Talk:Creativity: Difference between revisions
→MrOllie needs to state objective reasons for deleting my additions: agree with concerns - focus on his article first |
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
Psychology Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Creativity 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. | ||||||||||
|
Philosophy: Aesthetics / Ethics Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
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)
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)
- 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)
- Also, would you please identify your connection to Robert Epstein? - MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the WP:UNDUE concerns. Best to focus attention first on Robert Epstein. --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.
- Unassessed psychology articles
- Unknown-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Start-Class Philosophy articles
- Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
- Start-Class Aesthetics articles
- Unknown-importance Aesthetics articles
- Aesthetics task force articles
- Start-Class ethics articles
- Unknown-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles