User talk:Dariely67

Your issues with your biography!

Hello Professor Ariely, as someone passingly familiar with your work, I would very much like to help, and say thank you for the way you have gone about it here: in the weird world of Wikipedia, this is the right way to do it. It would be very helpful if you could point out reliable sources for the changes you want made; Wikipedia has, by design, a limited epistemic world, and sometimes information is out of date simply because the old was widely reported while the new is not. That said, there are some workarounds. As to your personal relationship status, I am not sure that's even of particular relevance to the article, so I might argue for removal entirely. I will attempt to address your concerns as soon as I have some of the fabled free time I keep hearing about. Cheers, and I hope you find Wikipedia worth contributing to on any level. Dumuzid (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot -- this world is new to me and I am not sure exactly how to move forward. Would you be willing to meet with me for 15-20 min over zoom and help me figure out how to build the case for making my page more accurate? Many thanks -- and if it possible I would prefer to communicate over email dan@Danariely.com Dariely67 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this article with slightly more accurate information https://www.chronicle.com/article/is-dan-ariely-telling-the- truth

And this is also a more recent and slightly more accurate information https://www.businessinsider.com/dan-ariely-duke-fraud-investigation-2024-2 Dariely67 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I need help from someone to figure out how to correct the inaccurate information about me.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

@Dariely67: What page would this be about, and what specifically do you need help with? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dariely67, I am happy to help, but we are bound by Wikipedia's principles about sticking to reliable sources--which can sometimes (counterintuitively) make for issues, especially with more recent information. It might be best if we discussed on the actual article talk page so that the entire community can help. Meanwhile, I'll look at the two articles above! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot -- is there a time that we can talk? Dariely67 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that would actually be helpful, and it would seem to me to start nearing conflict of interest territory. I know Wikipedia seems bureaucratic and mysterious, but it boils down to one simple proposition: we reflect all major views on a given subject as they are represented in reliable sources. The best thing you can do is go to the talk page, and say "I think X should be changed to Y based on reliable source Z" or "this idea gets too much attention in the article when compared to how common it is in the sources." If you can start with small, concrete examples, that is usually the best inroad. Let me know, either here or at the article talk page. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am very disabled, so writing is difficult for me, but if this is the way to go -- I will do it.

The main issue is the 2012 paper (that indeed and sadly used falsified data). I fully agree that this is something that should be on my page, but there is so much on that topic that it is now about 1/2 of the page. Duke finished a 2.5 year investigation into this paper and everything I have done and no one thinks that I have done anything wrong. But, the way my is written, there is so many details and incantations that it takes more volume than anything else about my contribution. Plus, I didn't do anything. These are just inaccurate accusations. What do you suggest we do with this?

I have the topics, but my hand is already painful so I will stop here. Dariely67 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MIT electrical shock story

The current story is both very confusing and inaccurate. it is also not consistent right now.

Here is my best edit for this story -- this is an accurate version. I am hoping that someone will be able to correct this part.

If anyone is willing to look at this and improve this part, it will be highly appreciated.

In 2006, when Ariely was a professor at the MIT Media Lab, he conducted experiments including electric shocks with a research assistant who had no human-subjects training. As a consequence, MIT's ethics committee banned Ariely from supervising data collection for a year. Ariely confirmed that he was suspended from supervising data collection at MIT and said that he did not realize that the research assistant did not have the required one-hour online human-subjects training. Dariely67 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Center for Advanced Hindsight (June 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Center for Advanced Hindsight and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dariely67! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Center for Advanced Hindsight

Hello, Dariely67. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Center for Advanced Hindsight, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]