User talk:Profdavidf

Welcome!

Hello, Profdavidf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Empowerment evaluation, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Empowerment evaluation[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Empowerment evaluation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Hello Profdavidf. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Empowerment evaluation, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate accounts[edit]

Hello Profdavidf and welcome to Wikipedia. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. I'm referring to the repeated recreation of this article (originally by you and deleted for copyright violation) by User:Lexusrx350.

Also be aware that if your work has been published elsewhere, it cannot be used on Wikipedia unless you follow the very specific procedures at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please read that page carefully. Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am working with Dr. Fetterman. This is a separate account and posting.

We have removed the phrase that was reproduced in his earlier book and reposted the Empowerment Evaluation piece.

We would appreciate any assistance possible in posting this correctly. Lexusrx350 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to both of you. As you can see, your attempts to re-edit the article were reverted. This is because instead of removing any copypaste, you simply overwrote the article with your old version minus some bits. This removed all the formatting work by later editors as well as the maintenance tags. Please don't do this. If you wish to remove or re-write any material, do it respecting the existing format of the article and the changes by later editors to make it comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm in London and it's evening here. Will get back to you both with more guidance tomorrow. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DF: Thanks for your help on this. Sorry about overriding the earlier corrections. We will make sure to coordinate all our communications and make sure that does not happen again.

Look forward to hearing from you tomorrow and benefitting from your guidance - we really appreciate it. Thanks for bearing with us - we are more than willing to comply with all of the Wikipedia guidelines. Best wishes. -David Profdavidf (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm back. ;-) I've removed the copyvio tag as I've checked the article and it appears "clean" now.

DF: Many thanks.

The article still needs considerable improvements, however, and I will outline those later today at Talk:Empowerment evaluation.

DF: OK - I will go there later this morning.

The actual talk page for the article is the best place for discussing content issues as it has a wider audience and is more readily accessible to other editors working the area. I encourage both of you to participate there. I think it's also important in light of Professor Fetterman's potential conflict of interest. This arises because he also has a private consulting business closely related to the article's topic.

DF: We will participate there. Your suggestion makes sense to us. It puts an additional quality control on it which is always helpful.

As you can see, I've done some copyediting of the references and external links.

DF: Many thanks again.

It's important that the article itself doesn't directly address the reader. Nor should it be written in the same style as a web page. Don't worry too much about formatting/style issues, it's always a steep learning curve, and other editors will help you out. The important thing is to make sure everything is meticulously referenced, including page numbers.

DF: I did some of that last night (references including page numbers) but I will build on that.

It's really necessary on Wikipedia because of the nature of anonymous editing. Having written textbooks myself, I initially chafed under the requirements for much more explicit referencing and attribution than would normally be required in an undergraduate textbook. But with experience here, I can see how essential it is, and now it's second nature to me.

DF: I appreciate your experience and will follow your lead.

One other thing you should both watch (although it can be hard to do when you are very close to the subject and enthusiastic about it), is to make sure that the article doesn't give the impression of "selling" or "campaigning" for the subject. The article still has a slight tendency to this, but this will be ironed out in time.

DF: Understood - we will continue to be mindful of it.

That's it for now. Check Talk:Empowerment evaluation later today and if you have any questions or need further help, just give me a shout either on my talk page or here. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DF: Many thanks Voceditenore. We really appreciate your assistance and guidance in helping us produce the highest quality piece we can. Take care and we will be talking to you for more help I am sure. Thanks for being so accommodating and helpful. Best wishes. Profdavidf (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC) David[reply]

Talk page formatting etc.[edit]

Me again. I've formatted the above conversation so it's easier to follow and to see who said what. There's more about using talk pages here and here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DF: Hi - many thanks - it is helpful. Easier to follow.

I went to the talk section of my page and it directed me to Wiki: Project Psychology. It was interesting and I contributed to it (adding the American Evaluation Association as a web reference in Psychology because of the overlap in membership and content etc).

However, I am not sure how to get directed to the talk page about empowerment evaluation (other than here). Sorry to ask such simple questions, but on the one hand I am reading a lot, learning a lot, and greatly appreciating the Wikipedia structure and processes. On the other hand, I am still a novice in navigating it appears. I would like to work on the article and remove a lot of the initial notes about citation style, reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout, copyediting, and linking to other articles. (Let me know what you do after making those corrections to remove some of those comments (while still inviting participation and comment). Thanks again for your assistance - we greatly appreciate it.

Best wishes. Profdavidf (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC) David[reply]

Ah, where you were was the talk page for Empowerment Evaluation. It just had a banner on top to indicate that the article falls under the scope of WikiProject Psychology. WikiProjects are groups of editors who look after articles in a particular subject area. There's more about them here. What you edited was Portal:Psychology which was linked in the banner. Portals are introductions to subject areas on Wikipedia, and are usually maintained by their associated WikiProjects. There's more about portals here. Anyhow, to make a comment on the article talk page, just click the edit tab as you normally would to edit the article itself. If the talk page has sections, click on section edit link. Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DF: I see - many thanks again. I will go there - just awaiting any further instructions and recommendations so I can improve the quality of the piece and remove or reduce the stub classification next. Thanks for your patience and comments. Profdavidf (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC) David[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Profdavidf/sandbox[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Profdavidf/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 15:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing editing contrary to the guideline on conflict of interest[edit]

Despite the message above informing you of Wikipedia's guideline on "conflict of interest" and related matters, you have again been editing contrary to the provisions of that guideline. Some of your editing does not seem problematic apart from the fact that it contravenes that guideline, but some of it certainly does: a significant proportion of your editing is clearly not written from a neutral point of view, and essentially consists of attempts to use Wikipedia to publicise your own work and your own views. You may or may not have thought of it that way when you did the editing. If you didn't, then that is an excellent illustration of one of the main reasons behind Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, namely that in writing on a subject in which one has a close personal involvement, it can be very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from one's own writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an uninvolved outsider, so that one may in fact write in a way which does not look neutral to others, even if one sincerely believes one is writing neutrally. I strongly advise you to read the conflict of interest guideline, and the policy on neutral point of view, and make sure any future editing complies with them; if you don't, then it is likely that you will be blocked from editing by an administrator. JBW (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - could you put the draft sandbox piece back up for me to edit and rewrite? I am completely open to suggestions as well. I can remove all photos of book covers for example and simply provide a list of book references instead. Is it appropriate or inappropriate to link to Amazon. I am happy to remove those links as well - just uncertain about the protocol since I was just trying to make it easier for the reader to access the information if so desired. Once again - happy to edit, rewrite, and remove as your recommend. Many thanks for your guidance and advice. Best wishes. - David Profdavidf (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your apparently positive answer to my message above, you have again done editing which is unambiguously contrary to the conflict of interest guideline. You have therefore been blocked from editing. For the present the block is for one week, and you are welcome to return to editing in conformity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines after that time, if you would like to. If you believe there are good reasons why unblocking you earlier would benefit the project then you may request an unblock. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page. JBW (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Profdavidf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Profdavidf (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I simply want to add the books that have been published on the topic since the last posting about empowerment evaluation- once that is done I will not need to edit for some time. Thanks in advance for your assistance Profdavidf (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]