User talk:Vannin

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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Countincr ( t@lk ) 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WP:COI/N
Hi - I responded to your query on WP:SKEPTIC about possible conflict of interest on dyslexia-related articles. I spent 5 minutes poking around in your edit history and I have to agree that there is a serious conflict of interest with the user you mentioned. This isn't a topic that WP:SKEPTIC would typically handle, and I know next to nothing about the treatment of learning disabilities. Still, I urge you to post to the conflict of interest noticeboard with a detailed statement of the problem. Use diffs and links to support your case, and please ask me if you need any help. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Employment
Vannin, I am a self-employed writer and web designer. I work as an independent contractor & have been hired by numerous different organizations & companies to write or do web sites for them.

I believe based on your posting history that you are a sock puppet /alter ego of Spoctacle and HeadleyDown, in particular because of the timing of editing contributions, and particular tactics you engage in, as well as the pattern of topic areas you choose to post. In fact, you are currently engaging in the tactic of "Eventually turns to virulent personal attacks (alleging bias, promotion, covert support for topic X)" as described at /Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown.

I note that you have not provided any identifying information as to your own identity or connections and/or possible conflict of interest. Armarshall 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dyslexia Project
I understand. The important thing is that you know the project exists so you can look and see what our plans are. The article is really a mess at this point, but we're planning to break it up into several articles with the top level dyslexia article written in WP:Summary style. On the WikiProject Dyslexia page, there is a proposal for the reorganization and article break-out.

I hope that, when the controversy is over, you'll join us.

Best, Rosmoran 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Learning Disabilities Radio Talk Show is a discussion forum for the international community. How do you see it as a commercial product or advertising? I would like to invite you on the show.

Rgds,

-Jack Olmsted digitalreporter

Barnstar

 * much appreciated--Vannin (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Willing to collaborate on dyslexia article series?
Hi, Vannin.

I'm getting started on reorganizing the dyslexia article into a series of articles, per WikiProject Dyslexia. I'm hoping you might be willing to help. Please?

If you are, let me know which subtopics you might be interested in working on.

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Vannin. Thanks for your contribution to the Alfred Tomatis article.

punar (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Dear Vannin,If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : Elwin Marg was an optometrist ! appreciate your comment, Discussion is about whether or not the profession of Elwin Marg should be mentioned in the external link section. Seeyou (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools ‎
That list of marketing links does look like spam. However, it has a purpose. WWASPS no longer maintains a website under that name, and the various WWASPS-operated institutions have been trying to dissociate themselves from WWASPS. However, they all continue to be marketed through those seemingly unrelated spammy websites -- those seemingly unrelated websites have replaced WWASPS' websites. Consider those links to be tools for original research by WP users. --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've monitored WWASPS websites on-again/off-again for at least 5 years. The company is a chameleon -- it changes its name and the names of its programs when it gets damaging publicity, but it stays in business. Since sites like http://wwasp.com/ are all but shut down, that list of marketing sites is the most straightforward way I know of to provide external links to the organization's own story of itself. It might make sense to add a link to the dmoz category for "Allegedly Unethical Firms/WWASP" (disclosure, I have helped create and maintain that dmoz category), but the dmoz category is very one-sided (dmoz, which does not use "nofollow" tags and can significantly boost a link's popularity, will not list those spammy marketing sites). --Orlady (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You wrote:
 * I wonder if there is another way to identify the WWASPS institutions without resorting to the SPAM? clearly people like Mpoult are eager to place the el links everywhere throughout wikipedia, so it suggests that it might be serving as actual advertising for these places. I'll think about it for a bit, and try and suggest some alternatives.
 * I appreciate the reasons for your actions, but I think your concern is largely hypothetical. That's the first and only time that anyone has ever added an EL for an unrelated marketing site to this particular article (I looked through a year's worth of article history, and it's the only such edit; in contrast, Aspen Education Group gets inappropriate ELs added fairly often). When a new user adds links like that one to several articles, it is typically due to lack of awareness -- the reason for using Template:Uw-spam1 to tell them that Wikipedia uses "nofollow" tags.

Weird request
Hello Vannin

This is a weird request as usually people are just complaining and leaving the actually editing up to someone else. ADHD is an important topic.

The page on ADHD has huge issues with its references. First very few are formatted correctly ( see my note on the talk page ). Second a lot of the sources are poor. They are primary sources rather then secondary sources. For example I deleted one study that was based on 48 people.

