User talk:Iss246/Archive 1

No problem, i fight the right :) --Aleenf1 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Health psychology

Occupational health psychology

Began work on occupational health psychology. It is difficult working alone. I hope some others pitch in to help construct the Wikipedia entry. Iss246 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw this edit. I've just checked and this account is most definitely not blocked. Perhaps you tried to edit before logging in to your account? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to second that - I haven't ever blocked your account, nor has anyone else. If you tried to edit without logging in from an IP range which has been blocked, then you would not be able to edit, but you can get around that by logging in to your account. If you received a message saying "This IP address was autoblocked because it was used recently by banned user XYZ" please try again. The fact that you were able to leave a message on my talk page indicates that the block issue only affected you briefly, but if it is persisting we can assist in figuring it out. If you can't get a message through here or on my talk page send email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org .

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your additions to the CCNY article. I hope you have Joseph Dorman's "Arguing the World" on tape or an excellent memory because, even though I saw the documentary way back when, I can't remember exactly that information. I can't find an online transcript of the documentary, either, to check about "Alcove 1", etc. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You're very welcome and thanks for your kindest note. The article is looking very good. I've been editing that article for years now. :) Keep up the excellent work. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your note. Sounds good. But it's factual that the C train stops for CCNY, although it's still a dubious walk through St. Nicholas Park in the dark. People do it during the day. And they just moved the "Hamilton Grange" house, really and literally, into St. Nicholas Park from next to Steinman on Convent Avenue so there should be more tourists and safety in the park now. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Got your note on the perils of the 135th St. Station and St. Nicholas Park as a path to and from it. Well, so be it. It used to be back in the day a major thoroughfare to CCNY on the hill, from the 135th St. Station. But that was the 1950s and 60s. They say the newly located Hamilton Grange will be brilliant. It's moved twice from its original location. It's better off in the park. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You've made a lot of edits to the CCNY article. One statement seemed like a non-sequitur: "The Free Academy had a framework of tolerance that extended beyond the admission of (male) students from any social stratum". What does it specifically mean and where is the statement supported by a citation? Where did it come from ? -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks for your note. But the text seemed like a non-sequitur, in situ. Will re-check. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just read the relevant parts of the Bender book. I will change the verbiage to perhaps flow a bit more. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your kindest comments. I agree that we have worked well together. I did some more edits. Check them out. As far as the endowment of CCNY, it is a complicated issue. There are at least three different funds. I think the article's shown figure is vastly understated. For example, according to a 2008 report, just the "The Campaign for the City College of New York" which started in 2002 has raised to date "in excess" of 230 million dollars since 2002. Apart from that there is the "21st Century Fund" and the "City College Fund" etc. And private bequeathing. So it's all very complicated. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

And then there's money like the Grove Endowment, which Andy Grove of Intel and a CCNY alumnus, gave $26 million to the Engineering School in 2005. But it's the "Grove Endowment" for the Engineering School, now called "The Grove School of Engineering", of course. So it's hard to pin-point a single CCNY endowment figure. Even after looking though the Development Office pages. It's more than $230 million, that's for sure. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

None of the CUNY colleges are seemingly listed in the NACUBO Endowment Study 2007. [1] Or in List of U.S. colleges and universities by endowment article. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your having a look at the refinement. I also noticed that Samuel Ruggles' 1854 pamphlet "The Duty of Columbia College to the Community" was a kickoff for the drama surrounding Dr. Gibbs' potential appointment at Columbia (cf. Bender, p. 271 etc.). Best wishes. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your message. Yes, in general, you're quite right. I've found in my years of Wikipedia editing that sometimes, some other editor will delete or move around some text I've written in the article where the "as mentioned above"/"previously referred to" etc. is no longer valid through no fault of my own. And when I get to it on my watchlist of 1,000's of articles, if I get to see the change, I will try to fix it. But sometimes I miss it and the article is left in slight relativistic disarray. So, I personally, have tried to avoid such phraseology. But feel free to change it back and I won't disturb your edit if you feel you can keep up with it in case someone changes it ! I personally try to avoid it just from being burned in the past. But the cost is redundancy as you've pointed out wisely. Best wishes and thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good and well done. Not every editor, especially anon's, are conscientious about looking out for such hints. Nevetherless, good work. Be well. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. The section in List of City College of New York people on "Prestigious Scholarships" seems to be altogether too recent and lop-sided, disregarding all the people from 1847, and maybe self-serving to those who put it in there ? Just an impression. Perhaps false. What do you think ? Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your kind comment on the edits I made. Your work on the CCNY article has been excellent, I might add. It's really a nice article. Some say a bit too long but it's fine by me. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

List of City College of New York people

Can you tell the community why you have blatantly gone against all previous editors including now myself, and included the occ health psychg in the applied psych sidebar? That is, you have clearly gone asgainst everyone else, the consensus. Why then should occ health be included. It needs to be deleted. Who agrees with your entry? There is no consensus over 4 years. See the talk on the psychology sidebar page. Why should the entry not be deleted under consensus. I can gather all of those who have opposed your viewpoint. That is objective gathering of all other editor's viewpoints. You blatantly went against the 'consensus' ISS246? Please explain. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC) This needs to be addressed by an independent person in Wikipedia. We cannot have someone so blatantly opposing all others editors views over such a long period of time!Mrm7171 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC) you can respond in good faith as this is written to you in good faith. Please also refrain from your personal attacks on me. I am trying to apply what the consensus has agreed on. That is, the occ health psychology entry should not be in thne sidebar for applied psych. What grounds is there for this as far as a consensus, rather than just a singular editor, that is yourself wanting it in? Again, this is all in good fath from my end. You are welcome to respond on my talk page.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wanted you to know that I've been adding about two sentences per day to the occupational health psychology entry. I can't work faster than that because I have a day job. My goal is to get the entry listed on the sidebar without any problems.Iss246 (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. I set up an RfC on the talk page to seek additional opinions. It will take a bot a couple of hours to finish setting it up, then in a few days maybe we'll have some more opinions.

I think you're doing an excellent job on Occupational health psychology, and I very much appreciate your additions. I should emphasize that my objection to including OHP in the sidebar has nothing to do with the quality of the OHP article. It pertains to my concerns about including a subdiscipline in a sidebar that (in my opinion anyway) should be very brief and only include the major disciplines in psychology. In any event, however, I think your additions to the OHP article are much needed, and the OHP article will give editors responding to the RfC more information on which to form opinions. Thanks for your contributions. Ward3001 (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ward3001, any resolution on the matter of occupational health psychology moving to the sidebar? Iss246 (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No response to the RfC yet, and without additional comments we have no consensus to make the change. All we can do is wait to see if others comment. Psychology issues, in my experience, typically don't attract a lot of comments unless they are extremely controversial (e.g., displaying a Rorschach image). But over time we might get some more people to express themselves. Ward3001 (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The side bar is unbalanced. It includes sports psychology, which after a couple of years remains a weak entry. But the sidebar excludes the more solid occupational health psychology.Iss246 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might want to raise the issue on the talk page for the sidebar if you wish to pursue that issue further. That having been said, I should point out an issue on which I think you and I are in fundamental disagreement (although I don't want to jump to conclusions about how you might be thinking). I get the impression from several of your comments that you feel the length (and perhaps quality) of the article on a discipline (or subdiscipline) should determine whether that discipline or subdisclipine should be included in the sidebar. If that is your thinking, then I disagree with you. The sidebar should reflect the prominence of the discipline in the world in general, not just how the articles stack up on Wikipedia. I don't think you will find much support for the idea that occupational health psychology is a more prominent discipline than sports psychology (although, as I've said, you're welcome to raise this issue on the talk page). There are a variety of reasons an article may not have as much length or substance on Wikipedia compared to other articles. Some of these may have little, if any relationship, to the relative positions of the two topics in the world outside of Wikipedia. For example, there are dozens of psychology-related articles to which I would like add and expand, but I cannot always do so because of lack of time. So, in summary, I don't think the size of an article in Wikipedia should be a determinant (in and of itself) of whether it belongs in the sidebar. If the "Clinical psychology" or "Social psychology" articles only had a couple of paragraphs, I would not argue against having them in the sidebar if my only basis was the length (or even quality) of their articles. But as I have said, you are free to raise any issue you wish on the talk page and see how others feel. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think measure for measure, you are just opposing me for the sake of opposing me

