User talk:Ajjac

Spamming introvertdear.com

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jytdog:,

I see that you flagged recent changes I made as spamming links for introvertdear.com. In retrospect, I see why it looks bad to add references to the same site to several different articles, and I’m sorry that the links I added didn't seem relevant.

However, I'd like to suggest that the edits I made to one page in particular, Extraversion and Introversion, were both relevant and helpful. There were several specific topics I felt the article left out, and some sections about introverts did not do a good job of presenting the view of introverts themselves. The changes I made added substantive content and the links backed up the points. I also made copyediting revisions for clarity, which were also removed by your revert.

I admit that the PSP and Shyness topics are farther from my own expertise, and I don’t want to get into an edit war—I’ll leave those pages alone. However, I’d like to reinstate my edits to Extraversion and Introversion. I will avoid adding more introvertdear links in the future and, if I plan to make any more edits, I will look for alternate sources from some of the other introvert websites (although most of the others tend to be less science-y.--Ajjac (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were spamming. Please don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Respectfully, that's not the case. As an example, in one section, the original version stated that teachers should adapt their methods depending on whether a student is an introvert or extravert. However, it only offered an example for extraverted students (with no citation) and no example at all for introverted students. Introvertdear.com has run multiple articles about this topic, and the example I added in cited one written by an educator. The other changes I made in the body of the article were similar. It was not spam. Ajjac (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were adding an unreliable source to several articles. That is spamming. Please see below about the kinds of sources that are reliable for the kinds of content you were working on. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:, thanks for posting those guidelines. I know I’m a newer Wikipedia contributor, but I do want to make the site as reliable as possible. I’m also a professional copyeditor by day, so I enjoy getting to edit articles to make them stronger :)

I can see why you thought it seemed suspicious that the references I added were all from one site, but honestly, it’s one of the most reliable websites out there about introversion. By the guidelines, it’s a tertiary source. The owner is a journalist who has worked with Susan Cain and also writes for Psychology Today; while it has a lot of “pop” articles, the ones I linked to are about the science of introversion and summarize current research. They’re similar to many of the other sources used in the Introversion and Extraversion page (Psychology Today, CNN, etc.).

It seems like the Introversion and Extraversion page has a pretty lively group of editors who regularly remove inappropriate edits, often very quickly; my edits were made months ago and seemed to pass muster with them. Would it be okay with you if I tentatively reinstate some of the edits and create a note in the talk page so the regular editors can review them?

Thanks for your consideration. Ajjac (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you do that complies with the policies and guidelines will be fine, of course. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks, @Jytdog:!

In this edit you restored content sourced to introvertdear.com despite our discussion above and your seeming understanding that this kind of content must be sourced per WP:MEDRS. This is behavior typical of people with a financial conflict of interest. Please disclose any connection you have with that website. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please reply here? To re-phrase the question, what connection (if any) do you have with the introvertdear.com site? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:, I apologize, I’m not always able to reply quickly because of my day job, although I popped in briefly yesterday and saw your message. To answer your question, no, I do not have a connection to Introvert, Dear, and I’m not being paid to promote anything.

About my restored edits, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought we had agreed I should put up the edits and start a talk page for people to discuss. That’s what I proceeded to do.

I think there are two important things to state here:

I read the guidelines for acceptable sources, and I stated that I believe these specific articles fall well within them. The guidelines say to avoid primary sources and focus on secondary/tertiary sources. As an example of a tertiary source, they specifically list sources that summarize research for lay audiences. That is the kind of reference I’m including.
Please note that I didn’t reinstate all of the references. Based on the guidelines I agree that the Introvert, Dear main page isn’t a good fit, no matter how big it is with introverts. I nixed that one and I changed one reference (the education one) to a stronger article that summarizes research. (As a bonus, the new reference includes examples for extraverted students as well as introverts, allowing us to resolve one “citation needed”).

Honestly, I’m feeling both confused and frustrated. I made an account because I kept seeing pages that simply weren’t written well—or were more like academic theses than encyclopedia articles. I started with introversion because I’m an introvert myself and I’m familiar with the literature on it. I’m using sources that meet the guidelines, and I’m trying to help. Ajjac (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introvertdear.com unambiguously fails MEDRS. There is no question about this.

A "connection" would also be writing for the site or being an active participant there. Please disclose any connection with the site. Of all the many sources out there it is difficult to understand why you are insisting on this one. What is your connection to it? Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My only connection to the site is that I have read it as well as many other introvert sites (I'm an introvert myself). This one is one of the few that often has research-based articles.

"Introvertdear.com unambiguously fails MEDRS. There is no question about this."

Could you explain this please? —Ajjac (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]