User talk:Dolfrog/Archives/2012 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey there,
Following a crazy idea at [[1]] - we think it would be great to pull a real effort into getting some of the most popular articles though the GA/FA process - I'm aware you're been a massive long-term contributor to Dyslexia - might you be around to get involved a little bit in putting the article though GA? Fayedizard (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Apraxia of speech
Hi -- I noticed that you're an editor of the Apraxia of speech page, and thought I'd let you know that Smassaro24, the user who recently expanded the article, is a student taking a Psychology of Language class at Gustavus Adolphus college in Minnesota. I've volunteered to work with the class and answer questions, and will take a look at the article this evening or tomorrow to see if I have useful feedback, but I don't usually edit medical articles and am not very familiar with WP:MEDRS. I see you've already started cleaning up the sources -- were the changes added by the student generally positive and helpful? I'd like to get him/her some feedback on whether what they did was useful.
I don't know if you've run into the Education Program before -- it's becoming more common for university classes to incorporate work on Wikipedia, and this is an example. If you have any questions about the program, let me know; I'll take a look at the page as soon as I have time.
Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi much of the new content is good, but he /she needs to find medical research papers to support the content he/she has added. Unfortunately information from support organisations web pages, although probably initially useful for him/her to do their initial investigation is not citation enough for Wikipedia. I have provided some links to collections of research papers on the article talk page which may help provide the required citations. Currently my main area of interest is aphasia which is an acquired disability, and especially how it may related to my own developmental disability auditory processing disorder; similar symptoms but from very different underlying causes. dolfrog (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I just got back from a business trip and have a bit of time this weekend -- I will go look at those articles but since I see you're editing actively I will keep my hands off unless you think I should get involved. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not good at copy editing due to my auditory processing disorder, which is a developmental version of the acquired issues in these articles, which in turn means I have problems making large additions or adding large corrections. I am OK with finding research sources and deleting errors etc, but adding content can be a problem, especially when my dyslexic symptoms abound. I have also started a sandbox Acute and Progressive which all involved may find useful dolfrog (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll do a copyedit on Apraxia of speech. Let me know if you want me to copyedit another article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I did a pass through -- let me know if I messed anything up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll do a copyedit on Apraxia of speech. Let me know if you want me to copyedit another article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not good at copy editing due to my auditory processing disorder, which is a developmental version of the acquired issues in these articles, which in turn means I have problems making large additions or adding large corrections. I am OK with finding research sources and deleting errors etc, but adding content can be a problem, especially when my dyslexic symptoms abound. I have also started a sandbox Acute and Progressive which all involved may find useful dolfrog (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I just got back from a business trip and have a bit of time this weekend -- I will go look at those articles but since I see you're editing actively I will keep my hands off unless you think I should get involved. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Aphasia
I have added this template to the dementia article instead of the psyc one. It links to the aphasia articles. {{Speech and voice symptoms and signs}} Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- looks good, I am still trying to work my way around the various names, for these issues. There is a great deal of confusion out there, different names for the same condition or set of symptoms. Short Story : I have run an adult auditory processing disorder (APD) forum for 12 years now, for those who have developmental APD. a couple of years ago, we had two new members of the forum, who I now know had had some form of aphasia, probably due to a stroke. although we sahred the same symptoms the causes were very different, and we had had very different life experiences relating to our disabilities. The real problem was a lack of understanding of these different life experiences and having similar daily symptoms. They left my forum and set up their own forum which is one of the quietest forums you can join. So I am now trying to discover the similarities and the differences, and the terminology is currently the biggest barrier. I have set up some sandboxes to help me sort thing out, Acute and Progressive and may be help others. keep in touch dolfrog (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Jargon aphasia
I'm still not quite sure what you are asking me to do. Do you want me to delete the Jargon aphasia redirect so that you can move text there and recreate as a new article. Or do you want the original text recreated as was before the redirecting - you can do that from the page history Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Dyslexia (and nice to see you)
Hi Dolfrog,
