User talk:Publius Obsequium

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Hello, I'm Marteau. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Starbucks, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Marteau (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

In this edit, you asserted that "stereotype threat is no longer considered a valid phenomenon in the field." Can you please substantiate that claim? I'm not necessarily challenging it; I'm neither a psychologist nor a psychometrician so I don't follow all the minute details and developments of testing and measurement theory and I'd like to know more about this topic. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elkevbo, this is due to the finding that stereotype threat is not replicable, and is likely due to publication bias! I can give you some sources for further reading if you'd like :) Publius Obsequium (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on SAT

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235378030_An_Examination_of_Stereotype_Threat_Effects_on_Girls'_Mathematics_Performance. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. I have also removed it from Stereotype threat, which is likely where you copied itr from.

In the future, when copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello, I'm Firefangledfeathers. I noticed that you recently removed content from Intelligence (journal)‎ without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Joseph of Cupertino shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please discuss suggested edits on Talk:Joseph_of_Cupertino, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Publius Obsequium! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Stereotype that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you.

Here's the diff: [1]. Changing "often" to "occasionally" is pretty clearly a substantive change. Generalrelative (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"occasionally" makes more sense, given that stereotype accuracy is remarked upon later in the article. "often" is a attempted weasel word. Publius Obsequium (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to feel that way, just not to mark such edits as "minor". As mentioned in the template above, see Help:Minor edit. Generalrelative (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit appears to be WP:POINTy in the extreme. Your claim that a Nouriel Roubini book published by Stern School of Business is "fringe" is laughable, especially when the claim is entirely uncontroversial and in any case also cited to the BBC. Edits of this kind can be considered disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hypnotherapy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Medical claims require stronger sources per WP:MEDRS EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender dysphoria

I have started a discussion about the source you suggested, at Talk:Gender_dysphoria#Bachmann_et_al.. --bonadea contributions talk 09:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using primary sources and removing content without explanation

this series of edits are inappropriate, as Wikipedia relies on secondary sources (like books) rather than primary source studies. There is zero reason for you to be deleting content in favour of something supported by a primary source study. In addition, even if it were a secondary source, you should only be adding content alongside the other viewpoint, not removing it without justification. Some of your work indicates signs of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, so I politely ask you take this advice seriously moving forward. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you inappropriately reverted me here and misrepresenting sources. Stop it asap. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have the original source and the way it was interpreted was inaccurate. Would you like me to quote it for you? Publius Obsequium (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Life Satisfaction is filled to the brin with sources using primary source studies. There is zero reason for you deleting content sourced with a primary source study. At least be consistent and remove all other edits that use primary sourced material. Publius Obsequium (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-reviewed academic research is appropriate for use as sources on Wikipedia and it doesn't matter at all whether it comes in book form or article form. Journal articles are not 'primary sources', and books published by academic presses are not deficient in any way. Y'all need to chill and stop deleting stuff along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. I thought it was strange that I see others argue that journal articles are not suitable, despite clearly seeing a lot content on wiki pages being derived from those sources. Publius Obsequium (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, that isn't true. See Secondary source: Primary source materials are typically defined as "original research papers written by the scientists who actually conducted the study." An example of primary source material is the Purpose, Methods, Results, Conclusions sections of a research paper (in IMRAD style) in a scientific journal by the authors who conducted the study. This is why people tend to rely on academic reviews, critical reviews, scholarly books, textbooks, etc to get a secondary, independent assessment of the research by a topic expert (see an explanation at WP:USEPRIMARY: Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered secondary sources, because they are based on and analyze or interpret (rather than merely citing or describing) these original experimental reports). Many individual studies have issues with methodology and effect sizes, improper claims of causality where there is none. That is exactly why a primary source study is often inappropriate to directly cite unless supported by a secondary source. Tagging Firefangledfeathers here who may further clarify. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect example of what I'm talking about: Publius Obsequium used a collection of small primary source studies from the 90s to claim that hypnotherapy can cure excema, with language of causality: "shown to be effective in the treatment of eczema". This is why we do not rely primary source studies, unless they are well covered in secondary sources. It should be compulsory reading for new editors to read Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

Zenomonoz (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy here WP:PSTS. It doesn't say "use books" and "don't use journal articles". Books can be primary research in the sense you are using the term. And there's no prohibition on using articles. Of course I agree with you that we shouldn't use poor articles. But articles in peer reviewed journals count as reliable sources (see the section just above PSTS). The position you're taking is too simplistic and not in line with the relevant policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nomoskedasticity. I never said "don't use journal articles, use books". I advised specifically against citing primary source studies. I encourage using academic reviews, which are published in journals, and these qualify as secondary sources. WP:PSTS clearly supports my point: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". Hence, it's acceptable to cite primary sources when they are discussed/covered in accompanying secondary sources, which WP:PSTS also clarifies: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". How is that not clear? Most studies (e.g. with methods, results, discussion) are primary sources, academic reviews of studies/research are secondary sources (and these can indeed be found in journals, textbooks, books etc). Secondary sources are used precisely because most editors/readers are not capable of evaluating what constitutes a "poor article" (as you put it). Hence, we defer to secondary sources, usually ones written by topic experts who can evaluate studies in the broader context of the research. My point stands. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this rule is so selectively enforced. Why are you not deleted the reams of co tent that is cited solely by primary sources? Indeed, you reverted one of my edits that removed such a primary source, with no explanation as to why the original primary source was to be left intact Publius Obsequium (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“ Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources”

this does not support your point. In fact it says explicitly you can use primary sources, just to a “lesser extent” Publius Obsequium (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sentence after and stop being selective. You need to stop the edit warring. A WP administrator is already in agreement about issues with your editing, so you should take my advice. Zenomonoz (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I can delete all wikipedia content that does not conform to this and you agree to not revert it like you have done in the past? Publius Obsequium (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]