User talk:WeisheitSuchen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)