User talk:Imersion

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Jarich 03:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Consensus based assessment (CBA)
G'day Imersion,

Thankyou for your great work on the Consensus based assessment (CBA) article. It's always great to have more people sharing their knowledge. I've tagged this article for cleanup because it's not yet written as a standard Wikipedia article. For example you have headings that are just appearing as normal text and you're missing key information such as *when*, *where* and *how* Peter Legree and Joseph Psotka made their proposal.

I would be delighted to work with you to make this article even better.

Jarich 03:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok- I have updated the stuff as best I could.
 * Any additional changes and help would be appreciated!
 * Best
 * Joe


 * Imersion 15:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Imersion you've done a great job! The article reads much better and also looks a lot more like a wiki article.  I've removed the tag and also provided a little extra clean-up.  Obviously you know a lot more about this topic than I do, so if you could check that the wiki links I've added are correct that would be great.  In particular if you can provide links to any extra pages which would help a non-psychology, non-statistician reader understand the basics, that would be fantastic.  You also use both the phrases "Q factor analysis" and "Q technique analysis" are these the same thing?  If so, could you pick whichever phrase is most correct and change all references to use that one?


 * Thanks again for your hard work! Jarich 13:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks for the help - -The links to rubrics and facotr analysis are right on. I addded a small section on Q factor analysis to that main entry.

Best Joe Imersion 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Confabulation (neural networks)
I have nominated Confabulation (neural networks), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Confabulation (neural networks). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Chzz  ►  01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Illusory superiority
Hi, I've had to revert your recent edit to Illusory superiority because it was a piece of original research (which isn't allowed on Wikipedia) and was unencyclopedic in tone. If you can find published sources that make the critical points about the driving research, then you're welcome to summarise them and edit them in. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-awareness
Hi Imersion. Thank you for your contribution to Self-awareness that you made a couple of days ago. As you can see, I have copy-edited the section a bit. However, the section has only one reference, and that is an incomplete one. Could you make that reference more complete (the name of the article or book, in which journal it was published)? And also add references to the other stuff you wrote? Thank you! Lova Falk    talk   16:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi, I've just adjusted the redirect page you created here. If you want further info on creating redirect pages, please have a look through Redirect. Happy editing. LordVetinari (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ideal wealth distribution
The article Ideal wealth distribution has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is not an encyclopedic article, but an opinion piece.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the 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 will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OpenFuture (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ideal wealth distribution
The page was deleted after a weeks discussion time. The decision was unanimous, nobody protested, not even you. Stop recreating the page. If you continue to recreate it you are going to end up blocked, which is hardly useful. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is silly. Of course I protested. You and I even had a discussion about my protests, in which I found your comments uninformed and even abusive. That discussion has conveniently disappeared with the article; and I tried to reinstate the article to retrieve the discussion, to no avail. I am not particularly wedded to the article, (although I thought the paper by Ariely was excellent and well worth reporting in Wikpedia) but I find the whole deletion process disturbing (especially for novices) and well worth becoming more expert about now. Imersion (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted after an open and clearly announced vote. The vote was unanimous, your participation would not have changed the outcome. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Still, you lied. I protested and you know it. Where is the abusive discussion you wrote about the article?Imersion (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The deletion discussion was held at Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution. If you wish, you may request that the closing admin, Joe Decker, to review his closure of the discussion or you may request a review of the deletion discussion by following the procedures at Deletion review. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion in question is not on the deletion page but on the talk / discussion page for he deleted article. I mistakenly thought that that is where the deletion discussion takes place.Imersion (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you posted to the AfD talk page, but that was several days after the AfD was closed. I also see that there was some discussion of the article on the now deleted talk page of the article.  However, you will still need to follow the instructions in my previous message if you wish to have the AfD result reviewed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: The AfD process can be rather daunting. I see that you were never notified of the start of the AfD process. You should have been, though the lack of notification is generally not a grounds for overturning the deletion discussion. As for your questions, the article has remained deleted, so there is nothing further to delete. While the article could be restored into your user space so that you can continue to work on the article, you would need to ask the closing admin, Joe Decker, to restore it for you. I think it would be best if I not restore it since I am assisting you in the questions you have about the process. Your memory is correct that it was PAR who was participating in the discussion on the talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

=Deletion Review Process=


 * Re your message: The offer to send you a copy by email is not uncommon, but I can understand your reluctance to give an email address and that is fine. Nobody should fault you for that.  As for your question about how to appeal his decision, that would be the Deletion Review process.  The instructions on how to list something for review is towards the top of the page, see the "What is this page for?" and "Instructions" sections.  If you need further assistance with it, please feel free to leave me another note. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: Okay, you copy and paste the following:

~

Into [ this link]. When you click that link, you will see a bit of instructions at the top of the normal edit field. You copy and paste the above after where it says "BELOW THIS LINE". Ignore the detailed instructions there, just copy and paste the above. When I recommend is that you copy and paste exactly what is above, even that filler text about your reasoning. Once you save the page, you will find the stuff you copied has been transformed into different ouput, that's fine. Then you go to the appropriate section, find where it inserted all of the necessary code, find the filler text and then edit it like normal with your reasoning. Trust me, that will be easier and less complicated. You can ask for a temporary restoration of the talk page within your reasoning, but the whole deletion process will be reviewed, not just the talk page.

Finally, you go Joe Decker's talk page and at the very bottom, copy the following to notify him of the discussion:

Ideal wealth distribution ~

If you get stuck, leave me another note. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: You're welcome. I am glad that the situation was resolved as you had hoped it would.  I know that the whole thing was drawn out, confusing, and painful.  There are still parts of Wikipedia that confuse me after all of these years.  I don't venture in Deletion Review very often, so I had to read the instructions myself a couple of times.  As for your question, I just try to be helpful around here.  I haven't done any formal advocate work on Wikipedia.  My work here tends to be more towards the background kind of tasks instead of the one-on-one discussion type of tasks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Thanks for the kitten, too. I will take good care of her or him. =)

Lessons Learned
Having gone through his very uncomfortable experience of having a page deleted Ideal wealth distribution I thought I had better write down some lessons learned before I forget them and make them all over again.

First, when you create a new article, put down that it is a Stub by adding a stub template from the list here. There are a huge number of Stubs. Even better is the under construction template

Probably also a good idea to remind any would - be admins looking for things to delete that the page is new by putting in a non - delete request until a specific date (say 6 months from the start) to provide time for the article to mature. There is no script for this, although this would be a good idea for someone.

The article was deleted because the unanimous admins (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution‎ thought that the phrase itself was WP:NPOV. Their ignorance of what a value judgment is can be attributable to the colloquial (hip, flip) discussion of NPOV that pervade wikipedia.  Without a serious discussion of what constitutes NPOV anyone can say anything they please, and they do.

One really good thing to come of this was to find another user user:DGG who has an appropriate attitude to NPOV. Loosely paraphrased, I would say he says: "Nothing is so bad that it can't be improved." and "The only article that is NPOV is one that has only one POV."

Nothing is so well understood that there is only one POV: take matter, as an example: is it particle of wave or  probability distribution?

When an admin does propose deletion, engage him in a discussion of his reasons. Don't try to convert him; just get him to postpone his attempt. Point out: 1. No one else has tried to delete the article. 2. The article is new and has many threads and other POVs that have not been xplored. 3. You are busy and o not have time to make all the needed changes immediately. 4. One week for the AfD (srticle for deletion) process is much too little.

If he persists, then you may as well give up, but you can ask him gently if he has real expertise in this area.

If you do want to challenge the deletion, then follow the instructions by Gogo Dodo above. The Deletion review page itself is a real mess and full of warnings by overzealous admins who are so arrogant that they think no one should dare challenge them. Ignore the warnings and go ahead.

