User talk:HRS395

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Gjboyle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Introduction to Wikipedia | Tutorial
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out Wikipedia:Questions, stop by and/or ask a question at the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  
  
  
  

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Gjboyle

A tag has been placed on User:Gjboyle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Gregory Boyle (psychologist). Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gregory Boyle (psychologist), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Gregory Boyle (psychologist). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Please read WP:EL- your external link additions are not acceptable. Also, stop creating an autobiography, per WP:AUTO. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Gregory Boyle (psychologist). 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. Please read WP:EL which clearly states that Wikipedia should not be a collection of links. The only links that should be added are to the person's official website. Nothing else. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for explaining those things to me. I've only recently commenced writing on Wikipedia, and have had some difficulty trying to understand what is required, but I hope I will be able to make a positive contribution to many Wikipedia articles. Incidentally, there are now several links to other Wikipedia pages in the page we are discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjboyle (talk • contribs) 12:02, June 25, 2015‎ (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Gjboyle. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Gregory Boyle (psychologist)‎, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. As you declared yourself to be the article subject here, you have a conflict of interest. Thus, you are strongly discouraged from editing this article, instead you should suggest changes at the article talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joseph2302, I am new to Wikipedia, and did not know the rules. Thank you for clarifying this for me. Gjboyle (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been following several of your recently edited pages

Hi, Professor Boyle,

I've been watching your edits to Raymond Cattell and to the article about the Cattell Culture Fair test closely, and I see that meanwhile you have been active on some other articles. I see by revisiting your user talk page since I posted the greeting message to it that other editors have let you know about Wikipedia's conflict of interest in editing policy. On my part, I never edit an article about any of my employers, past or present, any of the schools I have attended (from elementary school through postgraduate studies), anyone who is a close friend, or any other person or topic to which I have too close a relationship to maintain objectivity. Even at that, there is plenty to write about here on Wikipedia. I see you have noted the need to improve Wikipedia to keep undergraduates from being full of misconceptions, and indeed psychology is a topic for which the Wikipedia articles need much improvement. I think I have already cited some of your writings on some topics I edit from time to time. I am not a psychologist by higher education or professional work experience, but I have been active in discussions of psychological research in a journal club with some eminent psychologists (no, I don't edit the articles about those persons) and think that the best current research is badly misrepresented on Wikipedia. I invite you to look at articles like IQ classification (currently rated as a "good article" here on Wikipedia, after I expanded it with new references of better quality) and Intelligence quotient (badly in need of similar improvement) and the general article Psychology. The latter two, especially, need a lot of work. Welcome aboard. Feel free to visit my user talk page (link in my signature here) if you ever need to ask about the policies and guidelines here. Leave the articles about yourself and your closest associates (living or dead) to someone dispassionate about those persons, but come on down to bring your expertise and awareness of sources to general articles about human intelligence and IQ testing. All those articles need a lot of help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Gjboyle

A tag has been placed on User:Gjboyle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 (2)

