User talk:Dolfrog/Archives/2009 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dolfrog. 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.

Hi dolfrog.

I made some recent edits to the ADP article (mainly 'definition'). I would like you to have a look and maybe give your input/critique, if you have the time of course, as I know you have much knowledge in this area.

Thanks
Gerard Duncan 22:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I hope you can work things out and are feeling better soon. Armarshall 15:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the vandalism on the dyslexia page ("non existant" learning dysability). I am new to this side of wiki and I appreciate your having replied to my message! Frognsausage (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog -- your contributions to my Template:Dyslexia are very welcome, but Rosmoran has now suggested an alternative template which he is constructing in his user sandbox here: User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox. I much prefer a collaborative effort so I'd rather we all worked together following Rosmoran's lead. I wanted to let you know so that you don't waste time editing a template that may later be abandoned. You will see my comments about Rosmoran's suggestions on his user discussion page. Armarshall 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

I'm not trying to create a USA only template. Quite the contrary. What would need to be included in the template to cover the areas you think have been left out?

Best,

Rosmoran 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dolfrog.

I just noticed your comments in my dyslexia navigation sandbox. For some reason my "Watchlist" isn't always showing me when changes are made to my personal pages, so I missed them. Thank you for reviewing it and taking the time to respond.

I am not ignoring your comments --- I'm going through them now to try to figure out what changes you're suggesting. I'll probably have questions, and will be back to your Talk page to ask them.

Best,

Rosmoran 17:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dolfrog.

Thank you again for going through and detailing your concerns. It looks to me like your comments are mainly about the article and not so much about the navigation template itself --- yes?

Of course, the navigation template must reflect the content of the article, but I'm thinking it would be a good idea for me to get clear on your issues with the content of the article first. Is that OK with you?

To make sure I understand what you're saying, I created a summary of your comments, including my understanding of what you mean and any questions I have. These follow.

Definitions section

• Need definitions of developmental dyslexia and acquired dyslexia.
• I don't know what you mean by "Social dyslexia" and "Environmental dyslexia?"
• Keep the World Health Organization definition of dyslexia. Put national and other definitions on a separate Definitions page.
• We need a genaral defintion of dyslexia free from political and professionally skew input, something like:

Dyslexia is about having problems using the cutlural visual notations of speech. There are many cultural variations in speech language, and is also reflected in the variations in the the Visual Notation of speech can present.

Names of theories

• There is duplication in these theories.
• Need to decide which names of theories to feature and which names to include in brackets as "AKAs".
• Question: I'm not quite following you here. Can you clarify? Which theories should I read, and where are they located? Or do you just mean the subsections on the Dyslexia page?

Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis a duplicate of APD

• Which term do you think we should use? should we put an "AKA" somewhere?

Include effect of Welsh language orthography

• Question: Where can I get information about this?

Speech, hearing and listening

• Question: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying on these, other than they need to be sorted out. I know that I don't really understand how all of the different speech skills and disorders inter-relate, so I definitely cannot sort this out on my own. Help!

Can you help me figure out what info should be included in the article, and what info we should link out to?

Practical problems related to Dyslexia

• Create a section for topics reading, writing, spelling and maths.
• Question: I'm not sure whether these should be considered symptoms of dyslexia --- is that how they are addressed in the UK? In the US they are typically considered to be different, although related, disorders. Though even in the US many organizations and researchers are very vague on this point.
• How do you think we should handle this?

List of programs/ therapies should include:

• Description of what each program type could provide
• List all programs along with links to Wiki articles or external links to web pages.
• Make clear each program's country of origin, and alternative names if they have different names in different countries.

Facts and statistics

• This should be integrated in another section, most statisticsl always seem to be disputed especially accross international boundaries.

Legal and educational support issues

• Have a look at my old web site (still needs revamping, but some of the US linkls could be useful http://capdlinks.homestead.com/IEP_Law_LD_Resourses.html.

Does it seem to you that I'm getting the gist of your comments?

Look forward to your reply,

Best

Rosmoran 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dolfrog.

Thanks for the comments! I noticed a couple of them as I was browsing through my watchlist history. I'm very interested in your comments on the reading articles in particular. There are quite a few articles that have overlapping content, and I think it'll take a group of folks collaborating to address the issue in a global and non-partisan way.  :-)

Talk with you soon,

Rosmoran 05:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog, thanks for the suggestion, but I am familiar with the web site you suggested - http://www.dys-add.com/ -- and I know from experience that it is full of all sorts of misinformation and false statements, especially about research. So it is NOT a good starting point for looking up research, because when you look things up... it turns out that a lot of the information is inaccurate. So it just is not a reliable source and you can end up wasting a lot of time trying to find a "study" it mentions only to find out that the study never existed. Anyway, the bottom line is that it is a commercial site trying to slant its information to the tutoring program it promotes.

So I personally would rather start directly from the journals -- I use a lot of RSS feeds & subscription services to keep me updated about new research - such as Science Daily or Eurekalert - and then when I see something interesting I just go directly to the journal where it has been published and pull off the full report. (You need access to an academic database to get the full studies; fortunately I have that -- but if you don't have it, when you find the abstracts to the articles they always list a contact person, and usually if you email that person and ask for a copy of the report, they will be happy to send it.)

I think the study that you were waiting for could be the one described here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/chb-str103007.php Armarshall 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with Arm's assessment of Bright Solutions' website that it slants information toward their program. It does describe O-G interventions and present information supporting their efficacy. It is true that Susan Barton developed an O-G intervention program --- the Barton Reading and Spelling Program -- that is very true to O-G principles. If that amounts to the site promoting her "commercial" program, OK. But since she provides information about a number of O-G programs, I cannot fault the site for mentioning her program as well.

That said, I agree with Arm that her website isn't the place for updates on the most recent research. Her site is really targeted to the uninitiated. I would be interested in hearing what portions of her site she considers to provide false information. I'm no researcher, but I haven't seen any misrepresentation on her site, and I've known about it for years.

Incidentally, the Barton program is unique in that it is designed so that parents and volunteer tutors can begin providing the needed intervention immediately without having years of O-G training *first*. Parents are often left in a bind because of the scarcity of trained academic language therapists, or because they cannot afford to hire one. This gives those parents with a kid who can't read a chance to help the child quickly. If your kid can't read, you don't have time to spend 2 years getting training. Barton's video-based training keeps the tutor a few lessons ahead of the student. Oh, and by the way, the program works beautifully.

