Talk:Organizational behavior/Archives/2016

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph mentions confusion between OB and i/o Ψ but does not do anything to reduce confusion. The business of this confusion should be taken up later in the article when some of the history of OB is covered. Iss246 (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The point of that long standing reliably sourced section of the opening paragraph is that the confusion still remains. Please discuss on this talk page iss246, before deleting other editor's reliably sourced work. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I did discuss it above. I devoted a paragraph to OB and i/o. I/o does not belong in the first paragraph. This is an OB article. Not an i/o article. We would not like the beginning of the i/o entry to be about the confusion of i/o with OB.

I add this. The unsourced material was not my writing. I stepped in to try to improve upon the weak writing that characterized a good deal of this entry. Iss246 (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And longstanding does not cut it. If something is bad and longstanding, it is still bad. Iss246 (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with an independent editor looking at it. But while we are discussing the issue you went ahead and reverted again these long standing reliably sourced edits. Please stop edit warring. I am obviously trying to discuss this with you. Will restore long standing edit.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I will restore both long standing, reliably sourced edits iss246. As i say, we can discuss any concerns you have here, but deleted other editors long work is not helpful. Protocol on Wikipedia as you know requires discussion on talk if you wish to delete whole sections of reliably sourced and long standing sections in articles. Please stop edit warring. I'm open to discussion here.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, no broken record about longstanding "reliably sourced edits," when the material is weak. Two things you did are misleading. First, you opened the par. with a discussion of i/o in the intro to OB. Second, you began history section with a talk about a shift. I am not against writing about a shift as long as you report that OB shifted from "this" to "that." We have the "that." The "that" concerns the aftermath of the Hawthorne studies. But was the "this"?

I recommend that you write a sentence about what OB focused on BEFORE the Hawthorne studies. Then write about the shift post-Hawthorne.

I recommend that the following editors weigh in on the mixing together OB and i/o in the opening paragraph, user:Richard Keatinge, user:WhatamIdoing, user:Bilby, and user:Psyc12. Iss246 (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I will try and make this clearer. The sections you deleted were reliably sourced and long standing. I restored these deletions and am open to discussion here. Wikipedia requires this process of editors. Please also be civil in your language iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am going to make it clear to you. You can't make the OB opening paragraph about i/o psychology. We can deal with the overlap later in the article. By the same token, I would not want to see a discussion of the overlap the two disciplines in the first par. of the i/o article. Let's keep the article clear for the reader. As the article progresses, the reader can find out more details about the discipline. Iss246 (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who is edit-warring. I have diligently worked on improving upon the awful writing I found in this entry. I took care to write a paragraph on the relation of OB and i/o. I don't want to confuse readers by opening the article with a discussion of confusion. That is as poor an opening as one could create.

I also want to get through to you that if you have a shift, you have to tell where you shifted from. Not just where you shifted to. I think it is a good idea to write about shift as long as you report the "from" part of the shift. Iss246 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not write the section you are talking about iss246, another good faith editor did. However it is not civil for you to be referring to another editor's efforts on Wikipedia as: this statement you just made above ".... awful writing I found in this entry." Please remain civil toward other editors iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The following is one example of the careless writing I found (also note that the writer indicated six dimensions and then proceeded to list five and got some of the 5 wrong). I am not claiming you Mrm7171 did the writing. Iss246 (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

National culture can have effects on the behavior of employees in organizations. This is exemplified by Geert Hofstede's Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. In an ongoing research program, Hofstede has surveyed a large number of cultures and identified six dimensions of national culture that effect the behavior of individuals in organizations:

• Power Distance

• Individualism

• Uncertainty Avoidance

• Masculinity

• Long Term Orientation

It is always best, I think at least, not to criticize so severely other editor's work on Wikipedia iss246. I just read this other editors work that you very rudely referred to as "awful writing". I don't think it was that bad iss246, but nonetheless attacking other editor's good faith edits in that way, using that type of abusive language is not helpful to the project.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge with Organization studies

There is a redirect from Organization Studies to Organizational behavior. This article uses "studies" lower case so it is an outlier. The redirect should also include Organization studies (lower case "s"). These all cover the same topic area, but the content is very different. LaMona (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The Merge tags are stale at this point and I'm going to remove them. Since there was no objection to the merge proposal, you're free to go ahead and merge if you like. Softlavender (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin intervention

