User talk:U3964057

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

Social identity theory[edit]

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).

Yla Tausczik (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Turner, J. C.; Reynolds, K. H. (2001). Brown, S. L.; Gaertner, eds. "The Social Identity Perspective in Intergroup Relations: Theories, Themes, and Controversies". Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology 3 (1). 
  2. ^ Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in Organizations. London, SAGE Publications.
  3. ^ 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

Ways to improve Common ingroup identity[edit]

Hi, I'm Kerfuffler. U3964057, thanks for creating Common ingroup identity!

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)

Update at Talk:Self-categorization theory/GA1[edit]

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)

Hi Cirt. No worries. I will respond over at that talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12[edit]

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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks Mr DPL Bot. Andrew (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Asch Conformity Experiments Edits November 19, 2012[edit]

H Andrew,

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 (talkcontribs) 07:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi YVasques. I will reply over on the Asch conformity experiments talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

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)

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)

Talk:Social identity theory/GA1[edit]

Please note that this review has been now opened for a week and if may be closed soon due to no action. As I have not notified you before, I'll give you a second extra week to become involved. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. Thanks for the heads up. I will see you over at the SIT page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Left a number of comments. Excellent work, just a few minor details to iron out left! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

May I invite you to join the ranks of Wikipedia:SOCIO#Participants? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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)
The newsletter is issued every two years or so, so don't worry about too much spam on that front :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
But that would mean that within 200 years I would have up to 100 post on my talk page! No thank you sir. Andrew (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Bodu Bala Sena[edit]

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)

Hi Anon. I am happy to discuss this with you over at the relevant talk page. See you there. Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

"Wikipedia's voice". Not an "alternate view", this is policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.175.184.102 (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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).
Anyway, I hope that clears that up, and despite your assertion that I “refuse to discuss the issue”, I hope to find the time to respond to some of your most recent comments in a couple of days. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

BBS[edit]

Hi. Sorry I haven't replied earlier to your points on the BBS talk page, been busy with other things. I am happy for you to change/remove "extremist" from the lead, particularly as the anon editors seem to be using it as an excuse to remove the rest of the article.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

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)
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.--obi2canibetalk contr 20:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
Done. Hopefully it is received well. Cheers Andrew (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Sockpuppet investigations Mbrahmana. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Spam concern[edit]

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?

Thanks again for being open and understanding. I look forward to discussing this further. User:Rshydn Rshydn (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Altruism[edit]

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)?

Thank you for your consideration. Aubrey Bardo (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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)
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29
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)
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)

Identified Victim Effect on List of cognitive biases[edit]

Hi, I wrote a message regarding your reversion over at Talk:List of cognitive biases#Identified victim bias and would appreciate a response. Thanks. Vectro (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vectro. No worries. I will have a look and will reply there soon. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Reversion on Altruism[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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 edit summaries 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
I will await your explanations on the talk page with impatience. --Chealer (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Potential SPAM issues[edit]

Dear Andrew,

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.

Best Regards,

Shilpy Bajaj(Student of Mannheim Business school)

Shilpy Bajaj (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Potential SPAM issues

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)

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)
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)
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)

About the "Elephant in the room" idiom[edit]

Dear U3964057 or Andrew,

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.

The spark was this link I gave as a reference [about ‘scientific manner’ and ‘the experts’ issue; not ‘elitism / anti-elitism’ conflict] http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 written by Larry Sanger in 2004. --Toksoz (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

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)
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.) ]
So "Elephant in the room" is not that much relevant to "Bystander effect"s -see also- title. What is your opinion? --Toksoz (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
So while we look this new example, the idiom seems relevant to -see also- title. --Toksoz (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.
Regards, --Toksoz (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.
And I wonder what kind of academic literature convince both of us. --Toksoz (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
It seems we will wait... I am quite patient; what about you? --Toksoz (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
It will be better to wait...
Thank you very much indeed for the constructive negotiation. --Toksoz (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Revision of My Edit[edit]

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.

-Duxwing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talkcontribs) 20:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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!

If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to your claim of edit warring on the Dalai Lama[edit]

Dear Andrew,

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.

Best,
Tomathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomathan (talkcontribs) 05:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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)
Both sides have valid points. I am responding here to avoid non-article related material on the article talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
These are my suggestions, feel free to add more at User:Canoe1967/5P BLP.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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)

Notice of edit warring[edit]

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.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As previously discussed, I don't think this notice is warranted (although, as I explained, "edit warring" is never black or white). Having said that, whether edit warring is happening or not, posting such a notice yourself is probably not appropriate (see Wikipedia:Edit_warring#What_to_do_if_you_see_edit-warring_behavior). --Chealer (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Umm, no need to have sent this back to me. But thank you, I guess? Andrew (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


Your reverts on Biological classification[edit]

You started the reverts first. So far you did two reverts. I did one. You should have followed this first. I already put the issue on the TP page. 124.149.121.142 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 share those.
  • 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)

Minimal group paradigm[edit]

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.

Jenyih (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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 paradigm edit, 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.
I hope that clarifies things and that this resonates with you. Let me know if anything is unclear. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

French feminist psychoanalysis[edit]

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)

Hi Artethical. I am happy to discuss this and will do my best to reply tomorrow. See you over on the relevant talk page where you have duplicated this discussion. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi there. I have replied over on the relevant talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Group cohesiveness[edit]

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)

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.
Let me know if you don’t have access to any of those. There are other papers I could recommend. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks, Andrew! Ringbang (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Totalitarianism[edit]

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.

Church of the Rain (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Andrew, here is a link to the library materials I located on Italian publications of Schmitt or on his work. Notable is the 1935 Tuscany imprint. The language search label in Worldcat is "ln:Italian" Here is a link to the dozen items: https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/greycloud/lists/3223424 Church of the Rain (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Discussion on Social Psychology[edit]

Hi Andrew

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

Many thanksRichardlord50 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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 edit summaries. 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)

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)

Hi Andrew

I have yet to receive a response to my above request.May I ask why?Richardlord50 (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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)
Hi Staszek Lem. Thanks for weighing in, although I see your contribution was not well received. Alas. Andrew (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Stereotype[edit]

3964057 - a girlfriend phone number :-)?

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)

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)
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)
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)

Really?[edit]

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)

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)

Elaboration likelihood model page[edit]

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)

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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
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)
I added my work to the page if you would like to check it out and give me some feedback. Thanks --LewisHoward (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi LewisHoward. Thanks for the message. I will have a look sometime soon. Cheers Andrew (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew get back to me if you think I need to improve my work. --LewisHoward (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
Thank you, Andrew! Maks kv 91 (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your help LewisHoward (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Bodu again[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Carry on. You're doing just fine.
Oh, have you peeked at WP:Logo#Logo choice lately? Hmmm. —Neotarf (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
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)

Group decision making[edit]

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)

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.
Is this in line with your own thinking on the topic? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Negotiation article and John Graham[edit]

Hey Andrew, I received a message from you on my talk page that I think you meant for user:John L. Graham to receive. He's still new to Wikipedia so he might not think to look on my talk page. SQGibbon (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

Moral "Luck'?[edit]

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)

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)

Sales recruiting/sales management[edit]

Hi there Andrew,

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 (talkcontribs) 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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)
(tps)You might also want to point this user to WP:COI (the conflict of interest guidelines). There's also WP:NPV WP: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)
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)
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)

About removing content of page Bodu Bala Sena[edit]

Do not remove content of page without having any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randeepa (talkcontribs) 14:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you removing the stuff about the conference that this editor added? —Neotarf (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 toward WP:BRD and WP: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)
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)

Edits to Social Cognition[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 23:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

Accusation of "Edit Warring"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 03:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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)