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Seriously, your only aim of being on Wikipedia is to promote yourself. So far you've created a spammy autobiography, Gregory Boyle (psychologist), and repeatedly used your user page to promote yourself, with phrases like " longstanding, experienced Senior Editor of several major works and widely-used international handbooks in psychology and related disciplines (SAGE Publishers and Elsevier/Academic Press), as well as the author/co-author of over 200 scholarly publications, I feel that I have a responsibility to future generations". Stop using Wikipedia for free advertising, use a social media site or personal website instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, as a self-promoter, you're banned indefinitely from my talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Gregory Boyle (psychologist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gregory Boyle (psychologist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Boyle (psychologist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Dear Joseph2303, Thank you for all your kind support and positive encouragement which is greatly appreciated. I am new to Wikipedia and am having some difficulty trying to understand exactly what it is that you want? You say my User Page is "spammy". Well, everything stated on my User Page is 100% factual, and can easily be verified. What is the point of even bothering to have a User Page if all you are going to do is to "rip into me" everytime for just stating the facts? Especially so, when many of the contributors to Wikipedia don't even give you their real names and hide themselves behind a pseudonym because of their duplicitous intentions! Seems like the sincere people are getting trampled at every step, while you gleefully "turn a blind eye" to all the devious charletons lurking in the background. Seems like all you are interested in is having uneducated, unqualified self-opinionated individuals hiding behind the mask of a pseudonym contributing intellectual garbage and nonsense to many of the Wikipedia articles! That's indeed a great shame. Many undergraduate students today are failing their courses because they are cutting and pasting factually incorrect and misinformation from sophomoric level articles hosted on the Wikipedia site. It's really about time your organization took a long hard look at itself and took some deliberate steps to stop all the charletons and imposters from posting garbage all over the Wikipedia site, if you wish to maintain quality control and you wish Wikipedia to survive. Perhaps your first step would be to prohibit any users with pseudonyms from even being allowed to register (ie. if you are really serious about quality control). Your attacks on me are astonishing, despite the fact that (unlike so many others) I have provided all my details upfront! If you have a problem with that, then you indeed have a problem!Gjboyle (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your userpage includes promotional phrases such as " As a longstanding, experienced Senior Editor of several major works and widely-used international handbooks in psychology and related disciplines (SAGE Publishers and Elsevier/Academic Press), as well as the author/co-author of over 200 scholarly publications", and a link to your publications- I'm sorry, but I see that as self-promoting, especially combined with the creation of an autobiography. The point of a userpage is to add details relevant to Wikipedia, not promote yourslef and your publications. Also, please spell my name correctly, it's Joseph2302. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sorry you are having a rough first experience with Wikipedia, but we are looking forward to your contributions in the future :)

Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: Thank you for your kind words. Gjboyle (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Abusive Deletion by Joseph2302 of Extensive Edits/Corrections Made to "Cattell Culture Fair III" Article

Hey Joseph2302, Could you please explain why you have deleted the extensive edits/corrections that I had made to the "Cattell Culture Fair III" article??? By deleting these edits and corrections, you have now returned this article to a sophomoric presentation, replete with errors of fact and ill-informed assertions. Is it your desire to attempt to single-handedly destroy the academic reputation of Wikipedia articles. In pursuing your obvious penchant for "slashing and burning" you are not helping Wikipedia one iota! Do you hold an earned PhD in psychometric research? Do you have some unstated political agenda that you are pursuing aggressively, under the guise of a Wikipedia administrator? In any event, you are just wasting my time with all this puerile display of hostility towards me and the contributions that I have been making within my demonstrated areas of research and scholarship. Gjboyle (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your comment

This isn't very civil, I'm not "hell-bent on destruction" like you imply. I accidentally mistook this for vandalism, and have now reverted. I'm happy to see that you've been making some good contributions to Wikipedia, although I still disagree with you creating an autobiography. In my opinion, you should keep up your good, expert work on articles where you clearly have good knowledge, and stop creating drama with an autobiography and seemingly uncivil remarks. Clearly you can be a very good editor, but I think the interactions between you and me show that we're not going to work well together. I'm happy to stay off your talkpage and your topic areas (exluding your autobiography that I've nominated for deletion yesterday), if you stay off my talkpage, and stop accusing me of bad faith. Everything I do on Wikipedia is done in good faith, and for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and I don't like people claiming otherwise. I made a mistake in reverting your edits there, but you could have asked me politely about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment to Dr. Boyle

Dr. Boyle, I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent edits here. It's hard to find someone who is willing to take the time to research factual information such as you have supplied here. I knew Charles Spearman was wrong (for Dr. Cattell's PhD advisor), but I didn't know where to look to find this original information. I'm really confused about why these other people are deleting your input. Tai Chi Fan (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tai Chi Fan: Thank you for your kind words which are most welcome. Gjboyle (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Gjboyle. I work on conflict of interest and advocacy issues in Wikipedia, and in the course of that work, deal with many experts who are inexperienced Wikipedia editors. I have been watching your activity unfold here. A few notes for you to consider...

• You have been putting a lot of emphasis on your realworld identity. We tend to assume good faith and like others who have posted here, I am willing to assume good faith and believe that you are who you say you are, but again - since you are putting so much emphasis on it -- you may want to consider going through the Wikipedia:Identification process to validate your RW identity.

