User talk:Jkhamlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Jkhamlin, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Also

I noticed that in this edit, you referred to "vandalism". One of Wikipedia's most important principles is to assume good faith. This edit is clearly in good faith. Please remember not to assume an edit is vandalism unless it is very clear that its intent is malicious. For more information, see Wikipedia:Vandalism, and in particular, the section on what does not constitute vandalism.--Ginkgo100talk 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your comments

Please see my response at User talk:Ginkgo100#Your comments to me regarding vandalism.. --Ginkgo100talk 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Hi, I am writing about a comment you made on the ADHD talk page reading "Any person editing Wikipedia should AT LEAST know what they are talking about. Having an education is a good way to achieve this; in fact, it is the BEST way to achieve this." This statement appears to imply that other editors generally, and myself specifically, do not have an education. I am dismayed to read an insulting comment such as this on a talk page. I understand your position on who should be allowed to edit articles, but nevertheless I would gently suggest you read over Wikipedia's guideline on civility. There are other ways to make your point, and making assumptions about other people's credentials is not one of them. Neither is condescension. If I misunderstood your intention here, please accept my apologies. Thank you. --Ginkgo100talk 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't condescension nor was it an assumption, just a mere statement of fact. I read Edward Bauer's credentials. He doesn't have any that indicate an education that would give him expertise in the matter, and it was obvious from his posts that he was intentionally ignoring credible references that others were directing him to, which would indicate that he generally doesn't know what he is talking about on the subject, and doesn't want to know what he is talking about. He claims he reverted it because the other person didn't provide a reference. The other person DID provide him with a reference, but he chose to ignore it and revert the article back to the neurology fallacy. Apparently, as long as he agrees with what it says, no reference is required. He was less than civil when he reverted the article back to its original fallacious content. Why don't you go tell him about the guidlines?--Jkhamlin 04:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What crdible references did I ignor, there were no refererences at all, I did not delete any citations, and its Edward Bower, not Bauer. Again, no one provided me with any references. I have ADHD there were NO REFERENCES. If you provide me with evidence that someone presented me with evidence, then I will retract what I am saying because that would prove that I missed it, and that would be a mistake on my half. Again provide me with references... Edward Bower 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry on the name, simple mistake. You can't have ADHD because you are an adult. Currently, it is not accepted withing the psychiatric/psychological community that adults can have ADHD. In fact, it is barely accepted that ADHD even exists. Further, even if you have ADHD, doesn't give you insight into the scientific and technical aspects of the condition, especially not enough to decree that, despite a total lack of scientific consensus and a total lack of evidence, it is a neurological condition. Regarding references, another user pointed out to you that the DSM-IV-TR is considered the ultimate reference in this situation. I would point out to you that it almost exactly matches the ICD10 criteria as well. Why he didn't just edit the article with that reference included like I did, is hard to say. The fact that you have a personal agenda to make unsupported assumptions about a condition you believe you have is obvious by your reversion of the article to a previous incorrect statement without any more of a reference than the person who told you about the reference did. Unfortunately, I am not even sure who that was, because they didn't sign their comment.--Jkhamlin 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an adolesent, although legally I am an adult. I am not trying to have an agenda, I posted on my user page that I am diagnosed with ADHD becuase I am, and becuase I wanted to be upfront about it, in that I didn't want to seem secretive about anything. I've read the most recent version of DSM thoroughly, so I understand what it says. And to my recollection, there was no person who told me about a reference, I do not know what you are refering to, if you can't point to me exactly where this happened then I will acknowledge it's presence, until then, in my mind, that did not happen. Again since you cant say who this other user was, provide me with the address of where this other user corresponded with me, or even left me a message. The only agenda I have is to prevent the medications which I am perscribed(d-amphetamine)from becoming schedual 1 substances as a result of the spread of wrong information.Edward Bower 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/k/h/User_talk%7EJkhamlin_d030.html"