User talk:Dean402

November 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Color blindness, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first edit on Wikipedia. I have the condition Blue Cone Monochromacy. Information is readily available on the topic in medical journals and there is a Website I can reference blueconemonochromacy.org that is a hub for those with the condition. I just checked and my edit is not showing up now. Do I go back to the original, remake the changes and add the citation or what do I do from here. Is referencing the blueconemonochromacy.org website enough or do I need additional journal citations? Dean402 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Blue Cone Monochromacy is covered in detail further down in the article with citations. This was to add a statement near the top so someone who does not know that they have BCM can make the connection without having to read the entire article and jump straight to researching BCM with just having read the first paragraph. Achromatopsia is another rare type of colorblindness and is covered in a similar way in the sentence before my edit. Dean402 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All biomedical claims on Wikipedia must meet the sourcing guidelines set out in WP:MEDRS. They are quite stringent - even many peer reviewed medical journal articles do not meet them. The website you used definitely does not. MrOllie (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to an NIH website and hope that is sufficient. I also changed my wording from "red looks nearly black" to "impaired color vision" to match the NIH site wording. I understand why I have to make this change since it is my personal observation but it is disappointing that I have to since I have BCM and doctors don't understand what I see as well as I do. Because this is a very rare condition even the ophthalmology community does not understand the visual perception of BCM color vision very well (only the physiology). The whole point of this edit is to try and help people with the condition that do not know what it is get a diagnosis. I did not know what I had until I was 57 years old. Dean402 (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with other editors that 'very rare' conditions don't belong in the article lead. As this point you're edit warring - you must stop and get agreement from other editors on the article's associated talk page before proceeding. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Sorry if I am not doing something correctly. I have a rare genetic vision condition called BCM (1 in 100,000 people have it). It is so rare that I did not get a diagnosis until I was 57 years old. Very few eye doctors have any experience with it which means they misdiagnose it. My edit is trying to help other people that do not know what they have to find out. BCM was already discussed in the colorblind article but is hard to find and has some inaccuracies. I wanted to add a sentence to the beginning paragraph to help others like myself figure out what they have as easy as possible without having to wade through the rest of the article. For someone who knows they are colorblind and that there vision is generally bad but don't know what their conditions is, and neither does their eye doctor, one of the first things they would do is go to Wikipedia and look up colorblindness. However, the bulk of the article is talking about typical color blindness issues and is not easy to go through and figure out that they have BCM. The sentence I added is no different than the previous sentence which points out that Achromatopsia (another rare eye disease) is the complete absence of color vision and lists the added symptoms. I just tried to add the same kind of sentence for BCM to help people like me figure out what they have. Dean402 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]