User talk:Avmanzo
Hi there -- I am writing you a quick note because of your changes to the reading comprehension page. You've made several edits to the page, which is great because there's always a need for refining and improving the quality of all pages in Wikipedia. Your changes have been reverted because they are not in keeping with the focus of Wikipedia. Remember a couple of things: 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore needs to provided detailed, yet accessible, information. As a result, many headings, clear transitions, and readability for a general audience are important. 2) Wikipedia is not a place to copy and paste papers. I know it's tempting to do so because you have so much knowledge and it's time-consuming to edit pages that already exist. Going through that time-consuming process, however, is what makes Wikipedia such an excellent resource.
So, there are several things you can, given your interest in the reading comprehension page. 1) Read the entire existing page and add information that is directly germane to the topic. 2) Include helpful tables, but figure out how to make them appear properly (yours appeared without formatting). 3) Ask for help or explanation. Most people are very nice (myself included!) and want to work with you.
Go ahead and start the dialogue. You can leave a message on my talk page. I look forward to seeing good edits to the reading comprehension page.
Kearnsdm 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
As Kearnsdm said above, this material is far too lengthy and detailed for the page—it overwhelms the article. An anonymous editor (perhaps yourself?) similarly overwhelmed the Vocabulary article with essentially the same material in this series of edits. As I noted there, this material may belong in its own article on motor imaging. However, a major researcher in this area appears to be named A.V. Manzo—at least, many of the references in your edits list Manzo as an author. Is this you? If so, you may have a conflict of interest, and should precede very carefully. I would suggest that you begin a dialog at Talk:Reading skills acquisition with other interested editors, so as to make sure that the article remains balanced and neutral. —johndburger 03:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I am in agreement with johndburger; it is essential that Wikipedia remain neutral and that the information be completely germane and encyclopedic. Please refrain from adding this information again, although I maintain what I originally said as well.
Kearnsdm (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Approximately 18,000 teachers and teachers-in-training per year take a course called Content Area Reading; there are about 7 excellent textbooks on the subject, and it could be soundly argued that Content Area Reading has been the source of more pedagogic innovation in the past 50 years than all other subfields combined. Nonetheless, you declare it meaningless. It could also be soundly argued that the wall that 4th graders hit in comprehension development could be avoided if their teachers were better informed about the very significant differences between teaching someone to read and teaching them to read to learn (content and concepts). I simply can not figure out how to write for your editors' consumption. You criticize me for citing my own work when in fact it is published an d pioneered work meeting the highest standards of scholarship, and from a person who has received international awards for his scholarship, especially in comprehension where you also decided that I wasn't saying anything. You completely dropped my the category and my contribution to Psychological dyslexia despite its publication in a referred journal, and yet include the totally insane work of a women who claims that some colored lenses will improve reading in dyslexics. Perhaps this too means nothing, but I taught a doctoral seminar on Dyslexia in a major research university for over 15 years. By the way, in many instances your "poor" organization is neither poor nor scrambled, however, it contains many, many content errors; for example, you state that dyslexics cannot be taught to read, this is absolutely false, they can be and are every day. (Avmanzo (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)).
I dreamt that someday their would be something like Wiki, in fact I thought that I might launch it as The Alexandria Project, the differences is that I would have had the globe's leading scholars as primary authors and editors. That difference aside, Wiki is a remarkable innovation, I wish that its technical steps were not so hard to climb. I haven't answered the above criticism for two years because I couldn't figure out how to do it. I'm not sure where this is going (Avmanzo (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)). This is very humbling.
Nonsense of Content area reading
[edit]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Content area reading, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Content area reading provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Content area reading, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your note
[edit]Hello. I have responded to your note on my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Another editor who noticed our communication has advised me that you are probably talking about the deleted article above. My sole involvement in this was to delete the talk page, which is standard practice after an article has been deleted. The administrator who deleted the article was User:Sephiroth BCR. According to the log, it was deleted as a copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from web sites or printed material without the express permission of the author or copyright holder. If you create such an article and believe that using sentences from the source is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at the talk page of the new article and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License, or released into the public domain leave a note at the talk page of the new article with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the talk page of the article.
- If you'd like to discuss the deletion of this particular article with the administrator who deleted it, you may of course do so at his talk page. I would not advise leaving quite as much text as you left at my page, but perhaps more succinctly describing the situation and, if you feel his decision was mistaken, requesting that he review his choice. If he believes the deletion was within policy and you still feel that deserves wider review, you may open a discusson on the matter at deletion review, but this should always begin with addressing the deleting administrator. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)