Deletion requests follow.

I move/propose tomove to user space, ofKYPark (talk •email •contribs •stats •logs •global account). 1) This material cannot be meaningfully maintained and expanded since it has no stated selection criteria (it is not clear which literature should be listed). 2) The quasi-database format (e.g. inLiterature/1963/Popper) does not seem particularly useful. 3) The current material, where it is filled, is of unclear utility. I find perhaps the quotations most interesting; but these would be for Wikiquote? Even if the quotations would be for Wikiversity as well, the problem 1) still needs a solution (which literature?). 4) Taking e.g. section Chronology inLiterature/1975/Ricoeur, it is unclear what the content is supposed to be, that is, chronology of what it is. A broader problem: the design of sections and the intended content and selection criteria for the sections are so unobvious that they need specification, but none seems available.

Disclaimer: I created the pageLiterature myself to simplify tracking of the subpages (which are listed there), but the subpages were all or nearly all created by KYPark.

Venue: I could have usedproposed deletion but since so many pages (subpages) are involved, I (tentatively) chose Request for deletion, to get more eyeballs.

Alternative: should this stay in mainspace, it should somehow indicate that this is KYParks's provenience and that he is the author. This could be done by renaming it e.g. toLiterature (KYPark). I prefer moving to userspace, but if opposition develops to it, renaming like this would also be an improvement.

--Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)15:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I havemoved this to user space. Some items moved could have possibly been not from KYPark (I noticed one by Marshallsumter); it is hard to know which they were. Resulting root page:

• User:KYPark/Literature

I am not happy not meeting the four-eye principle here (no explicit support), but as it is, almost no one is participating on RfD, so I went ahead despite the unsatisfactory state as for explicit consensus.

I can imagine restoring the pages toLiterature (KYPark),LitDB/KYPark or the like. For this to happen, KYPark would have to explain the design of this quasi-database. The pages needs to have some utility for the viewers, not just KYPark; if they are only for KYPark, user space is a good fit. Since he is apparently no longer using the KYPark account (or is he?), I am pinging his new account:User:KayYayPark. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)13:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some templates apparently involved in this LitDB:Template:Navigate20c,Template:Cite plus,Template:Cite onlyinclude. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)14:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I now discovered somewhat similar material is atWikipedia: Special:PrefixIndex/User:KYPark, usually organized by years but not authors (but some author pages are there). --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)12:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

(I go to RfD instead ofproposed deletion since I expect opposition.)

Too little to learn from here, IMHO. The page mainly links to pages outside of Wikiversity written by the creater of the Wikiversity page. I find the title misleading as well; the page contains Chinese phrases coined by the page author and these cannot be properly calledproverbs until the language users at large recognizes them as such. The material seems to fail to go beyond what would be a self-promotion (caveat: most content can be interpreted as self-promotion; one has to differentiate).

Moving to user space instead of outright deletion is fine by me. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)08:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the feedback and the opportunity to clarify.

My intention with Modern Chinese Proverbs and Sayings by Hé Xiǎojū / Kenny Ho is not self-promotion but to document a long-term cultural and linguistic project in creating modern proverbs, so that they may be studied, critiqued, and preserved in a structured way. Wikiversity’s scope of allowing original research and educational resources seemed appropriate, as the project can serve as a reference point for language learners, cultural studies, and comparative literature.

That said, I understand the concerns expressed. In the interest of avoiding conflict and respecting the community’s guidelines, I am comfortable with the page being moved into user space rather than being deleted outright. This way, the material remains available for anyone who wishes to study it, while addressing the concern of it not yet fitting mainspace standards.

If the page is moved, I would be grateful if you could kindly point me to the new user-space link, so I may continue maintaining it properly.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ho Siew KhuiKennyHoProverbs (discuss •contribs)03:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Explained this way, I would keep the page and I would kindly ask @KennyHoProverbs if they can add someProject boxes to indicate other users how to deal with the content.Juandev (discuss •contribs)19:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Juandev, for the kind suggestion. I’ll go ahead and add the project boxes as you proposed. Much appreciated.KennyHoProverbs (discuss •contribs)04:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’ve now implemented the project boxes as Juandev suggested. Thank you again for the helpful pointer.

