Welcome!
Hello, Iss246, 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! - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Profile of ISS246's contributions to Wikipedia.
Here is a page that enables the reader to view the number of hits on each Wikipedia entry: Hits per Wikipedia page
Provides profile of any Wikipedian's contributions: A Quick Summary
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Psychology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mood.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Organizational theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Construct.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened a case at the noticeboard to get other uninvolved and independent editors to mediate in our dispute at the psychology article. Hoping this helps us resolve the situation. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romilly, Loir-et-Cher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Miles.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iss246. Although this editor makes some good edits, he apparently is Paul Spector, and quite a number of his edits are refspamming and linkspamming his website, his book and other publications, or other links associated with him. Take a close look at his edits. He has placed numerous citations or external links to his website and publications in several articles, particularly in the past six weeks. This sometimes happens on Wikipedia; someone writes a book or creates a website, then adds numerous links to multiple articles as a means of free promotion. It usually is not an improvement to Wikipedia. These edits are sometime interspersed with useful edits, which makes it less noticeable. As I said, some of the edits are useful, but I do believe Spector is trying to promote himself. One or two links might not be so bad, but the sheer quantity is suspicious and weakens the articles. I'm also not a fan of linking to online "quizzes" about psychology. Most of them have little evidence of validity, and they promote the idea that professional psychology and pop psychology are the same thing. When I have more time I plan to go through and cull out some of it. I'd like you to take close look at his edits and let me know what you think. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finding diffs is tedious, thus my delay in responding. This is by no means an exhaustive list. I looked at a few articles and checked most recent edits. I'm sure if I looked further back I would find more.
This basically is a case of WP:COI. This editor makes good edits. But the emphasis on his website and publications is excessive. COI editors often make good edits, but there's a good reason they're strongly discouraged from editing articles related to their COI. This case is an example. It puts too much WP:WEIGHT on one person's opinions, and it ends up being self-promotional even if there is no malicious intent. In this particular case, I wouldn't even suggest no editing, just follow the usual procedure of suggesting edits on the article's talk page when citing or linking a website or publication with which he is involved, and let other editors make the edit.
Some examples of citing or external linking his publications. Doing this once or twice is acceptable. Doing it more than that is WP:REFSPAM and WP:LINKSPAM. It also puts too much WP:WEIGHT on one person's publications.
Self-promotion of Spector; Also, a link to pop psychology "quizzes" with no demonstrated validity (I don't consider a disclaimer that a quiz is "not diagnostic" to have much bearing; not even well-constructed tests alone are "diagnostic"; to the general public this suggests that these "quizzes" are legitimate psychological tests
I think for the benefit of Wikipedia, this editor should be notified about WP:COI and asked to follow the guidelines for COI. What do you think? Sundayclose (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Occupational Health Science (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournalsorWP:GNG. Article creation likely Wp:TOOSOON.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science (journal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Iss246,
I've been thinking about you recently, since I ran across a mass-media article talking about burnout. The definition given was (from memory) "a mismatch in expectations" about your work. That is, your employer says it will trade you (e.g.,) a dependable paycheck, a desk in an air-conditioned office building, and a supply of colleagues who are somewhat less likely to be axe murders than average (but perhaps more likely than usual to complain about the state of the air conditioning), in return for you engaging in certain activities, coping with a certain amount of bureaucracy, and generally trying to keep your employer from going bankrupt. You, on the other hand, believe that your job will provide you with a satisfying social life, give meaning and purpose to your life, result in admiration for whichever qualities you value the most, give you opportunities for additional prestige, promotions, and pay raises, and generally result in you getting paid for doing what you love.
What appeals to me about this is that it has the potential for differentiating between depression and burnout; it might explain culture-based and generation-scale trends in burnout rates (assuming any exist); and it suggests avenues for class-based research (because a working-class person tends to have different, and perhaps more realistic, expectations of intangible workplace benefits than a Wunderkind, and this might even help understand non-workplace effects on workplace satisfaction). It also, very appealingly, suggests fairly simple solutions, namely setting realistic expectations and then getting a life outside of work. What doesn't appeal to me about it is that it feels like someone else just making up yet another definition.
So I am here to ask: Has any progress been made on what, exactly, the One True™ definition of burnout is? Is there any hope of reaching such a definition during the current decade? Or is this one of those Alice in Wonderland situations, in which the meaning of a word is whatever I want it to be, and language is used to conceal our real thoughts? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't get yourself blocked for edit warring. That will accomplish nothing, and there is no content worth getting blocked. Use the standard dispute resolution process. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Iss246. You are risking a block the next time you revert on this article. Other editors have undone your changes about eight times since 18 August, which is a sign that your changes do not have consensus. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:EdJohnston, unfortunately a user named Graywalls is trolling me and deleting my edits. How about admonishing him/her. Iss246 (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Occupational health psychology 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.
