User talk:Dan Polansky

Archives 2020-2024

See https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Web_design&diff=next&oldid=1936739 (the only contribution from that IP). They replaced the CSS Zen Garden screenshot – which is admittedly somewhat outdated, but still more relevant to web design than a 19th century painting. --78.23.192.69 (discuss) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reverted as you proposed (diff}}. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you for all your replies so far.

But I have responded to everything you made challenge of. I removed the empty set, I removed nothing implies nothing... and I rebutted your claim that nothing could logically exist.

Do you have any more challenges to my proof?

If not, could you add my proof to wikiphilosophers?

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:MarsSterlingTurner/What_there_is_Consciousness

I know you're an atheist. But that should not stop me from adding a proof of this quality from wikiphilosophers.... should it?

Only Christopher Langan's CTMU and Baroch Spinoza's Ethics come close to the quality of the proof that I provided... and both are considered academic material. MarsSterlingTurner (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:MarsSterlingTurner/What there is Consciousness is rank nonsense.

The question is at what length one should spend time here and effort to articulate point-by-point that your nonsense is nonsense; I don't know.

Your user page has some red flags as well, e.g. "I invented several stars and nuclear reactors" and "I invented a cheap and effective form of synthetic telepathy". It could also be meaningful to block you for block evasion (if it really is block evasion, but it seems very likely).

An example of a page that was moved to user space as not good enough: User:TyEvSkyo/Particle Sphere Theory, although it is pseudophysics, not pseudophilosophy. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you believe it's impossible to invent a nuclear reactor or envision a giant one capable of being a light and or electron source?

Do you believe synthetic telepathy is fake or something? Feel free to search the patent office for "synthetic telepathy". My invention does work, I have already applied it. and it produced extraordinary results.

You claimed that nothing can or did exist at some time. Which to me is rank nonsense that you have not proven. Do you think your mere claims can rebut logical tautologies? MarsSterlingTurner (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I requested a block at Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Block of MarsSterlingTurner, which was implemented. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

A later note: by searching for "nothing has the property of nothing", I found also the following 2025 discussion apparently started by MarsSterlingTurner (the user account there has a photo of the face):

• what pure logical tautologies can deduce, June 2025, atheistdiscussion.org

There are 5 pages of discussion. Apparently, the discussion members do show some engagement with this brand of low-grade material; they bother to respond. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The only argument you held against my work was that "nothing can't imply nothing"; but what do you think of the following;

I know you will grant that nothing is nothing.

But is can refer to the law of identity and therefore the biconditional; ↔

Therefore you must grant that {}↔{}

Now if the conditional can go both ways, it therefore is materially equivalent to going one way; →

Therefore you must grant {}→{}

In other words ({}is{})→({}↔{})→({}→{}) AssumingNOTHING (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I tried to explain the matter at User talk:MarsSterlingTurner#Reflexivity of implication and empty set etc.. Further engagement with this kind of thinking/argumentation seems unlikely to be productive/helpful. I opened Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Block of AssumingNOTHING. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is a different argument; Did you grant the biconditional? 2601:647:6512:3F4A:DD9D:BE18:F1E1:6F3A (discuss) 16:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, I do not grant (or agree with) the biconditional "{}↔{}", meaning "the empty set if and only if empty set": the latter is nonsense, to me, and thus so is the former. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Law of identity - Wikipedia

"Modern logic

In first-order logic, identity (or equality) is represented as a two-place predicate, or relation, =. Identity is a relation on individuals. It is not a relation between propositions, and is not concerned with the meaning of propositions, nor with equivocation. The law of identity can be expressed as , where x is a variable ranging over the domain of all individuals. In logic, there are various different ways identity can be handled. In first-order logic with identity, identity is treated as a logical constant and its axioms are part of the logic itself. Under this convention, the law of identity is a logical truth."

If equality is a logical truth, then identity is a logical equality.

Equals is logically equivalent to the biconditional. 2601:647:6512:805F:98A3:A945:B2BD:C73A (discuss) 11:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what the statement "equality is a logical truth" is supposed to mean or refer to. (Perhaps I should disengage; let us see.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I mean "law of equality" is a logical truth as "equality" and "identity" are interchangeable and it says "law of identity is a logical truth" therefore "law of equality is a logical truth", I said equality as a generalization for it's law.

Logical equality besides using = also can be expressed as the biconditional. Do you agree with that? 2601:647:6512:805F:45BC:E93D:A300:BAE1 (discuss) 19:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

What reliable/serious sources use the term "logical equality" and what do they mean by it? Wikipedia is not a serious source, so I do not take Wikipedia: Logical equality seriously (it does not trace the term to a serious source, actually to any source). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

As for "identity is a logical equality": if logical equality is sameness of truth values (is it?), then this statement is false, since identity (the two-place relation) works not only for truth values but also for integers, cats, etc. (I am the author of An analysis of identity.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Consulting https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3528250/what-is-the-difference-between-equality-and-logical-identity, this reinforces my request above for a definition/clarification of the term "logical equality". I would also like to see seriously sourced definition of "logical identity". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

∀x∀y[∀z((z∈x)↔(z∈y))]↔(x=y)

∀{}∀{}[∀{}(({}∈{})↔({}∈{}))]↔({}={}) ~2025-50652-2 (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

x↔y

{}↔{} ~2025-50652-2 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

[∀x∀y[∀z((z∈x)↔(z∈y))]↔(x=y)]=(x↔y)

[∀{}∀{}[∀{}(({}∈{})↔({}∈{}))]↔({}={})]=({}↔{}) ~2025-50652-2 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

[∀x∀y[∀z((z∈x)↔(z∈y))]↔(x=y)]=(x↔y)

question; IF [∀x∀y[∀z((z∈x)↔(z∈y))] Then (x↔y) ?

x={}, y={}, z={}

therefore [(({}∈{})↔({}∈{}))↔({}={})]=({}↔{})

If (({}∈{})↔({}∈{}) then ({}↔{})

Axiom of extensionality - Wikipedia ~2025-50652-2 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Therefore (x=y)=(x↔y)

Therefore ({}={})=({}↔{}) ~2025-50652-2 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Outdent) Anyone who has the first idea of the first-order logic (which is apparently employed here) must see that "∀{}∀{}[∀{}(({}∈{})↔({}∈{}))]↔({}={})" is sheer rubbish, even hilarious rubbish. The idea that you could take the meaningful ∀x∀y[∀z((z∈x)↔(z∈y))]↔(x=y) and get something meaningful from it by replacing all the variables with "{}" can hardly be more preposterous.

