User talk:Chunda'sLemon

Welcome
 Hi PsychologistForJustice, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

MBisanz Good luck, and have fun.

Connection with Raymond Cattell?
Hi, PsychologistForJustice,

I see you have a strong interest in editing the article about the late Raymond Cattell. Do you have a personal connection with him? I'd like to discuss sources about his career and his research on the talk page of the article about him. See you there. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Note about advocacy in Wikipedia and your username
Hi PsychologistForJustice - I just saw your post at Gjboyle's Talk page, and your posting on your user page. Your Username is a "red flag" signal to the community that you are what we call WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but rather that you are here to advocate for whatever you see as "justice" (see WP:THETRUTH), and for Obama. Please know that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy - please see WP:NOTADVOCACY, which is part of the WP:NOT policy which is also one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. I haven't reviewed your contributions to see if you are or are not using Wikipedia for advocacy, but wanted to let you know that your username and userpage are communicating a negative message about you as a Wikipedia editor to experienced editors here. (What any one does or believes in the real world, is mostly irrelevant in Wikipedia - but editing WP to advocate for anything, is a bad thing in WP - I would be writing the same message if your username were PsychologistForJesus or PsychologistForJustinBeiber). If you wish to change your username, you can do that here: Changing username. Please note that I am not saying that you have to - not at all. You just may want to choose a username that doesn't communicate a negative message. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jytdog!  Thank you for your kind note and information!  I don't know much about the culture of Wikipedia, so this is helpful. I guess I usually do wear my heart on my sleeve, a bit....But generally I believe in being honest with people about who I am, rather than being like some of the people here, who seem to be hiding in anonymity to pursue their causes, erasing others edits repeatedly, etc.  On first glance, it would seem to me that every person on Wikipedia ought to have to give their name and background and interests, before they can edit.  Most people have things they feel strongly about, and their own viewpoints, don't they?  And these are bound to affect what they write, don't you think? Better to have them out in the open, I would think....   But anyway, I guess I can change my name. Any suggestions about how to choose a name?  (Do you have a dog; I have two retriever-mix guys, who run me ragged every morning(:-))?  I guess the goal is to choose something neutral, is that it?  Also, let me know what about my user page is "communicating a negative message"?   Thanks again for your observations and assistancePsychologistForJustice (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Hi - thanks for your gracious response - it is always a bit risky to give folks feedback. How to answer... Yes every human has their passions and their POV on things, it is true.  But when each of us logs in to Wikipedia, we agree to abide by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia - to work toward the mission of WP to provide the public with "accepted knowledge" (per WP:NOT), stated neutrally, both in language/tone and in giving appropriate "weight" to topics within an article  based on what reliable sources say (not just editors' raw opinions) (per WP:NPOV).   We all agree  to not abuse Wikipedia by using it to pursue some other agenda, be that commercial or ideological, per WP:NOTADVOCACY.  That is what we are all meant to be trying to do.  The most fundamental policy in WIkipedia is WP:CONSENSUS which means that we all talk to each other and work together - and probably the most important function of that policy, especially in light of the others, is that editors correct each other - passions and POV yield to the mission through discussion of sources and how to use them.  That is the ideal here and when that happens gracefully, it is beautiful.  Sometimes - not uncommonly - discussions on article Talk pages can get heated and ugly when passions and POVs collide  - when editors are governed by their passions and POVs and won't listen to other people.  (This place is a laboratory for human behavior  it is really amazing to watch how un-self-aware people can be, and how self-aware and kind they be as well.)   Anyway, that is how things are meant to work and how they are not to meant to work.  We are meant to try to set passions aside and to discuss disagreements with each other in a civil way, based on sources, policies, and guidelines.  It is a beautiful vision.  Maybe somewhat parallel to professional standards you have as a pyschologist to attempt to be non-judgemental in dealing with patients.   We expect a certain amount of professionalism from editors - a committment to try to achieve the mission, at least.  And there are policies and guidelines and procedures here to deal with editors who behave and edit badly - who are more committed to some agenda than they are to WP's mission.
 * Your username signals somebody who is unwilling to try to be neutral, but who instead will try to steamroll over others in your pursuit of whatever you consider justice to be; your choosing to make a statement on your userpage that you are a strong supporter of Obama signals to other editors that you are likely to be unable - unable - to edit neutrally on political topics.  Maybe you are unable, and maybe that is what you want to signal to people.   I don't know.  (by the way, so much about being an enduring WP editor is about self-restraint, on many levels.  I don't edit certain topics because they drive me crazy and I am likely to get angry and behave badly.  So I avoid them. Which also makes editing here more fun for me.  I also don't edit where I have a COI due to my employment)  But like I said, I haven't reviewed your edits to see if you actually are campaigning for justice in WP.    Since you are kind of new here, I wanted to let you know what you were signalling.  That's all.
 * About people disclosing who they are -- there was a debate way way back in the beginnings of Wikipedia about whether editors should be required to validate their real world identities - and even beyond that, whether only experts should be allowed to edit WP. The debate actually led to a split between Wikipedia and Nupedia - WP has the anonymous, open model and Nupedia had the identified-experts-only model.  It died.  The issue of making all WP editors disclose and verify RW identities comes up from time to time and there is a small faction of the community that is committed to that idea.   Wikipediocracy is a website of disaffected critics of WP and one of the main tenets of many frequent commenters there, is that editors should disclose.   But it is unlikely to ever happen.  A huge chunk of the community is fiercely committed to privacy/anonymity and WP:OUTING is very, very strictly enforced - if you out someone against their will you will be banished in a heartbeat.   A NY Times op-ed by Jimbo Wales explains how much WP values privacy: see [here.
 * That is the story, for the most part.
 * I can't remember how I picked my username! Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog,  Thanks for your thoughtful explanations and info about the history of Wikipedia! Wow, there sure are a lot of rules around here (:-)! I have read most fo the reference pages you suggested, and will give them some more thought. Although, I still find it kind of unlikely that most people achieve a Neutral Point of View most of the time, but it's a great goal! That and civility. So, I will change my name here to something more simple. But in terms of my self-description, it's still not clear to me how much I should say. Would this be appropriate: "I am an Indian-American psychologist who does research in family issues like domestic violence." Or is that too much information? Your description of the history of Wikipedia was also very interesting. It makes sense that the Wikipedia for/by experts might die out because most of the experts that I know of are so busy and in such high demand that I doubt that they would have time to do much editing. So, thanks again for your help. I will try to be NPOV and practice self-restraint(!), but let me know if I am not following other Wikipedia rules properly. ( Also, speaking of experts and civility, how does one take down these Conflict-of-Interest banners, like the one across Dr. Boyle's writing. I've re-read his edits and they seem like good, objective contributions--and I see that Baroccas has been criticized by administrators as "hounding" Professor Boyle.  But I don't have any idea how or when these may be taken down.   Also, WeijiBaikeBianji has put it back up both times that someone has taken it down....)PsychologistForJustice (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * nice username. :) you can put whatever you like on your userpage - just keep in mind that other WP editors read that for one reason only and that is to find out what you care about in WP - what you bring to the table.  So if your Indian extraction is somehow meaningful to your editing here and something you want people to consider when they interact with you then feel free!  You can say as much or as little as you want about your RW identity; there are good things and bad things about saying more vs less.  Just keep it focused on what is relevant to WP - please don't make a mini-article about yourself as that is an abuse of the userpage (see WP:USERPAGE for the policy on how they are used)
 * about the boyle article Gregory John Boyle - there is no tag; what are you talking about? thx Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, Sorry to be slow in responding; I only get on Wikipedia occasionally, usually when I'm studying up on something and have something to say. Usually I keep a watch on sites if I've written much on them, and I've noticed that there's been an awful lot of activity on Dr. Cattell's site the last month or two. What I was meaning in my last post about Dr. Greg Boyle (GjBoyle) is this: He seems to be a genuine expert in psychology from a prestigious Australian university, who got on here a few months ago to do some editing on various personality psychology articles (e.g. Hans Eysenck, Caroll Izard, Raymond Cattell, Julian Stanley, Walter Mischel, Charles Spielberger, State-trait anxiety, etc.). As I mentioned, it doesn't seem to me that there are enough real experts on Wikipedia, and so I noticed again as this expert was being attacked and discouraged from writing here. First, he of course didn't know the rules and culture here and was badgered about various things, but then this particular person, Baroccas, has been erasing his edits over-and-over-again for no reason that I can see. Then he put these Conflict-of-Interest banners over articles Boyle has edited (I see there are still at least three of these banners on Hans Eysenck's, Raymond Cattells, and Carroll Izard's articles, which have been there for weeks). Then each time someone tries to take them down, WeikeBaikeBianji puts them back up, for no reason that I can see, and he and Baraccas have communicatd about doing this on their talk pages. I've read almost all Boyle's edits here and he seems like a particularly well-informed, well-balanced expert in these areas, so this all seems very odd to me..... And I noticed that Baroccas himself seemed to suddenly come in and create an account, but to be thoroughly knowledgeable about all Wiki's editing rules and procedures, and went directly to this site and started taking out lots of Dr. Boyle's edits and making extensive changes--and I noticed that Baroccas once forgot to sign in when making one of his edits, and it looks like he is from somewhere very near Ferris State University, where Dr. Barry Mehler has spent a great deal of time attacking Dr.s Cattel and Eysenck on his website, called ISAR. These people can hardly be considered fair or disinterested parties. (Also, it seems like the WeijiBaikeBianji person may be from William Tucker's anti-Cattell group at Rutgers, where he went to school). In any case, I'm just not sure how to get these banners down. Do you know anything about how to do this? Thanks for your help. You're very brave to try to keep order here on Wikipedia!Chunda&#39;sLemon (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see.  A COI tag can be removed from an article after an independent editor carefully reviews the article to ensure that it complies with the content policies and guidelines, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY and WP:RS.   The reason for this, is that editors with a COI bring bias to articles; they tend to add content that violates NPOV (is overly positive or negative, overemphasizes something, or leaves crucial (good or bad) content out of the article), tend to add unsourced content, and tend to use poor sources.  Once that review is done and the article is "cleaned", the tag can be removed.  It takes a lot of work, especially checking to see if anything important was left out. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, Thanks for the information and clarification (and I think that this is a very interesting concept--NOR). i understand the strong desire to keep bias out of articles, but that seems like it might be a pretty hard thing to do, don't you think? It seems to me that most people have their own point-of-view, which is, by definition, not objective; and furthermore that most people who take the time and effort to write on a topic on Wikipedia, must have an opinion about it already, if they know enough about it to improve an article. But it's clearly a very good goal. I think I might give it a try on one of these articles. It certainly can't hurt to make sure they are objective and properly referenced. Thanks again for your help. Namaste  Chunda&#39;sLemon (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian Wells Tennis Garden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raymond Moore. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)