Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/20

{{cot|Though still active, this is a long discussion that should be archived and replaced by a status report--[[user:Guy vandegrift]]}} User:Marshallsumter has over 1500 images uploaded on this site. Most of these images were uploaded under a claim of fair use.

Unfortunately, none of these fair use claims appear to be valid. Almost every one I have looked at followed the pattern "No free licensed or public domain alternatives known to exist to show…" followed by the description of the image. For example, some of this user's uploads state that:

• "No free use or Public Domain image known to show a group conducting psychotherapy in a clinical setting." - File:Grouptherapy.jpg
• "No free use or Public Domain image known to show a girl from China with her tongue colored to match the Union Jack." - File:English_tongue_chinese.jpg
• "No free use or Public Domain image known to show glacial grooves & polish on an outcrop in Central Park, NY, about 2014." - File:Glacialpolish.jpg
• "No free use or Public Domain image known to show the planet Earth is made up of three main shells: the very thin, brittle crust, the mantle, and the core; the mantle and core are each divided into two parts; all parts are drawn to scale." - File:Earth_Shells_to_Scale.png
• "No free licensed or public domain alternatives known to exist to show the sesquiterpenes from the essential oil of the Boswellia sacra resin." - File:Sesquiterpenes_from_the_essential_oil_of_the_Boswellia_sacra_resin.png
• "No free licensed or public domain alternatives known to exist to show one of the 140 pyramids imaged and observed by archeologists in the Madalena area of Pico Island, Azores." - File:Pyramid_on_Pico_Island_Azores.jpg
• "No free use or Public Domain image known to show an annotated image of Hudson Bay as viewed from space containing the Great Hudson Arc: A 250-mile-wide mystery." - File:Hudson-bay-annotated.jpg
• "No free licensed or public domain alternatives known to exist to reliably show colonial rule in Africa as of 1914." -- File:Colonial_Rule_in_Africa_1914.jpg

If you have any familiarity with the legal history of fair use, then you'd know that all cases won against the use of fair use have been won only against .coms. None has ever been won against .edus or .orgs. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, most of these images are not used in ways which comply with Wikiversity's Exemption Doctrine Policy. The vast majority of them are used in a decorative fashion to illustrate a topic mentioned in the text of a page, not to further any specific educational goal.

Does Wikiversity have a process capable of handling the bulk deletion of these images? I can't imagine RFD would be able to handle it. Is there any better way to address this?

-- Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer Yes, we have bots and can handle bulk deletion of these images. Whether or not you can imagine it, RFD is the correct place for this discussion. Please note that your request would have much more credibility if you used your regular wiki account rather than a single-purpose account. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only active account I have. I was an active editor on enwiki 10-15 years ago, but I've long since lost the login information. And my concern with using RFD is how to list somewhere around a thousand files for deletion - the ones I mentioned are representative examples, not the sum total of my concerns. (I don't know exactly how many files will be affected, but I'm reasonably certain that most of this user's uploads will be.)

And I'm concerned by your suggestion that this request lacks "credibility". The invalid fair use claims on these files should speak for themselves. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All or nearly all of the users at Wikiversity 10-15 years ago are contributors listed in the "View history" of the Wikiversity:Main Page. Which one is you? Your unproven allegation: "The invalid fair use claims on these files should speak for themselves." suggests that you have little or no legal experience in these matters, which appears to be the case, as your actions here appear to be nothing more than disruption. You've stated "Recognizing and addressing copyright issues is the responsibility of all users of a wiki", but so far you have not presented any facts supporting that this is what you are doing. I've discussed these matters extensively with WMF legal and supplying the rationales here on Wikiversity as I've done for these images meets and has met their concerns. As I've indicated in the Discussion below you have failed to provide facts to support your allegation. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When and where did you discuss these issues with the WMF legal team, and what specific rationales did they approve? I would be interested to know more. If you don't recall, I would be happy to check with them - I'm sure they can provide details. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you know where such discussions would take place then you'd know where to look. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the assessment that the use of many of these "fair use" images is not consistent with either the spirit of Fair Use or the Exemption Doctrine Policy. The simple solution is to delete all Category:Fair use files images uploaded by Marshallsumter. Are there any other suggestions? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, does the user:Omphalographer own the copyright to any of the images under fair use here at Wikiversity?

Second, is the user:Omphalographer a lawyer, attorney or barrister in the employ of a copyright holder of any fairuse image at Wikiversity?

