1210donna

Welcome!

Hello, 1210donna, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Visual thinking

Please refrain from removing my material about Dutch research into "picture thinking" from Visual thinking, it looks like a very non NPOV attempt to sensor the article. If you look at the early history of the article it resembled the current Dutch version nl:beelddenken, it talks almost exclusively about picture thinking, -not- visual learning! The US article was originally also created to be about "picture thinkers", but all of that has been stripped during recent years untill nothing was left, and the article was only about the fact that 60% of the population use visual learning styles, which might be true, but is not what the article was created for, or what is most relevant.

The developments in the Netherlands concerning the discovery of the phenomenon of the existance of "picture thinkers" is considered very important here, especially by the people who now start to discover this previously unknown fact about themselves. I am such a person myself, and my sister found that two of her three children have the same "problem". Luckily because picture thinking is now a well-known phenomenon in the Netherlands the teachers of her kids knew about the phenomenon, and could give her children the right kind of help. I am aware that in the US the phenomenon is relatively unknown, or there is not much "belief" in the reality of it, but here the situation is totally different, which is a very -good- thing in my opinion.

I would like very much that picture thinking is taken seriously, and that much more research is being done, but for that to happen people should know about the fact that such research -is- being done in the Netherlands. therefore i ask you to not remove this fact from the wikipedia article. Mahjongg (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

better references

I have no problem with your perspective, hence the removal wasn't personal, its just that it was completely written as opinion and the references were not reliable by wiki standards your references function as advertisements so if you could find ACADEMIC references (ie in academic journals, not in the individual works of specific private authors), government agencies (not private consultancies) these would verify FACT as distinct from OPINION

Welcome

Happy Holidays! Thanks for your contributions. Articles are kept based on notability as demonstrated by including citations to reliable sources such as articles and book. Let me know if I can be of any help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

DID

Please see my comments on the talk page before replacing your edits to dissociative identity disorder. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that your edits have added excessive text, with excessive amounts of detail to the lead section of the article. The lead should have a broad-strokes overview of the topic and not focus on very detailed issues. The lead must summarize the body, and though the current lead is probably too short, that should be addressed by expanding the lead with material found in the body rather than introducing new material solely to the lead.

Also note that you have been using primary sources to expand the page. Per our guidelines on medical article sources, primary sources are original research reports (i.e. single experiments or evaluations). We are supposed to use secondary sources such as review articles or meta-analyses as our main references on wikipedia. Primary sources can be used with great care, but should not substantiate the majority of the text due to their ability to be misused and cherry-picked to misrepresent the overall scholarly opinion. Edits like this are what I'm talking about, though this edit also added what appears to be a personal webpage, which is inappropriate for most uses on wikipedia - particularly for medical pages where we require peer reviewed literature in the form of review articles. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding deletion

The following section was removed on 5 February 2013 as unreferenced and unsubstantiated; although I would agree with the reasons for removal, I would expect the statement is correct and wonder if substantiating sources might be found:

“Though there are no established preconditions for limerence, there is a high rate of coincidence between limerence, depersonalization/derealization disorders, and dysfunctional attachment environments in childhood. This might suggest that sustained exposure to a psychologically unstable environment in childhood, or unhealthy/incomplete attachment between a child and their caretakers in early life, may make an individual more susceptible to limerence. There is also a statistically significant correlation between limerence and post traumatic stress disorder.” Tablethree (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Re Burning mouth syndrome

Hi, thanks for your attention at Burning mouth syndrome

Unfortunately I have to revert your removal of the content

Some consider BMS a psychosomatic illness, caused by cancerophobia or other form of hypochondriasis.<ref name="Kalantzis 2005" />

The edit summary you have left is invalid, as there is a source which supports this content. If you can't accept that, I don't know what else to say.

Regarding your recent additions:

BMS has been found to be correlated with Trigeminal neuralgia (common in MS)  with Sjögren's Syndrome

When generating medical content on wikipedia, please familiarize yourself with the sourcing policy: WP:MEDRS. Unfortanately, the first source is a primary source and therefore is unsuitable. The second source (about Sjogren's syndrome) is a secondary source, but from what I can see it does not mention burning mouth syndrome. Note that the article already mentions xerostomia, which in turn links to the SS topic.

Thank you, Lesion (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply, I have looked at the resources for the suggestions BMS is psychosomatic etc... these resources are books for sale on Amazon. They also don't directly address BMS. I've been through the content and can't find any mention of BMS. At the very least, it is misleading to say 'some consider BMS a psychosomatic illness as it also occurs with nerve damage which is dealt with by a neurologist, not a dentist. Less misleading may be 'some cases of BMS have been thought to be psychosomatic'... but that's like saying some cases of MS have been thought to be psychosomatic.. its a very big statement... and with only Amazon pages (selling books) as the resource that seems to do more disservice to those with the condition than help develop understanding of it.

for example, here is one of the sources... if you do a search for Burning Mouth in regards to this work it is not found http://www.amazon.com/Oral-Maxillofacial-Medicine-Diagnosis-Treatment/dp/0443068186 -- 1210donna

• Many fine medical textbooks are listed for sale on amazon. This in itself bares no impact on the reliability of the source. Again I draw your attention to WP:MEDRS, and not whether the source can be brought on a website.
• The chapter of the book you paste above is called "burning mouth syndrome" and discusses the topic extensively (chapter 21, pp 171-176). I therefore think it is inaccurate to say that it does not address BMS.
• Note that there is a difference between dentists and oral physicians (oral medicine). In most countries, oral physicians are doctors, not dentists, although they may hold both degrees in some countries. Oral medicine is one of the main specialties which deals with burning mouth syndrome, not neurology or neurosurgery. If organic brain disease is suspected, then management may become multidisciplinary.
• There is much emerging research in BMS, atypical facial pain and trigeminal neuralgia currently. When this filters down into mainstream practise, indicated by the availability of reliable secondary sources, then it is appropriate to discuss such content in the Wikipedia page. There is a lag between scientific breaththroughs and WIkipedia coverage, and this is deliberate (see WP:recentism). But, BMS is still defined as an idiopathic condition by mainstream medicine (e.g. read the Cochrane review that is cited in the article). There are many theories that sources state are involved. Some sources say that psychologic factors are involved. By not mentioning some sources, we are not giving encyclopedic coverage to the topic, but rather we are cherry picking some sources and ignoring others, to create a biased representation of the entirety of the topic (see WP:CHERRY)
• Note that psychosomatic = a physical symptom or condition in which psychological factors are involved, not necessarily 100% responsible for creating. The terms psychosomatic, somatoform and psychogenic are all regularly confused, but they have different definitions.
• You seem to have a habit of claiming that a source does not support content that you do not agree with. To makes these factually inaccurate statements, you must have either (1) not checked the source, (2) not understood it, or (3) not checked it on the relevant page which is cited or (4) read the source, seen that the content is supported, but chosen to say that it is not supported as justification for you to remove the content. I say this based on 2 occasions you remove content which you say is not supported by the source in question, yet when I double check the source, I find that the content was 100% accurate. Please take more care when checking sources for accuracy. Lesion (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

on the Amazon page I did a find for 'burning mouth' and come up with nothing... so I cannot see how the entire chapter was called 'burning mouth syndrome' yet if I search for the term on that page get no results... oh well, you're obviously so committed to that piece of work I'm not going to argue with you.

as for psychosomatic... sure that can also have part physiological causes, but when you put it in the same sentence as hypochondriasis, you are clearly suggesting the cause is not just psychosomatic but mental illness. Fine that you can't see that bias, but so be it.

I did add this reference and mention of TM and BMS but it was removed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15911160 so, sure, so be it. But if I'm looking for all round info and there's so little mention of nerve related conditions and BMS I don't fine this Wiki page then to be balanced.

and sure, I'm probably a complete moron, and clearly you are so aware of what is in the book, but if you could be so kind as to show me where in this text is any mention of 'burning mouth', I would love to know because I've now searched the page three times and can't find any. You say chapter 21 pp 171-176... but I guess I can't see that unless I buy the book... perhaps you own the book and hence you know, perhaps you even wrote the book so of course you would know.

ah.... now you have given me the chapter and page numbers, sure I can find the chapter... I didn't realise I could check inside the context (I don't buy books on Amazon or online) so I'd only done a find on the front page. it must be frustrating to someone as advanced as you to deal with those like me who think we took have a right to contribute. -- 1210donna

Respectfully, at no point did I call you a "complete moron" (see WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS). I do not claim ownership of any wikipedia page (see WP:OWN). See the terms of use, no editor has any real intellectual ownership of any contribution here. You have just as much a right to edit that page as anyone else, but all editors are subject to the same policies and guidelines. E.g. the source you added http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15911160 is a primary source, and is in direct violation of WP:RS and the medical equivalent WP:MEDRS. I removed this source not because I do not think any other editor has a right to edit the page, but because the edit in question is a breach of the above policy. If I added a primary source to the page, sooner or later another editor would remove it too. If I did write the book (I did not), it would be grossly inappropriate of me to use it a source (see WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine)). You have no real cause to suggest that I wrote this book, it is just one of the many sources I regularly use. So it might also be worth me pointing WP:Assume good faith.

Note that the page numbers for each reference are listed already on the page in the reference section, they were not hidden before, I just pasted them on your talk page because I felt you were having difficulty finding the content. I suspect the amazon preview is a limited sample of the book, perhaps the first few chapters, and this is why the search "burning mouth syndrome" is not yielding any results for you. I acknowledge that editors find it hard to access some sources. I'm sometimes paywalled out of sources and I know it is frustrating. But this is no reason not to remove a reliable source. Verifiability does not necessarily equal accessibility (see WP:PAYWALL). I have a .pdf of this textbook which I offer to share with you if you wish. You need to enable email in preferences to allow this. Also the file size may be too large for email, I haven't checked.

Regarding the terms psychosomatic etc, I have made no suggestion that is not directly supported by a source. The meaning of these terms is not hidden or distorted in the article, they are linked to their respective wikipedia pages for definitions. I do not feel there is any undue weight or bias to psychologic factors. The causes of BMS section lists every theory I came across, I did not discuss only psychologic factors, but discussed them along with other theories. If you have a reliable secondary source (WP:MEDRS again) which discusses theories about the causes of BMS, please feel free to add more content or go into greater detail, and that you adhere to the manual of style for medical pages (WP:MEDMOS) ... and no-one will likely argue with your additions. Lesion (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are unable to access sources I would strongly advice you to discuss proposed changes on the talk page first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

References

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peripheral neuropathy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• system]]: impairments in the signals associated with regulation of breathing and gas exchanges ([[Central Apnea]], [[hypopneas]], [[bradypnea]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peripheral neuropathy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celiac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hypopnea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• central hypoventilation syndromes]] (ACHS) and [[congenital central hypoventilation syndrome]] {CCHS). Daytime hypopnea can also cause a drop in blood oxygen level.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diverticulosis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Kevin Dennis (Dennis Gowing) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kevin Dennis (Dennis Gowing), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kevin Dennis (Dennis Gowing)

Hello, 1210donna. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Kevin Dennis".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Kevin Dennis (Dennis Gowing)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

May 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Taman Safari, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. 220 of ^Borg 18:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, 1210donna. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, 1210donna. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)