Nice to see your edits appearing in my watchlist - I'm also coming back in after a bit of a break. I just wanted to check - I'm planning on putting Dyslexia up for a peer-review in the near future - would you be okay with that? Fayedizard (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- depends on who the peers are, and if they need to read the supporting research which you keep on deleting, and therefore making the article more dyslexia remedial program, provider friendly, as opposed to providing the real inforemation and ongoing research regarding dyslexia. we had this debate 3 years ago. Dyslexia is a very wide ranging issue, and the research is still ongoing to understand the underlying multiple causes which doe not tend to make short puchy articles that the dyslexi industry prefer to sell their programs. So keep the article long and deep with regard to research and detail, and less about the needs of the dyslexia industry, and media friendly. dolfrog (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
June 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. this and this are in my view wholly unacceptable. Please be careful to address content issues directly and in detail rather than attacking editors in person. Mirokado (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- May be there needs to be some understanding of how my own disability relates to the mentioned editors activities, and may be a more consider consensus approach to his editing is needed which would prevent an emotional response dolfrog (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, the mentioned editor's "activities" are (from what I have seen) normal editing with which you disagree. We all have to cope with that and I can assure you that we all find Wikipedia very annoying at times! We do not check whether any of the recent contributors to an article have problems or disabilities before we decide to edit them. If you find a subject area too stressful it would be better to take a break for a while. If you were to continue with comments like those I linked to above, you would eventually be sanctioned, perhaps with a topic ban. --Mirokado (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- the reason I stopped editing was to avoid the stress, but when communicating with others, you need to understand their communication issues or disabilities, which is what the dyslexia article is about primarily, so those who participate in editing the dyslexia article are more than likely to be dyslexic, so those who edit these types of articles need to understand the content they are editing, and how best ot communicate wit those who may have such a communication disability, which is what the Disability project should be about, understanding the disabilities of others, as well as your own. So there will be dyslexics who edit the dyslexia article, like me, and so you need to understand my comunication disabilities, limitations etc, as do those who run Wikipedia. May be you should check as a matter of curtacy the nature of an editors communication disabilities if describes or linked to, so that each editor is better placed to communicate with other editors, especially those who have a communication disability, like me.
- No, the mentioned editor's "activities" are (from what I have seen) normal editing with which you disagree. We all have to cope with that and I can assure you that we all find Wikipedia very annoying at times! We do not check whether any of the recent contributors to an article have problems or disabilities before we decide to edit them. If you find a subject area too stressful it would be better to take a break for a while. If you were to continue with comments like those I linked to above, you would eventually be sanctioned, perhaps with a topic ban. --Mirokado (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You may have noticed that most of my recent contributions have related to providing and improving references to research, and re-organising articles based on supporting research. I am not able to write an article for wikipedia but i can find the supporting research, and I can understand when an article is not supported by the research. The dyslexia article needs a lot of copy editing, based the existing suportting research, and the more recent research, but not blindly making changes for the sake of making changes. dolfrog (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- continuing here :) Of course once I start talking to someone I take account of their personality, but we edit objectively based on current content, current references, new references we have found, Wikipedia guidelines, talk pages and so on. It is remarkable how often edits from different people complement each other and mostly we can build on the edits of others without completely reverting them, consensus evolving automatically. Because this generally works well we do not routinely negotiate individual changes in advance, rather we open conversations when necessary to find consensus, often in response to a change made by someone else. Reverting should be a last restort, not the first. --Mirokado (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- well the problem is that to date none of the edits we have been discussing have been based on current or new research, so any new edits such include researc hfrom 2009 + whic i have not seen added to date. I have been following dyslexia research for the a the last 5 yeas or so, and i have seen nothiong with would require a major change to the dyslexia article. you could have a look at CiteULike Developmental Dyslexia research paper sharing library which I have sorted by year of publication. You can always add an important paper which has been missed. So have a read of the research to see if any changes are needed, which I do not think has been done before some of the recent edits (I could be wrong). dolfrog (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Edits which just improve the structure of the article or copyedit the content should in any case use the current references unaltered and be separate from edits which update the content with new references, so there is lots needed for the article as it currently stands. --Mirokado (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- most of the recent research supports the current content, and improves the usnderstanding of the underlying issues that can cause the developmental symptom, so the first step is to create a new Developmental dyslexia article which can reflect Developmental dyslexia issues, and then editing the current dyslexia article to be both an introduction