Third, we've been over this issue numerous times and all the fair use files I've uploaded meet US fairuse law and the Exemption Doctrine Policy, all of its parts and should be kept.

Fourth, the pattern noted by the user is the rationale statement as required.

Fifth, "a decorative fashion to illustrate a topic mentioned in the text of a page" is an educational goal though less than the value of the use of the fairuse image to the resource. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, as far as I'm aware, I do not own copyright to any of those images, nor do I personally represent anyone who does. But that doesn't matter. Recognizing and addressing copyright issues is the responsibility of all users of a wiki, not just the copyright owners.

You claim that "we've been over this issue numerous times". Who, when and where are you referring to?

The fair use statements you have applied to these images are not valid fair use rationales. The simple fact that you could not find a freely licensed image that met your needs (or did not care to use the ones you found) does not grant you the right to use anything you find online, for any purpose. This is not true of copyright law in general, and it is particularly not true on Wikimedia sites, which have stricter copyright policies. As a past Wikiversity administrator, you should have been aware of these policies; it was once your responsibility to enforce them! Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity is the only .org managed by the WMF that permits fair use by its mission statement as an educational wiki. The rationales are legally valid independent of your opinion and are necessary and sufficient. I conducted a valid search and where found have used free media! Your statement "or did not care to use the ones you found" is subjective and potentially libelous, please refrain from statements you cannot support factually. In addition, thank you for accepting the fact that "a decorative fashion to illustrate a topic mentioned in the text of a page" is an educational goal. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikiversity is the only .org..." This is flatly incorrect. There are many other WMF projects which permit the use of fair-use content under limited circumstances. Permitting fair use content under an EDP is not a unique feature of this site, nor does the EDP permit this site to use non-free content indiscriminately.

You've deliberately ignored the key issue: "Wikiversity is the only .org managed by the WMF that permits fair use by its mission statement as an educational wiki." Even Wikipedia does not contain "educational" in its mission statement because it's not! It's an encyclopedia not a .edu as a .org.

If you conducted any search for free content before uploading these images, that search was clearly so cursory as to be entirely ineffectual. For example, your upload of File:Earth_Shells_to_Scale.png somehow overlooked File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg, which presents substantially the same information and was visible on the enwiki article "Earth" on the day you uploaded the image. (And no, even if you preferred some detail of the other image's presentation, that isn't sufficient reason to reject the freely licensed content and substitute a piece of non-free media.)

The USGS image that I used is to scale and accurately represents the inner structure of the Earth for the purposes with which it has been used. I did not overlook the image you show. File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg isn't accurate. Per the rationale: "No free use or Public Domain image known to show the planet Earth is made up of three main shells: the very thin, brittle crust, the mantle, and the core; the mantle and core are each divided into two parts; all parts are drawn to scale." Secondly, as stated under Permission: "Fair Use, USGS is usually PD, but Eugene C. Robertson may not have agreed to this." otherwise this image would likely be on Commons!

Finally, I accepted nothing of the sort. The use of non-free media as decoration is not permitted by Wikiversity's EDP. Declaring that simple decoration is "an educational goal" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what those educational goals are, and what fair use permits in general. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you've ignored the key point: "a decorative fashion to illustrate a topic mentioned in the text of a page" is an educational goal. The USGS image is far more accurate than File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg. It well points out how small the crust actually is. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

(Unindenting for clarity.)

With regard to the term "educational", the mission statement of the Wikimedia Foundation (as a whole!) is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". Wikiversity does not have a unique mandate to create educational content - that is the purpose of the entire Foundation! - and neither does it have any unique privilege to use non-free content in the pursuit of that mission.

You're focusing unduly on the single image I chose as an example, but I'll indulge you for a moment. The primary page where you used that image, Earth/Geognosy, does not even mention the image in the accompanying text. It appears alongside a definition of the term "geognosy". Moreover, it appears directly below another freely licensed diagram of the Earth's structure; you clearly found that one accurate enough to display, so it's not at all clear why you felt the need to use another non-free image with substantially the same content. Diagrams are almost never justifiable as fair use, as they are by their nature replaceable with free content (even if that content has not yet been created), and this one is no exception.

