Hi Andrew, I'm Yla, I'm also a social psychologist. Thanks for taking the time to explain why you reverted my edits to Social identity theory. One of the largest problems Wikipedia faces is attracting new editors. Having your first changes to Wikipedia reverted, as you did to mine, can be very discouraging. It's important that you go beyond simply explaining your reasoning though. Before commenting on my page it would have been good to check something about me. I list that I am new user on my userpage, if you look at my history you'll see that this was my first edit to Wikipedia. I understand if you don't have the time for that. But it's still critical to be friendly, to introduce yourself, and to be supportive to everyone in order to make Wikipedia a community that is welcoming.
Why don't we work together to improve Social Identity Theory beyond a C quality score? There are a number of changes that need to be made. Here are the first few changes that I plan on working on:
-The intro two paragraphs need to be substantially rewritten so that they are accessible to a general audience. Look at the first two sentences. If you knew nothing about psychology it would be very difficult to understand. What is a self-concept? what is relevant? what is intergroup? It is not enough to link to other Wikipedia pages, you need to explain these in general terms (see Object permanence for a good example of an intro to a psychology article quality rating Good). This is how I was trying to change the article. The basic idea of social identity theory is that "Social identity theory first proposed that people come to understand and define themselves, in part, as members of social groups." If you dislike that I said they were the first to propose it when you think it's possible others discussed this concept before they did okay. Let's change the language to not say they are the first, but still to describe the theory in more accessible general way. Here is a reference describing social identity theory in a similar way to the way I did (it won't let me link to site but google search for Reicher, Spears, Haslam (2010) The social identity approach in social psychology. Sage Identities Handbook).
- Next, the article needs to begin by discussing the original work that brought about social identity theory-- the minimum group paradigm. This will help people understand where the theory came from and what it means by giving a concrete example. After they understand it then we can get into the specifics of the theory, what now appears first (aspects of the theory). See Stereotype threat which is a good example of this and good quality rating. It first explains stereotype threat by explaining the original experiments. Once the reader understands the concepts, he or she is ready to understand the specifics and all the work that's come later.
I could use your help because I'm not familiar with some of the specifics of Wikipedia writing (e.g. like what needs citations and what doesn't).
Hi Yla. Welcome to Wikipedia. I am sorry if you found me to be a bit curt. That certainly was not my intention. I am of course keen to see improvements made to the SIT page and look forward to your contributions and collaborating with you. Along those lines, I had the following thoughts after looking at your edits and your above message:
Audience: In Wikipedia it is sometimes reasonable to assume a certain degree of background knowledge. Some of the physics and chemistry pages are good examples of articles where quite a bit of knowledge is assumed. In my mind the likely audience for the SIT page is not complete lay people. I think instead that most of the audience comprises of undergraduate psychology students (check out how the page view statistics are impacted by the Semesters) and that is who we should keep in mind when editing. Also remember that the Simple English Wikipedia exists. This can be used to create a version of the page that is accessible to a wider audience. That being said, I do believe that there is scope to improve the language in the article. Please do not think that I wish the article to stay exactly in its current form
SIT vs. SCT: I had a look at Reicher et al (2010) and I think I know where the confusion is coming from. When they say that SCT “it broadens the remit of social identity research from intergroup relations to group behaviour (and, potentially at least, social behaviour) in general” this does not refer to a broadening of the types of groups that are under analysis (your “concrete groups” vs. “broad abstract groups”). It instead refers to a broadening of the types of group phenomena that are under analysis. There are a couple of other sources that I can recommend that provide good explanations of the SIT/SCT distinction.[1][2]
Structure: Although I am not particularly invested in the current structure, I at this stage still think that the description of the theory should come prior to a description of its origins. One reason for this is that SIT is so often described in the context of the minimal group experiments that the details of the theory (in particular the social-structural aspects) get buried. Spears et al. (2001) discuss how failing to attend to these details of SIT has led to a schism between System justification theory and SIT.[3] I feel like you also (quite understandably) fell into this trap when describing in-group favouritism as a “finding” of SIT.
Anyway, I hope this helps and would be interested in your thoughts. It also might be worth bearing in mind that the C class rating was given in May 2011 and the SIT page looked quite different back then [1]. I suspect it would fare better in its current from. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^Turner, J. C.; Reynolds, K. H. (2001). Brown, R.; Gaertner, S. L. (eds.). "The Social Identity Perspective in Intergroup Relations: Theories, Themes, and Controversies". Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology. 3 (1).
^Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in Organizations. London, SAGE Publications.
^Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Doosje, B. (2001). The (Il)legitimacy of ingroup bias: From social reality to social resistance. In The psychology of legitimacy. Eds. J. T. Jost & B. Major. Cambridge University Press
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. All of the sources share an author. Surely someone else has done research on this if it's notable?
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.
Hi Kerfuffler. Thanks for your message. I am happy with the tag you added and actually it isn’t content that I added to Wikipedia. It is instead content that I felt did not quite fit in the ingroup favoritism page and so I moved it here. If I have time I will make improvements but hopefully others will come along and do the same.
With regard to your concerns about notability, it might reassure you if you have a look at the citation records of the current references. Cheers and let me know if you have any other questions Andrew (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably just want to close this for now to give you more time to improve it and address issues on your own timeframe. Just checking with you first to let you know re progression at the subpage. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Self-categorization theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Power (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.
My name is YVasquez and I am part of the APS wikipedia initiative. I revised the Asch Conformity Experiments article as part of a course requirement for my Ph.D. program. I was wondering if you could explain a bit more what you meant by the following "The Asch conformity experiments demonstrated that uncertainty can arise as an outcome of social reality testing. In relation, this inconsistency has been used to support the position that the theoretical distinction between social reality testing and physical reality testing, as well as the distinction between informational influence and normative influence, are untenable." I googled these sentences and they appeared verbatim over the web. Can you tell me what this means (in your own words)? Thank you so much for helping with my recent edits! I greatly appreciate your input! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yvasquez (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work undoing vandalism and suspicious edits on various psychology articles. There are very few people doing this, and it's much appreciated. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin. Thanks very much for the positive feedback. I am always happy to hear someone’s thoughts on my Wikipedia antics. And thank you for your own on going efforts. See you over at the SIT page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Piotrus. I have added the relevant talk page to my watch list (I don't really want the newsletter). I notice that you are putting a huge amount of work in over there. I hope you feel appreciated. Cheers Andrew (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have blanked a long-standing, sourced, consensus version of this article three times now,[2], [3], and [4], replacing it with the Muslim Tamil-in-exile version, without any explanation and without engaging on the talk page. Please note that user:SinhaYugaya, who has been blocked several times for edit warring on Sri Lanka topics, also removed the consensus version without explanation [5][6][7][8]. The first blanking of this article was done here by another user who edits exclusively in sri Lanka and Tamil topics, user:Obi2canibe who removed it completely without explanation and replaced it with a Muslim version. The neutrality of this version was challenged on the talk page herehere and here.
Please get consensus for your edits on the talk page before removing sourced and unchallenged material and restoring this problematic and challenged version yet again. 203.81.67.127 (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate someone finally giving me a civil answer, and I have answered you on the talk page. However you may want to review WP:3RR and think about reverting the last restoration of the problematic version, especially since you seem not to agree with it. 203.81.67.127 (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't seem to have a dog in this fight (and I don't either) here is a little more of my thinking on the types of edits that have been happening that are problematic. If you look at the neutrality policy, WP:UNDUE, you will see that you cannot take a minority point of view and use it out of proportion to the point of view in reliable sources. What I see happening here is a cherry-picking of sources that are critical of the organization and using them as the "voice" of the encyclopedia. If you look closely at some of the articles, they do not meet the criteria for neutrality as far as editorial oversight, etc., and many are Sri Lanka sources from Tamil exiles who are publishing from outside the country. Now, this type of non-neutral source can be used, it just can't be used as the "voice of Wikipedia". It needs to be in its own section, explaining the point of view and who holds it, and with paraphrasing, not direct quotations. For a comparison, look at the article for Hamas, which the U.S. government has officially declared a terrorist organization.
I also suspect there are also multiple copyvio problems with this added material.
These guys need to go back and rework their challenged material so that it can be added properly to the material that has already been vetted. Instead they are acting combative, and will end up getting blocked, and their possible contributions will be lost.
The other problem I see with the material added is that it is synthesis WP:SYN and original research. For example, there is an article about a traffic ticket one of the organizers supposedly got, that is used "prove" the organization is engaging in hate speech. An article about opposition to head scarves for women is used to "prove" the organization is "extremist". Where do you even start with this? You can refer people to the policies, but if they don't understand them or want to follow them, what can you do? I certainly don't have time to explain things over and over.203.81.67.127 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anon. I am familiar with 3RR and don't think I am in any danger of violating that guideline. I also do not follow your statements about sources being a "voice of wikipeida". Wikipedia is its own voice and sources are used to substantiate that voice. You seem to have an alternative view. Finally, and more positively, think that you have made some reasonable points above and this is exactly the sort of specific discussion that I would hope to see over at the BBS talk page. I will try and explain exactly what I mean by this over there. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anon. I now think I see what you are trying to say. When you say that “[minority opinions] can't be used as the "voice of Wikipedia"” you actually mean to say that that “these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice”. This, of course, I agree with. The problem is that, to date, no detailed discussion has taken place regarding the specific instances where this has occurred. The nearest to this is probably one of your latest contributions to the talk page, although I would hope for still greater precision in the discussion. That contribution also suffers from a focus on the lead in the context of a contentious article body. As I mentioned before, to me this seems like the reverse of what should occur (i.e. stabilize the body and then deal with the lead).
Hi obi2canibe. I hope you are well. Thanks for starting a conversation about this lead issue. I guess I might offer my thoughts. Here are 2.5 quick reasons why I think we should remove the term:
1. Someone is only ever ‘extreme’ from a particular perspective. Yes, BBS views might be a minority position, but to their members their views are simply correct. For them it is those who disagree who are extreme. Minority status does not render that perspective trivial. If Wikipedia can have a neo-nazi lead that doesn't use the term extremist then I think we can achieve the same for BBS.
2. Beyond establishing that it is a contentious group, the term isn't very descriptive. That is, it doesn't help a lay audience understand in what way they are considered to be extreme. Are they extremely violent? Extremely angry? Extremely tidy? In some ways the term is of very limited utility.
