User talk:Chalquist

December 2013
Hello, Chalquist. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Terrapsychology, 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.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see 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.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Please be careful of WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis in Wikipedia articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I'm OK. Also, I teach graduate research at the doctoral level, so I'm familiar with the issues about objectivity and potential bias.--Chalquist (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Terrapsychology. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dloh cierekim  18:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is my article going to be deleted? As a social scientist I am amazed that Wikipedia frowns on "primary sources" and "original research," the very juice of scientific inquiry. And why should the participant of a new field of inquiry be disqualified for actually working in it?? --Chalquist (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you had thought that Wikipedia is a locale for first publication, you were mistaken, but I don't see why you would be "amazed" to find out that an encyclopedia is a reference work rather than a collection of monographs. Wikipedia has nothing against scientific inquiry. It thrives on the results of scientific inquiry, but it expects them to be verifiable, validated through publication in reliable sources before being published here with citations to give users a measure of confidence that the information they are being given has been vetted and to enable them to see the source material for themselves. In other words, phlogiston theory is a valid article here to the extent that it is a view of the theory from above, covering the fact of the theory's existence, and that its existence has been discussed in numerous texts. However, Johann Joachim Becher wouldn't have been permitted to propose and expound on his hypothesis on a substance named "phlogiston" directly in an article by that title. The same would have gone for Albert Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand that. I'm a social scientist who advises graduate students on research at several universities. I am not looking for anything to do with "first publication"; terrapsychology has existed for ten years and has a variety of books and articles at its disposal. I was amazed at the discouragement of primary source material and original research. --Chalquist (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Dlohcierekim. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:Terrapsychology without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dloh cierekim  18:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Terrapsychology


The article Terrapsychology has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This entire article seems to be a summary of the work of non-notable psychology researcher Craig Chalquist. Terrapsychology is his own neologism - this recently coined word does not appear to have any significant notability within the field of psychology.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The field of terrapsychology was named by me, but people worked in it already. The number of citations is now comparable with other Wikipedia articles. Dozens of people work in this field. It has been mentioned in a variety of books and journals and is being taught at several universities. All these reasons make deletion unnecessary.


 * Number of citations is irrelevant. It's quality, not quantity. —  Richard  BB  16:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Terrapsychology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terrapsychology 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 Articles for deletion/Terrapsychology & 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. —  Richard  BB  15:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. a lack of citations from sources not connected with the subject necessitates deletion. This is the sine qua non of article writing Dloh cierekim  15:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)