text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 67-68 - Decisions

IRPA Section 169
The Act includes the following provisions regarding the obligation to provide reasons: Decisions and reasons 169 In the case of a decision of a Division, other than an interlocutory decision: (a) the decision takes effect in accordance with the rules; (b) reasons for the decision must be given; (c) the decision may be rendered orally or in writing, except a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division, which must be rendered in writing; (d) if the Refugee Protection Division rejects a claim, written reasons must be provided to the claimant and the Minister; (e) if the person who is the subject of proceedings before the Board or the Minister requests reasons for a decision within 10 days of notification of the decision, or in circumstances set out in the rules of the Board, the Division must provide written reasons; and (f) the period in which to apply for judicial review with respect to a decision of the Board is calculated from the giving of notice of the decision or from the sending of written reasons, whichever is later.

Section 169 of the IRPA specifies circumstances in which written reasons must be provided, circumstances which do not include interlocutory decisions
Section 169 of the IRPA specifies a number of circumstances in which written reasons for a decision must be provided. For example, per s. 169(1)(d), if the Refugee Protection Division rejects a claim, written reasons must be provided to the claimant and the Minister. Relatedly, s. 169(1)(c) provides that in the case of a decision, other than an interlocutory decision, the Refugee Appeal Division must render the decision in writing. This is also to be read in conjunction with RPD Rule 67(2), which provides a number of other circumstances in which written reasons for a decision are required, including when the Division makes a decision on an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection (RPD Rule 67(2)(c)), and if the Minister was not present when the Division rendered an oral decision and reasons allowing a claim for refugee protection (RPD Rule 67(2)(b)).

One thing that is notably exempt from these provisions is any requirement to provide written reasons for oral interlocutory decisions. There is jurisprudence that suggests that when a motion is decided at an RPD hearing with reasons for dismissing it given orally, the RPD does not have to repeat its reasons in its subsequent written decision. Interlocutory decisions can be contrasted with those that deny or allow a refugee claim. For example, a decision to reopen a refugee claim pursuant to RPD Rule 62 (Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 62-63 - Reopening a Claim or Application) is an interlocutory decision, not a final one. The Board commented as follows about the lack of a requirement to provide reasons for interlocutory decisions as follows in the context of the former Immigration Act:"The Immigration Act does not require written reasons to be given for interlocutory decisions. However, it is suggested that if the issue has an interesting aspect to it, brief reasons for the interlocutory decisions should be included in the final reasons in the case, where final reasons are given. The provision of reasons in these matters promotes consistency in interlocutory decision-making across the Refugee Division, while providing some degree of fairness to those appearing before it."

The Board should provide written reasons for a determination that a claim has been abandoned
In Parveen v. Canada, the Board provided an oral decision that the claim in question had been abandoned. The court noted that in that case, the RPD’s decision was rendered orally and in the presence of the claimant, her counsel and an interpreter. The court stated that the reasons were "detailed and comprehensive, setting out not only the findings but also the reasons they were made." The claimant had obtained a copy of the transcript of the hearing. The claimant argued on judicial review that the RPD’s failure to provide written reasons amounted to a breach of procedural fairness. The court noted that "it could be argued that the determination that a proceeding has been abandoned is a final decision which entails the rejection of the refugee claim, and that the RPD has an obligation to provide reasons in written form, as per paragraph 169(d) of the IRPA": Decisions and reasons 169 In the case of a decision of a Division, other than an interlocutory decision: … (d) if the Refugee Protection Division rejects a claim, written reasons must be provided to the claimant and the Minister; The court then went on to note that "on the other hand, it can be said that a determination that a claim has been abandoned is not a decision under section 169 of the IRPA, because it does not decide the merits of a claim, but the more circumscribed question of whether an applicant has abandoned his or her claim. This abandonment of a proceeding is rather dealt with in subsection 168(1) of the IRPA". In that case, the court accepted that "the letter of the law may impose a duty to provide written reasons". The court went on not to grant the judicial review on the basis that the claimant had not been sufficiently prejudiced, but the case does appear to indicate that the law imposes the same obligation to provide written reasons in the case of an abandonment as it does in the case of a rejection of a claim.

Under the previous Immigration Act, the Federal Court held that it was unlikely that the obligation under the Act to give written reasons was applicable to any decision other than a decision on a claim, such as an abandonment decision.

What percentage of refugee decisions are made publicly available?
A small percentage of the RPD's decisions are anonymized and made publicly available on services such as CanLII. In Devinat v. Canada, the Board discussed the percentage of decisions which become publicly available, a percentage being published that seems roughly similar to its current practice:"Excluding claims where there was a waiver or discontinuance, the CRDD rendered 16,630 decisions during 1996 and we anticipate that it will render 19,900 decisions in 1997. The vast majority of CRDD hearings are held behind closed doors to protect claimants' identity. Its decisions and reasons, if any, are communicated to the parties only and not to the public. Some decisions (295 in 1996) are summarized in our publication RefLex (see para. 16) and published in the Quicklaw database. These decisions are edited to remove identifying information before they are made public and entered in the Quicklaw database."

RPD Rule 67 - Requirement for a Notice of Decision and when written reasons must be provided
The text of the relevant rule reads: Decisions

Notice of decision and reasons 67 (1) When the Division makes a decision, other than an interlocutory decision, it must provide in writing a notice of decision to the claimant or the protected person, as the case may be, and to the Minister.

Written reasons (2) The Division must provide written reasons for the decision together with the notice of decision (a) if written reasons must be provided under paragraph 169(1)(d) of the Act; (b) if the Minister was not present when the Division rendered an oral decision and reasons allowing a claim for refugee protection; or (c) when the Division makes a decision on an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection.

Request for written reasons (3) A request under paragraph 169(1)(e) of the Act for written reasons for a decision must be made in writing.

How do the written reasons required under Rule 67(2) relate to the oral reasons that are offered for a decision on the day of a hearing?
Rule 67(2) provides that the Division must provide written reasons for a decision that the Division makes together with the notice of decision in the circumstances specified. This relates to Rule 10(8) which provides that "A Division member must render an oral decision and reasons for the decision at the hearing unless it is not practicable to do so" (Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 3-13 - Information and Documents to be Provided). It is evident that, even where a decision is provided orally, the written reasons need not be identical. For example, in Isiaku v. Canada, the Division delivered oral reasons for decision, but the recording equipment normally used to provide a transcript of the hearing was not functioning during the time the Board delivered its oral reasons. As such, the Board did not have the benefit of a transcript of the oral reasons to use in preparing the written reasons for decision. In its written reasons, the Board stated that it had relied on its recollection of what was stated in the oral reasons. In such a situation, the Board will usually note this in its reasons along with a notation such as the following:"The recording of this oral decision is not available because of what appears to be a technical malfunction. Therefore, this written version of the reasons offered in this case is based not on a recording but on the notes used by the member in rendering the oral decision on."The court in Isiaku v. Canada expressed no concern with that approach, and in fact preferred the Member's recollection of the decision rendered orally over that of the claimant who had contested some aspects of what was written. Nonetheless, what is clear is that after a Member provides oral reasons the Member is functus officio, and the written reasons which follow from an oral decision should not differ substantially from the oral reasons that were offered. Appellate bodies may review the reasons provided to determine whether there is "any material difference...between the oral and written reasons".

What is the significance of a Notice of Decision issued by the Board registry?
Member Maria De Andrade of the Refugee Appeal Division considered a case where, on December 9, 2014, the Board sent the appellant a positive notice of decision. There were no reasons included with the notice of decision. Then on December 23, 2014, the IRB sent the appellant a negative notice of decision, and the reasons included with the notice of decision were dated and signed December 3, 2014. The claimant argued that the RPD was functus officio when it sent the appellant a negative notice of decision on December 23, 2014, after it had already sent a positive notice of decision on December 9, 2014. According to the functus officio principle, a decision-maker no longer has jurisdiction over a matter once he or she has delivered the decision: the decision is final after it is signed and has been disclosed to the parties. The RAD rejected this argument, concluding that the functus officio principle did not apply in this case because the first notice of decision was sent as a result of a clerical error by the RPD Registry. The RAD noted rules 67 and 68 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules which stipulate that the Division must provide a notice of decision to the refugee protection claimant and to the Minister together with written reasons. As no written reasons were provided for the positive decision, and the only evidence was that the member signed and dated the reasons for decision on December 3, 2014, that was the only decision made as per Rule 68(1)(b). A similar issue has been raised with regards to oral decisions. Member Veena Verma of the Refugee Appeal Division considered a case where a decision was rendered orally on March 22, 2016 at the hearing and the notice of decision and a copy of the reasons were sent out on May 6, 2016. The RAD commented on these dates as follows: "I believe it is necessary to clarify the relevant date when considering the admission of new evidence on appeal before the RAD. Subsection 110(4) of the Act refers to the admission of evidence either after or at the time of the rejection. The RPD rendered its oral decision and reasons on March 22, 2016 which is also the date when the decision came into effect. The RPD member did not “sign” his decision on May 6, 2016, rather this is the date on which the RPD Registrar sent the Appellant the Notice of Decision, pursuant to Rule 67 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, and a written transcript of the decision. In other words, the date of the rejection, and the relevant date in assessing the new evidence under ss. 110(4) of the Act, is March 22, 2016, not May 6, 2016."

In what language or languages must written decisions be made available?
The Official Languages Act applies to the IRB. Section 20 of the Official Languages Act specifies the circumstances in which a final decision must be made available in both official languages, either simultaneously (s. 20(1)) or in one language and then the other "at the earliest possible time" (s. 20(2)): Decisions, orders and judgments that must be made available simultaneously 20 (1) Any final decision, order or judgment, including any reasons given therefor, issued by any federal court shall be made available simultaneously in both official languages where (a) the decision, order or judgment determines a question of law of general public interest or importance; or (b) the proceedings leading to its issuance were conducted in whole or in part in both official languages.

Other decisions, orders and judgments (2) Where (a) any final decision, order or judgment issued by a federal court is not required by subsection (1) to be made available simultaneously in both official languages, or (b) the decision, order or judgment is required by paragraph (1)(a) to be made available simultaneously in both official languages but the court is of the opinion that to make the decision, order or judgment, including any reasons given therefor, available simultaneously in both official languages would occasion a delay prejudicial to the public interest or resulting in injustice or hardship to any party to the proceedings leading to its issuance,

the decision, order or judgment, including any reasons given therefor, shall be issued in the first instance in one of the official languages and thereafter, at the earliest possible time, in the other official language, each version to be effective from the time the first version is effective. It is notable that the Official Languages Act provides that the above obligations apply to "federal courts". This is a defined term which, per s. 3(2) of that Act, provides that the IRB is considered a "federal court" for the purposes of the preceding obligations: "In this section and in Parts II and III, federal court means any court, tribunal or other body that carries out adjudicative functions and is established by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament." The Federal Court of Appeal considered the applicability of this provision to the Immigration and Refugee Board in Devinat v. Canada, upholding the following summary of the law from the motions judge in the case:"In my view, the terms of section 20 of the OLA are clear. They require all federal courts, including the respondent [the IRB], to issue their decisions, orders and judgments in both official languages at the earliest possible time in most cases or simultaneously in the cases provided for in paragraph 20(1)(a), unless this would be seriously prejudicial to the public or result in injustice or hardship to any party, and in paragraph 20(1)(b)."As a practical matter, in Devinat v. Canada the Federal Court ordered that where the Board makes a decision available to the public, say via the Quicklaw website, they must do so in both official languages.

When it comes to providing reasons to an individual, the court commented in obiter in Nambazisa v. Canada that there is "arguably a positive obligation upon a decision maker like the RPD to provide the Decision to [the claimant in their language of choice], in light of the RPD’s duty to communicate and offer services to any member of the public in the language of his choice". Indeed, the Minister states that when the original version of a set of reasons is not written in an applicant’s preferred language of choice or in the language of record, the Board's usual practice is to issue decisions in both official languages at the same time. Where the tribunal fails to do so, this may raise issues with the reasonableness of the decision:"When, as the RPD did in the case of Mr. Nambazisa, an administrative decision maker issues a decision in an official language other than the litigant’s preferred official language or the official language of record, without making a translation simultaneously available, it in fact abdicates its responsibility to justify to the affected party, in a manner that is transparent and intelligible, the basis on which it arrived to its conclusion. This, again, clearly does not pass the test of reasonableness laid out in Vavilov, and calls for the Court’s intervention."Furthermore, even where a translation is made available, the mere act of a decision maker having written a decision "in a language other than the official language of the trial chosen by an applicant can create uncertainty and doubts about the decision maker’s language abilities."

In contrast, there are no provisions in the IRPA or in the RPD Rules that require written reasons be translated into the language of interpretation other than English or French.

For more context to the above excerpt from the Official Languages Act, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Official Languages Act.

Each version of reasons that have been translated into French or English are equally authoritative
Section 20 of the Official Languages Act requires that final decisions, orders and judgments issued by the Board be made available in both official languages, not issued in one language and "translated" into the other. This means that both versions are equally authoritative.

RPD Rule 68(1) - When a decision of a single member panel takes effect
When decision of single member takes effect 68 (1) A decision made by a single Division member allowing or rejecting a claim for refugee protection, on an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection, on the abandonment of a claim or of an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection, or allowing an application to withdraw a claim or to withdraw an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection takes effect (a) if given orally at a hearing, when the member states the decision and gives the reasons; and (b) if made in writing, when the member signs and dates the reasons for the decision.

A decision takes effect when a Member signs the reasons and this can be an electronic signature
As per the Division's Practice Notice: Use of Electronic Signatures, effective November 26, 2019 an electronic signature will satisfy the requirement for members to sign their reasons for decision under Rules 68(1)(b) of the RPD Rules.

A decision takes effect when the Members sign the reasons and these can be electronic signatures
As per the Division's Practice Notice: Use of Electronic Signatures, effective November 26, 2019 an electronic signature will satisfy the requirement for members to sign their reasons for decision under Rules 68(2)(b) of the RPD Rules.

RPD Rule 68(2) - When a decision of a three member panel takes effect
When decision of three member panel takes effect (2) A decision made by a panel of three Division members allowing or rejecting a claim for refugee protection, on an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection, on the abandonment of a claim or of an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection, or allowing an application to withdraw a claim or to withdraw an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection takes effect (a) if given orally at a hearing, when all the members state their decision and give their reasons; and (b) if made in writing, when all the members sign and date their reasons for the decision.

Policy and legislation on three-member panels
The IRB has a policy on the designation of three-member panels at the Refugee Protection Division. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), hearings by a single member of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) are the norm. This presumption is reflected in the wording of section 163 of the IRPA, which reads: "Matters before a Division shall be conducted before a single member unless, except for matters before the Immigration Division, the Chairperson is of the opinion that a panel of three members should be constituted." The Chairperson's authority to designate three-member panels for matters before the RPD has been delegated to the Deputy Chairperson (DC) and to the Assistant Deputy Chairpersons (ADCs) of the RPD. Under this delegation cases may only be designated to be heard by three-member panels for training purposes. There were 94 new system hearings in 2018 in which a three-member panel was designated (0.7% of all hearings).

History of two-member panels at the Board
The court has observed that throughout the 1990s, the Board carried a very heavy caseload and had a large membership. Its approximately 200 members sat across Canada in panels of two. That ended with the Introduction of the IRPA in the early 2000s.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 74 - Coming into Force

RPD Rule 74
The text of the relevant rule reads: 74 These Rules come into force on the day on which section 26 of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act comes into force, but if they are registered after that day, they come into force on the day on which they are registered.

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


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/Schedules to the RPD Rules

RPD Rules Schedule 1 - Claimant’s Information and Basis of Claim
The text of this schedule to the rules follows: SCHEDULE 1 (Rule 1)

Claimant’s Information and Basis of Claim

Item	Information 1	Claimant’s name. 2	Claimant’s date of birth. 3	Claimant’s gender. 4	Claimant’s nationality, ethnic or racial group, or tribe. 5	Languages and dialects, if any, that the claimant speaks. 6	Claimant’s religion and denomination or sect. 7	Whether the claimant believes that they would experience harm, mistreatment or threats if they returned to their country today. If yes, description of what the claimant expects would happen, including who would harm, mistreat or threaten them and what the claimant believes would be the reasons for it. 8	Whether the claimant or the claimant’s family have ever experienced harm, mistreatment or threats in the past. If yes, a description of the harm, mistreatment or threats, including when it occurred, who caused it, what the claimant believes are the reasons for it and whether similarly situated persons have experienced such harm, mistreatment or threats. 9	Whether the claimant sought protection or help from any authority or organization in their country. If not, an explanation of why not. If yes, the authority or organization from which the claimant sought protection or help and a description of what the claimant did and what happened as a result. 10	When the claimant left their country and the reasons for leaving at that time. 11	Whether the claimant moved to another part of their country to seek safety. If not, an explanation of why not. If the claimant moved to another part of their country, the reasons for leaving it and an explanation why the claimant could not live there or in another part of their country today. 12	Whether the claimant moved to another country to seek safety. If yes, details including the name of the country, when the claimant moved there, length of stay and whether the claimant claimed refugee protection there. If the claimant did not claim refugee protection there, an explanation of why not. 13	Whether minors are claiming refugee protection with the claimant. If yes, whether the claimant is the minor’s parent and the other parent is in Canada, or whether the claimant is not the minor’s parent, or whether the claimant is the minor’s parent but the other parent is not in Canada. If the claimant is not the minor’s parent or if the claimant is the minor’s parent but the other parent is not in Canada, details of any legal documents or written consent allowing the claimant to take care of the minor or travel with the minor. If the claimant does not have such documents, an explanation of why not. 14	If a child six years old or younger is claiming refugee protection with the claimant, an explanation of why the claimant believes the child would be at risk of being harmed, mistreated or threatened if returned to their country. 15	Other details the claimant considers important for the refugee protection claim. 16	Country or countries in which the claimant believes they are at risk of serious harm. 17	The country or countries in which the claimant is or has been a citizen, including how and when citizenship was acquired and present status. 18	Name, date of birth, citizenship and place and country of residence of relatives, living or dead, specifically the claimant’s spouse, common-law partner, children, parents, brothers and sisters. 19	If the claimant or the claimant’s spouse, common-law partner, child, parent, brother or sister has claimed refugee protection or asylum in Canada or in any other country — including at a Canadian office abroad or from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — the details of the claim including the name of the person who made the claim, and the date, location, result of the claim and IRB file number or CIC client ID number, if any. 20	Whether the claimant applied for a visa to enter Canada. If yes, for what type of visa, the date of the application, at which Canadian office the application was made and whether or not it was accepted. If the visa was issued, the date of issue and the duration of the visa. If the application was refused, the date and reasons of refusal. 21	Claimant’s contact information. 22	Whether the claimant has counsel and if so, details concerning counsel — including what counsel has been retained to do and counsel’s contact information. 23	Claimant’s choice of official language for communications with and proceedings before the Board. 24	Whether the claimant needs an interpreter during any proceeding, and the language and dialect, if any, to be interpreted.

RPD Rules Schedule 2 - Information To Be Provided About the Claimant by an Officer
SCHEDULE 2 (Paragraph 3(5)(d))

Information To Be Provided About the Claimant by an Officer

Item	Information 1	Name, gender and date of birth. 2	Department of Citizenship and Immigration client identification number. 3	If the claimant is detained, the name and address of the place of detention. 4	Claimant’s contact information in Canada, if any. 5	Contact information of any counsel for the claimant. 6	Official language chosen by the claimant as the language of proceedings before the Board. 7	Date the claim was referred or deemed to be referred to the Division. 8	Section of the Act under which the claim is being referred. 9	Officer’s decision about the claim’s eligibility under section 100 of the Act, if a decision has been made. 10	The country or countries in which the claimant fears persecution, torture, a risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. 11	Whether the claimant may need a designated representative and the contact information for any proposed designated representative. 12	Whether the claimant needs an interpreter, including a sign language interpreter, during any proceeding, and the language and dialect, if any, to be interpreted. 13	If a claim of the claimant’s spouse, common-law partner or any relative has been referred to the Division, the name and Department of Citizenship and Immigration client identification numbers of each of those persons. 14	When and how the officer notified the claimant of the referral of the claim to the Division. 15	Whether the claim was made at a port of entry or inside Canada other than at a port of entry. 16	Any other information gathered by the officer about the claimant that is relevant to the claim.

RPD Rules Schedule 3 - Information and Declarations — Counsel Not Representing or Advising for Consideration
SCHEDULE 3 (Rules 5 and 13)

Information and Declarations — Counsel Not Representing or Advising for Consideration

Item	Information 1	IRB Division and file number with respect to the claimant or protected person. 2	Name of counsel who is representing or advising the claimant or protected person and who is not receiving consideration for those services. 3	Name of counsel’s firm or organization, if applicable, and counsel’s postal address, telephone number, fax number and email address, if any. 4	If applicable, a declaration, signed by the interpreter, that includes the interpreter’s name, the language and dialect, if any, interpreted and a statement that the interpretation is accurate. 5	Declaration signed by the claimant or protected person that the counsel who is representing or advising them is not receiving consideration and the information provided in the form is complete, true and correct. 6	Declaration signed by counsel that they are not receiving consideration for representing or advising the claimant or protected person and that the information provided in the form is complete, true and correct.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/Glossary

Acronyms
Common acronyms used herein:
 * BOC: Basis of Claim Form
 * CBSA: Canada Border Services Agency
 * CIC: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (the former public name for IRCC, and its still-current legal name )
 * COI: Country of Origin Information.
 * DCO: Designated Country of Origin
 * IRCC: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
 * DFN: Designated Foreign National
 * IRB: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
 * IRPA: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
 * JG: Jurisprudential Guide
 * NDP: National Documentation Package . These were previously referred to as Standardized Country Files.
 * RAD: Refugee Appeal Division
 * RPD: Refugee Protection Division
 * IRCC: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
 * NDP: National Documentation Package
 * PIF: Personal Information Form (Predecessor to the BOC)
 * POE Claim: Port of Entry Claim
 * PRRA: Pre-Removal Risk Assessment
 * UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Terms

 * Alien: Non-nationals. Pursuant to section 91(25) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal Parliament has jurisdiction over "Naturalization and Aliens."
 * Asylum seeker: individuals whose request for sanctuary has yet to be processed. Unlike in present day usage, the term asylum seeker was not used at the time of drafting leading up to the convention in 1951, when instead the dominant term of art was "refugee".
 * Asylum: this has been described as "the protection which a State grants on its territory or in some other place under the control of certain of its organs, to a person who comes to seek it". While its exact content is often contested, the principle of asylum is generally considered to extend beyond protection from refoulement to encompass "admission to residence and lasting protection against the jurisdiction of another State". Goodwin-Gill states that “Although [no] international instrument defines ‘asylum’, it can be considered as the grant to a non-citizen of lasting protection in the territory of a State, the opportunity to make a life and a living, and the possibility to enjoy fundamental human rights and freedoms.” As Dieter Kugelmann writes in the Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law, “Asylum implies a long-term stay; accordingly, in most cases, the admission to residence and asylum guarantees the asylees a set of rights. The prohibition of refoulement on the other hand is linked to the time of the existing risk of persecution and only encompasses a minimum standard of State obligations.” As Plaut notes, the main obligation Canada owes Convention refugees in its territory is one of non-refoulement and the Refugee Convention does not give refugees a right to durable asylum, that is, residence in the territory of the party state offering them protection.
 * Country of Origin information (COI) is defined as "Information about the situation in a country that is relevant to the refugee determination process and obtained from publicly available sources that are viewed as, whenever possible, reliable and objective" in the Board's Policy on National Documentation Packages in Refugee Determination Proceedings.
 * Diplomatic asylum is that provided to persons in a state’s legations, warships, military aircraft, camps, and diplomatic missions. The ability of a state to provide such asylum in its diplomatic missions emerges from Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which provides that diplomatic missions are inviolable. Contrast with territorial asylum.
 * Departure orders: These require a person to leave Canada within 30 days, and to confirm their departure with an immigration officer.  If they comply, they may return to Canada at any time.  If they do not comply, the departure order automatically becomes a deportation order.
 * Deportation orders: These apply to the most serious cases;  those removed under a deportation order may not legally return to Canada unless they have the written permission of an immigration officer.
 * Exclusion orders: People who have been removed under an exclusion order may not legally return to Canada for one year unless they have the written permission of an immigration officer.  In cases of misrepresentation, the time period is two years.
 * Identity: for commentary on the meaning of the term "identity" as it is used in the IRPA and the RPD Rules, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Information and Documents to be Provided.
 * Inland office: Any office of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) or the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) inside Canada.
 * Jurisprudential Guide (JG) is defined as "A decision identified by the Chairperson as a JG pursuant to section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)" in the Board's Policy on National Documentation Packages in Refugee Determination Proceedings.
 * Landed Immigrant: This is an old term that was used under the previous immigration Act and has been replaced by the term "permanent resident".
 * Member: Decision maker on the RAD or RPD.
 * National Documentation Package (NDP) is defined as "A selection of COI documents on a given country from which refugee claims originate, compiled by the RD based on information that is, whenever possible, accurate, balanced, and corroborated" in the Board's Policy on National Documentation Packages in Refugee Determination Proceedings.
 * Non-refoulement is the legal principle banning expulsion and non-admittance of refugees at the border of States Parties where they would be returned to a country in which they face serious threats to their life or freedom. The word refoulement derives from the French verb refouler, which means to push back. Goodwin-Gill and McAdam state that the distinction between asylum and non-refoulement is that asylum relates to the admission of the foreigner to a state's territory, while the latter concerns a prohibition of expulsion or forcible return.
 * Permanent resident: The right to live, work, study and remain in Canada under specific residency obligations.
 * Resettlement relates to the overseas selection of refugees, and is oriented toward facilitating the movement of those chosen in advance.
 * Territorial asylum is that provided in a state's territory. Contrast with diplomatic asylum.

Definitions

 * Interpretation refers to the oral transfer of meaning between languages. See, in contrast, translation.
 * Translation refers to the written transfer of meaning between languages. See, in contrast, interpretation.

The Refugee Protection Division Rules themselves include a definitions section, which see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 1 - Definitions. The Act also includes a definitions section, which see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/2-3 - Definitions, objectives, and application of the IRPA.

title: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Glossary


text:
Venom Academy/Ethical Hacking/Vulnerability Assessment

Now that you have learnt a lot, you can find open ports, services and operating systems. Now you will learn how to look for potential vulnerabilities, this will get us one step closer into compromising our target or victim. There are a number of softwares called vulnerability scanners that do the job of identifying vulnerabilities in a target. Some examples are OpenVAS and Nessus.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Vulnerability scanners
One good and excellent thing about vulnerability scanners is that they can automate tasks. You can perform a wide range of tasks just on the scanner, tasks like Reconnaissance, port scanning and more. One bad thing about them is that they leave too many traces behind. They work by leaving a large amount of traffic behind and this is quite lousy for a penetration tester.

