User talk:Merceris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Deleting fair use pictures
Given Wikipedia's mission of producing a freely-licensed encyclopedia, deleting images which we cannot redistribute is beneficial. These images actively harm Wikipedia's stated purpose. Fair use is intended for images of people, events, and copyrighted works which cannot be replaced. To quote Wikipedia:Fair use:
- This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting a historical event such as the Hindenburg disaster, but a simple publicity still of a vehicle, building or living person will be subject to much greater scrutiny.
If you wish to override the copyright of a work, you must have a real need. It is not enough to say "I want a picture, and cannot find one with acceptable licensing terms." -- Cyrius|✎ 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do you remove the image of a newspaper cover when that's pretty much a permissable use in an article about a newspaper? --Merceris 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- You'll have to be more specific, I don't recall deleting a newspaper image recently. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please restore the picture removed from AsianWeek. The use of a cover picture is similar to that used with New York Times "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).
--Merceris 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:AsianWeekCover.jpg had no fair use rationale given. Under Wikipedia's policies, that situation results in a "fair use" image's deletion 7 days after upload. As a compromise, I have undeleted the image and reset the 'no rationale' timer. If it has no rationale by the end of the new 7 day period, it will again be deleted. For advice on writing a rationale, see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I can imagine no fair use rationale for the image Image:CharlesKrauthammer.jpg. Claims of fair use for photographs that merely identify living persons are rejected on Wikipedia. As Arthur Reginald Evans is probably deceased (I can't easily find whether he is or not), a fair use claim can probably be made for Image:AREvansCoastwatcher.jpg.
As far as being helpful goes, this policy of shooting first was born out of the plague of images with no rationale for ignoring the creator's copyright. Category:All images with no fair use rationale currently has about 540 images tagged as having no rationale. Many are added every day (typically 20-40), many are removed, mostly by deletion. If you would like to attempt to come up with rationales for all of them, go ahead. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/kearnsdm
[edit] Whole Language page
I reverted your edits to the whole language page because the information was not consonant with the main concepts of the page. Your assertion that "most" states have tests aligned with whole language principles requires citation, although--if supported by evidence--it is interesting. I assume that by states, you are referring to states in the United States. If you decide to find evidence of your point, also be sure to note what you mean by states. Good luck! Kearnsdm 09:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More on Whole Language
Hi again. Merceris, I appreciate your interest in adding helpful information the whole language page, but I am concerned that your point of view is non-neutral. You will see, if you look at my contribution history, that I have written articles on a wide range of reading related topics, and I necessarily not agree with all of these different perspectives. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a way to raise your own particular objections on an issue. If there is debate on a subject, you should describe the debate, but neutrally and with as much support information as possible. For example, you suggest that "one problem" with whole language is that it did not include decodable texts. Some evidence suggests that decodable text is important, but this is not a universal finding. Avoid weasal words too! (Wikipedia has entries on this subject, or you could Google it for more information about what these are.)
I also wonder if you might want to create a new page on whole math, which seems to be an interest of yours. It would be a good topic and is definitely of interest. I urge you to avoid conflating standards-based reform with whole math, however. I do not think they are the same, although I am not an expert. ----
I have written quite a lot about a wide range of standards-based education reform. Whole language is only one of the first new standards to raise a large controversy. "Whole" math is undergoing a similar cycle of adoption, controversy, and at the moment a slight movement towards backtracking and abandonment. That Whole language is associated with other constructivist and holistic reforms was a significant ommision from the article. From what I can see, whole language is no longer the predominant teaching standard as it was in the early 90s. Whole math IS presently the most widely accepted standard, but it has caused a backlash. For that reason, I have citations to show this. I invite you to visit the other standards-based and traditional reform ideas in the template at the bottom of the page. --Merceris 23:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confusion
I don't understand your point about the omission of the links to constructivism and holism. I was responsible for writing that part of the article, so I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. If you're referring to the fact that it was not included in earlier versions of the page, that's true. It's also a prime example of the kind of collaboration that is possible. I certainly agreed with its omission, did substantial research, and described the connection. Kearnsdm 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting Again
It's fine that you want to talk about Whole Math, but IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS ARTICLE. Create a new article with that title and link to this one. That would be appropriate. Again, it is also important to emphasize that you clearly have a non-neutral point of view. As I said before, my own view should not be evident at all in reading the page, but yours very clearly is. Kearnsdm 15:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I will also add that "Whole Math" is not a widely-used term. It has been used often by groups like Mathematically Correct--with which I suspect you are assocated--but is not used in the academic literature. Although I'm not sure it's neutral, I STILL STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU CREATE A NEW PAGE ON THIS TOPIC. Please do not add this extraneous information to whole language. Once you've made your page, a link to it in the opening paragraph of the Whole Language article would be perfectly appropriate
Finally, if you want to send me a message, put it on my talk page; I don't necessarily read yours. Kearnsdm 15:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested Assistance from Editors
Merceris, your assertion that the article favors whole language could not be more inaccurate. I also think your additions continue to be inappropriate. If they are inappropriate, they ought to be removed, not edited. I believe your additions reflect a lack of balance. Balance does not mean that unresearched perceptions should be given weight. Your polemical assertions on many topics reflect this. I have requested assistance from editors since it has proved very difficult to deal with you constructively and directly. Kearnsdm 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Whole language
Hi Merceris. User:Kearnsdm has requested an advocate look into the editing of the Whole language article. I have taken a look at the article and note that only Kearnsdm and yourself have been involved recently in working on the article, and that Kearnsdm has reverted almost everything you have done. I'd be interested in hearing your point of view. You can contact me on my talk page or by email. Regards SilkTork 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- My view is that the other fellow as only allowed very slight modifications through. He has not allowed the term "whole math" to be entered, even though it shows how whole langauge has affected math instruction. He has also removed any mention of "decodable text" which is designed to address one of the most common objections to whole language. I have chosen to leave the article alone as I don't wish to create conflict. The article, on the whole gives the appearance that is was written from the point of view of someone who believes whole language is viable, but has suffered at the hands of a few misguided critics who don't understand the benefits. That the practice has been largely abandoned as a failure by many school districts and states isn't really stated anywhere. --Merceris 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. At the moment it is difficult to get a handle on the article as there is no referencing. There are no sources to back up what anyone is saying. It is one person's word against another. I have asked Kearnsdm to supply references to sources supporting his views, and I am asking you to do the same. I have done two references in the article to show how it is done. Simply copy the website url of a page containing material which illuminates or supports a view, and paste in the address at the point in the article where the view is mentioned. Put <ref> in front and </ref> behind the web address. The software will do the rest. Regards SilkTork 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Developmentally Appropriate Practice
Hi Merceris. Within the scope of the original Advocate Request, Kearnsdm has queried your contribution to Developmentally Appropriate Practice. As such I have resurrected the whole discussion. I have looked at the DAP article and agree with Kearnsdm that your contribution needs sourcing. A comment like "some reforms such as NCTM mathematics and Whole Language introduce students to materials and concepts which are, in fact, not developmentally appropriate for young children" is not appropriate for Wiki unless you supply the source for this opinion. If you need some assistance in providing sources and references please get in touch. Regards SilkTork 16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the source. I have slightly adapted the ref to show the link, and then to identify the page from which your quote comes. I also slightly adapted the tone of the language. The important thing in Wiki articles is to present people with the information, but not to make up reader's minds for them. It's just a case of rephrasing to show that the person writing the article is unbiased. Regards. SilkTork 12:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