I suspect this sums up your approach to the issues of assuming good faith and the consensus process, so rather than getting into an argument with you, let me just say that your are wrong in this statement -- absolutely and utterly wrong -- but I doubt anything I say or do (other than stating that you can add OHP to the sidebar) will change your mind. And I also add that I am not the only editor who opposes inclusion of OHP, but you seem to have targeted me in particular. I'll also state that, even if I completely agreed with you, there would not be a consensus to make the change. So I'll leave it at that, and advise you to take up any additional concerns either on the sidebar talk page or in the usual processes for dispute resolution on Wikipedia. I don't say any of this with animosity, and I respect your opinion to disagree with me on anything, but I don't think further discussion between us is going to resolve anything at this point (I'm sorry to say). There are policies and procedures for handling differences of opinion on Wikipedia which I have not created (or even contributed to), and whether you agree with them or not, they must be followed. I don't want to assume anything about what you might do at this point, but I hope you will try to stay within those policies and procedures (for your sake as well as Wikipedia's) and not choose to edit war or be disruptive in your editing (and if that is not your style, I apologize for even wondering if you would engage in those behaviors). I have been in many battles over content on Wikipedia and have been on the losing end of many bitter disputes, but that is the way of Wikipedia. So I wish you the best and encourage you to continue making some very positive contributions to the project. I don't wish to discuss whether OHP should be in the sidebar any further except on the sidebar's talk page and a consensus begins to emerge. So please add any additional comments on that talk page instead of mine. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned about the recent changes you made to the Psychology sidebar that reverted my edits made yesterday. No explanation was given for the revert. Since the policy with WP is to be bold (see WP:BB), my understanding is that the onus is more on an editor to explain why things should stay the same, rather than the editor to explain why they have changed. I've clearly waded into an area you seem passionate about, but it is important to not let one's passion for a topic obscure reasonable changes that would be most sensible for a broad audience. In my thinking, the sidebar should provide breadth over depth, so that readers can get a quick general overview of a field in a single starting place. You reverted a number of edits, so let me see if I can better understand what you found problematic. I added Biological Psychology and deleted Behavioral neuroscience and Neuropsychology. My reasoning is that both of the deleted terms are subsumed by the broader conceptual and methodological approach of Biopsychology. Granted, one can have a biological approach and do social, cognitive, or developmental psychology, but people who behavioral neuroscience or neuropsychology by definition are also biological psychologists. You deleted comparative psychology and cultural psychology, which I added. I am aware that these are more minor disciplines that the others that are listed, but they are disciplines that are not subsumed by other areas. A person clicking on one of the other subfields is unlikely to come across a link to these articles easily, if at all, which would seem to support their inclusion here. I deleted Psychophysics and Transpersonal psychology because these are not major subfields. People who study psychophysics are almost always cognitive psychologists. Transpersonal psychology seems a weak addition under the heading Basic science; Positive psychology is similar enough, and more accurately represents the terminology currently used in the field for the study of human flourishing. Under the heading applied sciences, I added consumer psychology and political psychology, two areas I have graduate training in. Both are applied fields with their own research journals and scholarly societies populated by psychologists of many stripes. Neither subfield is subsumed by other ones currently listed. I understand that legal psychology and forensic psychology are not identical, but the term I've heard most often is simply "Psychology of Law" just as one might say "Psychology of Religion." The link "Law" is broad enough to suggest both legal and forensic psychology, and the legal psychology page links to the forensic one. The last remaining issue, and the one that I'm betting is the most distasteful to you given your activity on the talk page, is the deletion of Occupational health psychology. I deleted this term not because I don't think this is an important subfield of psychology. You clearly have done a lot of work on the article for this area to demonstrate its importance to the field. My reasoning is simply that Occupational health psychology is subsumed by Health psychology. Not all health psychologists do Occupational health psychology, but by definition it would seem all occupational health psychologists do Health psychology. Since the point of the sidebar is to give people a broad overview of the field, this level of depth does not seem appropriate. In the Psychology template at the bottom of the page, you will see that Occupational health psychology has been retained. Since there is more room in that box and it provides additional depth that the sidebar does not, it would seem most appropriate for it to be listed there. I can completely understand why you would want to have a prominent link to an article that you have worked on with such care. I just hope that you'll see that by providing a link to it in the sidebar, you seem to be suggesting that it is comparable in scope to the others listed. It unfortunately isn't - it is an important specialty area of a broader subfield. This isn't a criticism of occupational health psychologists, just an attempt at consistency within the sidebar. Since the quality of one's arguments for changes to WP do not depend on that person's credentials, this is not particularly relevant to this discussion. But, if you are interested, I have a Ph.D. in social psychology, a publication record, and years of teaching experience - my recommendations have drawn on these experiences, though I have tried to remain as objective here as possible.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

We had the debate about the psychology sidebar. OHP is not subsumed neatly under health psychology. It is autonomous field that developed out of at least three separate fields, I/O psychology, health psychology, and occupational health. It has become an autonomous field with its own conferences, journals, organizations, and books.Iss246 (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have reinstated OHP to the sidebar. Since you didn't revert any of the other changes, and haven't replied to my comments about those other issues described above, I'll assume that those issues were not your primary concern (though I still don't know why the other changes were reverted - I would hate to think that you undid my entire contribution because you found one aspect of it distasteful). I don't disagree at all with your assertion that OHP is an autonomous field. However, by stating that it grew out of these other well-established areas, you seem to be making my point. OHP is a young field that has many parents. It may someday grow to be a significant part of the tradition of psychology, but it's not there yet. Having its own conferences, journals, organizations, and books suggests its autonomy, but does not make a strong case for its impact within the field of psychology as a whole. OHP is not currently a mainstream area in most university psychology departments. A quick search for programs that offer graduate training in OHP turns up roughly only 15 programs worldwide, with training ranging from course sequences and graduate certificates to master's degrees and PhD concentrations. The small number of schools granting advanced degrees in this area is a testament to its current limited scope. So, like many others on the talk page, I still think that OHP is best left off of the box at this point in time. However, I won't revert your changes because I think the inclusion of this field is a relatively minor issue for the sidebar as a whole. I'm content to let this go as long as my other edits are respected. Seem fair enough? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did justify my views with regard to OHP being on the sidebar. I/O psychology is the descendant of social psychology and psychometrics. Having antecedents does not disqualify a subarea from the sidebar. I am neither supportive nor unsupportive regarding the other changes you made. I think we will hear from other Wikipedians regarding those changes.Iss246 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I/O psychology is the descendant of social psychology, one of the primary research areas in psychology for over the last half century. Yet, even with that pedigree I/O remains one of the smaller subdisclipines and is constantly having to fight for its standing in psychology departments (e.g., the I/O program was cut at my research institution eight years ago). To acknowledge that OHP is a descendant of I/O is to illustrate how far removed the program is from the core disciplines. Still, it's not that having antecedents makes something a minor area, it is the relative size of its impact on the field. Behavioral Neuroscience is a younger discipline than OHP, but its relative impact has been tremendous. OHP is a young, growing field, and efforts by the APA and NIOSH will certainly add to its growth, but it's not yet a major area. Be careful not to mistake the act of providing justification for gaining consensus (which I still haven't seen that you've gained whenever this issue comes up). But, I'll say again, I think the inclusion of this field is a relatively minor issue for the sidebar as a whole. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Based on many comments from other editors in good faith, I also agree that OHP should NOT be included in the psychology sidebar...,"We had extensive discussions, and the consensus was clearly in favor of NOT adding it to the small sidebar, yet Iss246 added it anyway. -DoctorW 05:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC) A consensus did develop regarding OHP. In my view, DoctorW was excessive in giving the template a haircut.Iss246 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)"

This section was taken from the talk page of the Psychology sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC) It is very clear based on over 4 years of editors strongly disagreeing with you adding Occupational health psychology to the applied psych sidebar. This indicates clear consensus against the occ health psychology entry. mrm7171 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell the community why you have blatantly gone against all previous editors including now myself, and included the occ health psychg in the applied psych sidebar? That is, you have clearly gone asgainst everyone else, the consensus. Why then should occ health be included. It needs to be deleted. Who agrees with your entry? There is no consensus over 4 years. See the talk on the psychology sidebar page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell the wikipedia community please iss246 why you have blatantly gone against all previous editors including now myself, and included the occ health psychg in the applied psych sidebar? That is, you have clearly gone asgainst everyone else, the consensus. Why then should occ health be included. It needs to be deleted. Who agrees with your entry? There is no consensus over 4 years. See the talk on the psychology sidebar page. Why should the entry not be deleted under consensus. I can gather all of those who have opposed your viewpoint. That is objective gathering of all other editors viewpoints. You blatantly went against the 'consensus' ISS246? Please explain. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC) THis needs to be addressed by anb independent person in Wikipedia. We cannot have someone so blatantly opposing all others editors views over such a long period of time!Mrm7171 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Mrm7171 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

A number of points in response to mrm7171. First, you set on establishing the idea that OHP is a subfield of i/o, despite my supplying a source about its origins. Perhaps you are doing this because a number of i/o researchers examined the link between work and health. But so have epidemiologists. That doesn't make OHP a subfield of epidemiology.

Second, the tie between i/o psychology and OHP is indicated in the OHP entry AND the i/o entry. It is not hidden away. Third, OHP was an emergent field, as was health psychology and i/o. OHP emerged from the confluence of i/o, health psychology, and occupational health (see Everly, 1986). It is stated up front. Moreover, in the Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, which was edited by J.C. Quick and L.E. Tetrick (its second edition was published in 2011 by the American Psychological Association), i/o psychology does not play that large a role in OHP.

Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago. OHP has clearly emerged. APA publishes the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. APA collaborates with the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP); although APA publishes JOHP, SOHP members are the journal's editors and reviewers. APA, NIOSH, and SOHP collaborate in organizing a biennial international meeting in North America the focus of which is OHP. On alternate years, the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP) sponors an international meeting in Europe. Journals, meetings, and scholarly societies reflect on the field. Psychologists from many different disciplines (i/o, health, developmental, experimental) and medical professionals participate in OHP. It does not belong to one parent discipline.Iss246 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

What you say here is irrelevant to you going ahead againsty ALL other editors with psychology training, and jamming the occ health psych entry into the psychology sidebar. You say above, ..."Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago." taken from Iss246

No, it was not settled iss246. That is completely false. According to the articile in the psychology sidebar and applied psych sidebar, at least 5 editors completely disagreed with you. That is, no consensus to include. As one of these editors,. stated, you just went ahead and did it anyway.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have not altered this page (yet) before others can be brought back in here. Covering up the facts that there was n o consensus, doesw not change anything. You needed consensus to included OHP in the psychology sidebar. This is clearly the main issue here. It has never been resolved. You cannot just jam OHP into the psychology because you want to against all others. If there is consensus direc t me and other editors/administrators to the szections where other editors agreed with you doing it. I cannot find consensus for your actions anywhere. Genuinely please show me where. If you cannot OHP needs to be deleting UNTIL we can get consensensus. It has not been deleted. And i wont delete it uyntil others can see the facts first. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The following overlaps with what I wrote to ItsZippy but I can write it again in response to your note on this page.

Unless my comments were deleted, I have discussed OHP on your (Mrm7171's) talk page and on this talk page. I have shown evidence that OHP is a recognized discipline. As I did on ItsZippy's talk page, I spell out some of my criteria for identifying a recognizable subdiscipline within psychology. These criteria include the following: (a) the existence of professional organizations; (b) the existence journals that publish research in the area; (c) recognition from a large governing body in psychology; (d) a body of research (and even practice). For criterion (a) there is ICOH-WOPS, EA-OHP, and SOHP, organizations that are enumerated and briefly described on the OHP page. For criterion (b) there journals dedicated to OHP (W & S, JOHP) and journals that while not dedicated to OHP, publish OHP research (JAP). With regard to criterion (c) APA recognizes OHP and helps underwrite an important biennial conference devoted to OHP. With regard to criterion (d) there is a large and growing body of research in OHP that I don't care to enumerate here but can be viewed looking into journals like JOHP or papers cited on the OHP page. There is a growing number of practitioners in OHP, and presentations at the recent Work, Stress, and Health conference in Los Angeles were devoted to practice. There is a practice-oriented wing of the EA-OHP.

I add the following. Mrm7171, you write that because there have been i/o psychologists who investigated work and health, then OHP must be a subfield of i/o psychology. I have already pointed out that epidemiologists have also studied work and health. By the same reasoning, OHP could be considered a subfield of epidemiology. I can go on with these canards but I will stop here.