We want to use systematic reviews of the literature as must as possible. I would like to refer you to Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)

The second issue is the writing style is a bit impenetrable. I am in the field and a lot of the stuff on this page makes no sense to me upon first reading. For example we do not need to say "A study shows" or "So and so from this journal says". This is implied and I have been working to correct it.

Help fixing these issues is much appreciated.

Yours

Doc James (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Vannin
Yes certainly same to you :-)Doc James (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Shakespear
Hey Vannin

One cannot just reference the text of Shakespeare and say Shakespeare was referring to ADHD when he said what ever he said as that is an assumption. Wikipedia has a policy were you cannot publish your own research. If you found a book written about Shakespeare which said he wrote this line in reference to ADHD then that is great and we could keep it.

Doc James (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes certainly. But we do not have a reference yet that allows the quotes inclusion.  No personal offense intended.  If one says that Shakespeare was talking about ADHD that counts as original research see:  No original research

Doc James (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Summeries
Sure no worries

--Doc James (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

help or advice with Doc James
It looks like an WP:RFC is the next logical step. Would you be willing to partake in this process? I've never done it but it doesn't look to be a walk in the park. Thanks--scuro (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

help needed to certify James's RFC
Your help is need to certify Jame's RFC. This can not happen without your support and must be done within 47 hours of this post.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Uncertified_user_RfCs
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users

That would be done on the RFC page, link bellow. Simply edit this section add your name and sign. (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/jmh649#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute

Wikipedia
Hey Vannin

Would be happy to get your comments on any content I have added. I am here to edit content based on good references rather then take part in endless disputes.

Cheers Doc James (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By they way this was an attempt at moving forwards.

--Doc James (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The comment was that UBC is not a well know school and therefore the result of the therapeutics infinitive should not be used. It might have been Scuro that made and if so you have my apologies. I have crossed your name out.

--Doc James (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for your apology. The striking out of the insults makes a big difference to me and I appreciate it.--Vannin (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Vannin


 * I have looked back at your comments and agree with much of what you say. The TI is just one of many reviews and it of course doesn't trump other reviews.  It does have a place however and should be presented along side the conclusions of other reviews.  What it say is that no randomized controlled trials have been done beyond two - three years.  There are however other forms of evidence that have shows results from longer periods as you mentioned and this should be presented and of course referenced.


 * --Doc James (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at the topic ban discussion
I just wanted to let you know that the user in question (Jmh, aka Doc James) has admitted to acting incivil in the past (3rd para down in ADHD section). I hope you will consider forgiving past behaviour by users that admit to being wrong, and will support the idea of addressing current issues by users who believe they're doing nothing wrong. This long running dispute (well over a year) with two recent edit war blocks by two separate admins surely should be addressed. Nja 247 18:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

current dyslexia page review
Hi Vannin

In your WIKI travels have you come across anyone with an interest and knowledge of constitutional and leagal issues, and would may be prepared to create may be a WIKI category for the statutory requirements for Special Educational support and Disability support in the edcuations systesm around thr world, as each country has its one legal system. There is a Legal section on the WIKI Dyslexia page, which should be on say a "UK Statutory Education Provision" Wiki page as the content not about dyslexia the condition but more about the provision of Special Educational Needs support in the UK There are links to various legal statutes from other countries as well, but this is not rerally dyslexia but a realted topic.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vannin

There is a problem on the dyslexia page, a peristant spammer would be the best description. The user keeps on adding his own research or personal theories about dyslexia to the Scientific Research section. There are never any citations or support references. The user has their own wiki page Potts Theory and as the user appears to be new to wiki I have even tried to provide some spources of information. But I have had to delete his repeated entries to the dyalexia page at least four times now, how do I put a stop to this.

dolfrog (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vannin

There are now some new dyalexia articles which will be used for the largert sections of the main dyslexia article. This will allow us to slim down the main article without loosing any valuable information and hopefully enable more detailed information to be adde tro these new articles without affecting the eventually slimmed down main dyalexia article. Have a look at the the tlk page under "New Dyslexia Categories, and Dyalexia Articles (The Next Big Step)"

Do you know how to hide the editable information on a category page

dolfrog (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vannin

have a look at the Dyslexia discussion page under "RHaworth who would like to think of himslef as a WIKI administator" that guy is stressing me out. I have already made a complaint.

dolfrog (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Auditory Processing Disorder Article
Hi Vannin

There is a possible conflict of interest from one of the more recent article contributors, hopefully this will stop.

dolfrog (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia project
Hi Vannin

I was wondering if you could have a look at the dyslexia article and the new sub articles and have a look at the content and presentation. I have reduace the main dyalexia article as far as can with out chnages being made to some of ther more realted isses in listed in the Variations and related conditions section.