Scanning using Nmap
map contains scripts that we can use to our advantage in vulnerability scanning. Even though is contains so many other scripts but in this chapter we will set our focus only on vulnerability scanning. All nmap scripts are written in the Lua programming language and they are stored in this location: /usr/local/share/nmap/scripts Nmaps scripts are frequently updated, so you need to keep them up-to-date using the command shown below nmap --script-updatedb Now let's perform an example with a vulnerability scanner on nmap, let's scan for the ms08-067-netapi vulnerability, if you don't know what it is, it's just a vulnerability found in windows XP. Nmap has a script called smb-check-vulns which can automatically check for this vulnerability and report the results back. The command syntax is shown below: nmap --script=smb-check-vulns The script output then reports back as vulnerable. But what if we want to test all known vulnerabilities. The full vulnerability scan command syntax is shown below nmap --script=vuln So let's use the script above in an example and let's see the output. Here is the scan and it's output shown below: root@venom [$]~ nmap --script=vuln 192.168.15.211 Host script results: | smb-check-vulns: |_ms08-067: vulnerable The example above shows that our target is vulnerable to the ms08-067 exploit


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/162 - Board Jurisdiction and Procedure

IRPA Section 162(1) - Board jurisdiction
Section 162(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act reads: Sole and exclusive jurisdiction 162 (1) Each Division of the Board has, in respect of proceedings brought before it under this Act, sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions of law and fact, including questions of jurisdiction.

Each Division of the Board has jurisdiction to determine all questions of law and fact
The Board has noted that a "question of law" involves discovering the true meaning of words of a statute or deciding upon a statement of common law principles. A "question of fact" involves listening to the evidence and arguments to decide what took place.

This provision of the Act provides the Board's plenary jurisdiction
The above provision of the IRPA provide what can be referred to as the Board's plenary powers to control its process. In the absence of a specific rule, they provide the Board with the authority to act. For example, in Koky v. Canada the Federal Court noted that in the absence of a specific provision in the rules for the Division disjoining claims on its own motion, it could rely on the authority conferred to it by the above provision in the Act. In Slimani v. Canada, the court cited this provision when concluding that the RPD could request that a witness show his or her surroundings when the hearing is held by videoconference: Canadian Refugee Procedure/164 - Presence of parties and use of telecommunications for hearings.

This provision of the Act has been characterized as a privative clause
The Supreme Court of Canada has characterized s. 162 of the Act as a privative clause. There is a long history of privative clauses designed to deter judicial intervention in Canadian immigration legislation. The 1910 Immigration Act stated that "no court, and no judge or officer thereof shall have jurisdiction to review, quash, reverse, restrain or otherwise interfere with any proceeding, decision or order of the Minister or of any Board of Inquiry, or officer in charge ... relating to the detention or deportation of any rejected immigrant ... upon any ground whatsoever, unless such person is a Canadian citizen or has Canadian domicile." As Trebilcock and Kelley summarize, courts of the day, on the whole, respected these limitations imposed upon them. That type of strong privative clause is now absent from the Act, having been removed in 1973 following the report of Joseph Sedgwick whose second Report on Immigration recommended that appeals to the Federal Courts be provided for in the legislation, not proscribed.

See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/History of refugee procedure in Canada.

IRPA Section 162(2) - Obligation to proceed informally and expeditiously
Procedure (2) Each Division shall deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.

Each Division shall deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit
For more details regarding this, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Principles for the interpretation of refugee procedure.

Member workload
A typical full-time Member of the Refugee Protection Division who is not on a special team is expedited to complete 120 files per year. A member of the Refugee Appeal Division, 80 files. It is difficult to compare workload among different systems, but many others appear to provide for much less time for decision-making. For example, in the French refugee determination system the rapporteurs who research files for asylum judges participate in two to three full hearing days per month, each of which requires preparation of 13 files, totalling around 350 cases a year. This workload allows approximately half a working day for each file, with little room to deviate for complex cases. That said, it is difficult to compare workloads because of the differences in the nature of each role and the comparatively limited support that RPD Members receive to prepare for hearings.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR s. 13 - Documents and Certified Copies

IRPR s. 13
The text of the relevant section of the regulation reads: DIVISION 3 Documents and Certified Copies

Production of documents

13 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a requirement of the Act or these Regulations to produce a document is met (a) by producing the original document; (b) by producing a certified copy of the original document; or (c) in the case of an application, if there is an application form on the Department’s website, by completing and producing the form printed from the website or by completing and submitting the form on-line, if the website indicates that the form can be submitted on-line.

Exception (2) Unless these Regulations provide otherwise, a passport, a permanent resident visa, a permanent resident card, a temporary resident visa, a temporary resident permit, a work permit or a study permit may be produced only by producing the original document.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR s. 13.11 - Disclosure Regulation

IRPR s. 13.11
The text of the relevant section of the regulation reads: DIVISION 4.1 Use and Disclosure of Biometric Information and Related Personal Information

Disclosure of information 13.11 (1) Any biometric information and related personal information set out in subsection (2) that is collected under the Act and provided to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may be used or disclosed by it to a law enforcement agency in Canada for the following purposes, if there is a potential match between fingerprints collected under the Act and fingerprints collected by it or submitted to it by a law enforcement agency in Canada: (a) to establish or verify the identity of a person in order to prevent, investigate or prosecute an offence under any law of Canada or a province; and (b) to establish or verify the identity of a person whose identity cannot reasonably be otherwise established or verified because of a physical or mental condition or because of their death.

Information that may be used or disclosed (2) The following information in respect of a foreign national or a permanent resident may be used or disclosed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under subsection (1): (a) their fingerprints and the date on which they were taken; (b) their surname and first name; (c) their other names and aliases, if any; (d) their date of birth; (e) their gender; and (f) any file number associated with the biometric information or related personal information.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR part 19.1 - Information Sharing

IRPR part 19.1
The text of the relevant section of the regulation reads: PART 19.1 Information Sharing Between Countries

Commentary
These provisions are quite lengthy and so they are not produced here, but see them on CanLII.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR s. 159.9 - Timelines

IRPR s. 159.9
The text of the relevant section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations reads: Hearing Before Refugee Protection Division

Time limits for hearing 159.9 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), for the purpose of subsection 100(4.1) of the Act, the date fixed for the hearing before the Refugee Protection Division must be not later than (a) in the case of a claimant referred to in subsection 111.1(2) of the Act, (i) 30 days after the day on which the claim is referred to the Refugee Protection Division, if the claim is made inside Canada other than at a port of entry, and (ii) 45 days after the day on which the claim is referred to the Refugee Protection Division, if the claim is made inside Canada at a port of entry; and (b) in the case of any other claimant, 60 days after the day on which the claim is referred to the Refugee Protection Division, whether the claim is made inside Canada at a port of entry or inside Canada other than at a port of entry.

Exclusion (2) If the time limit set out in subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii) or paragraph (1)(b) ends on a Saturday, that time limit is extended to the next working day.

Exceptions (3) If the hearing cannot be held within the time limit set out in subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii) or paragraph (1)(b) for any of the following reasons, the hearing must be held as soon as feasible after that time limit: (a) for reasons of fairness and natural justice; (b) because of a pending investigation or inquiry relating to any of sections 34 to 37 of the Act; or (c) because of operational limitations of the Refugee Protection Division.

Commentary
For a discussion of the issues raised in the interpretation of this regulation, see the commentary for RPD Rule 54: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 54 - Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR s. 159.8 - Time Limit for Providing Documents

IRPR s. 159.8
The text of the relevant section of the regulation reads: Documents and Information

Time limit — provision of documents and information to officer 159.8 (1) For the purpose of subsection 99(3.1) of the Act, a person who makes a claim for refugee protection inside Canada other than at a port of entry must provide an officer with the documents and information referred to in that subsection not later than the day on which the officer determines the eligibility of their claim under subsection 100(1) of the Act.

Time limit — provision of documents and information to Refugee Protection Division (2) Subject to subsection (3), for the purpose of subsection 100(4) of the Act, a person who makes a claim for refugee protection inside Canada at a port of entry must provide the Refugee Protection Division with the documents and information referred to in subsection 100(4) not later than 15 days after the day on which the claim is referred to that Division.

Extension (3) If the documents and information cannot be provided within the time limit set out in subsection (2), the Refugee Protection Division may, for reasons of fairness and natural justice, extend that time limit by the number of days that is necessary in the circumstances.

Time limit for persons to complete and provide the Basis of Claim form
For a discussion of the deadlines for persons providing their BOC forms, whether they are making a POE claim, an inland claim, or are detained, see the commentary to Rule 7: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Information and Documents to be Provided. The commentary to Rule 8 discusses the interpretation of this regulation and the way that the extension provision (s. 159.8(3)) should be interpreted: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Information and Documents to be Provided.

