text:
a valid point. I'd like to take the discussion a step further, though.  RFD leads to consensus.  Consensus should then lead to policy, or at least accepted procedure.  Do we just accept that based on the RFD, that is consensus for procedure/policy going forward, or should there be additional discussion?  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Perhaps further discussion is not necessary. If there is consensus in an RfD to keep or delete then the case is closed.  The only difficulty comes in deciding when/if consensus has been reached.  If we want to go a step further and decide general proceedures so we don't need to repeat RfD's in the future, that is certainly possible when there is very clear consensus.  For contentious issues, it is probably best to handle them in RfDs on a case by case basis, but thankfully these cases are usually rare. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I guess being cautiously optimistic, I think that before a consensus can be a clear indication of procedure/policy a specific and concrete pattern should emerge that given similar concerns similar consensus will be reached, this then also helps to demonstrate that reasonable objections are unlikely, and what solicitation really means at Wikiversity. -- dark lama  15:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I was planning to add to TeleComNasSprVen's comment before it was closed, I guess I can do that here instead now because I think we could go a step further in the future to keep discussion productive. I think when "we need to change policy first" comes up, I think there is a need to recognize this involves a red herring and circular argument because one of the steps involved in creating or changing policy is to come to a shared understanding on what needs to change which involves the sort of discussion that is already taking place. In the past when we have failed to recognize that we are already in the process of trying to come to a shared understanding, the result has been a fracturing of discussion, and I think that disrupts any attempt to come to a shared understanding of community expectations, and also disrupts the ability to actually change procedure/policy in a meaningful way as different understandings of community expectations emerged. I think when people suggest policy change instead of starting a new discussion to change policy, maybe we should seek to understand better what specifically the person thinks needs clarified, and whether it relates at all to the current discussion. I have seen that solution used elsewhere and it brought about better outcomes. -- dark lama  15:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * There is a fundamental and unaddressed problem here. Policy represents prior consensus. A specific discussion reflects the views of those who see the discussion and participate in it. That is why, on Wikipedia, the guideline is that closes are not based on majority, but on rough consensus, and closers are guided to consider the relation of arguments and evidence presented with respect to established policy and guidelines. This case, User:Augusto De Luca, tests how this community responds to new and idiosyncratic users. Do we welcome them or do we treat them as unwelcome, outsiders, based on assumptions of bad faith? This close is diagnostic, to me, of where Wikiversity is headed, and I won't continue to push upstream, since I can see where the current is going. I did request global unlock,, (as they now stand). I spent two weeks researching this case, and a steward closed both requests in a couple of minutes (for De Luca, and much more outrageously, for five users whose "spam-only" was being Single Purpose Accounts. Now, if I want to influence policy, I know what to do next, it's RfC. The effective shift in global policy that those closes represent (especially the close with the inactive accounts, where policy had been very, very clear) means that, if this stands, the global community is no longer a general consensus community, but is dominated by the functionaries, who become governors, not servants. That's always been true to a degree, but policies were generally respected, and exceptions were very difficult cases. This was not a difficult case.
 * Here is how it goes, globally, and this also happens locally. The lock tool is known and understood to be dangerous. This tool is generated and allowed because, the community is assured, it will only be used against spam and vandalism. But give a man a tool, he finds a way to use it for other things than the design. Some of those might be fine. But others may represent exactly what the community feared would be the use. The community believed that the steward community would never agree on an abusive use of tools. That's wiki theory.
 * Wiki reality can be quite different. Here is the problem I face. I might file that meta RfC, and they and their supporters will pile in -- these are the people who watch the "meta drama," and it may well close as no consensus. Or even if it closes with consensus, that simply would establish policy, perhaps. But we have just seen that stewards will easily and casually violate policy. So they will ignore it. That is what I saw on Wikipedia, and confronted. The administrators abusing policy lost before ArbCom and won in the end, because administrators routinely ignore ArbCom, and usually get away with it. Filing an ArbCom case is an enormous amount of work, and one risks one's wikihealth. They almost always win.
 * We see the argument here, it's very common. "Policy should follow practice, not practice follow policy." That makes sense at a certain stage of development, but the more effort that a community puts into developing policy, the more that policy represents the considered judgment of the entire community, whereas actual practice is piecemeal, case-by-case, and is strongly affected by participation bias.
 * And once a core of users develops that likes the freedom for itself of no restraint by policy, it becomes very difficult to establish or clarify policy, and that, we have seen here on Wikiversity, for years. In the real world, outside of wikis, organizations that go this way, into oligachical control, sow the seeds of their own eventual weakness (see Iron law of oligarchy. they ultimately become isolated and bleed members, and they lead to the formation of competitive organizations. On the wikis, there is a pool, still, of new users who don't realize the problem and only see the promise. So it can go on for a long time. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The close of User:Augusto De Luca
I'm not challenging this, at this time, because it would be disruptive, but the close of this RFD has two problems. One is that it was an involved close and that was not disclosed (I've been around and around this here, because I did make involved closes. I always disclosed the involvement and invited reopening by anyone considering that the involvement would cause damage as to the outcome.

The other problem is that it effectively "legislates" an alleged fact.
 * Closed as delete. Consensus is that this was solicitation. As solicitation, it may be deleted under existing policy. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Very clever. Yes, "solicitations" may be deleted under policy. That has a specific reference, to common situations that do not resemble what was on the page, User:Augusto De Luca. What was actually alleged and discussed was "spam" and "promotion." Not "solicitation." Since solicitation was not alleged, counterarguments were not presented. Dave, you were the nominator, and you made up a new argument to fit policy, to allow you to do what you proposed to do from the beginning.

There is no solicitation without something on offer. Further, the something on offer must be something that is not related to WMF activity.

We do not consider a user representing their professional expertise, or any expertise, on their user page, to be a "solicitation." It is the kind of mild promotion -- "information" -- that is allowed on user pages, cross-wiki.

You introduced the word "solicitation" in your own discussion.

 * I see this coming down to two points. 1) The activity is way beyond the norm of good faith editors on individual wikis. There is no reason to believe any individual intends to contribute to 557 wikis in dozens of languages based on a single picture. The motivation must be external. It could be solicitation, name recognition, search engine optimization, whatever. But it seems extremely unlikely that the edits are for the benefit of each local wiki.

It's 555, by the way, not that it matters.

That proposed intention "seems unlikely," which is highly subjective. Users are not required, here, to demonstrate "benefit" to Wikiversity. They may be here for selfish purposes, such as wanting to learn something for themselves, or teach something from a particular point of view. or just to have fun. We welcome them, if they cause no harm, and sometimes we go out of our way to educate them about "harm." Few go on to "benefit" the wiki.

Yes, if the activity here is self-interested in such a way that harm develops, we will stop it. We still don't delete the user page! Try this user. The problem with him was that he set up courses on Wikiversity, but when people actually signed up, they were referred off-wiki to something elsewhere, a commercial site, if I'm correct. (If that page is considered unacceptable promotion, it would be blanked, and a notice placed that the user is blocked. That's a good example of where to do that. We need to not delete things like this to keep our history transparent.) The user was blocked, even though he did not continue problem behavior after warning. That was, in my view, an error.

 * This is what I've inferred about the motive of Augusto De Luca, and it is also speculative: He saw that he had an article on almost every wikipedia. He had not created those articles, and no disruption had appeared over them. As a typical non-Wikipedian, he had no idea they would be at risk. And that, in fact, is obvious, unless he had a really devious plan, i.e, to provoke the antispammers to take massive action against him, thus raising awareness of his work. That actually happened, but I very much doubt it is what he planned.

So he decided to make himself available. Those user page photos would not show up unless someone was already searching for him, and what they would find would be, most visibly and notably, the Commons images. Not our user page.

 * If this was "solicitation," what was solicited, and was it harmful? User:Darklama has, on his user page, "This user is a C programming mentor." So if I need some C programming, perhaps I should contact Darklama? That is as much solicitation -- or more -- than what De Luca did. There is no sign that he was seeking clients, or trying to sell photographs, specifically. Very few people would have seen the page if not for the massive antispam effort. The likely benefit to De Luca would be small. No, he had another purpose, and it's substantiated by his first creating user accounts on the wikipedias, where there was an article. He intended to make himself available to the community. He doesn't need Wikipedia, he is clearly an established and successful photographer, that's obvious. The idea that he would do so much work (or pay for it) for so little gain is preposterous. Look at De Luca, his pictures. He did this for fun. Because it was there. He is that kind of artist. Once he was doing that, he noticed that there were pages with his images on other wikis, such as Wikisource. So he decided to complete the mix. Nobody warned him or stopped him, until the Spamish Inquisition hit, after he was apparently done.

 * If this guy was eager to sell photos, he's singularly hard to reach. If his purpose was to communicate with users, and once someone pointed this out to him, he'd have enabled email. That would be a big task all its own, for 555 wikis. We don't know what he would have done. The lock prevented him from taking his next step, whatever that would have been. Global locks are to prevent damage. What damage? And we delete pages to prevent harm to the wiki, either the direct harm from something offensive, or the indirect harm of, say, cluttering up mainspace. Here, now, we have a talk page which presumably we will not delete, I assume, until and unless we move into concealing history more than we have. All that has happened, as to the wiki itself, is that user page is hidden. Why?

 * What did we gain? I know what I gained. I gained an understanding that Wikiversity is probably hopeless, unsafe for a long time. It seemed there was an opportunity to realize the original vision. That's unlikely now. Wikiversity is not safe.

 * Back to the main point, you raised "solicitation," and that, specifically, was not discussed. You then closed with your own opinion as if it were consensus. You had, just before closing, asked for the policy basis for deletion. It was not provided, but you then closed under "solicitation" policy.