2.5. Wikipedia tells us not to use these terms. (this is only half a reason because I think this is actually just Wikipedia’s recognition in the style guide of points 1. and 2. above)
Anyway, I would be interested in your thoughts. I would also be interested in what SinhaYugaya thinks of the above, as he/she has made the strongest case for including the descriptor. I have put an invitation to this discussion on the relevant talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, I understand and agree with your reasoning for removing the term. I always find it annoying whenever I see Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam prefixed by the term "terrorist" and so it's hypocritical of me to label Bodu Bala Sena as "extremist". I not someone who never admits when they are wrong and I was wrong on this occasion. I am happy for you to change. Regards.--obi2canibetalkcontr20:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is two of us who agree. Cool. I will give it another couple of days to allow SinhaYugaya to weigh in. If I don't hear anything then I might introduce the above rationale to the talk page and attempt to make the adjustment. Cheers Andrew (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew:
Thanks for communicating with me openly and directly about the issue. Forgive my initial 'ignorance' regarding the applicable guidelines for the 'further reading' section. My assumption regarding content additions was misguided by judging similar additions to the EE page. Allow me to respond to one of the red flags you have raised: The pages I added do not exist primarily to sell products or services; the content on the pages is content that was published in HR industry publications (i.e., HR Reporter and T+D Magazine). Given the publication media, I thought these additions would be of value.
Regarding the other red flags, I'd say they were raised by my being misinformed on the specific policies. For example, I wasn't aware that articles in 'further readings' were required to comprehensively cover subject matter; since the added publications were directly related to topics of discussion on employee engagement, I assumed them relevant and useful.
I'm happy to follow the implied suggestion in your third point and craft relevant, original content based on the subject matter in the pages I attempted to add to the further readings section. Would that resolve the issue?
Hi Rshydn. Thanks for your prompt and meaningful response. Unfortunately I feel like I have used up my 'Wikipedia time' for the day. I will respond to you properly tomorrow. In fact, I will probably transpose your response to the relevant talk page and reply there. This is common practice and helps keep other editors in the loop. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted an external link for being "too niche". The link is by all measures comparable to the already-existing link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; the two should stand or fall together. Indeed, the deleted link is less niche than many of the preserved links (it addresses both philosophical and scientific aspects of altruism).
Could you please either explain your action, or undo it (or adopt a consistent editorial hand)?
Hi Aubrey. The fact that the link is comparable to other subpar 'further reading' links is not a case for inclusion, and the fact that I have not made the time to review those other links is irrelevant. If you feel that other further reading links also do not meet Wikipedia standards then by all means remove them yourself. As per wikipedia guidelines further reading links should "cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject" (see Wikipedia:Further_reading). Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "The fact that the link is comparable to other subpar 'further reading' links is not a case for inclusion."
I quite agree (that if an item is comparable to something subpar then it's not fit for inclusion). The question is: are the links currently on the page actually subpar? The point I was trying to make (I agree it wasn't very clear) is this: the current links on the Altruism page have survived editing by you, by all previous editors, and by me; indeed, comparable links have been posted, and survive, on countless other Wikipedia pages. All of this gives a very strong prima facie reason to believe that they are not subpar. Not a conclusive proof, but a reason that stands valid until/unless a substantial counter-case can be made.
You say, 'As per wikipedia guidelines further reading links should "cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject".' If you look at the original context, however, you will see that this rule applies only preferentially, and only normally. An external link to an encyclopedia article that concerns every aspect of altruism is preferable to one that is mostly just about its scientific aspect, but if the former is unavailable then the latter would have to do.
As it stands, the Altruism article is about 60k, which I believe is twice the length of a normal Wikipedia article; about half is devoted to altruism and religion, and about half is devoted to altruism and science. The ext link which you removed is devoted to altruism and science. It is linked to a notable source
The external links section may contain "a reasonable number of works". If you believe the current number is unreasonable, the least controversial thing to do would be to start by cutting the one link that is least notable and/or most overly specific. The link that you propose to cut qualifies as neither. Cheers, Aubrey Bardo (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aubrey. I wll try to respond to your post later today, but will probably move our conversatoin to the relevant talk page and reply there. This is common practice and helps keep other editors in the loop. Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi U3964057, and thank you for your contributions to Altruism.
Recently, you reverted the addition of a section. Editors in good faith generally appreciate communication when you find their contributions problematic, particularly when you intend to or do undo them.
Reverting a good faith contribution is acceptable, but editors reverting are expected to explain their decision. If the explanation is complex, using the article's talk page may be warranted. If a change brings improvements and regressions, the 2 should be weighted. If the regressions are smaller, it is best to fix them, or to report them. If a change doesn't bring a regression but could have been better, the change should be kept, but you can of course improve upon it, or report the improvement possible.
As for the above case, you commented the change with "The concern isn't lack of detail. It is lack of integration (as well as undue weight). Please attend to the psychology section.". This comment was related to your comment in the reversion performed during the section's redaction, "Content not integrated with extant article.". These comments suggest you considered that the content added would have been more appropriate elsewhere, apparently in the Psychology section. You are free to move content in an article. In this case though, note that the content's location was carefully considered. Unfortunately, the content is as much related to evolution as to psychology, so I'm afraid Psychology wouldn't be the right location. However, I did end up creating a new section after giving up on finding an appropriate existing location. I also feel something is wrong in the article's structure, but I can't picture how it should be. I encourage you to open a discussion on the article's talk page if you can't find a location which pleases you. --Chealer (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chealer. Thanks for the message and it is nice to see that you are receptive to feedback. I will provide some exposition over at the relevant talk page (hopefully tomorrow). Cheers Andrew (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi U3964057, Justifying changes is not quite the same as giving feedback. Anyone concerned with someone's behavior is absolutely free to explain theirs concerns to the contributor, and absolutely free not to do that. On the other hand, anyone changing Wikipedia is expected to explain their actions. In theory, it is best to explain each change. In practice, explanations are costly, and it's OK to be bold in most changes, minimizing explanations. However, if a change has important disadvantages or is controversial, in particular when reverting another contributor's changes, explanations aren't optional. One may take as much time to explain a change as desired, but a change and any required explanation should go hand in hand.
By the way, please avoid unsubstantiated accusations of "edit warring". Someone persisting on an issue is not necessarily edit warring. Uncivilized behavior is what defines edit warring. --Chealer (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chealer. I believe the edit war label is apt here. Edit warring is not, as you most recently claim, defined by "uncivilized behavior". It is instead quite straight forwardly defined as "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion". This is exactly your pattern of behavior as I have explained multiple times. As to your other charge of not explaining my revisions, I have explained my concerns with your edit both in the editsummaries and on the talk page. It is now time to discuss, without edit warring, these cocnerns with the intent of reaching consensus. As such, I will see you over at that talk page. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what the definition is trying to say. Persistence is one part of edit warring, but what matters is to stay civil, that is to make efforts to solve the problem, as I have done since this started.
As for the concerns expressed in these edit summaries, these have already been discussed. Please note that justifying a reversion doesn't mean pointing out one imperfection or perceived problem in the edit reverted. Few edits are strictly positive. As I previously explained, to justify a raw reversion, disadvantages need to outweigh advantages (see Wikipedia:Reverting#When_to_revert for more details). --Chealer (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By now you will have seen that at least on other editor (Johnuniq) also agrees that your actions are a pretty clear cut case of edit warring. With a little luck this might prompt you to stop and instead engage patiently on the talk page. If not, the next step for me will be to more formally request the help of other editors. As to your other point, I sincerely believe that your edit did more harm that good. Lets discuss how to make it better shall we? Kind regards Andrew (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it would indeed be hard for anyone to deny that there was edit warring in this case. Please do not take this as an accusation or warning, but as an invitation to explain your actions. You are free to keep pushing for your version, as long as your actions go hand in hand with explanations. If you sincerely believed that the addition does more harm than good, your actions were valid. However, what made you believe that should have been exposed. If you didn't change your mind, please explain your remaining concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance --Chealer (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chealer. Thanks for your concerns, but no need to worry. I don't feel accused of anything and feel pretty comfortable with my actions (i.e. pointing out your edit warring and taking steps against it). As for explaining my concerns, they are the same as they have always been. I have just been polite about it. See you over on that talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of different actions, but great if you're in peace. Now, it would be nice to explain these concerns. Don't worry about politeness, all I'm asking for is either clarity or civility in your actions.
Thanks for reviewing my edits in the following articles:
Performance Management
Business Transformation
Change Management
The main purpose of editing these articles is to share the additional knowledge i gained while writing my thesis on topic of Change management in an organization under Prof. Dr. Armin Heinzl, Chair of General Management and Information Systems at the University of Mannheim. All the text entered by me is from reliable and genuine sources which are clearly cited in the text. This topic is researched a lot these days and I felt that the data existing on Wikipedia is missing some important points which can be of use to our readers. I assure you that data entered is for enriching and improving the encyclopedia coverage on these topics. All the articles selected are related to my research topic. Please note that this is not related to any spamming activity. I am open for discussion on the constructive contributions and come up with a common understanding of the additional text. Looking forward to create and add something valuable for our Wikipedia Users.
Hi Andrew, Thanks for your comment and feedback on my edits.
Firstly, regarding the contribution history, I have recently created my user account here since I always had a wish to post on Wikipedia. Now, while pursuing my MBA and working on my Master Thesis I came across several experts on the topic of my research and Master Thesis. I found the subject articles to be most-relevant where I could contribute constructively from my research work. Hence, the edits have started now and I would continue posting on topics of my interest (wherever I find that I could discuss and contribute).
Secondly, regarding the content, I came across several publications from several well-known authors to certain industry experts from the Management Consulting industry who have posted several articles on this topic. Hence, I have used these sources to cite the content that I posted.
Please let me know and I am happy to collaborate to make something constructive out of it.
Thanks!
Best Regards,
Pawan (talk)17:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shilpy and Pawan. You both seem to be in a similar boat and have made incredibly similar edits so I will respond to you both as one. Actually, are you sure you are not the same person?
Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you both have long and fruitful Wikipedia careers. Based on your responses I am willing to presume that there was no wilful attempt at spam here. That being said, I still would take issue with your edits. I hope you will allow me to offer some general feedback at this stage.
Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopaedia. It should therefore be primarily concerned with communicating the most important facts of any particular topic. Unfortunately, when it comes it management research and theory, the “facts” are hard to identify amongst the inordinate amount of trivial or half-baked opinions from self-professed (but well marketed) “experts”. One way that Wikipedia ensures that fringe theories and fad approaches do not overwhelm its articles is to insist that content is supported by reliable sources. Good examples of reliable sources are academic books and peer reviewed articles. Good examples of unreliable sources include blogs and corporate publications. It concerns me that both of you turned to classic examples of questionable sources, despite the fact that these topics are thoroughly addressed in more scholarly literature (It is also not appropriate to use lectures to reference content, as one of you did, as these are unverifiable).
Frankly, based on your enthusiasm for modern experts, and your faith in industry sources, I am a little worried that both of you have been drinking the management ‘cool aid’. I hope that is not the case and perhaps your future edits will reassure me. And, of course, let me know here if you think I am off the mark. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Andrew. We both are two different people who are working on same Master Thesis project as clearly seen from different user ids. It is nice to see your keen interest and high involvement in these topics. I see you have great knowledge on this topic and we can discuss on this topic in detail.It would be really nice if you can introduce yourself. We are new on Wikipedia and when you have your first contents reverted back it is discouraging and demotivating.
The content we added is pertaining to our key findings from the research and also being from Management background we see Change management as a important and hot topic in companies these days. As Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia it should be enriched with all relevant data. Regarding the citation we interviewed few consulting companies people in order to know what is the main problem customers are facing while implementing change. Like we mention more than 60% of change implementation projects fail, and to further elaborate and be specific on these we cited reference from lectures and business meetings we attended.
To come up with the content you reverted involved a lot of hard work and thorough research on these topics. I know that Wikipedia is an open for all to share their knowledge and experience and that is what we did thinking if we can be of some value add to these articles and enhance our Wikipedia user's knowledge. Shilpy Bajaj (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shilpi. Wikipedia needs high quality editors and I see no reason why yourself and Pawan won’t fit that bill. There will, however, be a learning curve. Writing for Wikipedia is undoubtedly different from any other form of writing you have performed. I think it would hubris for anyone to believe that they will contribute perfectly appropriate Wikipedia content from edit one. I hope that you will view my revision of your first edits and my subsequent feedback as part of that inevitable learning curve.
In that spirit then, I would also like to make some observations about some of your language here. For example, I am concerned that you might be looking to contribute your own research to wikipeida. This sort of contribution is not welcome in Wikipedia and will almost certainly be reverted.
I would also disagree with your suggestion that Wikipedia articles “should be enriched with all relevant data”. I instead would argue that, as I said earlier, Wikipedia articles should cover the most important facts of any particular topic. This means discerning what material should be included and what is too trivial or unsubstantiated to include. Time is one way to separate the wheat from the chaff. As such, I would be particularly wary of editing around ‘hot topics’ in the management literature.
Anyway, I hope that sounds reasonable to you. My recommendation would be to start with smaller scale edits while you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and norms. If you have questions about those guidelines and norms do not hesitate to ask. And if you would like me to cast my eye over any draft edits in your sandbox I would be more than happy to. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very good that you wrote on your user page about your background; ‘social psychology’.
You reverted 8 or 9 edits that I did on some subjects. And your reason was ‘relevance too vague’.
[Obviously] I am not aware how deep your ‘social psychology’ background is. And this is not a big issue. Because you’ve already written [on your user page] that and it is clear you are honest, you do know something [or a lot of things; maybe in the academic manner, too] about ‘consciousness’, ‘cognitive bias’ and etc.
I am not trying [and am not going to] to defend myself. I just want to know:
There are hundreds of experiments but I will write here a common one, which I think you also know well, ‘Solomon Asch conformity experiments’.
Many support this experiment and many perceive it very controversial.
It is clear that ‘Elephant in the room’ is an idiom. There is not [or I haven’t learnt yet] a scientific experiment to raise this ‘idiom’ to an ‘experiment’ status [as Mr. Asch did].
My point is not to create a portable laboratory [on this ‘wikipedia message board’] to decide immediately what we will do about the aforementioned idiom.
Closer to the fact, I am not trying to ‘promote’ its status to scientific league and leave.
Especially for these wiki pages: ‘Bandwagon effect’, ‘Bystander effect’, ‘Groupthink’, ‘Group behaviour’, ‘Collective behavior’, ‘List of cognitive biases’ and ‘Conformity’; have you thought that these 7 wiki titles are strictly definitive areas and the ‘Elephant in the room’ idiom is a kind of randomly-changing attitude so this idiom is not relevant to those wiki pages? Many titles can be eliminated [and many adequate categories, which I don’t know, can be added] but I think for some, the idiom seems relevant.
Repeating one more time, I do not intend at all to be offensive. I just want to learn.
P.S. Not directly related to our subject above, I genuinely understand your approach on ‘scientific manner in -free- wikipedia world’ and ‘trying to be a little more open-minded about the experts who try to put so much effort to make solid encyclopedic articles on many specific wiki pages’.
A few weeks ago, I had some conversations with some wikipedians on Larry Sanger. Unfortunately, the majority of them, almost, jumped on me why I mentioned his name. They have been thinking that Mr. Sanger made many ‘bad!’ contributions after the wikipedia had been founded, almost ‘betrayed!’ its core values, so even his name must not be in any part of the wikipedia.
Hi Toksoz. Thanks for your message. You raised a lot of points that would be interesting to discuss, but for the meantime I will focus on my rationale for removing elephant in the room as a 'see also' link for these pages. To expand upon my edit summary, I feel that the idiom is not relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the pages you suggest. Perhaps it will be best to provide an example or two.
- groupthink is a phenomenon where people are unaware of the influence of their collective identity on decision making. Having an 'elephant in the room' describes a situation where people are acutely aware of some unspoken topic. Elephant in the room is thus not obviously related to this topic.
- group behavior covers a massive range of human behavior. There will consequently be innumerable idioms that are in some way related to this page. To include all these would lead to a massive and superficial article where the most important aspects of group behavior would be obfuscated. Thus, without a strong general connection between the topics, elephant in the room should be omitted.
I hope these provide some insight in to my thought process. Moreover, I hope this resonates with you. Of course, if you have an questions or comments do not hesitate to let me know. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification.
The 7 categories above are not the one and only but for now it is enough to pay attention to.
Specifically, I had focused on "Bystander effect" but I forgot to ask at the time.
In brief: "Elephant in the room", usually, refers to the situations which have been happening for a longer-period of time and constantly being ignored; while "Bystander effect" points that a situation has just occurred, there are more than ‘one’ person around the event and -- in common -- the people in the scene [or only one person], for a variety of reasons, do not intend to ‘react’ about/into the event. [ Shortly, one person (or a small group) probably reacts (to the event) quicker in the scene she/he is alone than in the scene there are a lot of people. The ‘climate of majority’ in the scene, usually, redirects the attitudes of those. -- ‘Majority influences minority.’ in this scene -- At the end, most of them in the scene (sometimes ‘all of them’) just stand by.) ]
While I wrote [ "Elephant in the room" is not that much relevant to "Bystander effect"s -see also- title. ], I meant it through the explanation written above.
Scenarios can be extended.
Denying ‘the Holocaust’ refers to ‘Bystander effect’ and ‘Elephant in the room’ at the same time. And ‘not reacting’ to a heart attack case in a train station, also, refers to both terms. ‘An event finished long time ago’ and ‘an event recently happened (or still happening)’ do not completely separate the terms.
Hi Toksoz. From the above it seems that we would agree that 'elephant in the room' is only tenuously, or only inconsistently, related to the 'bystander effect'. This in my mind means that it is not suitable for the see also section, which to my reading is best reserved for highly relevant concepts that may eventually be integrated into the article body. Does this sound reasonable to you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andrew, on September 23, I wrote, one after another, two different attitudes.
But the [‘An event finished long time ago’ and ‘an event recently happened (or still happening)’ do not completely separate the terms. ] explanation makes a bit larger sense in my mind.
I also re-read the Guide: See also section. Not entirely leaning on this guide to seek and show a kind of proof as "You are not right; I am right" & "I am not right; you are right" competition [Please remember what I wrote about "expertise" in my first text written on Sep. 10] and I am quite sure you estimate what I can show as reference -again- from the guide: "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."; I believe the idiom is relevant to "Bystander effect".
Re-writing here: My point is not to create a portable laboratory [on this ‘wikipedia message board’] to decide immediately what we will do about the aforementioned idiom.
Hi Toksoz. I am happy to accept that the 'see also' section can be useful for providing a connection with tangentially related topics. My issue is that 'elephant in the room' is too tangential in my mind. I am happy to be convinced though. The connection has never come up as far as I can remember in the academic literature, but you might have come across some literature that I have not. If so, feel free to let me know what that is. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andrew, I do not have an extensive source to show in the academic manner.
In the course of our negotiations, I sense that the crucial point gets stuck between -- generally; not all time -- I lean on "tangential" statement and you lean on "too tangential" statement.
I think we would both be convinced if the relevance of the idiom was discussed in ether academic texts or journal articles. In the absence of that evidence I think to try and make the connection would come close to constituting orginal research. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think that I am a patient person, but given that I am advocating for the status quo this shouldn't be too much of a test for me anyway. Happy editing. Andrew (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about the status quo testing at all, Andrew.
1. The main wiki pages cannot be changed through a result made in a talk/discussion page by only those who participated in. [It is clear that you know this very well as a veteran wikipedian.]
2. [One more time] Please remember what I wrote about "expertise" in my first text written on Sep. 10
My copy edit helped the readability of the article by removing useless words, condensing sentence structure, and replacing passive voice with active voice; my decisions accord to the Wikipedia Copy Editing Guide and therefore should remain. For example, I rewrote a sentence that began with "It is..." because the pronoun "It" in that sentence lacked an antecedent. If you would like more information about copy editing, then read the Copy Editing Guide, and if you would like more about my edit, then please send me a message. I will revert your reversion simply so that I will not forget to later so do.
Hi Duxwing. While in some ways I am envious of the faith you have in your own abilities, I think it might be misplaced here and I think my concerns are worth your time.
Actually, my concern largely is about the possible unintended changes to the semantic content of the paragraph. For example, I think that to say that "The roots of the concept can be found" is quite different to "The concept began". The latter implies that the concept originated largely in its current form whereas the former implies that the concept has developed over time. I would similarly argue that removing "as described by Freud" gives the impression that the taxonomy described has remained the dominant understanding of the concept in psychology, which as I do not believe it has.