Rosmoran 22:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There you go, not been on that page for a bit as been quiet busy of late. If you want to give it ago on another page Help:Archiving_a_talk_page tells you how, I use option one generally. The lazy option is using MiszaBot but you need to get general agreement on that one, let me know if you want a hand setting it up. --Nate1481 11:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than a basic knowledge of the DDA I relay don't know much, I'll have a look when I get some time but am quite busy in real life @ the moment sorry. --Nate1481 12:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog, sorry, I haven't come across anyone with that kind of a background. There is the Special Education page, but I don't feel that the legal provisions section is very strong. I think what happens is that people may know the requirements in their own school district, but don't even have a good sense of the requirements in their own country, let alone in other countries, so it ends up being rather piecemeal. I agree that it would be good if someone could tackle that. I'll keep an eye out in my travels. --Vannin (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog,

Most of your recent page moves actually violate the relevant naming conventions. We don't move page names as a commentary on which country's information is most prominently represented (that's what the {{globalize}} tag is for); we don't change unique names of laws to identify the country that made the law; we don't usually change the titles of articles to indicate which country a legal term is used it. Additionally, moving long-standing articles to the title of your preference without allowing anyone else to object is generally considered irritating. Please stop moving articles. If you believe that any article should have a new title, I suggest that you discuss each individual case, including your rationale per WP:NC (and common sense) before making any changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dolfrog. You have new messages at WhatamIdoing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bob1ob123 typed help me on the "Potts Theory" article, and then tried to add the same content twice on the dyslexia article

so i have copied and pasted below as suggested above. in the hope that someone can help this new WIKI user, and explain about the need to citations and scientific resference support

dolfrog (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC) {{helpme}}

Hi there. I've moved this over from Bob1ob123 (talk · contribs) to your own talk page - please ask for help on your own, not on the other users page, or we get confused :-s

I will certainly give that user some advice and tips on referencing.

For more help, you can either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
• Talk to us live.

Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  23:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You have added text like this: {{Merge|Special education in the United States|Talk:THIS PAGE#Merger proposal|date=May 2009}} to several pages in the last few days.

Talk:THIS PAGE doesn't exist. When you propose a merge, you need to start a discussion. In this case, you'd have to explain why the article about the provision of education to disabled students anywhere in the world needs to be merged with the article about the provision of education to disabled students specifically in the United States. I doubt that such a conversation is worth your time to start, but if you want to do so, please fix the discussion link to point to a real page (like Talk:Special education), and explain in detail why you think that the article that is supposed to summarize general features that apply to the entire world should instead be turned into a USA-specific article.

Also, just FYI, when you put a {{worldwide}} tag on a page, you almost always need to explain what the problem is. The tag is used to indicate an imbalance (e.g., lots of information about one country and none about any other). It should never be used in articles that are supposed to be about a single country. You may have been looking for the {{expand}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog, I'll take a peek at these issues and think about some options. I may not be able to get to it right away though due to real life, but will definitely get back to you in a bit.--Vannin (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so on the Potts theory stuff, I see that all the warnings and suggestions about references have been made, efforts have been made to engage the editor, and the Potts theory page itself is up for deletion, so I think it is just a matter of sticking to it and deleting it when/if it re-appears. I have never heard of this theory and have had no look doing a google scholar search. --Vannin (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And on the COI stuff, you have raised it appropriately on the user's talk page and the article talk page. See if that makes a difference - it may make them reconsider their approach, and if not, you may want to go to the COI noticeboard for further help. I'll check back on it in a few days. Hope that helps--Vannin (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, one way of dealing with this is to "write for the enemy" ie summarize the position of the alternate perspective. Doesn't mean it's true, just that is what proponents of that perspective say, and others say something else. Then the reader can make up their own mind.--Vannin (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, when I have finished revising the dyslexia article then i can give the APD article a serious revision as well.

dolfrog (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} the dyslexia project appears to have lost its founding editor, who created the project, and all of the project WIKI technicla stuff.

So after 18 monts of inactivity I have been trying to tidy up the project, and the main dyslexia article. But now I ned to kake what would appear to be technical changes such as creating a new sub category, mabe clasiffying some of tyhe projects articles etc but I have no idea how to do this. I have been arround all of the so called WIKI help pages but because they are text only articles with no diagrames, pictures ect I find them very difficult to folow due to my type of dyslexia. The whole wiki environment is dyslexic unfriendly , a complete mess, or more precisely Visual-Spatial learner very unfriendly. So can you help me with more visually descriptive instructions, and exact links to the support pages i require. dolfrog (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog. I don't really know, but have copied a hide box instructions here from another page. Where I've put "a hide box" you can put whatever you want to appear on the title. Then whatever text shows between that and the "collapse bottom" instruction gets hidden.

cheers --Vannin (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog,

I'm afraid I'm not on-top of all the wiki-links stuff. I think RHaworth is trying to help, and is not intending to vandalise, and there are a whole series of naming conventions that I don't know about but maybe RHaworth does, so it might be best to try to get him on side, and perhaps chat some more with him about what you are trying to do, and why some names work better than others for this topic. The two of you may actually end up being a good team.--Vannin (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that notation issues are related to dyslexia, but I don't think notation would be considered a subcategory of dyslexia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories#Categorizing_pages). It would seem to me taht it would be more understandable to link from the Dyslexia article page to the Notation page via a See Also. Libcub (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've redacted your comments at User talk:DJM77bci and at Talk:Auditory processing disorder. See WP:OUTING: actual or attempted outing of the identities of editors, even when there's a conflict of interest, is against Wikipedia's policy on harassment. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. On Wikipedia, "outing" is posting information (or guesses) about who Wikipedia editors are in real life, if they haven't told us already. It's strongly against Wikipedia policy, and can get you blocked from editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

From your recent category delations you would appear to have a very poor understanding of how communications systems have evolved, and whu some may have a neurologicla problems with accesing these communication systems <snip>.

If you say so. But I'm sorry: to be blunt, you are wasting your time if you hope Wikipedia to be restructured in such a radical way as http://capdlinks.homestead.com/Dyslexia.html to cater for your particular difficulty - at the expense of its accessibility to everyone else.

There are some things that can be done. As discussed with EdJohnston, it might be possible to give more colour/font options to make reading easier. But other aspects - such as the overall text format aimed at readers with normal reading ability - we're stuck with.

I have every sympathy; I have visual difficulties myself. But this is not just about format; you appear unwilling/unable to work within the system as it stands (and a major part of that is, accept others' advice when you are out of step). If this is the case, I can't help you. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dolfrog. This is a note to tell you about my message to Gordon that I agree with his position on how to categorize this article. I'm sorry to say that your approach here is not working, and you are managing to ruffle a lot of feathers. You've been accusing people of misbehavior who have acted in a way that is completely normal by our standards. Please think about what you could do differently. If you find it difficult to read our screens and to understand our policies, surely you can find other venues in which to contribute. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

On major reflection, Dolfrog, I'm going to have to decline to help you in the way you want. You say you don't understand how the system works, yet you're not prepared to trust the judgement of multiple editors who do. It must be around five/six now who have confirmed the view that your Dyslexia category addition is wrong in this case: it's nothing to do with scientific evidence for a connection, but how Wikipedia categories are organised.