I had hoped I didn't have to give you an edit warring template. But apparently a more informal warning didn't matter to you. Don't add any more citations to Spector without discussion. I don't want to argue about this. Take all discussion to the talk page. And please don't leave deceptive edit summaries. Your edit did a lot more than change a verb. Sundayclose (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Sundayclose. Sundayclose (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Graywalls. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Occupational health psychology that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Special:Diff/1175397334 Graywalls (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PHQ-9, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will make the correction. Iss246 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ku Klux Klan. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Iss246! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Xegma(talk) 06:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] |
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal). Thanks! Xegma(talk) 06:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the sources are all primary, and therefore insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG. If special WP:NJOURNALS notability is being claimed instead, please provide clear evidence of how this journal meets one of the three criteria. Note that we need not just assertions, but actual evidence of this: eg. the draft states that this journal is indexed by Scopus, but I find nothing to support that; similarly, an impact factor of 3.1 is claimed, but this is only given by the publisher's own website (and even then, isn't actually cited, so I had to go and look for it myself).
In response to the above, the references are in the style of the American Psychological Association. WP allows editors to use the style of the discipline to which the topic is aligned. Occupational Health Science, although trans-disciplinary, is mostly aligned with the discipline of occupational health psychology and is supported by the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. The APA style of the references is, therefore, satisfactory.
In addition, the complaint about the impact factor is off the mark. To find out the impact of any journal, an editor has to go to the publisher's journal site. That is what I did. That would apply to the journal Occupational Health Psychology or to Psychological Review. I have no reason to believe that Springer would falsify the impact factor. Iss246 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Iss246, I don't know if you're aware, but since your account is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself directly (see WP:AUTOCONFIRM). You are not required to submit to Articles for Creation unless you want to. Your account was created in 2006 and you have 16 thousand edits. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Occupational Health Science (journal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris talk! 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris, regarding Occupational Health Science (journal) I followed the previous debate about the notability and worthiness of the article and profited from that debate. Here is some of what I did. (1) I used many sources that are external to the journal. (2) I sourced the databases where the journal is indexed. (3) I obtained the impact factor, which is higher than the impact of other journals in WP. Tell me what more you want. Perhaps I can add to the entry to make more notable. Iss246 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science (journal) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Berkson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City College.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Iss246: I advise against removing citation templates as you did recently (and I reverted) to the reference by Irvin Sam Schonfeld at Fluid and crystallized intelligence and Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Citation templates are very useful for automated maintenance such as updating and indexing by bots. See, e.g., journals cited by Wikipedia. Biogeographist (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Iss246. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May 8: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce | |
---|---|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly WikiWednesday SalonatPrime ProduceinHell's Kitchen, Manhattan, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! This special WikiWednesday will feature a welcome session and beginning of a listening tour by the newly appointed executive director of Wikimedia NYC, the first staff member leading our local non-profit. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. Meeting info:
|
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Society for Occupational Health Psychology. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. While WP:3RR sets a bright line, it does not say that you're guaranteed your right to continue to restore your contents against consensus indefinitely by waiting out 24 hours each time. Graywalls (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
June 2: Hacking Sunday @ Prime Produce | |
---|---|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Hacking SundayatPrime ProduceinHell's Kitchen, Manhattan. It is intended primarily for technical contributors, though newcomers are welcome as well! The event runs for the whole day, though you are welcome to come by for as little or as long as you'd like. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Wikimedia's Technical Code of Conduct. A documentary filmmaker will be in attendance, working on Rabbit Hole, which aims to document Wikipedia's community to showcase how our network tackles important questions about how history is recorded. They will be in attendance to film snippets of this gathering for the documentary. It is completely optional to be a part of the film and there will be protocols in place if you wish to not be filmed. If there are any questions about the filming please reach out to the filmmaker, Meg Vatterott (meg.vatterott@gmail.com). Meeting info:
P.S. Next up will be Sat June 8 Wiknic on Governors Island! |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
June 8: Wiknic @ Governors Island | |
---|---|
You are invited to the picnic anyone can editonGovernors Island, at 403 Colonels Row by the ArtCrawl Harlem house. This is a sequel event to the 2023 Governors Island Wiknic and will feature a workshop led by AfroCrowd at the ArtCrawl Harlem house. We'll also encourage collaboration for wiki-coverage of ArtCrawl Harlem's current exhibition at Governors Island. All are welcome, new and experienced! Bring a picnic blanket and some potluck, as well as some sunscreen! We'll also provide sandwiches for everyone, and maybe some NYC pizza too, but we encourage you to bring your own favorite dishes to share, especially for those food cultural topics you would like to improve on Wikipedia. We'll also do a portal thing for a bit with West Coast friends at Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Wiknic2024. Saturday, June 8, 2024 NYC Wiknic @ Governors Island (RSVP on-wiki)
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
June 26: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
---|---|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Online-Only WikiWednesday Salon on Zoom. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! This special online-only WikiWednesday will be dedicated to the Wikimedia Movement Charter referendum, and also to exploring future options of other online-centric events for our Wikimedia NYC chapter. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. Meeting info:
|
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]