User talk:Ninahexan

Welcome!

Hello, Ninahexan, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia aticles

please use the discussion page instead of deleting article content. if you do not understand something ask, and help in the editing process waht you are doing could be considered to be vandalism

dolfrog (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people perceive the removal of specific portions of extraneous content from a developing page as vandalism, then I would direct them to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism and would thank them to read it before possibly offending someone who had made good faith edits.Ninahexan (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be instead of deleting parts of article you did not contribute to intially you should try to improve the wording and try to understand what was being said. As you probably have no understanding of the issues which cause me to be dyslexic, then I consider your actions to be vandalism, if you want to help edit the article please do so but do not just delete bits because it does suit your person way of understanding issues. dolfrog (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the page I had edited was about you and your own personal experience with dyslexia then perhaps you might have a point, but the page was about research in dyslexia, and has been poorly written. If it needs to be reworded then please don't take it personally, this is the essence of wikipedia. Ninahexan (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ninahexan I created the content for the page you are editing. I have a very poor paraphrasing and copy editing skills due to the nature of my own dyslexia. I am deeply aware that all of the4 series of dyslexia articles I created last summer require copy editing and further additional material. My only aim is for all the Wikipedia dyslexia articles to reflect the current international research. I am able to research all of these issues, provide links etc to all of the research papers, and understand the content of the research papers. What my dyslexia will not let me do is paraphrase the research papers very well, or copy edit an articles content. For that I have to rely on others. Such is the nature of my auditory processing disorder which causes me to be dyslexic. what causes me to be dyslexic is immaterial to the articles, but other Wikipedia editors need to be aware of my dyslexic issues so that they understand my contributions to Wikipedia. Not to is a form of disability discrimination. So from my perspective merely to delete content without prior discussion on the discussion page is a form of disability discrimination. I am willing to discuss any changes you want to make etc. dolfrog (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Lysergic acid diethylamide, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 08:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving here ... but feel free to move back

Excuse me if my commenting on your edits was inappropriate, I tend to immediately click on the discussion history so as to see the recent additions, and yours appeared to give an insight into your views. I apologise for making reference to your redactions. The American religious Identification Survey (not surprisingly limited to the United States) lumped atheists and agnostics together in the 1990 round, incidentally, and for most of their cited statistics in the following surveys continue to do so. Only in the raw data can you see that atheist/agnostic ratio is not so uneven. What they don't do is break down the different forms of atheism, so that survey really is of no use to this discussion. Though, considering that 15% of respondents stated "none" we are left to ponder whether the tone of the questions left a number of people defensive about giving any response, or whether people are just specifically reluctant to tell anyone else about the nature of their unbelief. Either way, a lack of information leaves us with an inability to make inferences about what is common practice. As far as the General Social Survey is concerned, the data is in a form that seems only to be able to be read with statistical packages, so I will have a look at it when I get to work tomorrow (I'm not that much of a nerd to have spss on my personal computer (though I am approaching it)). I've read one of Bullivant's articles, though it mostly related to his response to what he described as the "godless jamboree" of an atheists convention. I suppose objectivity is not something we can expect from any academic these days.Ninahexan (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nina I moved the conversation here, only out of deference to others on the talk page who might not be benefiting from our long replies. However, I am more than happy to move it back should you want me to. Just ask. By the way having SPSS at home is perfectly normal :). I also want to say that I have pdfs of quite a few of the recent peer reviewed articles in sociology dealing with religious "nones" and with non-believers. I would be happy to share any of them with you if you ask. You don't have to actually get down and dirty with the GSS data in SPSS as most of the results relevant to our conversation have been reported. See for instance, Hout, Michael and Fischer, Claude S. 2002, "Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations", American Sociological Review, 67(2)165-190. It is true that there is more complexity to non-belief than a clean split between explicit atheism and agnosticism (which is where sociologists tend to stop at present). But there is also a great deal of complexity in the religious beliefs of various types of theists that never gets teased out as well. We do the best we can with what we have. That said, I want to repeat that atheists and agnostics do not simply get lumped together all the time when survey data is reported. That is a misconception. In today's surveys, self-identification questions are separate from belief questions. So for instance in the 1998 and 2000 GSS around 4% of those who identify with a religious tradition also answered the belief questions as if they were agnostics or atheists. However, 68% of those who said "no religion" professed some belief in a god or higher power (see Hout and Fischer). This large swath of unaffiliated Americans who also believe, are what others have called "unchurched believers" (Baker 2009). Now, this group tends to have less definitive beliefs. If we look at the GSS again, somewhere around 20% of the respondents from 1988-2000 who have no preference are certain about belief in God (compared to over 60% in the total sample). Other large surveys have tried similar approaches by the way. After making reference to Hout and Fischer's findings Baker uses the Baylor Religion Survey. I have to say that I'm no fan of the Baylor survey. If you ask me the Baylor Survey was designed with decreasing the % of atheists in mind. Asking respondents to state which one best suites them, they use some standard sounding phrases from “I have no doubts that God exists,” to “I don’t know and there is no way to find out,” but then when it comes to the atheist statement they jump to self-identification oddly - “I am an atheist.” It is almost as if they are using the stigma to decrease positive answers to a more normal statement like the one in the GSS - "I don't believe in God." Anyway the 15% figure isn't directly related to belief, but to self-identification.Griswaldo (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Ninahexan! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel

Feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]