|
|
Welcome!
Hello, Iss246, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Profile of ISS246's contributions to Wikipedia.
Here is a page that enables the reader to view the number of hits on each Wikipedia entry: Hits per Wikipedia page
Provides profile of any Wikipedian's contributions: A Quick Summary
Disambiguation link notification for June 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Psychology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mood.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Organizational theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Construct.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
I have opened a case at the noticeboard to get other uninvolved and independent editors to mediate in our dispute at the psychology article. Hoping this helps us resolve the situation. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romilly, Loir-et-Cher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Miles.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
User Psyc12
Hi Iss246. Although this editor makes some good edits, he apparently is Paul Spector, and quite a number of his edits are refspamming and linkspamming his website, his book and other publications, or other links associated with him. Take a close look at his edits. He has placed numerous citations or external links to his website and publications in several articles, particularly in the past six weeks. This sometimes happens on Wikipedia; someone writes a book or creates a website, then adds numerous links to multiple articles as a means of free promotion. It usually is not an improvement to Wikipedia. These edits are sometime interspersed with useful edits, which makes it less noticeable. As I said, some of the edits are useful, but I do believe Spector is trying to promote himself. One or two links might not be so bad, but the sheer quantity is suspicious and weakens the articles. I'm also not a fan of linking to online "quizzes" about psychology. Most of them have little evidence of validity, and they promote the idea that professional psychology and pop psychology are the same thing. When I have more time I plan to go through and cull out some of it. I'd like you to take close look at his edits and let me know what you think. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information, User:Sundayclose, Sundayclose. You are right about separating professional psychology and pop psychology. Please put a message here about the edits you would like me to review. Iss246 (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Finding diffs is tedious, thus my delay in responding. This is by no means an exhaustive list. I looked at a few articles and checked most recent edits. I'm sure if I looked further back I would find more.
This basically is a case of WP:COI. This editor makes good edits. But the emphasis on his website and publications is excessive. COI editors often make good edits, but there's a good reason they're strongly discouraged from editing articles related to their COI. This case is an example. It puts too much WP:WEIGHT on one person's opinions, and it ends up being self-promotional even if there is no malicious intent. In this particular case, I wouldn't even suggest no editing, just follow the usual procedure of suggesting edits on the article's talk page when citing or linking a website or publication with which he is involved, and let other editors make the edit.
Some examples of citing or external linking his publications. Doing this once or twice is acceptable. Doing it more than that is WP:REFSPAM and WP:LINKSPAM. It also puts too much WP:WEIGHT on one person's publications.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&type=revision&diff=1037629002&oldid=1037256371
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&diff=next&oldid=1037763525
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&type=revision&diff=1047235170&oldid=1047232692
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&diff=next&oldid=1047237544
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&diff=next&oldid=1047238112
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&type=revision&diff=1037629002&oldid=1037256371
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&diff=next&oldid=1050315121
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&diff=next&oldid=1050366786
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&diff=next&oldid=1050403527
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&diff=prev&oldid=1050785628 (This one is an IP, but it's the only edit made by that IP, so I suspect it's Spector logged out, although not necessarily on purpose.)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organisation_climate&diff=prev&oldid=1020850653
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counterproductive_work_behavior&diff=prev&oldid=1020307624
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naloxone&diff=prev&oldid=984058324
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harm_reduction&diff=prev&oldid=984057130
Self-promotion of Spector; Also, a link to pop psychology "quizzes" with no demonstrated validity (I don't consider a disclaimer that a quiz is "not diagnostic" to have much bearing; not even well-constructed tests alone are "diagnostic"; to the general public this suggests that these "quizzes" are legitimate psychological tests
I think for the benefit of Wikipedia, this editor should be notified about WP:COI and asked to follow the guidelines for COI. What do you think? Sundayclose (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Sundayclose:, User:Sundayclose, for the record, I am putting this summary here and I wrote similar summaries on Psyc12's and your talk pages. I deleted or changed four links related to Spector. WP should include the link to Spector's assessment website. I thought about the matter. The site should remain because it can help a reader find useful tests and scales. The site provides a great deal of information. Besides test/scale content, there is psychometric information. My experience with Wikipedia also played a role in my thinking. Some years ago I added edits to the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) entry. I added a link to the IPIP item pool to enable readers to take advantage of the website. They can obtain items to construct a variety personality tests. The IPIP site provides important information. The links to the IPIP and Spector sites thus have practical and educational value.
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Proposed deletion of Occupational Health Science (journal)
![Notice](https://web.archive.org/web/20220417115743im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Occupational Health Science (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation likely Wp:TOOSOON.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- During the journal's first three years, it was not indexed by PsycInfo. In the last two years, PsycInfo administrators decided to index the journal, indicating its notability. I will improve the page over time. My preference is to build the entry little by little, day by day. My MO has been to edit WP articles bit by bit. Rather than all at once. Iss246 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- I applaud the creation of a page dedicated to this journal. The journal is now well-indexed. The Editor-in-Chief is a remarkable occupational health researcher. Many great figures of occupational health science have already published articles there. The journal applies high standards for research quality, which is a key concern for OHP researchers and practitioners. It is important that the journal gets visibility on WP. And the creation of this page does not cause harm to anyone, does it?Ohpres (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Occupational Health Science (journal) for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220417115743im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science (journal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- The journal Occupational Health Science (OHES) should not be deleted. This peer-reviewed journal has been in existence for five years. Recently administrators at the American Psychological Association's PsycInfo indexing group decided to include in this preeminent psychology index articles the journal publishes. OHES has become an important outlet for papers associated with the field of occupational health psychology (OHP). The other main OHP outlets are Work & Stress and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. OHES covers work-related physical and mental health, particularly in relation to psychosocial working conditions. OHES also covers job stress, workplace safety, and accidents. From the editor-in-chief through to the associate edtors and the editorial board, the figures who shape the journal are researchers with expertise in working conditions, job stress, safety, burnout, work-related, financial strain, etc.
- Here some examples of articles that were recently accepted for publication: Musculoskeletal Health and Perceived Work Ability in a Manufacturing Workforce; Effects of Social and Occupational Stress, and Physical Strain on Suicidal Ideation Among Law Enforcement Officers; Job Insecurity during an Economic Crisis: the Psychological Consequences of Widespread Corporate Cost-Cutting Announcements. Respected researchers are the authors. The journal has become too notable to be threatened with deletion. Iss246 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)