Having communication problems - which I notice don't stop you telling us at length how we should go about things - is no excuse for wading into an unfamiliar environment, breaking its rules, then refusing to take things more carefully when alerted to the problem. I was happy to try to help, and gave you the benefit of the doubt over WP:OUTING, but your approach is grading into disruptive editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Category:Writing systems. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Enough with the abusive edit summaries [1]. It has already been explained to you how the category setup works. Dyslexia is not a writing system, nor a descriptive label for Category:Writing systems. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Gordonofcartoon [2][3] If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just found Template:FixBunching. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

looks good I will try it out later

dolfrog (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Concerning your comment at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves.2Fcurrent: these users are not logged in, so they are recorded by their IP addresses. If you ever log out of your Dolfrog account and make edits, those edits will show up as being made from your numeric IP address.

Some people don't like allowing users to edit without signing in for the very reason you describe (in some ways, it's harder to track individual editors when they edit without logging in), but it's currently a big part of the philosophy of Wikipedia: anyone can edit easily, even without creating an account. -kotra (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really sure if it would help but I'm glad it did work. Harionlad (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Quadell [4], you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that doesn't look like a personal attack to me. See Wikipedia:PA#What is considered to be a personal attack.3F. -kotra (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's disparaging an editor's qualification to have an opinion on a topic. It's a direct response to Quadell's RFC comment [5] (Dolfrog for some reason thinks I'm an administrator - though Quadell is). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly confrontational and presumptuous, but I wouldn't say it's a personal attack. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, though. The comments referenced in the other personal attack warnings above are such, anyway. -kotra (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And now this one [6] accusing me of bad faith in bringing a topic RFC to get outside views on a dispute. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Stumbled across this at the ever-entertaining WQA. I'm with Kotra here. None of the linked diffs are personal attacks. If he's blocked for them, I'll personally challenge the block at ANI. Unitanode 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So what do you call these then?

He has no idea what he is doing ... enjoy your power ego trip ... you really have no idea waht you are doing just deleting all i have done regardless just proves my point, you have no idea what disruptive editing is ... you have no idea waht you are doing and are acting more like an ill informed vandal rather than a user who is prepared to discuss the issues and learn ... blindly making changes which you do appear not to be technically qualified to understand ... passing their sometimes limited own opnions .... would have appear to have called for an RFC to ignore the documented peer reviewed research that supports the Dyslexia projects claims ... you seem to love make personal attacks againt me

All comment on the editor rather than the topic. Is that acceptable discourse? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In my view, a "personal attack" is limited to those times when one editor says to another something along te lines of, "You're a stupid son of a bitch." What I see above is a frustrated editor commenting on your abilities as an editor, as it pertains to the articles in question, which is not the same as a personal attack. My advice, grow some thicker skin, work collaboratively, and if this editor violates a policy like WP:3RR or WP:OR in his efforts, then perhaps people would consider blocking. Nothing he's written thus far is blockable in my view. Unitanode 04:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (their italics). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's some recommended reading for you. Unitanode 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That is all very good bur no one has ever tried to understand the research with supports my arguement, all the discussion so far has been one sided and based on ignorance and an umwillingness to understands the views of others. How to you go about puting a wrong right if the person doing the wrong refuses to even discuss the issues and ther research that proves that they are wrong. This is pure ignorance and ludsite mob rule.

WIKi is supposed to be about providing supported facts and not on the groundless opinions of self interested editors, which appears to be the case here. I have spent the last month and a hlf researching and edting the Dyslexia article and all these so clalled experts who have no knowledge of dyslexia become instant experts so that they can undo all the work I have done over the last months. This unacceptable and if WIKI condones this type of behavior it is no surprise that its repution is in decline as an encyclopedia, only useful as a store of possibly usefulmaterial used as references because th4r areticles themselves are so inaccurate.

These editors and their attitiudes would explain why this has happened. If WIKI is to regain any credability the editors need tpo be able to research the articles they are contributing to so that they are fully aware of the results of their action, which appears not to happen now. Most, not all, seem to be on a glorified ego trip., and never explaining the reasons for their actions.

dolfrog (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Read what GTBacchus posted below. Take a deep breath. Relax. Unitanode 12:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, possible confusion here: you keep referring to people as administrators, when they're not necessarily. "Administrator" is a special Wikipedia term for editors who have been voted extra powers (such as ability to lock articles, and to block users). Everyone else is just plain "editor". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog, if you ever need to figure out who is an admin (say, to get a 'stuck' page moved to the correct title), then you can find a link to the full list at WP:ADMIN. There are some 50,000 different editors active each month, but only about one in 30 is an admin. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, I've posted an alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Dolfrog - personal_attacks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

it is a pity you wasted their time dolfrog (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is dangerously close to baiting, Dolfrog. I'm going to try to make this clear. While I don't know that you've crossed over whatever line there is on personal attacks, you must stop this focusing on other editors, and begin trying to find reliable sources that back up your editing practices. If you continue to focus on other editors, and refuse to back up your claims with reliable sources, your editing time here will not be very pleasant, either for yourself, or those with whom you are interacting. Unitanode 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have spent the last month and a half reading and find research paper to supporet all of the content of the Dyslexia artilce, as it was, ands to make the content of ther article reflect the references thaty had been used previously. So from my perpsetive all of the questions asked by other editors havbe been answered in the dyslexia artilce itself. I have spent a mointh of my own time finding these references from peer review journal many of which aree avialable on pubmed. What i find untenable is that editors who have not spent the last moint resear ching these issues then have the termeirty to question whether i Know what I am taking about. It is stressful enought for me to work in the wiki environment with outr the added stress of having to engage pointless discussion with others who nothing about dyslexia, the causes of dyalexia, and the problems it causes those who have dyalexia. If these editors would do the same amnpount of researcfhas I have had to do to revise the dyslexia article I would spend all day listening to them, and disussing the issue, but most do nto even want to read the research even when i post on a discussion page. This has become too stressful for me So you will now have to find someone else to finish edinting the dyslexia project, my Auditory Processing Disoder jusat gets in the way, and creates to many problems when trying to help with aproject such as the dyslkexia one.

dolfrog (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is a collaborative project. If you're unwilling to engage in discussion -- for whatever reason -- perhaps it isn't the place for you. However, if you ever change your mind about working collaboratively, there's definitely a place for you here. Unitanode 17:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from the dyslexia project, I have don all I can do, they now need someone who is able to work with others in a big arena, I can only work one to one, it is part of coping with my disability. I can do an editing job on the Auditory Processing Disorder article which is more of a quiet back water, I have asked User:SandyGeorgia if she would like to colaborate with me, but I can understand why she would not given recent events. Intially I need to take a brerak to releieve the stress, of the last week or so,m before i do anything new. you may like to read an article "Controlling the Chaos" which describes waht it can be like living with APD, it can be downloaed from http://apd.apduk.org/newsletter.htm as part of Newsletter No 1, the authors web site currently has a technical problem. dolfrog (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dolfrog.

You asked about the power structure here. I'll try to summarize.

1. Anyone can edit most of the articles here. Some articles are protected due to vandalism or edit-warring, and can only be edited by certain editors. More on that below.
2. Anyone with an account that has been registered for four days or longer can do three things that anonymous editors cannot do: they can move articles, they can edit semi-protected articles, and they can vote in certain elections.
3. Many editors with accounts obtain access to certain tools that make editing easier and faster. Most of those tools, I don't know much about, but one common privilege granted to editors in good standing is "rollback", which is the ability to undo edits more easily.
4. Administrators have been elected by the community, and we have access to a few more tools. We can delete articles, we can block accounts or IP addresses, and we can edit fully protected articles
5. ArbCom - The arbitration committee - is kind of like Wikipedia's supreme court. They deal with disputes that remain unresolved after attempts at dispute resolution have failed. Members of ArbCom are elected to two-year terms (I believe), and they tend to be selected from among the pool of admins.
6. Bureaucrats are elected via a process similar to how admins are selected. There are not very many B-crats, and they can add or remove admin rights, approve or revoke "bot" privileges, and rename user accounts.
7. Stewards are the top echelon, unless you want to talk about the WikiMedia Board of Directors. Stewards can do a few technical things, and we almost never hear much about them. There are very few stewards.

If you want to know whether an editor is an admin, the easiest way might be to go to the list of admins and see if they're on it. I see that someone above has given you a link to that list already.

I'll also leave you with one piece of advice, based on what I've seen and experienced in my six years here. Claiming that another editor is acting in bad faith, even if you're right, tends to lead to bad places. I suggest keeping such judgments to yourself, because they tend to alienate and upset editors, and Wikipedia becomes much more difficult to work with.

Oh, let me also answer your question about Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current. If you look at the talk page history there, you can see that it has never hosted any discussion. If you're trying to find a discussion you were having, I suggest looking at your own "my contributions" page, and finding the posts you made. From there, you can get to the discussion, wherever it is.

I hope some of that helps. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: to get to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current, you have to click on the small text "(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current)" just under the page title, because Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current redirects to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. -kotra (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• In my time here, this is perhaps the most helpful post I've yet seen. Thanks, GTB. Unitanode 04:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ditto dolfrog (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, I saw your posts at the "Wikiquette alert board", or whatever it's called. You're correct that this is a strange place, with lots of rules, and special codes, and strange lingo that nobody seems to explain. On top of that, we're not very well-documented, at least not in a way that's transparent to a new user. I therefore understand your frustration. If you need to ask for explanation or assistance from an experienced user, then please feel free to contact me.

One of the biggest pitfalls here is the interaction with other editors - it can go wrong in so many ways, and none of us is clever enough to avoid all ugly conflicts. The lack of any real consistent authority makes it necessary to actually muddle through such problems; difficult people cannot simply be made to go away, except in extreme cases. Therefore, there is a whole skill set that comes into play, which is not what you might expect when logging onto an "encyclopedia". Diplomacy becomes very important, and failing to realize that has led many an editor to grief. I wish you luck, and remember, just tug on my sleeve if you need something explained, or maybe if there's a dispute that you think might benefit from an extra pair of eyes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog - a bit busy at moment, but will take a look at the dyslexia articles in a bit--Vannin (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How are you? Just in case you don't look, there are some comments for you, including one from me, at User talk:SandyGeorgia. --Slp1 (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I noticed that you started the article about King-Kopetzky syndrome or Obscure Auditory Dysfunction. Both of which are peculiar to the UK, and have now been absorbed by the UK Medical Research Council into the current Auditory Processing Disorder research program as of 2004. may be you would like toi merge the King-Kopetzky syndrome article into the Auditory Processing Disorder Article, which wil be my next editing project after i have finished my work on the dyslexia project

dolfrog (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would be very grateful if you do not merge them yet , as it stands I think there might be a merit in keeping King-Kopetzky syndrome as a separate article , as it is a well known name and there is plenty of puplications about it.Meanwhile, I will do some inquiries about the subject. Many thanks. Ghaly (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi both,

just to fill in a bit og background about me. my eldest son was diagnosed as having CAPD back in 1998, ans in the UK no one was prepared to even acknowledge that APD existed so my fist prjoect was to collect information which initially came from Dr. Jay Luckers CAPD Listserve, so that my sons school couls understan his problems and provide the support he needed, that lead to my fist web sites the most useful of which are http://dolfrog4life.homestead.com/AA_index_ZZ.html and http://capdlinks.homestead.com/AA_index_ZZ.html from there together with the leading UK APD researchers I became involved with getting APD recognised in the UK, which resulted in the Founding of APDUK, and the creation of the APDUK web site, http://www.apduk.org/ of which I am still the webmaster and main contributor (you will see my real name in the copyright statement thye would not let me use dolfrog LoL). So It could be said that I may have a conflcit of interest I do not know. I also own the OldAPD forum for adults who have APD which has been in existance since 2000 http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/OldAPDs/ with regard to research which is where all the dyslexia stuff started, I have been on mnay dyalexia forums and from my own observarions most who have dyslexia have APD as one of the underlying causes of their dyslexia symptoms, and the problem was that most of the information regarding dyslexia was usually from 1980 and beyond and skewed toward one remedial program or another. So that is why I have spent the last month or so trying to revise the dyslexia article to reflct curretn resrarch while also maintaining the information from the research history. And the addtion of a History of APD on the Auditory Processing Disorder article may be a good place to start. At the beginning of this year I radically revised one of my alomost unused disucssion forums, to add 160 PD files mostly research based regarding amny of the issues that relate to dyslexia, some of which are about APD, may be you may like to join this forum and look at the PDF files that are already there, and may be add a few more. The forum is at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/what_causes_your_dyslexia/ (it is more of a research forum than a discussion forum, but the mebership has grown from 6 to 36 in the last few months.

I do need to take a break I am knee deep in dysexia research articles which need to be added to a new reference program I am using to store my pdf files and useful abstract information on.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that a gear deal of the APDUK web site consists of article contributed by professionals interested in APD, and one "Central Auditory Processing Disorders as a key factor in Developmental Language Disorders" http://apd.apduk.org/rosalie_seymour.htm is also part of a series of articles at http://www.aitinstitute.org/rosalie_seymour.htm

dolfrog (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this information about yourself and your background. It is helpful to understand your situation better. You are obviously have done a lot of research about these subjects and gathered lots of material. It's true that you might have a bit of a conflict of interest, but as long as you refrain from posting links to your various websites you should be alright.

However there is a potential problem is when you say "from my own observarions most who have dyslexia have APD as one of the underlying causes of their dyslexia symptoms". We can't write articles to suit what we have observed and noted. We have to look at the best, highest quality academic sources that have been published and summarize what they say. Otherwise we are engaging in original research which is forbidden here. As I said before, this generally means that we need to use academic journals and books and particularly review articles as sources. Unfortunately a Powerpoint presentation by Rosalie Seymour doesn't make the grade; it isn't published by a peer reviewed journal, and is especially inappropriate for WP because she is a proponent of the highly controversial and fringe Auditory integration training, where there is overwhelming evidence about its lack of efficacy. Having said that, it seems that on your yahoogroups you have some uploaded some relevant academic journal articles.

If you could list the ones you think important (along with their doi numbers if possible) on the talkpage of the APD article, I will download them directly from the journals. I would prefer this than joining the yahoogroups website.--Slp1 (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Got your message. No good, unless you unconditionally accept that if multiple editors tell you that you're doing something wrong - categories, conduct, whatever - you take it on faith that you are doing it wrong. No personal attacks, no "consensus can be rigged", and all that. Though I'm personally very disinclined to help you, I'd like to because you know a great deal about this topic (and I sympathise because I've also got major text reading problems). If you want a new beginning, fine, but you absolutely must take the advice of Slp1, SandyGeorgia, GTBacchus and others. Gordonofcartoon (talk)

In reply to your note, this is a wikiproject that might interest you. It has several "daughter projects" in it that you might find interesting as well. Let me know if I can be of further assistance to you. Unitanode 14:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is an appropriate use of the {{tl|fact}] tag.[7] The template is used to tag sentences that are unreferenced, however when whole paragraphs or whole sections are unreferenced, or lack adequate references—then a general warning using {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}} would be more appropriate as it provides both a description of the issue and does not burden the prose as heavily as a "citation needed" at the end of nearly every sentence. Therefore your addition has been reverted and the {{Unreferenced}} retained. Do not change the dates on those {{Unreferenced}}. The date allows editors to tell when the section of text was first identified as in need of verification. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi ChyranandChloe is there a wiki page that can simply explain and sow expamples of these codes. Due to my communication disorder I find most of the WIKI support pages have too much over the top text, and very little basic instructional information. I find the so called WIKI help pages a very alien environment.

dolfrog (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a wiki-page that accomplishes this. They provide examples in a very formal language assuming that everyone understands the terms. I know this because—well—I wrote a few templates whose documentation were a bit confusing and ended up with people asking "what does this mean". I'll write the examples for you. It's no big deal.

The template {{Fact}} is used within the text. It's used when the text surrounding it is already verified, use it to point out a sentence or two. The template {{Unreferenced}} is placed at the top of articles or sections that do not contain any references, use this instead of {{Fact}} to point out entire sections or articles. The template {{Refimprove}} is placed at the top of articles or sections that contain perhaps a few references, but as a whole, it's not enough.

Use the {{Refimprove}} or {{ Unreferenced}} in articles such as Reading (process). You don't need to add the date, a automated program will do it for you once a day during the night. To use these templates, simply copy and paste the templates above (e.g. {{Unreferenced}}) into the article. I'm not sure what you're not clear on exactly, but feel free to ask if you want specifics. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dolfrog/Archives, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! 199.125.109.88 (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Usertalk:Dolfrog, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GW… 22:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just read your message. While it is an interesting article already I'm not sure I want to edit my way into the middle of the disputes this article has generated. Bemasher (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that there is a move tab that needs to be used when a page is moved, in order to retain the page history. If for some reason it can not be used, posting the move request at WP:RM will notify an admin, who will be able to perform the move. Your recent cut and paste of Special Educational Needs to Special education in the United Kingdom has therefore been posted at the repair shop, which has the arcane and strange name, Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, but is easy to find from the link at the top of WP:RM. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Please see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Talk:Special education in the United Kingdom. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's a tough one. The closest one I found was Universal (metaphysical) but that doesn't quite fit either. Universal has the full list of related terms. But yeah I struggled with that myself. I don't like simply removing links unless I'm really stumped. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored some discussion; 75.163.160.101 shouldn't have removed other users' comments.

Regarding this comment [8]: remember that Wikipedia:Civility is an official policy. There's no need to be snarky about openly-stated lack of knowledge. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

since you have restored the missing content of the discussion I have revised my comments dolfrog (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there, Graeme.

I have some time and energy again, so yes, I'm back.  :-)

I also just found the Sami orthography article yesterday! At first I thought it was something I created in my Sandbox a long time ago, then I saw that it's actually a real language!

I haven't looked at the dyslexia article yet. I'm kind of working from a slightly different perspective right now, but I'll look at it soon. I'm sure you will have improved it --- it sure needed work the last time I looked at it!

Are you talking about the Reading navigation template? I was surprised to find it essentially the same as I left it way back when. (Whatever it is, I'm glad you liked it ....)

See you in the editing room soon ....

Rosmoran (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You might like to have a look at the research articles / papers which have just been added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles

I've had a skim. A spot of caution: I'm seeing far too many primary sources there. The medical sourcing guidelines WP:MEDRS stress the use of secondary sources - review papers, position statements by medical bodies, etc - to reduce the risk of "spin" to a topic by any editor's personal choice of sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed two sections of Genetic research into dyslexia that are simply lengthy abstracts lifted straight from the cited journals. I don't known whether you've done this with other articles, but this is not how we write articles, specifically because doing this is a breach of copyright. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent addition to Genetic research into dyslexia has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Formal warning this time. Removal of material in breach of copyright is non-negotiable: see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Please don't restore it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you would help me instead of stessing me out than this would not have happened, but you insist on winding me up emphisising the existance of my disability, and highlighting it to all the world, while not even trying to help. What is it with you. dolfrog (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The only way I, or anyone else, can help you is do what we've already as we've done: tried to explain (frankly, to the limits of our patience) how things work here, and hope you'll take that advice. If you choose not to, there's nothing that can be done. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have continually tried to explain I have a communication disability, which you continue to highlight, I am aware of the limitations that my disability imposes on me, but you do not want to provide the help I need to work my disability so that I can contribute to WIKI. All you want to tell me is that I have a communication disability. My disability will not go away it is not curable, and others have to make the acomodations to help me. I can not make all the acomodations on my own to fit into WIKI I need help, which you do not want to provide. I have enough problems coping with everyday spoken language, let alone everyday written language, and then to try and cope with jargonistic world of WIKI is becomes stressful. Working out how you do things takes me an age, because WIKi does not explain things in ways that I can easily understand, and it WIKI was a UK public service provider it would be in danger of prosecution under the Disability Discrimination Act for failing to have an effective a working Disability Equality Duty policy, which now monitored by the UK Human Rights Commission.

I agree with the removal of the further reading, however I do beleive these areas do need to be referenced, and I feel that they should be included. My view would be to list them in a section entitled "unvalidated research and approaches to treatment"

In one it would stop editing wars and highlight the reason why they are not mentioned in the article, which would probably stem attempts to add them?

I have checked the discussion for the article, your comments "these book are advertising for unproven remedial problrams which have discussed at length during the development of this article. Davis un proven program and sales pitch"

There is no mention of what you stated in the discussion section.

One of the books you removed was a reference book for parents to assist in identifying the condition, hardly a an unproven.

The development of a article on a Wiki is an ongoing and evolving process, and all that is required is that the submission falls in line with the rules of the Wiki and common sense.

I very much agree that articles cannot make statements and claims for unvalidated research agreed, however this is the section on further reading, where it is very appropriate to reference popular and important books, the section is making no claims about the content of the works, a book about dyslexia whatever the perspective should and can be appropriately included

Since books are sold as a general rule of thumb it is not inappropriate to list the site where they are available, this is not advertising, since in this context it is unavoidable

Your comments that these are advertising, they are not referenced in the main body of the text and so are not sales pitch, since they are not being referenced to put forward a specific viewpoint. The section should make reference to alternative therapies and perspectives, but highlighting what they are, especially since there is a lack of concrete evidence for cause of the disability and a lack of development in the area for the treatment of the condition.

Unproven is not a critera for removing a further reading reference, since it is appropriate to added to inform the reader of a perspective, the idea of a further reading section is to permit the reader to expand their view.

with respect to advertising books are sold, and references to a book will include a link to where the book is sold.

Hi. I've posted a reply to your questions, which I hope is useful to you. Please don't hesitate to ask any further questions, or just to let me know how things work out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

please put the references back, clearly since I have undone your redit of my contribution I do not agree with you, in which case it would have been appropriate for you to have contact me with a message to discuss it.

Failing that it is then best to go to arbitration. I would prefer it if this were resolved more constructively.

Would you agree to discussing this rather than the alternative, I acknowledge that you clearly have contributed a lot to this article, and I also note that you have pieces and contributions of your own rejected in a similar way so I feel you are open to the value of discussing this --16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Cityzen451 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not mid discussing the issues, but the dyslexia article has many new sub article, and is these books belong anywhere it is on the Management of dyslexia articles not the main summary article. I do not have objections to the the books being added when thy7e may be relevent to the specific topic of the management of dyslexia. The Davis Book is sold to promote the Davis program and we have already lost one edition on the Dyslexia project because they worked for the Davis organisation. which is in the archives of the discussion page. I am always open to discussion but there are discussion pages and even project pages to discuss these vary issues before making continous deletes, additions and reverts. The problems with the article before the major revision was it was too bulky and difficult to navigate, so we have made the main article what WIKI call a summary article which is being monitored by the specialist teams of editors who grade article, and so far they are mainly happy, with a few citation issues. And we have had to create a new range of sub article to go into greater depth of some of the complex issues that surround dyslexia including the management of dyslexia, and these article are what need to be edited now, unfortunately my Auditory Processing Disorder the cause of my own dyslexia prevents me from what is best described a the wordsmith side of creating articles, which is what is needed now. Basically I am just a researcher who was left with a project that needed radical editing, and that is all I have done. there has been some support from others but for most of the time I have been on my own which is not what coping with my disability is about, I need a support team to help me, not only on WIKI but in life as well. dolfrog (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that you have a view of how this article should be structured but it is not your article and you should not prevent people from contributing to it

you are refering to the structure of the content when this is a further reading section --Cityzen451 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ADHD_edits and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityzen451 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 July 2009

Dolfrog, I just wanted to assure you that this request for arbitration will be rejected. You can add a brief "statement" if you wish, but "I left a note on someone's talk page" isn't even close to sufficient efforts at dispute resolution to justify the involvement of the Arbitration Committee. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This information may be useful to you:

Adminship is not meant to be anything special beyond access to extra editing tools which, pragmatically, cannot be given to every user. It does not give any extra status, weight in discussions, or special privileges beyond what is necessary to technically use those extra tools.

In practice, this means that nobody cares whether a normal editing action (like adding information or moving a page) was performed by an "admin" or by an "editor".

Admins have a few extra buttons to do things (like deleting pages) that most editors can't do, just like most registered editors (like yourself) have a few more buttons to do things (like moving pages) that unregistered and newly registered editors can't do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog: I've been thinking this for a while, but I'll say it now. Can you try to keep things simpler with the reorganisation of dyslexia topics? In my view, you're creating far too many semi-private sandboxes and project work pages.

The Wikipedia way of working is to create an article, and discuss its development on its Talk page where everyone can see it - not hidden away in some sandbox that's only findable if you go into the associated Wikiproject.

I'm beginning to lose track of what the hell you're doing, and I'm sure others feel the same. You can believe if you want that I'm just not up to speed on your way of thinking, but I think it's getting on the edge of topic ownership by obfuscation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The various sandboxes were not originally my idea, they were there before I began editing the article in May. When I started editing I only edited the dyslexia artilce and made comments etc on the article talk page, but then some one found the project sandboxes and started to add commnets there. I to find it difficult to follow. But to maintain a record of the original plan and the changes I made I made some type of record of the progress I was making, more work than i really wanted. Sami was the one who set all of this up, over 2 years ago now, and even then i had problems working out what was really going on as the work was then done in sandboxes of the individual editors which was even more confusing. So for me until this week the whole sandbox thing was just a historic record of the plan so far. since then I have added the Alternative Therapy article sandbox more to call someones bluff than anything else. but Sami has not understood my intention while she is still catching up with the progress so far. The only sand boxes I use are the one here which you are very welcome to look at. i have not quite finished the navigation menu still in the sandbox, but i think you can find your way around look a the top left of this page. dolfrog (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Dolfrog,

Based on some of your recent comments, please remember that being "new" to Wikipedia, to a WikiProject, or to an article, is unimportant. The perspectives of new editors is supposed to be welcomed.

Additionally, your second-ever post to WikiProject Dyslexia was merely one short month ago, which means that you are also "new" to the project -- and, importantly, just as new as Gordonofcartoon, since your post was after his. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been contributing to the dyslexia project since its inception, infact i was one of the five original editors required to set up the project in the first place. I have been adding my contributions mainly on the main Dyslexia article discussion page. One of the main reasons the project was set up was due to my disputing the existing content of the article, while not being able to express my arguements very well in WIKI terms due to my own dyslexia. So the project was a w for me and others to research the topic in greater depth while the creative writers wrote the article around our research. So I am not new to the project, but new to actually creative writing of wiki article, because previously I did the background research for the content created by others.

The big problem was that the projects creative writers all left, leaving me to do the tasks i find most difficult due to my own communication disabilities. One has now returned, so hopefully I can revert to my role of finding the supportive research and explaining issues in the background, leaving the creative writing to those more able. dolfrog (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

You may have been a "founder" -- if you think that merely signing your name to someone else's proposal is all that a real founder does -- but your subsequent involvement in the project for the next two years was a single note to suggest that other members read a website you were quoted on. You weren't involved at all after that. You frequently didn't edit anything on Wikipedia months at a time. (Your contributions are public, you know; try this page for a visual representation.) These facts give me no confidence in your unsubstantiated claim that you were "contributing to the dyslexia project since its inception". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained before I have had problems finding my way around the WIKi way of doing things, I was contributing to the project via the other editors talk pages and the talk pages of the main dyslexia article page, I forgot the wiki dyslexia project pages even existed until User:RHaworth discovered them recently. When the project was set up I had an accident broke my arm at the shoulder and as a result of trying to compensate with my other arm that also seized up so for 6 moths or so I was not able to type let alone participate in the project, However i did keep in touch with the project editors as I recovered on the talk pages mentioned. And following that I had to revert back to running APDUK on a daily basis because the lady who took over from me in 2005 became ill around the Xmas 2007 and is only now making a full recovery.

Going back to why the project began it was due to the editorial war that was happening due toe USA bias of the article, and as it later transpired one of the editors had a conflict of interest, and was skewing the content. I was not aware of the conflict of interest exposure as i was on sick leave, but i had suspected something was deeply wrong. So the project was set up to resolve these editorial differences. as you may have noticed I prefer one to one communication on individual talk pages, which is part of coping with having Auditory Processing Disorder, I have problems coping with input from multiple contributors, same in real life I can only cope with groups of 3 or 4 people more than that and i need to escape. I can only really cope on a one to one basis outside of my family circle. So in my own way I was contributing to the dyslexia project, just ask Sami AKA User:Rosmoran who did much of the initial work to set up the project. dolfrog (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Much of this is evident from a review of your contributions. The fact is that WikiProjects are by nature social groups. (You're not alone in avoiding them: there are many editors that shun them as noisy, time-wasting, chatty places.)

Here's the problem: you're claiming priority in a group, when you have not actually been participating in the group (and even forgot about its existence).

You can legitimately claim to have been trying to help at Dyslexia (the article) for years, but the facts simply don't support a claim that you've been active at the WikiProject (the group).

Either way, you should stop telling other editors that their opinions are worth less than yours solely on the basis of who's been active on which page the longest. If anything, since the article is still a mess after this many years, the long-term editors should make a particular point of welcoming new ideas from new editors, instead of discouraging and obstructing their contributions and making sure that the new editors are mired in this years-long argument about the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to tell other editors that their contributions are worthless, or even less than mine, but new editors need to read the support research in the existing article, or articles so that they understand the nature of the article and the project. The only reason I attempted to edit the article myself was because all of the other members of the project team seemed to have lost interest and the article was going into terminal decline. I did ask all the other members of the project if they were still willing and able to edit the article as this is not my own strong point, but none were forth coming. So I found myself on my own doing what I find most difficult. The project had included a "to do" list on the main dyslexia article talk page, and since May 2009 I have been working within those guidelines. As yet I have not been able to add much of the research side of the article which has been on dormant on my hard disc now for months, that last two moths have been spent tidying up the mess of the dyslexia article of April 2009, summerising it, and then creating the new sub articles.

During this time I also came across the mess that exists in the WIKI reading articles which are nearly all USA biased and do not present a global view of the topics, and US editors who by consensus try to retain the US bias of these articles. Which does go against wiki guidelines.

The whole reason why am editing the dyslexia article is because I am dyslexic, and the article needs to provide the most comprehensive definition and explanation of dyslexia, inline with current global research. Yes i do have some inside information regarding one of the causes of Dyslexia, Auditory Processing Disorder, but I have not tried to include that. And other editors who may not be dyslexic themselves will have to remember that some of the editors who participate in this project may be dyslexic, and as a result may have communication disabilities which make conforming to all of wikis peculiar ways difficult. And each dyslexic will have a different combination set of communication problems, such is the nature of dyslexia. dolfrog (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I'm the best guy for the job, not too much time for focusing on any particular topic at the moment! Sorry. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The place to say this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthographies and dyslexia. If you can write 700-word essays justifying your edits, you haven't got a communication problem. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC) This just a further demonstration of your failure to understand the nature of my communication disability, this is now becoming your preferred form of self imposed ignorance and which translates into pure disability discrimination on your part. dolfrog (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dolfrog. I think you may be missing the point. A published paper describing research -- hypothesis, method description, results, discussion, conclusion -- is a "primary resource." We cannot use primary resources as a source of information for Wikipedia articles. The research articles you are indexing cannot be used as a source of information for Wikipedia articles because they are primary resources. Does that make sense? Rosmoran (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sami

The articles I am listing are all reviews of primary research and what we are looking for, some of the reviews only provide an abstract so that you have to pay for the full review papers, on the project page I have added on primary source paper on the orthography sandbox as a source of old research papers listed or mentioned in the Introduction before the method etc. Which if you try to find them on pubmed may provide you with a few of related review papers regarding those specific topics. More of a method of trying to find what we really want. I need to find out if I have any reviews etc already in my collection to add so may be others can use pubmed on this occasion. dolfrog (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For creating refs about scientific papers, you might like http://toolserver.org/~diberri/cgi-bin/templatefiller/

You paste in the PMID, and it gives you the entire ref, without having to re-type anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, please will you stop posting these primary sources to Wikipedia work pages. As you've been told, they are no use per WP:MEDRS. They're simply unproductive clutter.

The multiple sandboxes - even if you call them Dumping Ground - are equally unproductive, since they're not readily visible to editors who weren't in on their creation. Development in semi-private sandboxes smells of article ownership, and as far as I'm concerned anything on that basis doesn't exist. Articles here are generally edited up-front: direct work on an article, and any discussion in the open on its Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

These are not semi private sand boxes they are part of the wiki system, and they can be locate via the various talk pages. If you look at the new contents they are all review articles no primary sources. The are up front the problem with article talk pages is that the references etc get lost in the archives. And it is part of wiki to have Dump Ground areas especially for new articles, and to take copyright issues. This has nothing to do with ownership, more about making the research papers open and accessable for all the editors when or if they want to edit a specific article. As I have said before I am good a finding research and have other editors use the research to write the articles, so why would I want to hide the information. I do not really understand where you are coming from. dolfrog (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, copyright violations are prohibited everywhere on Wikipedia. You cannot copy and paste significant sections of research papers into talk pages, user pages, or sandboxes. It is exactly as illegal as pasting it into an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just discovered the correct technical term, for the exact problem I have with using references from both research papers and other wiki articles, I am not able to paraphrase the text of others, which is why for so long all i did was provide the research information for others in the Dyslexia project to paraphrase. I can do the research, find the research papers, and understand the content of the research papers and how it relates to the article content, but i am unable to paraphrase anything, such is the nature of my disability. I have bee having a discussion with User talk:Slp1 on this very same issue. dolfrog (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why you violate copyrights is irrelevant. You must stop doing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So if other editors would paraphrase the information from the research papers i find which could be useful then I would not need to. Which is what i have been saying and asking for all along, but no one was listening. Most seem more intent on telling me I have a disability or that I do things differently to others, which i already know about, but not helping me find ways to work around my disability, and thus avoiding mutual frustration. I will work with anyone so long as they understand my limitations, and many seem willing to understand, I did not choose to have a disability, it is just there. So find others to do the writing and paraphrasing and things will work out. dolfrog (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Once again: The fact that you want to work on a team does not mean that anyone is required to work on a team with you.
• "I want to share this so people can work with me" does not excuse you from strictly abiding by the copyright laws. There are many ways to alert other editors to sources that you like without violating the copyright. For example:
  • Making a list of sources you recommend on an article's talk page: fine
  • Providing links to papers you recommend at the publisher's website or on PubMed: fine
  • Explaining in your own words about why you recommend the source: fine
  • Cut-and-paste copy of abstracts or key paragraphs (e.g., half of this page): very bad

You need to remove (delete) the copyright violations you have done. You also need to not make the same mistake again in the future. Do you understand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have asked User:Slp1 to have a look at, and to help clarify (allowed uses) Wikipedia:Subpages especially the section regarding copyright issues. dolfrog (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed_uses #7 does not permit using a subpage to violate someone's copyright. The system it mentions as an example produces a blank page so that you can write an entirely new article, "from scratch". It does not (as people might think from that brief description) move the copyrighted material into a subpage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to comment, Dolfrog. WhatamIdoing is 100% right to say that you cannot copy and paste chunks of the text from copyrighted sources and put them on WP. Anywhere on WP, including subpages. As she said, reference lists such as the one you showed me, with just titles of articles, are fine. But this [[9]] is not. If you want to include links to the abstracts on PubMed or the publishers website that would be fine. But copying great chunks of text like this is not allowed. You need to delete them, and not repeat this. Copyright violations are taken seriously here for obvious reasons. People can and have been blocked if they persist after the problem has been explained. --Slp1 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK is Talk:Orthographies and dyslexia/Sandbox alright now dolfrog (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I won't dispute what you say. I'm happy to assist in progressing the content to Wikipedia standards and styles whatever page it's on. There is a long way to go in that, but I'm sure we'll get there. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

At this point, I think you should stop moving pages -- any pages, to any names, ever, and certainly not when you haven't started a formal discussion about the proposed new name. Your decision to move Academic interventions for dyslexia to Academic interventions for dyslexia in an alphabetic orthography is not helpful: it just means that people have to type more words to get to the page.

• Unnecessarily long titles are BAD. The shortest appropriate title is GOOD.
• The current contents of an article do not dictate the proper contents of the article. Renaming pages to say "do not add related encyclopedic information here" is BAD. For example, if the article about a UK prime minister only covered one small part of his or her career, then it should not be renamed to "One small part of John Smith's political career". Similarly, since academic interventions for dyslexia do exist in non-alphabetic orthographies, and such information should be present on Wikipedia, then you should not rename the article to exclude those.

I know that I'm not the first person to make this request, and that the majority of your page moves are reverted or contested. Please: just stop moving pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no discussion prior to the previous move Managing dyslexia: alphabetic orthography to Academic interventions for dyslexia which was not my move, and lost the important alphabetic orthography part of the title. So all I did was to put correct the new title to include alphabetic orthography. It is not an unnecessarily long title, but my original title after all was Managing dyslexia: alphabetic orthography The only words that have to be retained are "alphabetic orthography" you are missing the point there will be another article along the lines managing dyslexia in XYZ orthography or group of orthographies, Because each of the main writing systems has a different orthographic structure, and then further orthographical differences within each writing system. So dyslexics will have to different academic interventions depending on which writing systems and orthographies they are using. The LATIN alphabet system is the most research system so far regarding dyslexia, so the article will need to include both the Latin Alphabet system and all the other the various alphabet systems. And we have only just started to document the information regarding the Latin Alphabet system. In time there will be other articles regarding the academic interventions required in other orthographic systems, this is just the first of many. This about the global view and not just the USA and UK perspectives on reading, writing, spelling, language, and dyslexia. Eventually the Orthography and dyslexia will become the main article for this new series of articles. OK the title is at the moment too long, but eventually could be Managing dyslexia in a alphabetic orthography or something like that. All of the content of the article only relates to alphabetic orthographies. So I am not really sure what you are making a fuss about, or are you just being a school maam again. I wish you would not be so patronising. dolfrog (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just back from a break. No, Whatamidoing is right. We don't move List of energy drinks to [[List of energy drinks on planet Earth]] in the anticipation of future material about energy drinks on other planets. OK, that's exaggerating, but the usual practice in this case would definitely be the same: to keep everything - alphabetic and non-alphabetic - in Academic interventions for dyslexia until that article becomes large enough for a split. I won't revert it myself, as I forget at this instant how to do that without making a mess of the redirects, but it needs doing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Template:Anglophone states , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.  —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  10:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Accusing users of vandalism when they remove irrelevant content isn't a very dignified way to get them to understand your contentions. The discussion page is the appropriate place to support your assertions that the content was relevant and comprehensible. In future it would be wise to consult this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism before throwing around accusations of vandalism. You will notice that the core of vandalism relates to an attempt to compromise the integrity of wikipedia. My recent edits on the dyslexia research page were attempts to preserve the integrity of wikipedia by removing extraneous content that was poorly written. Ninahexan (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with links like this - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/myncbi/collections/public/1rm-wyOOe7mOm3bJzXVnuq6/ (Dyslexia and Genetic Research Paper Collection online at Pubmed) - is that they're a Wikipedia editor's personal selection of papers, which comes well under original research. For instance, we have no way of telling if there is selection bias, since the criteria for selection aren't available for anyone else to see. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: in case I'm mistaken, I've asked for a second opinion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted a comment about your adding your personal research collections to articles at AN/I.[10] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I have removed all "External Links" to my research paper collections on all Wikipedia articles that i am aware of, after reading your logical and rational explanation of the workings of Wikipedia which had previously been missing. dolfrog (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)