User talk:Iss246

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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, . 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
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_testing&diff=prev&oldid=1050787307

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)


 * , 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.


 * I also examined the sources in the harm reduction and Naloxone entries that you noted. I left the links intact because I found the website to be valuable to readers. Iss246 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Occupational Health Science (journal)


The article Occupational Health Science (journal) has been proposed for deletion&#32;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."
 * This criticism is bullshit. The journal is indexed by the Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, and Scopus. Iss246 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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 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 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
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occupational Health Science (journal) 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/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)

Definitions
Hello, Iss246,

I've been thinking about you recently, since I ran across a mass-media article talking about burnout. The definition given was (from memory) "a mismatch in expectations" about your work. That is, your employer says it will trade you (e.g.,) a dependable paycheck, a desk in an air-conditioned office building, and a supply of colleagues who are somewhat less likely to be axe murders than average (but perhaps more likely than usual to complain about the state of the air conditioning), in return for you engaging in certain activities, coping with a certain amount of bureaucracy, and generally trying to keep your employer from going bankrupt. You, on the other hand, believe that your job will provide you with a satisfying social life, give meaning and purpose to your life, result in admiration for whichever qualities you value the most, give you opportunities for additional prestige, promotions, and pay raises, and generally result in you getting paid for doing what you love.

What appeals to me about this is that it has the potential for differentiating between depression and burnout; it might explain culture-based and generation-scale trends in burnout rates (assuming any exist); and it suggests avenues for class-based research (because a working-class person tends to have different, and perhaps more realistic, expectations of intangible workplace benefits than a Wunderkind, and this might even help understand non-workplace effects on workplace satisfaction). It also, very appealingly, suggests fairly simple solutions, namely setting realistic expectations and then getting a life outside of work. What doesn't appeal to me about it is that it feels like someone else just making up yet another definition.

So I am here to ask: Has any progress been made on what, exactly, the One True™ definition of burnout is? Is there any hope of reaching such a definition during the current decade? Or is this one of those Alice in Wonderland situations, in which the meaning of a word is whatever I want it to be, and language is used to conceal our real thoughts? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @WhatamIdoing. Dear WhatamIdoing, thank you for the thoughtful note. Rotenstein et al. (Rotenstein, L. S., Torre, M., Ramos, M. A., Rosales, R. C., Guille, C., Sen, S., & Mata, D. A. (2018). Prevalence of burnout among physicians: A systematic review. JAMA, 320(11), 1131-1150. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.12777) in their review of research on BO in doctors found 142 different definitions of BO, indicating that there is no consensus regarding what BO is. There is also a problem regarding whether BO is identifiable as a diagnosis or should be treated dimensionally (as a continuum like, say, temperature). As for depression, it has long been a diagnosis, but research at the frontiers of the field of psychopathology suggest it is better represented as a dimension, with only people at the high end of the continuum meeting criteria for a diagnosis (e.g., Haslam, N., Holland, E., & Kuppens, P. (2012). Categories versus dimensions in personality and psychopathology: A quantitative review of taxometric research. Psychological Medicine, 42(5), 903-920. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291711001966). When BO and depression are both treated dimensionally, interesting results emerge.


 * Sure organizational culture and workplace demands have an impact on the worker. There is a growing body of research that the level of adversity in working conditions is related to.elevations in scores on BO scales (and there are several, the MBI, CBI, SMBM, etc.) and scores on depression scales (PHQ-9, CES-D, etc.), which are treat depression dimensionally. There is evidence that the core feature of BO, exhaustion, is highly correlated with scores on depressive symptom scales although those correlations bounce around from sample to sample, which is to be expected.


