User:Smlombardi/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 1 |
Some links for you
Hello, and sorry that your welcome has been quite belated! Let me know if there's anything you want to know about Wikipedia, and I'll be happy to help you out. For now, I wanted to draw your attention to two discussions that will likely interest you, both about your new article Cognitivism (learning theory). The first discussion is at Talk:Cognitivism (learning theory)#Primary sources, and the second is atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Cognitivism (learning theory). If you have any specific questions about those threads, then I will be happy to answer those too. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Stewart Hase.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stewart Hase.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add arationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I just sent the e-mail to Dr. Hase . . . How long does he have to respond?Stmullin (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Typically 14 days, but I'll tag the file as pending Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by I, Jethrobot drop me a line(note: not a bot!) 21:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
please add/enable WikiLove
Checking preferences did not enable {{[mediawiki/extensions/WikiLove] / WikiLove.i18n.php}}
Your submission at Articles for creation
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Diaskagogy.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences.
I'm not sure what you were trying to do there but I have undone your changes. --John (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Please do not undo changes until you check the Talk page and my credentials before making the changes. Stmullin (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure which talk page comments you mean. I noticed you deleted other people's comments, so I undid your changes. Please be careful about that. If you wish to make arguments in talk for changing the article, you are welcome to do so. I am also not sure what you mean by "credentials"; do you have a conflict of interest in this area? If you do you need to be very careful there too. --John (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do not have a conflict of interest but I do have expertise in this area and know the difference between encyclopedic writing and debate. The debate should be shown in Talk not on the article page. Howard Gardner's theory is widely accepted as common knowledge in most educational circles as educational thought . . . it is not prescriptive Instructional theory. Also, discussion about the Eiffel tower is not appropriate to this article.
- I see. Do not edit or delete the comments of others on a talk page, please. If you believe that "Howard Gardner's theory is widely accepted" then feel free to show academic references to this effect. I strongly suggest proposing your changes in talk first before editing the article. It might be worth reading WP:FRINGE before getting too invested in this topic; Wikipedia as an encyclopedia for general readers tends to take quite a conservative approach to fringe topics like this. Finally, your "expertise" in this topic may not be such a strong point as you think, unless it leads you to good sources, because your own opinion is not a source. --John (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've tagged the page for references because I know they exist but the article is poorly documented NOT NPOV and needs a lot of time to bring it to Wikipedia standards . . . there are 8 article with the same problem so others will need to complete the edits . . . I'm looking for a template to call out NPOV and references . . . does it exist?Stmullin (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think that your behavior on the Multiple Intelligence article was very rude and hope that you will
refrain from sharpening your claws on my editsexplain yourself sufficiently so that your comments are not perceived as uncivil in the future. Also, please use my talk page rather than the article page for substantive debate when needed.As for the references, please read them before sprinkling them through out the article.Stmullin (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think that your behavior on the Multiple Intelligence article was very rude and hope that you will
- Your comment is noted. It's a steep learning curve to edit effectively here and I sympathise with the problems you are having in adapting to our norms. For future reference, when you "report" another editor (as you did with me at the Tea House) and experienced editors tell you there is no case to answer, it is often worth examining your own behaviour as you can learn faster that way. Nice to meet you, and I look forward to your future edits. Let me know if you need any more help, either here or at my talk. --John (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Flat Out let's discuss it 00:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Stewart Hase
We can only use material that is verifiable and notable. We do not want our articles looking like resumes. We cannot therefore publish a complete bibliography on Hase. I suggest making a shorter list like we have at Malcolm Knowles, and trying to enlist the help of other editors to add verifiable encyclopedic content. --John (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Notability is established. Please see the talk page of the article. Stmullin (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LukeSurl t c 20:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Disambiguation link notification for July 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philosophy of education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Learning theory(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Philosophy of education Disagreement
All of this is documented in several education sources . . . please, please, please take time to READ before making grossly biased judgments and damaging, sweeping revisions. Also, do not resent the experts in this field. This information is historical and not based on arbitrary, capricious opinion.
- Please don't shout. Which sources are you expecting people to read? It would help if you could cite them. Remember, your opinion is not a source. --John (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me, this is frustrating, it has become evident that the content knowledge of other editors involved with this subject is limited . . . and it would take several years and a reading list of over 100 books to catch everyone up on this topic . . . this information is not my opinion . . . it is historical . . . yes I included it in my dissertation because it was relevant to my work but it is in the Literature Review[1] pp. 33 - 41, it is not the subject of my dissertation. I did treat behaviorism, cognitivism, humanism, and constructivism as theories in my dissertation but as Greg Bard (talk) pointed out earlier, when he changed the title of the article, those are major philosophical divisions and I agreed with him. Copying information from other encyclopedias is not what we do here, especially when there is a plethora of information available that contradicts the referenced encyclopedia, please use Google Scholar to find the information you need from reliable, unbiased sources. If you are looking for something that you can cut and paste rather than develop understanding of the subject then this is going to be a frustrating process. I will develop a reading list and post it to my user page . . . until then . . . please refrain from making sweeping uniformed revisions. Stmullin (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Gosh, quite a few things to respond to there! First of all, it is important to assume good faith of others here. You have no direct knowledge about the degree of others' knowledge on the topic and there is great resistance here to "experts" as anyone can claim to be anything on an online medium. Secondly, demanding sources is the foundation of how we work here so you should not be offended every time it happens. Secondary sources are the strongest, rather than tertiary sources like encyclopaedias; copying from any source beyond a brief quotation would not be allowed perour copyright policy. The onus is on the editor wishing to add or restore material to ensure it is adequately sourced and to achieve consensus that it is worth including. Failing that, we do not use it. I am sorry to give you so much homework, but I reckon reading those links will greatly enhance your editing experience here. --John (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done . . . and I believe my statements are no stronger than the statements that have been slung at me. Stmullin (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)There are many more sources so your definition is incomplete but that is a conceptual problem not an editing problem which may require disambiguation with a page on Educational Philosophy. We agree that the sub groups do not belong on this page. Placing them on Education may work since moving them to Education theory was not accepted. Perennialism, Essentialism, and Progressivism have their lead on the Epistemology page where they fit nicely. If the lede with the interior links had not been omitted, then they would be a logically connected to the Epistemology page and the Educational philosophy articles. Your accusations of Fringe theory for the Philosophies of Behaviorism, Humanisim and Constructivism and their family of philosophies (including education, psychology, politics, etc.) have no bearing since internal links on Wikipedia are available on the topics . . . so Wikipedia is the tertiary source . . . and I did not write those article so the accusation of original research is not valid. Bullying me will not make these revisions NPOV. My editing style is not the problem. A logical concept map is the problem. The edit that you slammed me for is the edit that you are about to make . . . getting the sub groups off of this page. Stmullin (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just a piece of friendly advice: if editors keep disagreeing with you, use sources and/or logic to demonstrate why they are wrong, and do so in ways specific to the concerns they are raising. You might also try to incorporate what they are saying into your position/wording to reconcile the differences between you. Just continuing to restate your position doesn't answer the challenges raised by other editors as such it won't convince them you are right and quite frankly I don't think it demonstrates that you are trying to reach a consensus. Sorry if this is blunt, but clearly you are not responding to the concerns other editors (including myself) are raising, and I'm not sure what else to say to help move this thing forward. I don't mean to threaten, but I really think this needs to go to the Dispute Resolution Board, because there is no agreement found after way too many words. I've engaged more than others on these issues, so I will leave it to someone else to take it to the DRB. I do. Beyond pointing to the same sources I keep pointing to, in the field of philosophy of education, that clearly define what philosophy of education is (and by extension what it is not), I'm not sure what else to do.--Lhakthong (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not threaten me, I consider your viewpoint to narrow for that article and I can not support your opinion because you omit to much information that directly concerns Educational Philosophy . . . if we need disambiguation then we need disambiguation but stop threatening me and accusing me of things that I have not done. Stmullin (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Yellow?
Hi Stmullin, out of interest, did you want a yellow talk page? If not, just give me a shout, and I will try and fix it. Thanks, Matty.007 13:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I like the softness, low contrast. I'm still fumbling with the code but having fun learning!Stmullin (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wherever you want it to stop, in this case, it is intended to stop just below the welcome template, just put a </div>, and the colour will stop there. Thanks, Matty.007 14:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! If they have a designer's Barnstar . . . you've earned it! I'll look in templates
Stmullin (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Archival?
Is this bit your archive? What I meant by you creating them is that you create a subpage of your userspace. If you are wanting that, I can describe what to do, but if that is what you intended, then have a good day.... Matty.007 07:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Describing what to do would be helpful. Stmullin (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- So: create a subpage, e.g. User:Stmullin/Archive 1. Then, cut and paste stuff into there from your talk page. Then, put this at the top of your talk page (copy it from the source, so it has the correct lines):
{{archive box|search=yes| #[[User:Stmullin/Archive 1]] }}
Feel free to replace 'Archive 1' with anything else you call it. Is that clear, or do you need help? Hope I explained it OK, Matty.007 14:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
~please define sub-page~Stmullin (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses: number 1 is applicable, that is all about subpages. Matty.007 14:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you . . . I'll need to experiment with this later . . . spending my Wiki time on the Stewart Hase article . . . thanks again Stmullin (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)