Things to Do

 * improve the value judgment article.
 * discuss the place of opinions in an encyclopedia of facts. The truth is there are only opinons (OK that is an extreme bordering on solipsism but it gets close to the truth:  Facts are hard to come by.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for help
I am an unregistered editor, and I attempted to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&action=history where I see you have edited recently, but 'Nasnema' just now apparently vandalised the page, and reverted my edits, falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources; I did cite my sources.

I am a religious person who believes in God, and I do not wish to cause unnecessary pain or trouble for 'Nasnema,' but also, I must defend the truth and what is right: It would appear that this user is valdalising this page, & falsely claiming that I am --which makes a good case that I should not join Wikipedia. Could you please look into it? Thank you71.101.40.113 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

= The smoking Gun =

I had an 800LB Gorilla sleeping on my bookshelf, in Dr. Gerhard Reichling Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, Teil 1, Bonn 1995 pages 19-20. I checked the details for religion of the German expellees, Jews are included in the population figures!! Reichling does not break out Jews as a group, they are included with "others" I will add the details to the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reichling cited three sources for his figures on religion of Eastern Germans that I have requested to be pulled from storage at the New York Public Library--Woogie10w (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The final 70 or so of the Hahn's book covers the statistics. On Wikipedia I only post what can be verified in a reliable source. I never offer readers my own analysis of the statistical data. As long as you are in the Library of Congess take a look at 1- ''Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste. Bevölkerungsbilanzen für die deutschen Vertreibungsgebiete'' 1939/50. Herausgeber: Statistisches Bundesamt - Wiesbaden. - Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1958 and 2- a b German Federal Archive (1989). Spiegel, Silke. ed. ''Vertreibung und Vertreibungsverbrechen 1945-1948. Bericht des Bundesarchivs vom 28. Mai 1974. Archivalien und ausgewählte Erlebnisberichte''.. Bonn: Kulturstiftung der deutschen Vertriebenen. p. 46. ISBN 3-88557-067-X. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Schimitzek, Stanisław. "Vertreibungsverluste?" Westdeutsche Zahlenspiele I read and own the English version Truth or conjecture?: German civilian war losses in the East- interesting book from Poland in 1966. He pointed out the flaws in the 1958 study but was disregarded in the west--Woogie10w (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re The Germans in SE Europe(Hungary, Romania & yugoslavia) I reccomend the Schieder reports. I have read only the narratives but not the supporting documents & eyewitness accounts. In any case a good friend of mine has a German Romanian background, I cannot understand their Swabian dialect, it is Greek to me.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your research sounds interesting, tell me more. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you have access to the Library of Congress you can read the journal: Dzieje Najnowsze -1994 This short article is very important for analysis of the 1958 study and the Search Service figures. Rűdiger Overmans-Personelle Verluste der deutschen Bevölkerung durch Flucht und Vertreibung.this paper was a presentation at an academic conference in Warsaw Poland in 1994),

Also the three articles by Ingo Haar for the background on the of the Schieder reports and 1958 study


 * Ursprünge, Arten und Folgen des Konstrukts „Bevölkerung“ vor, im und nach dem „Dritten Reich“ Zur Geschichte der deutschen Bevölkerungswissensch: Ingo Haar Die deutschen ›Vertreibungsverluste‹ – Forschungsstand, Kontexte und Probleme, in Ursprünge, Arten und Folgen des Konstrukts „Bevölkerung“ vor, im und nach dem „Dritten Reich“ Springer 2009: ISBN 9783531161525


 * Herausforderung Bevölkerung : zu Entwicklungen des modernen Denkens über die Bevölkerung vor, im und nach dem Dritten Reich Ingo Haar, Bevölkerungsbilanzen“ und „Vertreibungsverluste. Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der deutschen Opferangaben aus Flucht und Vertreibung Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2007 ISBN 9783531155562


