Jump to content

User talk:Iss246

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iss246 (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 10 January 2020 (→January 2020: The argument). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

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)[reply]

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

Mittal spam

Hi I noticed your edits and I double-checked what's going on. On one hand, Vikas Mittal http://business.rice.edu/Vikas_Mittal/ claims to be notable] in the area of marketing research. On the other hand it seems to be a major campaign tnow o spam wikipedia with Mittal's references:

I don't have time now to think how to handle such situations. At the first glance, the additions may be relevant, but I feel uneasy at such massive infusion of a single name. Which discussion boards do you think will be relevant to notify? WP:COI comes to my mind. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Altenmann. It seems as if we have a professor of marketing, who is marketing himself. Iss246 (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keen observation :-). - üser:Altenmann >t 17:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate receiving the heads-up. I voted. Iss246 (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natural experiments

I was notified about your revert on Category:Econometrics. Your argument for reverting is - for the time being - a matter of WP:OR. It would be alright if you'd add a section in the article about Natural experiments in econometrics and then add Category:Econometrics to the article. But right now there is nothing about econometrics in the article, hence no reason to categorize as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Robert McClenon. Iss246 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Iss246. 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)[reply]

Testing syntax

@Iss246:Hello. Iss246 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC) @Iss246: Goodbye. Iss246 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iss246: Iss246 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health

Hello Iss246! I am very pleased by your edits to occupational safety and health topics, and am wondering if you would be interested in joining WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James Hare (NIOSH)! I do know a good deal about the subject matter but probably not as much as you. I observe that you associated with NIOSH, one of the most important organizations (governmental or nongovernmental) in the world that is concerned with workplace safety and health. Please tell me what is involved with the WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. Iss246 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve National Council on Measurement in Education

Hi, I'm Scope creep. Iss246, thanks for creating National Council on Measurement in Education!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. What is it, where is it, where is the localization so other readers in china,e.g. know where it is.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

scope_creep (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Secours

Hi, Iss246. That really is an excellent article, isn't it? I've taken the liberty of expanding the link to include some more details, and I've also added it to Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation, which was set up in the wake of revelations about Tuam. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: Thank you user:Bastun. Yes. It was an excellent article as much as it was a sad one. Best wishes. Iss246 (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Iss246. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Occupational Health Science

Notice

The article Occupational Health Science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

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) 12:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Randykitty, I explain on the talk page of OHS why I believe the WP entry should not be deleted. Iss246 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Occupational Health Science for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occupational Health Science 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/Occupational Health Science 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

rosenthal

Greetings. I saw you undid this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pygmalion_effect&action=history and mention that the quote is "from the teachers" however, it appears the quotation is actually from the the article writer summarizing state of the art on the subject, though it mentions the teacher name. Perhaps there's a better way to add it in that doesn't seem "so quotey" as it were? Thanks. Rogerdpack (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rogerdpack|talk]]) Your quoting the article was accurate but the quote was a teacher's words. The article's author quoted the teacher. The quote reflected the teacher's speculation about burnout, which in ordinary conversation is fine, but not as evidence in an encyclopedia article. Iss246 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Iss246. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health Science

Hi. I'm Barkeep49, an editor who does new page patrol. I recently restored a redirect from an article you've been writing, Occupational Health Science, to Society for Occupational Health Psychology. I know this isn't what you wanted so let me explain why I did this. As hopefully you know, there was a discussion about this topic in June. The result of that discussion was to redirect. You are right that as the journal publishes more it might become more notable. As that happens it would be important to show how that is happening. A great way to do this would be to provide reliable sources which show how it is meeting one of these criteria. I hope that helps explain. If you have questions about this please ask them and I will do my best to answer. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Occupational stress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war on Occupational stress ; 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Both of you have broken 3RR on this article. You have not claimed any exemptions from 3RR. As it stands it is just a content dispute. If you think he is evading a block then take him to SPI. Meters (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meters, thank you for the heads-up. For background, the other party, Lightningstrikers, has been acting a lot like a WP editor who had previously been banned for his obstructive editing. His name was Mrm7171. Lightningstrikers, like Mrm7171, worked assiduously to undo the editing I have done in connection to occupational health psychology. I mention that old problem because Lightningstrikers is taking aim at occupational health psychology on the occupational stress entry just as Mrm7171 took aim at occupational health psychology in other WP entries including the OHP entry itself.
I have justified my edits in the slot WP affords editors when they make edits. I have also justified my edits in detail on the occupational stress talk page. I don't get anywhere with lightningstrikers because he just ignores what I write and responds without justifying his edits. Iss246 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a bit of what I wrote on the occupational stress talk page under the heading "End of Argument":
Tonight I did a little research using PsycInfo.
21 (0.4%) articles published by the Journal of Counseling Psychology of the 5,029 articles it published since its founding in 1964 concerned occupational stress.
155 (0.8%) articles published by the Journal of Clinical Psychology of the 18,423 articles published since its founding in 1945 concerned occupational stress.
367 (42.4%) articles published by the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology of the 866 articles published since its founding in 1996 concerned occupational stress.
Clearly occupational stress plays a small role in counseling and clinical psychology as the leading journals in those fields indicate. Occupational stress plays a much larger, more important role in OHP. User:CaroleHenson, the argument user:Lighningstrikers is making is fallacious. It involves quibbling over minor stuff and unnecessarily magnifying small things. The situation would resemble in an odd way my arguing in the anxiety WP entry that OHP plays as important a role as clinical psychology plays; I would not make such an argument. Anxiety only plays a small role in OHP; 60 (6.9%) of the 866 Journal of Occupational Health Psychology articles concern anxiety. I am going to make a change in the occupational stress entry. I insist that Lightningstrikers leave my edits alone. Iss246 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is a WP editor's response.
That is helpful information. I think it is fair to ask for Lightningstrikers to not change your edits in any way unless they can come up with sources. The failed verification conversation is just a recapitulation of previous conversations on this page at Talk:Occupational_stress#Occupational_stress_-_blog.

I don't mean to "pile on", I am just of the mindset as well to end unproductive conversations, when energy could be expended by Lightningstrikers to follow the intention of the dispute resolution: To look at ways to enhance the Lede with information that summarizing content from the article. That seems like a good idea to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Meters, I refer you to the section of the occupational stress talk page under "End of Argument." Iss246 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iss246&oldid=935124427"