Both of you should be aware that I've requested that an admin come take a look at this page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

both you and the other person are included in the second time i have tried to get dispute resolution. all you wanbt to both do is threaten and ignore my questions. you also ignored both my first attempt to ask for assistance on 16/11 and recently if you would like to be involved in dispute resolution you both ignored these attempts and now i just see you do this instead and inflame things more why couldnt you just answer a question or two why did you refuse to involve yourself in cal dispute resolution when I asked you both to?Happydaise (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

1. My involvement here was for the purposes of dispute resolution. You never took my advice nor made any effort to find a compromise. In fact, you have misunderstood or misrepresented what both I and Iss246 have said every time you have mentioned it. Iss246 has hardly comported themselves any better.
2. I have never been notified of any dispute resolution process. You have said you began it, but you never mentioned which forum (there are a few) or described what type of dispute resolution (there are, again, a few). Constantly saying "I want dispute resolution" is not the same thing as actually seeking actual dispute resolution. If you think this needs to be formally or informally mediated, you are free to use that link to follow through with requesting such once the thread I mentioned above is closed out (neither formal nor informal mediation can proceed with an open ANI thread). However, I have seen a number of behavioral problems from both sides which I believe need to be addressed before any such resolution could be viable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

you have been involved as much as anyone in edit warring if not more so than anyone else. obviously - and you wont stop your accusations and threats either or engage in discussion by answering my questions. plus i asked for dispute resolution at the right place on the 16/11/16. you know i did. i also politely kept asking you if you would partipate you ignored these questions aimed at solving this. also you and iss246 have been at each others throat over and over and edit warring with each other. just read your comments youve both been making to each other above. hey why didnt you participate in dispute resolution you still can you knowHappydaise (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not at anyone's throat. Please don't use hyperbole. I think user:MjolnirPants is trying his best. Iss246 (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I share the same sentiment. While we're not in lockstep agreement, it seems clear that you are editing in good faith, attempting to improve the encyclopedia. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I have asked the same question at dispute resolution but you both seem much more concerned with who is right and wrong instead of us trying to find a positive outcome- why not respond to the question I left it seems you dont really want it resolved by just participating at dispute resolution. It took me a long while to put the issue online - and there were lots of steps involved -maybe you both could at least help find a peaceful solution instead of bickeringHappydaise (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There are at least three problems User:Happydaise with what you wrote. The first is that you employ locutions that are offensive. For example, "you seem" this way or that way, which says nothing because "seeming" one way or another does not make one be one way or another. Or that you use hyperbole (e.g., one person is "at the throat" of another person). Offensive language is off-putting. The second problem is that an editor is not making a mistake by being concerned, as you put it, about being "right and wrong." It is important to try to get the editing right. If I revert an edit that suggests, without justification, that sociobiology is a discipline that contributed to OB that is okay. It is the right edit to make. Iss246 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a third problem too. You changed the issue at hand. The issue was originally whether sociobiology is a contributing discipline--no justification was presented. And whether social psychology is a contributing discipline--the evidence indicates that it is. It is not clear if you have given up on that original issue. Or if you think that upon reflection you were wrong. Then you raised on the noticeboard the matter of whether it is okay to have subdisciplines (e.g., social psychology) or disciplines (e.g., psychology) or both. I am okay with having both for now. Iss246 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

please stop edit warring - i went to much trouble working out how to take this dispute to dispute resolution. That is where it is at- please do not edit war instead of taking part in the process i let you about it on your talk page.Happydaise (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I cut and paste where the peaceful talk should be happening Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. So instead you undo my editing but refuse to talk about it at this noticeboard. No I sure am not the aggressor here. i keep trying to ask you to participate at the dispute resolution case I wen t to a lot of trouble working out how to list.Happydaise (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Happydaise had attempted to open a case at WP:DRN on 17 November, but it was procedurally closed immediately because of discussion at WP:RSN. Happydaise has placed another request at DRN today (diff). —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I was never alerted (I haven't even been pinged by the userlink). Regardless, it doesn't matter right now, as there is a discussion at WP:ANI linked above. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

hey MjolnirPants it just dawned on me that you saying - "If you think this needs to be formally or informally mediated, you are free to use that link to follow through with requesting such once the thread I mentioned above is closed out (neither formal nor informal mediation can proceed with an open ANI thread)" - by you obviously realizing this, even though you are pretending not to know i kept inviting us all to get this sorted out by dispute resolution and you knowing how it works and dispute resolution cant happen now and knowing that i was asking you both did you do that so no dispute resolution could occur? did you do that purposely?Preceding unsigned comment by Happydaise

