User talk:Neurodivergent

ADD Edits

I received your comment on my webpage. I am brand new to Wikipedia and I wanted to thank you for explaining about the editing notice. I am not sure what I deleted of yours: I am guessing from your profile that it was the section on neurodiversity. I deleted that section because it was repetitive, and the term had already been used in the article and explained. Moreover, the article is excessively long. I felt that there was no reason to lengthen it by creating a separate section when it should be more under the subject of "controversy." I also remember deleting some bits and pieces in the article that I thought were too subjective to be in an encyclopedia. Thanks again. Meg1064

Note: What I did could not constitute censorship, since I did not extract the idea but erased unecessary repetitions. Meg1064 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would disagree entirely. If they were not redundant, then they were biased, which is not what Wikipedia is striving for.

Hello there! glad to see that you finally got a username. I will explain myself, but let me remind you that I have not deleted anything important in the articles in dispute (the Cenepa War and Ecuadorian-Peruvian war).

Some historians would go even further back and note the war between Atahualpha and Huascar in the Inca Empire.

My reason (and I appologise for not having stated that before) is simple: at that point in history, the concept of nationalism or even country were not accurate, and the war between the two heirs of the Inca Empire was more a civil war (internal conflict) than a war between rival states.

Also, if we follow that example, we could get controvertial examples, like the one between Germany and France (constant struggle between the Frank and Germanic tribes). So, for the sake of the article, I believe that at least that statement is not an historical fact and should be avoided.

I realize that. I just thought it was notable enough to include. The dispute is one of the longest known already if you just start at independence from Spain. But then someone could say, wait a minute, what about Atahualpa's and Huascar's war? That would put it back in the 1400s/1500s (?). Certainly, many Ecuadorians see Atahualpha as Ecuadorian. I'm not sure about Huascar. I might add an Inca Empire section to the dispute article at one point; I think the Inca Empire is notable to the dispute for other reasons as well. Neurodivergent 21:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... but that would be creating another problem: What was the Inca Empire then? a Nation? a Confederation? Personally, I believe that stating that (the issue about Huascar and Atahualpa) will only add more controversy to the article. The main topic of discussion is the dispute between Ecuador and Peru over the territories during it's republican period. I would say that the dispute was not an important issue during colonial times also. Messhermit 21:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Atahualpa and Huascar, as any other Emperor in the Inca Empire, are included in peruvian history. We study the empire as a single nation, and not as different states or with nationality: Atahualpa and Huascar as Incas, not as peruvian or ecuadorian. Messhermit 21:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6-9 downed Ecuadorian aircraft in the Cenepa war

Andres has removed that info from the article, and has stated that Ecuador lost none or only one aircraft (I don't remember exactly). However, I would say that any info regarding the casualties should be avoided, due to the fact that both Armies (Peruvian and Ecuadorian) claim to have inflicted more damage on their current enemy. Also, those military statistics are not accurate due to the common practice involving casualties: Any Army will just denied them.

The page that Andres uses as base for his research may not be accurate. In my personal opinion, why don't we erase any reference to casualties (because there will be always conflict with the numbers) and only show the strength of the armies at the time?

Yes, not referring to the numbers at all may resolve the edit war in that regard. The "estimates vary widely" wording is also fine IMHO. Another way to do is to say: Ecuador reported N aircraft lost; Peru claims N downed. Peru reported N aircraft lost; Ecuador claims downing N (i.e. very matter-of-fact is probably the best way to go in this kind of article.) Neurodivergent 22:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neurodivergent. Congratulations on your new nickname :)...

If it's OK with everybody, I propose to move the discussion on the losses of the Cenepa war to the article's talk page. There are one or two things that perhaps need to be clarified.

See you there --Andres C. 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador's occupation of Zarumilla in the Ecuador-Peru War.

If you look in the history of the article, you will realice that my name is not there.

Something that it's bodering me (and is not your fault) is the fact that Andres is the one that (at least in my opinion) started to attack my person (after attacking my contributions). It is a little unfair to trow all the fault to my person, after that in several opportunities I have proved myself willing to compromise.

The fact that you and I can have a proper discussion is something that Andres did not properly attempted. So if you could say ask him to behave in a proper way, I would really appreciate. Cheers!. Any idea would be welcome. Messhermit 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Andres is frustated with all the edit reversal without discussion. And I saw one which included reverting his grammar and style corrections. Neurodivergent 22:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome again! Glad you decided to get a username after all. Cheers. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neurodivergent 20:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate your suggestions and comments on my own suggestions about ADD and so forth. I have not, however, done much with my own user page or talk page. It seems you are more active than me on Wikipedia. :) oneismany 15:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Just wanted to thank you for the personal account, it was an interesting read. /Skagedal 21:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see wikipedians are reading that. Neurodivergent 22:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neurodivergent. I haven't had a chance to read your personal account but I will certainly do so. I find your wiki contributions fascinating, thought-provoking and valuable. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acyclic deterministic finite automaton

Your definition of Acyclic deterministic finite automaton is problematic. A finite automaton cannot be both deterministic AND acyclic.

By the definition of a DFA, for each pair of state and input symbol there is one and only one transition to a next state. Let the number of states in a DFA be |states|. Let the size of the alphabet be |alphabet|. Then, there are |states| states, and there are |states|x|alphabet| transitions. Since alphabets cannot be empty, the number of transitions equals or outnumbers the number of states. A graph with n nodes having more than n-1 arcs must contain a cycle. Therefore, a DFA cannot be acyclic.Lawrancj 09:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special relativity

Hi Neurodivergent,

You may want to read a Sandbox page I made, that displays how I understand how the parts of relativity connect together. Sandbox article about special relativity
--Cleonis | Talk 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your neurodivergent user page

I really do agree with almost everything you wrote here. You should be glad you withdrew your child from preschool. We didn't, and she still has psychological problems from this traumatic experience. These children don't need PTS in addition to all the other problems. I used to say that putting an autistic child in preschool is equivalent to putting him/her on a war-battle field. --Rdos 11:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permission?

Hey there, I hope it's okay that I added you to my little(just recently started) list. On my user page, if it is/isn't then just drop a yes or no on my talk page. XSpaceyx 15:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! thanks, just trying to make new friends here on Wikipedia and hopefully one day, contribute to something... But of course so far, I lack the necessary english and writing skills to pull that off.

Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

Hello there. I'ts been quite a while since the last time we contributed to the same articles. If it's ok with you, I'd appreciate your comments regarding the article History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute and its talk page. A couple of weeks ago I came in to do some rewording, to correct some typos and add details on certain paragraphs. A day later got myself involved (stupid of me) in an edit & revert war. Needless to say, the other party is user:Messhermit, which appears to have been checking on a regular basis the status of that article (and perhaps of my contributions in general, though I can't be sure of that), so nobody would touch it. The flame posts regarding the usual accusations of Ecuadorian POV-pushing, etc. have been sent to the "flame war" subpage in case you are interested. The thing is, I managed to get the article locked by an administrator, but there is no mediation process going on. As you were the original editor of the article, I thought it would be a good idea to ask you for comments. Thank you and take care. Andres C. 19:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, friend. What is your opinion on the latest comments put by Messhermit on the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute talk page? Andres C. 15:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take a look at the Paquisha incident article and its history for today, as well as its talk page. Perhaps the NPOV rules should require it to present also the Ecuadorian version?

Regards. Andres C. 15:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I there. I just wanted to let you know that I have followed with interest your attempts to mediate. I thank you for that. I don't know if I am mistaken, but it appears that all this has more to do with a personal grudge Messhermit seems to hold against me. Thanks again. Andres C. 20:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neurodivergent. I'd like to let you know that I filed a Request for Arbitration against Messhermit. I'll just have to wait to see what happens now. Andres C. 06:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neurodiversity

Hello ND, I've been following your recent discussion on the anti-psychiatry talk page. I perused your personal take on neurodiversity and found it a interesting, and enlightening, read. Just thought i'd let you know. Rockpocket 18:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at Talk:Biological psychiatry and give your feedback? Thanks. Joema 03:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hello Neurodivergent. I read your post on the native.web.org. You know, I've been around here for about six months now, and I see the point of what the critics of this project say: Wikipedia's great appeal as an open encyclopedia is both a blessing and a curse. Forget any background in liberal arts, or a minimum degree of expertise on the field in which you choose to contribute. My point is: how can we help to make this a reliable source of information if all we need is a computer with access to the internet? We have tons of material to use here: Basadre, Denegri, Aranda, Cayo, Pareja Diezcanseco, Tobar Donoso, Luna Tobar, Perez Concha...what's the use of it, if all we need is to cite anonymous pages we find with a simple Google search? -- Andrés 23:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The problem is that editors unfamiliar with the articles they edit, use the internet as their only source of information. BTW, Messhermit is reverting now things on the Paquisha article (I renamed it Condor War...took away that incident word.)

Hey, I have read your comments on your user page. I was probably a "borderline" Asperger myself, but I cannot be sure about it..went undiagnosed. Anyway, I ended up a certified OCD. Just great. Best Regards. Andrés 01:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think Asperger and HFA have always been there. It's just that we didn't use to give them fancy names or acronyms. In my case, I'd say it was more of a retrospective self-diagnosis. When my OCD came out in force into the open in my mid-twenties (a washer...just as I was finishing med school...) things began to make sense. On the other hand, it may just have been that I was in a subclinical state of OCD since I was a kid. Who knows? While the jury is still out re the link between Asperger and OCD, I'd say there may be a link. I really hope you're doing fine with your kid, Neurodivergent. I do appreciate this talk very much. -- Andrés 05:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cenepa War, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.Dragonlord kfb 15:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting

You wrote:

"That's pretty interesting. Too bad Wikipedia cannot reference itself. No matter, I understand Kathleen's most revealing finding is yet to come." Neurodivergent 21:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[1][reply]

Nothing forbids you from quoting his comments and edits elsewhere, since nothing on Wikipedia is copyrighted. Just find the quote or edit and link directly to the link in the edit history (not to the article or talk page itself, since that can get changed). -- Fyslee 06:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request Help, ABA article

I'm involved in an edit war on the Applied behavior analysis article and could use some assistance. Currently an NT ABA practitioner by the name of WLU is actively trying to revert all critical edits and outright lie about Wikipedia policy.

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lobo (web browser)

The article Lobo (web browser) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability is not established by inline citations of independent secondary reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]