User talk:Dolfrog/Archives/2010 1

Dyslexia research

"As you probably have no understanding of the issues which cause me to be dyslexic, then I consider your actions to be vandalism, if you want to help edit the article please do so but do not just delete bits because it does suit your person way of understanding issues"

Maybe you should start your own page if it is your desire to talk about yourself. The page I was editing is about research in dyslexia, and it is not written very well. There is more work to be done in terms of content and how the content is presented, so maybe you should focus on explaining the issues more clearly if it is your desire to actually allow a reader to understand the information presented, rather than attacking someone who is trying to accomplish that goal. Ninahexan (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't start your own page, Dolfrog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it is about notable subjects based mostly on secondary and tertiary research. If you, yourself, and your dyslexia are notable, and they are written up, then a new article can be started. It is generally recommended that you do not edit an article about yourself, even if you are notable, as this represents a conflict of interest.

No editor is required to understand the issues which personally make you dyslexic, Dolfrog, in order to edit wikipedia. There are probably on-line support groups where you can discuss that issue. Wikipedia rightly encourages editors to stay away from the personal, this includes the issues "which cause you to be dyslexic." They have nothing to do with editing wikipedia articles. Thank you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no intentions of starting my own page.

I am dyslexic and as I have discussed over the lat few months or so on various Wikipedia discussion pages , due to the underlying cause of my dyslexia I am able to research dyslexia and understand the meaning of the research, but i am unable to paraphrase the research papers or copy edit the specific wiki articles. To this end last summer I summerised the main dyslexia article found the research papers to support the existing content, and correct the existing content to correspond to the content of the research papers. I then created a series of sub articles which was the intention of the editors Wikipedia dyslexia project. The articles which Ninahexan is currently editing do need editing, as i have mentioned I am not able to paraphrase and copy edit, so i rely on others like Ninahexanto perform those tasks. But I do understand the actual content, which requires copy editing and adding to Not deleting. So other editors do need to understand the limitations my disability impose on me with regard to editing a wiki article. ~From my experience of many Wikipedia editors they see themselves above the all others who have communication disabilities and actively promote disability discrimination against other editors who do not have the same abilities as themselves. So I have stopped being an active editor on Wikipedia to avoid this type of disability discrimination which causes me too much stress.

On my user page there are links to a wide range of Research paper collections including some 23 regarding different aspects of dyslexia. the causes of my dyslexia should not be the subject of any Wikipedia article, but it should be part of the consideration and understanding of other Wikipedia editors. I am prepared to discuss any technical issue about dyslexia on a discussion papge, but i will no longer add content to existing articles. Waht i object to is other editors deleting content without prior discussion about editing or changing the wording a skill which i have mentioned before i do not have. I am a team player where others in the team carry out the tasks I am unable to do. Wikipedia does not appear to be a team player working environment, more driven by editors personal ego. dolfrog (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your response shows you understand exactly what I am saying. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So you saying, Wikipedia does not want dyslexics as editors of their articles, please correct me if I am wrong. dolfrog (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

People with dyslexia do not own "their" articles. Dyslexia belongs to everyone regardless of disability.

Competence is required for all editors, regardless of disability status. Anyone who is able to work productively is welcome. Anyone who is unable to work productively in Wikipedia's environment should stop editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I do not want to own any article, especially any article on Wikipedia, I only use Wikipedia now for the research paper references some of the more informative articles provide. The problem with so many Wikipedia editors that they have very little competence in understanding the content of the articles the are trying to edit, and more interested in their own small town interests. I have more important things to do than engage in such futile exchanges. I am only interested in scientific based information and theories and not the subjective nonsense which pre-occupies so may on Wikipedia. Your attitude and the attitude of so may others on Wikipedia would appear to discriminate against those who have a disability, under the misapprehension that you are vastly superior. dolfrog (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia research

Wikipedia is about presenting information in a coherent, efficient and for the most part accurate way. If your writing lacked clarity at any point it should be changed, and citing "disability discrimination" is meaningless in such a context. When stating that someone has referenced particular information you should state why they were referencing it. Your sentence lacked this information, so how could I put in that information? If you are suggesting that you are not capable of writing these things more clearly then don't be surprised when they get changed or deleted. As I said, I will update the page to reflect the various usages of the word dyslexia and the various reams in which the term is used, and this will mean that I delete the reference to Elliot referencing the various usages. I can't imagine that would be a problem, since what you have written at the moment only states that there are a number of different definitions, not that Elliot's reference to that fact carried any new information.06:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninahexan (talk • contribs)

I do not have the time nor the inclination to carry this any further, you obviously have no intention of trying to understand the UK debate regarding dyslexia, which created this controversy. personally I am not really bothered about the nature of the debate, but others have requested its inclusion to demonstrate the scientific differences regarding dyslexia. prof Elliot was asked to comment on a more recent media discussion regarding the existence of dyslexia and he referred to the 26 definitions of dyslexia listed in the dyslexia review to add weight to his own research.

the reason I stopped being an active Wikipedia editor was precisely due to this type of discussion. I have a communication disability, which others prefer to ignore with regard to my contributions. Arbitory deletion appears to be the working practice of most Wikipedia editors, which from my perspective is pure disability discrimination. MY only interest is to ensure all content regarding dyslexia is supported by scientific documentation, and that the articles reflect scientific research, and not the opinions of program providers, popular teaching methods, or the myths that have grown up around dyslexia. The clarification becomes less important to me as the quality of research regarding Auditory Processing Disorder as a cognitive cause of dyslexia continues to improve at a quicken rate in recent months. So do what every you want with regard to this issue. dolfrog (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Reading instruction by country

Category:Reading instruction by country, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Orlady (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Auditory memory

Please complete the WP:RFD submission process, as detailed on the RFD link. You have done step 1 of the process, tagging the redirect, but the nomination is not complete until you list the redirect on the RFD discussion page and thus start an actual discussion on the fate of the redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

External links

As per the manual of style, external links should not be linked to directly within the text of an article, suitable links should be in the external links section. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Also you misunderstand what external links are for - they are for providing resources that help an individual to further understand the topic, so in regards to Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom, it should be (for example) scholarly resources or similar that discusses dyslexia support in general, it's not to promote helpgroups - in the same way that an article on car mechanics would use external links to articles on the principles of car mechanics not to individual garages. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

you have delated all the information regarding the Disability Equality Duty, I added the links in the hope that an editor like yourself who has the skills could explain the techinical infornation and use the links as references now there is nothing dolfrog (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still there in the history. Can you write something about the Disability Equality Duty and I'll format the references for it? If not I'll have a go at writing something. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have problems doing that part of editing, and it becomes too stressful, I did try for 3 months this time last year, and waht you found in this article is where i got to before it all became too stressful, and i had to stop for my own health reasons. If you would be so good as to create some description I would be very grateful. as you may have seen from my userpage research and understanding issues id my thing, but my own form of dyslexic means i have problems expressing these issues in text. Sorry about any anger, but it is more frustration regarding my APD which causes my dyslexia. dolfrog (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm off out for a meal but will take a stab in the morning, I'll also review all of the links I've removed and see if we can add them to the articles as references - that way they will safe from removal. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I got caught up in other things but will take a look today - you do realise that makes sure that articles confirm to the Manual of style *is* part of the process of being an encyclopaedia? If you are going to throw your toys out of the pram, do it somewhere else but my talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Cameron Scott. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please also note that the editor can remove/blank talk page comments. Bidgee (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Some editors stretch the concept of "In Good Faith" to conceal their own lack of good faith, which is in itself a form of abuse. dolfrog (talk)

Talkback

Hello, Dolfrog. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
Message added 06:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Socks

Please click here and read what it says. "Bryan Fedner" is the latest account for a permanently banned editor. I'm not removing Jessica's edits because I disagree with them; I'm removing them because she's violating Wikipedia's terms of service and is not permitted to make any changes whatsoever.

In that process, I tried very hard to keep your recent improvements, and I'm disappointed that you did a wholesale reversion of accurate, sourced material on such a flimsy excuse as "Undid revision 368693187 by WhatamIdoing beleives that others who do not share her view are all socks which is the way she defends her own point of view". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin alphabet

Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin alphabet, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin alphabet and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin alphabet during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing {{inuse}} from Dyslexia for me! I got distracted by a minor emergency and forgot to remove it. (I'm very absentminded.) Thanks again! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Special education and other things

The special education article is something of a minefield and it has not been helped by the fact that there is a so-called "sock puppet" with an axe to grind who keeps reincarnating under different user names before getting banned again. You obviously have specialist knowledge of dyslexia within the UK system. Another UK voice in the debate is most welcome. Do feel free to edit the article and especially to add suitable references. You are not disqualified from editing if you have specialist knowledge of a subject. As you have written papers on the subject the only thing you should not be doing is quoting your own papers as references. If you don't feel up to doing the editing perhaps you can help by finding some suitable non-US references to help reduce the US bias. As you say, the Warnock report is now very out of date and is probably best used as a reference in the history section. Perhaps you can provide some more up-to-date references for the UK section. Presumably there are more recent government reports and OFSTED reports on special education. Don't forget however that this is a general article and we don't want to go into too much detail about every single disability or learning difficulty. These are probably best dealt with in the articles on those conditions. Dahliarose (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A few further thoughts. I've just found that OFSTED has a whole section of reports on special educational needs here [1]. There is a report on "Inclusion: does it matter where pupils are taught". It defines the main settings in the UK as: (1) mainstream schools; (2) resourced provision, units & special classes in mainstream schools; (3)special schools (both state and private); (4) other categories include: early years settings; hospital schools; pupil referral units; education otherwise out of school and; awaiting provision. This all makes sense from a UK perspective. Can you see how this can be fitted in with the complicated American system as described in the special education article as it currently stands? Can you make any sense of what they mean by mainstreaming and how it differs from partial inclusion? Dahliarose (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope the motor neurone project goes well. Perhaps by the time you return some sense will have been restored to the special education project page!

Thanks for your reply to my question on the Talk:Special education. I thought it was easier to reply here as the talk page on that article is getting somewhat out of hand. You make a very good point about the terminology in the UK changing over time. I was struck looking the other day at an old report by the use of the word "handicapped" throughout whereas today this term is rarely used. I don't know if you noticed but I also had to update the UK section to link to what is now known as the Department of Education. I think this is about the third change in title in the last ten years! Even the US editors can't seem to agree on the meaning of the words in their own country. The challenge is trying to find a common vocabulary that we can all understand. I was hoping that we might find editors from other countries who could contribute to the article and add a different perspective. Unfortunately at the moment we are not really making any progress. It doesn't help when you have to engage in long discussions just to prove something basic like the fact that resource room has different meanings in the US and the UK. I just wish I'd thought of looking at the OED sooner! Unfortunately the OED doesn't help with a lot of the other terminology. Dahliarose (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive list of citations.

I'll be checking the citations lists you have kindly provided as I keep researching on dyslexia. I see one of your interests as you read the literature is dyslexia as a cross-cultural phenomenon. That is one of my interests too, as a native speaker of English who has become fully literate in Chinese, with a less practiced ability to read in several other languages, including Hebrew and Japanese. Because you have shared so many references I'll have quite a lot of reading to do. Keep up the good work.

		The Guidance Barnstar
		for providing many references related to the Dyslexia article. Thanks. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

I suggest that whenever you convert a human-readable citation to a citation template like this change, that you use a different edit summary. There are many editors who believe that the accurate summary in such instances is "making ref formatting dramatically worse" rather than "improved ref". You might consider something descriptive, like "converted ref to citation template". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account the guidance of more experienced editor WhatamIdoing about what to write in an edit summary in such a case, I'll note that for a variety of bibliographic reasons I am glad to see references use the citation templates, and I appreciate your continued addition of citations to primary sources in various articles on Wikipedia. I'm trying to write up a citations list much like the Intelligence Citations Bibliography on my user space, but with a focus on reading instruction, writing systems, and dyslexia. I'll be digging into secondary sources on those subjects to supplement the primary sources you are so assiduously gathering. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

These improvements provide increased access to the sources being used, too many editors fail to provide full information of the citations they provide, so which can enable other editors to sahre and validate the citations provided. Books tend not to be peer reviewed but only represent the authors personal opinion, or as part of fundraising for future research projects, and /or sometimes in support of a remedial program or pharmacutical product. And I have included many secondary sources or research paper reviews in my Research paper collections. Finding the exactly the correct words is a problem for me as part of my communication disability, which is why I try to avoid any form copy editing, and as the Special education articles discusses there is a need to accommodate those who have a communication disability. And i think you will find that I have been a Wikipedia editor for longer than both of you. dolfrog (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The writing system article is quite well researched, the research into reading instruction is very sparse, and relies a great deal on the Research into the various forms of Alexia (Acquired dyslexia and developmental dyslexia two similar problems which have very different medical causes. Reading is about being able to use a man made communication system, the visual notation of speech. Which has many cultural variations in the form of different writing systems and the different structures of languages within each writing system. So you are looking at teaching the decoding of visual symbols to another man made sound based communication system, speech, which again has many cultural variations. And then you have dyslexia which is about having cognitive deficits, for a wide range of reasons, that make the task of reading either very difficult or impossible. The research into dyslexia is still ongoing and a long way to providing an agreed scientific explanation it causes, researchers are still a long way from fully understanding the workings of the brain, and the cognitive issues which cause dyslexia, and the multiple information processes we use while performing the task of reading. dolfrog (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

See Identifying reliable sources (medicine-related articles) for some reasons why sometimes secondary sources can be better than primary sources for some kinds of issues (several of which come up in articles on these topics). I'll discuss the details about different writing systems and about what research shows about reading instruction around the world after I first post a source list, and then start editing particular articles with discussion on each article's talk page. Once again, thanks for the bibliographic citations to many primary sources, many of which I expect to look up and read in their entirety. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates are the subject of one of Wikipedia's holy wars. It is unwise to claim that converting from one style to the other is an "improvement".

Dolfrog, I want to repeat what WeijiBaikeBianji says: it's really, really, really important that we work from secondary sources. Editors -- even you and I -- are not true experts, and Wikipedia's policies direct us to assume that we are not capable of reliably separating the wheat from the chaff when looking at original experiments or expert speculation. The main points of every single section in every single Wikipedia article should be based primarily upon one or more secondary sources. If you cannot find direct support for an idea in a secondary source, then that idea should not be present in any Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I am aware of what you are saying, and in full agreement. WeijiBaikeBianji has been looking at my PubMed research paper collections etc, which were initially aimed at providing information for Wikipedia articles, but they have long since developed a life of their own. The real problem is the use of books as references, as they can be sources of expert speculation, especially speculation which would not meet research paper peer review approval, and can used as a vehicle to promote a specific remedial program or body of opinion. Books can be more difficult to validate due to various editions, and out print. (On a personal level I can not copy and paste the text from a book to a word processor so that I can format the text to meet my reading needs)dolfrog (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dolfrog: I'm back, and seconding WhatamIdoing. You are misadvising WeijiBaikeBianji. Your continuing additions of primary sources to articles - whether as references or further reading or your personally selected PubMed lists - are against WP:MEDRS and need to stop. If you're really concerned that your lists have acquired a life of their own, remove them: you have never grasped that the problem is that they are not objective "information", but your personal selection of that information (do you understand the difference?). And "real problem is the use of books as references" is unacceptable: by definition here, we respect secondary sources. Wikipedia is about collating previously published material. I agree there's bilge written in some books. but it is not our job to debunk it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gordon i have looked at WP:MEDRS which you continually throw at me, but you seem to continually seem to misunderstand. How many times must a primary research paper be cited by peer researchers in their papers before it becomes notable. In most research papers they provide a review of older research papers to describe the accepted position prior to any new research that they propose to carry out, so these papers are providing an ongoing review process. If you look at any of my PubMed collections most a substantial proportion of Review papers which are secondary sources. My research paper collections are now used as references by universities, and some have resulted from specific requests from leading professionals, or as part of an ongoing research program. (life of their own)dolfrog (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

an interesting case

Alexia (acquired dyslexia) is a real problem to find supportive research for, nearly all of the research for the last 30 years has been done more or less on a case by case basis, or at best a group of cases. To complicate matters further the researchers have conflicting simulation models, and resulting support or intervention programs. A further complication results from a team of Alexia researchers trying define developmental dyslexia subtypes using Alexia categorisation and terminology. All of the research papers agree on the symptoms or problems of each of the various subtypes of Alexia, but they may not agree about specific cause. This is partly due to the research model, and a previous lack of research technology to investigate the type of brain damage which can cause this spectrum of symptoms. In the last 3 years a new research model has evolved, moving away from a case by case investigation of patients who have Alexic symptoms, to investigating groups who have lesions in specified areas of the brain which have been identified as being the potential cause a type Alexia to find out if all who have lesions in that specific area of the brain suffer from a particular or multiple types of Alexia. This research is very important and needs to be reported as it is key to our understanding of the multiple serial and parallel cognitive processes involved in performing the task of reading text. dolfrog (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If this recent research is not reported in high-quality secondary sources, then it should NOT be reported in Wikipedia. If you want to report things that aren't discussed in high-quality secondary sources, then you need to get your own website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My days of creating web sites have long gone, so the long wait for some secondary sources will continue with regard to the new research model, but the real problem is how to use the large body 30 years of existing research which has mainly been done on a case by case basis due to the nature of the condition and the technology available during those years. dolfrog (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dolfrog. You have new messages at Elektrik Shoos's talk page.
Message added 21:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Project/article space confusion

I moved WikiProject Dyslexia/Alexia resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Alexia resources since it appears to be meant as a project subpage, not an article. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Basically all of the new users we're dealing with at Special education are sockpuppets of banned User:Random account 39949472. If you see a new editor putting in the same things that have been removed repeatedly, you may want to consider whether it's really a "new" editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Prior to the interventions of the Socks, I believe that slowly but surely all of the editors were beginning to create balanced form of consensus regarding the global content of the article, even if at times it was achieved line by line or word by word. I have more voluntary commitments in my real life, which can be very challenging and require research into areas which are sometimes really new to me. So I may appear to disappear for a few days of weeks at a time, although i do try to look at my watch list on a regular basis. I will leave sorting out the Socks in your capable hands dolfrog (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Speech and language pathology

Gosh -- I think that article needs a lot of work. Unfortunately, I've not the time at the moment. I'll be happy to rely on the good faith of others -- including you -- to determine if/when any of the templates should come off. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Visual thinking

I was looking at the Visual thinking article and i noticed that you have tried to improve this article in the past. this topic is one which can explain how many who have cognitive disabilities such as auditory processing disorder develop alternative cognitive skill to become cognitive strengths to work around their cognitive deficits. And there are also some who have cognitive skill preferences for a wide range of reasons some which we still do not have the technology to fully understand. Would you be interested in re-visiting this article dolfrog (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for my delay; that actually isn't a topic I know well enough to do further work on. It's unfortunate that Eubulides is gone! (On the subject above, you may want to ping Slp1 (talk · contribs).) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Theories of dyslexia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Theories of dyslexia, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/126/4/841.full, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Theories of dyslexia and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Theories of dyslexia, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Theories of dyslexia with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Theories of dyslexia. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Theories of dyslexia saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Neuromusic (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi. I am an administrator who works copyright concerns on Wikipedia. I am currently investigating the article above, and when running the temporary page rewrite through a mechanical detector realized that the content has been present in other Wikipedia articles. I gather at this point that the article Theories of dyslexia was created as a split from Dyslexia. I have not yet confirmed if all of the content was placed in that article by you, but I did want to make sure, separately of the copyright issues noted above, that you are aware that when you copy content from one Wikipedia article to another, you must attribute unless you are the sole content creator. This is required by our licensing policy. Please see Wikipedia:Split and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information, if needed. I will return to reviewing the copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

When I joined the WikiProject Dyslexia, i was not aware of any of the Wiki procedures you have mentioned above, due to the nature of my information processing disability, I leave these more technical issues to others. Who usually are better able to explain any technical problems we may encounter. dolfrog (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. Hopefully you are familiar with these processes now; if not, you might want to ask some of those others who can handle the split. In this case, however, I have confirmed that the copyrighted content was originally placed by you, first in the Dyslexia article and then expanded in the split. As part of my investigation, I confirmed that somebody had since then gone over our copyright processes with you. I hope that you are no longer having difficulty in this regard. Certainly, I will notify you if I uncover any problems, but as an administrator who closes these issues, I generally do not know about them until a week after they have been tagged. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know the research paper copyright issues have been resolved, but i have really no idea about these so called split issues dolfrog (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable revert

Sorry that this "copy" stuff keeps getting mentioned to you, but I wonder why you undid one of my edits, (Especially this one) calling it "replaced material which was not copyright copy and paste" when the content you re-added was actually copied from http://www.medicalstuttering.com/speechtherapy.html with the copyright tag included on that site. Minimac (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that and they copied and pasted my words on to their web site. They are my words which have been copied from Wikipedia. dolfrog (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)