User talk:Armarshall

This is Armarshall's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Notes re ToC on dyslexia page

Sorry if the ToC limit was unhelpful. As it is the toc is huge, I can see the need while making extensive edits but after wards I'd suggest putting it back as I feel it looks cluttered, my reasons for simple reverts are mentioned on the main talk page, again sorry for the inconvenience. --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 12:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on dyslexia page

Hi, Arm. If the back and forth on the dyslexia page doesn't calm down soon, I'm thinking we need to request a Wiki mediator, or someone equivalent. I'm not interested in quashing debate, but this isn't debate, it's someone insisting that his personal opinion is the only correct view. What do you think about requesting some assistance? smoran 17:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. My concern was that we were ending up with a situation in which one individual gate-keeps the article based on a personal agenda, and it sounded like he was going to insist on reversing your recent changes to the article. If that isn't the case, I'm very relieved and agree that we don't need help at this point.

Best,

smoran 06:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the NLP connection?

While we're talking, I'm wondering about the NLP reference. This seems ludicrous to me, based on my personal experience with NLP and what I know about the development of the theories. I've spent about an hour on google looking for any research at all linking dyslexia to NLP-based methods or theories, and all I've found is information published by NLP groups full of claims with nothing to back them up.

Are you aware of any legitimate connection between NLP and dyslexia / reading difficulty? If so, I would very much appreciate a pointer in the right direction so I can follow up and educate myself. Thanks, smoran 06:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for verifying - before I did any kind of comment or citation request, I wanted to make sure that I wasn't way off base.

Thanks again,

smoran 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on proposal

Arm: Great proposal. Take a look at my suggestions, same page. Best, smoran 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take a break

for a variety of reasons i need to take a break from active participation regarding a whole range of issues that include both of the wiki pages in which we share an interest. the basic problem is Post Traumatic Stress which goes back to some bad experiences of "disability discrimination in the workplace" related to recognition of my APD. I sometime have a bad reaction to some unexpected triggers, and in recent days i have experinced a few unexpected bad triggers, which are not related to any recent wiki activity. So I hope yoo get the Dyslexia artilce(s) sorted out, and i will return later to have a look and may be comment

best wishes

dolfrog

Dyslexia Refs

No problem it needed doing. P.S. saw you comment @ the top of the page, you might find this useful: --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia article

Hi, Arm.

We seem to have lost our momentum on the dysleixa article -- all of our editors seem to have disappeared. Are you still around, or are you taking a break from Wikipedia? I'd like to get started on this, but would prefer to work with a team so we can build consensus as we go rather than having to go back and redo later.

Let me know what's up---

Best, Rosmoran 23:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia template

Hi, Arm.

Could we figure out and agree on an overall navigation schema before placing the dyslexia navigation page everywhere? I believe you're putting this template in articles where the current content of the dyslexia navigation template is not only unhelpful, but in some cases actually adds a level of indirection to the content of the article. In other cases, the content of the nav template is too narrow for the content of an article that covers a broader topic.

I'm hoping we can work on this together and come up with a coherent scheme that works beyond the dyslexia articles.

Best,

Rosmoran 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia template redux

Hi, Arm.

I don't have any issues with the topics you want included in the dyslexia template, at least when it is used on the pages closely related to dyslexia. I should have been more clear that the template I sketched out is intended to appear in articles that cover broader topics. We'd need something much more specific in articles that are at lower levels of detail. Let me attempt to explain how I'm looking at this.

When I look at the navigation template you sketched out, I see three (at least) hierarchical levels of information. Let me explain what I mean by hierarchical, using a family metaphor.

In an immediate famiy unit there are multiple generations: grandparents, parents and their siblings, and children and their siblings. The immediate family unit for dyslexia might be language-based learning disabilities (grandparent), dyslexia (parent), dysgraphia, dyscalculia, etc (siblings of parent), and at the child level the articles that we create to hold the excessive details currently in the dyslexia article, including research theories, treatments, etc. A great-grandparent of the dyslexia article might be the learning disability topic.

Beyond the immediate family, if you'll forgive the continued use of the family metaphor, there is the extended family, say to the first cousin level or so, which might include all other types of learning disabilities --- dyspraxia, nonverbal learning disability, etc. (I'm not sure that speech deficits would be appropriate at this level or not.)

Beyond that is the distant relative, which might include the broad topic of neurological conditions at multiple levels, including specific neurological issues such as the autism spectrum; psychiatric issues such as the anxiety/OCD/Tourette's spectrum, and who knows what else.

You'll see somethng similar in the different levels of medicine and neurology pages. I'll try to sketch out a more specific level of detail that might appear on the dyslexia page for your perusal.

Let me know if my explanation is less than coherent, or if the idea of a hierarchical structure doesn't seem workable to you.

By the way, do you live in or around Austin? You mentioned on one of the talk pages something about the Austin IDA web site and I wondered if you might be a neighbor. :-)

Best,

Rosmoran 17:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arm.

What I'm trying to get at in terms of unifying different topics is that, if we're going to place this particular template in a broad range of topics, then the title and content of the template needs to represent the scope and content of the articles listed in the template. Otherwise the navigation box doesn't serve the individual articles' navigation needs.

For example, if you look at the psychology page, there's a very broad range of topics covered. But this is a very high-level overview type of article -- the great-great-great granddaddy of a family, if you will. view. In terms of scope, the parallel topic for the Dyslexia article might be Education, Neuropsychology, Psychology -- and should probably be all of the above.

Dyslexia as a topic wouldn't even appear in a navigational template at that level because the topic of dyslexia it is at a much lower level of specificity, that is, we've drilled down to a much more specific topic.

To get to dyslexia from Neurology, you have to go through

Clinical neuropsychology > Developmental disorder > Learning disability > dyslexia.

From Education, you'd have to go through

Alternative education > Special education > Learning disability > Dyslexia.

So, it wouldn't make sense to place the Dyslexia navigation box on the Developmental Disorder page --- a navigation box for this page would need a broader scope.

Etc.

More specifically, about the current Dyslexia template. The current title, "Reading and Language-Based Learning Disabilities," is not representative of the scope of items included in the template. The following items do not fall under, or immediately surround, language based learning disabilities:

ADD/ADHD - Often comorbid with dyslexia, but not directly related.
Speech disorder/expressive language disorders - Ditto.
Dyscalculia is not a language-based learning disability.

And so on.

If we want to include topics that cover this kind of scope, the title needs to reflect the full scope of topics included in it, not just part of it. That's why this navigation box doesn't belong on the Special Education page. Dyslexia is just a part of special education, and a navigation box for that topic would need to be much broader to serve the needs of that article.

To look at the navigation needs of the dyslexia article another way, we're going to break up this article into an article series. So, we'll need a navigation mechanism to guide readers through that series. This navigation box doesn't reflect the series, so we'd need another mechanism.

Does that make sense?

Best,

Rosmoran 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article to include in the "visual" dyslexia topics

Check this out: Eye movement in language reading.

Rosmoran 17:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arm

From what i can see of your two templates, you seem to want to create a USA dyslexia system. So I really can not be bothered to continue contributing to this one sided creation. There is no one cuase or theory of dyslexia the only attempt at a unifying one to date is the magnocellular and even that is not all inclusive. And as before you keep on doing your own thing with out any prior discussion, So I do not see any point in continuing as colaboration just does not seem to be a part of any plan.

dolfrog 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments on my page

Hi, Arm.

I thought it might be easier to follow the discussion if we kept all the comments together, so I just responded to your comments right there.

I'm thinking we should have this conversation on the Dyslexia Template Talk page -- what do you think?

Best, Rosmoran 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to your comments on my user talk page

Hi, Arm.

I've responded to your comments on my user page ---- take a look and see what you think, but it seems to me that we're in about the same place at this point.

Later,

Rosmoran 20:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New strawman navigation template

Hi, Arm.

Take a look at: User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox (then scroll down to "Strawman dyslexia nav ...") to see a structure I've cobbled together as a possibilit for navigating inside the Dyslexia series of articles.

Also, take a look at User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox test article to see what this strawman would look like if inserted into the dyslexia article.

Best, Rosmoran 00:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secret projects ...

hi, Arm.

I know you weren't trying to be secretive. I was just poking at dolfrog because he made that conclusion.

Talk to you soon,

Rosmoran 16:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting help on Template:Dyslexia

Hi, Arm

I'm having trouble with a formatting change I'd like to make on the Template Dyslexia box.

I added a subheading "and related disorders" so we could use the template on dysgraphia, dyscalculia, etc. I originally placed it above the penrose image, but it looked funny. So I'm trying to move it below the image, but I can't get the spacing right.

It looks to me like there needs to be a slightly larger space between the subheading "and related disorders" and the links to Education and Neuropsychology.

Can you help with this? Or do you have other suggestions for formatting this? I'm not a graphic designer --- not by a long stretch. It seems like I remember you saying that you are, no?

Hope you can help.

Thanks,

Rosmoran 17:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arm.

You said:

My opinion only: I don't really think that the extra line "And Related Disorders" is necessary, as to me the placement of the topic heading "Related Conditions" at the top of the navigation table is clear enough. Also, I personally don't like the use of the word "Disorders" because I view dyslexia and issues like dysgraphia or dyscalculia as being different learning profiles, not "disorders". My objection isn't strong enough for me to make an issue -- that is, I'm not inclined to go about deleting your change or sidetracking everything into a debate over it... but I just thought I'd mention it if you are seeing the subtitle as being problematic.

I don't have a huge issue either way with the disorder/difference terminology, although there is a case to be made that dyslexia is an actual brain dysfunction --- the differences in brain structure shown in many postmortem assessments makes that clear (eg ectopias, etc). Also, Dyspraxia is clearly a disorder --- gross motor problems cannot be considered a "difference" in any context that I can think of. But I'm certainly willing to use some other term if we ultimately decide that the navigation box should be a primary navigational vehicle for those related disorders.

I do see why you might want that if you are thinking of adding that nav bar to pages like "Auditory processing disorder" -- if you were to stick "Dyslexia" up as a sidebar there you would be sure to get an outcry or an argument. So I do see why you would want to expand it somewhat.

I think at the highest level, what I'm struggling with is how broad an umbrella we want this navigation template to be. I don't really want to put the dyslexia template on auditory processing disorder, unless we are considering that article to be part of our "core" article series on dyslexia. Would you consider it to be part of that core set?

Also, is it appropriate to try to implement a navigation box that covers other closely related disorders that are often co-morbid with dyslexia? Eg, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, etc.

What are your thoughts?

Best,

Rosmoran 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of the whole of the DDC criticism section

Armarshall. You deleted the whole of the criticism section calling it redundant [1]. Please refer to the WP:Lead recommendations. The lead section is a concise overview of the whole article. Next time you want to delete a large portion of the article, please inform other editors more clearly in your edit summary. Written in the way you did, I don't think anyone would have expected you to remove such a large portion of science based majority viewpoint. I will help you out by scrutinizing your edits more closely for as long as it takes you to stop behaving in such a way. Spoctacle 04:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IDA conference in Dallas?

Hi, Arm.

Are you perchance going to the conference? If so, would love to meet you in person.

Best,

Rosmoran 09:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of useful dyslexia links

Hi Arm

I am having a few stress related issues, and poor recovery rate from my broken arm back in May that are stopping me from doing all that i would like to. So i am limited at the moment to making the odd contribution when i can to the wiki dyslexia project. I have added a post to one of Sami's lists the other day, but thought you would like to have a look at this web site. Bright Solutions for Dyslexia, LLC http://www.dys-add.com/define.html I think there could be some ways to find some research papers from here.

In the UK we are waiting for the outcome of a Research project that was looking at the links between APD and dyslexia. And we think that this could be announced a the Same time as the UK Medical Research Council unvails its new Sound Frequency based APD battery of diagnostic tests, which hopefully will be before Xmas or in the New Year ( or so they have said)

best wishes

dolfrog 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Also posted on Dolfrog's talk page)

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 the site she considers to provide false information. I'm no researcher, but I haven't seen any misrepresentation on the 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 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree absolutely that Susan Barton's website is not a place to look for research citations, and also that she should reference her sources more carefully. What I disagree with is that the site is self-serving .... actually, this site existed before the program was published, and included much of the same content. The woman is independently wealthy, so she certainly doesn't need the income. She devoted herself to making interventions more available to kids after her young nephew was diagnosed with dyslexia and they were unable to find help for him.

Her primary objective is to raise awareness of dyslexia and help provide kids help who would not otherwise have access to it. She does a great deal of outreach, talks and trainings for free, etc. I think the difference in her site versus the sites you mention is one of audience --- serious researchers aren't going to find what they need on this site, but parents and laypeople who are new to dyslexia and effective treatments of dyslexia get a good introduction and are pointed in the right direction.

(No, she's not a friend. But I have used her program, which is excellent, and we share a mentor.)

Rosmoran 09:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Employed by DDAI

Hi Armashall. Is it true that you are employed by the Davis Dyslexia Association International?--Vannin 15:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, so you may want to check in on that--Vannin 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Armarshall. I'm not surprised that you made such an aggressive attack on my talk page. You have, however, dodged the issue of whether you have a financial involvement in Davis Dyslexia Correction. You indicated on Gimpyblog that you do. I don't, nor do I have any financial involvement in any form of dyslexia education or treatment. I don't even work with children. I don't know the other users you mention and edit under only one user name. I once edited anonymously, but that was because I had forgotten to log on, and the immediately logged on and corrected it. --Vannin 00:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is best worked out at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Armarshall_and_a_Financial_Conflict_of_Interest. The conflict of interest seems clear. --Ronz 01:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Orthoscopics

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Orthoscopics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Orthoscopics doesn't appear to be an accepted normal medical treatment or concept, and it doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Girl2davis.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Girl2davis.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]