User talk:Mmortal03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Mmortal03, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  - Adolphus79 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrenching/rending[edit]

Hello. I'm sure you have grammatical reasons for these changes. Regardless, please do not change them when they are quotations, such as here The JPStalk to me 14:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)



Gut-wrenching vs. Heart-rending[edit]


I see now. Thank you.

Yrralaidepikiw 01:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

DSPS[edit]

"It can be to a greater or lesser degree treatable, depending on the severity, but cannot be cured."

Hmmm, is that well-defined and documentable? Does the severity depend only on the amount of the phase delay, or also on the patient's flexibility, age or psychic condition? Obviously, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I do wonder. --Hordaland (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it already said "to a greater or lesser degree treatable", so I just finished the obvious train of thought with what I added. If I am not mistaken, you are on the Niteowl mailing list, right? Anyway, I wrote the following without respect to that, so that we could post it on the DSPS article's discussion page as well, if needed.Mmortal03 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
But getting to the issue you bring up, I wouldn't say it is explicitly well-defined in the stuff I have read, but then, it isn't an extremely well studied area, nor am I a doctor or sleep specialist who would have read every research study on the topic. I am a sufferer who has done a lot of reading about it and on others' experiences with it, though. From what I have read, I don't think we can currently define a measurable severity rating with respect to what we know the causes of the circadian rhythm disorder are, because we really don't know what they all are. So, I am basing "severity" on the more general conception of the word as being the combination of common symptoms that various sufferers have commented on. I would say that, yes, it should include the patient's flexibility, whether that be from age or the amount of delay, or whatever else. I would, however, like to be able to separate other psychiatric symptoms from this "severity" rating as much as possible, however, I don't think we have the data on the occurrence rates of comorbidities to determine this.
Regarding flexibility, there are going to be some individuals that are more flexible than others, even within normals. (I have no source for this, either, just what I have read, and common sense.) There does seem to be a range of individuals' severity of delay in the DSPS set as well, at least from what I have read, but I haven't seen statistics to back this up explicitly in research. I am basing most of this on the comments of many of the individuals on the Niteowl e-mail list. Yeah, it is unverifiable, but it is also the practical reality of such a situation with such a supposedly rare disorder with many doctors not even knowing about it or how to treat it. I would argue that the Niteowl list is going to be he best source of defining what the various ranges of severity within the spectrum really is, until we have more epidemiological research into it to explicitly define it. The Internet is going to be the only place to get such a realistic support community where you can get tons of input from individuals with such a rare disorder, and, based on our discussions there, I would think it is important for people who read the Wikipedia page to also not get their hopes up that they are going to be able to be easily cured if they do in fact, have it. Very few people we have read have said they have cured themselves, or have been very successful with the current treatment options. Some have been able to "cope" more than others. Now, yes, we could be a skewed sample set, though. Maybe there are tons of people with DSPS formerly or never on the Niteowl list who cured themselves and then never told anybody what their method was, and only the incurable remain. I just really doubt that.
So, I don't think we can separate all the variables right now when it comes down to severity and the possibility of treatment. I do think that on the DSPS page, the total "severity" should not be considered to be JUST the severity of the DELAY, though, because I don't think it is that simple.
Also, just to make sure we are on the page, I think that we both know that in most cases society doesn't change, so, the more delayed or severe one's total problem is relative to society, the more difficult the treatment is going to be to get you on a normal schedule and healthy, if possible at all. When we talk about treatment of DSPS, I think we can only speak within the context of treating individuals to fit healthily into society, and some have had better results than others. The easiest "treatment" is of course to sleep on one's own schedule, but that generally isn't possible.Mmortal03 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, we have each other pegged and are on the same page and all that. On WP, as you know, editors must avoid Original Research, Point of View, etc., which in a way is a bother but I feel it's also good for me to have to document verifiability. Also, just to mention it, I feel it's important to not rock the boat re: the external link to our mailing list; such online support groups have been disallowed in articles about other disorders.

The article already has one severity definition: The ICSD's severity criteria, all of them "over at least a one-month period", are:

  • Mild: Two hour delay associated with little or mild impairment of social or occupational functioning.
  • Moderate: Three hour delay associated with moderate impairment.
  • Severe: Four hour delay associated with severe impairment.

There, they've used both amount of delay and degree of "impairment of social or occupational functioning." Pretty good, actually, though I think some people with a 2-hr delay experience severe impairment while some people with 4-hr delay have adjusted their lives so that the societal impairment is only mild to moderate. The terms mild and severe are also mentioned in the section on Adaptation.

We're generally quite defensive about the psychiatric comorbidities that 50% of us have, and I feel we should try to be a bit less so, but it's a fine line. It's only recently that CRDs (except for SAD) have been moved from psychiatric to neurological. There seems to be growing acceptance for the concept that the CRD in society is the cause of (at least some of) the psychiatric conditions rather than vice versa.

You write: I would think it is important for people who read the Wikipedia page to also not get their hopes up that they are going to be able to be easily cured if they do in fact, have it. I agree absolutely. All too many of the Ask-the-Doctor type sites indicate that with good sleep hygiene and maybe a bit of bright light you're good to go. Ha! --Hordaland (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"On WP, as you know, editors must avoid Original Research, Point of View, etc., which in a way is a bother but I feel it's also good for me to have to document verifiability. "
Yep, I know about it. Actually, now that you have mentioned it, I think that even with the specific severity definition that you noted is on the page, what I added is still appropriate. Mmortal03 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"though I think some people with a 2-hr delay experience severe impairment while some people with 4-hr delay have adjusted their lives so that the societal impairment is only mild to moderate. "
I don't think people who can "adjust their lives" counts as finding effective treatment, if what they are doing is simply sleeping on their own schedule. Therefore, what I was saying was specifically with regard to treatment, so I think it is fine. Now, if we can show that people who, by the page's definition, have severe symptoms, but CAN just as easily treat their symptoms as someone who is listed as Mild, then I think we could remove what I said. But I just don't think that that is going to be the case. In other words, by definition, people who are delayed more are going to have a more difficult time moving themselves back to a better time, unless some magical treatment is developed. Mmortal03 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America[edit]

Regarding your question about organizations- we found the information and have incorporated a chart. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious indoctrination[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Religious indoctrination. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Kilmer-san (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Was with referring to: "Religious indoctrination is particularly effective on children and on insecure individuals, as they can lack a set self-image and/or have low self-esteem, as well as be more easily pressured by authority figures. Many religions have commitment ceremonies aimed at children 12 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah and Confirmation; and others have rituals in the form of emotional/social assessments like Scientology. The unusual situation exists in secular societies where children who in no other circumstances would be regarded as able to form a reasoned commitment to an ideology (such as political etc.) or sign a contract, are expected to commit to religious teachings with affirmations in public."mmortal03 (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph actually came from another already existing page on Wikipedia, Indoctrination, so it isn't my own viewpoint. I found it to touch on religious indoctrination issues somehow not included in the actual religious indoctrination article, so I slightly edited it and appended it there for consistency of information across the two pages. My editing of it was so that it would be MORE neutral (as it previously made a claim about the intentions of the mentioned religious organizations). I agree that it needs to have citations added to it when someone gets to that, but I think it is general enough in its points, and I don't think it is inherently biased or controversial such as to prompt omission. Let's discuss this further here regarding the specific contents that you find questionable, and then make a decision on editing it to make it mutually agreeable.mmortal03 (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I noticed that you caught some further leftover vandalism in the Gus Malzahn article that I missed when I was doing some cleanup. Thanks for being so observant! Risker (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Financial management for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Financial management is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial management until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mato (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of CECB units for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of CECB units is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:National Basketball Association players from Cameroon[edit]

Hello, I saw that you created this Category:National Basketball Association players from Cameroon. While creation of such a category will not be a problem, please bear in mind that a player such as Joel Embiid does not belong in such a category until he has played in a regular season or postseason game in the NBA. - Hoops gza (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)