 * Ingo Haar, Die Deutschen „Vertreibungsverluste –Zur Entstehung der „Dokumentation der Vertreibung - Tel Aviver Jahrbuch, 2007, Tel Aviv : Universität Tel Aviv, Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften, Forschungszentrum für Geschichte ; Gerlingen [Germany] : Bleicher Verlag

Also: Pistohlkors, Gert : Informationen zur Klärung der Schicksale von Flüchtlingen aus den. Vertreibungsgebieten östlich von Oder und Neiße. Published in Schulze, Rainer, Flüchtlinge und Vertriebene in der westdeutschen Nachkriegsgeschichte : Bilanzierung der Forschung und Perspektiven für die künftige Forschungsarbeit Hildesheim : A. Lax, 1987

Also I do have copies of the 13 sheets that summarize the Search service figures, can E mail them to you if you want to see them, Contact me by Wiki Mail.

This you tube clip is just for fun (BTW I root for Obama) --Woogie10w (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Alzheimer's and vision deficits
You said: Please reconsider the reversion. The topic is discussed in many relevant journals as any swift perusal of PubMed will show and in standard reputable summaries of Alzheimers or dementia. There is nothing speculative about the topic of a visual role in dementia; standard tests like the clock test use it extensively; the only speculative component is its role in how to cure Alzheimer's, but then existing approaches don't work either.Imersion (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did look thoroughly at the review literature. There are no convincing MEDRS-compliant reviews, no well-defined and published guidance procedures on clinical association sites, and no significant scientific agreement on mechanisms or brain regions consistently affected. The literature displays a concept in development, which is not sufficient for the encyclopedia. You could make your case on the article Talk page or at WT:MED for a wider critical audience. --Zefr (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just got this in the mail. Hardly unsettled issue.  Give me a link to a recent review article and I'll show you the consensus on visual impairment!Imersion (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Vision Problems Associated with Alzheimer’s Disease

Vision problems are a concern because more than sixty percent of individuals with Alzheimer’s will have a decline in some sort of visual capacity. Problems most often arise in four areas: motion blindness, depth perception, color perception, and contrast sensitivity.

Some people with Alzheimer's are affected by motion blindness and are unable to sense movement. For these people they view the world as a series of still frames, rather than a “movie” that most people see. Doctors have theorized that this view of the world causes affected persons to become lost, even in familiar surroundings.

Persons with Alzheimer’s may also lose depth perception. Three-dimensional objects may begin to appear flat. This lack of perception could make shadows or a dark rug look like holes.

Many people will experience their color perception diminish as they age. However, persons with Alzheimer’s seem to experience a greater deficit of color perception, especially with colors in the blue-violet range.

The ability to see contrast between colors, not just the color itself, also is reduced in persons with Alzheimer’s. For example, if a bathroom has the same color toilet as the floor and walls, the person may have difficulty finding the toilet. Tips for caregivers to help the individual with Alzheimer’s:

•	Because colors in the blue-violet range all look the same, caregivers may want to use the color red to make items stand out. The retina has more receptors to see red making the color easier for most people to see. •	Increasing color contrast in a room may help a person with Alzheimer’s more easily locate items. •	Painting a baseboard a contrasting color to the walls may help the person distinguish where the walls end and the floor begins. •	Increase the wattage of light bulbs and reduce the amount of glare in a room by pulling down shades and covering glass surfaces. •	Add extra lighting in areas between rooms and bathrooms because changes in light can be disorienting. •	Place contrasting colored rugs in front of doors and steps to help the individual anticipate stairs and entrances.

If you have any questions or concerns call the Alzheimer’s Association Central Ohio Chapter at (614)457-6003 or the Alzheimer’s Association 24 hour helpline at 1-800-272-3900.

Information for this story came from an article by Jeanette Rosa-Brady and Tracy Dunne, Ph.D., which originally appeared in the Massachusetts Chapter newsletter.
 * Looks like a concept-in-progress to me, however interesting. I suggest you take it to WT:MED. Several experts there. --Zefr (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)