User talk:Sugarcaddy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome! Hello, Sugarcaddy, 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:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Chris53516 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Please create better references for your material. The material you have cited and written on Norm-referenced test is not exactly what we want on Wikipedia. First, the reference you made was vague and did not provide enough information to find the article you read. Second, the material you wrote was largely unreferenced and appeared to be more of a matter of opinion. Please read about referencing material and verifiability. Thanks for your edits. Chris53516 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey~ You keep adding unreferenced material to the Norm-referenced test article. I'm going to clean it up sooner or later, and I won't be sympathetic to unreferenced sentences. Furthermore, would you PLEASE write something in the edit summaries? I can't tell what you're doing. Chris53516 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
yeah, yeah I know, I just don't have much to say right now.--Sugarcaddy

Dude, what's your problem? Why do you have to keep adding content without references? Why don't you reference your sources? It's sloppy work, and the result is a worthless article. Chris53516 20:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel

I've nominated the article Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. --Stankrom 20:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

just spotted another larger article under a slightly different spelling, go ahead and delete away. thanks--Sugarcaddy 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted your Evolution addition

That article is about the scientific theory of evolution. All other uses of the words can be found Evolution (disambiguation).--Roland Deschain 22:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the second edit you made. Please see Creation-evolution controversy. Mikker (...) 23:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's over there, but the term "evolution" is used by the creationist community to mean all cosmology. You're completely sure it's either covered already, or should not be covered? These guys literally contest any scientfic dating method that gives a date over a few thousand years, but the article as it currently stands says the controversy is not over scientific facts. Have you sat through some of these creationist lectures? --Sugarcaddy 03:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics eductaion

I am concerned that your recent updates to mathematics education are making the article unbalanced. The article is meant to be an overview of mathematical education methods and topics across the world and throughout history, with links to more detailed artciles on individual topics. Your updates are focussed on a very specific and local debate about recent mathematical education methods in the US. I think this unbalances an overview article - for example, over half of the text in the Methods section is now about the NCTM debate. Your contributions are very clear and well-written - but can I suggest that they belong in the NCTM article, and not in the overview article ? Alternatively, you could create a new article on modern educational methods in the US - that would also be an appropriate place to put your contributions. But I do strongly believe that the overview article is not the right place for them. Gandalf61 11:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an area of specialty research and interest for me, the viewpoint of the existing text is largely unsourced and somewhat out of date, as it gives the impression that the 1989 standards had just been announced and were in process of being adopted. The math wars really got into gear about the mid 1990s, and even the NCTM has backpedaled since 2000, culminating in the latest headlines which made nearly front page news on both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. NCTM research and curriculum frameworks based on the 1989 standards are cited by nations around the world, including Korea, Australia and New Zealand. The biggest impact and one of the biggest sources of controversy over mathematics instruction is the elevation of topics and methods that were once completely outside the scope of mathematics instruction, such as diversity, writing, cutting, pasting, coloring and even singing (the teacher's manual to Investigations even comes with sheet music to Happy Birthday).

Texts such as Investigations and Mathland do not even include formal direct instruction of many of the skills listed as being mathematics topics. If you are not familiar with the extent of the controversy, I would suggest taking a quick look at Mathematically Correct and some of their reviews. Standards based texts generally get glowing reviews from promoters of the standards, but reviews from consumers are rarely as positive, and often negative. If discussion of the controversy were restricted to education journals, then it might certainly be relegated to footnote background articles, but when it makes the front page of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and the policy of the most influential mathematics education standards organization in the United States, and therefore, the world, it is certainly not a local issue. An issue which is essentially the only mathematics issue that gets front page coverage in contemporary newspapers certainly justifies similar coverage on the main wikipedia mathematics education article. Edits have been mode both expanding on the principles and motivation of standards based mathematics, as well as its critics. The influence of the 1989 standards is such that it remains the foundation of nearly every state curriculum framework, with states like California which have all but openly rejected those standards, and news stories of individual districts backing out or openly discarding standards-based curriculum showing a clear start of a movement away from the standards, even though today they remain predominant in the US and in many other nations. To only present the point of view of mathematics educators would be seriously unbalanced, as they are uniformly committed to the 1989 standards and are against a return to traditional teaching methods. Please refrain from deleting information which is sourced and correct, feel free to add or edit. --Sugarcaddy 17:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing the accuracy of your contributions, and I think I was careful to only delete text from the mathematics education article that was duplicated elsewhere, and to move new text to a more appropiate article such as NCTM. Nevertheless, in a global context, the "math wars" that you refer to are a local controversy, both geographically and historically. As far as I know, they have had no press coverage or impact on educational policies in the UK or the rest of Europe, for example. An overview article such as mathematics education can certainly contain pointers to more detailed articles about the "math wars" and related issues, but should not contain a detailed blow-by-blow account of the debate. Between a quarter and a third of the article is now taken up by an account of the "math wars" and related topics; this is far too much focus on a single issue for an overview article. By all means update and correct the deatiled articles such as NCTM, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics etc. But please consider summarising or trimming back your additions to the mathematics education overview article. Gandalf61 09:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
sure thing, but what was originally there was the "all is hunky dory with the new reforms" point of view. --Sugarcaddy 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the content from your article It's Time To Abandon Computational Algorithms and moved it into Mathematics education. The debate really belongs there (and on that article's talk page). NawlinWiki 00:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The intent was to off-load specific articles from the main page, but I won't change it. If math ed gets huge, stuff like this should be broken out. --Sugarcaddy 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Dialectical method