Go to my talk page and click on the history link near the top right. Then search for your name in that list. Do you see how absent it is? That is because, as I have said already, you never notified me of any such request. In fact, the only link on this page is the one C.Fred provided. I'm not sure if you forget (the way you forget to sign your posts) or were attempting to ensure that your side was the only one heard, but it's clearly stated at the top of the page:

Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

no need to continue being rude to me. no i was referring to my question to you on the 24/11 it said- "also I have already attempted dispute resolution at the dispute resolution page once before - would you both be willing to participate or not?" this was one of the questions you kept ignoring. i was wondering if you heard that question and then decided to head it off at the pass and report me and iss 246 while trying to pretend you were only an innocent party. thats just what you were. why didnt answer my question i asked whether you would like to participate in dispute resolution why instead did you report this knowing that then dispute resolution couldnt happen didnt you want to get it resolved peacefully?Happydaise (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the ANI thread, as all the commenters there are of the opinion that I should list specific examples of poor behavior on your part and request a ban, whereas I was hoping for a gentler approach. Understand that you have engaged in enough poor behavior to be blocked, so if Iss246 or the DR volunteer elects to report you, you are very likely to be blocked, absent any indication of a willingness to adjust your behavior. Another editor has also expressed what may be support for a Sockpuppet investigation into you. I will not participate in the DR process because, as I have made clear through omission this entire time, I have no interest in the content question. I was attempting to help resolve a dispute by offering advice to both sides, but it seems clear that you especially seem unwilling to listen to anything I've said (and I do mean anything). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you kindly stop the rudeness. I just read what was said and everyone suggested dispute resolution which i have already started twice. if my behavior was enough to be blocked i wouldve been blocked. it was clearly you and iss 246 that have been edit warring and not participating in dispute resolution and thinking you knew it all and you would have been blocked more like it. just done go changing the article if you dont want to constructively participate in dispute resolution. nothing you have said has made sense and you do not listen to any one but yourself and the sound of your own voice.Happydaise (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

What rudeness could you possibly be referring to? I have offered you advice on both editing and the culture here. I have given you specific proposals for compromise, I have offered to help you find sources and when I finally reached a point where I felt someone needed to really make you understand a number of points of WP policy, I went out of my way not to point a finger at you or ask for sanctions against you, despite you being the focus of the disruption that has been occurring here. And yet you sit here and call me rude? You have complained endlessly about me 'ignoring' you question about DR, meanwhile you have completely ignored every single thing I've said except where you can try to twist my words to win the argument. My advice? Ignored. My questions? Ignored. My proposed compromise? Ignored. My offer to help? Ignored. My declaration that I don't intend to participate in mediation? Ignored. Speaking of which, do you know why I don't intend to participate? Because I've lost the ability (thanks to your behavior here) to imagine you being capable of listening to anyone but yourself. I can't imagine that you would display this type of behavior thus far, yet suddenly turn around and behave rationally at another forum. So go drag whomever else is willing to continue to engage with you into it. I want nothing more to do with you, and if you begin to pull this kind of stunt on any other pages I edit, rest assured that my subsequent thread at ANI will contain your username and the dozens of diffs of you engaging in prohibited behavior I've seen so far, in addition to whatever new fodder you provide. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 08:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Expanding the list

I think we need to expand the list further - i have just added ethnology which clearly ties into OB. I'm open to other disciplines and sub-disciplines being added too - i just ask that we discuss it first.Happydaise (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender why did you take away ethnology from the list? can you explain and discuss - it is easily as equal a contributing discipline as any other field. An example being mathematics which lies in the article still.Happydaise (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)