User talk:Javariel

Wikiversity's on going discussion
I wanted to give you a "heads up" on how things are moving right now on Wikiversity. It appears as though the Wikimedia Foundation board has decided to tackle the issue directly, and there have been many different proposals and thoughts on the subject. It seems as though going to Wikicities is the least desireable option, and instead it seems as though there is going to be a new Wikimedia server that will be set up for new projects that are going to go "beta" in development before they are "turned loose" as independent Wikis. I don't know if this will be a full server or what, but it will have its own namespace and DNS record independent of all other projects, and that Wikiversity will more than likely be the first project on there. What is required to get started on there is also going to be subject to debate, but I do want you to know that there is movement on the issue.

I also started a thread on Foundation-l regarding Wikiversity, including establishing a formal timeline on when it could be "turned on" as a formal Wikimedia Foundation "sister project". This timeline is going to take most of the rest of the year in order for it to happen, and that is based on current policies and procedures. It is likely that the formal procedures are also going to be "thrown out" in this case, but at least this is the way new projects are "supposed" to happen.

Please visit Wikiversity for ongoing discussion. This is where the future of Wikiversity really ought to be discussed right now.

Thanks
Hey, thanks for reading the whole thing! Now I at least feel like I didn't waste three hours of my morning when I could have been doing research. ;-) --MShonle 00:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverse Engineering Wikibook
Thanks for the heads up about the discussion of deleting the Reverse Engineering wikibook. I've dedicated alot of my time recently to writing that book, and it seems that the few contributions the book has received from other writers (the CVS camera page is one of the only things so far i havent personally written) has caused quite a stir. My main point is this: the topic of the Reverse Engineering book is "legal reverse engineering" and anything that doesnt fit that topic should be written somewhere else. Thanks once more for the heads-up, Let me know if you need some help on your proposed CS wikiversity course. Whiteknight
 * See also my reply on Whiteknight's talk page. --MShonle 00:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity Vote
I know you would like to close the election. Please look at today's date carefully before you think it is time to close the vote: It is October still, not November. I purposely put the time to vote at six weeks, because I knew there was going to be some contention about the quality of the votes and some objections. I have no idea on how to fix this, but apparently some people are objecting to the votes done with no user pages that link to the regular site that they do most of their work on.

I think it is a silly rule, but it is there in black and white on the voting instructions. It is also going to kill far more "yes" votes than "no" votes.

There are also some votes that were done by anonymous users... all of them "yes" votes as well. Those are improper and need to be stricken from the tally. Again, kinda silly, but you really do need a registered account on Meta in order to vote. And it is easy to start one as well if you need to.

I've seen a fairly consistant margin of 3 "yes" votes to 1 "no" vote so far, and I hope that for those that are interested will try to fix their votes if there are objections. I just don't know a way to notify everybody that may have cast an inproper vote. The board will take all of this into consideration anyway, and a spoil sport that wants to trash the vote by getting technical is really going to shoot themselves in the foot anyway. --Rob Horning 00:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior Solar System "About gravity, mass, and weight" module
Thanks for your speedy response to my request. I hope there will be more responses and I don't mind if some prefer Metric100's point of view (if they can find it coherent, that is) as I'd just like some material other than from me and Metric100 to inform any subsequent arbitration.

Yes, I fear it may be moving that way. Since you added your response to the Rewrite? thread on the module's talk page, Metric100 has posted another attempt to provoke me in response to my announcement there that I'd made a request for comments etc. As before, I won't rise to the bait.

If Metric100 really thinks it's about being right or "flat-out wrong", I'd say he's being even more beside the point than his long passages on the talk page indicate. I would also question his understanding of the nature of science. Most of all I'm concerned that he might have more success in provoking other contributors with the manner of his posts. (Yes, I'm assuming from this manner that Metric100 is likely to be male.)

My regards, David Kernow 05:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity Vote
Since you have been active with Wikiversity, I'm giving you another "heads up" on the issue. The formal vote has ended, and I've submitted formal notice to the Wikimedia Foundation board. Angela wrote a kind note back thanking me for my efforts, and informed me that it will be a major item on the agenda of the next board meeting. BTW, the "unofficial" vote for Wikiversity was to start the project, by a vote of 208 in favor and 86 opposed. That is by far the largest user interest survey on any topic I have ever seen for any Wikimedia project, which should go and show what overall interest is in this project. Try to prove the 86 people opposed to the project wrong, and that we can indeed bring more people to the table to see this project up and running. --Rob Horning 15:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Gabe...
I know we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, but I would like to bury the hatchet. I think we both fully understand that we disagree on the issues we have been discussing. After re-reading the comments I had made yesterday, I would like to apologise. I had other things going on in RL and was a little more touchy than usual. I was perhaps not as civil as I should have been, and for that, I am sorry. I hope nothing we've said causes any more ill-will between the two of us. Let us please stop this argument. Your friend, -- LV (Dark Mark) 14:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You are probably right, we are just two very opinionated editors. I know there can never be a guarantee that we won't argue in the future, but I just thought I'd extend an olive branch to try to stem the tide of heated debate. But anyway, good to see you back. Hope you enjoyed your long weekend. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark) 17:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing votes
Care to explain what happened here? -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay... I had thought it was a mistake. (We all make 'em, right?) I just wanted to make sure it wasn't some grudge held against me or anything. Thanks for the response. -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Differential Equations
Rather than going on ahead and editing that book, it looks like you're doing some work with it too. I just read the notes page, and would be willing to expanding it. Give me a ring. Fephisto 22:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy review
Policy is not the most exciting subject at Wikibooks but we do have some major unresolved issues.

The most important issue, in my opinion, is Dispute resolution which starts by declaring that:

"Currently there is no official organized process to resolve disputes between users"

The suggested remedy for this is: Ad hoc administration committee which puts into place the absolute minimum in terms of an enforcement apparatus.

The second most important is No personal attacks where a vote has recommended the policy be enforced but it still languishes as "proposed".

The third policy that is needed and which will prevent edit disputes from getting out of hand is Editing disputes policy.

Other policies that need consideration are at: Policies and guidelines.

Please spare a minute or two to peruse these issues and add a comment and/or a vote. RobinH 12:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)