User talk:Jnhmunro

Welcome!

Hello, Jnhmunro, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Also, I want to thank you for your work on Phonics. I am interested in all topics related to Education and an enthusiastic advocate of software which displays ideas visually, especially as a learning tool, for example: mindmaps. Happy editing! — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 12:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

"Hatnotes [a neologism] are short notes placed at the top of an article [or section] (hence the name "hat"). Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking." {{See also}} is the template for one form of hatnote. I changed your see also's in Phonics to hatnotes. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 21:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More about templates for hatnotes

Your last try: '''See also:''' Phonics in the United States of America - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonics#Phonics_in_the_United_States_of_America

Normally:

All external links are in the form: [http://www.somewebsite.com/externallink.html Label] Note: Space is the delimiter between the address and the label. (Spaces in web addresses must be replaced with %20.)
All links to Wikipedia are in the form: [[Wikilink | Label]] Note: | is the delimiter. (Wikilinks can have spaces.)

When using the {{See also}} template, all parameters must be Wikilinks until the first label

Therefore to use the {{See also}} hatnote template: {{See also | Wikilink | label 1=Label}}

or {{See also | Wikilink1 | Wikilink2 | label 1=Label 1| label 2=Label 2}}, etc.

For your example:

{{See also | Phonics#Phonics_in_the_United_States_of_America | label 1=Phonics in the United States of America}}

yields:

More

I saw your message. The following is a list of articles which can be helpful to new users:

Quick introduction to Wikipedia
How to write a great article
Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLoS
Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)

I especially recommend the PLoS Ten Simple Rules. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 21:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing cleanup tags

Q: John, is it possible to have the warnings removed from the "Synthetic phonics" page. I have cleaned it up, added references and added three countries for the "global outlook", so it should meet standards now. I will, however, add New Zealand and Canada very soon. I am just concerned that searchers will not accept this page as credible even though I am confident that it is factual.

A: There is a Wikilink to the essay giving advice about cleanup tags is at the top of Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. That essay discusses several aspects of the practice of tagging pages for problems, constructive tagging, removing tags, disputes and over-tagging. One of my pet peeves is "drive-by tagging." "Adding and removing tags for non-obvious problems without discussion is not helpful. It can be disruptive and is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development." I would include adding or removing tags without making an entry on the talk page.

By my definition the tags on Synthetic phonics are "drive-by" tags. However, removing them without comment is "drive-by" taggging also.

If you have made a good faith effort to fix the problems described in the cleanup tags and briefly state your reasoning on the talk page, it may not be the end of the conversation. But, it is a good beginning! — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page use

I'm glad to see that you added your comment to the Synthetic phonics talk page. I have moved your comment to a new section at the end of the page. Also, you need to sign, ~~~~, your talk page entries so other editors can correctly address their comments. See Help:Using_talk_pages#Talk_page_use — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 13:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming on this article, I think its essentially an essay devoted to proving a particular point of view. I've made further comments there. I'm no expert in this, but i think the entire set of articles would benefit from a more systematic approach. I think also it is not a good approach to unnecessarily split articles, all of which will have the same POV problems. (I therefore redirected Systematic Phonics). It would be better to get the existing articles cleaned up first. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note regarding original research

Hello! I noticed this edit, where you replaced a direct quote with an interpretation. This is covered by our policy regarding no original research, which states that Wikipedia editors should not attempt to make an interpretation that is not directly supported by reliable sources. For example, your replacement of the term "calls for" with "appears to recommend" alters the meaning of the phrase: "appears to recommend" is a personal interpretation that additionally softens the impact of the phrase. The source used in this case is a primary source, which are particularly susceptible to this kind of problem. It would be best if the claims made in this paragraph were attributed to a reliable secondary source, so that there is no question of personal interpretation. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Multisensory learning (February 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has no references. References are needed to establish that third party reliable sources consider the concept to be notable.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Multisensory learning and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Multisensory learning, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jnhmunro! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Multisensory learning has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Multisensory learning. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Multisensory learning has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Multisensory learning. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Multisensory learning has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Multisensory learning. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Multisensory learning has been accepted

Multisensory learning, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~Kvng (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jnhmunro. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Jnhmunro,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Jnhmunro,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Jnhmunro,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Best Evidence Encyclopedia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Best Evidence Encyclopedia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://bestevidence.org/aboutBEE.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because

it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the subject organisation company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company organisation he claims or interviewing him its management. Your article was sourced only to the website itself, and can't establish notability on that basis. Even if it had proper refs, you are just telling us what it does, nothing to indicate why it was notable. No indication of how it's funded either
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Your text was neutral, but only one of your "see also" was actually that, the rest were spamlinks to external sites
it's all about what the company organisation sells, little about the company organisation itself other than locations. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits funding or expenditure.
there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to affiliated sites.
was originally a copyright violation. Although you had reduced the extent of that, deletion is necessary to hide the history
If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it.

I'm prepared in principle to restore as a draft, but you need to make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources, otherwise you'll be wasting your time. You must also reply to the COI request above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree

As I mentioned, I agree with your decision, so I will add relevant information to other articles. I have no COI relationships with any of these organizations or, for that matter, any educational organization.John (talk)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jnhmunro! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Help to remove a tag., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phonics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phonogram (check to confirm | 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) 07:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Systematic phonics (June 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Systematic phonics and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Systematic phonics, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jnhmunro! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Redirect Rose report., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phonics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PIRLS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Jnhmunro. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your signature

Hi, John. I'm John too, and I decided when I was about 12 that I'd never name my son that. I was quite tired of looking to see who wasn't talking to me by that time. Ironically my only son is 8 now, and 52 years after I turned 12, John isn't nearly as common. Anyway....I've never used a custom signature and frankly fail to see any purpose for them, but if I recall correctly, one of the restrictions is it can't be disruptive or confusing. As we have an apparantly retired, but once quite active editor John, I'd think your signature would be considered minimally confusing, if not disruptive. You may wish to modify your signature somehow, such as adding an initial. Thanks, and happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John. I was unaware of this, so I have added initials to my signature. Thanks for the suggestion. John NH (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jnhmunro! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Alphabetic code, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Summer slide has been accepted

Summer slide, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spicy (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phonics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Reading education in the United States into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. to-Learning to read If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ndependent Review of the Primary Curriculum: Final Report

Hello, Jnhmunro. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ndependent Review of the Primary Curriculum: Final Report".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jnhmunro! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Seeing wikilnks to subtitles on my iPhone, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Systematic phonics

Hello, Jnhmunro. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Systematic phonics".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Learning to read, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Alphabetic code

Hello, Jnhmunro. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alphabetic code".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jnhmunro! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Menu list, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jnhmunro! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Resizing a picture in a template., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

Did you find an answer to this question? If not, WP:VPT may be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, I did get an answer.John NH (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Your edit to Reading has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phonics

Hello. You sort of reverted my edit to phonics, so I thought I would ask for clarification. I will write some more on the talk page, and I would be grateful for responses. I see "phonics" as a rather curious business: one meaning is something like the mapping from written symbols to speech, which sounds like linguistics, but in practice evidence suggests that the field of linguistics really does not talk about "phonics". The second meaning is from the field of education, meaning an approach to teaching (English) reading involving systematic teaching of how spoken words are built of consonants and vowels, and so on, as opposed to the other "method" of teaching called "whole language" or "look and say", which eschews any sort of systematic explanation in the belief (not obviously supported by evidence) that children do not need such explanation. This is all very vague, so in some sense you could say that "phonics" could be used to teach the reading of any language, if there is any element of systematic explanation. So I do not see any principled way to limit this to languages "using an alphabet". Why not a language with a syllabic writing system such as Japanese, or even a non-phonological writing such as Chinese, insofar as there are systematic pronunciation hints built into many characters. At the same time, in practice, 99.99% of references to "phonics" are about teaching English. Your (restored?) cite for Russian merely says that the policy is to spend time explaining how Russian words are built from consonants and vowels, with nothing specifically resembling "phonics". The Arabic text is a proposal for helping Arabic speakers with learning difficulties to "decode"(?) the Arabic alphabet, and the authors merely assert that "phonics" could help, but disarmingly say that their proposal needs testing in the field. Both references are rather tenuous, it seems to me. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is John. Thank you for your input. It is very valuable.

Yes, most of this article is about how phonics is used to teach reading in English. However, because phonics is used to teach reading in non-English speaking countries, there is a section for that - Phonics#Practices by country or region.

With respect to using phonics to teach reading in the Russian language, the reference says "The method widely used now to teach reading was developed by the famous psychologist Daniil Elkonin in the 1960s. The method is based on the premise that before studying the letters of the Russian alphabet, preparatory work is necessary whereby children are taught to orient themselves in the phonetic system of the Russian language. Students learn to define the sequence of sounds in a word and characterize each sound, such as vowel/consonant or hardness/softness of consonants. By acquiring the knowledge of the phonetic system at an early stage, it is believed that children become better familiarized with the skills of reading."

Since the reference only proposes a method to use phonics to teach Arabic, and I don't have a good reference beyond that, I will remove that example.

I don't know if phonics is used to teach reading in Japanese or Chinese. I suspect reading is taught in these languages by memorization, but I welcome your opinion, especially if you can point me in the direction of a good reference.

Thanks, again. John NH (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. (Sorry, I forgot to 'watch'.) Somewhat uncollected thoughts...

I looked at the article again, and actually I see there is a similar debate in France, which is what you would expect. But looking at the other "countries": exactly half (9/18) are English-speaking. For the rest, overwhelmingly the actual connection to the "phonics" of "teaching English" is tenuous. Portugal for example: the text is vague in the extreme, nothing specific at all about how reading is taught. My point basically is that in English, and in French (wild outliers in the global scheme of things, I think) there is a huge job caused by the absence of a simple direct mapping from letters to sounds, and "phonics" vs "whole language" is an educational debate about how to handle this job (it seems obvious that actually "whole language" is bogus). In other languages, there simply can be no such debate; Japanese is a particular example I know more about (my third son is a Japanese primary school teacher), in which beginning reading uses the syllabic kana system; you show the kids how to read each of the 50 characters, and they string them together. But in any of the cited languages which are alphabetic, Italian for example. there is an almost one-to-one correspondence between letters and sounds, plus some special rules about 'c' and 'g' before front and back vowels. There is no coherent distinction between reading 'venticinque' by seeing that it spells 'v-e-n-t-i-ci-n-qu-e' or looking at it and recognising 'venticinque' as a whole, because it of course spells 'v-e-n-t-i-ci-n-qu-e'. Compare 'fate' or 'rough', where we cannot actually say which letter even makes which sound. And I cannot see any principled way to claim that it is the use of an "alphabet" which determines whether or not "phonics" can be used. For example, in Japanese, presumably there will be children with reading difficulties, who learn あ(a), か(ka), and さ(sa), but cannot see that あかさか spells 'Akasaka' (even though you can, now). They need the same help as an Italian child who knows how to read 'c'(before 'i'), 'i', 'n', and so on, but cannot see that 'cinque' spells (five). (Then you can consider whether Korean hangul is an alphabet or not.) That sort of deals with my objection to the sentence about "using an alphabet".

My reaction was also partly simple (genuine) disappointment. I could not understand any more about the "phonics" debate after reading the article than I could before. And I found the bit about the separate article for "synthetic phonics" for the English (adj. 'of England'; Scotland is separate) case. The problem is that once separated into it own article, there is no comparison between the two (or more?) different sorts of phonics, and one learns nothing. (This is a very general WP problem: instead of an article illuminating the constrast between two alternative ideas, you get an article on each, so vague that they could be interchanged without anyone noticing.) The reference given to Literacy trust gives in two paragraphs more explanation than the entire WP article. I think the "phonics" article should outline the relevant distinction (and mention analytical phonics, "popular in Scotland").

The article starts out by making it look as though "phonics" is really a term in linguistics, rather than a much more parochial term in education as I believe. (In general, I don't think linguistics talks about phonics at all.) For example, an essay "Phonicsphobia" by Joyce Morris in Spelling society gives the following definition:

'Phonics' [covers] all methods and materials designed to develop initial literacy in English by highlighting its major spelling patterns, and by making explicit the relationships between speech sounds (phonemes) and graphic symbols (graphemes).

I think that would be a much better place to start. There is room for a short mention of similar issues in teaching reading in some languages.

Mustn't go on. Also (re)read much of Geoffrey Sampson's excellent book "Writing systems" (microreview mine). The last chapter is interestingly titled "English spelling", and is highly recommended if you have access to a copy. He distinguishes "logographic" writing like Chinese, and to a lesser extent English, with "phonographic" writing like Italian or Russian. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. It will take me awhile to digest and respond, but I will do so as soon as possible. (I have a full time job, a family and other volunteer activities.) I appreciate hearing things from your perspective. Hopefully it will enable me to improve the articles. John NH (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. As you can see, I have included analytic phonics in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonics#Analytic_phonics_and_analogy_phonics. You might also want to look at the article on Reading that contains material on phonics. John NH (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Science of reading has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Science of reading. Thanks! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Science of reading has been accepted

Science of reading, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]