If you believe "Diagrams are almost never justifiable as fair use, as they are by their nature replaceable with free content (even if that content has not yet been created), and this one is no exception.", then upload File:Earth_Shells_to_Scale.png or create your own to Commons. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I'll add that editing that page immediately after I mentioned it gives the appearance of a bad-faith attempt to cover your tracks. Please don't do that. You aren't deceiving anyone here. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that the resource did not cite the image so now it does. You could have done that yourself but instead you've come here using the apparent threat of deletion to modify resources to be more like Wikipedia articles rather than Wikiversity resources. And, you still haven't identified yourself. Your apparent effort here is more along the lines of disruption than contribution. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take another completely different example to show that this is not an isolated issue. On 28 July 2014, you uploaded File:Transportation-terminology.jpg, an image of a highway with cars and trucks at sunset, and declared that you were using it under fair use. You provided no justification for your claim of fair use, and you only used it on the page Draft:Terminology/Quiz, as a decorative element on a quiz about "terminology". At no point does the quiz even mention highways, cars, trucks, nor sunsets. The only connection I can see between this non-free image and the page you used it in is the fact that you obtained the image from a web page titled "The Definitive Guide to Transportation Terminology to Stay on the Same Logistics Page". The image was a decorative element on that page, and it does not serve any other purpose on this site either.

The image File:Transportation-terminology.jpg is no longer available on the website provided so that no rationale is available for its status as fair use. I've requested it to be speedy deleted. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or another: on 1 October 2016, you uploaded File:Diversity_of_plants.jpg under a claim of fair use, with the justification that "no free use or Public Domain image known to show the diversity of plants". I have an extremely hard time believing that no freely licensed images exist which contain multiple different plants, nor that it is somehow impossible to create a freely licensed collage of plant pictures. I am especially troubled by the fact that the image description indicates that you recognized that "apparently the image of sunflowers in copyrighted, and the image was deleted from Commons", and you uploaded it in knowing disregard of those copyright issues.

At the time I uploaded this image File:Diversity_of_plants.jpg it had been deleted from Commons per the reason stated; however, as you failed to notice this image has been returned to Commons as File:Diversity of plants (Streptophyta) version 1.png. It simply hasn't been stated on the the page File:Diversity_of_plants.jpg that this is a duplicate of the now available file on Commons. It has been a common occurrence for files initially on Commons to be deleted sometime after I've begun using them. I have asked for them to be temporarily undeleted so that I can upload them to Wikiversity as fair use to continue their use here and Commons has kindly complied. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or yet another: on 29 November 2017, you uploaded File:Referral_letter_1.png. This is a photograph of a private medical document which was deleted from Wikimedia Commons over copyright concerns. You provided no justification for it being fair use on Wikiversity, and you failed to provide accurate source information (the Commons URL it was deleted from is not the original source of the image), and the page you used it in contains no text referencing the image - it appears under a header with no additional caption or explanatory text.

May I suggest you take a look at this file which I recently updated with its rationale for being fair use on Wikiversity. The instructor for this upper limb orthotics course was not against this fair use practice and did appreciate that her course here was now fully available, including her students efforts. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these uses are justifiable as fair use under any definition of the term - neither Wikiversity's, nor WMF's, nor the law. Claiming otherwise - claiming that any image can be an "educational illustration" if it appears alongside a related piece of text - represents a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law and fair use. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through each of your file objections and handled them appropriately. With the exception of the File:Transportation-terminology.jpg for which the source of the rationale is no longer available, each is appropriately justified at the time for being fair use. Unfortunately, it still appears that your actions here, albeit perhaps well-intended, have been unnecessarily disruptive. I also urge those who may have prematurely reacted to this user's efforts to kindly reconsider their comments regarding my use of fair use. I really do legally know what I am doing regarding fair use and am conducting my efforts here in direct accordance per consultations with WMF legal and as noted with Commons. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to sift through all the nitty-gritty back-and-forth discussion between the two. So I jump right to the files. The fair-use examples that Omphalographer raised are quite concerning, and certainly requires Marshallsumter's adequate response given that copyright interpretation was a stumbling block during Marshallsumter's candidate for custodianship in 2013. I start to wonder if we're seeing a pattern here, or whether it was simply an old file/page that hasn't been noticed until now. For File:Transportation-terminology.jpg, there are plenty other similar images that can be re-used on Commons (e.g. File:Interstate 40, Arkansas 001.jpg, File:Wildlife Overpass east of Snoqualmie Pass on Interstate 90.jpg). When there is a choice between Commons vs. fair-use images, users should opt for Commons. And Omphalographer is right about Draft:Terminology/Quiz. It is not an appropriate usage for a fair-use image because it is not used to describe the content in question, but rather an image used for aesthetic purpose. Aesethic does not fall under fair-use. And echo what was said about File:Diversity of plants.jpg. You can combine a number of freely licensed images into a mosaic without resorting to using a fair-use. Moreover, it does not require author to flag copyright violations. Anyone can do it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see any advantage in engaging with Marshallsumter regarding this issue. As with dozens or hundreds of previous discussions, it is likely to only result in long diatribes of misdirection without any acknowledgement or acceptance of the actual issues involved.

