User talk:ParticipantObserver

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your edit!

PraiseMath 19:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Experimental Psychology

Hi... Hizar hayat noor (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've entered some wrong info here at history of experimental psychology... Just to realize some of our classmates for that Wikipedia is not an authentic source... Hizar hayat noor (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hizar hayat noor: I apologize if I inconvenienced you. Personally I think that altering Wikipedia to trick your classmates is not the best way to build high-quality content on Wikipedia. You can probably find a more constructive way to demonstrate to classmates that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia has an article on the issue at WP:WINARS which might help. Good luck! ParticipantObserver (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Psychology

Hi ParticipantObserver, I sense you are in the field(?) of conservation psychology, and would like to know if this is true, and how I can learn more about your work if so. - gramineae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramineae (talk • contribs) 04:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gramineae: Hi, Gramineae. I am not in the field of conservation psychology (or any related environmental disciplines). I wasn't even really aware of those areas of research until I clicked into the articles. I find the area interesting, though, and found that the articles have often needed a lot of work. idk, it seemed like a good area to edit in! Sorry to disappoint. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the "Needs Updating" tag in the Metamorphosis#Recent_research. I dislike intensely sections named "Recent...". I also dislike that word in sentences in the body of any article. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and Wikipedia was started in January 15, 2001; 19 years ago. This means, if "recently discovered" was used in an article when Wikipedia started the result it spoke of would now be 21 years old, or if I had used it the result would be 15 years old. In many articles that is truly no longer the "recent" result. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to receive ACE mass messages

{{NoACEMM}}

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Classification of obesity into Obesity. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy diet edits

On my talk page, you said: Can you please let me know what your objection is to the recent edits on Healthy Diet? Your edit summary stated solely 'Nonconstructive', which is not an adequate explanation for an edit, and which effectively accuses me of disruptive editing despite none of my edits meeting that definition. I'm trying to adjust the text to correct for whatever you are objecting to, but you haven't stated what that is precisely, making improvements to the article difficult. Thanks.

I had removed the sentence and source about bariatric surgery as off-topic, and twice you defended it as "clearly relevant" (obviously, it is not for an article on diet, as I stated in my edit summary). The idea of "presumed consensus" because an off-topic statement remained in the article for a long period is not how a dynamic encyclopedia works - the statement had just been overlooked.

The edits you have made now help make the obesity section clearer, so thanks to you. Zefr (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for the explanation. I was confused b/c the second time my point was that the relative ineffectiveness of dieting as an intervention for obesity is clearly relevant to a section on that topic (not that surgery is relevant per se). But I understand now that the surgery citation was the issue, and I'm glad that we could arrive with a better result. Thanks again for talking it through with me. Have a great day! ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]