This is perhaps not surprising given that this rubbish is comming from someone who, is his own words, has invented several stars (whatever that is supposed to mean). I am inclined to keep removing any more posts from the same source and keep on asking for an indef block for block evasion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Out of curiosity, I entered the first two lines from the above into Google Gemini 2.5 Flash:

∀x∀y[∀z((z∈x)↔(z∈y))]↔(x=y)

∀{}∀{}[∀{}(({}∈{})↔({}∈{}))]↔({}={})

I got the following response:

The second expression you wrote, ∀{}∀{}[∀{}(({}∈{})↔({}∈{}))]↔({}={}), is not a valid logical or mathematical statement. It appears to be a pattern based on the first expression, but the use of empty curly braces {} makes it meaningless. The first expression, however, is a fundamental axiom in set theory. It is a formal way of stating the Axiom of Extensionality. [...]

Not too shabby. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I notice you deleted the post that corrected the issue you are claiming.

Here is what I put in the same AI; Google AI Studio

∀x∀y[∀z((z∈x)↔(z∈y))]↔(x=y)

x={}, y={}, z={}

therefore [({}∈{})↔({}∈{})]↔({}={})

If (({}∈{})↔({}∈{}) then ({}↔{})

therefore [[({}∈{})↔({}∈{})]↔({}={})]∧[[({}∈{})↔({}∈{})]→({}↔{})]

therefore ({}={})↔[({}∈{})↔({}∈{})]→({}↔{})

therefore [({}={})→({}↔{})]

Here was the response;

5. [({}={})→({}↔{})]

({}={}) is True.

If ({}↔{}) is interpreted as True, then True → True is True.

Summary:

Your logical deductions seem to follow correctly, given the initial interpretation of {}∈{} as false and {}↔{} as true (representing self-equivalence or equality).

Notice the AI accepts ({}↔{}) as true, due to my proof. ~2025-50652-2 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you had the first idea of what you are doing, you would not need to correct your obvious nonsense ("∀{}∀{}[∀{}(({}∈{})↔({}∈{}))]↔({}={})".

Let's play this game, though; perhaps it will be educational a bit despite the odds. I put your text above before "Summary:" to Gemini 2.5 Flash. The response I got is this: "Your logical derivation contains several misunderstandings of both set theory and logic. Let's break down where the reasoning goes wrong. [...]".

However, I put "Is the following accurate? ({}={})→({}↔{})" to Gemini 2.5 Flash. As part of the response, it says 'The notation ({}={}) and ({}↔{}) does not have a defined meaning in formal logic.' I will note that '{}={}' does have a well-defined meaning in the first-order logic applied to the language of set theory, but "{}↔{}" does not. As a word of warning, Gemini gives slightly different answers when I repeat the query in new sessions; in this sense, it is not deterministic. As a further word of warning, this is an inquiry into the behavior of Gemini more than into the meaning of "({}={})→({}↔{})" since GenAI cannot generally be relied on/trusted.

Another interesting prompt is "What does the following mean? ({}={})→({}↔{})". As part of a longer response, I get his:

'This means:

'"If x is equal to y, then x has the same truth value as y."

'This statement is always true in logic. If two variables or propositions are literally equal to each other, they must necessarily have the same properties, including their truth value.'

I don't agree with Gemini on this since x and y are not guaranteed to be truth values or objects carrying truth values. But things would improve thus: 'If x is equal to y, then x has the same truth value as y, as long as both x and y do have truth value.' However, this corrected sentence does not need to be true in Python or C++ since: "equal" would be interpreted as "==" rather than Python's is, and a class can redefine "==" to meaning something arbitrary and non-sensical as well as the bool casting operator, and then, in Python, possibly x == y while bool(x) != bool(y). If we try to carry this over to natural language, we may ask whether there is a significant difference between equality and identity; there is one in Python.

We see that Gemini contradicts itself: in response to the "Is the following accurate? [...]" prompt, it denies the expression has meaning, whereas in response to the "What does the following mean? [...]" prompt, it finds a meaning and explains it. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I put "is the following true; ({}↔{})?" in the AI

it said;

Yes, ({}↔{}) is true.

In propositional logic, "p ↔ q" (p if and only if q) is true if and only if p and q have the same truth value.

In this case, both sides of the biconditional are "{}", which represents an empty set. When considering the truth value of an empty set, it is often interpreted as being vacuously true or having a consistent truth value in certain contexts (like in set theory or type theory, an empty type might be considered true if it implies nothing).

However, in the simplest interpretation for a basic logical statement like this, if we treat "{}" as a proposition, and both sides are identical, then they must have the same truth value. Therefore, the biconditional is true. ~2025-50652-2 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with GenAI. When I try "{}↔{}" in Gemini, it interprets it as "The empty set exists↔The empty set exists". That makes no sense to me; in the language of first-order logic, "{}" is not a truth-value bearing expression, and it does not mean "The empty set exists". This is not going to get us anywhere.

