![]() | This page 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 talk page. |
The criticizers of the Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups say, that the languages of these "groups" are related. They are clearly related by agglutination and the features, that are common among the turanian (Sumerian) agglutinating languages. What the criticizers maintain is, however, that these artificial mini groups have very few words common, and no common grammar except of the Sumerian type of agglutination, and therefore it is unlogical and counterproductive to classify them into this artificial, in reality by nothing justified mini groups.
Thanks for your corrections. The summary must explain, what criticizers criticize, and what not. If you can correct it so, that this remains understandable, thanks in advance. Antifinnugor 11:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also: criticizers criticize both finno-ugrian and uralic groups, since they are in fact the same thing. Antifinnugor 11:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ben, didn't you introduce Sanger to wiki technology? That's not quite a tiny role. Adraeus 01:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ha! Thanks, Adraeus. I still haven't even made 100 edits, though... Ben Kovitz 20:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello Ben. I have listed Ben Kovitz on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion because it is a redirect from the main article space to the user space. I thought it would be courteous of me to let you know. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, Taco Deposit. I didn't find Ben Kovitz listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, but I think it's fine to delete it. Ben Kovitz 20:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yo Ben. Was looking you up to see if you had a doctorate yet so I can call you Dr Kovitz in applying to become director of development at health department - long not very sensible story. Since you owe me email and I owe you presents I thought I'd go snoop you out in wikidom but was surprised to find greenlight giving errors instead of pages so thought you might be dead. Now finding recent edits here I see you are either not dead or being imitated by someone remarkably adept at imitating you. Anyway fwiw how's it all? --Pete.
Hi there, Evilphoenix. Thanks for fixing up the Liminality article! That was my first attempt at starting a Wikipedia page. How did you find it so fast?
Ben
The definition you are trying to push is not NPOV. It is also not a definition. It is just a list of things mathematician are interested in. The definition coming from a suggestion by Rick Norwood is much better. It is not too highly philosophical and it is not exclusive since your definition is there too. In the head you need a definition which can be understood by any educated reader. Not a list of things nobody can understand. The study of quantity! What the hell is this? The quantity of what? Such a definition make flee any goodwilling reader. Oh shit a math thing again! Vb 131.220.68.177 14:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Considering how many people had been editing it, getting several kinds of deductive processing all mixed up, I was very concerned about how some of them would react, so your remarks are greatly appreciated. Wryspy 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked it. I often get worried about trodding on the toes of folks who've gone before. It's gratifying if I hear that I haven't messed it up. Thanks. I just happened to have always had an interest the subject, with most of the references in my library, from Polya to Gigerenzer. DCDuring 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I like snacks. Snacky ( talk) 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Explanation-based learning, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
You have been around here long enough - you ought to know what happens to articles with absolutely no references. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. "Dissembled" was what I thought I meant, but it turns out that word doesn't mean what I thought! I thought it meant something like "disassembled", but with a bit different connotation, i.e., "picked apart". "Discussed", I think, is just fine.-- ragesoss ( talk) 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
For civil discussion of differences in the Orphanage project. It is much appreciated. -- JaGa talk 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Richard Bromfield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
DFS454 (
talk)
17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
DFS454 ( talk) 18:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ben-
Thanks for the suggestion! However, there is still a long, on-going discussion on the Sudbury school page because this issue cannot be settled so easily. Let me explain where I'm coming from. I have been updating and filling in the democratic education and democratic school pages for a few months. Democratic education is a very well-cited page on the a big body of literature dealing with all schools/institutions that stress two qualities: 1) freedom of learning (i.e. no compulsory courses), and 2) democratic governance structure.
Before I even arrived at it, the Sudbury page was rife with self-references and literally no third-party references. I'm sure you know Wikipedia necessitates neutral, third-party references so that content is verifiable. This is, I presume, to prevent individuals from coming onto Wikipedia and using it to self-promote their philosophies on whatever-it-may-be.
Anyways, after consulting with those on the discussion forum, including seasoned Wikipedians who had serious concerns about the neutrality and notability of the Sudbury school page (the Sudbury model page had already been redirected to the Sudbury school page before I arrived), I migrated Sudbury's non-redundant info to the democratic education page and merged it with the List of Sudbury schools.
The reason is this: until a substantive philosophical difference can be explained between Sudbury schools and democratic schools generally (I doubt it; I've been studying these philosophies for years and have yet to find a third-party source outlining a differentiated philosophy), the Sudbury page's explanation of itself is redundant with the democratic education page.
Now, users looking for info about the philosophy of Sudbury schools can find that on the democratic education page which is the exact same as all democratic schools. Left on the List of Sudbury schools page is, of course, the plain fact that there are a number of schools that have been inspired by the Sudbury Valley School and thus included the Sudbury name in their own.
If you can find any neutral, third-party references from non-Sudbury schools or writers outlining a distinct philosophy from democratic education, please add them. I would be curious to know! Thanks! Maguire09 ( talk) 08:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The article looks much better. Thank you for the improvement.
Hello BenKovitz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
796 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: "This is disappointing, Ben, because there is apparently a few things about me that you do not understand, even though we have talked so much.". I think it's rather disappointing that Larry said that, because the sentence he is commenting on said only positive things about him, so I'm at a complete loss as to which part of the sentence he considered disappointing! -- Rebroad ( talk) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I am a wikipedian and contribute to zh.wp, I am translating the article Pair programming to Chinese, but I cannot understand the "The benefit is strongest on tasks that are not yet understood by the programmers, calling for more creativity, challenge, and sophistication", I am not sure which meaning of sophistication should use. Thanks in advance. -- Yongxinge( talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Ben, I can show you in a minute how to work a slide rule. I'd be surprised to see a source that says they're hard to learn how to use. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Usually, per WP:BRD, if you boldly add something, and I revert it because I object, your next move should be to talk about it before putting it back. But thanks for finding a source that semi supports it; I adjusted it to match better. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ben, just procedurally -- that's not the way it works. You can't make a substantive change and say "don't revert without discussing". If you want the change, you're supposed to discuss it. See WP:BRD. -- Trovatore ( talk) 17:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Quisquiliae ( talk) 18:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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 talk page. |
![]() | This page 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 talk page. |
The criticizers of the Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups say, that the languages of these "groups" are related. They are clearly related by agglutination and the features, that are common among the turanian (Sumerian) agglutinating languages. What the criticizers maintain is, however, that these artificial mini groups have very few words common, and no common grammar except of the Sumerian type of agglutination, and therefore it is unlogical and counterproductive to classify them into this artificial, in reality by nothing justified mini groups.
Thanks for your corrections. The summary must explain, what criticizers criticize, and what not. If you can correct it so, that this remains understandable, thanks in advance. Antifinnugor 11:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also: criticizers criticize both finno-ugrian and uralic groups, since they are in fact the same thing. Antifinnugor 11:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ben, didn't you introduce Sanger to wiki technology? That's not quite a tiny role. Adraeus 01:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ha! Thanks, Adraeus. I still haven't even made 100 edits, though... Ben Kovitz 20:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello Ben. I have listed Ben Kovitz on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion because it is a redirect from the main article space to the user space. I thought it would be courteous of me to let you know. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, Taco Deposit. I didn't find Ben Kovitz listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, but I think it's fine to delete it. Ben Kovitz 20:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yo Ben. Was looking you up to see if you had a doctorate yet so I can call you Dr Kovitz in applying to become director of development at health department - long not very sensible story. Since you owe me email and I owe you presents I thought I'd go snoop you out in wikidom but was surprised to find greenlight giving errors instead of pages so thought you might be dead. Now finding recent edits here I see you are either not dead or being imitated by someone remarkably adept at imitating you. Anyway fwiw how's it all? --Pete.
Hi there, Evilphoenix. Thanks for fixing up the Liminality article! That was my first attempt at starting a Wikipedia page. How did you find it so fast?
Ben
The definition you are trying to push is not NPOV. It is also not a definition. It is just a list of things mathematician are interested in. The definition coming from a suggestion by Rick Norwood is much better. It is not too highly philosophical and it is not exclusive since your definition is there too. In the head you need a definition which can be understood by any educated reader. Not a list of things nobody can understand. The study of quantity! What the hell is this? The quantity of what? Such a definition make flee any goodwilling reader. Oh shit a math thing again! Vb 131.220.68.177 14:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Considering how many people had been editing it, getting several kinds of deductive processing all mixed up, I was very concerned about how some of them would react, so your remarks are greatly appreciated. Wryspy 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked it. I often get worried about trodding on the toes of folks who've gone before. It's gratifying if I hear that I haven't messed it up. Thanks. I just happened to have always had an interest the subject, with most of the references in my library, from Polya to Gigerenzer. DCDuring 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I like snacks. Snacky ( talk) 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Explanation-based learning, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
You have been around here long enough - you ought to know what happens to articles with absolutely no references. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. "Dissembled" was what I thought I meant, but it turns out that word doesn't mean what I thought! I thought it meant something like "disassembled", but with a bit different connotation, i.e., "picked apart". "Discussed", I think, is just fine.-- ragesoss ( talk) 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
For civil discussion of differences in the Orphanage project. It is much appreciated. -- JaGa talk 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Richard Bromfield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
DFS454 (
talk)
17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
DFS454 ( talk) 18:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ben-
Thanks for the suggestion! However, there is still a long, on-going discussion on the Sudbury school page because this issue cannot be settled so easily. Let me explain where I'm coming from. I have been updating and filling in the democratic education and democratic school pages for a few months. Democratic education is a very well-cited page on the a big body of literature dealing with all schools/institutions that stress two qualities: 1) freedom of learning (i.e. no compulsory courses), and 2) democratic governance structure.
Before I even arrived at it, the Sudbury page was rife with self-references and literally no third-party references. I'm sure you know Wikipedia necessitates neutral, third-party references so that content is verifiable. This is, I presume, to prevent individuals from coming onto Wikipedia and using it to self-promote their philosophies on whatever-it-may-be.
Anyways, after consulting with those on the discussion forum, including seasoned Wikipedians who had serious concerns about the neutrality and notability of the Sudbury school page (the Sudbury model page had already been redirected to the Sudbury school page before I arrived), I migrated Sudbury's non-redundant info to the democratic education page and merged it with the List of Sudbury schools.
The reason is this: until a substantive philosophical difference can be explained between Sudbury schools and democratic schools generally (I doubt it; I've been studying these philosophies for years and have yet to find a third-party source outlining a differentiated philosophy), the Sudbury page's explanation of itself is redundant with the democratic education page.
Now, users looking for info about the philosophy of Sudbury schools can find that on the democratic education page which is the exact same as all democratic schools. Left on the List of Sudbury schools page is, of course, the plain fact that there are a number of schools that have been inspired by the Sudbury Valley School and thus included the Sudbury name in their own.
If you can find any neutral, third-party references from non-Sudbury schools or writers outlining a distinct philosophy from democratic education, please add them. I would be curious to know! Thanks! Maguire09 ( talk) 08:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The article looks much better. Thank you for the improvement.
Hello BenKovitz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
796 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: "This is disappointing, Ben, because there is apparently a few things about me that you do not understand, even though we have talked so much.". I think it's rather disappointing that Larry said that, because the sentence he is commenting on said only positive things about him, so I'm at a complete loss as to which part of the sentence he considered disappointing! -- Rebroad ( talk) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I am a wikipedian and contribute to zh.wp, I am translating the article Pair programming to Chinese, but I cannot understand the "The benefit is strongest on tasks that are not yet understood by the programmers, calling for more creativity, challenge, and sophistication", I am not sure which meaning of sophistication should use. Thanks in advance. -- Yongxinge( talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Ben, I can show you in a minute how to work a slide rule. I'd be surprised to see a source that says they're hard to learn how to use. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Usually, per WP:BRD, if you boldly add something, and I revert it because I object, your next move should be to talk about it before putting it back. But thanks for finding a source that semi supports it; I adjusted it to match better. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ben, just procedurally -- that's not the way it works. You can't make a substantive change and say "don't revert without discussing". If you want the change, you're supposed to discuss it. See WP:BRD. -- Trovatore ( talk) 17:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Quisquiliae ( talk) 18:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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 talk page. |