User talk:Psyc12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your alleged use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 20:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


Courtesy notice[edit]

Hi psyc12, very brief, civil, courtesy notice. Have detailed 9 clear 'facts' on the occupational health psychology talk page a day or two ago, which have been developed over time through editor discussions and as was suggested by Ronz and other experienced editors to move the article forward. I will be adding these to the article soon, with reliable sources, where appropriate. This civil courtesy notice is just letting you know ahead of time, as they are now discussed at length, and none of them can be disputed any longer as clear 'facts.' I am also following Wikipedia protocol. If you believe any of the 9 facts are still unresolved, please detail any contrary factual information. If not, I will add all of these well sourced, widely published, neutral and factual points to the article. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi psyc12. As you can see I have not undone your significant additions made to the article a few days ago, even though we were in the middle of, and trying to reach a civil consensus regarding Richardkeatinge's comments that the article is very overloaded. If you have any concerns please don't hesitate in talking with me on my talk page. We can achieve civil consensus on any topic, I am sure. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. The issue isn't civility. The issue is your continuing to be disruptive after a number of editors have asked you to stop. By continuing to argue the same points over and over, by posting walls and walls of text, by making claims you don't back up with specific references (only vague claims to have lots of them), by undoing other editor's work without providing justification other than the article is under discussion, and by generally preventing anyone from making changes until you are done arguing, you are being disruptive. Psyc12 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I find your false allegations above completely offensive by the way. I have objective, diffs and edit history to prove it. I think that the external and independent dispute resolution would be welcome also if it prevents further falsification and personal attacks, lack of civility, ownership of the article issues, 'tag teaming,' bad faith accusations, you going back on your word, and much more! I've had enough and am very willing to compromise but with a completely 'independent' editor as suggested by itszippy.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi psyc12, have just left a reply on itszippy's page. Sorry you could not be more compromising over this article. I was willing as my post to you clearly showed. There is a lot of evidence of me being personally attacked and I will take the time to show exactly what has occurred, based on diffs, and quite frankly I have had enough. Dispute resolution is now the only way to get some neutrality and much needed changes and additions to this Wikipedia article and streamline as Richardkeatinge suggested, research sections of this overloaded article written entirely by one editor. The article requires some significant changes. We are talking about psychology and psychologists here and many of the views presented are not supported in published reliable sources, nor are views held by the international psychology community. These are important matters and this article is terribly biased and I wish only to make it a better article for Wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


Tom Cox[edit]

Psyc12 blogs can be used as a reliable source when it is Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves Wikipedia:Verifiability You did not discuss. The edit on the EAOHP article, has been on the site for 2 weeks. It is well sourced and solid.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Discuss on article talk page. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so vehemently opposed to even the mention of organisational psychologists and organisational psychology and their significant and growing involvement with occupational health psychology type subjects particularly work stress, but the reality is organizational psychology and organizational psychologists have been in the past and are increasingly involved in OHP topics all around the planet. Obviously Tom Cox, Cary Cooper, Arnold Bakker all are very proud organizational psychologists and don't betray their very fine profession as I'm sure some have? Perhaps you should contact them instead of attacking my editing and me personally. My edit in the EA-OHP article is rock solid, and made in 'good faith' as the EA-OHP and work&stress were both founded by Tom Cox. He was the inventor. and blogs can be used if they are by the person who the edit is about. You refuse to discuss on the article talk pages and therefore your editing is disruptive. If you don't wish to abide by the policies that Wikipedia sets for all editors, perhaps you should consider not editing at Wikipedia, as itszippy advised you already.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


Psyc12, you cannot just delete my solid edit. Tom Cox was the founding Director of the EA-OHP. He also invented & was the editor of the journal work & stress. Please refer to this Wiki article. Just because you may not like my solid edit, (which I will need to have reinstated after your disruptive editing again today) does not mean you can delete it. Please refer to Wiki policy included below. Also you continually refuse to talk on the article discussion page, as editors are required to do and refuse to interact in a civil way. Psyc12 you and iss246 are close friends outside of Wikipedia. And members of the SOHP. Iss246 wrote this article and the 2 of you will not allow any changes to it. This article is the property of Wikipedia and we all must abide by their policies. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles "This page in a nutshell: No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page." I will wait for you to think about your reverts of my edit. I will not engage in an edit war with you or iss246. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV6May2009.pdf This is a reliable source stating word for word, "When Tom Cox founded Work & Stress in 1987, interest in work-related stress was accelerating and the contents of the first volumes reflect the fact that that the main interest in those years was on that specific subject. That reliable source also clearly shows that in those early years before it was bought by the EA-OHP, it was devoted to work stress, not OHP as such. So I have deleted that inaccuracy. This reliable source is from Tom Cox himself, saying it was devoted to occupational stress. Any other source would obviously be wrong. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


Physical risk factors?[edit]

I think this important point was lost in translation. So please excuse me posting it again here for your reference. Can you please provide some reliable sources psyc12, which clearly use the word physical risk factors when defining occupational health psychology? I understand this is a technical point, but I understand the technical points we are talking about here pretty well, whereas others who are less familiar with this area of psychology, may or may not. So, please provide some reliable sources?

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "occupational health psychology". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Ajax F¡oretalk 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to NIOSH Education and Research Centers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • health nursing, occupational medicine, occupational safety, and other areas of specialization<ref>[http://http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/oep/ercportfolio.html NIOSH Extramural Research and Training

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Narcissism#Workplace[edit]

Please can you clarify the first paragraph in Narcissism#Workplace, in particular "Given their fragile self-esteem, employees who are high on narcissism are likely to perceive more workplace abuse and sexual harassment from others than do individuals who are low on narcissism."--Penbat (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Job analysis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classification. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)