User talk:Sami moran

Help request

Hi, I see you've recently enquired about adoption and help requesting on Wikipedia.

As I say, I'm always here to help, and you can ask me specific questions on my talk page, or you can email via the email user function.

Glad to hear you have a subject you can specialise in. Anything you wish to add, do what you need to! Remember anything you do in Wikipedia is totally reversible and editable, although of course its much more efficient for users to know what they're doing!

I am situated within greenwich mean time (currently UTC+1, so excuse me if replies tend to take a lengthy time!

Happy editing /Marbles 16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning disability etc etc

Hi sami. For major moves and creation of articles, at least a week would be preferred, essentially because the certainty with which you may feel something should be so is not always shared. There are several issues with the changes you have made, such as:

learning disability (U.K.) has dots in the abbreviations - this is not in accordance with the manual of style and is, quite frankly, ugly as sin (unfortunately USians don't seem to share my feelings ;)
learning disability (U.K.) is essentially a duplicate article, as 'learning disability' as used in the UK means the exact same thing as 'developmental disability' does in the US. The article is extraneous. If you think more information should be added to learning disability and developmental disability discussing the differences in terminology, make changes on those pages, or ask for feedback on the talk pages.
the articles you've written/ made major changes to have commentary in them now - please don't do that. Keep discussion to the talk pages, that's what they're for. The articles are for information.
the learning disability (U.S.) article now looks and reads like the notes for a uni essay, not an encyclopaedia article. You can create /Sandbox pages or /Temp pages for works in progress, then load it in to the main space when it is of the appropriate quality. Edit your user page to create a link like User:Sami moran/Sandbox.

Please read as much as you can about Wikipedia - it seems as though you're really excited about contributing what you know, but sometimes enthusiasm needs to be tempered :) Some links that I found helpful are: guide to writing a better article, manual of style, and (if you've got some time) the policies and guidelines. Also take a look at some of the featured articles for what are considered great articles by the community. Regards, and welcome! Natgoo 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia

No problem sami, I'll take a look when I get some time later this week. Cheers Natgoo 13:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: dyslexia

You recently placed a comment on my talk page.

Unfortuntately, due to circumstances stated below, I'm not currently available at this moment in time to follow-up your request. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. The required action will be undertaken as soon as possible.

I am currently in the process of taking exams, and my last one is tomorrow. I'll have a think and give you some ideas tomorrow. Hope all is well.

/Marbles 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia - thoughts

As I don't know very much about the condition, I can't understand a lot of the ideas put forward by these contributors.

Wikipedia should represent a worldwide view, therefore any UK-based and US-based facts can co-exist alongside each other. As long as all information can be verified, it is all acceptable, however if two regional pieces of information contradict each other or whatever, a point should be made that there are regional differences. I'm sure you're not biased, and I know it can be frustrating, since I know I live in the UK and a lot of content on Wikipedia can tend to be regional biased. However if you've got a point that you can back up, you could show that difference.
The intended audience of Wikipedia is basically anybody. Wikipedia is therefore written in standard English in an encyclopedic tone to target any potential audience. Again, things should represent a world-wide, neutral point of view, and can't be too positive or too negative. Political correctness can sometimes come into articles.
Original research is generally not permitted on Wikipedia. I realise of course editors sometimes have to summarise something for themselves, but you can't make big claims without citing them. If an organisation's information is freely available, you can cite it. Generally as long as information publicised can be cited and checked easily, you can use it. Hence why commercial organisations generally cannot be used because the cites cannot be backed up.

As I say, I have no knowledge on this kind of thing, so I'll take another look at the dispute some time and give you an opinion. I hope this cleared up a couple of things for you.

/Marbles 11:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi Sami. I have had the flu, and haven't had the energy to do any wiki work for the last few weeks - sorry. I'll take a look at the article now and see if I have anything to add to what Marbles has said above. Cheers Natgoo 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's way too long and overly complex. There is no need to go into that much detail - the history section could be a quarter of the size, summarising the significant changes, and the theories section could be split into its own article with a link and brief summary paragraph in the dyslexia article. It needs some major work, I think. You've made some excellent comments on the talk page - I'm going away for the weekend but over the next couple of weeks I'll see what constructive feedback I can come up with. Natgoo 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolfrog and dyslexia

I agree that he has a habit of injecting his opinion into the article and also seems to have a hostility toward any idea he doesn't agree with, but it seems that most of his commentary is ending up in the discussion session -- I don't generally have problem with the edits he actually has made to my text, and in fact I have edited to meet his objections. To me, the minor changes to wording to clarify or eliminate over statements is a strength of wikipedia.

So I think that it is possible that we might need assistance, but it is premature at this point. I don't want to drive away people with a different perspective, as long as we can keep to Wikipedia standards as far as what ends up in the article itself. Armarshall 04:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part it seems that Dolfrog confines his rants to the "discussion" part... which is of course where it belongs-- but as noted, thus far he hasn't done too much in terms of major edits & changes other than a minor tiff about the ordering of the TOC.

As to your question about NLP ...... I don't know of any research support and my idea on a LOT of the stuff on the dyslexia page has been to stick up little ^{[citation needed]} markers, wait a few weeks, and then feel free to delete or revise if no one has come along with a citation in the meantime. I figure that's fair notice to anyone who wants to save a passage-- as well as notifying readers that the point is considered questionable. Armarshall 07:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now Dolfrog is causing a problem, undoing all sorts of stuff plus posting insulting comments every time he does. So I'd like you to come to Talk:Dyslexia and look at my proposed ordering under the topic "Survey on ordering of content" -- and let me know what you think. I'm trying to also subsume some of the other topics toward the end of the article under more general headings. Armarshall 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sami

I still hold to my existing views that some may ned to do a greatr deal of research before they have a full understanding of dyslexia to enable them to edsit the dyslwexia article, unfortunately I was expecting others to have a wider understanding of dyslexia than my own limited understanding but that failed to be trhe case. I have added a similar mesage to Arm's discussion page.

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,and in recent days i have experinced a few unexpected bad triggers whixch are not related to any wiki activity

I will return to view all the changes when the stress and the potential triggers reside, this could be a few weeks or more.

best wishes

dolfrog

Your EAR

Hello,

Ten days ago, you posted a request for editor assistance on improving an article. Unfortunately, due to clutter on the page in question, many requests were ignored — including yours. However, I was able to provide a response today to the post and hope that the reply provides some useful information to you. Cheers, --Aarktica 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't continue because of dolfrog

Hi Sami,

Thanks for your message to me in regards to asking me to stay on the Dyslexia wikipedia project. You made me feel very welcome. As a person with a history of Dyslexia and other conditions(Dyspraxia and ADHD) that often comorbid with it,I want to contribute in some way to help my fellow Dyslexic. However, just one person who is hostile,rants,and is condescending to others is making difficult for me to contribute. I admit that I am person who can be a bit of a hothead,and so I can anger easily. I am extremely sensitive,and so the bad side of that is that my feelings get hurt easily. I am not sure if that's part of my Dyspraxia or ADHD or my INFP(Introverted Intuitive Feeling Perceiver) personality profile or my need for Omega 3 fatty acids. I just can't stand people condescending,patronizing people who ran their views down people's throats,and that is what dolfrog does. I am glad that I am not the only person who thinks that he is doing that. I have diagnoses of Dyslexia,Dyspraxia,and ADHD, and I don't need dolfrog telling me what I have and don't have. I know what I have,and I have read articles and books about my conditions. I have talked to professionals,and they listened. I got my diagnoses. I even believe in Dr. Levinson's inner ear disorder connection to Dyslexic Syndrome,and I was diagnosed as having cerebellar vestibular dysfunction by him. He understood me very much. It was his testing results that got the Veteran Affairs neurologist to test me for Dyslexia and Dyspraxia and got me diagnosed as having those conditions. I am sorry that dolfrog didn't get diagnosed until he was 42 years old,and so didn't get early intervention. I was diagnosed as having auditory dyslexia at 4 years old,and I got early intervention and that's why I am able to use words. I have had special education,auditory therapy,speech therapy,and phonics. They helped correct most of the Dyslexia that I became competent in language. It didn't correct all the Dyslexia..I still had the memory,organization,left/right confusion,and sequention,direction issues which dolfrog says has nothing to do with Dyslexia but it does. It also has to do with Dyspraxia too. I have the problems with eye coordination,tracking including problems with saccades,pursuits that are connected to Dyslexia. Like Dyslexics, I do think in pictures. The Veteran Affairs neuropsychologist confirmed that I am a strong visual thinker. The veteran affairs neurologists confirmed that I have Dyslexia and Dyspraxia. dolfrog thinks that he knows more about me than myself and the people that tested me. I know what are my issues in regards to my Dyslexia and my Dyspraxia. I don't need him telling me and preaching to the choir.

here is my testing that I had done from 2004 to 2006 in regards to my Dyslexia,Dyspraxia,and ADHD. http://astynaz.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album01

I just don't feel welcome on the Dyslexia wikipedia site as long as dolfrog is on it. I wish you and the other contributors the best of luck in making Dyslexia wikipedia the best. Thanks again for your kindness.

I also want to show how dolfrog has been patronizing and condescending to me on alt.support.Dyslexia. He talks to me like I am ignorant child. Then he references me in a different post. He uses me as an example of how a person needs to find the causes of his Dyslexia and how I got APD.

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.support.dyslexia/browse_thread/thread/2245ecbb7f42d8d1?hl=en

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.support.dyslexia/browse_thread/thread/7bdd3f4045c0aaf7?hl=en

I just feel that people need to see that dolfrog is condescending,patronizing on not just Dyslexia wikipedia but other sites as well. People with strong ideological views who disregard other's views and hurts people with their words are people that I prefer not to deal with.

Raymond Andrews Satabishara 13:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Satabishara[reply]

"Learning disability disambiguation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Learning disability disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Learning disability disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]