![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Well, I'll say this much about assumptions, I'm not an Autie, as fashionable as that may be :D But I can live happily knowing we are all on scale. Penyulap ☏ 07:14, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I recalled you as being "over-threshold" but a few points short of where I'm at. As far as trying to apply scores to other people goes, it's incredibly hard, as only they can know what they really feel about situations. Some of us are, for example, apparently awfully good at social situations. I often come across as over-extrovert (intense), which is a common over-compensation for not really liking it. Pesky ( talk) 07:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"Thirty? Thirty? well, Jeeze, that's just piss-easy pathetic isn't it?! It's not like we're talking three hundred or anything intermediate level like that ..."
Ahem. Pissing people off is not a talent. Idiots can do that. Now, not pissing people off, that's a talent. Pesky ( talk) 08:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Kindness Barnstar |
A barnstar and a kitten for you! Thanks for the nice message you left me. I hope you saw my response. INever Cry 18:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
Ponies, ponies everywhere... |
Because I thought you needed another horse :D. Shearonink ( talk) 18:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 20:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Just found Horse rings in Portland, wondering if this stuff is common in the UK and if we could move the article to simply horse rings and expand it to a worldwide focus. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Pesky:
You'll have to pardon my not having completely organized this thought (was that a sentence?). First of all I wanted to call your attention to my response to these comments within my own statement:
With that as a preface: You do the same stuff you're complaining about there. This is not an accusation; people do things without realizing it all the time (I sure as hell do), so this is just information. PS. I know I'm going to catch hell for this, and no matter how nicely I attempt to do this it'll come off wrong. But I'm doing it anyway.
This polarizing name-calling you refer to is an excellent point. It really is. But not only does this practice also come from you and everyone else on both sides of this debate, it's really not limited to name-calling. We each congregate to discuss the enemy in sarcastic mocking terms, more for the sake of raising our teammates' self-esteem than anything else.
I've done one thing differently, which hasn't helped so far, but I keep doing it anyway: I try to talk. I've tried to talk to Malleus and Drmies, and each time was basically informed there was a lack of interest in talking. I'm not sure if I should've expected anything else at this point, not because the other side is just too unreasonable and wrong (even though they are... just kidding), but because people are too dug in now. But now I guess I'm stupidly trying again.
Would you be shunned if you chose to abstain from the mocking? You do say you're "sick of being called names like this by people who either don't 'know' me or hardly 'know' me every time there's a conflict". I know I'm pretty sick of that too. I try to maintain a debate style when I address this topic (and all topics), though I slip up sometimes, when the mocking is just too much and I feel I have to beat parry a little just to keep my footing. Analogies are also sometimes the best way to get one's point across, so they're tempting, though when used without care they are mocking and polarizing (and perhaps as you say, "uncivil").
I think Malleus would probably say these names, mocks, and jabs are merely the practice of "telling it like it is", and so there's really nothing wrong with them. If you'd really disagree with him on that point, as your statement seems to suggest, I'd urge you to take your own criticism to heart. I certainly will. Equazcion (talk) 10:52, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Second: please, don't ever feel you have to approach my page with any kind of fear and trembling, or expecting to "catch hell" for anything at all. I really try my hardest to be approachable, and to take other people's views on board, and I kind of hate it that you thought I'd give you hell. (And I'm ordering my stalkers not to give you hell, too – though that's almost certainly unnecessary).
Thirdly; I failed on the advice I gave Pen! I did it! I advised Pen to keep his internal fire-breathing dragon muzzled and leashed until it had learnt "Sit, stay and quiet!" ... and then my own internal fire-breathing dragon rattled the bars of his cage and let out a huff or two of smoke ... it's rare, for me, but it does occasionally happen. I snorted a bit of flame in someone else's direction, too, and realised that perhaps it would be better for me to walk away from the computer and go and do something constructive before Dragon began to think that I'd left the door open and he could go out and toast people ;P
I've always read your various postings with interest and respect; you do keep your head well in almost all circumstances, even though our views may differ on things. But in one fairly important way, we're similar: I try to talk, and to keep talking, too (and I frequently talk too much, I know!) You said "now I guess I'm stupidly trying again." This is not stupid, this was a very good point you made, and you made it very well, and I'm pretty much always open to anyone talking things through. Heh! I've just found myself internally trying to think of a better label for the kind of people I was trying to describe, only to realise that the whole point is not about labelling people! People are such incredibly complex animals that any kind of label is always going to distort the truth.
Your point: yes, I did snarl back a bit, and I did do the same kind of thing myself that I called others on, and yes, I was wrong to use any kind of label. I've not been in the best of places recently; my mother (for whom I was full-time carer) died not very long ago, and my younger son now has a potentially life-threatening condition, and I guess I'm allowing some of that stuff to erode my own manners; I'm a bit more irritable than is normal for me. I'm not intending for that to be an excuse, just a possible explanation. I will do my best to take your words to heart and not wander onto the thin end of that wedge again. You were right. I did wrong. I will try and do better.
Fourthly: if you're ever in my neck of the woods (New Forest, UK), get in touch and I'll buy you a truly excellent beer at our truly wonderful local pub, which sits just inside the edge of the Forest, and has semi-feral ponies wandering in the car park. Pesky ( talk) 04:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I realise that he means well, but I think Penyulap is out of control, and needs to calm down. He can be a great asset to the project, but he keeps harassing me, is disruptive and somewhat abusive towards many editors, and won't admit when he's wrong to the point of disruptively pursuing issues which he feels to have "lost" long after everybody else considers them resolved. Over the last few weeks he seems to have been getting worse. I really don't want to lose him from the project as he is a well-meaning and hard-working editor, and when he is not using it to try and dodge questions about his conduct, he has a great sense of humour, but if he continues as he has been recently, he is probably going to end up getting blocked, and that would be a shame.
He won't listen to me, but you seem to have a good rapport with him, I was wondering if you could possibly have a word with him, to try to calm him down or perhaps suggest that he take a break to clear his head. I just don't want to have to keep fighting him as his talent is wasted in causing problems for others. Thanks -- W. D. Graham 20:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"Women perceive Wikipedia to be of lower quality than men."
This may or may not be true (depends on whether you know any seriously low-quality / high-quality men, I suppose ....) but fixed as per what I suppose was intended ;P Pesky ( talk) 09:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm running a SPI request and haven't done it before (never did get the idea of spending any time at all on people who are not worth spending any time at all on, but spotting socks is like the easiest thing in the universe for me)
I have an incredibly large number of ways to match up the sock with the editor who is running it, however, with each method revealed, the editor would, I would assume, learn how not to repeat the same blunder (at the moment they seem to be following not so much an idiots guide to socking, but something which assumes a far smaller intellect). So it's counter-intuitive to lay any more than enough cards on the table, and the paradox of choice hinders my ability to decide which is the best opening move. I'm such a SPI-Virgin ! :) well, if there are some people who could guide me through email, or even here, that would be appreciated. Penyulap ☏ 12:52, 18 Jul 2012 (UTC)
No, you can't be "too smart". But always remember what the ultimate in "smartness" really means. You do still have some glitches in your programming, you just need to work on de-bugging those ;P ... which you're easily smart enough to do. Pesky ( talk) 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Pesky,
Thank you very kindly for your comments on WikiProject Spaceflight Talk regarding A-spectrum people and how it affects some WP editors. I think you have helped us all in the project (even if some yet don't knowledge it) better understand how to be more civil towards editors different from us. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 16:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
Someone unaffiliated with WPEQ seems to feel the need to blank half of Connemara pony due to lack of sources. Want to tackle that one next? I think just getting it to C or B quality would solve the problem. Montanabw (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You have an eight-foot boa constrictor? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
So a trip down to the New Forest would make a nice, refreshing break for him, yes? ;P Pesky ( talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, I could do with your eyes at this venue, I'm pretty sure I can see what's happening, but I doubt Penyulap would accept it from me. Would you mind dropping by? WormTT( talk) 07:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
On the verifiability RFC, View 12 isn't going anywhere like I thought it would. Users have completely lost track of the ESL side of it, and it's turning into a discussion that's unintentionally, but acutely, autie-bashing. I just thought I'd pop over and offer a little moral support. Chin up! All the best— S Marshall T/ C 08:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
For some reason you got my statements as equating A-spectrum editors with incompetent editors. I actually think that if average competence score could be calculated for the A-spectrum and neurotypical editors, the former group would have a higher score. I'm very sorry if my comments mislead you, and I specifically apologize if I unintentionally offended you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It's TLDR at this moment, but it seems apologist when it doesn't need to be, and that is one place I think it falls down, IF you use the word 'programmer' for example THEN people may see it's more mainstream. Also include other categories like logical philosophical academic or some such. That's 'getting warmer' I think. Penyulap ☏ 08:53, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Here it is, you can find the path in the detail here, ironically it's about disability, but the approach taken in incorporating the aims is what we need, as it completely circumvents apologism. Penyulap ☏ 22:28, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Universal Design An approach to making facilities, information, and activities accessible to and usable by everyone is called universal design. Universal design (UD) means that rather than designing for the average user, you design for people with differing native languages, genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, abilities, and disabilities. The universal design of your offerings will make everyone feel welcome and minimize the need for special accommodations for those who participate in your activities or access your information resources. It is also important to make sure that staff and volunteers are trained to support people with disabilities, respond to specific requests for accommodations in a timely manner, and know who to contact regarding disability-related issues.