If a claimant does not meet the above timeline, the the BOC Abandonment process will commence
If a claimant does not submit their BOC form within the timeline specified above, then the process for BOC Abandonment specified in Rule 65 will be triggered: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Abandonment


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR s. 159 - Safe Third Countries

IRPR s. 159 - Determination of Eligibility of Claim
The text of the relevant section of the regulation reads: Determination of Eligibility of Claim

Working day 159 For the purposes of subsections 100(1) and (3) of the Act, (a) a working day does not include Saturdays or holidays; (b) a day that is not a working day is not included in the calculation of the three-day period; and (c) the three-day period begins from the day on which the claim is received.

Definitions 159.1 The following definitions apply in this section and sections 159.2 to 159.7. Agreement means the Agreement dated December 5, 2002 between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationals of Third Countries. (Accord) claimant means a claimant referred to in paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act. (demandeur) designated country means a country designated by section 159.3. (pays désigné) family member, in respect of a claimant, means their spouse or common-law partner, their legal guardian, and any of the following persons, namely, their child, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. (membre de la famille) legal guardian, in respect of a claimant who has not attained the age of 18 years, means a person who has custody of the claimant or who is empowered to act on the claimant’s behalf by virtue of a court order or written agreement or by operation of law. (tuteur légal) United States means the United States of America, but does not include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam or any other United States of America possession or territory. (États-Unis)

Non-application — former habitual residence 159.2 Paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act does not apply to a claimant who is a stateless person who comes directly or indirectly to Canada from a designated country that is their country of former habitual residence.

Designation — United States 159.3 The United States is designated under paragraph 102(1)(a) of the Act as a country that complies with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, and is a designated country for the purpose of the application of paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act.

Non-application — ports of entry other than land ports of entry 159.4 (1) Paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act does not apply to a claimant who seeks to enter Canada at (a) a location that is not a port of entry; (b) a port of entry that is a harbour port, including a ferry landing; or (c) subject to subsection (2), a port of entry that is an airport.

In transit exception (2) Paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act applies to a claimant who has been ordered removed from the United States and who seeks to enter Canada at a port of entry that is an airport while they are in transit through Canada from the United States in the course of the enforcement of that order.

Non-application — claimants at land ports of entry 159.5 Paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act does not apply if a claimant who seeks to enter Canada at a location other than one identified in paragraphs 159.4(1)(a) to (c) establishes, in accordance with subsection 100(4) of the Act, that (a) a family member of the claimant is in Canada and is a Canadian citizen; (b) a family member of the claimant is in Canada and is (i) a protected person within the meaning of subsection 95(2) of the Act, (ii) a permanent resident under the Act, or (iii) a person in favour of whom a removal order has been stayed in accordance with section 233; (c) a family member of the claimant who has attained the age of 18 years is in Canada and has made a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the Board for determination, unless (i) the claim has been withdrawn by the family member, (ii) the claim has been abandoned by the family member, (iii) the claim has been rejected, or (iv) any pending proceedings or proceedings respecting the claim have been terminated under subsection 104(2) of the Act or any decision respecting the claim has been nullified under that subsection; (d) a family member of the claimant who has attained the age of 18 years is in Canada and is the holder of a work permit or study permit other than (i) a work permit that was issued under paragraph 206(b) or that has become invalid as a result of the application of section 209, or (ii) a study permit that has become invalid as a result of the application of section 222; (e) the claimant is a person who (i) has not attained the age of 18 years and is not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian, (ii) has neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and (iii) has neither a mother or father nor a legal guardian in Canada or the United States; (f) the claimant is the holder of any of the following documents, excluding any document issued for the sole purpose of transit through Canada, namely, (i) a permanent resident visa or a temporary resident visa referred to in section 6 and subsection 7(1), respectively, (ii) a temporary resident permit issued under subsection 24(1) of the Act, (iii) a travel document referred to in subsection 31(3) of the Act, (iv) refugee travel papers issued by the Minister, or (v) a temporary travel document referred to in section 151; (g) the claimant is a person (i) who may, under the Act or these Regulations, enter Canada without being required to hold a visa, and (ii) who would, if the claimant were entering the United States, be required to hold a visa; or (h) the claimant is (i) a foreign national who is seeking to re-enter Canada in circumstances where they have been refused entry to the United States without having a refugee claim adjudicated there, or (ii) a permanent resident who has been ordered removed from the United States and is being returned to Canada.

Non-application — claimants at land ports of entry and in transit 159.6 Paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act does not apply if a claimant establishes, in accordance with subsection 100(4) of the Act, that the claimant (a) is charged in the United States with, or has been convicted there of, an offence that is punishable with the death penalty in the United States; or (b) is charged in a country other than the United States with, or has been convicted there of, an offence that is punishable with the death penalty in that country. (c) [Repealed, SOR/2009-210, s. 1]

Temporal operation 159.7 (1) For the purposes of paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act, the application of all or part of sections 159.1 to 159.6 and this section is discontinued, in accordance with subsections (2) to (6), if (a) a notice of suspension of the Agreement setting out the period of suspension is publicized broadly in the various regions of Canada by the Minister via information media and on the website of the Department; (b) a notice of renewal of the suspension of the Agreement setting out the period of renewal of suspension is published in accordance with subsection (6); (c) a notice of suspension of a part of the Agreement is issued by the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States; or (d) a notice of termination of the Agreement is issued by the Government of Canada or the Government of the United States.

Paragraph (1)(a) — notice of suspension of Agreement (2) Subject to subsection (3), if a notice of suspension of the Agreement is publicized under paragraph (1)(a), sections 159.2 to 159.6 are rendered inoperative for a period of up to three months that shall be set out in the notice, which period shall begin on the day after the day on which the notice is publicized.

Paragraph (1)(b) — notice of renewal of suspension of Agreement (3) If a notice of renewal of the suspension of the Agreement is published under paragraph (1)(b), sections 159.2 to 159.6 are rendered inoperative for the further period of up to three months set out in the notice.

Paragraph (1)(c) — suspension of part of Agreement (4) If a notice of suspension of part of the Agreement is issued under paragraph (1)(c), those provisions of these Regulations relating to the application of the Agreement that are referred to in the notice are rendered inoperative for a period that shall be set out in the notice. All other provisions of these Regulations continue to apply.

Paragraph (1)(d) — termination of Agreement (5) If a notice of termination of the Agreement is issued under paragraph (1)(d), sections 159.1 to 159.6 and this section cease to have effect on the day set out in the notice.

Publication requirement — Canada Gazette (6) Any notice referred to in paragraph (1)(b), (c) or (d) shall be published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, not less than seven days before the day on which the renewal, suspension in part or termination provided for in the notice is effective.

Section 102 of the Act concerns eligibility to claim, the safe third country agreement, and the criteria for listing a country
Section 102 of the IRPA reads as follows: Regulations 102 (1) The regulations may govern matters relating to the application of sections 100 and 101, may, for the purposes of this Act, define the terms used in those sections and, for the purpose of sharing responsibility with governments of foreign states for the consideration of refugee claims, may include provisions (a) designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture; (b) making a list of those countries and amending it as necessary; and (c) respecting the circumstances and criteria for the application of paragraph 101(1)(e).

Factors (2) The following factors are to be considered in designating a country under paragraph (1)(a): (a) whether the country is a party to the Refugee Convention and to the Convention Against Torture; (b) its policies and practices with respect to claims under the Refugee Convention and with respect to obligations under the Convention Against Torture; (c) its human rights record; and (d) whether it is party to an agreement with the Government of Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection.

Review (3) The Governor in Council must ensure the continuing review of factors set out in subsection (2) with respect to each designated country. For more detail and context, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/100-102 - Examination of Eligibility to Refer Claim.

Text of the Safe Third Country Agreement
The above regulatory provisions implement the text of the Safe Third Country Agreement in Canadian law; see this citation for the text of the agreement between Canada and the US itself and the 2022 additional protocol amending the agreement. The additional protocol came into effect In March 2023, when Canada and the U.S. announced the Additional Protocol to the STCA that would expand its scope to apply across the entire land border, and not merely at official ports of entry.

See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Principles for the interpretation of refugee procedure and Canadian Refugee Procedure/Principles for the interpretation of refugee procedure.

Factual background to the Safe Third Country Agreement
The political background against which the safe third country agreement operates is the much higher number of refugee claims that Canada receives per capita than does the United States. The United States and Canada are both popular asylum-seeker destinations that conduct Refugee Status Determination on a relatively large scale. The United States consistently receives more asylum applications than any other country; in 2012, it received 17.4% of the total number of asylum applications lodged worldwide. Canada tends to hover in the top five receiving countries; in 2008 it was the second most popular and in 2012 it was sixth, with 4.3% of worldwide applications. As is apparent, Canada receives far more asylum seekers per capita than does the United States - during the five-year period between 2006 and 2010, for example, Canada received one asylum application for every 236 residents; in the United States, the ratio was one asylum application per every 1200 residents. Furthermore, many claimants in Canada have traversed the United States before arriving in this country. For example, from 1995 to 2001, approximately one-third of all refugee claims in Canada were made by claimants known to have arrived from or through the U.S.