Instead, I recommend we focus on the community response to the situation at hand. Omphalographer has identified issues which apply to hundreds of uploaded images. OhanaUnited has looked into several images and confirmed the findings. I have similar concerns regarding the images I've viewed. Others are welcome to review and confirm (or object) if they wish.

But, accepting for the moment that the concerns are legitimate and widespread, do we want to just delete them all and have Marshallsumter start over, providing adequate fair use justification of any such images? Do we want to prohibit Marshallsumter from uploading any Fair Use images, as there is clear disregard for what Fair Use is and how it should be applied, and none of us has time to oversee this effort? Or is there someone willing to investigate the issues and identify which images legitimately meet Fair Use and EDP guidelines? I'm inclined to delete them all and give Marshallsumter a chance to start over and demonstrate that he is able to apply guidelines appropriately going forward.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that allowing Marshallsumter to continue uploading non-free content without oversight provides us with no assurance that this situation will not arise again - or even that he would not reupload the same non-free images with the same sorts of inadequate fair-use rationales they already have. As such, my recommendation would be to require him to submit any future fair-use media he wishes to use, and his rationales for using them, to some trusted entity for approval - perhaps an administrator or a member of some group of trusted users? - before uploading those files. If he can demonstrate a consistent, long-term pattern of using appropriate, detailed fair-use rationales for media which is truly necessary for educational purposes and which cannot be replaced with freely licensed content, this restriction could be lifted. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer Quite honestly, it's easier to tell a bot what to delete than it is to supervise in advance or monitor in real-time. Unless you're also volunteering to be one of those trusted users. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer Your comment above is pejorative rather than constructive criticism! You've presented no facts to support your claims! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed some of the subtleties here, but would requiring images to be uploaded to (and suitable for) Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikiversity offer a practical solution? Generally speaking, I prefer images to be on Commons because there is more checking to make sure they are appropriate and the images can then be used in any sister project in any language. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that isn't applicable. Commons only accepts freely licensed content. The content at issue here is not freely licensed; it was uploaded to Wikiversity under (faulty) claims of fair use.

Marshallsumter has uploaded freely licensed files to Commons in the past, and he is, of course, welcome to continue doing so as long as he complies with that project's content guidelines. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim "uploaded to Wikiversity under (faulty) claims of fair use" without facts to support it is potentially libelous and is the second as such. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

What is the status of this discussion? It's been open for nearly a month now with no action. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 08:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer Actually, there has been significant action. More than 1,000 images that were only used in non-main space were deleted in October. The remaining images require research and I really don't have time to address this right now. Some of them are licensed incorrectly. They should be PD-USGov but were listed as Fair Use. Others are legitimate use as is. Certainly many more should be deleted. But we are very shorthanded on people willing to do administrative work right now, so it is what it is. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where does that put us with regards to further uploads by Marshallsumter, though? It appears that he's simply reuploading some of the images that were deleted, like File:1_2_Crystal_tcm14-406719.jpg and File:I-love-a-mystery-original.jpg. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. Half of his file uploads for the last three weeks were repeat violations of the EDP. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On December 25, 2022 User:Guy_vandegrift renamed the Similarity of matter levels page to Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Similarity of matter levels page without leaving the redirect to new page. But in Wikiversity there are some pages with links to Similarity of matter levels page, such as

Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, SPФ symmetry, Stellar Stefan–Boltzmann constant, Stellar Dirac constant, Substantial neutron model, Scale dimension, Gravitational constant, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Praon, Stellar Boltzmann constant, Nuon, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Discreteness of stellar parameters, Substantial electron model, Electrogravitational vacuum, Quantization of parameters of cosmic systems, Stellar constants, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Hydrogen system, Substantial proton model, Coupling constant, Stellar Planck constant, Strong gravitation, Model of quark quasiparticles, Characteristic speed, Substantial photon model, Strong gravitational constant, Gravitational model of strong interaction, Covariant theory of gravitation, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Monopoles, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Velocity circulation quantum, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Gravitoelectromagnetism, Field mass-energy limit, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Quantum Gravitational Resonator.