Just a matter of re-writing it to avoid copyvio OR just asking if it is ok to use the text as it is. It can be incorporated into policy as is almost. It keeps more people happy, a lot more, and you can add anything you like so long as it keeps a similar split amongst the factorisation of the idea.
Sorry the idea, rather than the text can go in, and obviously only some of it.
The wording of policy should be formulated to make it accessible and clear to everyone. This is a concept called universal design, it means that rather than designing for the average user, you design for people with differing native languages, genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, abilities, and disabilities. The universal design of policy will make everyone feel welcome and minimize the need for special accommodations for those who participate or access the project.
still needs polish, but it's getting there. Penyulap ☏ 22:44, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I'm in the same kind of boat as Malleus here; I've been teaching for decades, and I've always noted that some stuff just works for everyone. Elen, you;re dead right about the levels of disambiguation required by autism-spectrum people in some respects, the main thrust of the view is just that we should take great care not to include ambiguous and confusing phrases in the first place. If our need to disambiguate is caused by our own poor writing, then that's on a level with the Room 17 vs. Consulting Room 17 thing! I know I keep using the information leaflets in medication packets as an example, but they really are one of the best examples about. They are spectacularly clear. Pesky ( talk) 05:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I suppose one of the things I find most disheartening is the view "It can't be done, so we won;t even try (and it's a stupid idea)" ... where would we be if the Wright brothers, for instance, had kowtowed to that view? Or any of vast numbers of other inventors and so on? What about all those cures currently being researched for "incurable" diseases? (Although we might conceivably be safer if the atom really couldn't ever have been split ... but then again ...) Pesky ( talk) 04:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
And (good grief!) has none of them ever trained an animal? Most animals have an IQ of less than 70, and they don't speak English, either. Yet a decent trainer can still train them to do some really quite complex stuff ... all that's required is a knowledge of how to communicate with them, and an ongoing desire to do so. Pesky ( talk) 06:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Well, I'll say this much about assumptions, I'm not an Autie, as fashionable as that may be :D But I can live happily knowing we are all on scale. Penyulap ☏ 07:14, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I recalled you as being "over-threshold" but a few points short of where I'm at. As far as trying to apply scores to other people goes, it's incredibly hard, as only they can know what they really feel about situations. Some of us are, for example, apparently awfully good at social situations. I often come across as over-extrovert (intense), which is a common over-compensation for not really liking it. Pesky ( talk) 07:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"Thirty? Thirty? well, Jeeze, that's just piss-easy pathetic isn't it?! It's not like we're talking three hundred or anything intermediate level like that ..."
Ahem. Pissing people off is not a talent. Idiots can do that. Now, not pissing people off, that's a talent. Pesky ( talk) 08:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Kindness Barnstar |
A barnstar and a kitten for you! Thanks for the nice message you left me. I hope you saw my response. INever Cry 18:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
Ponies, ponies everywhere... |
Because I thought you needed another horse :D. Shearonink ( talk) 18:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 20:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Just found Horse rings in Portland, wondering if this stuff is common in the UK and if we could move the article to simply horse rings and expand it to a worldwide focus. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Pesky:
You'll have to pardon my not having completely organized this thought (was that a sentence?). First of all I wanted to call your attention to my response to these comments within my own statement:
With that as a preface: You do the same stuff you're complaining about there. This is not an accusation; people do things without realizing it all the time (I sure as hell do), so this is just information. PS. I know I'm going to catch hell for this, and no matter how nicely I attempt to do this it'll come off wrong. But I'm doing it anyway.
This polarizing name-calling you refer to is an excellent point. It really is. But not only does this practice also come from you and everyone else on both sides of this debate, it's really not limited to name-calling. We each congregate to discuss the enemy in sarcastic mocking terms, more for the sake of raising our teammates' self-esteem than anything else.
I've done one thing differently, which hasn't helped so far, but I keep doing it anyway: I try to talk. I've tried to talk to Malleus and Drmies, and each time was basically informed there was a lack of interest in talking. I'm not sure if I should've expected anything else at this point, not because the other side is just too unreasonable and wrong (even though they are... just kidding), but because people are too dug in now. But now I guess I'm stupidly trying again.
