User talk:Dan Polansky

Archives 2020-2024

Could you do another manual revert on Web design now that it’s semi-protected?

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 They replaced the CSS Zen Garden screenshot – which is admittedly somewhat outdated, but still more relevant to web design than a 19th century painting.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)

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

What prevents Monism Panpsychism Pantheism Theorem from being posted on wikiphilophers?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

∀x∀y[∀z((z∈x)↔(z∈y))]↔(x=y)

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

x↔y

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

[∀x∀y[∀z((z∈x)↔(z∈y))]↔(x=y)]=(x↔y)

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

[∀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)

Therefore (x=y)=(x↔y)

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

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

New Page Limit

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)

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

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)

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

Your proposed deletion of Basic Scratch Coding

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)

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)

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)

System- vs. User-Orientation

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)

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)

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)

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

Your opinion on Ninefold Resonance Theory

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)

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)

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)

Insertion of Photos

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Peer review

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Clarification on authorship and licensing for Enhancing Web Browser Security through Cookie Encryption

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I have updated it in the description.

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

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)