There is no any explanation for the action of the User:Guy_vandegrift. I suppose he can explain. On the other hand it would be much better if the User:Guy_vandegrift take part in improvement of the Similarity of matter levels page, before its deletion in main space of Wikiversity. Fedosin (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be archived because according to Special:WhatLinksHere/Similarity_of_matter_levels there are no links to the old name anymore.

Looking in the page history the reason is stated as "belongs with the other essays". --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned page.

duplicate content of VHDL.

Sirnails (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Neither this page nor VHDL have any meaningful content, but we do have a substantial collection of lecture notes on the topic at VHDL programming in plain view, and I believe there are some additional notes which aren't linked from that page. How would you feel about redirecting VHDL for FPGA design to VHDL, and turning the latter page into a collection of resource links? That seems like a more productive solution than deleting the page outright. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds great - i've got no objections to redirecting the page however i'm planning to put some effort into the VHDL page (and the Field-Programmable Gate Array page).

On a tangent, any objections to consolidating the content on the VHDL programming in plain view with VHDL?

Sirnails (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any further comments, I've gone ahead and redirected this to VHDL. I think that should handle it for now. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

curprev  01:16, 4 January 2024‎ Guy vandegrift discuss contribs block‎  2,262 bytes +1,033‎  No edit summaryundo Tag: Reverted
 curprev  01:07, 4 January 2024‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs block‎  1,229 bytes +22‎  readd "proposed deletion" (should have ideally been speedied): there is 
 nothing to be learn from this page, and therefore, there are no "learning outcomes", and thus, consistent with the deletion policy, this should be deleted 
 undothank Tag: Reverted
 3 January 2024
 curprev  22:37, 3 January 2024‎ Michael Ten discuss contribs block‎  1,207 bytes +9‎  added notoc until more content is added. undothank
 curprev  22:37, 3 January 2024‎ Michael Ten discuss contribs block‎  1,198 bytes −14‎  added a bit of info and removed deletion template per "You may remove 
 { {proposed deletion} } from this resource's source text to contest this proposal, with or without discussion." Bless up. undothank
 2 January 2024
 curprev  00:04, 2 January 2024‎ Guy vandegrift discuss contribs block‎ m  1,180 bytes +2‎  →‎Should this page be deleted?: ce undo
 curprev  00:03, 2 January 2024‎ Guy vandegrift discuss contribs block‎  1,178 bytes +61‎  →‎See also: Inviting talk about deletion undo
 1 January 2024
 curprev  09:35, 1 January 2024‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs block‎  513 bytes +90‎  +delete|sub-minimal: nothing to learn from here; no further reading; 
 trivial questions undothank
 20 October 2022
 curprev  01:09, 20 October 2022‎ Jtneill discuss contribs block‎  423 bytes +4‎  Change from psych-stub to geography-stub undothank
 18 October 2022
 curprev  08:17, 18 October 2022‎ Michael Ten discuss contribs block‎  419 bytes +220‎  added ==Discussion questions and essay ideas== undothank
 curprev  08:16, 18 October 2022‎ Michael Ten discuss contribs block‎  199 bytes −23‎  removing per template "If you disagree or intend to fix it, and you have 
 not contributed to it before, you may remove this notice." undothank
 curprev  08:15, 18 October 2022‎ Michael Ten discuss contribs block‎  222 bytes +71‎  i added a bit of info. i suggest that we remove speedy delete. undothank 
 Tag: Visual edit: Switched
 17 October 2022
 curprev  20:49, 17 October 2022‎ Omphalographer discuss contribs block‎  151 bytes +23‎  delete - empty undothank
 18 October 2009
 curprev  22:22, 18 October 2009‎ Jtneill discuss contribs block‎  128 bytes +128‎  Created page with '{ {psych-stub}} ==See also== * [[w:{ {PAGENAME}}| { {PAGENAME}}]] (Wikipedia) Category:Geography Category:Social psychology' thank