The sub articles include:
 * Dyslexia research
 * History of developmental dyslexia
 * Theories of dyslexia
 * Phonological deficit
 * Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis
 * Brain scan research into dyslexia
 * Genetic research into dyslexia
 * Dyslexia: Orthography
 * Management of Dyslexia
 * Characteristics of dyslexia
 * Managing dyslexia: alphabetic orthography
 * Dyslexia support in the United States
 * Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom

There is still much to do, you could also have a look at WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia reorganization in progress which i only just found after RHaworth‎ discovered it.

dolfrog (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vanin

I have moved the Controvacy section from the main Dyslexia article to the Dyslexia research article, and I have made afew editing changes. As you had a few opinions before regarding this section I thought you might like to review the newly revised version.

dolfrog (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The dyslexia project: A new beginning
Hi All

I have added some new sections below which have come from various talk pages in recent days but all realted in some way to the dyslexia project. So I have added them all below, in the hope that we can all begin to add our own input as one person working alone can cause also sorts of problems as can be seen above. I will post a copy of this to all who I think may wish to the new begining of the Dyslexia project and a copy will appear on your individual discussion pages ( I hope you do not mind). The oringinal copy of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexiathe talk page of the main project article you will see revise project template, the changes on the tamplate is the addition of a Project pages section, which includes the orinal project pages and the new STAGE TWO page which is hopefuly the new starting point. the STAGE TWO page has the dyslexia article as it is now. And we can tinker with it without changing the actual article itself and discuss and issue we may have before making further changes to the article itself.

dolfrog (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DocJames and Jmh649
Vannin, I wanted you to know that I have written some on the Rorschach discussion page and am concerned about test security as well. You are correct that Docjames/Jmh649 appears to have an agenda to release as much information breaching test security as possible. While he initially stated that he released the Rorschach images because the public would be curious about them, does this argument really hold for the Wisconsin or the Rey-O? I think not. I invite you to look at his contribution list from both usernames - i feel that it reveals a very subtle, yet clear anti-psychology/psychiatry/mental health bias. If you look at your own talk page, at one point when addressing you, he reveals that he is "in the field," suggesting that he is a psychiatrist/psychologist, when we now very clearly know that is not the case. I do not have the time to contribute to wikipedia at the level others have, but wanted to point this out to those who do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say it is psychologists who appear to have an agenda to effect the functioning of Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the relevance of this comment?--Vannin (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just informing you that it appears that you have a vendetta against me. This comment is attempting to imply that I reverted something other than vandalism: and in this one here you are trying to find way to harm my ability to edit. Now I would agree both of these attacks are subtle. I would request that you stop. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * vendetta - bitter quarrel or blood feud. No.  If I was doing that I would have taken the issue directly to arbcom enforcement as it did not look like a vandalism revert and when coupled with the McMaster revert looks like two reverts.  I raised it as a concern or flag.  If I have concerns I will continue to raise them, politely.  Unlike some I don't go around making unfounded accusations.--Vannin (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My PubMed research paper collections
Hi Vannin

I have done all I can do regarding the Dyslexia article. Doing the research is my thing, not actually doing the wordsmith bit, I prefer to leave that to others.At least there is a series of articles now so that the content can be expanded quite easily. I have gone back to problem solving and researching information. I have comeback today to update my User page with regard to my current research PubMed paper collections which I have made public. if you want some research done just ask, and i may be able to help. dolfrog (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Invisalign
Hi Vannin. I'll be working with Invisalign to help them participate on the Talk page following COI best practices. To the best of their knowledge (sometimes companies never know for sure) they have never edited their page. However, one concern I have for them is that many orthodontists that sell Invisalign have a financial interest in promoting it, here and elsewhere. And that may lead to the assumption that it is Invisalign making the edits with dubious intentions.

So one of my hopes is that by keeping the article clean of promotion and having a disclosed representative, it may prevent misunderstandings.

I am only tangentially familiar with our policies about medical claims and will try to follow them. I noticed so far for example that this article from a reliable newspaper features complaints from some Invisalign patients from an online forum. I don't believe the opinions or testimony of patients is a medical claim, so it should be valid, but I will have to read up on the policy. In most cases I find medical-related Wikipedia articles to be of very high quality, so I have rarely found myself accepting them as clients.

Just thought I would ping you directly since I saw that you were active on the Talk page. CorporateM (Talk) 21:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)