• This next part is delicate to write and may be hard for you to hear, but it is pretty clear that you don't understand how this place works yet (I have confidence you can learn.... if you are willing) Please read WP:EXPERT (really, I hope you pause here, and read that, and come back)

• The 2nd bullet under the "advice" section says "Editing an article in Wikipedia is not like writing an original research article for an academic journal, nor it is like writing a literature review article where you synthesize a story from original research papers; instead, it should be a solid review of the subject as a whole, summarizing what published reviews say. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research, nor your own synthesis of the research literature, even if it is brilliant. The genre here is "encyclopedia" - each articles is meant to provide "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". (see WP:NOT)"

• If you look at your own editing at the Raymond Cattell article, you will see that what you have done, is create something like an appreciation or review of Cattell's work that you might publish in journal somewhere under your own name. Here in Wikipedia, what you have done is WP:OR - it violates one of our fundamental content polices. The narrative doesn't come from published sources - it comes from your head, and you have popped in citations of Cattell's works to "support" what you have written, but they don't. Do you see what I mean? I know it can be hard to see... many academics have a hard time genre-switching when they come here.

• That said, I want to repeat what others above have written - it is great to have experts here, and I appreciate your interest in improving Wikipedia. I do hope you slow down a bit, acknowledge that you are new to Wikipedia, learn how this place works - it is really different from normal academic publishing. Happy to discuss, if you like. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Comment Response

Dear Jytdog,

Thank you for your very thoughtful suggestions as to how I might contribute more competently to Wikipedia articles. I have read your "Five Pillars" and can see that you have considered this matter in some detail, which I respect. As you suggest, I will go through the Wikipedia:Identification process to validate my RW identity. I am always grateful to receive constructive feedback on how I might improve my editing, and I fully acknowledge your comments pertaining to the Raymond Cattell article that I have been working on, and consequently, have gone back and re-checked every reference citation to make sure that the cited reference(s) actually support the particular assertion being made. As a result of that exercise, I have since removed 19 reference citations throughout the text, so that what remains should be highly accurate. I thank you for pointing this problem out to me, and I believe that as a result, the article is now more compelling and precise.

Also, I acknowledge that I am new to Wikipedia and need first to learn the principles within which to operate as a Wikipedia editor. There are many other articles within my area of academic expertise that I am eager to start working on, including articles on Hans Eysenck, the Five Factor Model, personality theory, personality assessment, intelligence testing, IQ scores, neuropsychology, schizotypal personality, depression, psychometrics, item homogeneity, factor analysis, meta analysis, social psychology, Australian psychology, British psychology, etc. Consequently, I will now turn my attention to some of these other articles.

Again, thank you for your informative and helpful advice. Gjboyle (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious reply! I mean that - so many experts come here and are resistant; they won't "bend" and hear that Wikipedia is unlike.... pretty much everything else on the planet. Good luck to you! Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi GjBoyle. I was sorry to see this so I went and read the discussion att User_talk:WeijiBaikeBianji#Vandalism_by_Internet_Troll_.22Baroccas.22_of_My_Informed_Contributions_to_Articles_in_my_Demonstrated_Area_of_Research_Expertise. A few responses.

First, the comment on the article Talk page is not appropriate - article Talk pages are for discussing the article, not your experience here. So I just removed that comment and pasted it here - below.

Second, it does appear that the Baroccas account is targeting your work here. The account appeared only very recently and seems to be what we call a sockpuppet as the person operating the account appears to understand Wikipedia much better than a new user usually does. And they do seem to be concerned about your conflict of interest and the effect your editing is having on Wikipedia, which we discussed above. I am leaving a note on their talk page telling them that what they have been doing is not appropriate.

Finally, I am a bit torn here. I am very sympathetic to you - it is unpleasant to have someone looking at you under a microscope at all, but even more so when you are fairly new and not fully grounded in how things work here. And especially as the account does appear to be solely focused on you. On the other hand, your editing here has been almost entirely focused on articles about you and people close to you (with the exception of your work on the 16PF Questionnaire) And I kind of struggle with your edit history in that regard. You have written several times (your User page, above, and your comment on the talk page of the article about you) that you came here to work broadly on psych articles because your students rely too heavily on Wikipedia and you find the quality of information to be poor. So there is a bit of contradiction there. And the COI issues would probably be much less relevant if you were spending your time here working broadly on psych articles and improving them so that they reflect "accepted knowledge" (which is what we are trying to express in Wikipedia) - regardless of whose ideas they are or who wrote about them. Do you see what I mean? Happy to discuss further. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thank you for your helpful advice which I acknowledge. Best regards, Gjboyle (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not a psychologist.