I also appreciate the ongoing guidance from the community as I continue learning the ropes here.KennyHoProverbs (discuss •contribs)04:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

(This template was created byDave Braunschweig.)

I struggle to understand why this template is a good idea. It is now sometimes used instead of deletion; and then, it has the effect of deletion (in that the content is no longer visible but for the revision history) but without any deletion process at all (not evenproposed deletion) and ends up being de facto speedy quasi-deletion. What the template does is that it creates a soft redirect to Wikipedia. I struggle to understand for what pages this should be done. We could place this template to a large set of encyclopedic headwords, but this has not been done. I do not see what headwords have a specific property indicating use of this template.

As an alternative to use of this template, I propose to delete or rather quasi-delete (e.g. by moving to user space) pages that are decided to be unfit for Wikiversity mainspace.

The template is currently used in 14 pages in the mainspace. It was used in more pages before I removed it from some of them some time ago, but it almost certainly was used in less than 100 pages. A list of pages where this is used, for reference:Musical direction,Face perception,Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus,Reticuloendothelial cells,Zagatala State Nature Reserve,Windows service,.NET,Engine vacuum,Khanom Khrok,Piaget,Bophelong,New Delhi Institute of Management,Aaajiao, andTalagang. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)09:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky At the time, I had a bot running that would delete pages with the Advise template after 30 days. I found that tagging pages with the template helped users understand why the page content had disappeared vs. just deleting it and/or trying to explain to them elsewhere. It was a time saver as well as hopefully more informative for users.

Any pages with Advise on them can be deleted. Whether or not you keep the template is up to you. I found it helpful, but I don't foresee having time to use it myself going forward.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss •contribs)22:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Dave Braunschweig: Thank you for the explanation; it now makes sense. I propose to delete the template since you are no longer active to be deleting the pages maked by the template after 30 days and no one seems to have picked up the slack (is that the phrase?). But if the template is not deleted, it is good to know that I can feel free to delete the pakes marked by the template. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)07:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This page is no longer required --Alandmanson (discuss •contribs)20:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

YDone —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯21:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This page is also no longer required --Alandmanson (discuss •contribs)20:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

YDone —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯21:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This was in RfD before and was kept (here), so I am using RfD again instead of proposed deletion.

I propose to quasi-delete bymove to user space. From what I can see, this is a highly incomplete English translation of the Bible: only very few chapters/subpages are bluelinks and the rest are redlinks. The translation was started by globally banned/lockedUser:Poetlister, so it is unlikely to continue. In this state, the learning outcomes are scarce, of the readers. Admittedly, editors could learn by doing their own translations here for the redlinked chapters, but after Poetlister was blocked, no one seems to have been interested (or have I overlooked someone?). Readers interested in English translations of the Bible are better served by existing complete translations both in Wikisource and elsewhere, many of them executed with remarkable professionality and competence. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)07:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Userfy ordelete are both fine options. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯10:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.Moved to user space. At least a month elapsed from the nomination. Given the low participation, this is proto-consensus. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)06:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I createdWikiversity:Colloquium#What to do with remaining Marshall Sumter pages in Colloquium, especially since its concerns fairly many pages. But since it deals with quasi-deletion (by moving to user space), I am also posting a notification here (for case that someone is only monitoring requests for deletion, as unlikely as it seems). --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)05:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

(I go to RfD instead ofproposed deletion since many pages are affected.)

I proposed to quasi-delete, i.e.move to userspace of the main (or sole?) creator,KYPark (talk •email •contribs •stats •logs •global account).

The page is organized a little bit like a dictionary. It makes it redundant to Wiktionary except that Wikiversity allows original research and there does seem to be original research there. Thus, its being organized as a dictionary would alone not necessarily be a problem.