Legislative provisions regarding safe third countries have been part of the Immigration Act since 1988. At that point, the provision was enacted, but no country was listed. For more detail, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/History of refugee procedure in Canada.

The "Direct Back Policy"
See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR ss. 28-52 - Conduct of Examination.

Section 159.3: Countries are designated where they, among other things, comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention
Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention provides that:"No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."Article 33(1) has long been interpreted as prohibiting not only the direct return of refugees to the country where they fear persecution, but also their indirect return via a third country. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Principles for the interpretation of refugee procedure.

Constitutionality of the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States
The constitutionality of the Safe Third Country Agreement regime has been repeatedly challenged in Canadian courts. All of the challenges to it have been dismissed. The first two challenges were dismissed for procedural reasons - by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992 and the Federal Court of Appeal in 2008. The third challenge resulted in the Supreme Court of Canada partially upholding the constitutionality of the regime in 2023, while remitting a gender-based aspect of the challenge to the Federal Court for future proceedings.


text:
User talk:Paulapalmer26

How To Set Up Comcast Email On iPhone
How To Set Up Comcast Email On iPhone

title: User talk:Paulapalmer26


text:
User talk:JackPotte/2020

Deleted neetwee page
Hello Sir, please give me the issues about the page Neetwee, you have deleted and please provide your precious help to be approved.
 * Hello, the Neetwee website presentation page was just not a book : WB:NOT. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

German/Level I/Essen/Test text missing
Hi, I was working my way through section 1 of this book and it looks like the text has been deleted. do you have any further info on where i can find these as i am really enjoying the txtbook so far.

thanks! Traf56 (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * hello, the only page content was the one visible into German/Level I/Essen/Test: "to eat". JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Reading room
The editor reverting you on the Reading Room is referring to this deleted book A hand book of life sciences I believe. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've informed User talk:Pallavi962. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi JackPotte, You have deleted a page: https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=New_Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights&action=edit&redlink=1 Could you please help me figure an adequate way of using a wiki to write a collective work? Would Wikiversity be more adequate? Kindest regards
 * I've restored the stub on User:Joaoalvesmarrucho/sandbox. Actually even collective works have to start in a sandbox to avoid indexing empty contents. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you! Joao 17:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you! Joao 17:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion
Why did you delete my page "Guide About Kittens/What You Need to Know"? Its not spam. It helps users who want to adapt a kitten. I just want to make a book that won't get deleted. BookImaginationIsNeeded helps (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello and sorry but the page Guide About Kittens/What you need to know seemed to me like a stubby original content just with references to a few external sites and no TOC, which constitutes a few violations of our policy.
 * Anyway, I've restored it into User:User:BookImaginationIsNeeded/Guide About Kittens/What you need to know to allow you to develop it. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by develop the page? BookImaginationIsNeeded helps (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had put the link to Policies and guidelines. The main space books must comply with these policies. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy of
Per I am trying to do WP:BOLD and get into WikiBooks and get a transwiki of a WikiBooks Character Encoding  (EBCDIC) transwikied from WP to WB. I am waiting for an import for resources from WP:RBI as suggested by. Building Haycocks has the potential to by a valid book. The main page is structure derived from a featured article and is giving me a reasonable structure. Priority one is the Character Encoding stuff which I have been limited to one month to try to achieve. My RL at the moment is stressed and dealing with a speedy is the last thing I need. And given I have Template:Stage at 0% I have made every effort to indicate I am aware this is a work in progress. I am unsure how my life will unfold in the next month, but if I am not wanted here on WikiBooks then simply ban me now. While Djm-leighpark is my normal account is my alternate for automation and automation (possibly offline scripts) will be used in the stand up of Character encodings. If you need my experience in building haycocks I was trained by one of the best builders in South Sligo .... if you dont want the fruits of my knowledge on WikiBooks then tell me to get off WikiBooks now and block me and I can raise the appropriate DRV back on WP. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a speedy of Building Haycocks. Djm-leighpark (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not sure if I did something wrong, I certainly didn't want to be unwelcoming by categorizing your book into those to develop (if you had any idea to improve the template text, you're welcome).
 * Actually we can't afford to publish thousands of empty books TOCs in the search engine, that's why the special:mypage/sandbox has been made. Then, when a book is worthwhile reading we can move it into the main namespace. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a front page that defines the structure (chapters and sections) for a lightweight book called "Building Haycocks". The idea is I can pick an individual chapter or section, think about it and write a little, on a divide and conquer basis.  But a partial (major?) purpose is so that I train myself in building the structure for a book potential name "Character Encodings".  That is far a higher level of complexity and will take 50+ transwikied pages in the first place with several hundred more likely to follow.  (The EBCDIC pages are on a 30 day time limit and Iam under RL crunch at the moment, with next week more so, though to be fair my issues are minor compared to those of many others and loads of people are supportive, I cannot necessarily say the same for their computer and telephone answering systems).  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Proof of monism
I am the author so I give my permission HumbleBeauty (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, actually the process is to prove it by writing to OTRS. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, Jack thanks for reviewing those new pages btw, I have been expanding the Wikijunior/Africa books for some time, either as an IP and this account.I am not also new to Wikimedia, so Do all my edits have to be reviewed, since it’s really uncomfortable seeing my edits in yellow. Is there a way to make my contributions in Wikijunior automatically checked? Regards --Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 07:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, there is an autopromotion which will automatically change your account after a few more edits. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not entirely true. Autopromotion stopped working last year. Prahlad balaji (discuss • contribs) 05:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s working, check the log here--Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 08:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , not for me. check my log here --Prahlad balaji (T / C) 16:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5 or more of your edits should be in recent changes at the time automatic reviewer promotion is checked. Since it started working a few days ago, the editors that were promoted had more than five edits in the recent changes. Just continue editing more often and you will be automatically reviewed. --Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A new proposal
Hi, there is currently a proposal at Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals for non-admins to be given the ability of    and. Since you’ve been an active user on Wikibooks for the last thirty day, I thought you might join in by giving feedback/opinion or amendments. Thank you so much for your time Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Story of Rhodesia problem
Hi, I just stumbled across the book “The story of Rhodesia” and in the shelf “history of Africa”, it’s listed as completion unknown. I added the status template but it still says completion unknown. Can you please help? Thanks in advance, -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * hello, I've just edited Category:Shelf:African history without changing anything to empty its server cache, and the book wasn't in unknown anymore. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much! -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 09:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 * <pi zero, in passing> Btw, curiously (to me, anyway), purging cache for the category page updated it but didn't update the shelf itself, Shelf:African history, even though the category is generated by transcluding the contents of the shelf. This is, I suppose, because the expansion of the lists on the page happens after transclusion though before caching.  (I've now purged the shelf too, though I'm sort of sorry to have done it since the anomaly is no longer visible.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't be sorry, I take your word for granted. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

JackBot
Hello, why did the addition of BookCat (i.e., edits like this) stop? I've now spent some time cleaning the backlog at Special:UncategorizedPages using AWB, but a bot would probably be more efficient there. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, well, sometimes I have to manually reconnect the bot because Pywikipedia doesn't reconnect automatically after sessions expirations. But in our case, it's because the script calls a method of the framework which doesn't exist anymore. I'm going to fix this... JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any updates on this? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The script is running every night but it doesn't add BookCat is the last editor is not trusted, just to avoid to hide any vandalism and its revocation button. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to work; the last edit with "BookCat" in the edit summary was in 2017. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, Special:UncategorizedPages is up-to-date but the bot retrieves less pages than that through the API (and it has no cache for that). So I must investigate... JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Actually the bot pages lists were correct. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

A question about Shelf:Electronic games
Hi, this is a question for the future because currently I’m working on The Story of Rhodesia, but I have a question about Shelf:Electronic games. In its descriptions it’s written: "Books on this shelf deal with electronic games: games that employ electronics to create an interactive system with which a player can play. Video games are the most common form of electronic game today, and for this reason the terms are often mistakenly used synonymously. Books include information on the cultural significance of specific electronic games, and application of electronic games as learning and education tools. Games in a series should be part of the same book. Wikibooks is not for walkthroughs and strategy guides—use StrategyWiki instead." It says that games from the same series must be in the same book, but it also suggests that games that are not part of a series can’t have more than one book. If I want to make a book about Minecraft villagers or a certain mod for Minecraft (like the galactic craft mod or programming in computercraft mod, am I allowed to? Because I think Wikibooks is a great place for this, and it will help expand the project, and bring more editors. Also many games have more than enough information for several book. Thanks in advance, -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Also, it’s possible to write books about the history of Minecraft server (not Minecraft servers as a whole, specific Minecraft servers with many players and many Youtubers making base tours). But I’m not sure if it’s allowed because of the sentence “Games in a series should be part of the same book”. If different games in the same series must be in the same book, so according to this rule there can’t be more than one book about the same game, right? -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * hello, that's typically the kind of discussion we could have on Reading room. In my opinion your project could be refused because of What_is_Wikibooks. But I'm not 100% sure. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I asked this question in Reading room/General. Thanks for the reply! -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:JackPotte/2020


text:
Talk:Electronics/Flip Flops

Is this my English, or the whole "The main remeady is going for master-slave jk flip-flop,this ff overrides the self(internal) recurring toggling through the pulsed clocking feature incorporated." doesn't make any sense at all? 62.122.90.189 (discuss) 04:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Electronics/Flip Flops


text:
User:Tinashelorenzi

Hi I'm Tinashe. Im a penetration tester and ethical hacker. I'm here to edit things, hopefully lead them to perfection. I'm also here to listen to people's ideas, and help with collaborative editting.