But I do understand how things work around here.

I suggest as a pedagogic point you (or one of your colleagues) runs a workshop with your students on where you can find info on the web, and judge its usefulness. Wikipedia is good at some things but deeply flawed at others. There's not much point going on a 1 man personal crusade to fix it becuase it's the way it is, and some of its properties result in things that are both very good and very bad. Your students aren't stupid, but they might need help thinking about the issues, and discussing them with their peers should help do that. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Academic use. Le petit fromage (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I suggest that if you want to write about Raymond Cattell, you could do worse than submitting an article to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on his life (they currently don't have one). That then can be cited in Wikipedia. Le petit fromage (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Le petit fromage: Thank you sincerely for your positive and helpful advice, which I have taken on board. Gjboyle (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Improving Wikipedia

This message was posted by Gjboyle on the Talk page of the article about him in this dif. This is not appropriate for an article Talk page, so I cut it from there and pasted it here. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

To Wikipedia Administrators:

I signed on to Wikipedia in good faith to try to improve the accuracy of information pertaining to psychometrics, psychological/personality assessment, and multivariate methodology (e.g., exploratory factor analytic methodology), especially since undergraduate students en masse are obtaining unsophisticated sophomoric level information from Wikipedia, leading to a generally low academic standard in psychological knowledge. Many students simply paraphrase what they read on Wikipedia with little, if any, critical evaluation at all.

For my (hopefully) constructive and time-consuming efforts, I'm just being attacked and maligned on-line by anonymous non-experts (who likely have few if any publications listed in the APA PsycINFO Database), in ways that my colleagues are asking about - and it's simply not worth the trouble, so I wish to have my autobiography removed in its entirety. One anonymous user (with no user page) seems to have just signed on solely with the malicious intent of attacking and maligning me, claiming that I have a COI with just about everything I write/edit. This unsolicited attack from someone whom I don't even know, and who is hiding behind the mask of an anonymous user name - is unethical and suggests strongly that s/he has a definite COI her/himself!

How is it possible that experts who write/edit within their demonstrated areas of professional expertise/competence, by definition, must therefore have a COI? Does Wikipedia only encourage people to write/edit in areas in which they do not have competence? If so, what does that say about the academic standards of many of the Wikipedia articles? It appears that this nonsense is being promulgated by poorly-educated non-experts. Anyway, what kind of a circus is this, when knowledgeable people with demonstrated track records are being chased off for making edits within their areas of professional specialization and competency?! Gjboyle (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request declined

Hi Gregory. I have declined your request to delete your biography at the moment, largely because you were judged to be notable by the community only a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, once content has been submitted you can no longer control it. While we do consider deletion requests from subjects it would require another deletion discussion and it would be unlikely to produce a different result so soon after the previous one. I have instead edited the article to remove some of the more problematic content and hopefully at some point the maintenance templates can be removed. SmartSE (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Smartse: Thank for your help in this matter. I am most grateful. Gjboyle (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged_hounding_by_SPA_User:Baroccas. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Boyle: Just letting you know that the investigation is not directed at you; the notice above is procedurally required because your name came up and in no way indicates any wrongdoing. Sorry for the trouble in your introduction to Wikipedia; we are trying hard to retain expert editors like you. — Brianhe (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brianhe: Thank you for your kind message. I am very grateful. Gjboyle (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course your user talk page is now on my watchlist since I have posted here before. I have just replied at the ANI. Wishing you all the best for much peaceful, collaborative editing on Wikipedia. I do hope you will voluntarily relinquish your taste for editing articles about persons with whom you have a close association through study, co-authorship, or other such personal relationships off-wiki, as the general articles about psychology receive many more page views and badly need help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And I'd review WP:RANDY because I'm sure as some point, you'll be dealing with something like that. That just comes with the nature of the internet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been on Wikipedia in awhile, but I was one of the contributing authors to the original article on Dr. Cattell, and I saw all the interesting improvements that have been made. I must say that I am rather confused about what is going on here right now. This fellow, Baroccas, has apparently just jumped onto Wikipedia and has spent all of his time carrying out pointed attacks on this academic psychologist, Dr. Greg Boyle. Dr. Boyle seems to have a long, established reputation in this field and has published widely with quite a number of diverse people and topics (and why has information about him been taken OFF his user page; How are we supposed to know who's writing this if Wikipedia removes the information that would tell us who the writer is?). Overall, I would say that Boyle has added substantial, accurate information and made improvements in areas here where we have few experts, and that he should be encouraged rather than attacked. His writing doesn't look biased to me.

Barrocos gives no information about himself or his areas of education and expertise, but appears to be focused only on attacking Dr. Boyle and his edits, and in very complicated ways (I have no idea how one plants a Conflict-of-Interest banner on all these pages). He also appears to be someone who knows a great deal about Wikipedia and how it works. For someone who has just signed up, this suggests to me that Baroccas may be a pre-existing editor, who has now come on-line in disguise to attack someone he doesn't like (His style actually looks quite a bit like Barry Mehler's writing at ISAR, which I have been reading up on lately). also, WeijiBaikeBianji is asking others to identify their affiliation with Cattell, but it seems possible that she may be a student of Tucker's, since she acknowledges being from Rutgers University and knowing and working with psychologists there? And here she is supporting Barrocos in various ways; for example, whenever someone undoes one of Barrocos's COI banners, she reverts the undo. She also cites Mehler's description of Beyondism as a good "lay summary", while it is more realistically a diatribe against Dr. Cattell, wherein Mehler describes Beyondism as a "neo-fascist contrivance." For Wikipedia, the negative bias of an opponent is more serious than that of someone like Dr. Boyle, who has acknowledged his respect for Dr. Cattell and has an established and visible track record. PsychologistForJustice (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Eysenck page

Hi Gregory,

With regard to the hoohah about your edits: I've been trying to check them, and most of them so far seem (to me) unexeceptionable; but you've changed the wording of some verbatim quotes from Buchanan. The edit I'm looking at right now (25 June at 05:31) seems to be an attempt to change one of them back, but it's still not quite right.

So I'd be obliged if you would double-check these.

For the rest, I'm glad to see someone of your experience contributing, and thanks.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paul,

Yes I will double-check all those edits, as soon as time permits. In relation to that particular change of wording, I hadn't realized it was a quote and had reworded it slightly to enhance readability. However, immediately upon noticing that it was a quote I undid the change. As far as I can see the wording is now exactly as it was originally stated by Buchanan. If you find any inconsistency please feel free to correct any such error(s). I have been warned repeatedly that apparently I have a COI because I happened to have Hans Eysenck and Ray Cattell among my circle of academic colleagues from whom I occasionally sought advice on research matters (at some considerable distance though) -- no different from any of the hundreds of other academic contacts I have had over a period of more than 40 years. Since my own research career has been in the area of personality and individual differences, both intellectual giants of the 20th century were my mentors and friends - but in an intellectual sense only - not in real life. On a personal level, I have very little knowledge about either. I remain puzzled as to how corresponding every few years with an academic colleague on occasional research/writing matters constitutes a COI. This would rule me out of editing hundreds of biographies on Wikipedia in that case. It seems like the revisionist historians are "having a field day" on Wikipedia! Gjboyle (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul,

I notice the warning label now placed on the Hans Eysenck biography. This warning is quite unfounded. As you have rightly pointed out, Baroccas' claim that "the majority of this article written by GBoyle with a significant COI and extremely subjective tone/content)" is simply untrue. I made only a few minor adjustments to this article which presumably had already been written years ago by others including yourself. The fact that Eysenck was among my circle of professional academic contacts involving the occasional written communication re research/writing (the normal business of university researchers/scholars) does not suggest any COI whatsoever. Researchers frequently co-author publications in peer-reviewed journals with an academic colleague overseas, but that does not imply any kind of close personal relationship. Gjboyle (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Myers-Briggs

Hi HRS395,

You may be interested in Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Do we want to mention any criticisms in the lead? because it relates to a part of the lead that you edited.

Yaris678 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, HRS395. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)