 * First of all, it's obvious, there was no real consensus there. Arguments varied. And this is a classic problem with deletion discussions, people come in at various points with various arguments. The only general agreement is "Delete." Participation in the DR was quite strange. People showed up to vote who have never participated in local process like this on Wikiversity. Custodians showed up to vote who had been inactive for a very long time. What, precisely, was so important here? I suspect what it is, but it's not stated.

 * There is one other argument you raised, Dave, which you did not address, and I'd given up by that time. You wrote:

 * Harm to Wikimedia is harm to Wikiversity. The hours stewards invested in having to clean up this mess is harm to Wikimedia and therefore harm to us. The debate you insist on dragging all of the rest of us through is harm to Wikiversity directly.

 * You were correct, however, you have misidentified the source of the harm. Augusto De Luca, had he known what would happen, could be considered to have created harm. But it's very unlikely that he knew that. The steward, seeing these page created, and it was a done deal by that time, had choices. He actually took the simplest choices first, to stop further problems, he locked the user and created a title blacklist entry for the user page, preventing any more user pages from being created. He could have then unlocked the user and warned him that further action without community consent would lead to re-lock. But stewards never negotiate or warn spammers. They assume that a spammer is an evil person who knows that what they are doing is harmful, so why waste time warning them?

 * Now, what "mess" needed to be cleaned up? Was that "cleanup" necessary? Why? The gain to the wikis from that deletion activity was minute, if it existed at all. Tagging a large pile of pages for deletion caused sysop attention to those pages, again for no gain.

 * He also deleted 75 wikipedia articles, without discussion or notice. He could do that only on wikis that had permitted such intervention, trusting that it would not be abused. To delete those articles, he had to be following a conclusion that they could not possibly be legitimate articles. On what would he have based that? The deletion discussions on it.wikipedia and en.wikipedia (he started the first, but did not wait for a conclusion before going cross-wiki with deletions, and he did not disclose that he had done that. The second discussion, actually closed first, was on en.wikipedia, closed as delete with practically no participation. Of course there was little participation, he had locked most of the possible participants! That second AfD actually mentioned that many such pages had been deleted, but did not mention that this was all the work of one user, the steward.

 * Yes, there has been a "cost" to the response to Augusto De Luca. But that cost was a choice on the part of the antispammers. They then rationalize, in the future, drastic action against similar accounts based on how difficult it is to "clean up." That could all be easily fixed, with global discussion and the use of bots to implement them, but the user pages were treated as if they were an emergency. They must be deleted immediately or we will be overrun with spammers. And they don't develop policy, to make it clear to themselves and the world what they are doing, and how they will do it.

 * Dave, you started this RfD. Had you simply undeleted, as requested, you could have waited for someone else to file an RfD. That actually has not happened anywhere, not like that. A fair number of deletion tags have been removed and the result was ... nothing. Essentially, Dave, you created this train wreck. Would someone else have created it? Very possibly not. If they did, then they would have been responsible. As it is, you are.

 * Your real reason for deletion, as far as I can tell, was the global lock. You are accepting a global lock as a reason for local sanction. I sacrificed my adminship on Wikiversity, before, standing for the principle that, no, we did not sanction users based on what happened elsewhere. At that time, global ban policy had not been clarified. There had been a discussion on meta, closed with a ban, but that discussion had not followed safeguards that the later ban policy established. Would the result have been different? Maybe, maybe not.

 * You essentially took the position of SB Johnny in the prior flap over Poetlister1. That position was never clarified in policy, as with many policy issues. Indeed, SB Johnny, when I was finally blocked by him, was supporting a change to policy that, then, stood, largely because I was blocked, and I was one of the few users paying any attention to policy, I'd requested custodian attention to the activity on the policy page, demoting a clearly long-standing policy, accepted for years, to a proposed policy, to weaken it. The policy itself was not changed, but ... it could now be more cheerfully ignored by administrators.

 * You've been distracted by the arguments over practice vs. policy, which neglect that policy is established by consensus, and is demonstrated by actual practice, if that practice is routinely accepted. That is why guidelines suggest that deletion discussions refer to policy. If a deletion is needed, and policy doesn't cover the situation, sure, necessity trumps policy. But that is precisely what was never shown, a sane reason the deletion of that user page was "needed." (The best arguments were that it was "useless," since the user was locked.) The antispammers have a reason: spam must be punished. They really do think that way. It doesn't work. The real spammers, for some strange reason, don't take that lying down. They don't stop. And then some users, who were not spammers, but who were caught in the antispam net, become trolls and vandals. Brilliant, eh? One thing is obvious about the game of Whac-a-mole: except for a short time for a juvenile player swinging the hammer, the game is much more fun for the mole, who quickly discovers that the hammer doesn't hurt at all.

 * By losing sight of the goal and the established community restraints, the antispammers make their own task more difficult, and then blame spammers for that, or anyone who looks like a spammer to them, and, of course, users who question their practices. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry I wasted everyone's time by giving you the benefit of doubt. I'll try not to let it happen again.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave, you followed policy by undeleting the page. You chose to file the RfD. It had nothing to do with "giving me the benefit of the doubt." What doubt? What action manifested this benefit? Undeletion? I'd have considered filing for undeletion had you violated clear precedent by not undeleting a speedy-deleted page on request (absent clear harm). I don't see that you did me any favors here.
 * I knew that the RFD would be a train wreck, I would not have preferred the issue to be confronted when it was. I was, however, surprised by the depth of what arose. Nevertheless, it's been important to me to discover what I discovered and learned in this process. I'm disappointed, to be sure, to find that Wikiversity is unlikely to be a place for me to work, as far as creating the project as a whole. I'll be saving everything off-wiki. I can be, and have been, the target of efforts to wipe out my work. I see no protection at all, just some hopeful moments.
 * Globally, the fist under the glove is being revealed. Sad. It looks to me like the old wiki spirit is nearly dead. It's been burned out, crushed, torn to pieces by Lilliputians. Sane users leave. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues on Wikiversity
A page was created to collect data on accusations being made about a public figure. I saw the page, and tagged it for speedy deletion based on lack of ethical standards on Wikiversity for handling issues like this, and I also blanked the page. The author accepted the blanking, but filed an RfD to obtain consensus. I made the following comment, and also pointed to a problem with one of the allegations on the list, that it was not as had commonly been presented in the media. The author then decided to replace the speedy deletion tags with author request tags, and blanked the RfD. Because my comments are of general application, relevant to Wikiversity policy, I am placing them here. Portions have been redacted to prevent revealing the subject of the study or the author.

[original title of page]
I think this page should be kept as a resource. It's been blanked for now, so to have a look at the prior version -- [redacted]

 * Page was requested for speedy deletion by, bringing here instead to have wider community discussion.
 * 1) The page is quite well sourced to secondary sources throughout for every single entry, and also includes response statements to show counter-view.
 * 2) None of it is framed as fact, but rather attributed as statements made by the individuals who believe [redacted] and the page states it is their accusations.
 * 3) In addition, there are [other resources on the internet on this issue]

Thank you, [signature of author]
 * Bringing here for community discussion, and I'll respectfully defer to consensus from the community. Thank you, -- [signature of author]

 * Delete. Wikiversity is not prepared to handle major w:WP:BLP issues. There are controversial "hot topics" which we have discouraged here that had higher relevance to our educational mission (such as "pedophilia" issues, or, very recently, a resource on suicide methods), based on lack of ethical guidelines and a process for enforcing them. I have created "wiki studies," but avoided any specific singling out of other users. The goal was understanding wiki process, not "exposing" individuals.
 * While this compilation might appear to be neutral, a major news story, the first one I looked at as a source, and source for many names in the list, was just published [about two weeks ago] Handling this story with balance is beyond the capacity of Wikiversity, where most users work in relative isolation, very much unlike Wikipedia, where there are many guardians of site neutrality, and active enforcement of BLP policy.
 * What is the "educational goal" here? The mainspace resource [redacted] was created just to cover the subpage. Do we have a resource on [the overall topic, the subject of the allegations] If we did, would this be featured? (Closest thing I could find was [redacted]. This resource would not be a part of that, it would be irrelevant to it.
 * We do not generally have mainspace resources on public figures, biographies. Exceptions exist, and have generally been pushed to subspace, to allow students to work on writing biographies, which serves our mission. This resource does not fit that model.
 * While I have voted for deletion, this page could be allowed on Wikiversity in this way: the pages are moved to [redacted] user space, the titles are changed to titles that do not reveal the name of the accused, and the pages are blanked and maintained so (except transiently to update them). There should be no_index tags on the pages, as well, so that these pages do not show up in Google searches. Any reference to the pages should be oblique. And I'm *still* uncomfortable with this idea. What is the educational purpose?
 * A Wikiversity page like this could exist more openly, under ethical guidelines, as a place to study an issue in depth, connected with the Wikipedia article and/or with Wikinews. For that purpose, though, the photo of [the accused individual] (the worst I've ever seen) would be irrelevant. It is this for which we are unprepared.
 * I thank [the author] for allowing the blanking to remain, making this less of an emergency. I'm still concerned about the raw title.
 * The page is titled "Case study," but case of what general class? [redacted] Then it would be under a [redacted] resource, studying the general topic, including the whole issue of [common problems with the general topic]. An example based heavily on recent news, where there is no resolution, would be a poor contribution to that study. This is breathless scandal. A page focusing on the alleged crimes or misdemeanors of an individual is very much out of place on Wikiversity, absent very careful preparation and maintenance of balance. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment. At least one of the allegations listed on the page appears to be greatly distorted. A page like this, if it is to be allowed, must be presented as the personal responsibility of the author (until and unless there is community maintenance as neutral). See [talk page, I expect this will be deleted]. I have no intention to do this kind of research on each allegation. We avoid this necessity on Wikiversity by using attributed essays and studies, making the author purely responsible. And with something like this, it should normally be disallowed entirely. How about I write articles raking living critics of cold fusion over the coals, bringing out every possible error in what they have written, and alleging some conflict of interest? I could do that! Not a great idea, I'd say. Each point may be covered in a resource where it is specifically relevant, but overall condemnation of persons (or collections of allegations) are not appropriate here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion requests
The following was added to the page without discussion:
 * "If the article was speedy-deleted without a discussion, please first request that the deleting administrator undelete it. Only bring it here for discussion if dissatisfied with that outcome or the deleting administrator does not respond within a few days (best to allow a week)."

Do we want this? Leutha (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Experience has shown that this can generate ill will (see Requests_for_Deletion). In this case the User (incidently the same user who added the porposed alteration without discussion) brought it here after three days, rather than waiting the full seven days they had themselves suggested. This opens up custodians who delete pages up to vexatious requests, and hence creates a disincentive to carry out speedy deletions. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no experience cited showing that
 * The suggestion will "open up" custodians to "vexatious requests." If it did, this would not be standard on en.wiki. A week was suggested as "best," but that was a general statement, keeping the boilerplate simple. It clearly allowed a shorter period, plus, this was not an obligation. No request would be refused here because that request was not made. "If a custodian is subject to "vexatious requests," the custodian may ignore them, revert them, even ask the user to stay off their talk page (that's an extreme measure for a custodian, but it should stop vexatious requests) or, if a problem continues, ask for support on WV:RCA.
 * The language ever "generated ill will." How did the original request in the case cited, to the deleting custodian "generate ill will"? It was linked. Here it is again: . Where is the "generation of ill will there"? I'd see it very differently. This could be seen as presenting an opportunity for cooperation. It was simply not taken, that's all, for whatever reason or no reason at all. No Bad. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That a disincentive would be created to speedy deleting. Speedy deletion is quick. I hope that We will be taking away the need to request undeletion here or by the deleting admin, so this will become moot (I predict). However, handling such requests, for a single page? Including saying "I don't care to," or nothing? This is hard? No custodian would ever be desysopped for not responding to such a request. This is a fantasy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 * We don't need the language because a user always has the right to request that an individual Custodian do something. Removing the unnecessary language gives gives us more flexibility and simplifies the rules.  Rules should be both simple, as well as flexible.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The language was not a "necessity," nor was it stated as a "rule," it was part of a long-term effort to keep usage of this page to a minimum. This is a central discussion page for deletion issues. As such, it will be watchlisted by many users (101, currently, though most are probably inactive). Unnecessary traffic on this page depresses participation. However, there is a better way. We have gotten most of the obvious deletion requests off this page, by using the deletion and proposed deletion templates. It's a small step to using an undeletion template, see Template talk:Undelete, to allow uncontroversial undeletion. Speedy deletion is designed to quickly accomplish uncontroversial deletion, and the vast majority of speedy deletions are, in fact, not controversial. When they are, any user may remove the templates, stopping that process. A speedy undeletion process will simply balance this. It will not create substantial extra work for custodians. (If it is work, if the issue is controversial, discussion is needed.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Creates unnecessary drama by isolating individual custodians into a potentially adversarial situation. Also exemplifies why we need to discuss policy and procedure changes before they are added.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It merely allows the custodian an opportunity, not a requirement, that they handle the request. I'm happy dumping it. However, as to "discussing policy and procedure changes before they are added," this is a complete departure from what has been standard on Wikiversity since it was founded. This is currently under a request for discussion at Colloquium. This has almost never been done. It's far from the wiki way. I have no idea if anyone noticed the change here, but I do know that some users here have -- or should have -- the DR page on their watchlist. However, Leutha's reversion of an undiscussed change that he disagreed with, right or wrong, was proper. So the problem with undiscussed changes is? I did not make the request of Leutha because of that change, I made that change out of an understanding of optimal wiki process that goes back to en.wiki, where I very successfully used it. It never created a problem, and it's common practice there. I'll explain in a comment below. The en.wiki "suggestion" is much stronger. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 * but for very different reasons. Notice that there is a lack of consensus in the above comments, as to the issue or problem. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, we can do much better. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

 * Oppose voting before a proposal is stated with argument and some support. Setting up a poll without discussion first and with no argument for the proposal is very poor process, leading to knee-jerk comments (votes) in a vacuum, no argument for the proposal.
 * I did add that language, 24 April 2015. This was part of a long-term project to remove non-controversial deletions and requests from this page. A simple undeletion request to a deleting administrator is standard process on en.wiki, and avoids wheel-warring, and discussion here should be necessary only if the deleting admin refuses to undelete or ignores the request. This was not a policy change at all. It was explaining standard process, and was only a suggestion, as was the delay. "A week" was in case the admin was busy elsewhere. This is being personalized, which is a serious problem. In the specific case -- which is not relevant to the change, arose long after -- I knew that the custodian had very likely seen the request. I noted the lack of response in the request here because I did not want to appear to not be following the suggestion (which clearly allowed a request sooner than a week). No custodian is ever obligated to do anything. The suggestion was merely to avoid what will normally be unnecessary cluttering of this page, and resulting waste of user time.
 * Leutha just reverted that edit, five months after the edit, and started this poll. A simple reversion would have been enough. Then, if I or anyone else objected, we would have a discussion and if there is persistent disagreement, then' we'd have a poll to assess rough consensus. But there is no persistent disagreement. In fact, my effort is to make this language moot, and for "speedy undeletions" to be handled very similarly to speedy deletions. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 * The equivalents to the undeletion section of this page, on en.wiki, are two: w:WP:Deletion_review and w:WP:Requests for undeletion.
 * From the first of these:
 * Deletion Review should not be used: [...] when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
 * Before listing a review request, please: [...] discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review....

 * The second page boilerplate refers to Deletion Review in certain cases. The request discussed here, would, on enwiki, possibly be made on that page (no error was alleged), but could also, user choice, be raised with the deleting admin. We could create a separate Undeletion discussion page (that does not allege error), but the request is rare enough that I oppose it for now. However, there is:
 * If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly.

 * --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Userfying
I have requested that Topic:Topics by userfied to User:Michael_Ten/Topics so I can learn from it and potentially evaluate it to potentially request undeletion if appropriate. Thank you!! Cheers. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 04:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Closure of cold fusion request
Mu301, having asked for a cool-down -- which would tend to suppress discussion -- then fast-closed based on an argument that is not at all policy-based, that was not actually discussed. "Causes disruption." This was not the case in reality, there has been very little disruption from the resource until this request, and, over the years, there had been high participation. No evidence was presented for this "disruption," this was simply an impression stirred by the vehemence of the deletion arguments, made by users with very little familiarity with Wikiversity, with, as Mu301 noted, irrelevant arguments. There was no history of attempts to neutralize the alleged bias, frustrated by tendentious editing. There had never before been a deletion request. The resource actually stimulated real-world research to answer questions that arose in the extensive discussions. This was Wikiversity at its best. And then the janitor comes in and complains about the mess and hauls all the papers off to the dump.

And at its best, it was quite incomplete, needing more attention to fully develop. It needed more students to show up. That happened from time to time, but they were unaware of this deletion request, I'm sure. They don't follow RfD. Who showed up? It's obvious.

He also argued that it was a mess that would be difficult to fix. "Messy" is not a policy-based reason for deletion, because messes can be blanked, archived to history. The request was for deletion, not fixing. The resource is about 130 pages, of varying quality. Some are stubs, placeholders for future research projects, such as studies of individual peer-reviewed papers. Is Cold_fusion/Recent_sources page a mess? This is directly a learning material, useful for study, useful, indeed, if someone wants to attempt to balance the Wikipedia article or this resource, using the highest-quality sources. Attempts to delete resources that would be "difficult to clean up" in the past have generally failed. There are procedures for handling dispute over content like that, that lead to actual consensus, instead of failing to defend Wikiversity neutrality.

Mike is violating some of the deepest Wikiversity traditions, unfortunately, based on what? Regardless, if this decision is not reversed, it is the clear end of my efforts, already largely suppressed and abandoned, to improve Wikiversity resources. I have much better places to work, much less hassle, far easier. I could file a Community Review over this, but ... it is too much work, and I won't do it on my own initiative. Generally, wikis are proving to be a lost cause, exactly because of administrative decisions like Mu301's, evidence-free, personal opinion, ignoring history and expertise. I will document the history elsewhere, not here. That has already been proven unsafe.

There had been no disruption over Cold fusion, that is a complete error. People have accused me of this or that, on occasion, that's about it. The more extended attack was on Parapsychology.

I will be moving the material to another wiki, which will take a little time, so I thank Mu301 for allowing time. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft ns discussion
I have been pointed here more times recently, but where can I disucuss the topic, if these discussions where closed?--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 * I suspect the place to discuss will be a new Drafts or Draft namespace or similar. But you've opened a new discussion. Please discuss. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 * The earlier discussion is at Requests_for_Deletion. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, I havent studied the programe to the depth, but it started with lectures. I havent find out, why lectures in main ns are problem. Thats why, we have categories to sort them out, or sort them as lectures. So I can just guess, what was the problem with lectures. If the problem is that they occupy certain page name, there are more solutions, how to fix it. The solution of its own namespace, should be used as the last one. It important to notice, that if something recive new namespace, we can set a special property to that namespace. e.g. on Czech Wikipedia we also have lectures and the creater created for them two different skins, or modes: presentation and desktop. Desktop mode is the normal look of wiki page, presentation mode is the look as PowerPoint presentation. The disadvantage is, that every person, who would like to use presentation mod, should firstly copy to his namespace the script, which handle such mod. So if cs.wv would have ns for lectures, its ns could have an advance characteristic mods for special way of presenting/display.
 * But maybe it was all about the completition status of the lecture pages, but I havent find out more about it. Just a link to Wikipedia and what it does with Wikiversity. Non completed pages are all around, why it is a problem now?--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 09:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Both lectures Sciences and Fringe sciences have the template on them. Fringe sciences was moved to Draft:Fringe sciences. Are they within the scope of Wikiversity?