In your latest page User:205.154.222.227/Theory_of_monism_panpsychism, you start with "assuming nothing" (except for logic, but you do not explicitly say so there) and arrive at the conclusion "Therefore energy is consciousness" and "Therefore consciousness is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, energy". That is another overt nonsense: you need some axioms of energy and consciousness; you cannot derive anything about them purely from logic axioms.

Above, I tried to supply additional dose of patience, especially for the benefit of the reader. I am inclined to no longer respond since this is not going anywhere and the nonsensical character of you page should be obvious to almost anyone who has the first idea of logic and philosophy. The people at https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=9242 agree with me; after having engaged with you a bit, they blocked you (and so did we at the English Wikiversity). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I have removed a fairly long post by the user, consisting mostly of favorable assessments of his material by various GenAI. Such material is already posted by him elsewhere (under a different user); no need to duplicate it here. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

For ease of reference, some locations where the debated/discussed material is available in some form (helpful search terms: "nothing has the property of nothing", "something has always existed everywhere", "something is self-causal"):

• User:MarsSterlingTurner/Consciousness, 2025
• User:MarsSterlingTurner/Ontology, 2025
• User:MarsSterlingTurner/What there is Consciousness, 2025
• User:MarsSterlingTurner/What there is Consciousness/Monism-Panpsychism-Pantheism Theorem, 2025
• User:MarsSterlingTurner/What there is Consciousness/Monism Panpsychism Pantheism Theorem/MarsSterlingTurner, 2025
• User:205.154.222.227/Theory of monism_panpsychism, 2025
• User:HumbleBeauty/Proof of monism, deleted in 2020
• Wikibooks:User:HumbleBeauty/Proof of monism peer review, 2020
• Wikibooks:User:HumbleBeauty/Worship technology, 2020
• Wikibooks:User:HumbleBeauty/Proof of monism peer review2, 2021
• Wikibooks:User:HumbleBeauty/Proof of monism peer review3, 2021
• Wikibooks:User:MeekFavor/proofs, 2023
• https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-reach-a-universal-truth
• https://www.quora.com/Have-all-scientific-attempts-to-date-failed-to-explain-why-there-is-something-rather-than-nothing-by-starting-with-the-assumed-existence-of-something
• what pure logical tautologies can deduce, June 2025, atheistdiscussion.org
• https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/User:HumbleBeauty/proofs
• https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/User:HumbleBeauty/Theory_of_monism_panpsychism
• https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Proofs_of_God
• https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Debate:Logical_proof_of_the_existence_of_God, 2014‎, user Selfreasoning4all
• https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Debate:Metalogical_reasoning_for_the_Divine, 2014‎, user Selfreasoning4all
• https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3590, 2010
• https://forum.atheistrepublic.com/t/is-this-proof-of-universal-consciousness/6893/4
• https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/monopantheism/21176?page=2, 2008, user MySiddhi with identifying photo; people trying to explain why he was wrong back in 2008
• https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1269204/, 2019, bumped in 2025 (warning: stormfront.org is some kind of white supremacist and anisemitic web)
• https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1425039/, 25 June 2025, user SubtleBeauty; user Lord Jim provides some impressively patient and competent responses

My guess is that any additional page with similar content should be outright deleted rather than moved to user space; there are more than enough user space page where IP anons can edit and expand this kind of material. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Expanded. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I tried to respond on the talk page but my edit was blocked by the abuse filter ("New User Exceeded New Page Limit"). Could you please allow me to post my reply? Nazwa Shabrina (bicara • kontrib) 12:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I want to fix the Sigma Spiral Constant page. Nazwa Shabrina (bicara • kontrib) 12:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

For context, I tagged Sigma Spiral Constant for proposed deletion and placed a rationale/justification into the template.

You should have no difficulty editing the Sigma Spiral Constant page. As for editing Talk:Sigma Spiral Constant, I would have thought you should be able to even as a new user. I just created Talk:Sigma Spiral Constant for the case that it would help you edit the talk page. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Now I can Nazwa Shabrina (bicara • kontrib) 06:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Dan Polansky,

I would like to inform you about your proposed deletion on the basic Scratch Coding page on Wikiversity. I am currently working on this project on Wikiversity and have created the project, and simply haven't found the time to contribute to the page, but I have managed to contribute to the page recently. I am currently improving the page, so I would like to remove the specific rationale.

Kind regards,

RailwayEnthusiast2025 —RailwayEnthusiast2025 ^{talk with me!} 15:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

P.S. : The Further Reading is on the 'Scratch' page, not on the 'basic Scratch Coding' page. —RailwayEnthusiast2025 ^{talk with me!} 15:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

A better venue for this topic is at Talk:Basic Scratch Coding. There I already provided some explanation. If that explanation is not enough or you have further questions, you can post there. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why did you move the above from the main page to my user page. I am sick and tired.You may suppose it is my self-promotion. Then you are terribly. It was my writing but ChatGPT's. No one could it write fairer than GPT. Please geit it back. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 06:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

1) We are talking about User:KayYayPark/System- vs. User-Oriented Information Retrieval. There, we read "Key contributions include: [...] K. Y. Park’s Direct Approach to Information Retrieval (1975), which emphasized user interaction with textual contexts (keywords and citations in context), representing an early user-oriented model." The page is not even marked as original research via a template and it does not state the author, thereby speaking in wiki voice. This is K.Y.Park (you) engaging in inappropriate promotion of a previously unpublished or poorly published thesis now available at A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval.

2) As for "No one could it write fairer than GPT", the idea that running something through ChatGPT (I am using Gemini) somehow consitutes a verification or validation (V&V) is pretty absurd, except perhaps for a most superficial validation imaginable.