Does this resonate at all with you? It might be that you know something about the literature and the current state of the field that I do not. In which case I am all ears. In the meantime though, I feel that the accuracy of the article should trump stylistic concerns. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I lack faith in my "abilities": I make each edit because I think that it will improve the page, and I will therefore integrate your helpful notes into my second attempt. If you would like to send more of them to improve my lay understanding of psychology, then please do!
I saw that you just undid twice my edit on the 14th Dalai Lama. I have no desire of edit warring with you. However, please give a good reason for undoing my edits. As far as I can tell, the references used strongly support the added content and came from credible sources. I assure you that there is an abundance of hard evidence for the added content, enough that it would be very difficult to deny on plausible grounds.
Please let me explain briefly why I had added the following:
"However, many have condemned the Dalai Lama for hypocritically promoting "peace" worldwide as a means to regain power over Tibet. Until emancipation in 1959, the Dalai Lama ruled Tibet as a theocratic dictatorship, with over ninety percent of the population living as serfs in a feudalistic system of involuntary servitude.[4] In addition, the Dalai Lama received funding from the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s to engage in separatist activity against China.[5]"
Many including myself believe that the wiki page gave a very one-sided view of the Dalai Lama. While the Dalai Lama is admired by many, there are also plenty of others who despise him for precisely these reasons. Like everything in the article lead, the fact that the Tibet had been a feudal serf society prior to Chinese intervention and that the Dalai Lama received CIA funding to organize uprisings against China is much representative of the Dalai Lama's life, and hence, it should be included. I would also like to make the point that no religious leader, including the Dalai Lama, should be beyond objective criticism.
It would be greatly appreciated if you justify to me why the above content merits deletion from the Dalai Lama's wiki page.
Hi Tomathan. Thanks for your prompt and meaningful response. Unfortunately I feel like I have used up my 'Wikipedia time' for the day. I will respond to you properly tomorrow. In fact, I will probably transpose your response to the relevant talk page and reply there. This is common practice and helps keep other editors in the loop. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dalai Lama article is read by many and we should take very great care to reflect our 5 pillars in it.
Wikipedia should not be censored but at the same time it should contain neutral, relevant, and complete material that is 'widely reported by reliable sources'. See: Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL.
The current issue, in my opinion, should have the content discussed on a subpage to hash out the text. This will avoid violating talk page/BLP guidelines such as I am doing here. This discussion should have broad input by users that don't have a POV on either side. My suggestion is to create and discuss it at User:Canoe1967/5P BLP. Feel free to move and re-name it.
Hi Canoe1967. Thanks for weighing in and your offer of a space to craft material is well received. We may not need it though. Tomathan has received feedback that hopefully is clear to him/her and I have no reason to believe that a subsequent attempt will have any issues. Particularly if that attempt focuses on developing the body of the article first rather than starting with the lead. Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew,
You recently added a notice of edit warring to my talk page, during what you perceive as an "edit war" between you and me :
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Altruism. 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.
It looks like you got plenty of complain for reverting others.
B in BRD does not mean you can make false claim about the edit of others
R does not mean you can revert without research into the sources
D does not mean you can revert edits but not participate the discussion on the TP124.149.121.142 (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anon. I am aware that reverting can be confronting to new editors, so I am careful in adopting that approach. That is, I only revert where the contribution diminishes the quality of the article, as is my belief in this case. As for your other chargers:
I am sincere in my concerns and you will now see that other editors sharethose.
It should be clear to you that my concerns around sourcing was only part of the reason that I opted for a revision.
I believe it is disingenuous to suggest that I have been reluctant to participate in discussion. In fact, it was only after I reminded you of wp:brd that you brought the issue to the talk page.
Anyway, I will weigh on the discussion over at the talk page and with a little luck everyone will be happy with the outcome of that discussion. Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my name is Jennifer and I'm a third-year PhD student studying psychological science and quantitative methods. I'm writing to inquire why you undid my revisions to the "minimal group paradigm" page. I feel that my additions bring valuable information to the Wikipedia community, and I have provided the citations from a renowned social psychology textbook. I am currently editing Wikipedia pages as a part of a social psychology course, and I am curious to know why you have undone practically all of my changes, rather than suggesting meaningful edits so that we may collaborate to improve pages.
Hi Jenifer. Welcome to Wikipedia and I sincerely hope the assignment is going well. I am of course happy to talk further about any revision of your edits that I have performed. And if my edit summaries are not clear then of course ask me to provide some exposition. Please do not be disheartened that some of your contributions have been removed. This is par for the course in Wikipedia and part of the collaboration process. I.e. first we are bold, then we might be reverted, at which point we discuss toward consensus.
With regard to your minimal group paradigmedit, my primary concern was that your edit misrepresented the “elements” of the minimal paradigm in claiming that participants who are unknown to each other is critical. I do understand that this is how they are described by Aronson et al. (2010), but this is simply not true. In fact many of the classic minimal group studies did not have involve strangers, and instead were run in school classrooms where participants knew each other well (e.g. Tajfel & Billig, 1974; Tajfel et al., 1971; Whetherell & Vaughan, 1979). My suspicion is that Aronson and colleagues were simply stretching the truth in order to maintain the interest of undergraduate psyc students, but the claim is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article on the topic. As I said, we should avoid relying on introductory texts like the one you appear to be working from.
Actually, while I am on the topic of using introductory texts as sources, another problem with those is that often they don’t rigorously provide sources themselves for their claims. This is likely an attempt to avoid overwhelming the student with names, but it means that anyone properly researching the topic often will not be able to get to the evidence. This is also an issue in your edit here: looking at the textbook there is no real clue as to which minimal group experiments resulted in differential pleasantness and quality of work ratings. Indeed, it is also true of your edit over on the stereotype article and one of the reasons I opted for revision there. That is, the textbook offers no detailed source for the “two step model of cognitive processing” (of which there are actually many), nor the data to support the predictions around frustrating or anger-provoking conditions.
Dear friend.
Feminist French psychoanalysis is a field that vastly changed the current horizons in psychoanalysis. It is recognized for almost half a century. I think that it is very valuable that the Wikipedia readers will be aware of this tendency. Many psychoanalysts today will agree, thanks to the efforts of French feminist psychoanalysts, that the psychoanalysis issued from Freud onwards was paternalistic and that its insistance on the phallic paradigm was disastrous to women. I think that this must be reflected in the page. I know that for the moment the section is not sufficient, but it is important to start. Others can continue slowly and build the whole mini chapter. More names should be added, mainly from the American field of psychoanalysis, but my hope is that others will join the effort. I will appreciate if you will contribute in helping to build this chapter. It is time to take this direction out of the limited "feminist" section. . Best wishes Artethical (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. I will be very happy to discuss this. I am putting some efforts to raise the awareness to feminist theory art and psychoanalysis in its importance to the general fields, not just to "feminism". This is not so easy task, and I am happy to to try to clarify the issue. However, being aware of the enormity of the task, I usually go by already established figures who influence the fields (art, psychoanalysis, culture) as such. Inasmuch as psychoanalysis was and is not "neutral" but biased toward structures of the subject that fit male desires, the feminist analysis is a section in it. However, you willsee that other small sections for the moment are not more developped (like the cultural psychoanalysis - names for the moment). There is hope here to put not what we wish to happen in the field but what has already established itself as a field. I can support this with many references, but - this will take time and patience, and help from other editors. Looking forward Artethical (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote in the psy talk page - I really need your help - there are not so many of us women editors who work in this conjunction of psychoanalysis and culture, and when there are, if they are like me, they dn't even know how to upload a photo...:) (teach me !). anyway, I replied in the page - looking forward to start a frutiful conversation. Artethical (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew, I recently revised the lead section of Group cohesiveness. Thanks for your conscientious attention to this article. My initial concern about this section is that the lead sentence deviates unnecessarily from the first guideline of WP:LEADSENTENCE. I think this is a good guideline because it advocates a clear and direct synopsis. I hope you can help.
In this particular case, making the headword the subject of the lead sentence can immediately establish the relationship between cohesiveness and cohesion. The article seems to lose track of which of these subtly different concepts is the topic. I, a layperson, assume that cohesiveness is a meta-property summing all the necessary and sufficient prerequisites (behaviours, qualities, dynamics) by which individuals achieve a state called group cohesion, but the lead section avoids explicating this fundamental relationship.
Although the second sentence equivocates, I learn from it that these necessary and sufficient conditions probably are social relations, task relations, perceived unity, and emotions, but the meanings and relationships of these terms are missing. I assume that (social relations) + (task relations) + (perceived unity) + (emotions) is not the formula for group cohesion, because "relations" can either be prososocial or antisocial, and I doubt just any old emotions will do. So the lead section hides the relationship between cohesiveness and cohesion in a black box. How would you improve this section? Ringbang (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ringbang. Unfortunately I don’t feel like I have the time at the moment to update the group cohesiveness lead personally. It is a bit of a daunting task due to the lack of consensus that you rightly point out. I would welcome another attempt from you though. What you have just said isn’t unreasonable and something along those lines would probably be an improvement.
Just quickly though, while I don’t think I can help with disentangling cohesiveness from cohesion, it might be useful to point out that social psychologist often cite Festinger (1950), Festinger et al. (1950), Cartwright (1968) or Zander (1979) for a definition of group cohesion. I would also suggest the following papers for excellent treatments of the topic of social cohesion in social psychology:
Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive definition of the group. Social identity and intergroup relations, 15–40.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. Advances in group processes: Theory and research, 2, 77-122.
Hogg, M. A. (1987). Social identity and group cohesiveness. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. Oakes, S. Reicher & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
I want to thank you for your interest and activity in the above article. I agree in principle that a lengthy article has more opportunity to enter a fact further in the body of the article. I argue that my Carl Schmitt must return to the lead because the concept of 'totalstaat' was early and it was institutionalized by the Germans on a relatively equal footing with the Italians. Schmitt was a jurist who had some misgivings about the concept and he was intellectually probing as he published on related topics such as various kinds of dictatorship, legal theory, and philosophy. He should be listed in "Further Reading" and given a prominent place in the article. In the genesis and development of concept of totalitarianism, Mss. Giovanni Amendola and Giovanni Gentile should admit a German theorist as an equal. Schmitt only abandoned the Weimar constitution in 1933 for National Socialism, however it occupied him intellectually for the previous decade since he published "Dictatorship" in 1921 with earlier essays on the same in 1917. In 1914 he published "The Value of the State and the Significance of the Individual". The Alps in the early 20th century would not prevent the flow of ideas in both directions, Andrew. The fact that he was a jurist lends gravity to his thought.