I also pointed out the some fields in psychology have emerged out of other fields, and gone on to be legitimate subfields in their own right with journals, organizations, research agendas, and recognition by large governing bodies. Health psychology is an example of a field that emerged out of clinical psychology. Does that mean specialists in clinical psychology should declare war on the emergent subdiscipline of health psychology. No. Of course they shouldn't. This line of reasoning applies to you Mrm7171 with this colonial war waged to make OHP a colony of i/o psychology when it clearly isn't.Iss246 (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lets agree to disagree on the subfield issue for a while.

I am MUCH more concerned about youi jamming in occ health psych into the psychology sidebar, clearly against all other editors (i refer to the talk page for psychology and the psychology sidebar) Please post your answeer to that. You have avoided what you did against the consensus of others for 3 days of me patiently asking you to respond>Mrm7171 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not about people going against the consensus? Show me please, with all due respect, where others agreed you shoul include occ health psych into to the psychology sidebarMrm7171 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think I may have balled up my attempt to undo a bit of vandalism (something like Roxy Socks was added by a vandal) to the Psychology Template. I am not positive, but I think I was editing about the time you edited the act of vandalism away. I either succeeded in editing the Roxy Socks addition out or unwittingly restored the addition that I wanted to delete. I didn't mean to get in the way of your edits. I feel the same opprobrium toward the vandals.Iss246 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. I reverted your edit, which restored things to the way the were before the vandalism. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This edit really wasn't the right solution; I've changed the page to a redirect page. Any time there's a misspelling or misnomer that is widespread or likely to be entered as a search term, it is prudent to make it a redirect pointing to the correct title. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi this is Marksdaman. I am writing to ask you not include the Bath School disaster as a school shooting. The Bath School was destroyed by explosives, Andrew Kehoe did not enter the school and fire at random. All I ask of you is to never again include the Bath School disaster as a school shooting, it was a school-related attack, not a shooting'. Thank you.Marksdaman (talk) 22:41 8 May 2009 (EST)

I received your message. I did not write about the Bath School disaster. If I entered comma in a sentence about Thailand, that is the magnitude of any change I made in the school shooting Wikipedia entry. The writing about the Bath School disaster came prior to my making an entry.Iss246 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi this is Marksdaman again. I wanted to apologize for my mistake, Im sorry I wrote you about it. I guess I was just quick to assume because I've dealt with someone including the Bath School disaster as a school shooting so many times before. Again I am very sorry for the confusion. Thank you. Marksdaman (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2009 (EST)

There's a bit of a problem with using the subtitles "basic science" and "applied science" in the psychology side bar. It squeezes out perspectives that are not considered basic or applied science. Psychodynamic and humanistic perspectives are still extremely popular (especially in America) but wouldn't fit into either of these subheadings. If the subtitle was "perspectives" rather than "basic science" this problem could be avoided. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 11:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Lets agree to disagree on the subfield issue for a while.Reply

I am MUCH more concerned about youi jamming in occ health psych into the psychology sidebar, clearly against all other editors (i refer to the talk page for psychology and the psychology sidebar) Please post your answeer to that. You have avoided what you did against the consensus of others for 3 days of me patiently asking you to respond>Mrm7171 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not about people going against the consensus? Show me please, with all due respect, where others agreed you shoul include occ health psych into to the psychology sidebar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

In reply to the note you left on my talk page, I think that psychodynamics and humanistic psychology don't just fit under applied psychology. They are part of the fundamental aspects of psychology. Freud and Rogers influence cannot be dismissed. Both are regarded in the top 10 influential psychology theorists. There influence can be seen in fundamental aspects of social psychology, developmental psychology and personality psychology. They're approaches to psychotherapy (e.g. client-centered psychotherapy) are still prominent in clinical psychology. Apparently, there are still Psy.D in Psychoanalysis which was a news to me. My university is almost exclusively drive by rodent work and CBT. We still have a large social and developmental psychology school. The behavioural neuroscience school is the most well-funded though. I'm confused as to why the editors are so convinced that "basic science" is the most appropriate umbrella term for what most psychologists call research psychology or academic psychology. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 10:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I proposed on the fundamental science article that we move the merge the basic science (psychology) article there. There is a subsection on that page for medicine basic science. The term 'Basic science' is used in the same sense in both psychology and medicine. Actually the term is borrowed from medicine. I wanted to inform you given that you were the creator of that page which is currently only a stub and it looks more like a list than an article. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 06:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The problem with the Basic science (psychology) article that you've written is that all areas of psychology have both basic and applied research. Even organizational psychology has both applied and basic aspects. "Scientific aspects of I/O Psychology include both applied and basic science. Applied aspects are oriented around scientific solutions to human problems at work. Basic aspects are quite variable, following the investigator's interests. Examples include research on methods of behavioral measurement, communication, motivation, social interaction, and leadership. Source: The Science and Practice of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Reprinted with permission."[2] The same can be said for even behavioral neuroscience. Even the basic rodent work on fear extinction is often driven by application in say behavior therapy. At the same time the brain, neuronal and cellular level work contributes to basic science. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 02:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am a research psychologist who worked hard to improve the school violence entry. I entered the citations according to the style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Is that wrong? Does Wikipedia have it's own specified style for citations? Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, you're right. Wikipedia does not have its own citation style. As per WP:CS#HOW the APA is a perfectly acceptable style, and WP:CS#Citation templates and tools generally frowns upon the practice of changing one citation style for another (ie. what I just did). I didn't notice that the article already had a consistent style for all citations before I template-ized them all. Feel free to revert me if you dislike the new style.—Gabbe (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sjweh.fi/instructions.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The current request for speedy deletion is not intended to delete the page, it is intended to make a correct page move possible. You created a page at the correct name and then cut-and-pasted the existing text from the incorrect title to this new page. This is against WP regulations. The license used by WP requires that the contributions of individual editors are recognizable and for this it is necessary that a page's edit history remains preserved and associated with the article. That's why a page can be moved instead of simply using cut and paste. At this moment, the old article cannot be moved to the correct title because you created a new page at that location. This has to be deleted. Once that is done, the old page can be moved to the new title, which is the correct procedure. I hope this explains what is going on (but I thought I had already been pretty clear in the edit summaries). --Crusio (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Please stop editing Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. If you want to improve this article, for the moment you should do that at the old page Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, & Health. As I explained above, cuttang and pasting is NOT allowed. Once the cut and paste page (Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health) has been deleted, the OLD page (Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, & Health) can be properly MOVED to the correct name (Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health). I am not trying to delete this page, please try to understand what really is going on. --Crusio (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Moving a page correctly is actually rather simple, as long as the new target does not yet exist. Just click on the "move" tab on top of a page and the next screen is rather self explanatory. As soon as the "page without comma" is deleted, you can try this out yourself by moving the "page with comma" to the correct title. If you have problems, let me know and I'll do the move.

As for the deletion of the article, there is currently a big discussion under way on which journal articles are notable (i.e. should be included in WP). "Notable" in the WP sense is not synonymous with "meriting", "good", or anything like that. If a journal is at the center of a controversy because they published something wrong (like that journal -I forget the name- that published a creationist paper a few years ago), that would make the "notable" in the WP sense. On the other hand, a high quality journal is not necessary notable. I personally think that many journals are notable, Abductive feels that most journal articles should be deleted for lack of verifiable independent sources. My disagreement with him is not really fundamental, just that my bar is lower than his. This is a legitimate debate on WP and we just have to try to find some compromise somewhere that can garner enough consensus. If you are interested, most of the discussion can be found here. --Crusio (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a note, the dollar sign is a symbol used for a large number of currencies, such as the US dollar, Canadian dollar, most variations of the peso, the Nicaraguan córdoba, and the Tongan pa'anga, as well as in place of the cifrão in many cases. A link to US dollars is much more beneficial than it is harmful. Grsz¹¹ 05:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is here to increase knowledge, and that link causes no harm. Reverting it is useless, and labeling it as vandalism is particularly inappropriate. Grsz¹¹ 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, it isn't vandalism, read WP:VANDAL to see what that actually is. And I made no such edit to University of Guelph. The point is, the link causes zero harm and is only a benefit, increasing access between various articles here. That is the point after all. But hey, whatever, it's your time if you want to waste it to make some point. Grsz¹¹ 02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I am not 68.80.200.60 (talk · contribs). I have an account, and no need/desire to edit using an IP. I simply saw your edit as unproductive and reverted it. Grsz¹¹ 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

We are getting too close to minutiae. A dollar sign in front of the endowment for St. John's University's on Utopia Parkway in Queens, New York, USA represents U.S. dollars. A dollar sign in front of the endowment for Guelph University in Guelph, Ontario, Canada is in Canadian dollars. I do not oppose writing about NHL players' salaries and making the distinction between which nation's dollars go into the salary. But the business about university and college endowments is going to far down the road to representing minutiae.Iss246 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: Wikipedia is here to increase knowledge, and that link causes no harm. Reverting it is useless, and labeling it as vandalism is particularly inappropriate. Grsz11 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to your last note: Sure Wikipedia exists to increase knowledge. Readers don't need to be told that a university in the U.S. uses U.S. dollars and not Nicaraguan córdobas. That would amount to patronizing users. Why not tell readers that in England, Oxford University uses British pounds sterling, and not Egyptian pounds! What are you engaged in amounts vandalism by minutiae. Why not include in Wikipedia what hat Britney Spears wore on Thursday. Meanwhile I corrected your change at the University of Guelph, which is in Canada and uses Canadian dollars.Iss246 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: No, it isn't vandalism, read WP:VANDAL to see what that actually is. And I made no such edit to University of Guelph. The point is, the link causes zero harm and is only a benefit, increasing access between various articles here. That is the point after all. But hey, whatever, it's your time if you want to waste it to make some point. Grsz11 02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is so many people make bad additions to Wikipedia. I like to undo vandalism and generally protect Wikipedia from bad additions. That is not wasting time. You are the one who wastes time with your minutiae. I want to make Wikipedia better. Maybe what you did is not vandalism in the sense that a writer enters a curse word in a Wikipedia entry. But patronizing users does not make Wikipedia better.

You are 68.80.200.60, at least earlier today or yesterday. You did enter the notion that the University Guelph uses U.S. dollars. You probably didn't realize it because you were chewing through universities and colleges at a rapid pace.

