User talk:Lhakthong

NOTE: IF YOU WRITE ME A MESSAGE HERE, I WILL RESPOND TO YOU HERE UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.

/Archive 1

Phi Beta Kappa
Hi Lhakthong! Sorry about not finding a source, I know that you asked about the Phi Beta Kappa and Delta Epsilon Sigma link. My justification until I could find a source is that both are all academic honor societies based on the the total academic experience. DES has the same requirements as PBK.
 * Hi. Well, a few points: first, I think what  you're trying to say constitutes original research.  Our job as editors is to provide to the reader with information and research already published, both of which need to be verifiable.  If you said, "DES has the same requirements as PBK", that would be a verifiable claim (although I don't think it's true because PBK is not an all-discipline society; it is limited to the liberal arts and sciences (no business, education, law, engineering, etc.).  However, the leap from that to PBK influencing X honor society is large.  We want to let the facts speak for themselves, not to speak for them.--Lhakthong (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Julia Suits
Hello Lhakthong,

I'm a newbie and subject of wiki page Julia Suits. Is there a way I can verify my identity, first of all, before I continue discussion of edits to my page? Pecanfarm (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be snarky, but not without compromising your security further than you are already worried about by having degrees listed in the article. The fact of the matter is the content you deleted is easily and publicly accessible on the Narrative website and by Google search.  To wit, there is nothing confidential or private about that information when typing the subject's name in Google brings up the Narrative bio and exactly the content you propose should be deleted: "Julia Suits is a native of St. Louis and received a BFA in painting from Beloit College and an MFA from Ohio State. An illustrator for Creators Syndicate, ..." Were that to disappear (contact Narrative and have them remove the content), there would be no way to source the content, and it could be easily and with little if any contention be deleted from WP. --Lhakthong (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, though I was taken aback by your first phrase ("I don't mean to be snarky")A bit unsettling as an intro to wiki editing process :(  Pecanfarm (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't read into it. I more literally meant "don't read this as snarky", because that's not what I intend, and it could be read that way by someone who isn't assuming good faith.--Lhakthong (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project
Aloha!

My name is Victor Grigas, I’m a storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco working on collecting unique and interesting stories from Wikipedians that can be used to compel donations for the 2011 fundraiser.

I found your user name on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Chicago

If you are interested in participating, and would like to schedule a telephone or Skype interview with me, please send me an email (vgrigas@wikimedia.org) along with any questions you may have.

Thanks for your time!

Victor, User:Victorgrigas Victor Grigas (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PS If you know of anyone with whom I should speak please let me know :)

Reply
WilliamH (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Content removal
Hi Lhakthong, I noticed you undid a revision on Philosophy of Education on a resource link I added and called it Link Spam, and think this is in error. Please let me know your response - Steve GreatPhilosopher (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. It looks like your new, so please don't take this the wrong way (or personally).  The link does not seem like a reliable third party source for in the same way the other links in that section are (for example, the Staford University Encyclopedia).  Instead it looks like an individual's personal project, and the fact that your only contributions to Wikipedia revolve around posting a link to a webpage of unknown quality calls the link into question as well.  Just telling it like it is.  Nonetheless, please don't take this in any way as a communication that your efforts aren't appreciated.  I'm just not sure they were appropriate, and that might just be because you're new.  I'm going to post some links o your talk page that might be helpful for you getting started in Wikipedia.--Lhakthong (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading WP:EXT, particularly line one of "links to avoid"

See the NPOV tutorial and NPOV examples.