and summary of both the new developmental dyslexia article and the Alexia (acquired dyslexia) articles and the various sub articles required to provide the vast amount of associated information regarding the various types of Alexias, and connections to aphasias. Not to mention the various underlying cognitive causes of developmental dyslexia which is still on the cutting edge of research such as auditory processing disorder,l attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and the various visual processing issues. So there is a need to first improve the outlying articles before making radical changes to the main articles, which due to my own disability, I am unable to to do, but I can provide the supporting research. dolfrog (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will certainly be looking at the related articles too, and I can offer to help with any new article. Some of the tidying up I have in mind will make it easier to make more substantial improvements and actual changes to the articles. More later on Talk:Dyslexia. We will get there in the end. One step at a time. --Mirokado (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- most of the recent research supports the current content, and improves the usnderstanding of the underlying issues that can cause the developmental symptom, so the first step is to create a new Developmental dyslexia article which can reflect Developmental dyslexia issues, and then editing the current dyslexia article to be both an introduction and summary of both the new developmental dyslexia article and the Alexia (acquired dyslexia) articles and the various sub articles required to provide the vast amount of associated information regarding the various types of Alexias, and connections to aphasias. Not to mention the various underlying cognitive causes of developmental dyslexia which is still on the cutting edge of research such as auditory processing disorder,l attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and the various visual processing issues. So there is a need to first improve the outlying articles before making radical changes to the main articles, which due to my own disability, I am unable to to do, but I can provide the supporting research. dolfrog (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Edits which just improve the structure of the article or copyedit the content should in any case use the current references unaltered and be separate from edits which update the content with new references, so there is lots needed for the article as it currently stands. --Mirokado (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- well the problem is that to date none of the edits we have been discussing have been based on current or new research, so any new edits such include researc hfrom 2009 + whic i have not seen added to date. I have been following dyslexia research for the a the last 5 yeas or so, and i have seen nothiong with would require a major change to the dyslexia article. you could have a look at CiteULike Developmental Dyslexia research paper sharing library which I have sorted by year of publication. You can always add an important paper which has been missed. So have a read of the research to see if any changes are needed, which I do not think has been done before some of the recent edits (I could be wrong). dolfrog (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Aphasia
Since you edited the aphasia page, I thought you might be able to help with the question at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Expressive_aphasia_vs._aphasia. If you can help, I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Wshallwshall (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I've left a reply to you at my talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Acquired dyslexia seems to me to be a reasonable compromise name. Having chosen a preferred name for the article, the next thing you should do is to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and start the process of getting community consensus for the move. As and when you have community support, you will find that there will be lots of people willing to help you in the move process.
Kind regards, -- The Anome (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, the naming of the article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. -- The Anome (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Dysmetria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Cortex, Sensorimotor, Articulation and Purkinje
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Say, I'm trying to get a conversation going about this idea. Would you please consider commenting? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- For those who share my disability (10% of the population according to the UK Medical Research Council) or those who are visual learners as opposed to auditory (textual) learners, the Navboxes are a great visual navigation tool to help us navigate around Wikipedia, and the template could be used in various places in an article when the article discusses the wider issues, similar to the main article template when only a summary section is includes in an article dolfrog (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Bipolar disorder
Please stop changing the book citation definitions in Bipolar disorder. You are introducing page range errors which destroy the reliability of the references.
Please also stop removing {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}} and changing the article presentation format without consensus. You say in the first related edit summary "revising refs as per editor Casliber article review and WP:CITE tools" but you are not even doing what Casliber said he prefers: "I like 'Smith, John; Jones, Fred;' etc." Instead you are replacing "Kempton, M. J.; Geddes, J. R.; Ettinger, U.; Williams, S. C.; Grasby, P. M." by "Kempton, MJ.; Geddes, JR.; Ettinger, U.; Williams, SC.; Grasby, PM." I have checked in the documentation for {{cite journal}} and do not see the format "initials with a full stop after only the final initial". Even if you can find an example of that, WP:MOS says "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason." so there is no justification for your changes.
As far as cite pmid (or cite doi) is concerned, you can see the relevant discussion earlier in the section Talk:Bipolar disorder#Good article. They were introduced in order to clean up the previous mess of several different citation formats. I left open the possibility that there might be consensus for a different format when I said "Once these updated refs are consistent it will be easy to convert them all to another (source or presentation) format if that is what we decide we want to use for the GA review." but so far no consensus for any such format change has been reached and if you want to change it you should join the discussion, not impose your own preference, contrary to what every other contributor has suggested, without joining the existing discussion, particularly with a misleading edit summary which says one thing while you are in fact doing something completely different. --Mirokado (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not using my own preferred format which is the Diberri style using the Diberri citation tool, I am using the formatting options mentioned in the Bipolar disorder talk page to do list Fill in details for all citations as per [2] and using [3] not my favourite citation tool. The problem with your favboured citation tool is that editors have problems identifying the different citations as they all look the same. as the reviewer noted editors prefer to see inline the authors names. You stopped editing this article some months ago, so not really sure why you have made the comments you have as you are not actively editing the article. The citations are still a mess, but hopefully I can make them more understandable for the majority of editors including inline authors article titles and links to the various sources. You did not complete your project you stopped editing and left an even bigger mess. dolfrog (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Har. Here is what the to do list says:
- The references you are changing already conform with WP:CITE. WP:CITE does not require use of holek's tool, which is clearly generating a format inconsistent with the current format so you should not be using it without further manual changes anyway. So please stop doing that. What WP:CITE does say, is: "If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it."
- The method currently in use for book citations is
{{sfn}}and friends leading to{{cite book}}etc. The method currently in use for journal citations is{{cite pmid}}etc leading to{{cite journal}}. These are in accordance with WP:CITE. "Currently" means in this case as discussed, responsibly and in detail, in the section Talk:Bipolar disorder#Good article. This has been unchallenged by any page watchers etc for the last few months, so the current format represents consensus. If you do not like that, WP:CITE says clearly what you need to do: "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." You never know, I may even agree with you if only for a quiet life. - As far as "not actually editing the article" is concerned, I have clearly been watching it, and was waiting for further updates to the Good article section from Casliber if nobody else (now I expect updates from you too). If the continuing discussion there results in a sensible consensus and somebody else wants to edit further in accordance with such a consensus I might well not need to contribute further anyway. --Mirokado (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- that was not a consensus discussion it was a discussion between you and your best Wikipedia editor friend, so more about what you two preferred an no discussion with those who actually edit the content of ther article. I really wonder why you two are part of the disability project asd you seem to have very little understanding of the issues that cause the differences that cause disabilities and you always just want your own way of doing things. May be you need to begin to try to understand the needs of others as well as your own preferences. The Good Article project failed the review because of your preferences. dolfrog (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Stop insulting other editors and raise any stylistic concerns you have at the current discussion on the article talk page before making stylistic changes to the current article, as required by WP:CITE, the page you yourself say you are following.
- See WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Nobody, reverted, or suggested reversion of, the edits from four months ago so that is how consensus evolved. There are currently 817 watchers of this page and I imagine that number has not changed all that much, so there was plenty of scrutiny of the changes and the related conversation. Who, in your opinion, was "actually editing" the article at the time? Obviously they did not object to the changes either. The fact that there is also the talk page section happens to document that the consensus was achieved responsibly.