Where I see a problem is in the organization and execution/implementation. ConsiderKorean/Words/가다, which seems rather typical of the subpages (some subpages are like categories and transclude the pages for individual words):

• On the putative definition line, there is this: "한곳에서 다른 곳으로 장소를 이동하다", apparently(?) in Korean. That does not seem to fit well into theEnglish Wikiversity.
• There seems to be some original research into etymological relations between Korean and European languages in the "Comparatives" section (from what I recall, the English Wiktionary rejected this kind of content from KYPark). Admittedly, it is marked using "This is a primary, secondary and/or original Eurasiatic research project at Wikiversity", so it could be tolerable, but even so, one has to wonder whether Wikiversity wants this kind of fringe science/research or outright pseudo-science.
  • Fringe science: fringe physics has been moved to user space before. This would be fringe etymology. But then, original research is allowed.

Deletion is not required; moving to user space suffices, I think. Alternatively, one could at least rename the pages to make it clear from the title that this is not Wikiversity voice but rather KYPark voice, e.g. "Korean/Words (KYPark)/..." or "Korean/Words/KYPark/..." (recall the "Fedosin" pages featuring the name "Fedosin").

Methodology: I see almost no methodological notes spanning the words atKorean/Words. And yet, if this is original research inventing new etymological connections, surely there should be some general considerations/analysis on how to proceed and how that manner of procedure differs from mainstream etymology?

Prefix index (max 200 items?):

--Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)09:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would keep it. If there is a course of Korean, why not to have a resesearch on Korean vocabulary?Juandev (discuss •contribs)19:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This page is rank pseudoscience. Wikiversity seems prone to attracting cranks and charlatans to advertise their pseudoscholarship since they cannot do this kind of promotion on other Wikimedia projects. We have had this discussion before when it came toparapsycholoy andcold fusion. Seems the nosense is creeping back in.ජපස (discuss •contribs)14:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

So what would you suggest? Move to my own namespace? Because I do find it interesting to name this philosophical theory. I think it's important to pursue freedom of ideas, even if supporters of positivist, materialist philosophy disagree. My theory, which relies on idealism, but attempts to provide an explanation, from idealism, for materialistic philosophy, is meant very seriously. I do not see it as a fake, made-up theory on purpose.S. Perquin (overleg •bijdragen)14:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think these ideas probably do not have a place at WMF-sponsored websites. You can always set up a private blog or forum discussion. Kids these days speak highly of discord servers.ජපස (discuss •contribs)15:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

What about all those other ideas and theories on Wikiversity that come from original research? Why are those allowed and a metaphysical theory not? Why isPlato allowed to talk about four basic elements (fire, air, water and earth), but I am not allowed to talk about nine (basic) vibrations, while my theory may even be closer to the truth than Plato's theory? I thought Wikiversity was about learning, gaining new ideas, reflecting on them, critiquing them, refining them, and thus arriving at new knowledge? Kind regards,S. Perquin (overleg •bijdragen)15:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Plato is recognized as an academic subject worthy of study. Your original research is not equivalent.ජපස (discuss •contribs)16:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@ජපස: Can you clarify which Wikiversity policies you have consulted and thus form the basis of your nomination? (I am not yet making any substantive comment on the nomination itself.) --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)15:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity:Community Review/Fringe research. Note the principle that research here must be up to standard. This obviously is not it.ජපස (discuss •contribs)15:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity:Community Review/Fringe research is not a policy, from what I can see. It is a page where two decisions about excluding particular fringe research were made. Which specific passage of a policy (can you quote it) would then lead to deletion ofNinefold Resonance Theory? --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)15:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It references the relevant policy and sets the precedents I outlined above.ජපස (discuss •contribs)16:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good; can you now name the relevant policy and identify the relevant passage ideally by quoting the passage or its part? --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)16:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you not see it on the page?ජපස (discuss •contribs)16:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

