User talk:Kalimgreen/sandbox

Hellllooooo! --Ggrrl 17:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This should be where people are commenting...should it not? At least not directly in our sandbox. I appreciate the comments, though! Very insightful. Thank you to those who have read it so far. We are still working on referencing everything and making the article a bit smoother.--MSandall 01:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Whose comment is this? I have read this intro 3 or 4 times, still having trouble understanding what it is, perhaps if you put it into more layman's terms, I asked another friend to read it to see if it was just me, she said, "what are they talking about, sounds like a textbook (i need a dictionary)" she also added that normally within 3 sentances of reading a wikipedia entry you can tell what it is, here she couldn't do that. -- Yeah, we're working on that. It's a super abstract theory that's hard to narrow down and make understandable. Thanks for the input!! --MSandall 01:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And this one? ''Examining the paper overall, it looks like a good start, but it is difficult to edit because there are very few complete thoughts, especially in the subsections.in the introduction, it is wordy and confusing. Finally there are no references? and those that are referenced are not done so properly." -- Yep, we know. Thanks for trying to edit it, maybe come back in a day or so? you should see what we started with. --MSandall 01:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. If possible I would like some more specific input with the intro. I just edited it slightly but it is essentially the same. As of right now I can;t really see a way of making it clearer. Kalimgreen (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Kali, that's probably because I went in and edited it more after these comments:D I made it a bit clearer. I hope it's alright! --MSandall 14:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So did I. Thanks Megan. I will add a bit of description for her, thanks. Kalimgreen (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe add a bit on how Polly Wood relates to Metaformic Theory. It's a little unclear right now. What do you think? --MSandall 20:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

'''I like this page it is very informative and to the point, I found it interesting that the wiki link to Ishango bone states that its original purpose was for something other than mathematics but it does not say what. I don't know if you want to reference that page so that others will learn that it was used to tract menstruation but I think that would be awesome. The 3 brief headings that are in the middle of your page could use a little expansion because I am unsure what you guys are trying to portray there besides naming the 4 categories of metaforms, maybe a further example like in your wilderness section?'''

'''Other than that this page was really interesting, the only other thing that I would say is to try and figure out if you can re-reference that book so you do not have a list of the same reference over and over again. But I don't know if you can do that? Good work guys CourageCowardlyLion (talk)'''  --MSandall 20:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Kali and Megan, can you elaborate on Metaformic consciousness? I concur with the Cowardly Lion above, that further elaboration on the four types of metaform would also be beneficial.

I did several copyediting corrections, such as verb tense fixes and similar changes, and marked a place where reference is still needed. WGST490 (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I learned a lot from this. But there is an area that I feel can be expanded a bit more. The section on the Ethnomathematics. I am not sure if there is not a whole lot of stuff out there but it feels to be a little short, or just cut off before the end. But other than that, this is looking like a great article.Mhoward058 (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)