning)

I request undeletion of Dramaturgy and Music and learning. The Dramaturgy page is a learn-by-doing project for exploring how to use drama to promote learning. There was a long list of references for reading and discussion. The page was deleted as "Beyond scope", but the topic is clearly within the scope of Wikiversity. The Music and learning page is a learn by doing project where participants explore their musical interests while collaborating to document the ways that music stimulates learning. As part of that project I wrote a song about the Declaration of Independence. That song does not mock anyone. The song is a goofy celebration of liberty that explores my musical interests. The page was deleted as "Beyond scope", but music and learning is clearly within the scope of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 00:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but regardless of my personal position that's a terrible explanation. Adrignola 01:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion of both, and request ottava cheer up ;-) Privatemusings 01:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings, you are such a brat. You know first hand that I was not in a bad mood. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, promptly. (edit conflict with above) Dramaturgy is a recognized academic subject. If the content of the page is inappropriate, then any inappropriate content could be blanked pending a deletion decision, but the community can then review the pages. Normal policy would require a deletion discussion before deleting something as blatantly possible as an educational resource as this. At the same time, the same custodian blocked Beetlebaum, 10 days after this acknowledged JWS sock -- we may have acknowledged socks or even certain unacknowledged ones -- was last used for editing. I'm forced to see this as harassment of JWS, or at least flagrant disregard for recusal policy and remaining free of the appearance of bias. If Beetlebaum was disruptive, then JWS should be held accountable, and he should not suffer a death of a thousand cuts, as his work is deleted and his "character" sock is blocked without consensus or explanation, and what would be evidence of possible misbehavior is concealed under deletion. I'm also concerned about the regal "No" of Ottava. Policy suggests reasoned arguments for deletion discussion, not "votes," nor, worse, personal custodian denial. Below, we have an open discussion on Moulton's "Didactic Character Subpages." There is no consensus there, there is only Ottava's defense of his redeletion, two users opposing deletion, Adambro asking a question about appropriateness (which couldn't be answered until the content could be read!) and Jtneill asking a question about content. I provided, while I was still a probationary custodian, a way to read the content. I suppose that could be done here, as well, but I can no longer do it. I read that content and it was not sufficiently disruptive to warrant deletion, all legitimate raised objections previously could have been handled with a tag or blanking. Is the same true here? I don't know, but, from the history, I know that these two involved custodians cannot be trusted to make a neutral decision, they are involved, long-term.--Abd 01:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest Abd. JWSchmidt is struggling to focus his contributions on useful activities, it seems you might also be having the same problem. This page was more useless nonsense like, unfortunately, many of his recent "learning projects". It would be inappropriate to undelete it. Adambro 08:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you know, I reckon there's a real easy method to avoid this kind of rather silly escalation, if you're minded to, you can even play it as a game (although I can't promise any prizes ;-). It's called 'fact or opinion' - I think the use of things like blocks, deletions, and other special admin powerz should be based on facts - specifically about whether or not folk are breaking policies that can also be empirically examined (so they're 'facts' too in that sense). If, on reflection, you feel that you're taking action based on 'opinion' - or worse, based on an 'opinion' of interpretation doubled up with an 'opinion' of an action, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. As someone clever said (who? - someone help me out!) - opinions are like arseholes.... everyone's got 'em, but it's best to keep them to yourself ;-) cheers, Privatemusings 09:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete - I don't recall a discussion and consensus to delete these pages. I would prefer to see the community deciding what it wants to delete unless it's very obviously inappropriate material. I'm unconvinced that these pages warranted deletion without discussion. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the page on the condition that anyone can move content they find objectionable to the discussion page, and it must not be added back to the content page until there is a clear written consensus on the discussion page in support of restoring content back to the content page. -- dark lama 14:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Darklama. Excellent. Note that truly objectionable content may not be appropriate even for the Talk page, but I have not yet reviewed this, and the normal response to such content is to delete it, i.e., blank it. Users can work this out, custodian tools are not needed unless something must be revision deleted, which is rare. --Abd 14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Music and learning? I would think the same criteria would apply. --Abd 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Grez moved it to User:JWSchmidt/Music and learning. I think based on Diego Grez's decision that the work should remain in JWSchmidt's user space. -- dark lama 14:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I hadn't seen that because notice here was not provided. Moving is an ordinary editorial action, any of us could do it. I'd suggest that this discussion be closed relatively soon, if no Delete comments show up in short order. --Abd 17:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike that JWS filed this report without letting us know that the page had been userfied almost two weeks earlier. What he might protest, but probably not here, would be the protection of the name in mainspace by Adambro, so that the file cannot be moved back to mainspace without a custodian, which seems overcontrolling. In the mean time, the page can be edited where it is, and a final decision on mainspace location deferred, when feelings have cooled. We do have other issues to address at this time! --Abd 18:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didactic Character Subpages - NOT UNDELETED