A benefit of Wikipedia is that it gives people an opportunity to learn something new. It is not the multiplication of minutiae that we all know already. Why not go to the Oxford and Cambridge Wikipedia entries to help readers not to mix up British and Egyptian pounds!Iss246 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I visited the Wikipedia style manual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Currencies). The style manual is consistent with my point of view.

This is what it said.

Formatting

Use the full name of a currency on its first appearance (52 Australian dollars); subsequent occurrences can use the symbol of the currency (just $88), unless this would be unclear. The exception to this is in articles related entirely to US-, EU-, or UK-related topics, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened ($34, €26, and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear, and in places where space is limited such as tables, infoboxes, and parenthetical notes. When there are different currencies using the same symbol, use the full abbreviation (e.g. US$ for the United States dollar and AU$ for the Australian dollar, rather than just $) unless the currency which is meant is clear from the context.

I apologize for saying you made the change at the University of Guelph. I don't want to make more of the matter than it is worth, I simply don't want patronize Wikipedia users by adding unnecessary details. Best wishes.Iss246 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I noticed your recent reverts to the article Lehigh University concerning whether or not US Dollars should be specified for the university's endowment. I just wanted to refer you to the Manual of Style, particularly the section regarding currencies, which states that you should "generally use the full name of a currency on its first appearance (52 Australian dollars); subsequent occurrences can use the currency sign (just $88)." Furthermore, a quick glance at other university pages such as Harvard University, Yale University, and University of Pennsylvania show that all specify USD for their endowment (instead of just dollars). In light of both the manual of style and the way that the endowments are represented on other universities' pages, I am going to restore the page to state USD for the endowment, instead of just dollars. I do not feel strongly about the issue, as it seems like a very small detail to cause any wikidrama over, but I would appreciate it if you would open a discussion on the article's talkpage if you still disagree in order to avoid any edit warring.

Thanks --Aka042 (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Follow-up: After viewing your contributions I have noticed that you are making this change to a number of university pages, and another editor has also expressed concern with the changes. Please review the MoS Currencies link I posted above and let me know if you still believe USD should not be specified. In light of the MoS I would like to revert these changes you have made but will not do so until I hear back from you. --Aka042 (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please stop making these wide-ranging unexplained edits against wp:consensus. Leave the US$ links in. There seems to be broad opposition, which has been abundantly explained. Please stop. I do believe that wp:vandalism and/or wp:edit warring applies in this case, as the disruption caused by widespread editing against multiple editors. - Sinneed 02:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Response to Sinneed: I explained the edits. The edits are consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Currencies)

This is what the Manual said.

Use the full name of a currency on its first appearance (52 Australian dollars); subsequent occurrences can use the symbol of the currency (just $88), unless this would be unclear. The exception to this is in articles related entirely to US-, EU-, or UK-related topics, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened ($34, €26, and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear, and in places where space is limited such as tables, infoboxes, and parenthetical notes. When there are different currencies using the same symbol, use the full abbreviation (e.g. US$ for the United States dollar and AU$ for the Australian dollar, rather than just $) unless the currency which is meant is clear from the context.

Readers don't need to be told that a university in the U.S. uses U.S. dollars and not Nicaraguan córdobas. That would amount to patronizing users. Similarly readers don't need to be told that in England, Oxford University uses British pounds sterling, and not Egyptian pounds.Iss246 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, you did not. I understand your position. I see many editors who oppose it. I am one.- Sinneed 19:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is true that I did not include an explanation at Loyola University Maryland. I am sorry. I thought my explanations to the two Wikipedia editors would be sufficient justification. I explained my position to two Wikipedia editors, one of whom raised the Manual of Style, and prevailed upon them. I underline the point that that the Manual of Style is consistent with the changes I made. Moreover, I object to including links to explain minutiae such as Oxford uses British pounds, and not Lebanese pounds, or a college in Baltimore, Maryland uses dollars, not Nicaraguan córdobas. There is plenty of important material for Wikipedia to cover.Iss246 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

That guy keeps adding stuff about Sudbury schools and how they are so much better - thanks for reverting this one, I'm getting tired of doing it myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I hope that you approve of my edits. Thanks for your suggestions. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is not necessary to say that psychology is science in the first sentence in addition to what already appears on the page. To do so would be redundant. I don't disagree that psychology is science - it is. But, the lede of this article makes this point in a way that is much clearer: the scientific study of (-ology) human or other animal mental functions and behaviors (psycho-). It's status as a science is further supported by the rest of the article, so this should be plenty obvious to a reader as it currently stands.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Comments I left along with recent edits were not directed at you if you were not responsible for the edits that preceded mine. The same edit was continually being made from different IP addresses. These editors had not made any previous edits from those address, which looks suspicious. Care was not even being taken to make sure that the edit was spaced properly, so it seemed reasonable to assume that the intent was to be disruptive. I have read your comments and understand your logic. However, I have made additional edits to the page, which I think improves the writing of the first sentence, but does not change the basic idea at all. This wording is more consistent with the other pages that you've referenced as possible models.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I made no assumptions about who was making the sloppy edits using multiple IP addresses. Please don't make assumptions about me. I know you to be a long time contributor who is willing to discuss changes, as we have been doing. We may disagree from time to time, but I am not questioning your integrity as an editor. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

History of comments Osubuckeyeguy with regard to the above:

I think you should have left psychology as a science.Iss246 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I read your comment about the change in the psychology entry, and I take it that you directed it at me. I did not create a new IP to write psychology is a science. I don't know who wrote that. I would not do that. I own up to all changes I make, changes that turn out to be good ones, and changes that turn out to be not so good.Iss246 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What I did do was check into biology, chemistry, astronomy, and geology. The Wikipedia pages for those entries begin by reporting that the discipline is a science. I think a better way to shape the opening of the psychology entry is to begin by writing that psychology is a science and then delete the word "scientific" from the expression "scientific study" in order to reduce redundancy.Iss246 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead, and made the abovementioned edits. The opening is now more consistent with the openings of other scientific disciplines.Iss246 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with the recent changes you made in the psychology entry (July 24, 2010, 19:39). Your weak denial notwithstanding ("Comments I left along with recent edits were not directed at you if you were not responsible for the edits that preceded mine"), I am convinced that the comment you made ("Stop creating new IPs solely to make this edit") was directed at me.

I reiterate, I don't start new Wikipedia entries nor do I make additions, subtractions, and other edits to existing entries without tacking on my moniker.Iss246 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand by what I say about your targeting me. What gives it away was your blanket statement and weak denial ("Comments I left along with recent edits were not directed at you if you (my emphasis) were not responsible for the edits that preceded mine") regarding the comment you made ("Stop creating new IPs solely to make this edit"). That "if you" galls me. It is like saying, "If you didn't cheat on your wife, I will not hold you up to scorn." Why raise the issue at all with me? Moreover, your "stop making" statement was entered just after I wrote to you in an up-front manner about changes at the beginning of the Psychology entry and just after a different contributor made a change in the Psychology entry to which you objected.Iss246 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Iss246 (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Iss246! You are from New York? Is it possible to provide me with a copy of following?

http://clio.cul.columbia.edu:7018/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=5082330

• Anon. (1799): Obituary of James Bolton. Leeds Mercury or General Advertiser, Saturday, january 19th, vol. 32, no. 1668: p. 3

Holding: Butler Library, 535 West 114th St., New York, NY 10027

I only need a copy of page 3. If You can help me anyhow, I will be very glad and grateful,

Kind regards, Doc Taxon (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Im doing a set of 4 templates, Aspects of workplaces, Aspects of corporations, Aspects of organizations and in a day or so Aspects of occupations as there is some synergy between the 4 of them and i am having them link to each other. I was intending to put OHP into the occupations template.--Penbat (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as the major contributor to the article on School violence I would like to ask you about the following: I reckon the existing journal citations in the article could have 32 DOIs, 18 more PMIDs, 2 JSTOR links, 2 PMCs and 18 more issue values set, which would provide links for readers to see the abstract or full text of nearly all the journal articles. This sandbox page shows the extra available data. Would you be okay if I reformatted the school violence article to use {{cite journal}} so that the extra data can be added automatically, or would your rather merge in the data yourself? Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Rjwilmsi for contacting me. You have a good idea. College students will be able to easily access virtually all of the cited sources through their college libraries and members of the general public will have access to most of the sources via their public libraries. Please go ahead in entering the DOIs, etc. We want to continue to improve the school violence entry.Iss246 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I left a few samples for you of how you can complete some of this work: [3] see the infobox on my user page. You can find PMIDs by searching PubMed, DOIs by searching Google Scholar, and ISBNs by using the ISBN finder on my userpage. The bot can't fill in the missing info if there is nothing there to go on-- it needs at least a DOI or a PMID. Rjwilmsi questions is a a different one; if the bot could convert your citations to the cite journal templates, then it is able to fill in the missing info. (Also, page and date ranges on Wiki use an WP:ENDASH rather than a hyphen.) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sandy, per agreement (here) I've used the sandbox changes with the citation templates. I've merged back the ISBNs you added manually, and another DOI & journal/page correction, let me know if I missed anything else. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much!

I can see you have really dedicated yourself to this page, and I love the results! I really appreciate the time you've taken to re-organize this page. I know with your help, it should be re-assessed much higher than it is now. One clarification I would like to make is that his constituency (his electoral district) includes East New York and Canarsie, Bushwick, so on. I have seen a few places where it states that his district is in East New York, which neglects the other neighborhoods. I know, the City Council districts are not clean-cut by neighborhood, so there is some overlap.

Also, I would also like to know your opinion on the page. Do you feel the criticisms section should be labeled as such? I personally am leaning away from a criticism section because so many things can be criticized and controversial in a BLP that it is almost insulting to the reader to label what should be a criticism versus what should be regular reading material. If you can think of another name for the section, I would love to know.

And again, thank you for your hard work! Keep it up!