As a result, I find my move fair and acceptable. My move is subject to review and reversal by full admins (or even semi-admins like myself?). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Even using Gemini does not validate your contribution, as per my new post here: User talk:KayYayPark/System- vs. User-Oriented Information Retrieval. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the record: Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Block_of_User:KayYayPark. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dear Dan Polansky, I came across your interesting argument on Talk:May anyone call themselves a philosopher? and I was curious about your thoughts on my latest theory; the Ninefold Resonance Theory. If you would like to respond, please do so on the discussion page! I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 15:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I responded at Talk:Ninefold Resonance Theory. I fear you are going to be disappointed with my analysis. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't expect you to react with surprise and to see this as some kind of scientific breakthrough or anything, so I didn’t have high expectations! I really appreciate your feedback. As you can see, I have refined my theory a bit. I am curious to know if you think it's an improvement! S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 18:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

How can I insert private photos into the article? -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 06:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can upload photos (png?) on Commons (you have to be the copyright holder!). Home page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Upload wizard: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B.C._Brookes_before_the_mailbox.jpg

How can I make the photo appear from the above? -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 07:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Following the above link, I get "No file by this name exists, but you can upload it." Your attempted upload must have failed? Other than that, the syntax [[File:B.C._Brookes_before_the_mailbox.jpg|thumb]] would include the image on the page. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've done it. Bother no more. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I see, you uploaded this: File:B.C. Brookes takes a motion to put a letter into the mailbox mouth.jpg. Although I think as a file, it is a bit too descriptive; it should ideally be shorter. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ya! I made it shorter. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

By the way, find my email adress from my [[User:KayYayPark]] and email me anything so that I can know your email address. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 10:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

How stupid I am! My email address: ishiakkum@google.com KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your email address is a piece of sensitive, personally identifying information (it is one item that can, together with other items, help establish numerical identity of a human person). Revealing it on wiki is not necessarily what you want. Any bot can scan this page and then, someone can send you spam (even though you do have a spam filter, probably). You can ask your email address to be hidden (I think only a full admin can do it; I am a semi-admin/curator). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I noticed with some alarm your combativeness with my deletion requets. On looking at your contributions, I see a substantial number of original research resources you have developed, few of which have been reviewed.

When are you going to seek peer review for them? How will you be arranging for such?

ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

After I have seen your performance in another discussion in the English Wikiversity, I am inclined to disengage. I will respond to inquiries from Wikiversity custodians, for example. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Very well. I may start requesting many of your resources be deleted for lacking peer review. Apologies. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not aware of any policy-based requirement of a peer review for original research articles in the English Wikiversity. Nor has any custodian notified me of a requirement for peer review. Nor has, since the end of 2022, anyone notified me of such a requirement. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Inspired by the above impulse, I asked myself where in the English Wikiversity one can find something like a peer review. I know of the following:

1) Wikijournals. They seem to take peer review quite seriously. That's something like a separate subproject of the English Wikiversity, so much so that there is a proposal to make it a completely standalone project.

2) J.T.Neill is providing comments for his students in subpages of Motivation and emotion. However, it is not a peer review, literaly speaking, since he is a teacher and not a peer/on the same level.

I cannot recall anything else. Perhaps there are more people like J.T.Neill; not that I remember right now.

I sometimes act as a partial reviewer by posting comments to pages, most recently here: Talk:Ninefold Resonance Theory (a page that is perhaps really for the user space rather than mainspace). But I assume no responsibility for comprehensiveness of these comments. (I have an extensive experience as a document reviewer from one of my previous jobs.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dan,

I saw that you deleted and protected Enhancing Web Browser Security through Cookie Encryption citing possible copyvio from ResearchGate. I want to clarify that I am the original author of that ResearchGate publication. Since I hold the copyright, there is no violation. I am willing to release the text and figures under CC-BY-SA 4.0, which is compatible with Wikiversity.

If needed, I can add an explicit license release statement on my userpage or the article’s talk page to confirm. The earlier move of the page was only due to a title mismatch (“Cookie Encryption”), not notability or copyvio.

Could you please advise how I should proceed to restore the page correctly with a clear license statement? I want to ensure the resource remains available under free licensing for Wikiversity readers.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

—Tom Joe James ~2025-27242-55 (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I checked https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391195563_Securing_and_Enhancing_Web_Browser_Security_through_Cookie_Encryption to see whether I can find any license statement. I find none. I cannot take a word from an anonymous IP account as reliable, in general; I have no means to verify the identity.

But let's consider something else: what is the benefit from publishing the same text in the English Wikiversity? The text is already available as full text in researchgate.net, with references and properly formatted figures (which the page I deleted lacked). Surely the reader has all he needs in researchgate and suffers no loss from no article in the English Wikiversity? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The paper published in research gate is a pdf, which is not readable by LLMs or Web Crawlers properly.

Publishing an Textual version of the paper ensures that the content is correctly indexed.

And just like you, I've uploaded all the Wikiversity Rules to the GenAI and then asked for its opinions, it clearly stated that our paper is still eligible to be hosted in Wikiversity. (Source: ChatGPT & Gemini after uploading Wikiversity several rule pages as Texts) ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The link above is not a PDF (there is an additional button to get to a pdf). As for searchability by Google, I tried to search from "Securing browser cookies has been addressed by several" (from the article) and it found researchgate and Wikisource. Meanwhile, the Wikisource page was deleted (S:Securing and Enhancing Web Browser Security through Cookie Encryption). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dan, Kindly restore my previous comment that you have dismissed as "GenAI" Slop. So that others may follow our discussion. I have sent it so that you may understand my reasons. It was sent in a Good faith, not to spam or to vandalise.

The research gate link is is not pdf, but a document. Which cannot be viewed unless it is downloaded. There is a clear difference between a document and a web page. Even if the document gets indexed. It might not be read properly as it is structured differently.