 * No one wanted them deleted. Peer review is mandatory by the opinions and voting at Requests_for_Deletion to remove Fringe sciences from Draft:Fringe sciences. Two outside reviewers mentioned the title "Fringe sciences" was like a pun but found no fault with the lecture. If you agree I would like to remove it from draft ns. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 * The Scope template on Draft:Fringe sciences reads "An editor has expressed concern that this article may not fit into the scope of Wikiversity." User Juandev's comments above do not echo this concern about any Main Page "Lectures", which includes Draft:Fringe sciences. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

From reading user Juandev's comments above, there is no support for a mandatory move of any (Resource) Main Page "Lectures" to Draft: namespace. I would like to ask each user who voted for a mandatory move to Draft ns to reconsider and support a voluntary move to Draft namespace. With Juandev's comments above only 63 % agree with a mandatory move to Draft ns. What do you think? ,, , , , ,.
 * voluntary Draft ns since Dave has already had the Draft ns created here, as proposer. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 * -- It is not clear whether the proposal is asking about Draft space in general or Draft space for the resources covered by Requests_for_Deletion. The community has not made any decisions regarding Draft space in general, and this is not the place to discuss it. However, the consensus of the community is quite clear regarding Main Page "Lectures". They cannot stay as main page resources. I have had many other things to work on recently, and I was hoping User:Marshallsumter would take the initiative to move these resources on his own, as he did with Philosophy/Sciences. However, my work on Special:LintErrors is almost done, and I will prioritize the movement of these resources to Draft namespace, since they haven't found another home. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 * At 6:5 there is no consensus for moving Main Page "Lectures" to Draft: ns! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree with the above that this proposal needs clarification. Any decision to disallow a page in main space is independent of whether or not a draft space exists.  For that reason, any discussion  of "mandatory draft space" would refer to a decision by the community to publish an article in draft space against author's objection.  In this scenario, the author would prefer deletion, while the community wants it kept, but in draft space.  This is not a good case for such a discussion because nobody is demanding that the resource be placed in draft space.
 * I deliberately placed a submission to the WikiJournal of Science in "draft" space, in part due to a misconception: I saw a number of WikiJournal submissions in draft space and assumed that is where submissions routinely go.  But after I posted it there, I found that Google "finds" the article if I search (without quotation marks) using the key words: {Bell's theorem card game loopholes}.  Perhaps I have "trained" google to look there from our university servers, but it suggests that draft space not entirely invisible to Google.  It would be interesting to see if others can reproduce this same result by searching from their own computers (using the same keywords.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I deliberately placed a submission to the WikiJournal of Science in "draft" space, in part due to a misconception: I saw a number of WikiJournal submissions in draft space and assumed that is where submissions routinely go.  But after I posted it there, I found that Google "finds" the article if I search (without quotation marks) using the key words: {Bell's theorem card game loopholes}.  Perhaps I have "trained" google to look there from our university servers, but it suggests that draft space not entirely invisible to Google.  It would be interesting to see if others can reproduce this same result by searching from their own computers (using the same keywords.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 * when Dave moved Fringe sciences or Fringe science to Draft:Fringe science no redirect was left. Google has/had "Wikiversity Fringe science" which then sent to a "does not exist" template but some 496 have found Draft:Fringe sciences since 25 February 2018 anyway. WikiJournal of Medicine often puts topic manuscripts in Draft ns until they are developed and peer reviewed for acceptance into the journal, but I don't believe it is mandatory. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 * actually consensus deleted "do nothing" and "delete all", potential options is an open phrase. One option is to let them continue to be developed. This option does not include mandatory moves to Draft namespace. There is no consensus for mandatory moving mainspace lectures to Draft ns! Please undo your bot implemented moves. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if you misunderstood the point of the Draft namespace discussion, but it was as the destination for these pages. Others clearly understood it that way. That's why User:Atcovi asked that DNA be moved to Draft: space at . And, I have to say, the more I reviewed the pages today in preparation for moving them, the more clear it was that they do not belong as main space landing pages. As per Help:Lecture, lectures are neither main space landing pages, nor intended to be the final design for a resource. Lectures are subpages, and should become lessons so that there is active learning involved. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Help:Lecture never received consensus approval! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 * All the resources I've created or contributed to here regarding astronomy, I was invited to do "I'm most interested, myself, in encouraging you to build resources connected with Topic:Astronomy, if you are willing.". The community can call them anything they want. All the others outside my research projects were done to help me learn and for Wikiversity. The community can name them anything they want as well. The Draft:Biology, for example, was started in 19 March 2008 by user:Remi, but I am the principal recent contributor. If the community wants them in Draft ns, not a problem. FYI: With the exception of conference presentations, all the lectures I've attended were from one or more schools, as part of one or more courses, each had its own title. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 * FYI: "Components / stand-alone resources: Lessons - Articles - Lesson plans - Discussions - Events - Essays - Glossaries - Lectures - Papers - Quizzes - Blogs - Media" From the template "Things you can make on Wikiversity" included in Help:Lecture. Also in Help:Lecture is "Use a subpage for your lecture - i.e. entitle your lecture "name of course/name of lecture" or "name of course/lecture 1" (with a slash in the middle)." But, Help:Lecture is included in the Category:Consensus requested so apparently it never received consensus. There is no consensus restricting lectures to a subpage.  has been contributed to by four suggesting consensus approval of that template without exception and two more on its Discuss page with comment on its title: "Rtnav". --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 * FYI - 1: the lecture Lecture was last contributed to at 12:05, 10 September 2008. It is in the Category:Lecture.
 * FYI - 2: the lecture Lecture 2.0 was last contributed to at 06:25, 28 September 2012. It is also in the Category:Lecture. Both of these are mainspace lectures!
 * FYI - 3: The only requirement for creating a page on Wikipedia is clicking the "edit" or "create" tab. The same thing applies to draft space and w:WP:AfC: they're optional.
 * FYI - 4: On 30 December 2015 Agriculture named as Featured resource for Portal:Agriculture by User:Dave Braunschweig while it was in the Category:Lectures and Category:Dominant group/Lectures.
 * FYI - 5: On 6 March 2016 Archaeology named as Featured resource for Portal:Archaeology by User:Dave Braunschweig while it was in the Category:Lectures and Category:Dominant group/Lectures.
 * FYI - 6: On 16 January 2017, Mikael Häggström moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Eukaryotic and prokaryotic gene structure to WikiJournal of Medicine/Eukaryotic and prokaryotic gene structure: Publishing.
 * FYI - 7: On 14 March 2017, Evolution and evolvability redirected Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Peer reviewers to WikiJournal of Medicine/Peer reviewers.
 * FYI - 8: On 15 June 2017, Stevenfruitsmaak moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Vitamin D as an adjunct for acute community-acquired pneumonia among infants and children: systematic review and meta-analysis to WikiJournal of Medicine/Vitamin D as an adjunct for acute community-acquired pneumonia among infants and children: systematic review and meta-analysis.
 * FYI - 9: On 1 August 2017, user:Mikael Häggström moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Acute gastrointestinal bleeding from a chronic cause: a teaching case report to WikiJournal of Medicine/Acute gastrointestinal bleeding from a chronic cause: a teaching case report: Accepted.
 * FYI - 10: On 11 November 2017, Evolution and evolvability moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Rotavirus to WikiJournal of Medicine/Rotavirus: Manuscript accepted - move to mainspace.
 * FYI - 11: On 20 December 2017, user:Mikael Häggström moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Cell disassembly during apoptosis to WikiJournal of Medicine/Cell disassembly during apoptosis: Accepted.
 * FYI - 12: On 8 January 2018, Evolution and evolvability moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Endometrial cancer to Endometrial cancer: Other drafts currently being held in mainspace. 14 January 2018, Mikael Häggström moved page Endometrial cancer to WikiJournal of Medicine/Endometrial cancer: Making automatic links work.
 * FYI - 13: On 21 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Standard-candles astronomy to Draft:Standard-candles astronomy without leaving a redirect: Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 14: On 21 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Journalism to Draft:Journalism without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 15: On 21 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Agriculture to Draft:Agriculture without leaving a redirect (Per [[Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Main Page "Lectures")
 * FYI - 16: On 21 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Archaeology to Draft:Archaeology without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 17: On 21 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot| moved page Gene transcriptions to Draft:Gene transcriptions without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 18: On 22 March 2018 User:Michael Ten moved page Draft:Futurism to Futurism (it looks like a bot did this. was moving it to the draft namespace a mistake? if not, i guess put it as a draft if it should be.)
 * FYI - 19: On 23 March 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Journalism to Journalism (It's a resource.)
 * FYI - 20: On 23 March 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Agriculture to Agriculture (It's a resource.)
 * FYI - 21: On 23 March 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Gene transcriptions to Gene transcriptions (It's a resource.)
 * FYI - 22: On 24 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Journalism to Draft:Journalism over a redirect without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 23: On 24 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Agriculture to Draft:Agriculture over a redirect without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 24: On 24 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Gene transcriptions to Draft:Gene transcriptions over a redirect without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 25: On 1 April 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Intensity astronomy to Radiation astronomy/Intensities without leaving a redirect (Subpage)
 * FYI - 26: On 1 April 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Synchrotron radiation to Radiation astronomy/Synchrotrons without leaving a redirect (Subpage)
 * FYI - 27: On 1 April 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Standard-candles astronomy to Radiation astronomy/Standard-candles without leaving a redirect (Subpage)
 * FYI - 28: On 1 April 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Standard-candles astronomy to Radiation astronomy/Standard-candles without leaving a redirect: Subpage)
 * FYI - 29: On 10 April 2018 User:Guy vandegrift moved page CHSH inequality to Draft:CHSH inequality, on 20 April 2018 user:Guy vandegrift deleted page Draft:CHSH inequality.
 * FYI - 30: On 22 April 2018 User:Michael Ten moved page Draft:Psychiatry to Psychiatry (appears to have been moved by a bot without a clear reason. please move back to draft namespace if that is where this should be.)
 * FYI - 31: On 29 April 2018 User:Dave Braunschweig moved page Draft:Applications of data structures to Data structures/Applications without leaving a redirect: Moving under learning project)
 * FYI - 32: On 7 May 2018 user:Atcovi moved page Draft:The Cell Membrane to The Cell Membrane without leaving a redirect: Finished article.
 * FYI - 33: On 7 May 2018 User:Atcovi moved page Draft:Organic Chemistry – Carbon Chemistry and Macromolecules to Organic Chemistry – Carbon Chemistry and Macromolecules without leaving a redirect: not a draft... why was this moved in "draft" in the first place?
 * FYI - 34: On 12 May 2018 User:Michael Ten moved page Draft:Art to Art (seemed to be moved by a bot without clear rational. move to wherever appropriate if necessary. good luck.)
 * FYI - 35: On 12 May 2018 User:Michael Ten stated: "The Draft namespace had a lot of pages from the main namespace moved to it by MaintenanceBot. Was this intentional? It seems a lot of the pages that were in the main namespace seemed just fine in the main namespace. Is it the consensus that these are better moved to draft namespace? Should most or all of them be bulk moved back into the main namespace? What do you think?" from Colloquium. The MediWiki site notice ran from 3-15 January 2018. User:Michael Ten was here only at 04:57, 7 January 2018 for the site notice period. On 3 January 2018 the site notice stated: "Discuss and vote on Main Page "Lectures" request." On 4-13 January 2018, the site notice stated: "Discuss and vote on Main Page "Lectures"." On 13-15 January 2018, the site notice stated: "Discuss and vote on Draft Namespace."
 * FYI - 36: On 16 May 2018 User:Guy vandegrift moved page Draft:A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes to A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes (next step for wikiJournalScience) --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Wikiversity talk:Requests for Deletion/Archive/1