--Screwball23 talk 00:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Iss246. Many thanks for your expert copy-editing of Malati Dasi. I'm impressed. I did some further editing, mostly for compliance with the sources and facts, and would be grateful if you could give the diff a look. Thanks again. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I got your message but I don't have enough connection or interest in the subject. I am not going to edit that page, but I will help you out with your future backlog pursuits should something of mutual interest come up.--Screwball23 talk 03:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:SMasters#Copy_editing_drive's talk page.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Regarding this edit; I'm fully aware that group therapy is two separate words. However, that is not the name of the image. As you can see here, the image is no longer displayed as a result of your edit. — Manticore 14:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you misunderstand. The file name is File:Grouptherapy.jpg, the caption is unaffected by this. — Manticore 14:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, why do you delete my last post? that was not vandalism!! Psico pp (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

you don't answer me; i have to rewrite that (at least tell me why you say it's vandalism). That was only a question!Psico pp (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited List of City College of New York people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Schlesinger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please read the header of category:Antisemitism and undo your reverts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with the policy someone inserted as a header. In fact, so do many others as can be observed in the entries included in the category. Despite the header on the top of the page, I observed that Wikipedeans included such individuals such as Irène Némirovsky and Wilhelm Marr. They fit with the topic, as does Henry Ford.Iss246 (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are free to disagree, but you must not revert edits that implement the consensus decision of March 7 that was reached at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

That does not make sense. I was not part of the consensus decision. Nor were the individuals who included Irène Némirovsky, Wilhelm Marr, Otto Höfler, Howell Arthur Gwynne, Salvador Abascal, Evelyn Barker, Dezső Szabó, Andrey Dikiy, &c. Wikipeadeans have spoken on this matter. A small group can't come to a consensus and overrule a wide swath of Wikipedeans who in all honesty linked those individuals to the category of antisemitism.Iss246 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

It makes good sense. There was a discussion, and the resulting decision was reasonable. If you want to change it, you would need to convince people of your opinion. (And there is no need to echo your responses on my talk page.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Let me say this about writing on your page. I did not know if I needed to echo my response on your page. I don't like to go behind the backs of other Wikipedeans; I know that if I write a response on your page, I would alert you to my thinking on the matter at hand. By writing on your page, you get a message from Wikipedia that I wrote to you. By writing a response to you solely on my page, I don't believe that you get alerted. But by writing on your page you do get alerted. Hence, I continue to write on your page. I want you to know what I think.

Now I turn to the discussion at hand. The discussion regarding deleting individuals was reasonable according to you. But not according to me. Nor according to others who contributed historical people to the category. I don't find deleting the individuals you deleted reasonable. For example, I see no point to deleting Richard Wagner, who advocated building a theater in Vienna, putting on a play popular with Jews in order to draw a large crowd, and then setting the theater on fire. It makes no sense to me and many others that you would delete him from the category of antisemitism. He was a brilliant composer and creator of operas. He was also a vicious anti-Semite. You may as well remove (Father) Charles Coughlin!

My interaction with you occurred at a time when I concluded a good deal of reading about Lindbergh and Ford because one of them, Ford, is relevant to a small section in a chapter in of a book I am writing.

I register my objections, and continue to restore names I believe belong in that section.Iss246 (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are free to object, but do not add biographies to that category. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12#Category:People accused of antisemitism. This has been discussed, the category was deleted, and you are reintroducing it. And really, this page is on my watchlist, there is no need to copy your responses to my talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

People accused! In other words they are just accused but the evidence isn't in? There is very good evidence for the antisemitism of Richard Wagner, Father Coughlin, Henry Ford, &c. This is game playing. I will add biographies to the category.Iss246 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah well, since you willfully disregard the header of the category, I will formulate this as a warning. The only way to make a category system coherent is by following conventions and consensus. As I said above: you do not need to agree, and you are free to try to accomplish a change in consensus, but in the meantime you will have to live with it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Don't be so imperious. Six people can't get together to make rules for everyone else. If individuals have an intimate connection to anti-Semitism their biographical entries belong in the category of antisemitism. You cannot by the fiat of six people dictate the category. In fact, of the people who had the meeting to which you referred me, i.e., the meeting regarding the decision about biographical entries, you are the only one going around censoring others who place biographical entries there. I do plenty of good work for Wikipedia. I've got Barnstars to show for my work. I have cleaned up vandalism.

You are not going to boss me around. I recommend that you find real vandals who hurt Wikipedia. Don't instruct me on the category.Iss246 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure whether we've crossed paths in person, but it seems our interests have crossed paths in more ways than just the Coop. I too am an avid viewer of MI-5/Spooks, and I taught at CCNY a few years ago. However we may agree or disagree about specific edits, I am genuinely glad to no longer be "alone" regularly editing the Coop's Wikipedia entry. I hope you stick with it. Dave Golland (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the note. I admire the MI-5/Spooks series. It is better than 24. It amazes me how MI-5 periodically kills off its central characters. To this day, I can't watch a drama featuring Rupert Penry Jones because, to me, he is Adam Carter.

The Park Slope Food Coop is not on my watch list. I visited the entry in the interest of reporting on the ending of the contentious debate over the boycott of products made in Israel. I thought the news should be reported because it probably was the most contentious issue to face the members of the Food Coop (and perhaps the surrounding neighborhood). I have to tell you that I don't plan to get too involved in editing or emending the PSFC entry in the future. Sorry! I won't put it on my watch list. I will say this. It was good to work out the wording for the PSFC entry.Iss246 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

We are dangerously close to entering into a revert war. On Saturday, after explaining my position on the Talk page, I stated that I would not make the changes I proposed for a couple of days. I made the change on Monday, and for the past two days you have reverted me while I have consistently asked you to discuss it on the talk page.

Please, please, let's continue the discussion on the talk page. I would not like to be in a revert war, even if we don't technically violate the 3RR (although we're coming close to that tonight). You need to counter my points logically and saliently in order for me to understand your points. Limiting your points to the edit summary is insufficient and can only lead to misunderstanding.

Dave Golland (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Don't threaten me ("dangerously close"). I've been a good citizen of Wikipedia. You are not my boss. I've got plenty of experience editing for Wikipedia. The difference between us is that I want an accurate description. I want the exact date of the meeting. And the attendance.Iss246 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

There's no need to get defensive. I didn't say "you're coming dangerously close," but rather "we're coming dangerously close." The danger is that either of us could be blocked if we take it too far. I'm not threatening you, but it seems clear (above) that you're quick to feel threatened. And I'm not bossing you around, but (again see above) you seem quick to assume that. (above = User_talk:Iss246#Warning:_stop_adding_category:Antisemitism_to_biographies)

I am beginning to think I know who you are. But you have me at an advantage, anonymity-wise.

In any event, you've now reverted twice, and I once. Don't you see where this is going? My advice: bring it to the talk page.

Dave Golland (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't psychoanalyze you. Don't psychoanalyze me: "defensive". What a "baloney" term (I would use a stronger expression but I want to preserve my status as a gentleman). People who disagree with you are not defensive. I find it offensive that you should revert to a cliché borrowed from psychology because I disagree with you.

Moreover I take it as a threat that I am engaging in a revert war. It is not a war. It is simply this: I prefer that there be accuracy in reporting. If the date is March 27, then just saying March is vague. If the meeting was unprecedented because almost 1700 people showed up when the average meeting has fewer than 300 members attend, that would explain why the meeting is unprecedented. A meeting could be unprecedented because someone was standing on his head juggling juggler's clubs. I contend that the entry should not be left vague. It is that simple. It is not being "defensive."Iss246 (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I recently stumbled upon the subject article and noticed that several references (reference #5, 6, & 7) to Wallace seemed incomplete. Glad if you can clarify.---North wiki (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for bringing the problem to my attention. I fixed up the Wallace citation.Iss246 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Ford article is locked, so I can't edit it. The man was not a pacifist, but an isolationist. This is a critical flaw. 108.240.108.255 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I read up on Ford. You could say he was a pacifist in the First World War. He wasn't an isolationist because he had factories in England, France, Germany, and the Soviet Union. On the other hand, his isolationist colors came out in his stance against the U.S. entering the Second World War. I would say that Ford was a bit of each.Iss246 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You can not be an anti-Semite and a pacifist. He was a military isolationist, never a pacifist. That needs to be dissected in the article. Why is it locked? 108.240.108.255 (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ford presented himself as a pacifist with regard to the First World War. During the First World War, he was briefly and tenuously allied with a Jewish pacifist named Rosika Schwimmer but the alliance would not last long, in part, because she was Jewish. With regard to the years preceding the Second World War, he sided with isolationists and anti-interventionists like Lindbergh although he had expressed pro-Nazi sympathies.Iss246 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The man is not famous for his pacifism. That is misleading and inaccurate.108.240.108.255 (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are mistaken. The episode of pacifism to which I am referring has been covered in the scholarly literature about Ford.Iss246 (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, I am not mistaken. It is, as I said above, misleading and inaccurate to claim "He was known worldwide especially from about 1914 as a promoter of pacifism and as a publisher of antisemitic texts such as the book The International Jew." Pacifists do not promote anti-semitism. That statement needs to be taken apart and responsibly put back together in sections with much more detailed citations.108.240.108.255 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

His anti-Semitism is of course detestable. I stand my ground regarding his pacifism. I refer specifically to his views on the First World War. His sentiments regarding World War I were pacifist. He landed up in a tenuous anti-war alliance, which eventually unraveled, with a Jewish pacifist named Rosinka Schwimmer. Consult the historical record. This is not to exonerate his anti-Semitism.

Moreover, I didn't write that write the "worldwide" quote from the Henry Ford entry that you mention above. I can say that he was widely known for his objections to the First World War. In fact his efforts to end the First World War led to some embarrassment for him.Iss246 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fine - stand your ground 'til the cows come home. But fix the paragraph. It is misleading and inaccurate, as it currently reads.108.240.108.255 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your mocking tone is noted. The cows have not come home.