Would you be shunned if you chose to abstain from the mocking? You do say you're "sick of being called names like this by people who either don't 'know' me or hardly 'know' me every time there's a conflict". I know I'm pretty sick of that too. I try to maintain a debate style when I address this topic (and all topics), though I slip up sometimes, when the mocking is just too much and I feel I have to beat parry a little just to keep my footing. Analogies are also sometimes the best way to get one's point across, so they're tempting, though when used without care they are mocking and polarizing (and perhaps as you say, "uncivil").
I think Malleus would probably say these names, mocks, and jabs are merely the practice of "telling it like it is", and so there's really nothing wrong with them. If you'd really disagree with him on that point, as your statement seems to suggest, I'd urge you to take your own criticism to heart. I certainly will. Equazcion (talk) 10:52, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Second: please, don't ever feel you have to approach my page with any kind of fear and trembling, or expecting to "catch hell" for anything at all. I really try my hardest to be approachable, and to take other people's views on board, and I kind of hate it that you thought I'd give you hell. (And I'm ordering my stalkers not to give you hell, too – though that's almost certainly unnecessary).
Thirdly; I failed on the advice I gave Pen! I did it! I advised Pen to keep his internal fire-breathing dragon muzzled and leashed until it had learnt "Sit, stay and quiet!" ... and then my own internal fire-breathing dragon rattled the bars of his cage and let out a huff or two of smoke ... it's rare, for me, but it does occasionally happen. I snorted a bit of flame in someone else's direction, too, and realised that perhaps it would be better for me to walk away from the computer and go and do something constructive before Dragon began to think that I'd left the door open and he could go out and toast people ;P
I've always read your various postings with interest and respect; you do keep your head well in almost all circumstances, even though our views may differ on things. But in one fairly important way, we're similar: I try to talk, and to keep talking, too (and I frequently talk too much, I know!) You said "now I guess I'm stupidly trying again." This is not stupid, this was a very good point you made, and you made it very well, and I'm pretty much always open to anyone talking things through. Heh! I've just found myself internally trying to think of a better label for the kind of people I was trying to describe, only to realise that the whole point is not about labelling people! People are such incredibly complex animals that any kind of label is always going to distort the truth.
Your point: yes, I did snarl back a bit, and I did do the same kind of thing myself that I called others on, and yes, I was wrong to use any kind of label. I've not been in the best of places recently; my mother (for whom I was full-time carer) died not very long ago, and my younger son now has a potentially life-threatening condition, and I guess I'm allowing some of that stuff to erode my own manners; I'm a bit more irritable than is normal for me. I'm not intending for that to be an excuse, just a possible explanation. I will do my best to take your words to heart and not wander onto the thin end of that wedge again. You were right. I did wrong. I will try and do better.
Fourthly: if you're ever in my neck of the woods (New Forest, UK), get in touch and I'll buy you a truly excellent beer at our truly wonderful local pub, which sits just inside the edge of the Forest, and has semi-feral ponies wandering in the car park. Pesky ( talk) 04:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I realise that he means well, but I think Penyulap is out of control, and needs to calm down. He can be a great asset to the project, but he keeps harassing me, is disruptive and somewhat abusive towards many editors, and won't admit when he's wrong to the point of disruptively pursuing issues which he feels to have "lost" long after everybody else considers them resolved. Over the last few weeks he seems to have been getting worse. I really don't want to lose him from the project as he is a well-meaning and hard-working editor, and when he is not using it to try and dodge questions about his conduct, he has a great sense of humour, but if he continues as he has been recently, he is probably going to end up getting blocked, and that would be a shame.
He won't listen to me, but you seem to have a good rapport with him, I was wondering if you could possibly have a word with him, to try to calm him down or perhaps suggest that he take a break to clear his head. I just don't want to have to keep fighting him as his talent is wasted in causing problems for others. Thanks -- W. D. Graham 20:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"Women perceive Wikipedia to be of lower quality than men."