text:
Marouan Azarkan

Marouan Azarkan (born 8 December 2001) is a Dutch professional footballer who plays as a forward for Emirati club Al-Nasr.

Club career
On 2 May 2019, Azarkan signed his first professional contract with Feyenoord. He made his professional debut with Feyenoord in a 3–2 Eredivisie win over ADO Den Haag on 15 September 2019. On 10 August 2020, Feyenoord announced that the club had reached an agreement with Azarkan to extend his contract until the end of the 2022–23 season.

Azarkan was sent on a one-season loan to Excelsior on 9 August 2021. On 5 July 2022, following Excelsior's promotion to the Eredivisie, his loan was renewed for the 2022–23 season.

On 15 June 2023, it was announced that Azarkan signed with Eredivisie side FC Utrecht on a five-year deal for approximately €750.000.

International career
Born in the Netherlands, Azarkan is of Moroccan descent. He is a former youth international for the Netherlands. Azarkan is eligible to appear for the Netherlands national football team, and Morocco national football team.

In March 2023, Azarkan accepted a call-up to the Morocco under-23 team, for the friendlies against the youth teams of Togo, Ivory Coast, and Uzbekistan. He made no appearances due to an injury sustained shortly before the friendlies.

title: Marouan Azarkan


text:
Electron-withdrawing group

An electron-withdrawing group (EWG) is a group or atom that has the ability to draw electron density toward itself and away from other adjacent atoms. This electron density transfer is often achieved by resonance or inductive effects. Electron-withdrawing groups have significant impacts on fundamental chemical processes such as acid-base reactions, redox potentials, and substitution reactions.

Effects on Bronsted acidity
Electron-withdrawing groups exert an "inductive" or "electron-pulling" effect on covalent bonds. The strength of the electron-withdrawing group is inversely proportional to the pKa of the carboxylic acid.

The inductive effect is cumulative: trichloroacetic acid is 1000x stronger than chloroacetic acid.

The impact of the EWG group on pKa decreases with distances from the carboxylic group.

For benzoic acids, the effect is quantified by the Hammett equation:
 * $$\log \frac{K}{K_0} = \sigma\rho $$

where
 * $${K}_0$$ = Reference constant
 * $$\sigma$$ = Substituent constant
 * $$\rho$$ = Reaction rate constant

Effect on Lewis acidity
EWGs enhance the Lewis acidity, making compounds more reactive as Lewis acids. For example, fluorine is a stronger electron-withdrawing substituent than methyl, resulting in an increased Lewis acidity of boron trifluoride relative to trimethylborane. Electron-withdrawing groups also tend to reduce Lewis basicity.

Effect on a aromatic substitution reactions
Electrophilic aromatic substitution is famously affected by EWGs. The effect is transmitted by inductive and resonance effects. Benzene with an EWG typically undergoes electrophilic substitution at meta positions. Overall the rates are diminished. thus EWGs are called deactivating.

When it comes to nucleophilic substitution reactions, electron-withdrawing groups are more prone to nucleophilic substitution. For example, chlorodinitrobenzene is far more susceptible to reactions displacing chloride compared to chlorobenzene.

Effects on redox potential
In the context of electron transfer, these groups enhance the oxidizing power tendency of the attached species. For example,  Tetracyanoethylene serves as an oxidant due to its attachment to four cyano substituents, which are electron-withdrawing groups.

Oxidants with EWGs are stronger than the parent compound. Acetylferrocenium is 300 mV more oxidizing than ferrocene.

Comparison with electron-donating groups
Electron-withdrawing groups are the opposite effect of electron-donating groups (EDGs). Both describe functional groups, however, electron-withdrawing groups pull electron density away from a molecule, whereas EDGs push electron density onto a substituent.

title: Electron-withdrawing group


text:
Talk:T. S. Eliot

=MAIN=

Would someone with a degree mind teaching this course, I've decided that I'm not competent to do even the fairly minimal find a book that's well respected and suggest it style of answers that answering queries would involve. I should of clarified when I made this course that it's really only a reading list but I was caught up in the optimism ( sigh).

The course
The course is now fully functional and ready to be taken.

Maintaince and improvement
Would someone put some pretty pictures in?

=LECTURER STUDENT INTERACTION=

Questions
Post your questions here

Essays and poems
Put links to your essays and poems here ( create a new page to put them on).

Study Guide
I suggest that most of the week-base material be moved to some sort of Study Guide page

title: Talk:T. S. Eliot


text:
Jovana Rapport

Jovana Rapport (née Vojinović, Јована Војиновић; born 18 February 1992) is a Serbian chess player currently playing for Romania. She holds the title of Woman Grandmaster (WGM), which FIDE awarded her in 2009. She is a two-time Montenegrin women's champion (2009, 2010) and also a Serbian women's champion (2014).

Chess career
She participated in the European Youth Chess Championships and the World Youth Chess Championships in various age categories. Her best result was a third place in 2002 in Heraklion in the World Youth Championships in Girls U10 age category. When she didn't make the Serbian team in 2006, she decided to switch her allegiance to Montenegro. She represented Montenegro in the European Girls' U18 Team Chess Championships (2007−2009) and won silver (2008) and bronze (2007) team medals, and won two gold (2008, 2009) and silver (2007) individual medals.

She won the 2009 Mediterranean Women's Chess Championship in Antalya. In 2011 in Pančevo, she won the international women's chess tournament.

In the Montenegrin Chess Championship for women, she has won four medals − two gold (2009, 2010), a silver (2008) and a bronze (2007). She switched back her national federation to her native Serbia in early 2013. In 2014, she won the Serbian Chess Championship for women.

Jovana Rapport played for Montenegro and Serbia in the Women's Chess Olympiads:
 * In 2008, at first board in the 38th Chess Olympiad (women) in Dresden (+6, =3, -2),
 * In 2010, at first board in the 39th Chess Olympiad (women) in Khanty-Mansiysk (+6, =2, -3),
 * In 2012, at first board in the 40th Chess Olympiad (women) in Istanbul (+5, =6, -0),
 * In 2014, at second board in the 41st Chess Olympiad (women) in Tromsø (+5, =1, -4),
 * In 2016, at first board in the 42nd Chess Olympiad (women) in Baku (+5, =2, -3).

Jovana Rapport played for Montenegro and Serbia in the European Team Chess Championships:
 * In 2007, at second board in the 7th European Team Chess Championship (women) in Heraklion (+1, =3, -4),
 * In 2009, at first board in the 8th European Team Chess Championship (women) in Novi Sad (+3, =3, -3),
 * In 2011, at first board in the 9th European Team Chess Championship (women) in Porto Carras (+4, =3, -2),
 * In 2013, at third board in the 10th European Team Chess Championship (women) in Warsaw (+3, =1, -4),
 * In 2015, at second board in the 11th European Team Chess Championship (women) in Reykjavik and won individual gold medal (+5, =3, -0).

In 2008, she was awarded the title of Woman International Master (WIM) by FIDE and received the title of Woman Grandmaster (WGM) the following year. She was the first woman representing Montenegro to be awarded the latter title.

Rapport achieved required norms for International Master (IM) title by late November 2015, but has yet to reach minimum rating (2400) for the title.