On the question of what the precedent cases in the domain of philosophy are: I moved to user space this article:User:MarsSterlingTurner/Ontology. That was utter and overt nonsense, and it was pretty easy to articulate what makes it nonsense (rather than merelyclaiming it is nonsense). --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)15:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The precent cases ofParapsychology andCold fusion are a tad more remote since they deal withpseudoscience rather thanpseudophilosophy. That makes quite a bit of a difference since, to my mind, a lot of what officially counts as philosophyis pseudophilosphy, but I struggle to see that if a Hegelian pops up in the English Wikiversity, I should be able to move his Hegelian articles to user space. That is not to say that no bad philosophy can ever be moved to user space, merely that the detection is quite different from pseudoscience. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)15:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is pseudoscience implicitly and explicitly included in this page.ජපස (discuss •contribs)15:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I do not see your having providing any substantiation, even a minimal one, of your claims. By contrast, I engaged with the content of the page here:Talk:Ninefold Resonance Theory. If all that is required is an unproven assessment by a Wikiversity non-contributor that a page is pseudoscience, that opens Wikiversity to a possible disruption. Your nomination is per se not likely to be a disruption, but your failure to substantiate or articulate could create a problematic precedent. But maybe I am being too pedantic or risk-averse; I don't really know. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)16:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

"expressions of deeper, ninefold vibrations" is absolute blatherskite masquerading as a testable claim. It is pratically a textbook pseudoscientific proclamation.ජපස (discuss •contribs)16:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

How is itpseudoscientific when it is put forward as a piece ofphilosophy, not empirically testable/falsifiable science? --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)16:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just because you sweep your claim into a different closet doesn't insulate it from being nonsense in the context of the other closet. If I just say, "my idea is only philosophy, but perpetual motion still does work," the claim is still pseudoscientific.ජපස (discuss •contribs)16:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

From what I can tell, you have quite a couple of concepts mixed up. Giving up here for now; perhaps someone else will chime in. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)16:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think I see perhaps where your motivation to be combative in this conversation is coming from and I have initiated a discussion on your user talkpage.ජපස (discuss •contribs)16:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I realize that my philosophy could be seen as pseudoscience. But I think, and this is philosophy, that every way of looking at the truth is also based on a philosophy. I personally think that positivist science should not claim to have a monopoly onmatter, which I feel it does. If you're talking about how time would work, then it's okay. If you're talking about how God would work, then it's also okay. But if you're talking about how matter would work, then you have to be careful. It feels as if the nature and functioning of matter has been 'hijacked' by a physicalist, materialist, and perhaps even atheistic philosophy. It is true that all elementary particles have been discovered by microcopes, but why should you not be allowed to philosophize about what these particles are and where they come from? Furthermore, I believe that every philosophy is a 'pseudo-philosophy', except for Socrates' philosophy, namely: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." We can come up with all kinds of ideas about how the universe works, but we will never fully understand it. But we can try to develop a theory that is as close to the truth as possible. God will not enable man to become God himself. But again, that's my philosophy.S. Perquin (overleg •bijdragen)16:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That this is passing for "education" is a problem. In the past, I had suggested that Wikiversity ought to be shut down because it didn't have the immune system to deal with pseudoscholarship. I thought there was some positive efforts in that regard, but it appears pseudoscholarship of this sort has crept back in.ජපස (discuss •contribs)16:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean that people should only receive education according to the positivist paradigm of the 21st century? I always say: don't teach peoplewhat to think, buthow to think. By the way, I found the message ofThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions very interesting. I believe that science is not a fluid development (i.e., one thing follows another in the form of an addition), but rather a step-by-step change (i.e., an old paradigm gives way to a new paradigm). It could well be that a groundbreaking development will suddenly cause us to view the universe in a completely different way and regard all other ideas as pseudoscience!S. Perquin (overleg •bijdragen)16:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I mean people should receive education that is up to the highest standards. The page I nominated for deletion is not up to those standards as it contains blatant misrepresentations, falsehoods, pseudoscience, and parochial ideas that have never been properly vetted by scholars.ජපස (discuss •contribs)16:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain exactly what makes it pseudoscience? Which of the things I speculate and philosophize about do you think are truly impossible?S. Perquin (overleg •bijdragen)17:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your first mention of "vibrations" is classic pseudophysics.ජපස (discuss •contribs)19:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

By "vibrations", I mean a kind of oscillation from a higher-dimensional sphere that we cannot observe or measure. I don't know how else to put it or formulate it.S. Perquin (overleg •bijdragen)19:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are free to formulate it any way you want.... but what you are writing right now is classic pseudophysics... especially when it comes to the stuff you cannot observe or measure.ජපස (discuss •contribs)19:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why does it seem like such a strange idea that not everything can be observed or measured? Is it possible to observe or measure love? But love is just as real as a table or a chair, isn't it? They are all experiences. Or do you see it differently?S. Perquin (overleg •bijdragen)19:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please go sealion elsewhere. The point that this resource is pseudoscience has been made clearly and asking questions in response does not address the problem at all.ජපස (discuss •contribs)12:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

1) I don't think the above conversation is productive. It is perhaps good that it ended. 2) Throwing the word "sealion" around like that is perhaps not a good idea. 3) From what I understand, string theory is currently not empirically testable/falsifiable (hence the label Popperazzi for some of its opponents), so the matter is perhaps not as simple as stating that science only deals with observable/measurable entities. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)12:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

String theory does have observable consequences that's the entire reason it exists. On the other hand, this "Ninefold Resonance Theory" is total bollocks.ජපස (discuss •contribs)13:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Disclaimer: I amnot saying this should stay in mainspace; moving to user space is quite possibly the appropriate action. What I now have to calmly deliberate on (there is no hurry; and there are other editors around) is whether the arguments I presented atTalk:Ninefold Resonance Theory suffice for my official support for moving the page to user space as too bad a philosophy. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)16:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it would be a good idea to create a template called {{Original philosophy}}, alongside {{Original research}}? That new template could state that the article concerns a new philosophy and that it may be viewed as pseudo-philosophy by some people who do not support this philosophy? Then it can remain in the main namespace, but it will be clear that it is a philosophy that is not necessarily based on truth (just like all other philosophies, anyway).S. Perquin (overleg •bijdragen)17:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

What about to tag it as pseudoscience and keep it. Wikiversity is a free lerning environment and if someone want to learn here how to meditate, why not. What I would propose here to use or create a template for it, which would indicate its a pseudoscience or its an Original research.Juandev (discuss •contribs)19:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The 61 templates linked below were deleted byKoavf, because they were not used as templates.
I sometimes create content as a template, but then I just link to it (treating it like as short article, that alsocould be included, if necessary).

• Tiara pair .../wave:◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼
  
• Studies of Euler diagrams/... NP table:◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼
  

I was not aware, that unused templates can be deleted without any notice. I think nothing (except obvious spam and vandalism) should be deleted without warning and time to respond.Watchduck(quack)14:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unused templates are sometimes deleted as routine general housekeeping. If a template is actually in use, of course it shouldn't be deleted without some more consideration. As an aside, I have no clue how/why you are linking the templates the way you are. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯15:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you have material that is not going to be used in the main namespace anytime soon, you should probably make it in your own userspace, at places likeUser:Watchduck/foo. Making templates that you have no particular intention on having in any article is not best practice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯15:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf: Onthis page you can see such links ("See table").

On your talk page you asked:[...] but one of them isTemplate:Studies of Euler diagrams/tamino NP table, which is just unused. Why do these need to be here?

Why do you care? Just because they are in the template namespace? I need these tables, and at some point I will want to include some of them somewhere.

To me this is like images on Commons. They can serve a purpose, even if they are not used in articles.

Anyway, thanks for restoring. Probably I will just have to create overview pages for templates (currently) not used as templates. (May be nice to have anyway.) --Watchduck(quack)15:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Why do you care? Just because they are in the template namespace? I need these tables, and at some point I will want to include some of them somewhere."

Yes, exactly. Just makeUser:Watchduck/Template:foo and then move it to Template:foo once it's needed in the main namespace. This is why there are different namespaces. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Koavf/Justin above: if you do not need the template yet, why not place it to your user space? User space seems extremely unregulated, from what I have seen; you can do a wide variety of things there, bar copyright violation, inciting violence, etc. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)06:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That would be one way. Another way is to just use the templates on a page (which may be in user space). --Watchduck(quack)11:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

To avoid further conflict with the user who entered this text into Wikiversity, I am opening a RFD request.

I am not sure about how to proceed, although I am inclined to move it out of mainspace = quasi-delete. I am looking forward to get input from others, especially curators and custodians. Some considerations:

1) There is perhaps no more appearance/suspicion of copyright violation, now that the ResearchGate (RG) article (of which this is a copy, perhaps an incomplete copy?) carries a license.

2) The article is not a complete replica from RG: at a minimum, it lacks images. The inserter could have continued editing the page in his user space before he uploads images, that is, before he finalizes the page for consumption, but that did not happen. I did not check whether the text is an exact one-to-one match; the article does not indicate anything in that regard.

3) The principle implied seems to be this: users should feel free to duplicate non-peer-reviewed articles from RG in English Wikiversity, perhaps to increase the Google search and LLM yield. I find this problematic, in part for the duplication. I would say: choose a venue and publish it there. If RG is not good enough for you as a publishing venue, choose Wikiversity instead, but not both?

4) There are some features that appear unduly promotional. There is a link to a dot com home page of the inserter of the article. I dot not know how we handle or should handle this, whether prohibit such a link, etc. This is perhaps not so much a call to quasi-deletion but a call to make it less promotional.

5) I cannot determine the value of such an article. It seems to be a pseudo-article describing someone's browser extension. Can someone do a better analysis?

--Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)06:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

2) Images for Wikicommons are being created, it will take a lot of time. and the text is not an exact one-to-one match

3) I also mentioned that It was being created so that it is more accessible from mobile phone, which is not possible in RG or in Zenodo

Let me clarify the purpose of uploading it to different platforms

Zenodo - registration and to link DOI

RG - Self Archiving

Wikiversity - Accessible by anyone from any device. LLMs may get trained on Wikiversity data or use these data for indexing

5) The paper is a result of a research project which involved a browser extension which was built to test the theory.Tomlovesfar (discuss •contribs)01:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I find the practice here of publishing non-identical but similar text ("the text is not an exact one-to-one match") with almost the same title to be problematic. I cannot imagine this is a recommended practice in academic publishing. At a minimum, somewhere near the top, the page should say something like the following: "This text is based on article ___ published at ___ but is not identical. The author of the differences/changes is ___." Everything else leads to an undesirable confusion. In academic publishing, the title of an article serves as key part of identification of the artifact.

As I said before, I seen nothing particularly academic article-like about the page except for external/superficial signs. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)05:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That Article has been published under CC BY SA 4.0

And I am one of the author of the article. That gives me right to modify text and publish it under a similar name. However, I will add the disclaimer text that you have suggested. I hope that helps.~2025-27520-79 (talk)06:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It may give you that right from thecopyright perspective, but perhaps not fromacademic publishing integrity perspective. Unfortunately, I do not have any guideline handy; I am merely following my common (or not so common) sense. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)06:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would like to ask: was this article guided by someone from an academic institution, such as a university? Is it reviewed at least in some weak sense? --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)05:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, This article has been reviewed by two academic professors, their names are also listed as co authors.

First, a project guide would help us with selecting a topic and with the document

Second, an Internal examiner would go through our experiment and approve it

Finally, External Examiner would examine the documentation and verify it.

We were required by these professors to put their name under contributions~2025-27520-79 (talk)05:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let me explicate the promotional potential of such a page a bit: one can go to the page of the article in Wikiversity -->https://tomjoejames.com/ --> HitMyTarget (a commercial, profit-making entity?) Why would the link be to a commercial web site rather than an academic page, or perhaps a LinkedIn account, which I think the person has? There could also be no link at all; a search for the name would turn out something in Google as well. But providing a direct link would drive users/viewers toward that website much stronger since otherwise the viewer of the page would have to open a new Google search window or the like. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)05:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is evident that the website is not even close to being complete.