This is why a Wikiversity must be created for this document. ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Anyone can see you post here. I saw Wikipedia editors dismiss discussion input that is overt (and not signalled/indicated) GenAI slop. It seems a good idea to me to dismiss this kind of input. Sure enough, one can productively use GenAI to improve one's writing and discover items and ideas, but this overt voluminous slopping is a really bad idea, I think. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I used AI to expand my points to help you understand reasons behind my actions. Removing an entire reply from the main view instead of addressing it, is not a collaborative behaviour. ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

As for "The research gate link is is not pdf, but a document. Which cannot be viewed unless it is downloaded.": That's not accurate: I viewed the document without downloading it (other than browser in a sense downloading any web page to serve it to the reader). The only problem with ResearchGate is that it seems to break down lines to achieve formatting so that Control + F on longer word sequences can fail. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could you tell me how this paper is not eligible to be on Wikiversity? ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Possible copyright violation, at a minimum. The April 2025 publishing venue (ResearchGate) has a page that does not indicate any license. Anyone responsible for the article would first have to contact ReserchGate and make them attach a license. Even then, we would need to clarify why double publication is an acceptable thing in this case. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will add the license as soon as possible in the researchgate page.

And this is not a double publication, Research Gate is a self archive. And publishing in Wikiversity ensures accessibility. Improving visibility and indexing. We do not want our researchgate profile to be indexed. We want the content inside the paper to be indexed so that in the future LLMs can index it and train on the data. Research Gate acts as a formal preprint.

I hope everything is clarified.~2025-27520-79 (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Disclaimer: I am inexperienced with this matter. I make no promises on what will be allowed in Wikiversity. There are other admins (I am a semi-admin) around, and they can help resolve the relevant questions, I think. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Moreover, I asked Google Gemini: "In Academic publishing, is it okay to publish the same article in multiple venues?" It said: "It is generally not okay to publish the same exact article in multiple academic venues. This practice is considered unethical and is known as duplicate publication or redundant publication. [...]", with two links to sources. Sure enough, I went the cheap way and GenAI cannot be considered reliable, and would need to go to the sources and investigate the issue. But as a first quick impression, it reinforces my decision not to support recreation of the article in the English Wikiversity until someone can convincingly argue that GenAI is wrong. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I removed from this place a post that is a GenAI slop (see this edit from User:Tomlovesfar). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

(I am now responding here at the bottom, in part to a subthread above, to make it easier.)

The principle implied in the proposed action is this:

"The English Wikiversity should allow itself to be used as a double/duplicate repository for appropriately licensed content from ResearchGate, in part to drive LLMs."

I am not sure/clear that this is a good principle, for the English Wikiversity. (Greetings to Kant, so hated by Rand.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’d like to clarify that this is not a case of double or duplicate publication in the academic sense.

ResearchGate is a self-archiving platform, similar to a preprint repository. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, and its content is not indexed or presented in a web-friendly, accessible format.

Wikiversity, on the other hand, is an open educational platform, with the goal of making knowledge freely reusable, remixable, and indexable (especially in plain-text formats). Publishing here is not a "duplicate", but a different mode of dissemination serving different audiences.

While driving LLM accessibility is a modern consideration, the primary goal is broader accessibility for human learners, researchers, and educators who may not access or index ResearchGate content easily.

The version proposed for Wikiversity is freely licensed, educational, and structured for reuse

As for Kant and Rand, I’ll just say I’m aiming for pragmatic clarity, not dogmatic idealism ~2025-27507-81 (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's it. I am not engaging with GenAI slop. I am keeping the above slop for the reader; I think I will remove any other slop. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

As an item of public deliberation: we do not know whether the above interaction is with someone named "Tom Joe James"; neither self-disclosure by an anonymous IP editor nor relevantly named user account firmly establish the matter/the identity. It could well be just a disruption from an entity that for some reason wants to disrupt the English Wikiversity (why would they target such backwaters is not clear, but they could). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The IP addresses belongs to Tom Joe James.

I have been editing from my mobile phone, hence the guest edits.

All of the above comments and replies were from me. You can check out my User:tomlovesfar and I have been contributing to the English Wikipedia under the same username tomlovesfar.

However, after updating my license on the research gate page, I would proceed to recreate the page under the same title but from my main account. That will be all from my side, Kindly do not delete any of the pages without proper discussion or warnings.

Best Regards,

Tom Joe James ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unless you send me a scan of your ID document, I have no way of reliably knowing who you are (but even ID documents can be fake). And as a curator/semi-admin, I guess I am not trusted to deal with this kind of sensitive information.

I guess you better chance is with other curators and custodians than with me. You can ask someone to review my approach. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That isn't necessary, you can head over to my LinkedIn and under volunteering section I have mentioned my wikipedia contributions along with my username.

or checkout my orcid id - 0009-0000-4896-9046

https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4896-9046

That is more enough to prove it. ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

So I checked https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomjoejames-/; I do not see Wikipedia user account stated ("Tomlovesfar")? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

my apologies, I forgot that I had removed the screenshots.

I have updated it once again. Kindly check it ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are screenshots, but a search for "Tomlovesfar" does not find anything in the text. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have updated it in the description.

"User:tomlovesfar" ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, now we know that some entity has access both to the above IP account and to the LinkedIn account (really? am I jumping to conclusions?).

I propose the following: 1) you make sure ResearchGate text has proper license there; 2) after that is completed, you contact some custodians (I am a curator) to review my approach. Before 1) is completed, any further communication is beside the point. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dan,

As requested, I have updated my ResearchGate publication with an explicit CC BY-SA 4.0 license statement. I’ve also mirrored this on my Wikiversity userpage for verification.

Could you please reconsider restoring the article, or alternatively allow a custodian to review?