Personal life
She married Hungarian chess grandmaster Richárd Rapport in 2016 and they live in Belgrade, Serbia. In September 2022, the Rapports together decided to switch their federations to Romania.

title: Jovana Rapport


text:
torque off

Etymology
Possibly an alteration of tick off. Metaphorical use of mechanical verbs (including, , and ) with people and their emotions as the is also seen elsewhere, as with for example , , and.

Verb

 * 1)  To annoy, distress, or anger.

title: torque off


text:
Talk:Diego Cagna

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Diego Cagna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027115137/http://www.larazon.com.ar/notas/2007/10/26/01527283.html to http://www.larazon.com.ar/notas/2007/10/26/01527283.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719122232/http://www.colocolo.cl/2010/04/presidente-viajo-a-buenos-aires-para-reunirse-con-diego-cagna/ to http://www.colocolo.cl/2010/04/presidente-viajo-a-buenos-aires-para-reunirse-con-diego-cagna/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528153826/http://www.futbolxxi.com/Tecnico.aspx?ID=381&SEOTecnico=Cagna+Diego+Sebastian to http://www.futbolxxi.com/Tecnico.aspx?ID=381&SEOTecnico=Cagna+Diego+Sebastian
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528153835/http://www.futbolxxi.com/Futbolista.aspx?ID=1877&CAGNA+Diego+Sebastian to http://www.futbolxxi.com/Futbolista.aspx?ID=1877&CAGNA+Diego+Sebastian

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Diego Cagna


text:
Talk:Deborah Mowshowitz

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Deborah Mowshowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206071830/http://www.ghjournal.org/episode-13/ to http://www.ghjournal.org/episode-13/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Deborah Mowshowitz


text:
Cookbook:Can Opener

| Kitchen tools

A can opener (also known as a tin opener) is a device used to open steel (not tin) cans.

Simple can openers, like those found in pocket knives, are operated by walking the device around the edge of the can while digging into the lid. The lid will have very jagged edges after removal.

Most can openers press a cutting wheel into the edge of the lid while a rough support wheel presses up under the lip of the can. It is best to purchase a can opener that drives this support wheel to provide easier motion. Non-electric can openers with this feature can be identified by a set of gears behind the cutting and support wheels. The pictured can opener has such gears, with 2 or 3 teeth visible peeking out above the cutting wheel near the bottom of the picture.

Some more unusual can openers cut into the side of the can, often within the seam area so that a nice lid is formed. The lid is not very sharp and does not fall into the food. In this case, the support (and possibly drive) wheel runs around the inside edge of the lid as the can is opened.

Be sure to clean your can opener after use. Give it a rinse, then run a paper towel through it. In case you or someone else has been careless, you might also clean the can opener before use.

title: Cookbook:Can Opener


text:
Bill Hinkle

William R. Hinkle (born August 18, 1956) is an American politician in Washington. Hinkle is a former Republican Party member of the Washington House of Representatives, representing the 13th district.

Early life
On August 18, 1956, Hinkle was born in Tacoma, Washington.

Education
Hinkle attended South Puget Sound Community College and Tacoma Community College. Hinkle studied advanced prehospital medicine from University of Washington. Hinkle earned a Master of Arts in Applied Theology from the University of Balamand in Lebanon.

Career
Hinkle is a former paramedic and firefighter. In 1996, Hinkle served as a County Commissioner for Kittitas County, Washington, until 2002.

In 2002, Hinkle won the election and became a Republican Party member of Washington State House of Representatives for District 13. In November 2012, Hinkle resigned.

Hinkle is a life time member of National Rifle Association of America.

In 2012, Hinkle became an executive director of the Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound.

Personal life
Hinkle's wife is Debra Hinkle, a firefighter and dispatcher. They have two children. Hinkle and his family live in Cle Elum, Washington.

title: Bill Hinkle


text:
Talk:Smurl haunting

POV
The tone of this article is far from neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You might give a hint as to specific neutrality problems and how you think they might be improved before tagging it again. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Smurls claims gained wide press attention and were investigated by demonologists who encouraged the Smurls' supernatural beliefs" - There is absolutely no evidence that these investigators "encouraged" their beliefs that the Smurls even "believed" in the supernatural before this occurrence. Weasel much?

"According to The Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, Smurl told a reporter he had "surgery to remove water from his brain in 1983 because he had been experiencing short-term memory loss due to a case of meningitis in his youth."

The article is gone. Also the reporter and the original paper where these comments supposedly appeared in is not mentioned so it's a case of "maybe he said it, maybe not." I think it's also important to note another thing... it was the wife who claimed that she started seeing/hearing things first, not the husband, the article doesn't mention this.

"The Smurl haunting refers to claims made by Jack and Janet Smurl of West Pittston, Pennsylvania who alleged that a demon inhabited their home between 1974 and 1989" No they didn't. They lived in the house for 10 years. They claimed that the Demon showed up in 1985. Orasis (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * The Wilkes-Barre Times Leader source article isn't gone, it's just archived. I don't see anything wrong with summarizing what's contained in this source, e.g. Smurl's reported surgery. Do you have reliable sources that say differently? As for the dates the "demons" supposedly first arrived and who first claimed they did, do you have any reliable sources for that? And it would help if you refrain from taunts or personal attacks such as "Weasel much?" when discussing the article on this Talk page. Thanks! - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment
BTW, every time I see this article, I first read "Smurf hunting". --Hob Gadling 17:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement of this Article
Breaking from the usual tradition of someone putting copyrighted material into Wikipedia, we have here a case where someone created a derivative work of Wikipedia without license. (i.e. they are not honoring the GFDL) McDowellNews

Real class eh?

Entropyfails 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Debate?
"As to whether the haunting was genuine or an elaborate hoax is open to debate." I don't see any deabte here, so much as a few unsubstantiated claims that laugh in the face of the sort of facts and reason that Wikipedia is built on. Any thoughts regarding removing this and cleaning up the article? Alvis 17:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it. --Hob Gadling 14:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for including more references that this is all a hoax.: Flora

The unprofessional and blatantly biased way this page has been presented and edited is exactly why no one trusts wikipedia. You clowns are a huge joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't delete
Just move to Paranormal phenomenona/Ghost stories. We don't need conspiracy theories about wiki mods cooperating with entities from the other side. ^_^

Hello, My name is John Cifarelli, Paranormal Investigator and Psychic/Medium for my New Jersey Paranormal Research. I have been sensing that there are still presences in the home with the Smurl family lives. If anyone can give me information on how i can contact them i would like to speak to them ASAP. Thank You. John Cifarelli New Jersey Paranormal Research and HeadQuarters.<PHONE_NUMBER>

 * As a psychic, wouldn't you already know that information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Being as there is only ONE "signature" on what seems to be presented as at least TWO comments, is someone arguing with themselves? Even unsigned posts are noted as such; for instance, the last post above.Jororo05 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A Small Change
I just changed the end of the second-to-last sentence to read "...at the campground where they were staying." That anyone could publish "...at the campground they were staying at" is really more frightening than anything reported by the Smurls. Rt3368 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 * More frightening yet is that someone with such poor grammatical skills can edit here! Jororo05 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hoax my ASS
This haunting finally got terminated by The Church, the Catholic Church terminated this haunting. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Would love to see some cites for this statement. I'm not choosing sides either way, but evidence is needed. Jororo05 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Bishop Robert McKenna OP
I came to this article from the article on Bishop Robert McKenna OP which says "He attempted exorcisms in the Smurl haunting case, which case was described in various books and in the Fox TV-movie The Haunted." I think it would help this article to put this information in, and specify which of the attempts (where "priest" is mentioned, not bishop) was his. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Source? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation not needed
Hi @User:TSlatter. Nearing the end of August 1986, Kurtz called for a group of scientists to offer free psychiatric and psychological help to the Smurls. But the Smurls felt they needed no help. “We think it’s important that Mr. Smurl and others in the Smurl family, submit themselves to psychiatric and psychological examinations,” Kurtz said. This is contained in the cited source, so no need for "citation needed tags". Thanks! - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC).

title: Talk:Smurl haunting


text:
User:Se203/sandbox

The Bardwell Grizzlies are an amateur football team based in Bardwell, Suffolk.

Established in 2017, 'the Grizzlies' currently compete in Division 4 of the Suffolk & Ipswich Football League.

title: User:Se203/sandbox


text:
агнѧ

Etymology
From, from + , the former from.

Noun

 * 1) lamb

Etymology
, from. .

Noun

 * 1) lamb

title: агнѧ


text:
User:S N Barid

[[File:Barid portrait.jpg|250px|thumb| "Photography is an art of freezing moments, complex idea conveyed in a still image."

~SN Barid]]

Hi, my name is Syed Naqhib Barid. I am a software engineer living in Bangalore, India. I am interested in Digital photography and hope to contribute some pictures from my travels around India.You can contact me by email.

Photographic Gear

 * Canon PowerShot SX20 IS
 * DSC-HX9V
 * Canon PowerShot SX120 IS
 * Canon EOS Rebel T6

title: User:S N Barid


text:
Talk:Briggins Moor

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Briggins Moor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910045038/http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1006068.pdf to http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1006068.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813070641/http://www.english-nature.org.uk:80/ to http://www.english-nature.org.uk

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Briggins Moor


text:
Pigeonhole Principle

This is a very simple idea that can come in handy when trying to sort things into different categories. Suppose you run a hotel and have 40 guests and 40 rooms for them to stay in. Each of them can have their own room. What if you didn't have enough rooms but didn't want to turn anyone away? At least two people will be heading toward the same room number!

Consider this classic example: You go to a party and meet a bunch of people. There are n people at the party, which means that there are n-1 other people whose hands you can shake. Everyone shakes at least one person's hand. By the pigeonhole principle, since there are n people and less than n number of people's hands to shake, when categorizing people by the number of hands that have been shaken, there must be at least two people that have shaken the same number of hands.