Contact me
Contactt me

Contact me
Facebook: facebook.com/tinashe.matanda.9003

Email: tinashelorenzi@protonmail.com

title: User:Tinashelorenzi


text:
User talk:Mathmensch/Archives/2019/October

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


text: User talk:MatthewFreitag

title: User talk:MatthewFreitag


text:
History of Flight/Introduction

The dream of being able to fly is likely as old as abstract thought. Our earliest human ancestors looked at birds, majestically spreading their wings and flying high overhead – and dreamed of ways to gain the gift of flight.

Ancient myths and legends offer many examples of the human dream of flying like birds. An ancient Greek legend has King Corinth, with the aid of the winged horse Pegasus, flying into battle with a multi-headed monster. Ancient Persian legend has the King capturing eagles and attaching them to his throne so he can fly around, checking on his kingdom. One of the best-known Greek legends is that of Daedalus and Icarus, a father and son who flew by fashioning wings from wax. Icarus was so intoxicated by the experience that he ignored his father's warning, soared too close to the sun and crashed to earth after his wings melted.

In practical terms, around 400 B.C.E. The Chinese invented the kite. This simple device led them to think that humans might fly aboard a large kite. While that dream proved elusive at the time, the invention of kites was a start on the road to other important flight discoveries such as balloons and gliders. The history of human flight is primarily one of disappointment until the 18th century. Many brave inventors tried to achieve flight, often by attempting to mimic flying as birds do. Some tried to fly by attaching wings to their arms and jumping from high cliffs, but these episodes of course ended in disaster.

By 1485, Leonardo da Vinci had started sketching his ideas of ways in which people might fly, including his flapping-wing ornithopter. He produced hundreds of flight-related sketches, many of them showing devices to get humans airborne. Da Vinci's air screw has inspired many others since and, while it could never have flown, is often considered an inspiration of the modern helicopter.

The French brothers Joseph-Michel and Jacques-Étienne Montgolfier were the first to get humans airborne, in their hot-air balloon. They made a big bag out of taffeta fabric used a fire underneath to fill the bag with hot air. The passengers climbed into a basket that surrounded the hole at the base of the balloon and, as it filled with hot air (which is less dense than cold) the balloon was able to rise.

Before the king allowed humans to fly, though, the balloon had to be tested. The very first passengers, or test pilots, were three animals. This honor went to a duck, a rooster and a sheep. They flew about two miles at a height of up to 1,500 feet.

In the 19th century, the American brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright tested their flying machine, creatively named Flyer, at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina. Kitty Hawk was chosen because it was reliably windy, which helped get the aeroplane aloft. Later, the Wright brothers opened the first flight school to the public.

The desire to leave the ground and fly freely has captured human imagination for millennia. Now, with flight such an everyday experience, we can easily forget the many brave men who sacrificed so much including, often, their lives in the pursuit of the dream of flight. If it were not for these men's persistence and bravery, we might still be marvelling at the birds' abilities and dreaming of joining them in the skies.

title: History of Flight/Introduction


text: History of Flight/Timeline

title: History of Flight/Timeline


text:
History of Flight/Lighter than air

Two French brothers by the names of Joseph-Michel and Jacques-Étienne Montgolfier came up with the idea of an air balloon. They made a big bag out of silk and blew hot air into the bag. The silk bag then was attached to a basket. Under the basket was smoke from the fire which helped the air to go to the silk bag and allow the balloon to rise.

The very first passengers by the balloon were three animals. The honor goes to a duck, rooster, and a sheep. They flew over one mile in a 6000 feet high altitude.

title: History of Flight/Lighter than air


text:
User talk:Wilson868

Welcome, Wilson868!

If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or possibly contact me personally. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wilson868


text:
Handbook of Management Scales/Change success

Description
Cudanov, Tornjanski and Jasko have developed construct based on Beckhard and Harris's model and the subsequent literature with the primary purpose to provide quantitative prediction model in the area of organizational change management. Authors have formalized earlier qualitative assessment into measurement construct aiming at certifying Beckhard and Harris's change model empirically.

Definition
Change success represents one of the components in Beckhard and Harris's model. Second-order construct referring to change success component takes into account tangible and intangible perspectives, including: financial perspective, stakeholders' perspective, company's competitiveness and other related shown in items hereafter.

Items
Component "CS" (1 - Completely disagree; 5 - Completely agree):
 * Costs of change were realistic and completely acceptable
 * Change was implemented in planned deadlines
 * Change was implemented within planned budget
 * Change improved efficiency and effectiveness of business
 * Change fulfilled financial goals
 * Change was very useful for suppliers and clients
 * Change was very useful for employees
 * Change was very useful for managers
 * Change was very useful for owners/shareholders
 * Change improved service/product quality
 * Change improved company competitiveness
 * Change fulfilled demands from regulatory bodies

Source

 * Cudanov, M., Tornjanski, V., & Jasko, O. (2019). CHANGE EQUATION EFFECTIVENESS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOUTH-EAST EUROPE. E+ M Ekonomie a Management, 22(1), 99-115; https://dspace.tul.cz/bitstream/handle/15240/151424/EM_1_2019_07.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 * Tornjanski, V. (2019). Predviđanje uspešnosti organizacionih promena kvantitativnim Bekard i Harisovim modelom (Doctoral dissertation, Univerzitet u Beogradu-Fakultet organizacionih nauka); http://uvidok.rcub.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/handle/123456789/3612/Doktorat.pdf?sequence=1


text:
Handbook of Management Scales/The degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo

Description
Cudanov, Tornjanski and Jasko have developed construct based on Beckhard and Harris's model and the subsequent literature with the primary purpose to provide quantitative prediction model in the area of organizational change management. Authors have formalized earlier qualitative assessment into measurement construct aiming at certifying Beckhard and Harris's change model empirically. First component in Beckhard and Harris's change formula, i.e. “D”, refers to the degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Accordingly, second-order construct depicted in text below refers to measuring dissatisfaction of actual state within organizations.

Definition
Dissatisfaction with the status quo illustrates discontent of employees with the actual situation, noting that employees would not be motivated to change if they are satisfied with the current situation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987). High level of dissatisfaction with the status quo represents a significant factor that contributes to reducing level of resistance to change (Beckhard & Harris, 1987; Cudanov et al., 2019; Tornjanski, 2019).

Items
Construct consists of 5-point scale aiming at measuring the degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Component "D" (1 - Completely disagree; 5 - Completely agree):
 * I was completely satisfied with situation before change
 * If I could, I would change organization long before change was initiated
 * I was very satisfied to hear idea about change

Source

 * Cudanov, M., Tornjanski, V., & Jasko, O. (2019). CHANGE EQUATION EFFECTIVENESS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOUTH-EAST EUROPE. E+ M Ekonomie a Management, 22(1), 99-115; https://dspace.tul.cz/bitstream/handle/15240/151424/EM_1_2019_07.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 * Tornjanski, V. (2019). Predviđanje uspešnosti organizacionih promena kvantitativnim Bekard i Harisovim modelom (Doctoral dissertation, Univerzitet u Beogradu-Fakultet organizacionih nauka); http://uvidok.rcub.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/handle/123456789/3612/Doktorat.pdf?sequence=1
 * Beckhard, R. F., & Harris, R T. (1987). Organizational Transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley


text:
Handbook of Management Scales/Change initiation - Change success

Description
Cudanov, Tornjanski and Jasko have developed construct based on Beckhard and Harris's model and the subsequent literature with the primary purpose to provide quantitative prediction model in the area of organizational change management. Authors have formalized earlier qualitative assessment into measurement construct aiming at certifying Beckhard and Harris's change model empirically.

Definition
Change success represents one of the components in Beckhard and Harris's model. Second-order construct referring to change success component takes into account tangible and intangible perspectives, including: financial perspective, stakeholders' perspective, company's competitiveness and other related shown in items hereafter.

Items
Component "CS" (1 - Completely disagree; 5 - Completely agree):
 * Costs of change were realistic and completely acceptable
 * Change was implemented in planned deadlines
 * Change was implemented within planned budget
 * Change improved efficiency and effectiveness of business
 * Change fulfilled financial goals
 * Change was very useful for suppliers and clients
 * Change was very useful for employees
 * Change was very useful for managers
 * Change was very useful for owners/shareholders
 * Change improved service/product quality
 * Change improved company competitiveness
 * Change fulfilled demands from regulatory bodies

Source

 * Cudanov, M., Tornjanski, V., & Jasko, O. (2019). CHANGE EQUATION EFFECTIVENESS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOUTH-EAST EUROPE. E+ M Ekonomie a Management, 22(1), 99-115; https://dspace.tul.cz/bitstream/handle/15240/151424/EM_1_2019_07.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 * Tornjanski, V. (2019). PREDICTING AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE SUCCESS USING QUANTITATIVE BECKHARD AND HARRIS’S CHANGE MODEL. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338385603_PREDICTING_AN_ORGANIZATIONAL_CHANGE_SUCCESS_USING_QUANTITATIVE_BECKHARD_AND_HARRIS'S_CHANGE_MODEL


text:
Handbook of Management Scales/Change initiation - The degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo

Description
Cudanov, Tornjanski and Jasko have developed construct based on Beckhard and Harris's model and the subsequent literature with the primary purpose to provide quantitative prediction model in the area of organizational change management. Authors have formalized earlier qualitative assessment into measurement construct aiming at certifying Beckhard and Harris's change model empirically. First component in Beckhard and Harris's change formula, i.e. “D”, refers to the degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Accordingly, second-order construct depicted in text below refers to measuring dissatisfaction of actual state within organizations.

Definition
Dissatisfaction with the status quo illustrates discontent of employees with the actual situation, noting that employees would not be motivated to change if they are satisfied with the current situation (Beckhard & Harris, 1987). High level of dissatisfaction with the status quo represents a significant factor that contributes to reducing level of resistance to change (Beckhard & Harris, 1987; Cudanov et al., 2019; Tornjanski, 2019).

Items
Construct consists of 5-point scale aiming at measuring the degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Component "D" (1 - Completely disagree; 5 - Completely agree):
 * I was completely satisfied with situation before change
 * If I could, I would change organization long before change was initiated
 * I was very satisfied to hear idea about change

Source

 * Cudanov, M., Tornjanski, V., & Jasko, O. (2019). CHANGE EQUATION EFFECTIVENESS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOUTH-EAST EUROPE. E+ M Ekonomie a Management, 22(1), 99-115; https://dspace.tul.cz/bitstream/handle/15240/151424/EM_1_2019_07.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 * Tornjanski, V. (2019). PREDICTING AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE SUCCESS USING QUANTITATIVE BECKHARD AND HARRIS’S CHANGE MODEL. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338385603_PREDICTING_AN_ORGANIZATIONAL_CHANGE_SUCCESS_USING_QUANTITATIVE_BECKHARD_AND_HARRIS'S_CHANGE_MODEL
 * Beckhard, R. F., & Harris, R T. (1987). Organizational Transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley


text:
Handbook of Management Scales/Change initiation - Clarity and strength of vision of change

Description
Cudanov, Tornjanski and Jasko have developed construct based on Beckhard and Harris's model and the subsequent literature with the primary purpose to provide quantitative prediction model in the area of organizational change management. Authors have formalized earlier qualitative assessment into measurement construct aiming at certifying Beckhard and Harris's change model empirically. Second component in Beckhard and Harris's change formula, i.e. “V”, refers to the clarity and strength of vision of change. Accordingly, second-order construct depicted in text below refers to assessment of clarity and strength of change vision.

Definition
Vision should be attractive, understandable, aimable and shared in details to all employees with the purpose to bring employees positive attitude for a future state to move forward (Beckhard & Harris, 1987). Pearce and Ensley (2004, p. 260, 261) described shared vision “as a common mental model of the future state of the team or its tasks that provides the basis for action within the team” (Cudanov et al., 2019).

Items
(1 - Completely disagree; 5 - Completely agree):
 * Change vision is very inspirational and I am sure it will lead to be better than now
 * I would work hard for obtaining change vision
 * I would give a lot to work in a company which is as described in our change vision

Source

 * Cudanov, M., Tornjanski, V., & Jasko, O. (2019). CHANGE EQUATION EFFECTIVENESS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOUTH-EAST EUROPE. E+ M Ekonomie a Management, 22(1), 99-115; https://dspace.tul.cz/bitstream/handle/15240/151424/EM_1_2019_07.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 * Tornjanski, V. (2019). PREDICTING AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE SUCCESS USING QUANTITATIVE BECKHARD AND HARRIS’S CHANGE MODEL. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338385603_PREDICTING_AN_ORGANIZATIONAL_CHANGE_SUCCESS_USING_QUANTITATIVE_BECKHARD_AND_HARRIS'S_CHANGE_MODEL
 * Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 259-278; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/job.235
 * Beckhard, R. F., & Harris, R T. (1987).Organizational Transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley


text:
Handbook of Management Scales/Change initiation - Clarity of actions towards preferred future state

Description
Cudanov, Tornjanski and Jasko have developed construct based on Beckhard and Harris's model and the subsequent literature with the primary purpose to provide quantitative prediction model in the area of organizational change management. Authors have formalized earlier qualitative assessment into measurement construct aiming at certifying Beckhard and Harris's change model empirically. Third component in Beckhard and Harris's change formula, i.e. “F”, refers to the clarity of actions towards preferred future state. Accordingly, second-order construct depicted in text below refers to assessment of first steps clarity towards desired future state.

Definition
Third component, “F”, characterizes practical first steps or worthwhile actions as beginning of change process towards preferred future state. The significance of the actions can be explained by the notion “Vision without action is a dream” (Higgs & Dulewicz, 2016, p. 80; Cudanov et al., 2019; Tornjanski, 2019).

Items
Component "F" (1 - Completely disagree; 5 - Completely agree):
 * I knew what was expected of me in the change process (towards vision)
 * Implementation deadlines were realistic
 * I have had necessary management support towards change implementation

Source

 * Cudanov, M., Tornjanski, V., & Jasko, O. (2019). CHANGE EQUATION EFFECTIVENESS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOUTH-EAST EUROPE. E+ M Ekonomie a Management, 22(1), 99-115; https://dspace.tul.cz/bitstream/handle/15240/151424/EM_1_2019_07.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 * Tornjanski, V. (2019). PREDICTING AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE SUCCESS USING QUANTITATIVE BECKHARD AND HARRIS’S CHANGE MODEL. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338385603_PREDICTING_AN_ORGANIZATIONAL_CHANGE_SUCCESS_USING_QUANTITATIVE_BECKHARD_AND_HARRIS'S_CHANGE_MODEL
 * Beckhard, R. F., & Harris, R T. (1987).Organizational Transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
 * Higgs, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2016).Developments in leadership thinking.In Leading with Emotional Intelligence (pp. 75-103).Springer International Publishing; doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32637-5_6


text:
Handbook of Management Scales/Change initiation - Resistance to change

Description
Cudanov, Tornjanski and Jasko have developed construct based on Beckhard and Harris's model and the subsequent literature with the primary purpose to provide quantitative prediction model in the area of organizational change management. Authors have formalized earlier qualitative assessment into measurement construct aiming at certifying Beckhard and Harris's change model empirically. Fourth component in Beckhard and Harris's change formula, i.e. “R”, refers to resistance to change. Accordingly, second-order construct depicted in text below refers to assessment of change resistance.

Definition
Resistance to change has been found as the biggest limitation to successful change (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Cudanov et al., 2019; Tornjanski, 2019). Resistance to change definition can be found at the following link: https://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Bolognese721.html

Items
Component "R" (1 - Completely disagree; 5 - Completely agree):
 * I do not like change and I have negative attitude regarding it
 * When I was informed about change, I have felt tense and discomfort
 * Change of plan is nightmare for me
 * I do not change my attitude easily

Source

 * Cudanov, M., Tornjanski, V., & Jasko, O. (2019). CHANGE EQUATION EFFECTIVENESS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOUTH-EAST EUROPE. E+ M Ekonomie a Management, 22(1), 99-115; https://dspace.tul.cz/bitstream/handle/15240/151424/EM_1_2019_07.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 * Tornjanski, V. (2019). PREDICTING AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE SUCCESS USING QUANTITATIVE BECKHARD AND HARRIS’S CHANGE MODEL. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338385603_PREDICTING_AN_ORGANIZATIONAL_CHANGE_SUCCESS_USING_QUANTITATIVE_BECKHARD_AND_HARRIS'S_CHANGE_MODEL
 * Beckhard, R. F., & Harris, R T. (1987).Organizational Transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
 * Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015).Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change.Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215.


text:
Talk:Rhetoric and Composition/Introduction

The intro states: "a practical guide for students struggling to improve their writing"--which was a turn-off for me. Why not just say "a practical guide for students seeking to improve their writing"?


text:
User talk:VTornjanski

--ЗAНИA talk 02:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:VTornjanski


text:
Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Wikijunior:How Things Work/Binary

Wikijunior:How_Things_Work/Binary is a duplicate of Wikijunior:How_Things_Work/Binary_Numbers. The second of those two articles is better developed and has much more content. GKFXtalk 14:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 02:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's not very much content in the deletion candidate that doesn't exist in some form in Binary Numbers, so while a merge is obviously the correct policy thing to do, in practice there won't be very much merging to do. GKFXtalk 08:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You could have just nominated it for speedy deletion then. 19:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * . 19:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

If nobody opposes this, I will mark this RfD in 7 days. 22:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't, please. You've been asked not to close RFDs.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 * . Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 02:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)