User talk:QuietLuna

Bongolian (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If you keep doing what you're doing...
This should help.

—ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wizard
— Oxyaena   Harass  18:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Autistic
You're autistic too, neato! Welcome to the community, and I would like to personally thank you for updating our articles on disabilities, they needed it. — Oxyaena   Harass  07:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I noticed the edits you made on articles I started and I thought they were pretty nice.

QuietLuna (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — Oxyaena   Harass  03:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Great work
I`m astonished, really, at all the excellent work you keep on churning out on a regular basis. Keep it up! — Oxyaena Harass  17:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Awesome work with the new articles you've created QuietLuna! -- Yisfidri  ( talk ) 06:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice work
I noticed that you have written a lot of good articles on autism for rationalWiki. I think you're a great writer. I'd also like to add that there are a bunch of autism related articles on Wikipedia that could use some improving, particularly the autism rights movement series. Anything you might be willing to do over there would be welcome too. --RationalWikiman2718 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused why you are saying this after you are deleting things I wrote. Luna Rose  Say hi 15:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete all of it. Just the stuff that was incorrect. Anyway, most of your work is great. I just wanted to let you know that we also need editors at the other encyclopedia. There is less opportunity for advocacy there (of course), but the articles get a lot of views. --RationalWikiman2718 (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ...I had scientific sources saying that it's not a black-and-white issue. If researchers are acknowledging complexity, then I think we can trust our readers enough to tell them that. Luna Rose  I'm shy; say hi 15:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We may have to agree to disagree on this, but the papers claiming that the issue is complex are junk science. High quality research like this finds firm evidence for facilitator control in every case that has been rigorously tested. Claims of independent typing do not hold up because even "independent" typists require a facilitator to move the keyboard around. If you want to see a through debunking of the issue I would suggest Frontline: Prisoners of Silence, which is available on YouTube. Again, I don't want to start a fight, but that's the POV that has been accepted by both encyclopedias. --RationalWikiman2718 (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my concern. (1) Scientists claim that all previous peer-reviewed evidence they disagree with is not valid. (They may or may not be correct; I don't know.) (2) Anecdotal evidence suggests that it may not be a black-and-white case, but rather a dark gray one, with some individuals transitioning partially or completely to independent communication. This evidence is significant enough that respected sources like the Thinking Person's Guide to Autism and The Aspergian are discussing it. (This is what distinguishes it from obvious garbage like anti-vaxx "evidence.") (3) Scientists dismiss this evidence because it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. (4) Scientists refuse to investigate the evidence because they have made up their minds.
 * I think that this creates what I believe is called a catch-22. I think that the scientific community should be open to looking at ways to teach typing skills to nonspeaking autistics with motor/attention/task-initiation problems (like what about those RPM videos in which the non-autistics don't seem to be controlling the messages, or the stories of people who transitioned to 100% independent typing?) but it seems like these methods aren't given much of a chance. I think claims of success should be investigated further because the effect of developing and refining a reliable method would be huge. I worry that too much money is being funneled into causation, cure, and behavior control. I worry about the autistic people with limited communication skills and the fact that few people seem willing to try to address this outside rigid ABA programs. Being unable to communicate in words sounds so awful and I think the scientific community needs to develop and carefully investigate ways to fix that. Luna Rose  I'm shy; say hi 18:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * With regards to research on teaching non-verbal autistic children to communicate, I found these as references from the Wikipedia page on non-verbal autism:
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1750946712000591?via%3Dihub
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1460-6984.12079
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891422212001941?via%3Dihub
 * Yes, there are cases where non-verbal people have learned to communicate on their own. However, I think it's dangerous for something like facilitated communication to make people think they're communicating if they really aren't. I'm new by the way. --Jono (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The past version of the Facilitated Communication article, the one that was bronzed, included information on how to identify false "communication." Obviously, people being misled is 100% bad and we should do our best to share information on how to avoid that. Subsequent edits that presented it as a 100% black-and-white issue resulted in deleting the information on how to distinguish between genuine communication and fake "communication." I thought that the earlier version was fairly balanced in its discussion of the (very real) risks and the controversies and I feel like we could go back to that. Luna Rose  I'm shy; say hi 19:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Just like to say I appreciate the articles
...even if the contents are horrifying. I'm lucky my parents never put me through stuff like that for autism (as much as they have caused other issues). Thanks, though I might consider putting some content warnings on some of the articles 'cus they were highly upsetting to read ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk  01:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm hoping that RationalWiki can be a source of reason for autism-related topics, including some of the tragically awful ones. They weren't fun to write either, but I'm hoping they will help people learn. Feel free to put content warnings on anything you see fit. It's good for people to know beforehand when the content is disturbing and may not be the best before-bedtime read. Luna Rose  Say hi 15:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Expansion to Article Families of Adults Afflicted with Asperger's Syndrome
I've added an expansion to this article giving a lot more information. I hope that I didn't add anything too controversial. Since you started the article, I wonder if you could check if everything's in order?
 * 22:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The "minor edit" checkbox
Hi there, QuietLuna. Generally, we prefer that people only use the "This is a minor edit" checkbox for changes that consist of spelling, grammar and/or formatting corrections. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I never knew exactly what constituted a "minor" edit. Thanks for clarifying. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Luna Rose  I'm shy; say hi 17:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

hi
im shy too 21:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions
I've recently been doing a lot of work on Judge Rotenberg Center, Matthew Israel, and Graduated Electronic Decelerator over at the other encyclopedia. Again, I think you're a great writer and any help you could give would be appreciated. Here is a great repository of sources on the subject. Just about all of them should be usable except for the blog posts. --RationalWikiman2718 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go
I'm sorry for calling your edits messy. I was specifically referring to the quotes featured in your revision of the HAES article. I think including multiple quotes in a section breaks up its flow. But that's my own personal preference. I favor a more Wikipedia-like approach to article stucture, but RW does seem to allow a bit more freedom. You have made very valuable edits. It's a shame to see go. Splainer (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)