Hi Sugarcaddy,
I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Dialectical method, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Dialectical method. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Qwertyus 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Standardized test

Your edits continue to be unreferenced and not very useful. Where on earth do you get the idea that all people who scores standardized tests have "college degrees who are paid $7 to $12 per hour"?? You have no basis for this claim along with many of the other claims you make in this article. Why do you continue to add unreferenced material? It amounts to garbage! Chris53516 13:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Garbage? I worked for Pearson Education as a temporary worker in Auburn Washington, who scores most of the tests. They require at least a college degree, and they paid $11 per hour in washington state, they pass less elsewhere. Do you have reason to believe this information is incorrect? Do you have _any_ basis to dispute this information? What would correct information be? --Sugarcaddy 15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have reasons for refuting your claim. A number of Wikipedia policies prohibit the kind of editing you have done. For example, your personal experiences are not adequate basis for content in an encyclopedia. You cannot generalize your experiences to the thousands of people who score tests. I have scored tests, and I was paid more than the amount you cited. Additionally, you have NO CITATIONS for what you say. Encyclopedias don't just use personal experience, but verifiable sources. "Correct" information would be verifiable and NOT based on personal experience. See the policies listed below. Chris53516 16:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Relevant Wikipedia policies

The information you re-added to Standardized test is irrelevant to the topic as well as unreferenced (in part). I don't see how it is relevant to discuss how much someone is paid to score a test. That content does not belong on that article. Furthermore, the paragraph I removed didn't make sense and it didn't fit under "Design." Chris53516 13:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Seattle Times and many citizens certainly think it is worth noting. The scoring process is one of the most controversial parts of standards based testing, which is actually different from traditional standardized testing, which is computer scored. Scorers themselves have gone on record to the Times and KCTS that the process is deeply flawed. --Sugarcaddy 16:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, that wouldn't fit under the "Design" section. It sounds like it would be more fitting under a "Controversy" section. Your citations need some work. You should cite your research according to some style, like APA or MLA, or if there's a web version, the exact web location. If someone can't find the article, your citation is worthless. For a newspaper, we would need the issue # or the month/week of publication, page number, and author (if applicable). Chris53516 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you keep adding unreferenced content. I'm going to keep removing it. If you keep this up, I'll have you cited for vandalism, and possibly banned. Chris53516 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyright violation

You may have violated copyright law by copying the first paragraph from another source onto the Standardized test article. Until you cite your source for your content, I will remove it. DO NOT ADD CONTENT FROM OTHER SOURCES! It is copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. Chris53516 17:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

what content is this?? --Sugarcaddy 17:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph that you wrote under "Scoring." You cut it from somewhere because if you would have looked carefully at the coding, you pasted line breaks in between lines like the example below. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't put line breaks in like that, so you must have pasted it from somewhere. That is not appropriate. Chris53516 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My name is Joe and I work at Home Depot. (Wikipedia corrects the line breaks, but if you look at the code, it shows a line break).