This discussion is taking up space on Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion. I suggest that we close and archive with no consensus to create a Wikiversity page on this topic. The community seems to prefer the Colloquium. I already moved Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024 to my userspace and left a redirect. Also, this was never a request to undelete. If there are no objections, I will this discussion and post a permalink to it on what is currently at User:Guy vandegrift/Deletion Convention 2024--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As written above I created Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott - unused. Perhaps someone could make a conclusion to this discussion 1) if the files in this category should be deleted 2) if there are other files there should also be marked for deletion or 3) if we should just keep all the files for now (unless they are non-free or badly sourced etc. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: Is it possible to close this entire discussion, provided we reopen a new one based solely on Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott - unused? You probably know this discussion better than anyone. Is there any other unfinished business here?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy vandegrift: Sure. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: My question was massively inarticulate because I asked two questions. I presume you mean "sure" the discussion can be closed. Am I right? Am I wrong?-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy vandegrift: Yes the discussion can be closed :-) Depending on the result of a new discussion of the files in Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott - unused perhaps it could be relevant to start other discussions about other files (User:PCano 288 files and User:Katluvdogs 138 files etc.). But if it is decided to keep the files by Robert Elliott then the other files would probably be kept too and in that case there is not much point in starting discussions about those files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off topic, it would not be amiss to change WV policy to prohibit any uploads and only allow media via Commons. This would save the scarce human resources and pose only a small limit; it would only limit fair use and such. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Polansky is 100% correct about copyright ambiguity. I don't know if the WMF would object to removing copy-vios in a way the preserves the material in the page's history. My understanding is the this is routinely done on Wikipedia. But either way, we do what the WMF tells us to do. I would be tempted to immediately delete any statement to the contrary.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer and its talk page have been moved to Draft:Archive/2024/Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer. All further discussion should continue on that talk page.

Unless somebody wins the $1 million dollar prize, this will be deleted on 15 April 2024 or moved to userspace. Further discussion available on the talk page.

A discussion is underway at Draft talk:Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer, but for the record, we should log the request here.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, Delete (or move to user subpage): very unlikely to be a correct proof, by 1) superficial glance, and 2) by this being a notable open problem, and it is unlikely that a competent prover would choose Wikiversity as a publishing venue, and if he/she did, there would probably be no-one competent in Wikiversity enough to check for possible subtle mistakes. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the original nominator, delete. This attempted proof is mathematically incomprehensible; the author may have a faulty understanding of computational complexity theory. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards delete, after looking at the sentence that begins "I wrote an article in german wikipedia" in w:Special:Permalink/1194335471#strict_logic_by_Walther_Brüning in which he claims to have written the German Wikipedia article on Strict Logic. I looked at the authors of the German article and he seems to have used a different name. If he can't explain this, we should permanently block him. Here is the exact wikitext quote: ::::I wrote an article in german wikipedia: [[de:strenge Logik|strenge Logik]]. Sorry, but i dont understand, why there should be exactly seven syllogisms. For any questions about strict logic you can ask me. Here is a short introduction (again): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2esURv_dtBk&vl=en [[User:123qweasd|123qweasd]] ([[User talk:123qweasd|talk]]) 13:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC) --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC) ... And here is the link to the German history page, where there is no mention of User:123queasd: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strenge_Logik&action=history Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I highlighted my qualified vote to delete, I won't change it. Dan Polansky and Omphalographer have me convinced that the article has no merit. I will use prod to place a one-week delay on that deletion. I hope we all agree all of our views on what-goes-where are based more on intuition than logic. My intuition tells me one thing and yours say otherwise. There is little point in debating the topic.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For better traceability: W:P versus NP problem: "The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in theoretical computer science". From in Britannica: "In 2000 American mathematician Stephen Smale devised an influential list of 18 important mathematical problems for solving in the 21st century. The third problem on his list was the P versus NP problem. Also in 2000 it was designated a Millennium Problem, one of seven mathematical problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., for a special award. The solution for each Millennium Problem is worth $1 million." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been moved;

• See Draft talk:Archive/2024/Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer

• I (Dan Polansky) am listing the page here since there is some disagreement about whether it should be deleted after I tried to have it speedied.
• I (Guy vandegrift) slightly edited the line above and am moving the page to Student Projects/PhotoTalks, and am "restarting" the conversation by collapsing the old conversation about PhotoTalks--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is consensus (between two editors) that PhotoTalks does not belong at the top of mainspace, it has been moved to Student Projects/PhotoTalks--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start:

This is a confusing jumble of content for which learning outcomes are scarce (WV:Deletion); a hard to characterize chaos, with unclear relevance of the parts to the whole. I propose one of the following actions:

1) Delete. Perhaps not ideal since then non-admins will no longer be able to view the page, which can be seen as some kind of historical discussion, given the number of participants. But I see deletion as justified anyway, since it is not even a discussion proper; it is not clear who posted what, etc.