I will be creating a separate page under the same domain name specifically for people to contact me.

The url would probably be defined as tomjoejames.com/contact-me/

I haven't decided yet. But that is my personal website.

If the community requires me to remove it, I will. But personally I think people who are from here most likely to click the link to know more about me or to contact me. Either way I think my personal website serves the purpose.

As for the HitMyTarget, it can be traced from any of my links. From my research gate profile, linkedin page or even my own userpage.

On the article I did not add any promotional content about myself, I hyperlinked only my own name. I do not know how that is promotional.~2025-27520-79 (talk)06:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am pausing any further responses from me to see whether anyone else has any input. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)06:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

What does it mean "There is perhaps no more appearance/suspicion of copyright violation"?Juandev (discuss •contribs)19:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Further reading for this nomination:S: Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2025#Index:Cookie_Encryption.pdf; EncycloPetey handled the matter. Let me quote his wisdom on Zenodo (which I lack): "This is tied to a PDF on Commons that was uploaded as "own work" with a CC license and a doi link to Zenodo, with no indication of where this paper was published or if it was published. Zenodo is not a publisher; it is a site for storing research and sharing papers. If Zenodo is the only place this was "published" then it was effectively self-published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)"

--Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)08:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you clarify what point are you trying to state? Didn't I already state that the article is published by me?

I first created the article in wikisource which I thought would be the perfect place, unfortunately they do not allow self published articles that are not notable. Then I discovered Wikiversity where they allow self published articles. That is why I created the article here.

Unlike in wikisource, I did follow guidelines.

Ever since you deleted the first article, I spent time reading Wikiversity guidelines and I do think that I am following it perfectly.

I would like to get your suggestions on how should I improve the page, 10 points would be sufficient.

Because your goals or intentions are confusing me very much. At first you told me that the article is exactly the same as the preprint in RG and therefore there is no use to it here. And then when I continued to optimize it for Wikiversity, you went ahead and said it is problematic according to recommended academic publishing.

Atleast just respond to the points that I have made whether you agree or disagree. So that I clarify and proceed to discuss points that are important and relevant

Have you published an research article? If yes, could you send it to me so that I can see the format you have done it~2025-27520-79 (talk)10:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am giving a chance/time to other curators/custodians to look at the matter and respond to my inputs. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)11:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, above I counted 4 questions (or more), 1 request (or more?) and 1 command (or more?). That is a behavior of a commanding entity. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)11:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I woulddelete it'. It's more like an academic communication than a learning resource or research.--Juandev (discuss •contribs)07:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

it is astudent research paper forming part of a learning resource on web security and encryption.

The project was conducted as part of a final-year university course and documented as a practical study on cookie encryption and it has been reviewed by three professors. However, I will be creating a sub page for the article to elaborately describe the experiment that we have conducted and the results we got.Tomlovesfar (discuss •contribs)15:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another KYPark page and subpages with unclear organization scheme. Contains fairly many redlinked items. See alsoUser:KYPark/Literature, perhaps a similar concept. Unlikely to be really useful for others but KYPark.Move to user space.

As an alternative, moving toHistory of Pragmatics (KYPark) would make sense to me: the topic is identified using a natural-language phrase (instead of the relatively unnatural slash) and the responsible editor is indicated so that the reader knows whether to look or not. And for those who oppose the brackets (which I like):History of Pragmatics/KYPark. Or also:KYPark/History of Pragmatics. But then, searches in mainspace will see that content and the question is whether that is good. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)05:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

What about to propose the user to write some guidelines, how other can participate instead of deleting it?Juandev (discuss •contribs)20:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only one letter and nonsense. This page has no meaningful content, nor a meaningful page, thusdelete as nonsense page.

The page atU3254978 has only one letter?~2025-29645-98 (talk)20:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

YDone —Atcovi(Talk -Contribs)02:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This page was already speedily deleted because it contains only one letter.~2025-29978-26 (talk)02:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Wikiversity deletion