User talk:RDates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] learning-theories.com

Hi RDates,

Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. I identified the link as spam because it was initially added by anon IP addresses whose only edits were to add links (to this and a couple of similar sites) to Wikipedia articles shortly after the sites had been created. This is a fairly classic spam pattern.

The lack of provenance is a secondary issue from my perspective. Anonymous publications with no reputation that are spammed I tend to simply remove. Sites that have some authority in the subject area and are spammed I tend to move to the article talk page.

I first removed the link a while back (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_learning&diff=next&oldid=104660684) with the summary "remove inappropriate external link". You reverted that with the summary "no reasonable explanation for change" so my summary this time was intended to spell out the reason for the removal. I'm sorry if it came across as brusque. My intention wasn't to cause offense, just to be as clear as possible in the limited space of an edit summary.

Though I do not like to see spam techniques succeed I'm not trying to salt the earth for this link. The point is to build a good GFDL encyclopedia. If you think it is a good link that you would have added to the page if no one had spammed it then please go ahead and put it back. My intention is to pick up things that may have slipped past regular editors of an article, not to interfere with editorial judgment. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I nominated John Horgan for deletion

Regards,Rich 06:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 23

Read WP:NOR. The birthday paradox is well-known and is mentioned on 23 (number. Contriving your own examples (how exactly does "happy" have four letters?) is definitely Original Research. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Alternative education

I'm just being neutral. Some people prefer mainstream over traditional...when I said "mainstream or traditional education"...it means people can use either one of them. They both mean the same thing.....what's wrong with using it like that? I put or. therefore people can say either one. (Jessica - talk)

[edit] Cross-sectional study - original research

The complete lack of references mean that nothing can be verified. If anything, removed the {{unref}} tag as it is subordinate to the {{OR}} tag. - Tiswas(t) 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replied in my talk page - Tiswas(t) 16:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo deletion

I didn't like to do it, it was a nice photo, but it was one of several uploaded by sockpuppets of banned User:Jessica Liao, who until recently (with a few interruptions) has been repetitively editing a narrow range of subjects at will from several sock accounts and anon IP addresses for a couple of years now. The photos came from a source Wikipedia has found (by checkuser) that it can't trust, a source who has demonstrably lied to all other Wikipedia editors multiple times to continue on her terms with a project where she has made herself unwelcome. There is debate on the issue of how far to revert banned users, but my take is that leaving (especially) images of dubious provenence could expose Wikipedia to legal liability if they actually originally came from another source; the exposure coming if she didn't actually take them herself and the (hypothetical) original source happened to see them unlicensed on Wikipedia some day. If we've severed our ties with her, yet leave an image she's uploaded, we can't easily go to her and ask her to prove it's hers if anyone ever challenges the image copyright status. Add that to the consideration of the upshot of the ban being that she's lost the privilege of contributing to Wikipedia, I thought it best to remove the image in question. --Fire Star 火星 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accepted as constructive

Greetings. I'm sorry that you didn't like the changes to the article in question, but I was removing the contributions of a prolific sockpuppet. Myself, I don't care, that subject holds no interest for me, and I only edited it to remove the redlink of a (now) deleted photo of dubious source. You may edit it to your satisfaction, I was just cleaning up a spill left over from the actions of an abusive puppetmaster.

I've been on Wikipedia for a long time, and while I have dedicated much time to the project, I don't contribute new material as I used. That is because of two reasons; demands of the world outside Wikipedia, and a recently growing awareness that I can be more effective at neutrally editing articles outside of my former haunts, which mostly concerned my profession in the "real" world. Unfortunately, that leaves me a loose end until I can can focus on new field(s) for contributions. I know I'm going to work more on astronomy related articles in the future, for one example. Now, though, when I do get a minute here or there, it is usually with the mop and bucket of a Wikipedia administrator that I can be of help. Regards, --Fire Star 火星 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montessori method

The Montessori method encourages children to learn together. And as a result, they will be able to learn how to live together. It has always been the goal of society to learn to live together. I don't understand why the Montessori method is not considered traditional. I guess "children learning together" is unheard of in traditional schools, which is very sad.

[edit] Rational mysticism and category philosophy

Hi RDates, I think that you did not understood my reasons for removing the Category:Philosophy link. This high level cat is one that frequently needs to be cleaned up by removing articles that belong in one or more of its subcategories, and so are not needed in the higher order category - check out wikipedia's guidelines for category use for more on when a category is an appropriate category. I think that rational mysticism probably does belong in phil categories other than cat:neoplatonism, but I am not sure what - maybe cat:metaphysics or cat:phil of religion. If you know a lot about the topic, you may be able to help out here by determining which subcategory is important. If you click on the cat:philosophy link above, you will be sent to the categories list and you can explore it for the right one - but it isn't cat:philosophy itself! Anarchia 05:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

I understand and agree. Perhaps metaphysics will work. If you happen to read this Anarchia, I couldn't comment on your page because you appear to be linked to a blacklisted spammer. Your contributions are great Anarchia.Richard Dates 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What is rational mysticism?

Let me ask you this simple question, and see how, or if you respond. Just tell me what it is. You are the creater of the article, so I'm sure you have to have some idea.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So which concept did you think was interesting? Who's concept? John Buehren's? You have to pick one, Dates, because no expert has shown that any of these concepts are related. Who are you are we to determine this? This is original research...get it? If you want to keep the article just about Buehren's concept, then I guess that will fly. There might be some notability issues with that though...--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

You still don't get it do you? Just because you have done original research, doesn't mean you can do it on wikipedia. Why don't you continue this research in acedamia where it belongs?

Also, your call to authority was extremely lame. I don't see any point in perpetuating this discussion, so just leave me alone.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of Original Research Discussion

My contributions to this article just don't qualify as original research. Wikipedia defines original research as follows: "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." My contribution was simply a very brief summary of the concept taken from other sources which I cited. There wasn't one original idea from me in the contribution. It wasn't a new idea or new knowledge. Furthermore the sarcastic, personal attacks which Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) includes in his or her commentaries, both here and in the discussion of the rational mysticism article, make intelligent, rational discussion impossible. Richard Dates (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chicago Academy for the Arts

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Chicago Academy for the Arts, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.chicagoacademyforthearts.org/academy_facts.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)