User talk:Jkhamlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[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)

[edit] ADHD pov article

Hi Justin,
I would like to congratulate you for your posts in the ADHD article, which is presently biased.
I wonder if you still edit in Wikipedia because I have some ideas to improve it.
You can answer here or in my talk page.
—Cesar Tort 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to encourage you to keep going. I have a chapter being published in a book "ADHD Revisited" but my contributions on this page were consistently deleted. Now all references to my article are gone, including on the discussion page. The lack of objectivity displayed here is truly extraordinary, but not surprising when you review the literature. Fortunately they haven't completed eliminated my contributions on the ADHD controversy page. See the discussion of the PET scans on that page, which so far they have not removed, but don't allow an the mainstream ADHD page. The people controlling this page have absolutely no understanding of how science operates. It is all what "the experts" say. I eventually gave up because you can only spend so much time reasoning and rebutting their arguments. Moreover, the more I argued the more energized they became in searching out and eliminating any contributions I made to the page. You might find my article useful. Here is the link. http://www.geocities.com/ss06470/ADHD.html

Good luck. You have zero chance of succeeding in getting the page changed. They will wear you down, but it is nice to see the voice of reason reborn again and again and some people do read the discussion page.

Simon Sobo MD --Ss06470 09:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments were archived, not deleted, and were done so with everyone else's comments. Simon's additions all used his article as a source, which was deemed original research and contained unverifiable claims, and were removed for those reasons. -- Ned Scott 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I'll spare you the standard template, as I'm pretty sure you know the policy, but don't do that. You don't know anything about me, and we're not going to trust your word on something you have no evidence for. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Several of us posted the evidence over and over again. Basically, you don't care because you have an agenda. No evidence contrary to your agenda is good enough; no evidence that supports your agenda is too obscure or biased. We told you to refer to the DSM to find the consensus of the world medical community and the world psychological community. The world medical community would be on your side, if anyone because they want to medicalize everything and prescribe drugs and conduct laboratory tests, but they're not. That wasn't good enough because the DSM is published by Americans. Never mind that it is published according to international research and in accordance with the World Health Organization, and it represents a true consensus of all the research and all the experts. Never mind that it is in almost exact accordance with the ICD 10. The ICD is not good enough because, well, it agrees with the DSM. Expert status of several of us isn't good enough because you feel intimidated by that. However, you guys have some nebulous research links that sort of inconclusively link to organic causes, and a letter from some fringe wacko scientists, and all of a sudden you think your side is correct and my side has no evidence. All this while the burden of proof is on you all. It is you all vs the scientific community. Go get an education and then come back and debate this. Really, don't believe me that your side is regarded as silly in universities. Take some classes on the subject, you'll see.--Jkhamlin 00:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)