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

Close with Leave deleted The original filing was on Wikiversity pages. At one point the page names were edited to point to betawikiversity pages, and JWS did not object; I'm taking that as a consent to close this request. Contrary to my view, by the way. --Abd 20:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I request undeletion of User:Moulton/Montana Mouse, User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork, User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin, User:Moulton/Caprice, User:Moulton/Albatross. I want to invite these characters to participate in the music and learning project. In order to explore my musical learning goals I need these characters to participate in a musical performance and I would like to make use of Moulton's expertise 1, 2, 3. --JWSchmidt 12:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was the content of these pages (I know I can go and look at a custodian, but it could be helpful to have an overview for everyone). Has anyone contacted Sebmol for comment since s/he deleted them? Were there any page-specific discussions before deletion? Were these deleted user pages which were then shifted to sub-pages of User:Moulton? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pages were harmless learning tools with biographies of didactic characters. These pages were deleted after both Moulton and I had been subjected to bad blocks and could not freely defend the pages as learning resources. Go to this version of the deletion requests page and you can see the discussion. The first person to comment on the proposed deletion correctly explained why deleting the pages was not sensible. Rather than give a reason for deletion, Sebmol simply pointed to the deletion discussion; there was no valid reason that could be entered into the deletion log. The Wikiversity community was under external threat and there is no reason now to put much stock in old decisions that were being made under conditions of intimidation and fear. Note this part of the discussion:
I can quickly and efficiently ban Moulton from this project if it is requested. Salmon of Doubt 18:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Salmon of Doubt" was the Wikipedian who came to Wikiversity and declared his goal to be getting Moulton banned from Wikiversity. The deletion discussion took place under conditions of threat and harassment imposed by invading Wikipedians. The pages are harmless didactic resources. Please look at the pages and judge them on their own merits. --JWSchmidt 12:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is Music and learning improved by the use of fictional characters? In what way does any use of fictional characters depend on the existence of these pages? What purpose does User:Beetlebaum serve now? Adambro 12:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pages will help me write a song, as I already explained on this page. I want to see the content of those pages so I can write my music. I doubt if I can explain musical inspiration to you and in any case that is not relevant to the undeletion of these harmless pages. User:Beetlebaum puts me in a mood for creating music. --JWSchmidt 13:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted at least temporarily. This discussion may continue until a final decision is made on these pages, but I saw no harm in restoring them to the Moulton user space at least temporarily for JWS or others to review. It is possible that there is some inappropriate material on these pages, but I noticed nothing that stood out. Please notify this discussion of any seriously problematic text in the pages. Adambro, we normally afford users substantial freedom in their user space, such pages need not be "purely educational resources," and serving the reasonable request of a Wikiversity user, assuming good faith, trumps a narrow view on what is a "learning resource," and this isn't in mainspace. However, stories indeed are a part of education, and that is, in fact, one of Moulton's regular themes. He is correct on that. --Abd 03:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I redeleted them. They were deleted via process, and were material created that were not within the scope of this community. They were also created by a banned user and used to disrupt while socking. They have no purpose here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Ottava, your 'Agreed' above apparently refers to the undeletion denial of Jtneill in the next section for another page. (A section header should be at the very top of a section, otherwise the archive template, and initial comment, gets caught in the previous section edit. I fixed it) There was no consensus here against undeletion. Certainly you can reverse my decision and I can respond to the request in a different way. But I'm urging all of us to stop taking rigid and fixed positions in the Moulton affair and start trying to find ways we can cooperate even where we disagree. I saw no harm in those pages. Just as the contributions of a blocked editor can be removed legitimately without consideration of content (in this case, without determining if the actual content of the pages was "disruptive"), and they can be reverted back by any editor on their own responsibility, JWS was asking for these pages to be restored, and so I temporarily undeleted them pending review of a final deletion decision. Ottava, you did not allow time for that to happen; other editors cannot read those pages now. I urge you to reconsider. Thanks. --Abd 23:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for undeletion. Your undeletion was inappropriate. Sorry, but you went around process inappropriately. These were pages created by a banned user to harass others. They serve no valid purpose here. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"were material created that were not within the scope of this community." <-- These were harmless character descriptions that I was casting in a music production as part of the Music and learning learning project. I request that a Custodian undelete these learning resources. --JWSchmidt 23:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion.I placed the wikitext for the pages at [1] so that any user can see what was deleted, thus satisfying the basis for JWS's request. Without approving all of the content of these pages (I saw one satirical reference to a controversial former Wikiversity user, though it is mild compared to what we have been seeing routinely), I judge that this content is acceptable in user space, as it was. It is possible, depending on how these pages are used, that some kind of tag should added or even that the pages are blanked, but preventing them from being read, even in history, by deletion, seems overkill and even a bit spiteful to me (that comment is based on some of the original deletion discussion which showed some punitive motive in support for the deletion, which would be technically improper and a sound basis for overturning it, particularly given that the deletion discussion did not clearly show a consensus for deletion.) --Abd 03:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it will be more convenient for John if the Didactic Character Subpages reside on the local Wiki, I have now restored them on Beta:Wikiversity. Note that restoring them here will require Adam's fix to the MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist, so that a few broken links can be repaired. Moulton 02:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a review of my action regarding these pages at User talk:Abd/Custodian actions#Undeletions re Moulton files, I realized that deletion was definitely not the appropriate action for these files, given the arguments against them in the original deletion discussion cited by JWS, above. At the most, they should have been blanked, with a permanent version then cited so anyone could read the original content if they wished. Suppose these pages had been a section on Moulton talk. Would that section have been revision-deleted? That's the equivalent of deleting a page itself. If anyone wants to point to the content itself, they can point to the permanent version, thus allowing what JWS wants to do. There was disagreement over the allowability of this content on Wikiversity, but in reality, this should not extend, absent good cause, into making the content unavailable to those who wish to see it. We should, in the future, keep blanking or providing a warning notice or the like, as an alternative to deletion. --Abd 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]