- There is no record on the talk page of the Good Article review which you say failed. Please provide the link to that. --Mirokado (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- that was not a consensus discussion it was a discussion between you and your best Wikipedia editor friend, so more about what you two preferred an no discussion with those who actually edit the content of ther article. I really wonder why you two are part of the disability project asd you seem to have very little understanding of the issues that cause the differences that cause disabilities and you always just want your own way of doing things. May be you need to begin to try to understand the needs of others as well as your own preferences. The Good Article project failed the review because of your preferences. dolfrog (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not using my own preferred format which is the Diberri style using the Diberri citation tool, I am using the formatting options mentioned in the Bipolar disorder talk page to do list Fill in details for all citations as per [2] and using [3] not my favourite citation tool. The problem with your favboured citation tool is that editors have problems identifying the different citations as they all look the same. as the reviewer noted editors prefer to see inline the authors names. You stopped editing this article some months ago, so not really sure why you have made the comments you have as you are not actively editing the article. The citations are still a mess, but hopefully I can make them more understandable for the majority of editors including inline authors article titles and links to the various sources. You did not complete your project you stopped editing and left an even bigger mess. dolfrog (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mirokado's objections and find what you've done to not be what Cas expressed an interest in. I've reverted your inappropriate changes along with whatever else was bundled with them. Please see: Talk:Bipolar disorder#cite regression. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Gosh, alot happens between visits - dolfrog I am sorry you got mass-reverted. I'll take a look at the material you added in a little while and take it from there. I find big medical articles a huge undertaking and so do them in spurts. And this has been on my to-do list for a long time. The 2006 treatment guidelines are a good find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Your user page and my edits
Hi, here's what happened. (1) I determined that the consensus in the discussion about {{navbox link}} was that it should be deleted. (2) Before deleting it, I removed it from all articles, so that redlinks weren't left around the place. (3) Rather than simply remove the template from your user page, I replaced the template with the code the template used. Your user page still looks the same as it was before, but it has some code where once there was a template - that's all. Hope this makes sense. Yours, BencherliteTalk 18:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
About your suppression of my modification in achromatopsia
I understand what you mean. Saying that it was just recruiting participants means that results should not be available soon, not before 3 or 4 years at least.
However, the fact that there is an attempt of therapy is a very important information, and I think this information should be available on wikipedia page, which is one of the very few possibilities for people to have information on this very rare desease.
Could you then suggest a way to put this information on this page so that it does not appear as an advertisement, or maybe even do it yourself ? (I think it is not an advertisement, and moreover this program is made by a state agency, not by a private company).
Yours sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.223.228 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am aware of the need for research, and the need to find those who have the condition being investigated. This is also important for my own disability. However Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, for established facts supported by secondary research. I did move the link to the "External links" section, some other editors may not have done that. You could discuss this issue on the articles talk page. You could ask for better advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine dolfrog (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Speech acquisition
Hello, Dolfrog. You recently removed a {{merge to}} tag from Speech acquisition with the edit summary, "No merger". I'm not sure whether you intended that comment as a summary of the merger discussion or as your contribution to it. Only three arguments concerning the merger – two in favor and one against – were made since January, but there was also a suggestion that the whole discussion should be revisited following Cecilemckee's Language acquisition course. The anticipated edits never materialized, but I still think it would be worthwhile to renew the discussion. Perhaps you'd care to comment at Talk:Speech acquisition#Proposed merge? (And by the way, thank you for your additions to the article itself.) Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Phonological dyslexia
Dear Dolfrog,
I have worked very hard on the article phonological dyslexia for an University Psychology assignment. I have done extensive research on this topic and produced this article over a time period of a few weeks. I have attempted to nominate this article for a DYK status, which I believe is currently being reviewed. I have noticed that you have made extensive changes to the article. I strongly feel the information I have added is relevant and would definetly aid someone researching this topic. I would very much appreciate if you could please re-add some of the information back to the article, that way my assignment wont look extremely incomplete and at the same time the article will be well developed and provide the users of wikipedia extensive information about the topic, whether they have a background or not.
Thanks
ProBonoPublicoA90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- It would appear from the content you added that your university lacks an informed international research base for this topic. See my replies on your talk page, and the numerous related research paper collections included on my user page. dolfrog (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolfrog. I am just curious to know why you tagged Dysnomia (disease) for CSD G8. It does not appear to meet the criteria. Are you intending to move some other article over this redirect? IF so you could try G6 ({{db-move}}). — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I did not tag Dysnomia as anything, if you look at the history of the article the originating editor changed his mind about the title a number of times, back in 2006. There should be a single Dysmonia redirect to the Anomic aphasia article with may be a disambiguation page for all of the various other current redirects. Due to my own communication disability (auditory processing disorder), I am not that good with Wikipedia procedures, and can only make suggestions in the hope that other editors understand the suggested changes, based on current international research. dolfrog (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The above article is full of uncited crap ands yet when I add some cited information you have the cheek to remove it because you don't think newspaper articles are reliable sources. Newspaper articles are used extensively in wikipedia and are generally considered reliable. Although they may not be a reliable as some other published sources they are 100% better than no citations at all. Please do not remove my citations again and if you want to improve the article you would do better to spend your time finding some sources yourself or removing the uncited stuff that litters it already. Richerman (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you provide secondary medical research sources related to the articles content, then i will not delete them, however if you continue to provide non research based citations in a medical article which is again Wikepedia guidelines than I will continue to delete them. There are many articles with unsupported content, that is not my issue. My issues are about the provision of research based citations for medical articles,and newspaper article are not research citations. You may have used them in the non medical articles you usually edit. I am all for deleting unsupported content of articles, but all content of medical articles require secondary research citations. dolfrog (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I decided to walk away and calm down a bit and having looked at the article again I see that since I last checked it some time ago, someone has removed all the poor quality sources that used to be there. The problem is that much of the text from those sources is still in the article and to me, non sourced information is as bad, or worse, than poorly sourced information. I will now go through the article and add some tags to the unsourced text. Richerman (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK this is an article which is on the boundaries of mt main area of interest, and as a result I do not have a great deal of research sources related to the actual content. You may find some related research in my Visual Agnosia collection I am still researching the various Agnosias, but not as a main research project. dolfrog (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I decided to walk away and calm down a bit and having looked at the article again I see that since I last checked it some time ago, someone has removed all the poor quality sources that used to be there. The problem is that much of the text from those sources is still in the article and to me, non sourced information is as bad, or worse, than poorly sourced information. I will now go through the article and add some tags to the unsourced text. Richerman (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolfrog - color_blindness is on my watchlist so I've just seen this - I just wanted to check, are you aware of the three-revert-rule? It might be worth knowing about for future conflicts... Fayedizard (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Fayedizard as I have mentioned before due to the nature of my communication disability I leave these types of Wikipedia technical issues to others. dolfrog (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's no problem - I'm happy to help out. We can go over it here - it's fairly simple - the main idea is:
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours."
This might be a useful thing for you to know - I'd rather you didn't come down on the wrong side of this in the future :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- May be like in real life I need a carer or more precisely a Wikipedia Carer, unfortunately despite your very good explanation, I can sometimes not process these types of situation when they happen but only an long retrospect, it is called "Delayed Processing" and unfortunately the length of delay can vary. I try to avoid these types of disputes, mainly as i do not add content to articles any more, only improve the citations etc. dolfrog (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I did think about invoking it but decided to walk away and cool off a bit instead - I'm glad I did now. It's annoying to spend time on what you think is making and improvement only to have it reverted, but sometimes you need to step back a little and remember to assume good faith. The link to your library led me some articles on the X-chrom lens. I don't have access to the actual articles (this looks as if it could be useful) but the abstract of this one gives enough information to support the information I added, so I'll use that. Richerman (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time out. I have added the article you found to my collection and a few more. Agnosia is a new topic for me, and covers a wide range of issues in each modality, some of which relate to one of my main areas of interest Acquired Dyslexia. I once spent almost a year trying to improve an article, and not realising until late on that the marketing needs of some was the source of much conflict, and it was then that I appreciated the need for secondary research citations. I had to take a year or so break from Wikipedia as a result. I will add more related articles when i come across them. dolfrog (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I did think about invoking it but decided to walk away and cool off a bit instead - I'm glad I did now. It's annoying to spend time on what you think is making and improvement only to have it reverted, but sometimes you need to step back a little and remember to assume good faith. The link to your library led me some articles on the X-chrom lens. I don't have access to the actual articles (this looks as if it could be useful) but the abstract of this one gives enough information to support the information I added, so I'll use that. Richerman (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Phonological dyslexia DYK submission
Hi Dolfrog: Thanks for helping with Phonological dyslexia. I have now reviewed the Did You Know submission (you are listed as co-expander; if you were not, I'd have added you) and in my view the article is almost ready but needs a few small tweaks. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
- The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
- To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
- If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
- A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
- HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
- Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
- When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)