User talk:PsycMJ

This is PsycMJ's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael J. Apter (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Martin Urbanec was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michael J. Apter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Michael J. Apter, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PsycMJ! Having an article 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! Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Reversal theory, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, PsycMJ. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Reversal theory, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. NJD-DE (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:PsycMJ, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=PsycMJ|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Njd-de

I do not have a financial stake in reversal theory - there is no money to be made from my position. I am a university student who appreciates the theory. My most recent edits are because I attended the recent online conference. I am in no way violating wikipedia's policies by editing this page.

Assuming the IP who added above message is you PsycMJ: The conflict of interest concerns (paid or unpaid) remain, especially also due to edits on Michael Apter. You said you recently visited online conferences. This raises questions over when and how you were able to take the picture Michael Apter which you uploaded to Commons. – NJD-DE (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that you have no connection with Apter, despite the fact that a high proportion of your contributions mention him? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A large proportion of my comments deal with Apter and reversal theory because I do not generally use my spare time to edit wikipedia. I take time update these pages as I see it useful to a general accessibility to the theory - I noticed that one mostly finds reversal theory info in printed books and research papers. Other motivational theories that I am keen of, like self-determination theory or goal-setting theory, have elaborate wikis and private web pages and they need little of my input. PsycMJ (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)PsycMJ[reply]

So if you don't use your spare time, you use your work time? So in essence the boss pays for this? Never mind, all that is really neither here nor there: you miss an essential point, and that is that COI editing is still COI editing if one doesn't get paid for it. And if someone places a COI tag on an article, it's probably not the best idea for you, the suspected/likely/obvious COI editor to simply remove that tag. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I think you are escalating the conversation and being purposefully provocative. I said I do not GENERALLY use my spare time. Leave the tag if you insist, though you and the others are only operating off of flawed logic (who else is to edit a psych theory's page but someone who is a psych student?), but also leave the properly cited information and stop slashing up perfectly good entries. PsycMJ (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)PsycMJ[reply]

I notice that you have not explicitly denied a connection with Apter. In any case, this sort of promotional content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, sourced or not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. A few things. First of all, PsycMJ, you were in fact violating Wikipedia policies: you have an obvious COI and you did not declare it, and you need to do that following the guidelines in WP:DISCLOSE. This is not optional. NJD-DE, maybe you could be kind enough to put the right template on the two article talk pages.

Second, I suggest you be careful with editing while logged out. I have cleaned up some of those edits to preserve your privacy. And I'll add that I am now reading your quite discourteous comments about me, and I'm not even going to address the personal comments, except to say this: the best person to edit a Wikipedia article is a person who understand how Wikipedia works. And if they're an expert, even better--but if they have a COI, then they likely skipped right over Wikipedia:5P2

Third, I am going to use the "partial block" option to prevent you from editing the two relevant articles here, because we cannot have you edit warring with a conflict of interest, while claiming you're following our guidelines. User:Ohnoitsjamie and I are, for better or for worse, well acquainted with the guidelines. We don't need to speculate any further on real-life identities, but the COI is clear. What this means is that you cannot edit those two articles, and if you create more articles or edit others and clearly make not-disinterested edits, then you might be blocked from those as well. So, for those two articles you will be limited to editing the talk page, which for COI editors is really the best way to go anyway. All the best. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Michael Apter and Reversal theory) for (undeclared) COI editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]