User talk:TomSannicandro

USPP/Wikipedia Mentor

 * Hi! I'm, and I've been assigned as your mentor in the USPP project. (If you'd rather choose your own mentor or don't want one at all, just let me know; you can request a different mentor from this list of Online Ambassadors.)
 * I'll keep an eye on your edits as you work on Wikipedia for your class, and try to pitch in where I can. If you'd like any help or advice, please let me know.
 * Later! &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sopi

 * Hey, is Sopi something that rates an article...? &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi Tom,

I saw the text you left at Talk:Intellectual disability. I'm not sure what you wanted to do with it. You can WP:Be bold and add it to the article, if you think that improves the article. Alternatively, you might actually be looking for Special education in the United States, since your text refers to US laws several times, and (logically) US federal law has no impact on the 96% of the people with mental retardation who don't live in the US.

If you need help, feel free to leave a message at the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello Tom, I am an online ambassador for the USPP and currently assisting to help fill a void left by the sudden departure of Ling.Nut from the project. Provided you have no objection, I have happily agreed to serve as your mentor for these purposes. Do know that I view this opportunity with honor and esteem as I am well appreciative of your endeavors and accomplishments. I will bring myself to date with your contributions so far, provide guidance where I see fit, and avail myself to your future needs in these regards. Freely contact me if and whenever you have questions or want an opinion. I look forward to our future interactions.  My 76 Strat  17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work
I have reviewed your contributions to date and commend your passionate participation in these areas which are obviously important to you. The contributions and discussions you have appended are positive steps towards improving Wikipedia, and for these I thank you. I would like to ensure understanding in one regard. With this edit you turned a redirect page into an article. Great if that was your intention. My only criticism would be that it lacks context, references, and format, which deficiencies should be corrected. If it was not your intention to create an article from this title, well, then perhaps we should reestablish it as a redirect. In any regard, please advise what your intentions were regarding the edit, and then I'll gladly assist you to a desired end. Regards.  My 76 Strat  02:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Self direction


The article Self direction has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

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 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. Guoguo12 --Talk--  22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Down Syndrome
I'm reviewing your recent edits to Down syndrome and I wonder if you can address the following points: If you don't agree with any of the reversions please start a section on the DS talk page so others can contribute to the discussion (see the bold, revert, discuss cycle which is not a Wikipedia guideline but is widely followed.) Mirokado (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC), updated prevalence comment Mirokado (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC), update Mirokado (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * clearly Trisomy G has been a common term for DS. See this paper from 1970 which uses that as the preferred term. There is also the current nonsense (or whatever) about Sarah Palin's son's name. Both these considerations mean that the term should still appear in the DS article as people will search for it. If it is indeed no longer current I suggest something like "(formerly also known as Trisomy G)" in the lead and a sentence explaining its background in the History section, along with a reference verifying that it is no longer a current term.
 * I will restore the IQ section and its reference (Merck urls have changed but the articles are still online.) You will need a superior reference to justify removing that information and that is something else which would probably need to be mentioned in the History section if no longer accepted. Incidentally that reference also mentions Trisomy G.
 * the 1 per 733 births figure refers to the US, not the whole world which would probably be better for the lead. Since the 95% CI ranges from 1 per 708 to 1 per 758 I see little justification in quoting the value to greater accuracy than 1 per 730 (the table in the ref quotes live births per 10000 so we are calculating the figure used in the article anyway.) Need to think about this more so I won't revert now, but I'm not really happy with "1 per 733".
 * "condition" is weaker than either "disorder" or "abnormality" and does not accord with a layman's understanding of the impact of DS. Please explain which current reference justifies this change or add a suitable inline reference to the first occurrence of the term which can support it.
 * "typical" has been used in the previous paragraph in the context of comparing DS individuals, so using it instead of "normal" to compare with non-DS individuals makes the article less clear. I will revert to "normal" I've changed it to "other" which I think reads better (although "other" is slightly overused!)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ruben Brosbe


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)