User talk:*Kat*/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

[[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 05:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcome Kat! I'm glad you found us, and hope you plan to stick around. Here's a little note for you, in case this ever comes up or becomes an issue. There was a user named "Kat" who edited here for a long while -- if people see your name around, you might get a message from someone who thinks you're the same Kat. Kat was a good contributor (although occasionally controversial) and now edits under the name User:UninvitedCompany, if I have my facts straight. :-) There's no problem with you having your username, of course! I just saw it, remembered the other Kat, and thought I'd leave you a note. Occasionally someone comes here to make trouble, and intentionally takes a name that looks like an established username to fool people: I can tell right away that's not the case with you, but in case anyone reacts strangely to you, I thought you should know. :-) Best wishes, and if I can ever be of any help, please let me know! Jwrosenzweig 22:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) --- Thanks for the heads up! *Kat* 03:19, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Nice work on the Theodore Roosevelt refactor. More info is needed and I've started to help with that. See the talk page for more. Hope you like the place and decide to stay. :) --mav 04:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Larger version please

Can you please upload a larger version of Image:Brainscan2.jpg? That one is ridiculously small that is not even useful! :( — Kieff | Talk 04:55, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Darn! I was hoping that it had uploaded larger than that. Unfortunantly, the answer is no, I don't have a larger version. I wish I did. If you have the tools to enlarge it, please do! ..*Kat* 00:39, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to see you're still around

Hi...just dropping by -- I like to see if people I greeted stick around, and while often they don't (too busy with "real life" and "work" and such things, I imagine!), I'm always encouraged by those that do. Now that you've been around a month, I hope you're settling in: again, if you have questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. Otherwise, best wishes and please keep up the good work! Jwrosenzweig 23:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Oh yeah, once I get started on something, I generally stick around for a good long time. I don't have as much time as I would like for this project, because of Real life and all that jazz, but what time I do have, I plan on committing some of it here. This is a good project, and a great thing to be involved with. *Kat* 23:16, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I made a small edit to the article you pointed me to -- it looked generally good, to my way of thinking. I'd like the article to have an external link section, though -- do you know of a link to a page that debunks the hoax? If not, someone will add one eventually, but if you do know of one, that would be a good addition. Thanks for the note! Jwrosenzweig 08:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

Kat, welcome to the team! Thanks for joining us. Maurreen 09:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Kat. This project is withering, but are there any articles you'd like to suggest? Maurreen 05:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The milan decree(s)

I cleaned up the The Milan Decrees article, but I have a question. Since Napoleon issued just one decree in Milan shouldn't the title of the article be, The Milan Decree? *Kat* 03:19, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the era, but yes, that would make sense. These names don't always make sense of course, but google does seem to agree with you too, so I think moving the page is in order. Nice job on the cleanup by the way, thanks! --fvw* 03:40, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

[edit] Incretin

I was just about to stub that article! *punch in face*. Ass. j/k --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 06:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] *MTV

It looks like a valid subject for an article, though you might want to put cleanup tags on it. RickK 07:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem.  :) RickK 07:45, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

This is a brief response to your question in this edit. Interesting things have happened. User:FACTS happened! 8)) And then there is the interesting Votes for deletion on User:FACTS. That happened too! Does that begin to intrigue you? ---Rednblu | Talk 07:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ADHD overhaul

Excellent revision. Something drastic needed to be done. The article looked like it belonged to a packrat, with untold devils in the details, to be sure. To understand the rigidity of social hierarchies that compel such an extraordinarily high number of ADHD diagnoses, as alluded to in the article, one might compare the arrogance of customary iatrogenic treatments to the larcenous behaviors of dominant cabals within bonobo communities. The open source nature of Wiki, in contrast to the inherent decadence of rigid social hierarchies, allows for just the sort of counterbalance to rigidity that you have exemplified. Thank you for being so bold. Ombudsman 20:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your keen interest in the ADHD label came to mind after seeking help from Antaeus to NPOV the vaccine article. Less known about vaccines is the fact that they also contribute to dyslexia, ADHD, etc. One point of view posits that vaccines, acting as neotenizing vectors, induce arrested or dyssynchronized neurodevelopment, by accelerating immune system maturation. That had to be left out, understandably. The omission notwithstanding, your skill and boldness applied to the article would be appreciated, before it starts looking like the ADHD article once did. Ombudsman 03:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. *Kat* 05:20, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Quite bold, beyond minimal. Perhaps replacing external links and adding texture is needed to avoid flatlining all signs of sentience? A topic this significant needs a bit more substance to ensure the cognitive imagery and dialogue quality suggested by Pribram and Bohm. Ombudsman 08:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Curious, that speculation has focused on motive, rather than progress toward consensus. Did you strike the kinder passage because you were no longer grumpy? Please observe the disparity between the treatment given to Wakefield vs the MMR paragraph at vaccine. Maybe it's time to take a breather to consider progress before any more keelhauling? Ombudsman 20:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not to worry

Not to worry, it's clear you're working for the forces of good<g>. There are evil forces at work slicing the heart out of AIDS articles, so I'm perhaps hyperalert.... - Nunh-huh 23:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe I was too tired to take on such a large project. Correctly neutralizing articles can take a VERY long time, and usually require a lot of mental effort.*Kat* 00:12, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

That pic just seemed perfect for the article.  :)  BRIAN0918  08:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vaoverland

Thanks for the kind words. I have the minor flag checked as a default, and most of my edits are minor, but.....

If you get a chance, your thoughts or contributions to the Adult attention-deficit disorder article would be appreciated. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 15:41, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Meeting Proposal

Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 20:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional hackers

You've added a reference to Hex in List of fictional hackers; which of the many ambigous Hexes did you mean - Hex (book)? Josh Parris ✉ 02:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I meant the trilogy written by Rhiannon Lassiter, which doesn't have a specific link. *Kat* 05:23, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

You seemed to have issued a number of Barnstars, so maybe you can answer me this: I want to award Bishonen a Barnstar for his article on European toilet paper holders, but I'm not sure if he qualifies because it is apart of his user page. The article was featured (for a very short period of time) on the main page this past April 1st, and really is of feature quality. Anyway, does he qualify for a Barnstar? *Kat* 05:41, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Though I am not Clockwork, Bishonen can qualify for a Barnstar. If he worked very hard to get the article created, and also got it on the front page for a short time, a normal Barnstar will do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay in my response. Zscout370 is absolutely right. Barnstars are not a strict or formal thing, they can be given out whenever you see something that deserves recognition. I remember that article: it was our April Fool's article this year. I recommend the Oddball Barnstar, but it's totally up to you. :) – ClockworkSoul 06:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Zscout and Clockworksoul! And I agree with Clockworksoul, the Oddball Barnstar is in order here.*Kat* 07:24, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, *Kat*. ETPH lives in my userspace, but it has a number of faithful and "dedicated, not to say demented" (as User:Filiocht has put it) contributors, so I've inserted the, uh ... how shall I put this ... very lovely star on the ETPH talk page. If time should ever hang heavy on your hands, please come and contribute to the article! I'm a she, btw. --Bishonen | talk 22:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... I wonder how I ended up here? Maybe the Oddball barnstar works some kind of magic, it wouldn't surprise me. I'll just have another go at placing this on *Kat*'s page.--Bishonen | talk 22:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, now it's already here... I'm frightened.--Bishonen | talk 22:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I think a template was added to my page by accident by ClockworkSoul. It looks it has been removed. But, well, I will see if odd things are happening, I can talk to Clockwork. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Not by accident: the template page allows us to maintain one conversation on multiple pages. The only drawback is that you don't get the cool organge bar. – ClockworkSoul 03:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I like it, but do you realize that all this is showing up on my talkpage too? Not that I mind, but some people might. *Kat* 20:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see how this works (sort of). Where did you get this template? *Kat* 20:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
It's easy to make one: I just made a page in my user directory (User talk:ClockworkSoul/20050515-01), and just dropped the page name onto the talk pag ein template-curlies: {{User talk:ClockworkSoul/20050515-01}}. – ClockworkSoul 20:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bluechip

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but since you were the first person to edit Bluechip (software) after me, I wondered what drew you to it. In particular is it something you've already heard of? If so then I'd love to find out... I can't seem to get anything on it :-D Matthew Platts 19:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It was on category:stub. I was doing stub sorting.

[edit] Thanks!

Hi *Kat*! Just wanted to say thanks for the lovely barnstar! I shall put it on my user page :) Grutness...wha? 03:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox template

I don't remember anything like that, I don't do bad jokes on the Sandbox, my name was probably on the history because I might of done a test edit for a technique for editing articles. --SuperDude 22:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was apologizing for interfering, which I guess I wasn't. *Kat* 00:16, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zakimi gusuku source

Haisai Kat, Message nihweː deːbitaŋ. Waŋnu source-ya Gusukunu article yabitaŋ. (My source was the Gusuku article). I moved the information on individual Gusuku sites out into separate articles, and in most cases modified the information.

Guburiː sabira. Node 20:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] {{dune-stub}}

Hi *Kat*,

Please note that I put {{dune-stub}} on Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Please comment there if you think it's still useful. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Just thought I'd say hello — One ADDer to another! What gave you inspiration for your handle? I feel so prosaic at times! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)
    • Its my handle on another website. My real name is Katherine, my nick name is Kat. On that other website, I wanted to make my username Kat, but it was taken, so this handle was born.


Come to my userpage!User:--Yo Mama 5000 6 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

[edit] Ombudsman editing your words

I thought you might appreciate a heads-up that Ombudsman has been editing your words on his talk page, removing pieces of what you said. I don't know if he's done this other times, but even once is too much, IMHO. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User categorization

Greetings! Your user page hasn't been vandalized :-) --it was updated to use the new User Categorization scheme. I have categorized your User Page as a Wikipedian in South Carolina (Category:Wikipedians in South Carolina) since your name was listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/South Carolina page. The Wikipedia:Wikipedians/South Carolina page is scheduled for deletion. Thanks! Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 01:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honorverse edits

Kat,

I'm impressed at the extensive work you did adding characters to the Honoverse list. Thanks. As another Weber fan (see, eg, Treecat history) I sympathize with the urge. Since you are apparently in SC, have you perchance met him? Anyway, best wishes.

ww 06:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 19:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template

I've always been shocked at the ignorance of the people who say people with ADD don't suffer from it when they don't even have it. I suffer from it every day. My social life sucks. I go to a school for kids like me. Unmedicated, my mind would probably implode from the chaos. But like any illness, you learn to deal with it, and that's what I do. I enjoy life the way I have it. To avoid an edit war, I'll personally just take the raw template and change "has" to "suffers from". I don't think another template is nessisary. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(cringe) Ouch, uh that sucks. I've been diagnosed with ADHD for eight years now. I take one-a-day Adderal, which is good because I don't have to take it at school and it's not one of those disgusting chalky pills. I love life just as much as anyone else. I'd rather have a bad social life than be dead ;). There are a lot of people I can relate to at my school. It gets pretty crazy with a school full of LD kids, complete with classrooms knee-deep in newspaper (senior prank), piggy-back rides, titty-twisters, and plenty of fake manlove (disturbing? very). My favorate Mill Springs moment though was last year, when a couple seniors brought in two electric scooters about 3 feet long and a foot and a half high and made to look like motorcycles. The principle of the Upper(High) School started riding one up and down the halls. It was hysterical. Ah, good times. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 Collaboration of the Week

Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores Talk 08:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Adhdbrain.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Adhdbrain.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"

Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP 1.0

I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox?

I think you might have misplaced a userbox. See User LittleSis. Cheers, 128.12.119.157 09:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ADHD

Hi Kat. I had been somewhat watching your changes, and you seem to have been doing a good job. I'm out of the country from tonight for a few weeks, so won't really have a chance to look at what you've done. It was well overdue for a clean-out. --Limegreen 12:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Kat, I'm glad you started with this project, this was long overdue, I'll be glad to help. First off, you may want to add this reference to the introduction: [1] Note that this reference actually states that only 4% of adults have ADHD, there are no statistics about the general population, but if 4% of adults are affected and up to 70% of children carry it into adulthood, one could extrapolate the overall prevalence.

I found another WebMD article that did the math for me.

I see that you're in the process of editing right now, which is awesome. I'm a little tempted to add a picture of my room as an example of "ADHD Lifestyle" but I'd rather help you clean up the article first. I won't make any changes right now, but I'm going to make a list of suggestions here that I think should take place, so you can give me your feedback. I'm trying to avoid the ADHD talk page for now, it's a complete mess and nobody will be able to communicate there effectively. The entire thing should be archived at once....

Agreed and done.

Suggestions:

  • according to most sources, ADHD is not curable, contrary to what is stated in the beginning of the article.
  • The style and grammar of the intro article and the first few articles at least needs to be fixed. I found numerous examples where the wording could be improved to make the article more readable.
Go for it. I found that to be one of the toughest parts to revise.
  • Let's do a thorough fact check.
Good idea. What about source check? Some of those websites that are cited looked a little suspect.
  • as far as organization goes, the "reliability of diagnosis" section should probably be moved to the "diagnosis" section and mentioned as a reference under controversy (no need for a separate section).
done
  • "Positive aspects" should be a subsection of "Symptoms". In fact "Symptoms" itself should have a few subsections, such as childhood, adulthood, prevalence, severity, etc.
The symptoms in adulthood really aren't any different from the symptoms in childhood though. Prevalence is already handled under Incidence, do you think we should move that up to Symptoms as well?
  • I think we're off to a good start, to begin with, let's try to make the article more readable by improving grammar and organization and by making the article more concise.
Good luck on making it more concise. It was over 65kb when I started. I knocked it down to about 48kb, and its already back up to 50kb.*Kat* 07:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know your thoughts, I'll check back in later. (Patrick 01:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Congratulations Kat. I have read through your edits and think it is much, much better. As it was before the article was a good example of what potentially can go wrong with Wikipedia - too many competing and contradictory ideas.IanWills 08:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)IanWills

The article is a manifestation of the condition itself, so it's not really that bad... I copyedited up to "Symptoms"; please review, I will go over the other sections as well. I think as far as organization goes, we can leave Incidence where it is, we can reorganize later if we find that the content changed substantially (which is not unlikely). The article is likely to continue to grow as people are ADDing their $0.02, padon the pun, so we should keep an eye out for new additions that can be merged with existing sections or deleted due to repetition. But so far, so good, you're doing excellent.(Patrick 12:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC))
Agreed, this article will require constant surveillance. I suspect that Dr. Sobo will continue to give us a headache. Do his opinion make you as sick as they make me? I just about puked reading his latest entry on the talk page. Anyway, I'd like to bring this article up to FA standards. Might be Mission: Impossible but still worth a try. --*Kat* 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, needless to say I didn't read even a fraction of Sobo's rants but the first few sentences were enough; don't let it get to you, he's entitled to his opinion, not much we can do about it. What will eventually happen is that people who are extremely biased one way or another will either be drowned out by the majority, if their claims are completely unsubstantiated, or, if their views are indeed widely held, no matter how absurd, they will be countered by those who disagree; thereby the most widely held views are represented, at least in theory. Yes, we can and will bring the article to FA standards! We're not going to try, we will actually complete the project, I know how we are with loose ends, believe me, so it's most important to stick with the project until it will be FA. Notice how rapidly the talk page for the article grows; the article is accessed by a lot of people who have ADHD, and it is typical for such people to act on impulse and leave loose ends, you know how it is... I'm not surprised if there are actually sentences in there that have been modified so often that all meaning is lost; this isn't a weakness of Wikipedia, it's a strength, because it 'tells it how it is'!. Doesn't this article in a way 'prove' that ADHD actually exists, no matter what you call it? (Patrick 02:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC))
Yes, it does. The guy still makes me sick though. Have you noticed how most of the edits are minor? I think we might be even closer to FA standards than I thought! --*Kat* 07:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

--24.151.84.9 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Your talk page comes up on a search with my name on it. Congratulations guys. Yes you successfully drove me off the page. It was a waste of time to argue with such close mindedness. But I thought you might be interested to know that my article will be coming out pretty soon in a book "Rethinking ADHD" edited by Sam Timini. You may be able to guard this page and I drive you to puke. The first few sentences and you have seen enough? I'm glad you are able to support each other in your narrow mindedness on this page, but in the larger world your censorship simply won't work. Keep working hard at it and complimenting each other. It is a great way to learn about a subject.

  • Next round: I made a preliminary "sweep" for style, grammar and content of the article, up until the end of "Psychoanalytical Testing"; please review this as well, a few facts need to be checked, and I think there are a few items that can be expanded on but would warrant their own article, such as the "ADHD Scales" (Connors, Brown, etc). -- (Patrick 06:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for fixing the article 4.249.84.35 05:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

[edit] Childhood ADHD

I stumbled across this article and noticed that you tagged it for deletion, but you never followed through with officially listing it. In retrospect, it probably would have been easier to merge the two articles. At this point, you could simply make Childhood ADHD redirect to Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. -- Usgnus 05:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I had followed through. I don't have too much experience with this aspect of Wikipedia.*Kat* 06:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence has been awarded to you for your tireless work on Wikipedia's articles about Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder User:Vaoverland May 8, 2006. This is a never-ending task, please stay with it! Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (aka Vaoverland) Vaoverland 07:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!*Kat* 07:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving along - ADHD

Kat, I reviewed the ADHD article today, and I noticed that since my last major edit, several additional paragraphs have been introduced. Some contain useful information at their core, but most of them are too verbose. If anything, we should try to shorten the article's total length; the new material repeats a lot of information that has already been included elsewhere. And where are we on the fact-checking? I still see a lot of "references needed" tags.

I've been pretty busy, and haven't had a chance to go through the article in depth. I've tried to do a bit of fact checking but without much success.

Suggestion: all information without reference should be moved to a talk subpage where the material can be discussed and references can be added. Once the proper references are in place, and everyone agrees with the inclusion of the new material, it can be merged into the main article. That way we can avoid introducing redundant or incorrect data into the article, as well as keep it organized, while still allowing people to contribute the information that they have available.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Do you want to start doing that now?

Moving along, we should continue to scrap irrelevant / incorrect information and clean up poor style and grammar as much as possible: do you have time to go over the material again, at least the most important and the new sections?

Not really. I'll try, but I'm pretty busy.

Like you said, we need to keep an eye on this thing, without close monitoring, it will turn into a classic ADHD pigsty, the nasty kind that we're all used to. Aside from that though, I think we've made some major inroads since starting to improve the article again, good job so far.

My pleasure.

I hope you're able to continue working on the project. Is Dr. Sobo likely to interfere with our work? I noticed he made many edits recently (but I haven't seen a lot from you), so I don't know if that's silent approval or if you dropped the ball... let me know what you think (Patrick 03:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

I find it difficult to read that material with any sort of detachment. In short, I don't edit it because if I did, I'd want to take it all out. For that reason I've asked VanOverland to read his "Positive Aspects" section.
Ah, I figured as much... I started to look at the credibility of some of the sources, such as the one currently "disputed" below, regarding "Positive Aspects"; I have not removed the material as I think it is important to include it to maintain a balanced article (see article talk page). I have revisited the first and second paragraphs and (hopefully) made them more readable, as some people suggested they are for example "unable to parse the first sentence", and that's not good now, is it?... I will start at the top, as the material there is probably read the most and also the most relevant and I will begin to move any unsourced "facts" to a separate section on the article's talk page (probably called "unsourced 'facts'". That should cut back on the article length. As far as Dr Sobo's contributions are concerned, they are subject to the same scrutiny as all other material (source citation required, source neutrality / credibility must be established); note: it's important to watch out of opinionated or biased statements. I think at the heart of this problem is simply the fact that many people advocate that ADHD is "not a disorder", which is medically speaking a false statement, and constitutes a minority view; this view, however, may be included in the article to maintain neutrality, as long as it is noted that it constitutes merely an opinion of some practitioners, patients or other persons. Others argue that, while the patients who present with ADHD-like symptoms may actually have ADHD, as medical research suggests, the contition should *not* be treated in accordance with the recommendation of current medical research and clinical studies related to appropriate medication, for example. Those who hold this view often suggest alternate methods of treatment, such as treatment using "herbal remedies" and other techniques; I have noticed that those who advertise these points of view are harping on a trend in public opinion which tends to shift against the use of prescription medication as a result of often sensationalized reports of unacceptable side effects in rare cases and mostly speculative (i.e. death); those companies and individuals often attempt to fully convince the reader that current treatment methods are "dangerous" and then subtly offer their "self-help" book or other remedies. I can't discredit any of these methods, as I have not tried them, but medical research in this field is limited; should such methods be included in the article, it is necessary that sources of equal reliability be included as references, otherwise these points of view should be given only brief, if any, consideration in the article. Bottom line: sources are good, very good. (Patrick 02:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] ADHD Article, Did you write this?

I greatly suspect the ADHD article's section Positive aspects is Plagiarized from the site http://www.understanding-add.info/adhd-children.htm I would like to delete it, unless you wrote both the wikipedia entry and the web page yourself. William conway bcc 03:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First sentence corrected, first paragraph cleaned up; see updates and comments re. "plagiarism" on article page and talk page. (Patrick 23:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Great work on ADHD. I am watching and appreciate your devotion. (Jocomama 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2A/k/a/User_talk%7E_Kat__archive_6e8f.html"