User talk:SuttonClawson

Hello, Dr. Clawson,

I'm responding here to the message you left on my talk page. The bluelink Coping you included on crisis bonding was a link to a disambiguation page. Suck links are typically avoided on Wikipedia, as bluelinks are intended to provide clarity about the topic being discussed. I disambiguated coping into Coping (psychology) after reading the wiki page on crisis bonding; it seemed that the article should have linked to the psychology coping term, rather than the other two articles available at coping.

On an unrelated note, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy, which discourages editors from working on pages where they have a direct conflict of interest. Please see {{WP:COI]] for more information. As you have stated that you are the author of the research on crisis bonding, it seems to me as there is a clear conflict of interest. The other tag, for notability, reflects my concern that there are enough reliable third-party sources for this article to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please see WP:N for more information on these. The article will need to be edited and better sourced by someone without a conflict of interest if it is to remain on Wikipedia. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can be counterintuitive at times, given that the people who may know the most about a subject are discouraged from editing those pages. The policies are in place to ensure Wikipedia remains neutral and the articles themselves are free from bias. This is why Wikipedia uses reliable third-party sources for its references. If you have any links of such sources you could add to the article (perhaps works you used in your dissertation that mention this topic) they would help proving the article's notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. While I don't know much (read anything) about your topic, I'm fairly well versed in Wiki policies and can help get your article in shape. One thing I'm going to do is mark your page as being "patrolled" and add it to my watchlist; this will notify me of any changes to the page. PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis bonding: June 7

Patrolling lets other Wikipedia users know that new articles being actively watched and edited. Your article is old enough that I can't mark it as such, but I am watching the page and have seen the edits made by other editors. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means the Crisis bonding page will be edited multiple times by various authors until a consensus is reached.

One of the other editors brought up the subject of original research, which I find a concern as well. As it is written, the page is more about your research than it is about the concept itself. The article should focus on what the concept is and stay away from original research. While you have made improvements to the article by adding sources, the editing will need to go a step further by focusing more on the concept and less on the research behind it. The research should take a back seat and only supplement the article rather than be the focus of it. PaintedCarpet (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustrations. Unfortunately, the article does have issues that, as others have pointed out, may not make it appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles need to be notable and supported by independent third-party resources. If coverage does not yet exist, then the article might not yet be ready for Wikipedia. Another user has suggested putting the content up on Wikiversity, which may be a better place for the article. PaintedCarpet (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis Bonding, June 8

I'm sorry to hear you haven't had the greatest experience on Wikipedia. I myself had plenty of my edits challenged before I learned the ins and outs of the editing process.

I've left links on the Crisis bonding Talk page on how to move the page to Wikiversity, which seems like the best place at this time for your research. Given the current state of edits going on at the page, I think this would be the best option to avoid page deletion.

If you like, I can perform the necessary move this week. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to copy it to Wikiversity. I will send you the link once the move is complete.

As far as the crisis bonding page itself, from what I understand of the transwiki process, once the move is complete the article on Wikipedia will be deleted. This will delete the talk page as well. Since Wikipedia is a public open forum, everything is public, including these talk pages. Moving the page to Wikiversity and deleting the page on Wikipedia should mitigate any issues. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this within Wikiversity, how can we have the transfer on this template? https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Page_protection_templates

Crisis Bonding at Wikiversity

The article has now been successfully transwikied and can be viewed and edited here. While the admin who copied it said protection shouldn't be necessary there, you could still use the {{Protect|SuttonClawson}} tag if you feel the need.

I'll now be nominating Crisis bonding for speedy deletion from Wikipedia, since it has a new home now. This will delete the page and the talk page. While the edit record of the article is still available, it looks like the talk page history is not.

If you have any other questions, please let me know. Good luck with your research. PaintedCarpet (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do have a few questions: Do I need to do anything to that Wikipeida page? Will that page ever be resurrected with different content? Do I need to create a new account on Wikiversity or does everything transfer over? I noticed that my user page didn't. Also, the links associated to the article now on Wikiversity no longer shows Wikipedia articles (ie. disaster, human bonding), how do I make those links again? The links now take me to a blank page.

Deleted!

There, that fixed it! Amatulic deleted the article and its talk page, and then recreated the redirect - so there is now a redirect from Wikipedia to Wikiversity under that title. The perfect solution. (Of the various Wikipedians who have been involved here, Amatulic is the only one who is an administrator and has the ability to delete articles.) Good luck with your article and your research, and maybe we will see you here at Wikipedia again. Maybe try something simple like editing an existing article. We don't ALWAYS bite! --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis Bonding June 11

Hi Dr. Sutton Clawson,

My apologies for not replying sooner; I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days. I am not as well versed on Wikiversity's policies and procedures; You might ask User:Dave Braunschweig, as he seems to know the ins and outs of that project. The Wikipedia article could in theory be recreated, but in order to stay on Wikipedia it would have to pass the same notability guidelines as the previous article. Right now there is a redirect to the Wikiversity article, although I am unsure if that will remain. PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]