It might be possible to establish intellectual 'influence'. I cannot read German, sir. It could be discovered if Italian translations of Schmitt were published. Or if the Germans translated the Italians.
The last reasoning I will offer is that the German and Italian versions of the total state were put into action at the same time and its reasonable to assume that they developed intellectually in concert as well.
Hi User:Comingdeer. I don't really have a strong feeling about this at the moment. I take the point that Scmitt's potential instrumentality in the development of the approach might justify his inclusion in the lead, and your most recent edit makes that connection more clear. Still though, I am not sure that the lead should be attempting to cover details of the history like that. I guess we will wait and see what others think. Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Comingdeer. Thanks for the links to those sources, but it makes me think that you might have misinterpreted my concern. I have no reason to doubt the role of Schmitt in early writing on totalitarianism. It is just that I am not certain that his part in the totalitarianism story warrants inclusion in the lead. In other words, my guess would be that your average wiki-visitor to the page would be looking to know what totalitarianism is, what its impact is, as well as where and when it has existed (or does exist); not who particular theorists were on the topic (which could wait until later in the article). What do you think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be stubborn, Andrew, but he pops up in my current reading of late. "Mapping the End Times: American Evangelical Geopolitics and Apocalyptic Visions" a 2010 UK book of essays contains (8) pages on his thought. You are correct,as an editor, about the structure of the article and I am open to your adjustments as long as he is noted as one of the earliest users of the word and a scholarly influence to contemporary work. I must check Arendt's work for a reference on him. Happy New Years! Charlie Church of the Rain (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to discuss with you Social Psychology and your belief that it can help society also I would like to add what is your interest in the power article and why you keep reverting my edits
Hi Richardlord50. Thank you for stopping the edit war, although a bit belatedly for my liking. In answer to your request to talk about your recent edits, I am of course happy to discuss these. You will note that I have provided an explanation for my revisions in the relevant editsummaries. If these summaries are unclear to you then by all means ask for clarification. This should be done on the relevant talk page so other editors can keep apprised. Regards Andrew (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew
Thanks for replying you are a user just like myself can you give me clarification in your OWN WORDS not behind a mask called 'Wikipedia guidelines'.For one thing and also that wasn't the answer to my question which was "I would like to discuss with you Social Psychology and your belief that it can help society also I would like to add what is your interest in the power article and why you keep reverting my edits".Kind Regards Richardlord50 (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can answer why. Wikipedia and wikipedians are for creating an encyclopedia. Talk pages in wikipedia are to discuss the ways to improve article content and not for arbitrary socializing. Therefore U3964057 has a right to ignore your request "...and your belief that...", so it would be wise for you to stop pestering him in this respect. Please notice he did answer the second part of your question, which was directly related to wikipedia article creation. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After some careful consideration I see the point in your reverting of my "drive-by" editing.
At the same time I noticed you consistently reverted big chunks of work by various red-linked single-purpose accounts. I understand they are students that got an assignment and don't really care about wikipedia. (Otherwise they would have at least engaged in discussions.) Still I am wondering whether there is something salvageable in their additions. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say that. My girlfriend will get suspicious.
I have tried to be judicious in assessing the latest flurry of student contributions; reverting only where the edit is detrimental to the overall page quality. It is true that in some cases particular content or ideas could be salvaged, but in all honesty I didn't feel like I could commit the time to sort the wheat from the chaff. That, and there would alternative ways for me to contribute that would be more efficient. Feel free to draw from those edits yourself though. The pages do need improving.
In other news, I am a bit concerned about this edit of yours over on the stereotype page. Specifically I am not sure that I follow your distinction between the article subjects and "cliche perceptions of other things". Also, I think your edit might introduce confusion as to whether the article is taking a sociological or social psychological perspective. Does this resonate with you at all? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Staszek Lem. Given it has been a week I am going to go ahead with a revert. I am of course still happy to talk about it either here or on the article talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to somehow clarify the scope of the article. Clearly, stereotypes of animals and other usages of the term are not covered in it. AFAIK the article subject is stereotypes about people. Can you suggest some phrase to this end in the intro? E.g., how about "In social science" qualifier?Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You think the relationship between the Just-world hypothesis and World view is too vague to put a mere hyperlink of the latter in the "See also" section of the former? Do tell. As for Chaos theory, it is the very nature of seeming randomness and unpredictability that instills people with a sense of no control that often causes them to ponder the just/unjust nature of the world. I can't make you agree, but I find it hard to imagine you shouldn't. 71.236.253.188 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anon, I do believe that both connections are too vague, but for different reasons. 'World view' seems to general. Sure, a believe in a just world would be part of some people's world view, but so is any ideology, religion or political perspective. If a link to world view is a necessity for this article then it is probably a necessity for any article dealing with human's understanding the world. That is a lot of articles. Better to just leave it out of the 'see also' section and wait instead to see whether the concept naturally makes its way into the article body.
With regard to chaos theory, the I am actually somewhat dubious about the causal process you posit. If you have a reliable source for the connection then that is fine, but otherwise it is original research and thus not appropriate. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. I m working on the Elaboration Likelihood Model page for a university assignment. I saw on the history page that you were the most recent editor on that page and that you have edited the page a few times. I was wondering if there is a specific section of the page you feel could be improved or added that are not listed on the page. And also if I could run my work past you because I seen you have removed others work for poor citation etc.
Thanks --LewisHoward (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LewisHoward. Thanks for getting in touch and it would be great to see that article get some attention. In terms of my revisions of other editors' work, I hope my reasons are clear to you. If they are not then feel free to ask me to clarify. I will do my best to answer. And yes, feel free to run any ideas past me (or past all interested editors over on the article talk page).
In terms of specific areas for improvement, there are two that come quickly to mind to me, but they might not be attractive to you.
There appears to be some serious redundancy between the model routes section and the elaboration types section. I think the article would be improved by rationalizing this content down to one section. I would understand, however, if you wish to do something more obviously additive. There is a good chance your assignment marking criteria asks for an addition of content.
John Turner makes an insightful critique of the elaboration likelihood model (Turner, 1991, p.145-149). I would love to see this added to the article, but would understand if this is a bit too esoteric for you.
Beyond these two thoughts, there is lots of ways to improve the article and I welcome your contribution. Perhaps a more straightforward contribution might be the addition of a 'development' section that describes the scientific influences in the development of the model. I hope this helps and let me know if you have any questions. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply and good suggestions. Ill get something together over the weekend, and ill also contact others on the talk page but it did seem inactive. --LewisHoward (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have added an application of the theory that I have read about and I cited from the journal I read it from. Can you tell me why it was removed? Maks kv 91 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maks kv 91. I am of course happy to try and provide some further exposition on my edit summary. I will try to find the time soon to do so over at the relevant talk page (to keep other editors in the loop). Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice you restored some spam I reverted from the article. I thought it was pretty obvious vandalism. The TRAC thing is just bizarre, it was obviously scraped from the Wikipedia article without any independent fact-checking on the part of the organization, and the organization has now taken it down, after being challenged in a press conference by the Bodu founder. And yet the drive-by vandals keep adding it. The organization seems to me unnotable, perhaps it should be removed completely (again). —Neotarf (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neotarf. While I certainly agree that the page is subject to more than its fair share of vandalism, I don’t think that particular revision of your edit should be dismissed as such (disagreement does not equal vandalism). You removed the infobox, and someone else evidently thought that the infobox should stay. While I am very sympathetic to your reasoning, as per Wikipedia norms I don’t think that it is appropriate to push through your edit and insist that the reverting editor leave your edit in place while he/she starts discussion.
Really, I think your edit might be the appropriate way forward, but on a page like this where passions run high I think it extremely important to embrace and adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. This allows us to a) set the good example, and b) invoke these guidelines where necessary without hypocrisy. In a sense what I am advocating for is keeping to ‘Wikipedia’s moral high ground’. Does this resonate with you?
In terms of TRAC, I agree that the notability is suspect, but at least one editor (I have some sock puppet suspicions) disagrees. Again, with a little luck this can be resolved on the talk page. See you there. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, and I don't see any "editors", just SPAs, who make one or two edits on the one topic, and are never heard from again. The "terrorism" and "right-wing" epithets are meaningless in this context and do not belong. They have been discussed to death, and reverted over and over. That external sites are starting to scrape the WP article and present it as fact, even with the neutrality tag, and huge copyright issues, is also of concern. I have wasted a lot of time putting up welcome templates etc, and directing them to the salient portion of the talk page, as is proper, but sorry, these people are just not going to engage. They are already gone. Since you are the one who reverted, it looks like the burden is now on you to defend your edit, or make a more reasonable one. :) —Neotarf (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neotarf. You are obviously very frustrated, and having faced my fair share of persistent NPOV editing I can empathise. Please don’t, however, let frustration turn you into a problematic editor yourself. The fact of the matter is that your removal of the infobox was a novel edit that was reverted with reasoning. Unfortunately, instead of appropriately bringing it to the talk page, you started the edit war. I have already defended my edit as acting in the interests of conflict resolution. It is up to you now, if you still think the infobox should be removed, to raise the topic on the talk page. Also, please bear in mind that a) it is not sufficient to vaguely gesture toward a “salient portion of the talk page” that is only tenuously related to the edit, and b) “many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors”. Regards Andrew (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you stop making patronizing comments about my supposed mental state and read my actual edit summaries. Then go and read my attempts to engage these vandals on their respective talk pages. They are gone. There is no "conflict resolution". The "conflict" is *you*. *You* have added an infobox that is the target of frequent vandalism, and is yet again filled with venom, yet you do not seem to be willing to make the effort to monitor it. *You* have reintroduced language that accuses these individuals of Islamophobia, anti-Catholicism, homophobia, right-wing, etc., etc, etc. And *you* have gone so far as to reintroduce the "terrorism" spam that has been deleted time and time again, this time putting the words into the mouth of this TRAC organization. Click on the link. The organization makes no such claim. The link is bogus, and *you* reinstated it. I removed it with proper edit summaries. And *you* have reinstated all of this obvious vandalism, without reading my edit summaries in order to make some WP:POINT, at the same time condescendingly dismissing my links to talk page discussions where these topics have already been discussed ad nausuem as as "vague gesture"? Fine. It is now Friday afternoon in the Middle East, and the mosques should be letting out in a few hours. For the next 24 hours, this article is *yours*. Have a nice day. —Neotarf (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neotarf. I didn't mean to offend you and I promise to engage in no more speculation about your motives or feelings. From a pragmatic perspective though, although you have concerns about the level of effort that is required to create a high quality Bodu Bala Sena article, I think that trying to shortcut Wikipedia dispute resolution guidelines is just going to be more work for you in the long run.
For example, you are obviously now going to extensive lengths to try and put the onus on me to justify the current article content. It is an impressive effort, but your arguments do not alter the reality that it was not me who reverted your change initially, and "until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns".
As such, my recommendation to you remains the same. Having been reverted, and obviously not agreeing with the reason given for the revision, go to the relevant talk page and raise your objections or ask for clarification. I hope to see you there. Regards Andrew (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your gesture of collegiality is appreciated. I'm not really editing these days, but did find the time to revert what appeared to me obvious spam of the sort that the article collects regularly. I would point out that editing on behalf of someone else is usually discouraged, and that your edit appears to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. It is for this reason I have taken the matter to your talk page. If you do not wish to defend the addition of this material, I will feel free to remove it again sometime in the future, although the reality is that in posting here on your talk page, I have already used up what little attention I have allotted for wiki matters these days and the article will probably remain filled with hate speech, as usual.
If you want to delve into infobox matters further, you might be interested in my old Signpost piece on the subject, in particular the section on "monsterboxes". Note the German Wikipedia's intriguing approach, as typified by the Merkel article. Note also the increasing use of microdata, which is increasingly scraped from these boxes in ways that are non-transparent.
I would also point out that the article has deep neutrality issues and appears to be at least 80% cut-and-paste from cherry-picked sources that are overtly hostile to the organization, which is a serious copyvio issue. Unfortunately the organization communicates mostly by YouTube, and almost completely in the Sinhalese language, which is yet not supported by Google Translate. This creates a huge problem with balance, since almost all the information about the organization available in English comes from the organization's enemies. Contrast the current content of the article with this rare interview, with direct quotations from one of the organization's founders. —Neotarf (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neotarf. Again, I suggest you just head over to the BBS talk page, assume good faith, and start a discussion about your removal of the infobox that had been in place for over a year. You can of course keep talking with me over here, but don’t get your hopes up that this will in some way count as a sincere effort toward consensus. Thus, if you do decide to continue the edit war after some strategic delay and reapply your edit again I will revert you. It is going to be so much easier for you in the long run if you stop trying to pick and choose which editors you seek consensus with.
Actually, when you do get around to having that discussion, I would recommend not using the terms “spam” (which the material clearly isn’t), “hate speech” (which the material probably isn’t and you would be hard pressed to substantiate either way), or “vandals” (which suggest you view disagreeing editors as the enemy). Any of these will undermine your credibility.
Also, I think you might have slipped in a thinly veiled accusation of meat puppetry in your last message. If you do have concerns along those lines then feel free to raise those in the appropriate channels. Otherwise you should presume that I have arrived at my article stability concerns independently, which I have. Regards Andrew (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One does not reach "consensus" with a drive-by vandal who has only made one edit, to revert the removal of offensive spam. I would direct you to the talk page, where these issues have already been resolved; in particular I would point you to the links to the discussions of "branding individuals as bigots" and a similar discussion for organizations. You may also consider this link, which describes a Wikipedia edit that inserted the phrase "all Muslims are terrorists" into an article. The edit in question was called "vandalism", "offensive", "appalling", "sickening", and "unacceptable". When the edit stayed up for 6 minutes before being reverted, a spokeswoman for a Muslim organization commented, "It is these types of attitudes that create an unnecessary climate of fear and hostility." So how is this any different when applied to some Buddhist outfit? This should be a no-brainer. —Neotarf (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neotarf. Actually one does. Or at least one definitely tries when there is no evidence of vandalism, no evidence of spam, and no evidence that the editor is not sincerely interested in the article.
Anyway, in terms of your other points, at least you are now pointing to a specific talk page discussion in your attempt to make the case that there is pre-existing consensus. This is progress. You will note, however, that the discussion you point to does not in anyway cover the wholesale removal of the infobox, which is what your edit did and what the other editors reverted with rationale. As I have consistently said, feel free to start that discussion. Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you have finally looked at my comments on the talk page instead of merely accusing me of not having used it. Now I would appreciate it if you would look at the many many many rationales I have already given for my edit, and address the issues I have raised, rather than continue to make personalized remarks about me. And I really really really don't care whether you believe in good faith that this organization is anti-whatever. Your edit was unacceptable. —Neotarf (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neotarf. Do you think that I have accused you of not using the talk page at all? You should re-read our conversation. That definitely isn't the case. I wonder what else you have misconstrued.
Anyway, as for "many many many rationales", how about one? Go on, have a look through your talk page contributions and see if you can find one for me. A clue will be that you actually use the term 'infobox'. Actually, I will concede one, but not in the talk page. You did dutifully provide a rationale for your original edit as an edit summary. Obviously though the other editors were not convinced and the edit was reverted. Hence, time for 'discuss' (not edit war). Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting for some comment that addresses the content of the article itself, or some indication that the issues I have raised about the article (including infobox rationales and links) have been read and understood. —Neotarf (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neotarf. Why are you waiting for that? It is not a prerequisite to heading over to the BBS talk page, assuming good faith, and starting a discussion about your removal of the infobox.
In the meantime, I have gone ahead and removed some of the more tenuously supported claims from the info box. I am happy to hear what you or others think. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have already started that discussion, with the only person who seems to care, here. Feel free to copy whatever you want to wherever you think appropriate.
Hi Neotarf. Given that multiple editors reverted your edit, it is clear that I am not the only person who potentially cares about the infobox. Which is the reason that an appropriately inclusive discussion is needed. Thus, as I have said, a discussion here won't cut it. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear U*7, could you please explain what you mean when you refer to academic spam. (I have my own definition of academic spam but I do not know whether it is similar to your definition.) Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IjonTichy . I use the term academic spam to describe occasions where an editor is motivated to include an academic source primarily because of an affinity for the source's author or the source itself. In other words, the editor thinks the paper/author is good and so want to see it/he in wikipedia. Hence spam (or wp:promotion).
This isn't to say that such an edit can't be performed in good faith, or that such edits always have negative consequences. It makes sense that if the source has good content then its presence should enrich wikipedia. It definitely does sometimes. The problem is that if the editor is focused on getting the source into wikipedia then there is a good chance that they are not paying enough attention to how that source actually fits in with the destination article. What I often see is a newly published academic paper given a detailed summary and pride of place in an article, often with little regard for how this might detract from the article in other ways (e.g. interrupt article flow, distract from more relevant content). In short, the editing is being done backward: Instead of thinking about what content will improve the article and finding subsequent sources, the source is identified first and is then jimmied into the article however possible.
Hi SQGibbon. I tagged him in the message so if he is at all computer savvy he will have seen it. Anyway, it looks like the bulk of the conversation is happening over on his user page now, so I will probably continue there. Cheers and thanks for the message Andrew (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moral "Luck'???? what makes this action one of luck? it is very misleading title , as luck is not part of the action here. Did you write this one? Is that why you are protecting it? Perhaps subject to many of the fallacies listed on this page - illogic in the face of information. The title is supposed to summarize the issue; in this one, the claim one makes of being better than someone else after an event went in their favor, therefore one is of higher moral standing, or conversely that someone is worse than someone after the fact of an event's passed; it has to do with false pretenses, assuming a title, a status, is an act of aggression, it is not a function of luck or happenstance. Think of a better word, I don't care, but that one is not very accurate.Sprezzissimo (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sprezzissimo. I don't believe that the name of a phenomenon is necessarily supposed to summarize that phenomenon. It is instead just that: the name. If you can think of a better name, then that is fine (I personally can see the logic in the present one), but Wikipedia isn't the forum to try and get your preferred name accepted. Instead, you should go out and become influential in the fields of philosophy and psychology, and then publish heavily in peer reviewed articles about the merit of this new nomenclature. Once you have swayed that scientific community you can come back here and make the change such that Wikipedia reflects the new scientific consensus (this is the role of Wikipedia after all). Best of luck. Andrew (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've reverted my edit on the sales management page as 'possible promotion'. I do come from the company in question, but I also am aware that Wikipedia uses nofollow links and really did want to try and start improving the articles in the sales recruiting/sales management space. The current article strength is quite weak, and it reflects badly on our work when we don't have something to point people to that can inform them.
We are leaders in the space with years of articles and books written in the field, and more importantly, we're really interested in making these articles better. We've previously submitted a new article proposal for Sales Recruiting (before my time with the company) that was rejected for reading too much like an essay, and we're really interested on working to improve it, but we don't know how to work with other editors without being rebuffed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NortonFord (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NortonFord. Welcome to wikipedia and it is good to hear that you are keen to improve some of the articles. As a response, I would first suggest doing three things that will make other editors less suspicious that you are using wikipedia for promotional purposes:
Don't link to your own website - There are any number of high quality sources in this space, many of which are peer reviewed. It is therefore hard to see why self-published company materials would be used (even ignoring the obvious conflict of interest issues).
Ensure that the edit is encyclopedic - Nothing screams spam like a rushed or trivial edit. Take your time, draft your edit, and make sure it is a meaningful contribution to the encyclopedia.
Don't just add, improve - Improving an article isn't just about increasing the number of facts included. Sometimes the best contributions are acts of consolidation, clarification, contextualization, or simply trimming the fat. These are things that a spammer is unlikely to do, but that a sincerely interested and well intentioned editor is.