This may or may not be true (depends on whether you know any seriously low-quality / high-quality men, I suppose ....) but fixed as per what I suppose was intended ;P Pesky ( talk) 09:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm running a SPI request and haven't done it before (never did get the idea of spending any time at all on people who are not worth spending any time at all on, but spotting socks is like the easiest thing in the universe for me)
I have an incredibly large number of ways to match up the sock with the editor who is running it, however, with each method revealed, the editor would, I would assume, learn how not to repeat the same blunder (at the moment they seem to be following not so much an idiots guide to socking, but something which assumes a far smaller intellect). So it's counter-intuitive to lay any more than enough cards on the table, and the paradox of choice hinders my ability to decide which is the best opening move. I'm such a SPI-Virgin ! :) well, if there are some people who could guide me through email, or even here, that would be appreciated. Penyulap ☏ 12:52, 18 Jul 2012 (UTC)
No, you can't be "too smart". But always remember what the ultimate in "smartness" really means. You do still have some glitches in your programming, you just need to work on de-bugging those ;P ... which you're easily smart enough to do. Pesky ( talk) 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Pesky,
Thank you very kindly for your comments on WikiProject Spaceflight Talk regarding A-spectrum people and how it affects some WP editors. I think you have helped us all in the project (even if some yet don't knowledge it) better understand how to be more civil towards editors different from us. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 16:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
Someone unaffiliated with WPEQ seems to feel the need to blank half of Connemara pony due to lack of sources. Want to tackle that one next? I think just getting it to C or B quality would solve the problem. Montanabw (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You have an eight-foot boa constrictor? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
So a trip down to the New Forest would make a nice, refreshing break for him, yes? ;P Pesky ( talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, I could do with your eyes at this venue, I'm pretty sure I can see what's happening, but I doubt Penyulap would accept it from me. Would you mind dropping by? WormTT( talk) 07:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
On the verifiability RFC, View 12 isn't going anywhere like I thought it would. Users have completely lost track of the ESL side of it, and it's turning into a discussion that's unintentionally, but acutely, autie-bashing. I just thought I'd pop over and offer a little moral support. Chin up! All the best— S Marshall T/ C 08:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
For some reason you got my statements as equating A-spectrum editors with incompetent editors. I actually think that if average competence score could be calculated for the A-spectrum and neurotypical editors, the former group would have a higher score. I'm very sorry if my comments mislead you, and I specifically apologize if I unintentionally offended you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It's TLDR at this moment, but it seems apologist when it doesn't need to be, and that is one place I think it falls down, IF you use the word 'programmer' for example THEN people may see it's more mainstream. Also include other categories like logical philosophical academic or some such. That's 'getting warmer' I think. Penyulap ☏ 08:53, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Here it is, you can find the path in the detail here, ironically it's about disability, but the approach taken in incorporating the aims is what we need, as it completely circumvents apologism. Penyulap ☏ 22:28, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Universal Design An approach to making facilities, information, and activities accessible to and usable by everyone is called universal design. Universal design (UD) means that rather than designing for the average user, you design for people with differing native languages, genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, abilities, and disabilities. The universal design of your offerings will make everyone feel welcome and minimize the need for special accommodations for those who participate in your activities or access your information resources. It is also important to make sure that staff and volunteers are trained to support people with disabilities, respond to specific requests for accommodations in a timely manner, and know who to contact regarding disability-related issues.
Just a matter of re-writing it to avoid copyvio OR just asking if it is ok to use the text as it is. It can be incorporated into policy as is almost. It keeps more people happy, a lot more, and you can add anything you like so long as it keeps a similar split amongst the factorisation of the idea.
Sorry the idea, rather than the text can go in, and obviously only some of it.
The wording of policy should be formulated to make it accessible and clear to everyone. This is a concept called universal design, it means that rather than designing for the average user, you design for people with differing native languages, genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, abilities, and disabilities. The universal design of policy will make everyone feel welcome and minimize the need for special accommodations for those who participate or access the project.
still needs polish, but it's getting there. Penyulap ☏ 22:44, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I'm in the same kind of boat as Malleus here; I've been teaching for decades, and I've always noted that some stuff just works for everyone. Elen, you;re dead right about the levels of disambiguation required by autism-spectrum people in some respects, the main thrust of the view is just that we should take great care not to include ambiguous and confusing phrases in the first place. If our need to disambiguate is caused by our own poor writing, then that's on a level with the Room 17 vs. Consulting Room 17 thing! I know I keep using the information leaflets in medication packets as an example, but they really are one of the best examples about. They are spectacularly clear. Pesky ( talk) 05:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I suppose one of the things I find most disheartening is the view "It can't be done, so we won;t even try (and it's a stupid idea)" ... where would we be if the Wright brothers, for instance, had kowtowed to that view? Or any of vast numbers of other inventors and so on? What about all those cures currently being researched for "incurable" diseases? (Although we might conceivably be safer if the atom really couldn't ever have been split ... but then again ...) Pesky ( talk) 04:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
And (good grief!) has none of them ever trained an animal? Most animals have an IQ of less than 70, and they don't speak English, either. Yet a decent trainer can still train them to do some really quite complex stuff ... all that's required is a knowledge of how to communicate with them, and an ongoing desire to do so. Pesky ( talk) 06:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)