|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The start of this article
- I haven't read the whole article, but the section on Process psychology, at least, is ludicrously biased. Needs to be redone with a non-pov approach. Pretty flagrant, actually. I wonder why people who want to promote a particular view think being so obvious about it helps their pet cause? It also makes me distrustful of the article as a whole. I can't edit out the pov stuff, because there wouldn't be much left, and I don't know the subject at all, so an expert who's willing to write neutrally should do it. If you care, that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I guess you lost me here. The section on Process psychology is just refering to two sources. What seems to be the problem here? Do we really need all those qualifications: ludicrously, pov, Pretty flagrant, distrustful of the article as a whole ... !? And then: I can't edit out the pov stuff, because there wouldn't be much left... There are just eight sentences to begin with, so where are we talking about? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)(Those eight sentences! that what I was always talking about)
Wow, that was fast. I googled some of the immortal prose from that section, and guess what: It was lifted verbatim from text on a site selling the book, something apparently self-published, it appears. I made no "speculations" about the rest of the article. I said I hadn't read the whole thing. The paragraph I cited is patently self-serving. What in the world do you mean by "started at the wrong place"? Why's it there then? POV writing becomes ok, as long as it applied reduntantly?
I'm removing the paragraph, since it's just plagiarised from a web page promoting original research. Here's the page: http://www.adobecreations.com/press/ 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have had this discussion before. There is no plagiarism if a source is given. You can only comment that it is badly sourced. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is just my choice not to add quotation marks, but if you want I can add those. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I really don't care at this point; if the subject has any notability, then it'll turn up somewhere else. "You can only comment that..." Excuse me, I can comment any way I like. This is the talk page, not the article itself. You're being absurd, and engaging it, what's the term, "wiki-lawyering"? Please don't litter peoples message boxes asking them to justify their edits, when they already have. That was wierd. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed the (in)formal complain you filled here, claiming I didn't get the message.
- Let me remind you that I removed the section myself within ten minutes, your removed it for me (which I referted). It took me those ten miniutes to realize you got a point and this section could beter be removed for now. So what message am I not getting here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"Formal complain"? I haven't "filed" any "complains", formal or otherwise. Though I don't know what your definition of "formal" is. What is this "Marrakech" business? You're putting that on my talk page too. Weird.
Since, belatedly it appears, you're reading the pages regarding plagiarism, perhaps you'd better spend your time editing your articles (for example, by using handy items like this: "quotation marks" rather than thinking up strange nicknames for people. Um, "referted"?
- Sorry. I mean informal. Are you the Dutch editor Marrakech or not? Because you so clearly accuse me of plagiarism, and not getting the message, which I still don't understend, I like to know who I am dealing which? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles in this article
By starting this article last year April 2008 I probably have unintentionally copy-paste various parts of Wikipedia articles here without proper attribution in violation of copyright. New insides have brought this to my intention, so I tagged the article with a copy-paste-template tag. During further investigation please leave the tag on top of the article.
Also possible other copyright infringements could have occurred then and ever since. A check could or should be made here. I and/or others will try to solve this problem as soon as possible. Your welcome to participate.
Removed yet more mix-and-match stolen material. Some of it was taken from: http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.com/nca/pubs/2006/Recreation%20in%20Middle%20Childhood%20-%20An%20Overview.pdf
Other material appears to have come from a term paper mill (I checked the dates, the term paper's author did not copy from here.) Also possibly from a thesis published in Thailand: http://mulinet9.li.mahidol.ac.th/e-thesis/5038005.pdf
Article section(s) removed
Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.
I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.
This article is started as a draft version on User:Mdd/Systems psychology. This copy-paste registration here:
- In this first start text is copy/pasted here from the Family therapy, Psychosynthesis, and Systemic therapy articles.
- In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Gestalt psychology article.
- In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Industrial and organizational psychology article.
- In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Ergonomics article.
The copy-paste registration of the developments in this online article:
- In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Ecological Systems Theory article.
- In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Perceptual control theory article.