I hope this is clear and best of luck with your editing. As one final comment, within the wikipedia culture any claims that you are "leaders in the space" are probably not going to impress anyone. Better to demonstrate your expertise, rather than declaring it. Does this help? Are you still unsure about how to engage with the wikipedia community? Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(tps)You might also want to point this user to WP:COI (the conflict of interest guidelines). There's also WP:NPVWP:RS and WP:V for more about neutrality and sources. Obviously you want it to sound like a encyclopedia and not promotional material. Isn't there a welcome template with all of that somewhere? —Neotarf (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Okay, I have found the template and delivered it to their talk page. Cheers. —Neotarf (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neotarf. Umm... I did point the user toward those guidelines. Anyway, there hasn't been any activity on this for well over a month so it seems to have been resolved (fingers crossed). Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't resist, of course I was tracking Bodu, which seems to have had some sudden activity recently. You're lucky to have such an uneventful talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Neotarf and Andrew, my apologies. I was a summer student at Peak, and despite my advising them that the protocol was for no self-promotion whatsoever, they demanded that I try. Thanks for the thorough welcome/info from both of you though, I do want to start contributing more to the project. NortonFord (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NortonFord. Thanks for the update and also thank you for your honesty. I am sorry to hear that you asked to carry though with something you objected to. I hope otherwise that the work experience was valuable. I am also glad to hear that you are still keen to contribute to Wikipedia. If you have any questions or want me to look over something then don't hesitate to drop me a message. Cheers Andrew (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randeepa. It should be clear to you that I did provide a rationale for my revision of your edit (this should answer your question as well Neotarf). As such, if you feel that my concerns are unfounded then make your case on the article talk page. Alternatively, if you think I have been unclear, ask a question there. Please do not simply reapply your edit. This is edit warring. In fact, I have left a gentle reminder on your talk page as I feel like by now you should know better. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't like the punctuation? Really? Can you be more specific about your objections, other than a list of policies? I really feel these new editors need to be encouraged, there's such a Moslem bias in the piece and so very little from the Buddhist and Hindu points of view. Too many of these edits are from drive-by IPs who never edit again-- this one actually has a user name and has made several edits over a few months. Surely if the material is sound, it is easy enough to help them along with the technicalities of English. Also, did you see my note on the talk page? —Neotarf (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neotarf. I don't know if Randeepa qualifies as a new user. And even if he is, there are some punctuation errors in there that cannot be attributed to naivety or ESL. A reference, for example, does not get its own sentence. These errors, along with the grammar errors, should be flagged for the editor as something that should be avoided in future edits.
But why are you focusing on the punctuation? It is obvious that the uncited claims and the dubious notability are the substantive issues. If you want to discuss the merits of the edit, this is where it makes sense to start. I am of course happy to join you over on the relevant talk page if you wish.
Finally, while I know that you might be tired of getting phrasing advice from me, I wanted to point out that some of your most recent language may also undermine your credibility. Specifically, you appear to agitate for an increase of "Buddhist and Hindu points of view" in response to a perceived "Muslim Bias". This suggests that your solution to partisanship is more, but different, partisanship. This isn't going to ingratiate you with other editors who will instead expect to see efforts toward neutrality. Just a head up. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hy all. First I'm sorry about the grammar and punctuation errors. I will try to correct those things! If you seen those errors its better to correct it rather than deleting the whole topic. I added correct information with neutral references rather than being Anti BBS or Pro BBS. So if you see errors like that. Please correct it. Don't delete whole topic Cheers Randeepa (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Randeepa[reply]
Andrew, I don't have any problem with the notability, how many minor rallies are already listed there? This one was huge, with nationally and internationally well-known people in attendance. I have written more about that on the talk page. The sources look okay to me as well, although I only did a quick spot-check for too-close paraphrasing, which is probably a problem for a lot of the stuff that's already in the article. I find it troubling that you seem to regard it as necessary to "ingratiate" yourself with any group of editors. Surely the goal is not "balance" but "neutrality". Do check out the WMF's support for countering WP:systemic bias. There are too few English language sources for this area already, let's not run off the few native speakers who are interested. Better to have to fix a few commas than to try to master the Sinhalese language, yes? —Neotarf (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randeepa. I am not sure why you too are focusing on the punctuation issue. Yes, that should be improved, but it should be incredibly clear based on my above comment that this is not my substantive concern. Moreover, I will ask you again to please not attempt to push through your edit if you are reverted. Instead, take it to the talk page and have patience with the discussion process. I have already pointed you towardWP:BRDandWP:WAR. As such, if you continue to edit war we will be at a stage where I will seek to have your editing privileges removed. Regards Andrew (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neotarf. You too, again with this obsession with punctuation. I have made it incredibly clear that I have 'notability' concerns along with concerns about 'uncited claims'. What thread are you reading? And yes, the goal is 'neutrality' rather than 'balance', which is exactly what I told you. Have you somehow switched places with me in the conversation? Anyway, thank you for starting the conversation over at the relevant talk page. I will see you there. Cheers Andrew (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
U3964057, I see you keep deleting my section on mirror neurons in the social cognition. You cited it as not being relevant to social cognition. I would have to disagree, as mirror neurons are arguably one of the most critical findings to a biological basis of social cognition. The page already has a social neuroscience heading and a mirror neuron subheading is a fantastic way to introduce readers to evidence of of a neurological basis to social phenomena. I think the subsection should stay and the social cognition should be edited to be more conclusive in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crparker3 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crparker3. Thanks for coming over to discuss the edit. I will try to respond to you shortly. Probably over at the article talk page though, just to help other editors keep in the loop. While I am here though, i may as well point out that I didn't claim that your edit was not relevant to social cognition. I instead am concerned that the relevance was not clear (and that there is possible undue weight). This is quite different. Also, I am not sure what you mean by "be more conclusive in the future". Maybe you can fill me in the course of discussion. Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Andrew, I see that you again reverted the recent post on mirror neurons in the social cognition article, while at the same time accusing me of "edit warring" (albeit my first edit action on that specific article). To this point, it seems that according to the "three-revert rule" and the definition of "edit warring" you are the party in violation. While this is the case, as an interested party of the social cognition subject, I am asking you to provide a specific rationale for reverting? You have cited "relevance unclear and possible undue weight" along with questioning its application to social cognition. In the prospect of improving the social cognition article, will you please elaborate upon this non-specific reasoning? Thank you in advance, Colmande — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmande (talk • contribs) 03:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colmande. Thanks for starting the discussion. As I just mentioned to Crparker3, I will try elaborate on my concerns over at the relevant talk page soon. Also thanks for reading the edit war guidelines. In terms of judging my own wiki-antics, I am pretty confident that I am in the clear. The guidelines on edit warring should be understood in the context of the other Wikipedia norms. These include 'Be bold, revert, discuss' and privileging the status quo. If you have some more time, I would definitely recommend you read those as well. Anyway, see you over at the relevant talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since I saw you are active in the heuristics and biases field, I wanted to point your attention to this and this; I'm sure you are more familiar than me with the guidelines and you can handle these cases better. Have a nice weekend, Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ihaveacatonmydesk. Sorry about the late reply. Now that I have a smidge more time I am happy to be involved. The problematic contribution over on availability heuristic seems to have been resolved, and I will wait to see if the representativeness heuristic article stabilizes as well. My guess is that these are students who are editing as part of a course assignment. As such they often have only a brief interaction with wikipedia. If, however, either editor starts to look more like longer term contributor I will try and start a friendly discussion about what is expected and why qualifies as a high quality contribution. Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stepping in. I'm glad to know you like to be involved in these matters, I am at a loss when there are big contributions, often with removal of old content, that don't follow the MOS. Other recent examples: this edit and the edits after mine here (all lacking an edit summary, among the other things). Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ihaveacatonmydesk. I don't really have an opinion on the Fluency heuristic edit, probably because the article is only in its infancy. There are many clarity issues in both versions of the article and either way it needs work; and it won't be enough for people to simply keep adding to the existing list of research. With regard to the overconfidence effect edits, there was one that I think clearly was not an improvement. It has consequently been reverted.
More generally, yes, big contributions are a challenge. When given the opportunity I often try and encourage editors to apply changes in an incremental fashion (e.g. this comment). Maybe we need a wiki-essay on the topic. Or maybe there already is one and I just haven't come across it yet. In the meantime, I try not to give large scale edits any extra leeway. An edit will either improve the article or not and any disagreements can always be worked out on the talk pages. Of course, let me know if you want some eyes on any particular contribution. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you tell me not to "push through with my version" while instating the version that another editor was "pushing through" against the will of three other editors? I had not been reverted, but was undoing another editor who was exactly pushing through by reinstating his edit that was reverted by someone else. The default for challenged material is to exclude it untill consensus is established about whether to include it and in which form. By making that edit you are removing any motivation the single editor who favors the content has to discuss and reach a compromise.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·05:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·. Firstly, while it is clear that yourself and couple of other editors (hi Hurvashtahumvata888) wish to see the content removed, there is some disagreement about whether that is appropriate and the subsequent discussion around the proposed change has only just begun. As per brd, it is now time to make a sincere effort at reaching consensus with other editors. This does not mean adopting a majority rules approach and it does not mean reapplying your change before meaningful efforts toward consensus have been made. The last contribution to the discussion was made within the last 24 hours by Warshy and it is now appropriate to give ImprovingWiki a chance to respond.
With regard to your other point, it is not correct to say that "the default for challenged material is to exclude it". It is instead the case that "until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns". As the material you are proposing for removal has been in the article for over a year, I don't think you can sustain the claim that it is you who have the baseline position. Does this resonate with you? And, of course, what do other editors think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maunus, I am quite happy to discuss matters on the Foucault talk page. I agree consensus and discussion are necessary; I should have more to say soon. You may note that, when you reverted me, I did not simply revert you back. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WHich was wise since that would have been your third revert of the same material. Luckily for you Andrew came along and inserted it for you again. And for the record he is wrong that challenged material should be included if it is "the status quo". For the record I was the first person to adress the issue on the tal page. You had reverted twice without starting a discussion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·15:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maunus. Looking at your above statement I think you might be blurring together two different topics, leading to the apparent disagreement between us. That is, you might be confusing the consensus building procedure with the analysis of content appropriateness. My statement was not that the status quo can be used to justify the inclusion of material in the long term (content appropriateness). It is instead that while discussion about the inclusion of material is ongoing wikipedia norms state clearly that the status quo should be left in place (consensus building procedure). How does that sound? Does my statement (or rather, wikipedia's statement) sit better with you now? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, wikipedias rules does not clearly state that status quo must stand while discussions are underhand. That would amount to a carte blanche for vandalism or hoaxes or defamatory material to remain in the article if they can be claimed to be status quo. And would of course lead to endless filibustering such as what my colleague ImprovingWiki is attempting over several articles currently. Rather, policy clearly states that challenged material should not be reinserted untill there is a consensus to do so.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·03:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maunus. Firstly, your claim that certain guidelines don't exist, when they clearly do (again, here), is probably hurting your credibility. Second, it is not true that the application of this particular guideline will result in "endless filibustering" and "removing any motivation ... to discuss and reach a compromise". Instead, both failing to discuss a proposed change, and attempting to game the status quo principal, will be rightly interpreted as a violation of good faith and will not get an editor traction with either a) the other involved editors in the discussion, or b) any editors called in to arbitrate the dispute. Following the principal will, however, curtail edit wars, which is what you began by attempting to push through the original removal before discussion had occurred. Does that make sense to you?