I edited the sentence to which you objected. Don't take my word for his pacifism during the opening years of the First World War. Do the research. He held pacifist views during the first years of World War I.Iss246 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of his "pacifist" period. That isn't the point. The point is that the article was misleading and inaccurate. You did a great job with the edit. Thanks, on behalf of everyone who cares about the integrity of Wikipedia.108.240.108.255 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're engaging in edit warring behavior by undoing my edits, especially since there is a discussion thread going on. You should stop and wait for that to conclude. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC) You are undoing my edits.Iss246 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

You were bold, I reverted, now we discuss. That's how BRD works. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC) A discussion has started. I like the idea of the winning percentage template. It beats calculating the percentages in my head (I teach a graduate statistics course but I am not immune to arithmetic errors).Iss246 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Let's call a halt to reversions while the discussion continues. One thing about which we are in agreement: We love baseball.Iss246 (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Iss246, I noticed that you were involved in the List of important publications in psychology. It has been requested by Cnilep that List of important publications in anthropology be moved to Bibliography of anthropology. Your comments on this request are most welcome. Please see Talk:List of important publications in anthropology#Requested move. Anthrophilos (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Psychology sidebar. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Lets agree to disagree on the subfield issue for a while. It is irrelevant. The main issue is why you have gone against everyone elses opinion that OHP shoulkd not be inbcluded in the applied psych and psychology sidebar. You keep going on about the subfield issue to create a cover for the fact that you will not answer anyone over what you did against all other editors opinion in the sidebar?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am MUCH more concerned about youi jamming in occ health psych into the psychology sidebar, clearly against all other editors (i refer to the talk page for psychology and the psychology sidebar) Please post your answeer to that. You have avoided what you did against the consensus of others for 3 days of me patiently asking you to respond>Mrm7171 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not about people going against the consensus? Show me please, with all due respect, where others agreed you shoul include occ health psych into to the psychology sidebar?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171 (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)==My response regarding the sidebar==Reply

I wrote in response to your comments on the sidebar (these comments can also be found on the sidebar talk page). A number of criteria help to identify a recognizable subdiscipline of psychology. Among these criteria are the following: (a) the existence of professional organizations; (b) the existence journals that publish research in the area; (c) recognition from a large governing body in psychology; (d) a body of research (and even practice). For criterion (a) there are the International Commission on Occupational Health's scientific committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors (ICOH-WOPS), the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP), and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP). For criterion (b) there are journals dedicated to OHP, for example, Work & Stress and Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (JOHP)) and journals that while not dedicated to OHP, publish OHP research, for example, the Journal of Applied Psychology and the American Journal of Public Health.

With regard to criterion (c) the American Psychological Association (APA) recognizes OHP and helps underwrite an important biennial conference devoted to OHP. This is particularly true of the Public Interest Directorate of the APA. The Public Interest Directorate along with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has had a hand in every Work, Stress, and Health Conference since the conference series began in 1990. APA hosted in 2004 an important organizational meeting that helped SOHP come into being.

With regard to criterion (d) there is a large and growing body of research in OHP that I won't enumerate here but can be viewed looking into journals like JOHP or papers cited on the OHP page. There is a growing number of practitioners in OHP. Presentations at the recent Work, Stress, and Health conference in Los Angeles were devoted to practice. There is a practice-oriented wing of the EA-OHP. By these criteria OHP should continue to appear on the sidebar along with other applied disciplines within psychology.Iss246 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again, ISS246, please identify exactly where consensus was established to include occupational health psychology, with no doctorate or masters level programs anywhere on the planet devoted and titled to occ health psychology. That aside, you say you had consensus. Where, when please. Otherwise, if no consensus. Then Occ Health psych needs to be deleted from the sidebar asap. Please understand consensus is everything on Wikipedia. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think psychology sidebar should have OHP entry? when all other editors agree with me. There is Consensus it should not be in there. You have been arguing with them for 4 years. They all believed OHP should not be in the sidebar.

Hi Iss246. Can you answer to this important issue only please? Any other issues aside please, while we look at facts and the facts on the WQikipideia project rules and guiding principles please.

I am patiently asking why you won't respond to this issue and what you did and the actions you took violating Wikipidea consensus.

I am asking you again please, why the Wikipideia project and community should not delete the entry you have 'jammed in' for want of a better word, to the Psychology Sidebar and entry and the sidebar and entry under Applied Psychology?

It is very clear that all other editors for a long time, clearly objected to you plaing ocuupational health psychology on this page under applied psychology?

Anyone in the wikipedia community, is encouraged please, to view the history over 4 years between you and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly on the psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else. You just went ahead and added it in anyway.

Then when it was deleted by other editors, (rightly so, if against all of their wishes), you undid the deletion and so it goes on....and seems to have gone on for years and years, this pattern.

This critical issue of deciding on the deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Wikipedia principles.

Please understand that I do not wish to personally engage in edit war with you. Please stop also your personal attacks toward me and focus on the deletion of the occupational health psychology entry and the long and checkered history it has so far. All I can ask is that you stop undoing my edits and participate here please. That's up to you obviously. This is not a private website but instead is a community project and has no room for personal agendas, Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You wrote that you don't want to engage in personal attacks but you accuse me of a personal agenda and having a checkered history. Yet I have three barnstars. I was asked and then volunteered in an effort by Wikipedians to copyedit entries that were in need of copyediting, entries that were not on my watchlist. I have tried to reverse vandalism when I observed it in entries I have read for general interest (once in a while I have been mistaken in identifying vandalism). When I made many changes in baseball entries having to do with won-lost percentages, a topic that is dear to me, the many changes got reversed. There was some debate, back and forth, but the debate came to an end, and my edits were reversed. That was the end of it. I could go on in defending myself. But I will stop here.Iss246 (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, iss246, again i need to correct you and your misquoting me. I simply wrote "Please stop also your personal attacks toward me and focus on the deletion of the occupational health psychology entry and the long and checkered history it has so far. I did not say your long checkered history. No personal attacks made by me at least.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

However please just respond to the 'no consensus issue' if you are being honest that there was eventual consensus by all editors who opposed you personally putting it in the sidebar anyway, and over 4 or 5 years now. You never have shown where consensus was gained. Tht's all i amn saying.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I quote directly from Wikipedia....

" Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals."

If I do delete it from the psychology sidebar, please refrain from immediately jumping on me for doing so, and again trying to have me barred for simply wanting the concept of consensus respected. If you do all i can do i refer to these entries as proof that I have waited and waited for you simply to show where any consensus there was to leave the occ health psych entry in the sidebar. My issue is that you perhaps based on my reading of 5 years of previous discussions with other editors that you never had consensus and this occ health psych entry and you went against much consensus and included the entry anyway to suit yourself and your own singular beliefs.

I truly do not mean to sound argumentative, although i fear i am sounding quite repetitive i am sure, to other editors, but I am merely challenging that inclusion you have continued to make and all you seemn to do is bad mouth me, and accuse me of editing bad faith. I object strongly top your accusations. I believe the many other editors over the years, that have strongly opposed you placing occ health psych in the (applied) psychology sidebar have 'given up' rather than provide support or agreement that it should be included. I'm just hanging in there, not acting in bad faith iss246. Please feel free to comment on my talk page. Mrm7171 (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I filed a 3RR case about Mrm7171 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Feel free to add a comment. Also note that you might end up blocked as well. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you DVdm. I would like to discuss edits with Mrm7171 but it is strange that he/she declines to discuss.Iss246 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Iss246. I've just responded to the edit warring report and protected the page for a few days. I just wanted to let you know that both you and Mrm7171 were edit warring on that page - although you had good intentions, and it was good to see that you were willing to engage in discussion, the fact that you kept reverting made it much more difficult for me to just block Mrm7171 without blocking you. The best course of action would have been to attempt to discuss the issue without constantly reverting the other editor (this was not a copyright or BLP issue, so was not urgent); it would have then been easier to report the editor for being disruptive when they failed to respond. Hopefully the protection of the page should calm the situation down a little; if Mrm7171 continues to edit war after the protection is lifted please avoid engaging in an edit war with him. Instead, if he continues to revert without discussing, just report him to WP:EWN so that his disruptive behaviour can be dealt with (in this case, if he continues to revert even without technically breaking 3RR, it would be worth reporting to stop the disruption). I hope that's ok - let me know if you have any further questions. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you ItsZippy for your help. I wish I could have had a dialogue with Mrm7171 because s/he has a lot of enthusiasm for i/o psychology. If Mrm7171 could pour that enthusiasm into a more constructive path, it would be very helpful to Wikipedia. I completely failed in my several attempts to engage Mrm7171. I was reluctant to report Mrm7171 because I thought perhaps s/he was a college student who developed enthusiasm for the subject matter, and I don't feel comfortable reporting on a student. I kept trying to have a dialogue with Mrm7171, without success.Iss246 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC) As such I/O or Work psychology is the overarching, major discipline within psychology, which deals with anything involving work and psychology.Reply

This is an accepted fact. Please don't pigeon hole this broad field of applied and psychology by inserting only recruitment, job deign etc..its simply not a valid argument and appears to come from a limited knowledge of the profession and professional and research based work psychology. 

Please ISS246 instead of undoing my additions, please discuss first..... offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Why do you think psychology sidebar should have OHP entry? when all other editors agree with me. There is Consensus it should not be in there. You have been arguing with them for 4 years. They all believed OHPO should not be in the sidebar.Reply

Second that! - DVdm (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States#Arbitrary_break_3. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just added a new comment on my talk page. Not sure still how to be doing this. But anyway please refer to this and prior to any further changes or undoing entries we get this resolved fully through discussion. thanks. mrm717 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm Matty.007. Iss246, thanks for creating Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Just needs some references, I will try and categorize it

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Matty.007 11:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Iss, calling another editor "the Napoleon of Wikipedia" is unhelpful and may be considered a personal attack. Even if you feel that other editors are being difficult or disruptive, these kinds of comments only serve to make the dispute worse. I know that this dispute is frustrating, but please do try to maintain civility, just for the sake of achieving an easier resolution. Also, I made a post on my talk page here which you might like to see. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry. Mrm7171's cascade of text got me pretty angry.Iss246 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is the response I placed on the sockpuppet page. I know what a sockpuppet is. It is a person who pretends to be another person so s/he could artificially increase the number of comments s/he can contribute and make it seem like commentators other than himself/herself are making contributions. Those individuals are not me. I did not write their comments. You can check my IP address (I almost feel like the fifth grader in the school yard when the bully searched my pockets for the quarter my mother didn't give me). I am at home in New York City at my desk as I write these comments and as I have written most of my Wikipedia contributions (occasionally I switch to a second home PC running from the same home network but I don't know if the IP address changes if I move to my backup PC). Please determine if the IP addresses of the writers are New York City addresses. But please be aware that I will be in Chicago from June 19 -24 and in the UK and Italy from mid-July to early August. In all likelihood, I will check in with Wikipedia (which I did from the Middle East in January and from Colorado last October). Thus my IP address will temporarily change in the near future. Since February I have only contributed to Wikipedia only from NYC although I made a trip to New Hampshire in April (to win an award for having climbed a lot of mountains) but I can't remember if I looked at Wikipedia on that trip to New Hampshire.

I make one correction. I was in L.A. from May 15-20, and contributed to Wikipedia from my hotel room when I had a little down time.Iss246 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Only one element of this accusation disturbs me. What disturbs me about the accusation is the potential for my comments in the debate and the comments of the 4 people mentioned above to be discounted because of the sockpuppet indictment, even if I am not a sockpuppet operator (and never have been). Sometimes just bringing to bear an accusation taints a person (and I suppose the comments of the four people I have been accused of manufacturing). Which should not be the case but human psychology is what it is.Iss246 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You've been cleared by checkuser, as I'm sure you expected.

By the way, you might want to remove any information about your future travel plans; police groups often recommend against telling burglars when you'll be out of town. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. People will be in my house while I travel. I'm not upset about this business. I just don't want my point of view and the viewpoints of the other contributors tainted by the accusation. I recognize that you, ItsZippy, and DVdm have been dealing with this seemingly interminable argument, which may be becoming very tedious to you, but is of great moment to Mrm7171 and me. I realize that you, ItsZippy, and DVdm have the interests of Wikipedia at heart. That's why you look in on this matter.Iss246 (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, that IP put the Ratt template in Milton Berle because Berle performed in one of the band's music videos, ala drag. I'm not sure if Milton Berle's page mentions it, but the Ratt page does.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you User:Apokryltaros.Iss246 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. This appears to be a new thing. When editing, next to "undo," I saw a link called "thank." Seems like a good idea to help cut down on misunderstandings.Dave Golland (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi iss246. including a link in the i/o article is irrelevant and crowding to the article. Cannot have every link in an article's contents page on wiki. Way too long for readers to work through the contents page including anything even vaguely relevant. eg OB OHS, goes on and on all ion the contents page, could list 100 different "relationship to...links, as you've done? Can you imagine it? Isn't 'OHP', the coined brand, (but maybe not Occupational Health Psychology as a 'topic/area' of study), multi disciplinary as you keep on saying?

It would be much more worthwhile including a similar section in the occupational health psychology article, I think. That is, relationship to I/O psych link in the contents page of the occupational health article? which I am going to do unless there is very good logic not to. Your response on my talk page is fine. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again, I say Please do not blanket any good faith additions I make to articles, without discussing with me. Don't try to drag an editor into an edit war! I don't want one. I am not deleting your input. Discuss with me instead. On my talk page is fine with me. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to discuss all editing issues on my talk page. Let me know if you actually want to abide by Wikipdeia and discuss. Otherwise you blanket deleting my good faith additions to articles, will need to be addressed by dispute resolution and possible arbitration. So discuss please or leave my work alone. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Have reached consensus today with 2 other very experienced Wikipedia editors. Am working on the best source for the inclusion. Leave it alone. Stop engaging in 'one sided' edit war. The above applied psychology discussion has also commenced.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi iss246 just a quick note to invite you to an open discussion being held on the applied psychology talk page, for all editors to develop a clear set of agreed criteria for inclusion within the applied psychology section, where limited space is a major factor. I've started things off on the talk page. Look forward to your input as well as everyone elses. Only fair way to do things, I think.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is not good faith to add unsourced material. Moreover acknowledgement of i/o psychology is the first paragraph.Iss246 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at Occupational health psychology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ronz, I did not want to add the links, and I want to take them down. It is just that I wanted to challenge the view that the links were bad.Iss246 (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi iss246, hope you don't mind a brief message. On the OHP talk page are 5 clear questions. Could you respond on the article talk page please so we can get a civil consensus on this Wikipedia article. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I mentioned you as being part of a long-running dispute at Occupational health psychology and part of recent edit-warring there. The discussion is at AN3. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Irving Millman, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Iss246, very brief, civil, courtesy notice. Have detailed 9 clear 'facts' on the occupational health psychology talk page a day or two ago, which have been developed over time through editor discussions and as was suggested by Ronz and other experienced editors to move the article forward. I will be adding these to the article soon, with reliable sources, where appropriate. This civil courtesy notice is just letting you know ahead of time, as they are now discussed at length, and none of them can be disputed any longer as clear 'facts.' I am also following Wikipedia protocol. If you believe any of the 9 facts are still unresolved, please detail any contrary factual information. If not, I will add all of these well sourced, widely published, neutral and factual points to the article. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• pdf]</ref> In order to obtain membership in the EA-OHP, "applicants should possess i) a degree in psychology or closely related subject and ii) at least three years active involvement in occupational health psychology."<ref>EA-OHP membership.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi iss246. As you can see I have not undone the significant additions made to the article by your close friend (outside of Wikipedia) psyc12, a few days ago, even though we were in the middle of, and trying to reach a group consensus regarding Richardkeatinge's comments that the article is very 'overloaded.' If you have any concerns please don't hesitate in talking with me on my talk page. I am more than open to a friendly discussion over any editing we do on this article and working together to achieve the best article for Wikipedia as possible. I believe that we can achieve civil consensus on any topic if we discuss issues first and in a civil, calm, respectful manner. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Iss246. Can you please discuss on the work and stress and EA-OHP talk pages as required please. You just undid edits that were 2 weeks old. Often in Wiki articles it will mention a person's profession, not qualifications. For example, Tom Jones, a medical doctor, or Jim White an Engineer. Tom Cox, Organizational Psychologist, founded the Journal Work & Stress and he founded the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Tom Cox in his opening line on his own website http://proftcox.com/, proudly refers to himself as an Organizational Psychologist. In fact, he states .."I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." Please discuss on articles talk pages. I do not wish to have an edit war iss246. I am very open to discussion on the article's talk page however as we are required to do. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've met Tom Cox a couple of times. He's a really nice guy. It is not relevant to the entry that he calls himself an organizational psychologist just as it is not relevant that he earned a Ph.D. in behavioral pharma. Or that Stan Kasl earned a Ph.D. in social psychology. His work is relevant to OHP. The way I view Mrm's prefixing the "organizational psychologist" label to Tom Cox's name is a tactic in an effort in making OHP appear to be a subdiscipline of i/o. Iss246 (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

'Qualifications' are irrelevant. Reliable sources are all we have. Very often in Wikipedia articles, a person's profession is included directly after their name. An example would be "Jim Smith, MD, was the first person to ......" I just found many examples of this in a variety of different Wikipedia articles. Why are you so biased toward Tom Cox proudly referring to himself as his Profession anyway. He is an Organizational Psychologist. He doesn't mention all of his different qualifications in that reliable source. Only ""I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specializing in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." Tom Cox is the founder of Work & Stress and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The reliable source used in this article and was included after editor discussion two weeks ago, was relevant. Tom Cox only refers to his profession iss246, which is an Organizational Psychologist in this reliable source. http://proftcox.com/Mrm7171 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tom Cox is also the founder of Work & Stress and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

You reverted this three times today iss246. The edit had been there for 2 weeks since and was a 'recent edit and consensus.' Your editing today was disruptive and designed only to cause an edit war. It is irrelevant if you have met someone or not. That could also be fabricated. We need to have this dispute resolved formally. I am going to initiate this because I do not wish to be drawn into an edit war. You have clearly refused to discuss it on the proper article talk page. Tom Cox in this reliable source http://proftcox.com/, refers to himself as an Organizational Psychologist. This reliable source states on the opening line on his own home page of own website, "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." Your editing today is disruptive, and designed only to enter into edit warring.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here is one of many instances showing how it is a very common way of writing and to provide objective support to my points made. See article Ian K. Smith. In this Wikipedia article like so many others, it states in the first line.... "Ian K. Smith, M.D. (born July 15, 1969) is an American physician and author best known for his appearances on...." It does not state Ian Smith's various qualifications. They would be irrelevant. Given Tom Cox invented the journal Work & Stress and founded the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology it is also relevant to include his profession, if it says so in a reliable source.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mrm is mixing two things up. In the Ian Smith entry, the encyclopedia article provides bio info on Smith. That's ok. The EAOHP entry is devoted to EAOHP. Write about Tom Cox's training in an entry devoted to Tom. That's all. Not in the EAOHP entry. Iss246 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not mixing anything up iss246! I was the one who just included the 'bio' on Ian Smith, as an example that when referring to someone on Wikipedia, that qualifications are not used, as you keep bringing up qualifications. They are irrelevant to a Wikipedia article and to 'bios' as a matter of fact. Also Tom Cox is the founder of Work & Stress and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. They are 'his babies,' so to speak. So, a mention of his profession, ie. an Organizational Psychologist, is very relevant. The article is semi-biographical in that way. The Reliable Source, Tom Cox's own website is the published RS used here. "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." http://proftcox.com/Mrm7171 (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why are you so 'anti Organizational Psychologists and the Organizational Psychology profession' anyway iss246? Tom Cox clearly states: "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." He states that issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life are a specialization of Organizational Psychology. You keep attacking me for stating the obvious facts. Why not ask Tom Cox why he believes "issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life are a specialization of Organizational Psychology" seeing that you have met him? Which could easily be a false claim? He actually founded the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology! So if that is what he thinks, shouldn't you listen to him on that issue? Mrm7171 (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here is another direct example of how many Wikipedia articles are written. This directly relates to this issue of Tom Cox. Please see this Wikipedia article Induction motor It states in the first line of the History section: "In 1824, the French physicist François Arago formulated the existence of rotating magnetic fields, termed Arago's rotations, which, by manually turning switch........" It also, by the way does not mention his qualifications!Mrm7171 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

And here is another one. Perhaps even more relevant given its psychology connection. Please refer to the Intelligence quotient article. It clearly states this: "French psychologist Alfred Binet, together with psychologists Victor Henri and Théodore Simon, after about 15 years of development, published ....." Not only have you engaged in unprovoked edit warring and disruptive editing but you are also completely wrong in your assertions and reasoning. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Iss246 you have undone my edits on 4 separate occasions today on the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology article page. You have also refused to discuss them on the article's talk page, as is required and as I kept asking you to do please. You have obviously done this today only to provoke an edit war. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mrm, I have been discussing with you in the comments I write when editing, on this page, on your talk page, on the EAOHP talk page, and on the OHP talk page. Iss246 (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please refer above to how your reasoning is so wrong as well as you engaging in unprovoked edit warring. Just gave 2 other in quick succession, relevant Wikipedia article examples, where a person's profession, not their qualifications are often used in a Wikipedia article. And not just bios either.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tom Cox is the 'founder' of Work & Stress and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. They are 'his babies,' so to speak. So, a mention of his profession, as is done in many other Wikipedia articles, ie. an Organizational Psychologist, is very relevant. The Reliable Source used is Tom Cox's own website where he states: "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." http://proftcox.com/

