Jump to content

Talk:Creativity: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎MrOllie needs to state objective reasons for deleting my additions: agree with concerns - focus on his article first
Cbrookca (talk | contribs)
additions are fully justified and documented, no Wikipedia policies are violated
Line 29: Line 29:
:Also, would you please identify your connection to Robert Epstein? - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 14:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
:Also, would you please identify your connection to Robert Epstein? - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 14:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with the WP:UNDUE concerns. Best to focus attention first on [[Robert Epstein]]. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with the WP:UNDUE concerns. Best to focus attention first on [[Robert Epstein]]. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

--[[User:cbrookca]] I have no connection with Dr. Robert Epstein but have learned about his work in courses. The material I have added is concise and fully referenced. If you would take the time to learn about the subject matter, you would find that Epstein's work in this area is the most rigorous scientific work ever done. This article, overall, is poor - a hodgepodge of random facts about creativity. I was planning to add and correct a number of issues in the article, but I'm unwilling to spend the time when the very first addition I made is completely removed. MrOllie: Please be '''specific''' about your objections. '''Please explain precisely why Epstein's contributions in this area are less important than other individuals mentioned in the psychology section.''' And please explain why references to books published by major publishers and articles published in important sources (including the Encyclopedia of Creativity) aren't good enough for Wikipedia.

Revision as of 21:25, 27 December 2009

WikiProject iconPsychology Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Former featured article candidateCreativity is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Aesthetics / Ethics Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Aesthetics
Taskforce icon
Ethics


What happened to my changes?

Having just completed a graduate level course on creativity and innovation, I do not understand why the changes I made to this article yesterday were all removed. I provided detailed documentation to outstanding work in the field. What's more, as it stands, this article is actually fairly choppy and in some respects, poor, leaving out important work on creativity while including work that is trivial. I'm going to re-enter my changes, and I hope they stick this time. I would be happy to defend these changes with anyone who is actually well trained in this area. Sincerely, Cbrookca (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie needs to state objective reasons for deleting my additions

Apparently my very careful additions were undone by "MrOllie." Please note that all of the additions were well documented and referred to outstanding scientific journals (including Science and Nature) and books published by major publishers. What's more, my additions are drawn from material in the prestigious Encyclopedia of Creativity, published by Academic Press in 1999. MrOllie: Please state your objective reasons for undoing my additions. If not, I will (a) submit this matter for arbitration and (b) based on your previous history, take steps to have you banned from Wikipedia. (I realize that you'll simply reappear under a new name, but there's nothing I can do about that.) If you feel that anything I have added could be considered SPAM, please identify that material and state your reasons precisely. Cbrookca (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An overemphasis on one individual's work is undue weight, in addition your external links are not appropriate per WP:EL. On a side note, I am not impressed by your threats, do what you feel is necessary. - MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would you please identify your connection to Robert Epstein? - MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the WP:UNDUE concerns. Best to focus attention first on Robert Epstein. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--User:cbrookca I have no connection with Dr. Robert Epstein but have learned about his work in courses. The material I have added is concise and fully referenced. If you would take the time to learn about the subject matter, you would find that Epstein's work in this area is the most rigorous scientific work ever done. This article, overall, is poor - a hodgepodge of random facts about creativity. I was planning to add and correct a number of issues in the article, but I'm unwilling to spend the time when the very first addition I made is completely removed. MrOllie: Please be specific about your objections. Please explain precisely why Epstein's contributions in this area are less important than other individuals mentioned in the psychology section. And please explain why references to books published by major publishers and articles published in important sources (including the Encyclopedia of Creativity) aren't good enough for Wikipedia.