<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://neelu.blogr.com/metaTags/642-523/rss2html.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>neelu.blogr.com - Tag &apos;642-523&apos; (RSS 2.0)</title>
<link>http://neelu.blogr.com/metaTags/642-523/</link>
<description>XML Feed</description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:07:11 +0200</pubDate>

<item><title>Cisco   CCSP Certification  Exam 642-523</title>
<link>http://neelu.blogr.com/stories/8192719/</link>
<description>I guess there goes my project that I assigned to Moulton to try to get him to understand his actions and to start having him contribute in a meaningful way. The original proposal for it can be found. I wish this would have come after the three day period and after the Peer Review process would have begun.      I support this block - albeit reluctantly. I feel that many of Moulton&apos;s actions within Wikiversity have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.certifyme.com/640-822.htm&quot;&gt;640-822 Exam&lt;/a&gt; profoundly uncivil - even though others have been very welcome. I am dismayed by the tone of activity since the introduction of the &amp;quot;ethics&amp;quot; project - much of which I have felt to be deeply unethical (such as the posting of personal information, and, of course, making what seem to be deliberately provocative and uncivil comments). I am still very much interested in exploring how we could make a contribution to Wikipedia by studying it - however, we still need to put a lot of thought into it to make it workable in practice. I &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.certifyme.com/642-426.htm&quot;&gt;642-426 Exam&lt;/a&gt; think this is just the beginning of a long learning process for this community, and hopefully the beginning of the end of the divisive activity we&apos;ve seen of late.      While I&apos;m sad to see him blocked and think he does have some valid points to make, I also think he very largely brought his own situation upon himself by his own insistence on taking a hostile attitude towards anybody and everybody who opposed him. Some of those opponents have used unfair tactics against him too, but that doesn&apos;t excuse his own bad behavior. But as for the proposal regarding case studies only using fictional cases instead of real ones with real names, there&apos;s the &amp;quot;no win situation&amp;quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.certifyme.com/642-523.htm&quot;&gt;642-523 Exam&lt;/a&gt; that, while if you use real names you risk unfairly dragging people&apos;s names through the mud and stirring up unnecessary drama around them, but on the other hand when you use made-up cases, you risk being criticized for contriving a case that supports whatever point you&apos;re trying to make, possibly with unrealistic attributes not resembling anything in the real world</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://neelu.blogr.com/stories/8192719/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:07:11 +0200</pubDate>
<dc:creator>neelu</dc:creator>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