2) Move to user subpage of User:Dionysios, the original creator of the page.

3) At least move to Wikiversity:Wikisphere.

From the revision history, this was tagged for deletion in 2014, and then untagged.

I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikisphere to see the impact on pages linking to it, and it seems tolerable.

I support all three actions, in the preference order 1 > 2 > 3.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now found some of the content was copied from elsewhere; one small discussion was copied from Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2006. Thus, the page Wikisphere gives the impression more people edited the page than they really did; e.g. Andrew massyn and Rayc did not edit the page. Almost all edits to the Wikisphere page seem to have been done by Dionysios. This reinforces my view that option 1 is preferable and that nothing is lost by deleting the page or moving it to user space. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a counter-proposal: Keep everything as it is, because the old-timers might want to refer to the old rules as they contemplate proposals by the young Turks. I suggest we create a new page with a title like Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024. Labeling the year is essential because we now know that all such decisions have a shelf-life. I know for a fact that User:MathXplore does not like to delete policy statements until a new policy has been established. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion proposal is based on guideline WV:Deletions, which I never edited. I edited WV:Verifiability in a way that keeps the core of what that page had; AFAICS, WV:Verifiability is not a meaningful input into this proposal since I do not charge statements to lack verification but rather that the Wikisphere page is, put simply but rudely, worthless and very confusing to boot. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this resource should not be placed in the mainspace. It seems to be a proposal for a WikiProject rather than an educational resource. I understand that the mainspace is for educational materials. According to the current categorization of this page, this page is a discussion venue (I don't know how it is related to Category:Time). In other words, it doesn't belong to an academic subject. On the other hand, I don't think this is harmful to require deletion of all revisions, so moving to another namespace seems to be reasonable for me. If this page is going to be moved to the project namespace, I suggest adding {{historical}} to reduce confusion. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Maybe not directly related to this RFD but please allow me to reply to the mention above) "not like to delete policy statements until a new policy has been established" is not only my personal preference but also generally required at many Wikimedia sister projects. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is off-topic, but even what remained in Wikiversity:Verifiability after my edits is something hardly anyone takes seriously. Thus, information stated in Wikiversity pages is not either "already been published by a reliable source" or "has been produced by scholarly research performed at Wikiversity", unless we consider all those low-quality writeups to be "scholarly research performed at Wikiversity". Even now, Wikiversity:Verifiability is not fit for purpose, and demoting it from a policy status, into which it did not get through any transparent process, is a very desirable thing unless we want to live in an Orwellistan in which policies are not policies and do not even remotely resemble the actual practice and incoherence and contradictions rule the day. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On substance: Originally, I thought moving the page to Wiktionary space was a pretty ok idea, but I no longer think so. Since, I realized the page was not really a discussion but merely looked like it could be one based on a very superficial impression: the author just copied parts of discussions that took place elsewhere. The categorization of this page as a discussion is misplaced/misleading. This can be verified from the revision history of the page. It is confirmed on the page itself, where it says "This Page began as a Copy of Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2006." The oldest revision of the page is this, and it does look like a copy of Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2006. I find the whole idea of copying a discussion, and then editing it willy-nilly while leaving the editor signatures there, without using quotation marks to make it very clear these are quotations and not original discussion contributions, mildly inappropriate, to be frank. Either delete, or move to user space. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page makes no sense to me. But an editor who until recently was our most active Administrator rescued the page with the with the claim that it contained "Important historical discussions." I move that it be moved into Draft/Archive/2024/Wikisphere, notwithstanding the fact that none of us see any historical value to this document.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dave got confused by the false impression the page created, which is why he wrote "Important historical discussions". It was easy to get so confused unless one payed a close attention of the manner in which this page originated. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to move Wikisphere to Draft:Archive/2024/Wikisphere

• Support (as person making the motion--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Note: It just occurred to me that nobody will object to this location for Wikisphere, so I am declaring it as passed without objection. Let me know if you want to reopen this question; otherwise I will archive this discussion in a few days --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: move Wikisphere to Draft:Archive/2024/Wikisphere is fine. I also support moving to user space. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]