I edit in a text editor that puts in line breaks, and pasted it from there. So knock it off with the copyright bit. I'm going to quit editing this article entirely if you continue to revert everything I put into it, since there is plenty else I can do. I hope that satisfies you. --Sugarcaddy 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kolombangara Maps

The Solomon Islands maps I've loaded into Commons come from a wide variety of sources. Clicking on each image should reveal the source for each. I uploaded every single, decent WWII map I could find of the different Solomon Islands that had ok copyright status for use and thus, don't know of any others that I haven't uploaded already. I have some maps of the New Georgia/Kolombangara islands uploaded at [1] if that helps out. Which article were you planning on working on? Cla68 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Found a good one at the JFK library PT-109 page, you should check it out. A 1943 US govt map so should be ok for wikipedia. "classified" it says stamped on it. --~~
That was the best map that I've seen yet on that area and just what I was looking for. Nice work. Cla68 11:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you uploaded it yet? I plan on screen capturing the map from the 1963 PT-109 movie, that's a good map too. --Sugarcaddy 14:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Turns out Battle of Gulf of Vella was exactly the same action as the PT boats except 4 destroyers did what 15 PT's couldn't - hit something with torpedoes and have them sink something when they hit. Otherwise the PT battle would have deserved a name other than "Uncle Jack got run over by a destroyer" --Sugarcaddy 14:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
See Template talk:Campaignbox Solomons. Grant65 | Talk 04:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PT-109

Hi. It wasn't anything but an opening sentence; I had no idea what you were planning on doing with it. I'll fix it right away. - Lucky 6.9 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez, do I have to say stub or something?? --Sugarcaddy 00:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just to say...

Hi Sugarcaddy,
I've noticed a number of categories you've created have recently been scrutinized and deleted or replaced by the community, so this is just to say that I hope you don't lose heart as a result; it looks like your efforts are an honest attempt to contribute and all that's needed is more time for you to recognize/assimilate/etc (then influence!) the manner in which the community creates and contributes to material. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


All I can say is what a bunch of grouches, but that's part of the game. --Sugarcaddy 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons in The Green Berets

I would disagree on the usefulness of listing the weapons and explaining them in the article - it might even lead to editorializing (like the paragraph on the M-16). The weapons are not unique to the movie and none of the other 45 movies in the Category:Vietnam War films contains a list of the weapons. I would expect that none of the 197 movies in Category:World War II films bothers to list the weapons. So, I think the consensus would be to leave the weapons out. --Habap 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So be it, but just for reference, you didn't look at every movie in the list:

Trivia

Flight of the Intruder was filmed partly on the USS Independence CV-62. It went out for two weeks of filming in November of 1989. The film crew kept the ship's fire party busy with numerous small electrical fires started with their lighting equipment.

The film features an A-1 "Sandy" Skyraider and SH-3 Sea King rescue helicopter in various action sequences, with brief appearances of other Navy aircraft such as the A-7 Corsair, C-2 Greyhound and the F-4 Phantom II.

--Sugarcaddy 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Byrd and that math book

I have removed your section on math education from the above article. Over the course of Byrd's career, he has taken stances on literally thousands of issues and not oall of them can be included in the article. There isn't even unanimous consensus over the inclusion of his roll in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is likely a more important topic than the rainforest algebra controversy. If you still believe that it should be included, go to Talk:Robert Byrd and see if you can drum up consensus to include the information. Cheers and keep up the good work. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it's mentioned on other math pages. If it's included elsewhere, it's usually worth inclusion on the main page. He's unusual for speaking out at this level against math textbooks as this is not true of othe senators. --Sugarcaddy 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Ford250superduty.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ford250superduty.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Block

Under what circumstances can the block be removed? I don't believe that simply making edits that didn't create any complaints from anyone is a fair basis for a ban for life without a recourse for re-instatement.

[edit] 1-2-3

You added the following to a bio that I started on Jon Sachs.

1-2-3 was notable for its speed and efficiency which rivaled much larger computers even though it used a PC platform by bypassing the inefficient ANSI escape sequences or even the BIOS provided by the IBM PC. It was also nearly bug-free, and introduced the letter driven heirarchical menus still used in Windows applications.

I take exception to this explanation of 1-2-3's speed. 1-2-3 was fast becasue it was written in the assembly language of the PC (Intel 8080 at the time) as opposed to a higher level language such as C. I intend to change the article, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond. 1-2-3 did not bypass BIOS, and I have no idea what you mean by 'bypassing the inefficient ANSI escape sequences.' JJ 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chevrolet Pickup 1955-57

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Chevrolet Pickup 1955-57, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. --Vossanova o< 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheSearchForKennedy'sPT109.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheSearchForKennedy'sPT109.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:JCPennyWagoneer.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JCPennyWagoneer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Coconutshell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coconutshell.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Plumpudding.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Plumpudding.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP)

Hi, I tried to interact with the Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP) but it made my head hurt. Where can I get help for this? --Dr Finkbottle 07:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/g/User_talk%7ESugarcaddy_baab.html"