This idea comes in handy in computer science in things like hash functions.

See Pigeonhole_principlewikipedia for more information.

title: Pigeonhole Principle


text:
Talk:Deborah Driggs

Hi Debbie,

Untitled
This is Angela Andrade. Remember me? I'm sure you do. I am getting a bunch of St. Catherine people together and wanted you to come too. If you are interested, e-mail me at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Can't wait to hear from you. Angela

title: Talk:Deborah Driggs


text:
Buddhism/Emergence and Basic Buddhist Teachings

Emergence of Buddhism and Basic Buddhist Teachings
Religious and philosophical background and basic Buddhist teachings embodied in the Pali Canon are examined in this module. The following topics are emphasized for the religious and philosophical background of Buddhism:
 * Pre-Buddhist paths of emancipation and traditional means of knowledge;
 * Pre-Buddhist teaching of Dhyana and Samapati;
 * Pre-Buddhist beliefs in Karma;
 * Rebirth and the concept of soul;
 * Origin, evolution and objectives of the ascetic movement;
 * Metaphysical and Non-empirical concepts;
 * Six religious teachers and their life stories and philosophies;
 * Self-indulgence and self-mortification (Kamasukhallikanuyoga and Attakilamathanuyoga); skeptical and materialist tendencies.

The following topics are emphasized for the basic teachings embodied in the Pali Canon. Three characteristics of existence; four noble truths; interdependent origination; Analysis of Khandha, Dhatu and Ayatana; Kamma; Rebirth; Buddhist Analysis of Sassatavada and Ucchedavada; Attention should also be paid to the Buddhist analysis of the following topics: world and its inhabitants; sense perception; psychology; ethics; reason, revelation and experience. Four fold analysis of questions and the Buddhist attitude towards language should also be studied here.

Recommended Reading:

 * What The Buddha Taught, W. Rahula, Buddhist Missionary Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – 1978
 * Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, K.N. Jayatilake, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi -- 1980
 * Causality : The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, D.J. Kalupahana, Honolulu, The University Press of Hawaii – 1975
 * History of Buddhist thought, E.J. Thomas, London-1953
 * The Buddha’s Ancient Path, Piyadasi Thera, Taiwan-1995


text:
Trigonometry/Functions

 * See also Trigonometry/Polar for an approach that is useful for -∞<θ<∞

Fundamental trigonometry functions
There are six trigonometric functions in Trigonometry: sine, cosine, tangent, cotangent, secant, and cosecant.

 * [[Image:TrigTriangle.svg|200px]]

Sine

 * Sine θ is the length of the leg opposite θ over the length of the hypotenuse: $$\sin\theta=\frac{opp}{hyp}$$

Cosine

 * Cosine θ is the length of the leg adjacent to θ over the hypotenuse: $$\cos\theta=\frac{adj}{hyp}$$

Tangent

 * Tangent of θ is the length of the leg on the opposite side of the triangle from the angle θ over the length of the leg of the triangle adjacent to the angle θ: $$\tan\theta=\frac{opp}{adj}$$

These three can be memorized by use of the name of the princess "Soh Cah Toa," meaning:
 * "sine-opposite-hypotenuse
 * cosine-adjacent-hypotenuse
 * tangent-opposite-adjacent".

The remaining ratios are reciprocals of the previous ratios:

Cotangent

 * Cotangent θ is the reciprocal of tangent θ: $$\cot\theta=\frac{adj}{opp}$$

Secant

 * Secant θ is the reciprocal of cosine θ: $$\sec\theta=\frac{hyp}{adj}$$

Cosecant

 * Cosecant θ is the reciprocal of sine θ: $$\csc\theta=\frac{hyp}{opp}$$

Other considerations

 * Since the hypotenuse of a right triangle is always the longest side, $$opp < hyp\,$$ and $$adj < hyp\,$$
 * If we divide both sides of each of these inequalities by the positive number $$hyp\,$$, we get $$\frac{opp}{hyp} < \frac{hyp}{hyp}\,$$ and $$\frac{adj}{hyp} < \frac{hyp}{hyp}\,$$ or $$\sin \theta \leq 1\,$$ and $$\cos \theta \leq 1\,$$

Quiz

 * Trigonometry/Functions/Quiz

Other resources

 * Reading: Trigonometric_Functions (Wikipedia)
 * Videos:
 * Basic Trigonometry (Youtube)
 * Basic Trigonometry II (Youtube)

 * Trigonometry/Functions/Flash cards

title: Trigonometry/Functions


text:
Apollo Papathanasio

Apostolos "Apollo" Papathanasiou (Aπόστολος Παπαθανασίου or Απόλλωνας Παπαθανασίου; born 15 March 1969) is a Swedish heavy metal vocalist of Greek descent, who is currently with the band Spiritual Beggars. He has also sung for Firewind, Meduza, Evil Masquerade, Gardenian, and Richard Andersson's projects Majestic and Time Requiem.

In 2007, Papathanasio had to opt out of certain tour dates with Firewind. His position was temporarily filled by Henning Basse of Metalium. Apollo's last releases with Firewind was "Few Against Many" (2012). On 15 January 2013, Firewind announced that the band had parted ways with Apollo. After his departure from Firewind he has continued on with Spiritual Beggars and released return to zero (2010) Earth Blues, 15 April 2013 and Sunrise to Sundown (2016). Papathanasio also works as a music teacher for a school in Halmstad.

Faith Taboo

 * 1997: Psychopath

Majestic

 * 2000: Trinity Overture

Time Requiem

 * 2002: Time Requiem
 * 2003: Unleashed in Japan
 * 2004: The Inner Circle of Reality

Meduza

 * 2002: Now and Forever
 * 2004: Upon the World

Sandalinas

 * 2005: Living on the Edge

Evil Masquerade

 * 2006: Third Act
 * 2009: Fade to Black
 * 2012: Black Ravens Cry (single)
 * 2012: A Silhouette (single)
 * 2012: Pentagram
 * 2014: 10 Years in the Dark - remastered compilation
 * 2016: The Outcast Hall of Fame

Firewind

 * 2006: Allegiance
 * 2008: The Premonition
 * 2010: Days of Defiance
 * 2012: Few Against Many

Bassinvaders

 * 2008: Hellbassbeaters

Spiritual Beggars

 * 2010: Return to Zero
 * 2013: Earth Blues
 * 2016: Sunrise To Sundown

Apollo (solo)

 * 2016: Waterdevils

Other works

 * 2005: Vitalij Kuprij - Revenge
 * 2010: Sebastien - Tears of White Roses
 * 2011: Nightrage - Insidious
 * 2011: The MFC Dragon Slayer All Star Project - Let's Unite in Rock (single)
 * 2012: Kamelot - Grace (bonus track)

title: Apollo Papathanasio


text:
Peter Mathiesen

Peter Mathiesen (1696–1768) was a Copenhagen-based Danish clockmaker. He was a co-founder of the city's Clockmakers' Guild in 1755 and served as the guild's third alderman in 1758–60. His workshop was located on Vimmelskaftet.

Biography
Mathiesen was born in 1696 in Dollerup, Grumtoft Parish, Schleswig-Holstein. It is not known where he was trained as a clockmaker but Gottorp was an important centre for artists and artisans at the time. He worked for clockmaker Christian Christensen in Hillerød in 1724. He was later by the crown charged with maintaining two large clockworks at the royal palaces. On 15 December 1724, he was accepted into the Smiths' Guild without having submitted a masterpiece.

Mathiesen established his own workshop on Vimmelskaftet. It developed into one of the largest of its kind in the country. In 1729–54, it employed 18 trained clockmakers and some 30 apprentices. In 1755, Mathiesen was a co-founder of the Clockmakers' Guild in Copenhagen. He served as the guild's third alderman in 1758–60. He specialized in tower clocks and longcase clocks.

Notable works
Buildings with Peter Mathiesen tower clocks include the Church of Holmen in Copenhagen (1737), Frederiksberg Church in Frederiksberg (1739), St.Nicolas' Church in Åbenrå, St. Nicolas' Church in Holbæk and Roskilde Cathedral in Roskilde (1741) He also made a donation of a clock for Grundhof Church in his home town.

The Karen Blixen museum at Rungstedlund contains a Peter Mathiesen longcase clock.

title: Peter Mathiesen


text:
School talk:Computer simulation and game design

Game: Game Maker
A good starting point for this would be Game Maker--Rayc 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration
As stated here, I would like to help. But so far nothing is going on here, so if YOU arrive, leave me a note here. --Erkan Yilmaz 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Quake III Game Engine
I think it would be good if we had some kind of thing that went through and explained how the Quake III game engine works. It would be a good example of a real game with real features already there. --Devourer09 01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hobbs End.
Would there be any interest in trying to build a theme park ride in 3D simulation? ShakespeareFan00 00:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

School of Game Design
Note that I have adopted the School of Game Design today. We should probably discuss a division of labour or even some kind of reorganization. Greetings, Guido den Broeder 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Usefulness of Game Simulation and Game Design
I find having two schools both with similar ideas, should be combined, so the efforts could be concentrated on bettering the knowledge on Game Design. Latinlucius 04:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Name can be changed to Computer simulation and Digital Game Design
Hello Can we change the name of this school to Computer simulation and Digital Game Design?


text:
First Line Management/Health & safety plan

People responsible for developing health and safety plans in a workplace able to: identify responsibilities for the workplace arising out of health and safety legislation; develop a health and safety plan for a specified workplace; report accidents and occurrences of serious harm in a specified workplace; and prepare to manage emergencies in a specified workplace.