In other news, I am not sure what principal you are referring to, nor how it would apply in the present case. Could you point me to its location in wiki-guidelines? As it stands it just seems to come from 'the alternative gospel according to Maunus', of which I am not an adherent. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example WP:CANTFIX, WP:BURDEN, Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Revert. None of these policies suggest that there is such a thing as a grandfathered "status quo" that has to be inplace while there is discussion. When three editors have challenged material and one editor keeps reinserting it then that one editor is editwarring and the three others are not. You are clearly misreading the statusquo section which does not say anything of the sort, but in fact states the opposite - "do not simply reinstate your edit" which is what improving wiki did three times. The status quo in this case is the version favored by a consensus of three editors, not the version that simply happened to be oldest. Your erroneous interpretation would suggest that a hoax should be reinserted and kept in place as long as the hoaxer keeps discussing the inclusion on the talk page. That is clearly not in anyones interest. You made a stupid mistake when you drive by reinserted an edit that was challenged by three editors, and which was being discussed on the talkpage where two further editors had expressed themselves in favor of removal. And there is no policy that supports that stupid mistake.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·06:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maunus. Thanks for your response (although you seem to be getting a bit agitated). I actually find it illustrative that you bring up WP:CANTFIX and WP:BURDEN. Remember when I said that it seems like you are blurring "consensus building procedure with the analysis of content appropriateness"? This is a nice case in point. These two guidelines are about how an individual editor may decide whether content should be included or not. They are not, however, guidelines pertaining to how an editor should interact with other editors in order to reconcile any differences of opinion (nor do they 'trump' consensus building concerns). It is the latter topic we are discussing here and that is why I reverted your edit. Do you see the difference?
On the topic of consensus building procedure, I am glad that you have brought up WP:BRD and that you are on board with it. This is an important guideline for ensuring article stability while discussions are underway. It is somewhat confusing to me as to how you have managed to reconcile your behavior with that guideline. Looking back at the sequence of events it is clear that Hurvashtahumvata888first removed material that had been in place for over a year ('B'). This decision was then contested by ImprovingWiki ('R'). At this point, instead of following BRD you chose to reapply Hurvashtahumvata888's proposed change before any discussion had occurred (i.e. not 'D'). Do you also see the problem here?
I have got to say, I did enjoy this phrase of yours: "The status quo in this case is the version favored by a consensus of three editors". Not only is this an impressive attempt to use subsequent discussion to retrospectively justify your unilateral maneuver, but the phrasing perfectly communicates either a failure to grasp, or a disrespect of, WP:VOTE. A consensus of three editors you say? Is it the case that the only editors whose voices count are those that agree with you?
Anyway, I would suggest that you revisit WP:BRD. I think you will see that this does necessitate the temporary acceptance of the article in its present form. In other words, BRD needs WP:STATUSQUO. After you have considered that I am of course keen to hear your thoughts. In particular, I would be interested to hear how you envisage WP:BRD working while editors are encouraged to simultaneously insist that their interpretation of guidelines like WP:CANTFIX and WP:BURDEN become the article's current version. Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, As discussed earlier at talk socialisation I have started working on Legal socialisation article at User:Mahitgar/sandbox/Legal socialization. Mostlly I will be working in legal perspective. While searching the topic oline I realised the topic may be closely related to social psychology. Taking this aspect in to account I suppose your support and contributions to the article will be valuable and requesting the same. Thanks and warm regards. Mahitgar (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mahitgar. Glad to hear you are making a concerted effort in researching and building these proposed additions to wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't feel like I have the time at the moment to help a great deal. My apologies. If, however, you have a specific question then don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best to contribute then. Cheers and best of luck Andrew (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Idea 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:
of mutually enhanced contrasts and of [[assimilation (philosophy)|assimilation]] and dissimilation (i.e. in color and form perception and his advocacy of ''objective'' methods of expression and of
[[File:Crystal Clear app ktip.svg|thumb|150px|A picture of a [[Incandescent light bulb|lightbulb]] is
Hi WillMall ~(P&~P). Sorry about the delayed reply. In terms of your first question, to my knowledge it is up to you as to whether you start a conversation on an editor's talk page or an article's talk page, although I usually default to article talk pages in the interest of keeping other interested editors in the loop.
In terms of your second question, I am happy to leave your most recent edits as they stand for the moment, although hopefully with time that particular point gets fleshed out in the article body. Cheers Andrew (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you've reverted my edits in the article Just-world hypothesis for typos and "clarity issues". Typos I can understand, and they can be easily fixed. However, all the information I added was clearly stated in the sources. Could the information be re-added to the article because I think it's important to have some information about the flipside (belief in unjust world) and alternatives to the hypothesis. If you want to re-format or specify some of the points that's ok too. Rusenski (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rusenski. Thanks for coming to the talk page. Unfortunately it isn't enough that the content is "clearly stated in the sources". Content needs to be clearly stated in the wikipedia article itself and I did not think this was the case in your edit. For example, it is not made clear as to how a discomfort reduction explanation is different to a BJW explanation. After all, BJW is about managing the discomfort that comes from a threatened world view. And what is the relationship between empathy and BJW? Is this a tangential point, or is there something mutually exclusive between BJW and the empathy observation? And if so, why? In terms of 'belief in an unjust world', there is a lot of missing information here as well. For one, what is belief in an unjust world as a psychological construct? But also, what is the nature of the links that you reference? Are they positive or negative? And what is "self-protective function" that you name but do not explain?
There are other examples, but hopefully you get the thrust of my concern here. Your additions essentially raise more questions than they provide answers. The end result is an unhelpful distraction from the article topic. My recommendation would be for you to redraft your edits (using your user sandbox) and then ask for some feedback from other editors (maybe the psychology project peeps?). That's just a suggestion though. You are well within your rights to skip that step and make another article contribution that responds to the above concerns. I just think that a more consultative process might save you a headache in the long run. Does that all make sense? Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rusenski. I am very sorry about the delay in getting back to you. "Real life" has gotten a bit busy and I have not been able to commit the time to reviewing your proposed additions. I actually have some original research concerns and I therefore want to give your edits some concerted attention. Again, apologies for the delay.
For the meantime, I am happy for you to make your suggested changes. I can always bring up any concerns I have at a later date with the additions as the new status quo for the article, presuming of course that no other editors object. Does that sound fine to you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi kku. I don't think I can explain that redirect, but I am happy to suggest that it isn't appropriate. I think a much better destination for the redirect would be somewhere like vision statement or business plan. In fact, I am going to be bold and change it to the former. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ideasthesia, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psychoanalysis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Identification. 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.
Ahh. This was me re-introducing some material that was removed without explanation. I'll leave it for the meantime until more concensus has formed around the content. Thanks though bot. Andrew (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andrew, Yes you are right. This was not a cool thing from my side to self promote by making links to my website. I understand now that Wikipedia has to prevent it. If everyone was doing that, Wikipedia would quickly turn into a mess, and not a knowledge pearl that it currently is. It was wrong and I promise to you not to do it again. Moreover, to show that determination, I have removed all the other links from Wikipedia that generate traffic to my website that I could detect. This includes |here, |here, and |here. As far as I can tell, there should be no more traffic to my website generated from Wikipedia. My hope is that you will take it with good faith and that you will be more lenient to the contents related to practopoiesis that are sensible and that other people are genuinely interested in and would like to know about. (I noticed that a person who advocated keeping information on practopoiesis on one of the pages at which you removed it, was a Nobel laureate. So, maybe there is some sense and value in keeping these contents.) And also, I hope that you will not destroy the ideasthesia page. Thank you very much. Danko Nikolic (Danko (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Danko. Thanks you for the message. And thank you in particular for removing some of your further selfpromotional edits. This does indeed suggest that you are now getting on board with wiki-policies in this area. I would suggest also dropping a note here that is similar to your one above. This would serve to let editors who visit your talk page know that you now (after some of inertia) accept that your earlier actions were not appropriate.
In terms of your other contributions to wikipedia, including the ideasthesia page, I will still be taking a critical eye to the content, but no more so that I would any other additions covering contemporary research. As you have probably seen me say elsewhere, conflict of interest is less of a concern than such things as notability and original research. It may be that some of your contributions have been appropriate and some have not. I think EEng's advice is apt: your efforts should be directed outside of wikipedia when it comes to research that you are involved in. Does that resonate with you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why you undid my edit to Empowerment 'see also' section? I added John Friedmann, writer of an important book on the subject, called Empowerment - The Politics of Alternative Development. Can you explain to me why who 'runs' wikipedia? Who is policing it? A few years ago I was a happy contributer, but since the last few years I experience more often that contributions are deleted or changes reverted. It feels like there is a secret police at work! The more so now I see that you're also involved in a discussion with Danko, with whom I corresponded before about emergence and related subjects. User:Mirrormundo
Hi User:Mirrormundo. In terms of your 'see also' suggestion, I'll reply over on the empowermenttalk page so that other editors can keep in the loop. In terms of your other points, I don't really follow you. Is there a more specific question you could ask? Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lotje. At this stage I don't think so, but that isn't to say that I couldn't be convinced. To fill you in, my approach with mentioning individual researchers for these broad topic subjects (e.g. altruism, empathy, trust) is to avoid doing so unless that person is renowned for making a paradigmatic contribution to the field. The reason being that otherwise readers will be distracted by the constant name dropping of researchers who they are completely unfamiliar with, and doesn't need to be. It also increases the temptation for researchers in the field to try and jimmy their own name in there in their quest for recognition and promotion. Does that make sense to you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lotje. What you are describing sound a little bit too much like a directory, which would run afoul of another wiki-guideline. These also tend to be a magnet for promotion and the introduction of non-notable content, which appears to have happened for List of researchers in underwater diving. That being said, I wouldn't instigate any action to delete an article you create along those lines. I am open to the idea that something encyclopedic could be created along those lines. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sajed Mahmud. I am not sure which edit you are referring to. I have made a few to that article. Are you able to be more specific as to which edit you mean, and why you think that my edit was not a move in the right direction? Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:SCT comparative context.JPG, which you've attributed to The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
Thanks for uploading File:SCT Levels of abstraction.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Idea 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.
Lotje (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