Thank you,

—Tom Joe James Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Outdent) I skimmed the article at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391195563_Securing_and_Enhancing_Web_Browser_Security_through_Cookie_Encryption. I also searched (Control+F) for "Licen". I did not find anything. Where in the page should I look? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Securing and Enhancing Web Browser Security through Cookie Encryption

• April 2025
• DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15287972License
• CC BY-SA 4.0 you should find it under the Title

Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the license item. I refreshed the browser as well, also hard refresh using Control+F5. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have opened the link using incognito, It is still visible to me.

Kindly Check this screenshot as well as this link. if possible send me your screenshot

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391195563_Securing_and_Enhancing_Web_Browser_Security_through_Cookie_Encryption

You can find it under the date & DOI number Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Still not seeing it; I tried a browser I hardly ever use, but I do not see it there either. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I also do not see the yellowish/orangish rectangle about preprints. Perhaps you page is in preprint mode so I cannot see the change? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that you being served an old cache version. Maybe logging in would serve you the latest version. Or try clearing cache ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://zenodo.org/records/15287972

Here is the Zenodo Link, Where our DOI is registered. The License is clearly mentioned under the tab "Rights"

Hope this helps, Let me know how we can further proceed. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Outdent) I am still not seeing the license, and as I said, I used a different browser so the problem should not be in the browser cache.

Moreover, I started Wikiversity:Colloquium#Publishing text from ResearchGate in Wikiversity as a copy to collect input from others. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand how this is possible. I have updated it in Zenodo, It should be visible to you. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Just letting you know that I’ve raised a concern about our recent interaction at the Colloquium for review by other custodians.

This is not meant to escalate conflict but to ensure transparency and get a fair, neutral perspective on how the discussion unfolded. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I second that Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 11:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you use preview? It would be easier to look to the history, then if you use it a do not save with multiple small edits in a short period of time. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I follow an editing process that I find most productive for idea capture, which involves many rather small edits to my sandbox. I am investigating alternative options, but this is extremely productive. From my experience, editing in a long series of small edits is fairly common in the English Wikiversity, so I do not expect objections from native English speakers. As for the ease of reviewing the editing history, there is no need for anyone to inspect the editing history of my sandbox. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your talk page is your sandobox? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I thought you were referring to my editing in small edits of User:Dan Polansky/sandbox, which is very extensive to the point that I am exploring alternatives (but it is very productive!) As far as I recall, my editing of my talk page does not suffer from this that much. It rather often happens that I save a response and only then realize I would like to amend it. So I do amend it. In the end, my posts are sometimes made in 2-3 edits. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see. Well, but that may lead to edit conflicts. I usually tend not to fix grammar erors send to the server not to cause such problems. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

As I was thinking about it, the above "Your talk page is your sandobox?" shows overt carelessness: 1) "sandobox" should not have "o"; 2) it should have a proper English question sentence form, "Is your talk page your sandbox?" But even that sounds sort of irritating to me; something is off. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Outdent) Some questions to be clarified:

1) When editing one's talk page or another page where one participates on a discussion, should one carefully review the text before posting it, to avoid edit conflicts?

2) When (in relation to the above), even with best care, one notices a need to edit one's post to a discussion, and when no one has responded yet, should one avoid further editing one's post, in view that this may lead to an edit conflict, causing a complication for the responding person?

3) If the answer to item 2) is no, one should take risk of edit conflict: should the person suspecting and fearing an edit conflict edit their response e.g. in Notepad and avoid posting a response until some reasonable time elapses, e.g. 5 minutes?

4) When one is not a native speaker of the language of communication (here English), should one remind oneself that one is composing in a foreign language, which will naturally lead to more mistakes that need correcting? Should one therefore be tolerant/kind toward oneself, and accept the repeated edits as a cost of trying to deliver value in a foreign language?

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why can the seperate See Also page not be transplanted into another page with "Template:See Also"? -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 08:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Instead of responding to the above, let me point out I recently opened a request: Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Block of User:KayYayPark or prohibition of new pages. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why do you like me to be blocked? -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let me note that it is quite remarkable that you apparently forgot the skills that you had under User:KYPark account. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am supposed to have lost a lot. What a pity! It seems so because of my old age. The above question is quite embarassing, because I confirmed it from my old page. There is nothing wrong with my present practice. Anyway you must know what's wrong with "See Also" of Memex. Please tell me. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

There, {{See_Also}} returns Template:See Also in red color. Why not returning properly? -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dan, After looking at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Concern_regarding_curator_conduct_User:Dan_Polansky and my own personal experiences, I would like to politely ask you to instead of asking for deletion of my learning resources, try and help me improve and give advice. After all, I am fairly inexperienced at Wikiversity. I understand that you might be helping at Wikiversity, but for similar situations with this deletion matter, please hand it over to other curators or custodians such as @Atcovi or @Koavf. In the meantime, please can you give me advice on how to improve, as I have seen you are fairly experienced here.

Thanks,

RE —RailwayEnthusiast2025 ^{talk with me!} 20:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

As an immediate concern, if there is some learning resource that in principle belongs here but in practice is insufficient or inappropriate, userfying it is a good short-term solution. Just move a page from foo to User:RailwayEnthusiast2025/foo and build it up until it's acceptable and move it into the main namespace. I'm not knowledgeable enough about any particular resource or making any implicit claim about the quality of your work, just saying that this is a perfectly amenable solution. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@RailwayEnthusiast2025: In this edit from 18 September 2025, you removed request for deletion from Basic Scratch Coding, which was really a request for moving to user space. Rather than delete pages, I usually move them to user space, based on Wikiversity tradition; an exception is when there is a suspicion of copyright violation, but even in such cases, I plan to use Template:Copyrighted much more, in case of doubt, instead of immediate deletion.

As it is, Basic Scratch Coding is not ready for mainspace. Ideally, it should be moved to user space, after which you will have indefinite time to work on it.

A relevant discussion already took place at Talk:Basic Scratch Coding, where I said: "I now added a proposed deletion since in this state, the course is of little use. There is a protective period of 3 months before deletion, expiring on December 14, 2025. Even then, the page would typically be not outright deleted but rather moved to user space. I feel this is not too harsh; by Dec 14 2025, over a year will have elapsed from this page having been started". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

A note, perhaps an aside: I got involved with pages by Harold Foppele after he pinged me at Talk:Quantum A Matter Of Size. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

What have i to do with all this? DFX Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Actually, you are correct. If a project is in mainspace, it should help participants learn. Draft namespace and userspace is a place in where you can develop your pages. Thanks for helping me understand. —RailwayEnthusiast2025 ^{talk with me!} 18:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Let me add that I am not the boss here: if I assess a page as not fit for the mainspace, you or anyone else can challenge my decision at WV:RFD as a request for undeletion (moving out of mainspace is quasi-deletion) and then we call collect input from others on your artifact (page or a set of pages). I am fallible and make mistakes, more than I care to admit, but I am trying to learn from them, again and again. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

So creation of a learning materials is no longer community driven? Why they cannot be developed in the main name space? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. I only really moved these pages to my user space due to @Dan Polansky giving the advice that my projects weren't good enough for my namespace mainspace. It His language seemed as if he were to drive me off Wikiversity and as if my contributions weren't valued. —RailwayEnthusiast2025 ^{talk with me!} 16:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

• mainspace —RailwayEnthusiast2025 ^{talk with me!} 16:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

My question was for Justin, as you can see I am idnenting it below his post. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 17:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it you who has deleted Korean/문맥색인요약, and some other Korean articles under Korean? Then please explain why these are unfair to be there under Korean? -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can see here @KayYayPark, who have deleted that page. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you but I am sorry the above link links to the deleted page. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 08:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The page was deleted by MathXplore with the summary "Not English. See https://www.wikiversity.org to find where contributions may be appreciated". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it is appropriate to ask users what their qualifications are and question their qualifications? Not me. Wikiversity is not some kind of professional workplace where we would copy the structures of a real university and decide who has what degrees or expertise. Wikiversity is an open educational space that allows even those who are not qualified to teach and learn. The question is also how you can recognize the qualification in the field of physics when you yourself write that you are a programmer. But even if you could, there are certainly more appropriate ways dispute the quality of the resource, as the discusion on the resource talk page or Template:Citation needed. If you are unhappy with these traditional or available ways you may propose new policy on such a content. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The policy proposal Wikiversity:Artificial intelligence states:

"Generative artificial intelligence large language models may be able to generate text that may be suitable for inclusion on Wikiversity. However, to be acceptable:

"The contributor should be an expert on the topic

"[...]"

I suspected that the user used GenAI. I therefore found it appropriate to investigate whether he was an expert on the topic of quantum mechanics, or at least had a half-decent basic knowledge. Out of courtesy, I expressly indicated that a response to my inquiry was not required by a policy (since this is a policy proposal, not a policy): "Since you are entering articles on advanced physics, it would be worthwhile to know your qualification, e.g. university-level degree. Disclaimer: as far as I know, Wikiversity has not introduced any codified requirement of your disclosing such qualification."

If the English Wikiversity determines that such an inquiry is undesirable/inappropriate, I can accept that, even though somewhat begrudgingly, since I think a voluntary disclosure of one's qualification is a very good thing in the context of the English Wikiversity (and should even be mandatory for those who insert GenAI output?).

On a relational note, I do not think you are in the position to make edicts telling me what I may and may not do; you can make proposals at best. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It has been determined here since 2006. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The page Wikiversity:Etiquette has neither policy nor guideline status. The consensual support for that page is unclear. Whether anyone carefully reviewed the page with the intent of finding errors and possible harm resulting from the page is unclear. For instance, the page says "Use edit summaries", but that is very often ignored in the English Wikiversity; this suggests that the page as a whole does not have consensus. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry Dan. You are not here in the position of an authority to test newbies. You can dispute content - if you see copyright violation you can ask for the prove, that the author uses its text or delete it. But why you investigate the users this way? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

My response above at #Questions about qualifications and questioning expertise is applicable here. By asking "Can you, in your own words, quickly describe the double slit experiment here?", I tried to determine whether the user had at least a very basic idea of quantum mechanics, in part since that was required by the policy proposal, and in part since it has bearing on authorship of content being entered into Wikiversity.

The link you provided, https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harold_Foppele&oldid=2759624, shows the editor to be very problematic, yet you take his side and take no reservation to his conduct. (Part of the response self-censored as perhaps better avoided, after all.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it you who deleted the above page? --KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This was edited directly so that I have no copy. I was going to upload it to x.com. Please do me a favor to return that deleted copy back to me either way, say, via email ishiakkum@gmail.com. KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Email sent. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The page was deleted by MathXplore with the deletion summary "Not English. See https://www.wikiversity.org to find where contributions may be appreciated". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Moving the issue to the Coloquium. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 07:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The above is in reference to User talk:Juandev#Page move, September 2025, where I spent quite a bit of effort to explain why keeping User:Juandev/MediaWiki questions and answers in mainspace is a bad idea.

You can request undeletion of pages (move to user space is quasi-deletion) in WV:Requests for deletion; that is the standard process. On the other hand, using Colloquium is perhaps okay, especially if you want to clarify general principles. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikiversity:Community Review/Dan Polansky. I have temporarily removed Curator rights pending the outcome of the discussion. --mikeu ^talk 06:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@User:Mu301: I responded there. Can you clarify why you removed the rights before the discussion rather than after the discussion? Did I misuse the rights in any way, or was there a risk of my misuse of the rights? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hitting a limit as to what I can usefully patch at my access level.

I've sandboxed a new version of Collapse top. (Template:Collapse top/sandbox Please review. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The remaining non content or userspace instances of the Lint concerned are mostly template transclusions, which need the protected templates to be patched :(. I can't do this. so would appreciate someone with the relevant access doing so, based on the approach I have been taking. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not clear what I can do for you; I was a curator, and currently, I do not have the curator rights (see also Wikiversity:Community Review/Dan Polansky). So either I can do that for you if and after I get the curator flag back, or perhaps you are better off going to Colloquium. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you know that it's not appropriate to publicly call someone a troll? It only leads to an escalation of the conflict. If someone bothers you, it doesn't mean that they are a troll. It's just a personal incompatibility. In order for someone to be called a troll, there must be a consensus of several users, and the discussion about it often takes place offline to avoid developing a conflict. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not clear that engaging the above multi-wiki convicted troll (intentional disruptor causing significant harm/economic loss) Juandev is a good idea (more at Wikiversity:Community Review/Dan Polansky). For anyone reading this and wanting to know about the topic of troll-labeling, I will write something.

My understanding is quite different. The above makes it seem as if there is some universally accepted and universally valid principle unconditionally prohibiting troll-labeling. But I have seen a different practice. I have myself said of user AP295 that I wondered whether his behavior was a kind of trolling and no one complained (User talk:AP295, "I wonder whether what I am seeing is a certain kind of trolling."). AP295 was indeffed in the English Wiktionary with reference to trolling, and the block of AP295 at Meta also referenced trolling, per https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralAuth&target=AP295. Disregarding now the observable actual practice, early detection and neutralization of intentionally disruptive editors is vital for the health of the project, as the English Wikiversity should know by now only too well, with memory of major disruptors Abd and Marshallsumter. One may perhaps wonder whether the label "disruptor" is better than "troll" since it does not impute intent, but in the case of Harold Foppele, the disruption being intentional is manifest. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

See here for the reasons. Inappropriate usage of your talk page will also result in you losing access to it.

Also, your page on Juandev is not welcomed here, and per your comment: "If some custodian considers this manner of collection inappropriate, I can accept that (even if begrudgingly) and I request that the content of the page is sent to my email if the page is deleted", I will send the content of this page to your email so you can have it for your own records and have it be off-wiki. Thanks. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will copy your reason here for ease of reference, from Special:Diff/2775054: "I have blocked Dan for 1 week due to the obvious disruptive conduct taking place in this community review. Dan is using this community review as a way to launch unsupported attacks against other users, including allegations of me using "GenAI" to create my pages and an unnecessary comment on another user's contributions to our project. Also, the canvassing taking place here is also indicative of Dan's lack of remorse for his actions. Lastly, the LTA, who is also asserting Dan's racist comments (which Dan has not addressed nor expressed remorse for), leaves a bad impression on our community. I want to remind everyone that proposals for this project's removal have took place in the past, and we surely don't want another discussion to be brought up for WV's removal. I'm hoping that the block imposed here will give some time for the community to productively discuss this community review, and for Mike to make his comments or give his final verdict. If Dan returns after the block and continues to pursue his disruptive, slanderous campaign, a harsher block will be imposed. Thanks." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you clarify which canvassing are you talking about? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain why you deleted User:Dan Polansky/User Juandev? The page contained detailed evidence supporting a measure agains Juandev. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As for your statements that I am making allegations, I have asked a question, not alleged: "Since the pages have at least a modicum of GenAI wibe, I would like to ask you whether you used GenAI to compose these pages, whether in whole or in part. The policy draft/policy proposal concerning GenAI is WV:Artificial intelligence." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As for "Dan's racist comments": my task as the wikidetate/pro-con-analysis creator was to provide arguments for both sides rather than only arguments I agree with. I therefore provided the most salients arguments I could figure out that were in the air, as it were. These were not my comments; these were comments of an abstract potential Wikidebate participant, something like a literary figure. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As per Wikidebate, "Wikidebate is a collaborative learning project to gather and organize all arguments on controversial issues", italics mine. Granted, the word "all" needs to be interpreted somewhat non-literarily; the arguments need to have a modicum of relevance and strength. But it is not suggestive of censorship, not even self-censorship. You did not yet take the opportunity to open a Colloquium discussion about Wikidebate and the debate format; why not? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I noticed your another edit where you seem to indicate that the following is a "canvassing". Is that right, is that canvassing? "As an aside, can you help support my proposal at Wikiversity:Colloquium#General ban on direct use of GenAI output with exceptions so that we can curb/limit a developing harm of the English Wikiversity, the mounting volume of mainspace pages with predominantly GenAI-generated output?" --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would like to remind you that the blocking tools include the option to block specifically Wikiversity:Community Review/Dan Polansky, if that is the main part of rationale. If you change the block to that page specifically, or also to mainspace, I will be able to continue post my analyses to my user space, for the benefit of myself and perhaps others. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was blocked by user Atcovi for the following: "continued disruptive editing, unwillingness to cooperate, cross-wiki harassment, and further time-wasting".

I do not know what that refers to. No diffs or links were provided. I consider the unsubstatiated statements and the block itself highly inappropriate. I find it libelous. It is not acceptable to talk in generalities like that without a shred of substantiation, to my mind.

The overt disruptor Harold Foppele continues unabated, with no block against him at all. This is all just absurd.

Today, I opened the following discussion, in which Atcovi should provide answers:

• Wikiversity:Colloquium#PSYC322 - Adolescent Psychology and potential plagiarism

The discussion is about pages by Atcovi and his potential plagiarism. His use of block tool against me after this is, to my mind, highly inappropriate. What has become of the English Wikiversity? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply