User talk:Compositionist

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Writing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Correspondence ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Writing check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Writing?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Composition studies
On a recently deleted talk page, you said: "Composition studies" is just one name for the field with CIP code 23.13 (as of 2010). WikiProject Writing was contemplating creating different pages for each of the field's different monikers; I felt it would be more efficient to simply rename the existing page the IES-designated name of the field and address the nomenclatural differences in the article itself. There are several problems here. The "different monikers" are already mentioned in the first sentence of Composition studies. Wikipedia handles different names for the same subject by creating redirects from alternative names, by putting both names in the article title with a slash in between. That is why reverted your page move with the edit summary "this is not how we title", which was a correct observation. Also, Wikipedia article titles use sentence case, not title case. On the use of redirects for alternative names, see. On sentence case in article titles, see. For all these reasons, deletion of your newly created page was the correct route of action. I just created new redirects to Composition studies from Composition and rhetoric, Rhetoric and composition, and Writing studies to handle the alternative names issue in the way Wikipedia prescribes. Let me know if you have any questions. Biogeographist (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the Literacy article
I feel it might be better to discuss your views about the definition of literacy here rather than on the Talk page for Literacy. I don't want to offend you or engage in a debate. Actually, I personally don't have any issue with the belief that reading and writing have a social element. However, I have a few concerns, if you are interested.

>>>Thanks for reaching out, John; I'm not offended at all and am interested in what you have to say.

Firstly, it is a small point, but it seems to be appropriate that the Literacy article should be readable by a large segment of our readers. However, some of the sentences have around 50 words, and may require a university degree (or more) to read. Is there a way you can improve the readability?

>>>I take your point. It's always a challenge to balance accessibility with accuracy, but I can attend to this.

Next, many of the references are twenty to thirty years old, and much has happened in the science of reading over the last twenty years.

>>>Many of those references are that old because that's when the foundational work establishing the "social element" of literacy practices was published. 21stC literacy research doesn't much concern itself with rediscovering that literacy is a social practice; that can now be presupposed. Some more recent publications state that point baldly (e.g., Lindquist 2015), though those are tertiary sources. In addition, it would be helpful if, rather than list 10 references, you gave a specific reference and page number for such expressions as "Reading and writing, therefore, are never separable from social and cultural elements." (I know you gave a page number for the article for Jean Paul Gee which is 32 years old.)

>>>I can try to track down page numbers for those, although FWIW, most of those sources were originally added by other editors, so I'm not sure what page they had in mind.

And finally, it seems that a person who is eight years old, 18 years old or 48 years old but cannot read is probably not concerned with a debate about the definition of literacy. They just want to be able to read. Any look at studies such as PIAAC, PIRLS and the Nation's Report Card make it clear there is a serious problem with the way we teach reading in many countries.

>>>Well, you're probably correct that debates over literacy are not the first concern of people who can't read, but as those people are highly unlikely to come to the Wikipedia literacy page to learn about literacy, I don't think the page need be written for them. I agree that (some of them) do want to learn to read, and so this page should be written for their friends, family, policy-makers, and teachers. The problem with the way we are teaching reading in many countries is not that we have insufficiently attended to the 'basics' of print decoding, but that we persist in teaching in such a way as to ignore the social aspects of literacy practices. This is not a 'debate' -- that question was settled long ago and should be objectively reported as 'known' by this article.

>>>>Hi Dylan, and thank you for your comments. I am interested in your view in the previous paragraph; "that we persist in teaching in such a way as to ignore the social aspects of literacy practices". Do you know of any specific science behind this? Are you familiar with this article? https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading Also, if you have not yet read these two books, I recommend them. Seidenberg, Mark (2017), Language at the speed of sight, New York, NY: Basic Books – and Stanislas Dehaene (2010-10-26). Reading in the brain. Penguin Books.

Cheers,

John NH (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

So, I hope you are not offended. I respect your extensive background in this area and welcome your comments.

>>>Happy to engage further on this. Compositionist (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

John John NH (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

May 2024
Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Writing system. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Remsense 诉  01:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)