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.Stmullin (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You removed whole sections of cited text that are well-established views on the subject.  And you have yet to make the case to all of the editors on that page that your new edits and content are warranted.  The issue at stake has nothing to do with NPOV and more to do with fringe views, original research, and the use of sources.  You are new to editing here, and I would strongly urge you to seriously ask yourself why you have not convinced any of the four other established editors of the page, who very likely know Wikipedia editing guidelines and culture better than you, why your edits are warranted.--Lhakthong (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Philosophies of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism have well developed philosophies of education,they are not Fringe theories. Secondary references were given concerning Educational philosophy which is redirected to Philosophies of education. . . disambiguation may be necessary. 65.190.196.45 (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism are theories is not disputed. The fact that educational philosophies might utilize Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism within them is not disputed.  The fact that you are asserting Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism are comprehensive educational philosophies (a specific term with a specific definition and meaning agreed upon by the educational philosophy community) is the fringe theory.  In other words, psychological theories (or even philosophies) might be part of an educational philosophy, but they are not its entirety. A mechanic does not equate the wheel on a car with "the car".  When someone says "I am going to buy wheels for me car" they do not mean "I am going to buy a car".  Likewise, educational philosophers (as demonstrated in the sources) do not equate cognitivism (one possible part of an educational philosophy) with an educational philosophy. The points you again raise here with have already been raised on the article's talk page, they have been roundly countered by the other editors, and, again, you have yet to convince four established Wikipedia editors that your edits do not constituent fringe theories or original research.--Lhakthong (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They are philosophers of education, and this is an article about philosophy of education. I'm not sure how much more relevant one can get.   If learning theories have any place in a philosophy of education article, then their place must be discussed.  However, eliminating/dismissing the consensus view of philosophers of education on a page about philosophy of education seems to me to undermine the whole point of this article.  I am in agreement with hgilbert and John on all of this.  If we are to talk about behaviorism and constructivism, etc as philosophies of education, we need to find authoritative third-party sources for such assertions.  And in my mind, the only authority that would trump philosophers of education on an article of philosophy of education would be other philosophers of education or encyclopedias in education.  I would not agree with using a Ph.D. dissertation in philosophy of education any more than an Ed.D. dissertation in technology education as the sole trump card against scores of other authoritative sources defining the field. I'm not sure where to go from here.  A 3PO/Third Opinion doesn't make sense, given there are already four+ editors in this conversation and there is a stalemate on consensus from one, or if the Dispute Resolution Board makes more sense.  Suggestions?--Lhakthong (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That Could be very interesting since 4 editors have counseled and guided me through these revisions.65.190.196.45 (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that I find it highly problematic that verifiable, authoritative sources and claims were removed from the lede (and elsewhere) altogether so that an entirely different view--one that only one editor holds and cannot be verified by authoritative sources--would wholly supplant the old one.
 * I did not make those revision but you did delete verifiable sources from other editors that you disagreed with and that is problematic. Frightening newbies off the page is not appropriate since the article title includes redirects from Educational philosophies which is what bring us to this discussion. Maybe Educational philosophy is fundamentally different from Philosophy of education just as Educational Technology is fundamentally different from Technology Education. Stmullin (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible resources and links
Please read the Merriam Caffarella text Merriam, S. and Caffarella (1991, 1998) Learning in Adulthood. A comprehensive guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 528 pages. Now pretty much the standard text, Merriam and Caffarella provide a good overview of learning theory. In the new edition, part two deals with adult development and learning; and part three with the learning process.Stmullin (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC) The Philosophies of behaviorism, humanism ,constructivism, and cognitivism have well defined Learning theories and prescriptive Instructional theory.Stmullin (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC) BF Skinner is considered a Behaviorist, Piaget a Cognitivist, Rogers a Humanist, and Dewey a Constructivist. Individual theorists generally have a guiding philosophy though some have made contribution to several educational theories such as Marie Montessori's contributions to learning theories stemming from both Humanism and Constructivism.Stmullin (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy entry on behaviorism has a different view. I think it is clear that the bhaviorism you are talking about is psychological form, not the philosophical form.--Lhakthong (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Philosophy of Behaviorism (Philosophy of the Mind) includes the perspectives of psychologists and educators. The Philosophy of Constructivism includes the perspectives of psychologists and educators. The Philosophy of Humanism includes the perspectives of psychologists and educators.Stmullin (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)