This unit is used in:
 * First Line Management

Learning support and accreditation
The following formal learning institutions offer learning support for this unit, and may offer assessment and certification.
 * Otago Polytechic, New Zealand offers assessment of prior learning, as well as face to face and online learning support for study of the (New Zealand) National Certificate in First Line Management.

Content
Read through, contribute to, and comment on the following information relating to health and safety plans. Be sure to do 1 of the listed projects in section 3.

Identify health and safety responsibilities.
Identify responsibilities for the workplace arising out of health and safety legislation.

Clauses that address health and safety issues in employment are identified in current legislation.

Employee's responsibilities in respect of the employer are outlined with reference to legislative requirements.

Employer's responsibilities in respect of the employee are outlined with reference to legislative requirements.

Policing of the Health and Safety in Employment Act is explained in terms of who is responsible and what are their roles and responsibilities.

Actions required to be taken by employer and employee when a notice is issued by an inspector are identified.

Develop a health and safety plan
Develop a health and safety plan for a specified workplace.

Health and safety responsibilities are cited for a specific workplace, with reference to legislative requirements.

Health and safety plan developed for the specific workplace meets the legislative requirements.

Report accidents and occurrences
Report accidents and occurrences of serious harm in a specified workplace.

one accident and one occurrence of serious harm.

Accident register is completed for an accident in the workplace.

Accident register is completed for an occurrence of serious harm in the workplace.

Prepare to manage emergencies
Prepare to manage emergencies in a specified workplace.

Possible emergencies are identified within a specified workplace.

two specific emergency situations, which may include but are not limited to - injury, fire, earthquake.

Emergency procedures are described that deal with the specific situations and meet legislative requirements.

A specified workplace emergency is analysed and recommendations are made which minimise the likely effects of and/or the likely recurrence of the emergency situation.


text:
9th Air Wing (JASDF)

The 9th Air Wing (第9航空団 (dai-kyuu-koukudan)) is a wing of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force. It comes under the authority of the Southwestern Air Defense Force. It is based at Naha Air Base in Okinawa Prefecture.

As of 2017 it has two squadrons, both equipped with Mitsubishi F-15J/DJ and Kawasaki T-4 aircraft:
 * 204th Tactical Fighter Squadron
 * 304th Tactical Fighter Squadron

title: 9th Air Wing (JASDF)


text:
Tourism/Management

One of the biggest milestones in Tourism Management is the self management and location of the hotels you actually choose. Today's world is dominated with travel, tourism being the largest industry, however most travelers don't think about accommodation that much! But everybody who enjoys travel should. These are five rules who should help you decide what's important in hotel planning:

There are however many other deciding factors in planning your travel.
 * Location
 * Budget
 * Star (s)
 * Amenities
 * Brandnames or independent.

title: Tourism/Management


text:
Template:Did you know nominations/A-Force

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A-Force

 * ... that A-Force, the upcoming ongoing comic book series to be published by Marvel Comics, will feature Marvel's first all-female team of Avengers?
 * Reviewed: Jerry Lester

Created by TriiipleThreat (talk). Self nominated at 13:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough and long enough, and the hook is cited from an appropriate news website for the subject without copyvio or close paraphrasing. Hook is also neutral and QPQ check is done '''tAD''' (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The hook fact is not cited inline (right after the sentence in which it appears). Yoninah (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The hook is referenced by the closest following citation as all the material in between is referenced by the same citation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg OK, thanks for letting me know. Restoring tick based on The Almightey Drill's review. Yoninah (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
Hadselfjord

Hadselfjorden or Hadselfjord is a fjord in Hadsel Municipality in Nordland county, Norway. The fjord lies in the Vesterålen region, separating the island of Hadseløya (on the north and west side of the fjord) from the islands of Austvågøya and Hinnøya island (on the south and east side of the fjord). In the northeast, the Hadselfjorden connects with Sortlandssund strait, which separates the islands of Langøya and Hinnøya. In the southwest the fjord empties into the Norwegian Sea.

A ferry crosses the fjord between the villages of Melbu and Fiskebøl.

title: Hadselfjord


text:
Pride (Amy Macdonald song)

"Pride" is a single release by Scottish recording artist Amy Macdonald; it was released as the second single from her third studio album, Life in a Beautiful Light. It was released on 13 August 2012 and was written by Amy Macdonald and produced by Pete Wilkinson.

Background
In an interview with BBC Breakfast on 11 June 2012, Macdonald said that the song was inspired from when she sings the national anthem of Scotland at Hampden Park. She also said she is lucky that she gets asked to perform before all of Scotland's international matches. Macdonald says it is an honor and it is something that she always gets nervous about, but it is such a buzz afterwards that she loves to do it.

Live performances
On 7 July 2012 she performed the song at T in the Park in the King Tut's Wah Wah Tent. On 7 August 2012 she performed the song on daily entertainment show Beat TV on ITV2 which is also shown in 30 other countries including South Africa, United States and Italy. On 14 August 2012 she performed the song on The Rob Brydon Show. On 21 December 2012 she performed the song on The Graham Norton Show. On 10 September 2012 she performed a modified version of the song at 'Our Greatest Team Parade' held in London to celebrate the success of British athletes at the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Reception
"Pride" has been described as "a beautiful track, which was inspired by Amy performing Scotland’s national anthem in Hampden Park before all of Scotland’s international football matches" by Sophie Sinclair writing in HTF Magazine. More Than Music was less favourable, claiming that Life in a Beautiful Light, the album in which "Pride" features, contains "many tracks that feel as though they were provided by a stadium rock style electronic generator, an inclination fuelled by the lingering doubt that at times the words don’t even quite fit the music". It claimed that "there are glimmers of variation and some slightly softer acoustic moments, Pride being a reasonable example, but not enough to be reassuring since they are ultimately always trampled over by overbearing and soulless backing tracks".

Music video
On 11 July 2012, Macdonald announced that she would be filming the video saying "Filming the video for Pride 2moro in Glasgow. Praying for a bit of respite from this beautiful Scottish summertime!" On 12 July 2012 she wrote "What a surprise! It's not raining!! Got loads of extra people helping in the video today, my bits not till later! Can't wait to see it :-)". The music video was first released onto YouTube on 6 August 2012 at a total length of three minutes and twenty-four seconds. Shortly after the video was uploaded it had to be removed due to technical issues. A new music video was uploaded shortly afterwards.

The video for "Pride" begins with Amy walking beside the River Clyde in Glasgow, it then shows Macdonald singing on a roof in Glasgow city centre. The video also shows a variety of people across Scotland including a footballer and a young boy walking into Hampden Park, two young girls in a Judo match, a farmer, a family, two sailors, a man who carried the Olympic torch, a local football team and a welder. The video also shows shots of Loch Lommond, Hampden Park and aerial shots of Glasgow.

Commercial performance
In Macdonald's native Scotland, "Pride" peaked at number eighty seven on the official Scottish Singles Charts before falling out the Top 100 of the Scottish Singles Charts the following week. It missed the Top 100 in the United Kingdom entirely, achieving a chart position of number one hundred and eighty seven. Similarly, in Belgium, it missed the Top 100 of the Ultratop 50 Singles (Flemish chart), but reached number thirty nine on the Ultratip Bubbling Under Flanders.

title: Pride (Amy Macdonald song)


text:
Joseph Beernaert

Joseph-Edouard-Louis Beernaert (21 April 1883 – 1950) was a Belgian soldier who reached the rank of Lieutenant-General. He was governor of the province of Congo-Kasaï in the Belgian Congo from 1925 to 1929.

Early career (1883–1929)
Joseph Beernaert was born on 21 April 1883. He was attached to the Ministry of Colonies in 1909. He made many trips to the Belgian Congo during his term of office. He was commissioner general, assistant to the governor of the province of Congo-Kasaï from 1925 to 1929. From 1928 he was secretary general, assistant to the governor general of the colony.

Governor of Congo-Kasaï (1929–1933)
Beernaert replaced Alphonse Engels as governor and deputy governor-general of Congo-Kasaï on 19 June 1929. His headquarters were at Léopoldville. In 1931 there was an economic crisis in the Belgian Congo triggered by problems in Belgium, the primary market, and an overvalued currency, leading to reduced exports. The head tax (impôt indigène) increased, and villages were unable to pay it. In 1931 there were widespread disturbances in the Kwango District of Congo-Kasaï, which the Ministry of Colonies later attributed to new administrative structures, availability of Force Publique units and overreaction by administrators. Additional troops were transferred to Kwango and Kikwat, and the district administrations declared martial law in the most unsettled areas. The troops acted as punitive columns. At Mukuku in August 1931 troops killed 56 people in a single encounter. Word of the violence spread, and villagers fled before the columns reached them, leading to optimism among the authorities that the rebellion was calming down.

The Dengese people in particular were influenced by millenarian cults that talked of driving out the Europeans. In Équateur Province, Governor Charles Duchesne responded with limited police action, and by the end of February 1932 the crisis there was over. Beernaert was less sympathetic to the Dengese, and on 20 October 1932 declared a state of emergency under decrees of 1906 and 1920, applied martial law to five chefferies and dispatched troops to restore order. The commissioner of Sankuru District blamed fetishism, claiming that traditional religious views had been distorted into claims that expelling the Europeans would solve all problems. He sent Force Publique troops into Kole Territory to force the villages to submit to authority. Beernaert held office until 1933. His successor was Paul Ermens, appointed on 17 August 1932.

Later career (1933–1950)
Beernaert was promoted to Major-General on 26 March 1939. Until 26 December 1939 he commanded the 1st Cavalry Division. On 26 December 1939 he was appointed General Officer Commanding 2nd Cavalry Division. In 1944 he was Inspector-General of the Army. He died in 1950.

title: Joseph Beernaert