The reference to Tom Cox is well sourced and relevant. It was made 2 weeks ago. Only today you have decided to undo it and attempt to provoke an edit war.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

It took two weeks b/c I am working on a book and couldn't get to it right away. Iss246 (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mrm7171, I have constructive suggestion. Construct a Wikipedia page devoted to Tom Cox. Then you can report that he got his Ph.D. in behaviorial pharma and became an organizational psychologist. Such info would be appropriate for an entry devoted to Tom Cox. Iss246 (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

iss246 I have a couple of suggestions for you too. Why don't you firstly ask Tom Cox, a proud Organizational Psychologist, why he believes "issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life are a specialization of Organizational Psychology." And secondly, why don't you go back and study Organizational Psychology at University, instead of attacking Tom Cox and his profession? He created the journal work & stress and was the founder of the EA-OHP. Also I hope you see how completely wrong your bio example was and how accurate my examples are? given two quick articles I found where they mention a person's profession are included. Non bio articles too? Please see these 2 articles. Induction motor & Intelligence quotient. Thanks. It also does not have anything to do with your 4 reverts in 24 hours on the same article page Mrm7171 (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mrm7171, you are out of line claiming that I attacked Tom Cox. You should apologize. Iss246 (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Iss246, it is from your own mouth, not mine. Your clear black and white entries have been putting down not only Tom Cox but also every other well respected Organizational Psychologist, such as Cary Cooper, as well as so many other researchers with Doctorates in I/O psychology. I will not personalize this. You should apologize for attacking Tom Cox, just because he is proud of his very fine profession. I have nothing to do with your personal attacks on him and anything to do with the Organizational Psychology profession and Organizational Psychologists it seems. Don't blame me for your acidic tongue!Mrm7171 (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Writing that Tom Cox got a Ph.D. in behavioral pharma is not putting Tom down. Moreover, I never said anyone was not proud of his or her profession--I can't believe that I am answering this accusation. The ridiculous accusation tars the accuser, not the accused. What baloney to raise the notion that someone is proud of his or her occupation (or isn't proud). It isn't relevant. I add that I've met Tom on a couple of occasions, and he is a good guy. As for Cary Cooper. I've met him a couple of times at meetings. He, like Tom, has been a very productive scholar. Iss246 (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Iss246, you have put down Tom Cox and Cary cooper and any other organizational psychologist on numerous occasions in subtle and not so subtle ways and for months now. I was just looking at some of your entries. Both of these men are world leaders and pioneers in the field of occupational/work stress and are recognized for that around the world. You attack these men because they dare to proudly advertise their profession as Organizational Psychologists. Another is Arnold Bakker. www.arnoldbakker.com/‎ Another great Organizational Psychologist. Another pioneer in the field of occupational/work stress. These men are obviously very proud of their fine profession as Organizational Psychologists. They also clearly state that for the world to see: "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life.". With all due respect, it seems that 'any mention' of Organizational Psychology and its connection to occupation health, sends you and psyc12 into a furious 'tailspin' for some reason? Your personal hatred or fear? or jealousy? of organizational psychology and organizational psychologists is as blatantly obvious as a person's nose on their face. Instead of attacking me and accusing me for stating the obvious, why not ask Tom Cox why he believes that issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life are a specialization within Organizational Psychology. If you really have met these great pioneers of the broad field of occupational/work stress in the 1960's ask them! But please stop attacking me and not allowing anyone else to make good faith edits to articles that you happen to have originally written. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles This page in a nutshell: No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nobody is in a "furious tailspin." Nobody hates you. Those claims are silly. I think some of your edits are misguided, misguided by your idea that OHP is a subdiscipline of i/o.

I said, any mention of organizational psychology or organizational psychologists, in the OHP related articles, sends you into a rage and you have immediately deleted it. I cannot see how there would be OHP if it was not for work psychology? I just don't know why you have so much animosity toward organisational psychology or org psychs? That's all?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not in a rage. Don't be ridiculous. You're being silly. I'm trying to enhance an entry. Iss246 (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

All I have been asserting is that we don't introduce Stan Kasl or Robert Feldman or others with the prefix this-kind-of-psychologist or that-kind-of-psychologist. Nobody claims to own any Wikipedia entries. I also observed, as per Psyc12's note, that blogs are not a good source for Wikipedia.

I thank you for mentioning Arnold Bakker. I spent more time with Arnold than with Tom or Cary. I spent more time with Arnold at the APA/NIOSH/SOHP conferences. Arnold does very good work. And he usually attends those conferences. He and his Netherlands colleagues produce very interesting OHP research.

Don't forget that the first paragraph of the OHP article mentions the origins of OHP in health Ψ, i/o, and occupational health. Each field gets its due in that first paragraph. I also want you to remember that occasionally I tip my hat to one of your edits. Iss246 (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you missed my two entries on your talk page, iss246. Here they are again. Non - Bios too. This is why it is completely acceptable to include from a major published reliable source, the mention of Tom Cox's profession as he proudly does. He invented the journal work & stress and the EA-OHP. He is obviously the most important poerson in those 2 Wiki articles. Instead of attacking Tom Cox and his profession, consider how solid a profession it actually is.

Here is another direct example of how many Wikipedia articles are written. This directly relates to this issue of Tom Cox. Please see this Wikipedia article Induction motor It states in the first line of the History section: "In 1824, the French physicist François Arago formulated the existence of rotating magnetic fields, termed Arago's rotations, which, by manually turning switch........" It also, by the way does not mention his qualifications!Mrm7171 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And here is another one. Perhaps even more relevant given its psychology connection. Please refer to the intelligence quotient article. It clearly states this: "French psychologist Alfred Binet, together with psychologists Victor Henri and Théodore Simon, after about 15 years of development, published ....." Not only have you engaged in unprovoked edit warring and disruptive editing but you are also completely wrong in your assertions and reasoning.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

(taken from the EA-OHP talk page)

It momentarily escaped my attention that the Norwegian national intervention program called "Health at Work" has conducted some OHP-relevant research. These were workplace intervention studies. Saksvik is one of the lead authors of research on these interventions. I've already read some of the studies. I am too tied up with other things right now to add to the entry. I will get to it some time unless someone else can add to the entry. Iss246 (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "occupational health psychology". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 12:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, the bot got it wrong. The thread is Milton Berle --Jburlinson (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please read the instructions at WP:A/R/C before filing a request; specifically, requests must be filed at that page. --Rschen7754 00:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest that, if you want to call in authorities, the request is probably best placed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I also suggest that you read at least the current version of that page, to get the general flavour of the help on offer there, before you do anything of the sort. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Journal of Occupational Health Psychology may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref name = "pubmed">Number of Titles Currently Indexed for Index Medicus® and MEDLINE® on PubMed® [[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/revup/revup_pub.html#med_update|publisher=NLM Systems|accessdate=2014-19-
• //www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/revup/revup_pub.html#med_update|publisher=NLM Systems|accessdate=2014-19-1}}</ref> [[Pubmed]],<ref name = "pubmed"/> [[Index Medicus]],<ref name = "pubmed"/> and the [[Social

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you user:BracketBot. Iss246 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Now that mrm is blocked, would you mind removing the Arbitration Request section (above) from your page? It will still be in your history if you need to refer to it later and it would be a step into easing tensions. NE Ent 22:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for writing. I wrote on your talk page that your request is something I have to think over. I tend to want to keep all kinds of comments on my talk page, even comments that are critical of me. I have an inclination not to indulge in censorship even if the comments make me look bad. In any event, I will consider your request. I appreciate that you are motivated by a concern for arriving at a resolution to the dispute with Mrm7171 over health psychology, occupational health psychology, and industrial/organizational psychology. Iss246 (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

NE Ent, I removed a long, argumentative section in view of your request. Iss246 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please be advised there is an active discussion regarding NPOV and gross bias and POV in the occupational health psychology article underway Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Also please do not revert multiple editors constructive edits in future without discussing on talk. That is edit warring behaviour and will be reported. cheers.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

iss246 please take part in the active discussions on the talk page and at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, rather than blanking other editors work. This type of editing behavior without participating in discussion is disruptive.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Iss246 you keep arguing with the exact reference you and psyc12 have added. Very strange? see here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ohp/ I quote word for word, from your own NIOSH/CDC source:

"Welcome to the Occupational Health Psychology (OHP) Homepage. NIOSH has an active interest in promoting the new field of OHP. On this page you will....Anyway, quotations around it even in the article. It's your USA source, after all? I'm just quoting from it directly. Seems pretty disruptive to keep deleting your own source, that's my only point? Not sure if you are just wasting everyone's time by deleting everyone elses good faith edits, including editor inediblehulk's?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Iss246. In order to request an unblock, following the instructions in the template above, you place on this page, the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. What you did, and I reverted, was edit the template page (the page that contains the code for the template).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see you've accused another user, Truthbringer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), of sockpuppetry in your reverts to Elton Mayo. Could you provide a little more evidence to support your claim? If that user is a blocked user editing in defiance of a block, then your edits would qualify for an exemption from WP:3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I just saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:User:C.Fred, thanks for correcting the error. No problem here. Iss246 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Please remember that the WP:3RR exceptions are pretty narrow. If you're doing multiple reverts for one of those limited reasons, it helps if you're clear about that in your edit summary. It looks like the current situation is more of a content dispute, which is not a situation for a 3RR exception. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks user:C.Fred. I had a thorough-going discussion with another user about the edits that belong on the Elton Mayo page. We did not always agree but we got to see each other's point of view. We did some successful editing.

What I object to with regard to user:Barniecaddd's edits is manifold. First he started editing content on the Elton Mayo page from almost the moment he joined (I think re-joined is a better term) Wikipedia. Second, although he claimed to be a newcomer to Wikipedia, he betrayed that newcomer status by a claim about "yelling" which only a Wikipedia veteran would know about. Third, he ignored my many requests to discuss content. Fourth, after multiple requests, he finally wrote something on the talk page as if that were a discussion and then unilaterally proceeded to edit the content in the Elton Mayo entry some more. Fifth, his modus operandi is very similar to another editor who was disqualified from Wikipedia. He went by several names, Mrm7171, Truthbringer1, docsim, and some others. Iss246 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please remember that the three revert rule is a brightline rule. This edit was a violation of 3RR. I would hate to see you get blocked and/or the page protected because of this edit war; please discuss the matter at the talk page, but do not edit war over conjunctions further. —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply