User talk:WeisheitSuchen/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, WeisheitSuchen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• The Sandbox, a place to test out Wikipedia's features.
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please feel welcome to start your own pages, in addition to editing existing ones. If you create a page, and change your mind about it before any other user makes a significant edit to it, leave a {{db-self}} on it so that it will be deleted.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects.

Again, welcome! Od Mishehu 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Janesville, Wisconsin the religious section

Hi! I reverted a edit that removed the religious section from the Janesville, Wisconsin article. No reasons was given and I am treating this as vandalism. Thanks-RFD 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you had any idea why the section on religion is being deleted. I do believe it was vandalism I wish there some reason why. Thanks-RFD 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. No, I don't think there is any reason. It isn't something that's been discussed on the talk page for the article, and the information seems valid and appropriate to me. I'll keep an eye on it and see if it happens again. Thanks for the clarification! WeisheitSuchen 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for responding concerning the proposed merger of the articles about the town and city of Janesville. RFD (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Constructivism

I didn't delete them, I moved your comments on constructivism moved to the discussion area. --131.247.61.150 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC) I'm not trying to be a pain, and I would like to understand your persperctive. Perhaps we should discuss it via email. dlewis3@health.usf.edu --Dlewis3 (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Constructivism (cont'd)

Forgive me if I irritated you.

I agree with you that Wikipedia is a good place to discuss things. Unfortunately very few people use it that way. It's kind of impersonal and easy to forget you might upset someone if you edit something. I sometimes get frustrated with Wikipedia (or the people that edit it rather). I feel it is often full of "folk theory," and not well grounded. Like constructivism I believe it is ruled by what's in fashion, not necessarily what's in the literature. Don't get me wrong I believe in constructivist teaching techniques. It's just that they are not meant for novices. Check out that Mayer article I cited.

I don't know about you, but I sometimes wish their were Wikipedia editors. I try my best to cite stuff. By the way do you have a citation(s) that critique the Kirschner et al.(2006) article? I'm working on my dissertation and critics of this stuff are hard to find because it is so new. Maybe I could discuss things better, from an informed perspective, if I see where you are coming from.

--Dlewis3 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments continued

You still seem upset. Again that was not my intention.

Thanks for mentioning Stephen Downs as a critic. Again please check out that article by Mayer and I promise to read up on what Downs has written. You know we are really talking about different kinds of learning (procedural and declarative)

Here...

• Mayer, R. (2004). "Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction". American Psychologist. 59 (1): 14–19.

--Dlewis3 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unschooling & Constructivism

Thanks for your input and suggestions. After doing much, much more reading up on Constructivist (both learning and teaching), I no longer really think that unschooling and Constructivist teaching methods should be linked to one another. Thanks again. elijahsmum (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact templates

The date syntax is: {{Fact|any other arguments|date=December 2007}}, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a WP:BOT. Rich Farmbrough, 11:59 28 December 2007 (GMT).

Whoops! Sorry about that. I'll get it right next time. Thanks for clarifying.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A neutral point of view takes both sides

Your taking this personal and abusing the policy. I explained a case and how both sides would feel about it.

--Dlewis3 (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

taking it personal

Perhaps I took it personal. You have explained your perspective although it seems a bit odd to me.

Thank you for mentioning the blog to me. It gave me pause for concern. But sometimes a controversial or unpopular perspective is what is in everyone's best interest (e.g. being against slavery). At least that's my opinion.

So NPOV is not necessarily "a good thing." FYI, ranking high in Google is not necessarily a bad thing. It's quite possible I brought positive attention to Wikipedia. I understand that not everyone is going to agree with me, but if you have strong evidence to back up your arguments I feel you should defend your perspective.

I understand your edits, but am a bit concerned with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

--Dlewis3 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. As you mentioned, mine is a minority position. This tends to make you all the more passionate. In addition, with what I believe is a great deal of evidence, its hard to take the opposing perspective. While I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I have made plenty of non passionate straight forward arguments. Please respect my ideas and mention something to me if you feel you need to remove it.

--Dlewis3 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WeisheitSuchen I think there is much to be done concerning those articles. You comments have been very helpful. I'm sure we could debate this ad infinitum, but as you said we should let others comment, anyway I really need to complete my dissertation. I thank you for taking the time and effort to discuss your perspective.

--Dlewis3 (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Warnings...

I saw that you left a warning on an editor's talk page (in the edit comment)...what does that mean?[it was NPOV level 1] Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks it answered my question! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the Constructivism deletion... the "Criticism of Educational Constructivism" section...

thanks --Dlewis3 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just because I don't agree with the criticisms doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be included in the article. :) WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Help on Connectivism

{{helpme}}

I'm not sure what to do about the changes made by ENexter on Connectivism and Connectivism (learning theory). This user moved the original content from the Connectivism page, regarding the learning theory of Connectivism, to a new page and entirely replaced it with content about the literature movement. That means we lose all the history of changes on the learning theory content, and the discussion page is no longer associated with the right content.

I think that the original page probably should be renamed "Connectivism (learning theory)" and the original content replaced. That would keep all the history and talk together, right? Then a new page called "Connectivism" should be started that either has the literature info or is a disambiguation page.

Once all the info is in the right place, I'd like to have some discussion about article names and the best way to handle everything. I was kind of surprised to see such a major change implemented with no conversation.

I haven't the faintest idea how to rename and move pages, and I'm afraid I'd mess something up. I also want a second opinion from someone more experienced before doing anything, in case I'm wrong and what ENexter did is actually the accepted practice.

Thanks in advance for the help! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the first thing I did to try to fix this was to tag the Connectivism (learning theory) page for history merging, to try and get the history back into position. An admin will probably come along and correct for that. The other thing is to bring this up on the Connectivism talk page, and discuss the scope and naming of the two different uses of the term. I'm also going to leave a note on the user who did the rewrite/cut & paste move to have them discuss it on the same page. They appear to be new, with very few edits, so this may be just an issue of not being aware of how to do moves, and this may just be a misunderstanding of the general practices around here. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also in the future you may want to see Wikipedia:How to move a page#Fixing cut and paste moves and Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves on how to correct these things. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fix, advice, and resources. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, an admin has now moved all the archives and other info into the corrected positions. The discussion is now at Talk:Connectivism (learning theory)#Cultural and Learning theory usage. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Source for Kent Kennan quote?

If you have the 1990 edition of his famous orchestration textbook, look in page 348. Older editions should have the same quote in the same chapter ("Infrequently used instruments") but certainly a different page. Books.google.com can show you the relevant snippet, but not much else. Anton Mravcek (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Italian names of instruments

In the orchestral world, the Italian names of instruments have special significance, because traditionally a score is noted only with the Italian name of the instrument. It's not universal any more, but it's still very likely that when you pick up a sheet of music, the name of the instrument will be in Italian. That's my reasoning that it's important enough for a separate line at the top of the infobox. Acsenray (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to continue your revert war, but your change to the infobox clearly should have been discussed before you decided to implement it. I hope in the future you will choose to use the talk pages before making such changes. Once a consensus has been reached, we'll make the necessary changes. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:EyeOS/Archive 1

Talk:EyeOS/Archive 1, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:EyeOS/Archive 1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:EyeOS/Archive 1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Message from XENU^{u, t} 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Message from XENU^{u, t} 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The French-horn vandal

I notice you recently reverted an edit to The Rite of Spring, rightly noting that the term "French horn" is not the accepted form on Wikipedia. However, I also notice that you labeled this a "good faith" edit. You may wish to know that the anonymous editor using IP address 98.165.147.124 (located in Mesa, Arizona, unless it is a proxy server) has been making this change to a large number of articles for months now, and should surely have become aware long since of this fact. I have myself reverted such edits on about a dozen occasions, always with an explanation in the edit comment field, and I have observed several other editors doing the same thing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies; I should have looked at the history more carefully. I didn't look at the other changes that account has made. Thanks for the heads up. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome. I do not myself always have the time to check up on an editor's history, and the first time I noticed this one I also assumed it was a good-faith edit.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Today you reverted another edit by the French Horn Vandal, who this time was using his other IP address, 68.104.130.83, also in or near Phoenix, AZ.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dang, I totally missed that. Good catch; I'll be on the watch for him/her again. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of your talk post

Just to let you know, I deleted your talk post rather than archiving it, because I didn't appreciate you using my real name to wage a personalised attack while you hide behind the profound "WeisheitSuchen". You can be a smarty pants and revert it back again, or you can do the right thing and leave it off the air. Ryanwiki (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you've even posted a belligerent comment on my blog, which I've duly deleted. This is bordering on harrassment. Ryanwiki (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You knew what you were doing when you chose to promote your own blog; you made no attempt to disguise your real identity. You even admitted you were the author of the blog post when you reverted under an IP address. I had no idea you wanted to keep it a secret. I'll archive the discussion though; we do need to have a record of what happened and what actions we both took. As for the blog comment, you weren't responding to any of the messages left on either your user page or on the multiple IP addresses. I figured the comment was more likely to be read. I'm sorry that you feel that one comment on your public blog, where you don't moderate comments, is harassment. Wikipedia's policies are what they are; you're welcome to make your arguments to change the policy somewhere where it may have an effect. You have just as much influence on policy as I do.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of disguising identity, it's a matter of professional courtesy. And just because I don't moderate the comments on my blog doesn't give you the right to post something inappropriate. I see you still haven't archived the discussion, why am I not surprised? Ryanwiki (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually wanted to give you (and any other editors) a chance to respond. Generally it's months after a discussion happens before something gets archived, so waiting 24 hours should be OK for you. Are you not used to the archive procedure? Of course, if it's that distressing to you, you could have archived it yourself. I'm still not sure how you thought you could establish your notability as an author without your real name; I'm sorry, but that had to be part of the discussion. How were you planning to prove that you as an author meet the requirements for your self-published materials to be included? You said it met the external links policy, and I assume you read the policy before making that assertion. You couldn't prove you met the policy without your name being discussed.

By the way, there was nothing inappropriate in my blog comment. I spelled out your options for either discussing with me or establishing notability so you'd meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Just because I want your actions here to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't make me belligerent, even if I disagree with you. I'm sure that having your notability questioned was a very upsetting experience for you, but you put yourself out there when you claimed you met the guidelines. It was a professional courtesy for me to bring the comment to you rather than simply waiting for you to see all the messages left various places here. I hope that you'll review the policies and respond to comments the first time in the future, rather than waiting for a multiple messages to escalate before joining a discussion.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I must stress that my intentions had nothing to do with notability. We are obviously on different planes. In any case, thank you for archiving. Ryanwiki (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

External links aren't judged just by the value of their content, no matter how many times you insist or revert. In this particular case, the quality of what you wrote was completely irrelevant. Whether the link met the guidelines was an issue both of conflict of interest and notability. I could have overlooked the conflict of interest, but the expectations for author notability when linking to a blog post are pretty high. I operate on the plane where when you're on Wikipedia, you follow Wikipedia's guidelines. When you make a [claim that something meets the guidelines], you really should at least read the guidelines first. When you said it met the policy, what were you referring to? Help me understand what was going on in your head when you wrote that.

When I talk about "notability," it's not about you increasing your notability, it's a question of whether you're already notable as an author, as per the external links policy. Blog posts by people who have been published elsewhere (like George Siemens and Stephen Downes) and otherwise have a notable professional reputation can be included both as references and external links. People like you and me who are individual practitioners without an extensive body of publications aren't notable enough for our self-published works to qualify. Good grief--I get maybe 5000-6000 views a month on my blog; I know I'm nowhere near their league. I wouldn't expect anything I write to be cited here unless I presented it at a conference or published it in a journal. That's the difference between me and you; I recognize that I have to earn my place.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Caryzens

Caryzens is not spam, it is a new community website for Cary - as Cary has NONE. I do understand that it is a private commercial website - but so is the Cary News. If you are going to delete the Caryzens link then you will have to delete the Cary News website too. I am a native to Cary - I've lived here my entire life, and I think its about time Cary gets an online community. The website is intended to be helpful and I've posted the link in a very unobtrusive way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailtheuniverse (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edufire

I was just trying to de-orphan an orphaned article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 03:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I get that, but encouraging the multiple spammers from Edufire doesn't seem like the way to go. Besides, if you open the door to that, the See Also list will rapidly include about 100 more links. Do you think that's beneficial for the article?WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The spammers from Edufire were adding external links. I was removing those as I found them. I thought getting rid of the clean-up tag on the Edufire article would help in getting them to stop paying people (via Amazon Mechanical Turk) to add the external links, as a lot of people who don't understand Wikipedia all that well don't understand the difference between what that cleanup tag is asking and adding external links. Does what I was doing make sense? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So when every e-learning software, LMS, or site wants to add a link to their article in the See Also, how should we handle that? What argument are you going to provide for them to explain why Edufire belongs in that list but something like Moodle doesn't? Give me your rationale for why you think Edufire is more important than those other sites, and I'll agree with you. But I'm looking at the long-term view for the article, not the short-term view of keeping the Edufire article. Maybe Edufire doesn't have enough value if you're stretching this far to de-orphan it at the expense of the e-learning article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

American Intercontinental University

I don't know much about Wikipedia awards or anything like that, but your work on that article, as evidenced by your talk page contributions, deserves something. Without you, I can't imagine what may have happened to the AIU article. Thanks a bunch for keeping that article accurate and properly sourced. Yesitsnot (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia page on Blended Learning

Hi - Thanks for deleting the external link! The blended learning page does not cite many external references whereas the deleted link does. The guidelines for external linking state "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." and this link is within these guidelines. The Blended learning page at present does not explore the subject in any great depth and hence why it was included. And yes, I understand the whole NOFOLLOW debate. Cheers SB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.123 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument would be much more convincing if the link was actually to an article about blended learning. However, other than one sentence in the conclusion, it isn't about blended learning: it's about the costs of e-learning. It's off-topic and a self-promoting link; that's why I deleted it. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)