 * You mentioned class-based research. You make an excellent point. Perhaps there is a difference between the average correlations between BO scales and depression scales in blue and white collar jobs. That is a proposition worth exploring. The samples in most BO research have involved nurses, physicians, teachers, etc. It would be good to explore the results of studies involving blue collar workers. Iss246 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The mismatch idea is interesting. Person-environment fit theory bears on that. Interest in the theory has waned as theories such at the demand-control-support model {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_health_psychology#Demand-control-support_model} emerged. The DCS model has been more productive in yielding valid results. It would be interesting to learn if members of the working class have more realistic expectations of their jobs. Bear in mind that they may have, on average, more realistic expectations (and I don't know that for a fact), but if the jobs have adverse environments (e.g., little control over the tasks they engage in), the jobs will still have baleful effects on their physical and mental health. Iss246 (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are these two models seen as conflicting? I'm thinking that they might fit together nicely:  If I've been raised to expect a high level of control on the job and that, in fact, it was perfectly plausible for me to be the US president, and I take a job in retail sales and discover that I have almost no control over anything, then I'm likely to be a poor fit for that environment.  If (here I am thinking of a conversation I had decades ago, with a woman who had grown up on a small, poverty-level farm) you were raised with a very clear and explicit expectation that you have to do whatever the boss says, when the boss says to do it, exactly the way the boss says to do it, even if you think your ideas are better, then I would expect you to be a better fit for a low-control environment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @WhatamIdoing. The models are mostly conflicting. Low control is toxic whether over the long run low control is expected or not. Having a job with low control is largely toxic. I once had job in manufacturing. I was a tool and die operator. The work was repetitive. I knew that coming in. The work was awful and tiring. Drudgery. That I expected the work to have low control did not make the job any better. The reality of work overpowers the expectations. Iss246 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet, there are people who spend their careers in manufacturing and appear to thrive in it. At least, when I worked in a factory, I saw people who seemed happy to come to work and who had been there for decades.  I couldn't speak to the long-term experience personally, as I was only there for a few weeks during summer vacation, but I wouldn't have described it as toxic in a psychological sense.  (Another part of the factory floor used some glues that might have been toxic in other ways, but as the newbie, I wasn't allowed anywhere near anything complicated or expensive like that.)  I spent most of my time clicking snaps shut.  It was certainly repetitive, and the level of choice I had basically amounted to deciding whether I'd start on the left side of the pile or the right side of the pile, but I wouldn't have described it as awful or drudgery, and it wasn't really any more tiring than you'd expect for any job that involves standing up all day.  I probably would have gotten bored eventually, but that's not quite the same thing, and the long-term staff around me seemed to have found other ways to keep their interest up, such as chatting with their neighbors.  I was usually facing the inspection table, and I spent several weeks watching two or three older women do their job without ever figuring out how they did it.  They would stare at a cart full of identical items piled on top of each other, and then either wheel it away, or suddenly fish out a couple of pieces.
 * Getting back to our articles, it sounds like nobody knows what burnout really is, and therefore nobody knows what causes it. In fact, all studies about cause are going to be 'wrong', because I'll determine that burnout is caused by the weather, but since I'm using my own definition, then this research doesn't apply to the other 141 definitions – assuming that my research is replicable anyway, and the odds are low on that point in general.  On the other hand, it also means that whatever a source writes about burnout is True™, because there probably is one scenario, using one definition, for which the statement is relevant.  You'd have to prove a claim wrong for 142 definitions times thousands of situations before being able to say that it is definitely, completely, absolutely false.
 * It reminds me of the problem of Multiple chemical sensitivity, which is defined in practice as
 * Patient feels bad.
 * Patient blames 'chemicals'.
 * The only difference is that under burnout, the patients are blaming 'work' instead of 'chemicals' for the fact that they feel bad.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing. That people remain in highly repetitive jobs that provide little control over the tasks they perform does that mean they thrive in those jobs. There are reasons why people remain in such jobs. One is that there are often barriers to changing jobs. Siegrist underlined those barriers in explaining why individuals remain in jobs in which there is an imbalance between the effort they put into their work is incommensurate with the tangible and intangible rewards they get from the job. I add that Arthur Kornhauser in his book The Mental Health of the Industrial Worker shows that many many in low-control, repetitive jobs have dreams of doing something different like starting a small farm but don't have the resources to make such a move. Iss246 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

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 Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science& 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 until the discussion has finished. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A friendly reminder
Please don't get yourself blocked for edit warring. That will accomplish nothing, and there is no content worth getting blocked. Use the standard dispute resolution process. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Sundayclose, why not join us on the talk page rather than threaten me with a not-so-friendly reminder. Why aren't you taking Graywalls to task for claiming not to know much about IO psychology but coming on gangbusters in reversing a series of my edits? C'est comme s'il était l'inspecteur Javert. We are discussing the matter at hand on the talk page. I think you should join us on the talk page rather than threaten me. Iss246 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you consider a good faith, well intentioned reminder with no ill will from someone who was just trying to help you avoid a block (someone who has actually agreed and cooperated with you in the past constructively, someone who has recognized your very positive contributions to articles related to psychology), to be a threat, I apologize. I may or may not agree or disagree with you, Graywalls, or any editor, but that doesn't mean I can't try to get along. Again, I apologize, and I'll never message you again here. Sundayclose (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at Psychological testing
Hello Iss246. You are risking a block the next time you revert on this article. Other editors have undone your changes about eight times since 18 August, which is a sign that your changes do not have consensus. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, unfortunately a user named Graywalls is trolling me and deleting my edits. How about admonishing him/her. Iss246 (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am required to make an exception to my promise to never message you again because I am required to warn you about edit warring at Occupational health psychology. Please review WP:EW. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Sundayclose, I sent you a personal email based on your WP page. Iss246 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Your recent editing history at Occupational health psychology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; 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; read about 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.'''I had hoped I didn't have to give you an edit warring template. But apparently a more informal warning didn't matter to you. Don't add any more citations to Spector without discussion. I don't want to argue about this. Take all discussion to the talk page. And please don't leave deceptive edit summaries. Your edit did a lot more than change a verb.''' Sundayclose (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Sundayclose, you posted this warning at about the same time as I did two things. I made an anodyne change of a verb in the OHP entry and I discussed a Spector source on the OHP talk page. Iss246 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You started the discussion on the talk page after adding the Spector citation. Simply starting a discussion is not sufficient to add disputed content. Please review WP:BRD, WP:CON, and WP:EW. You also did more than change a verb. But I'm not discussing here. Take it to the OHP talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a little editing today. I added text to the sites devoted to the actors Clark Gable and Loretta Young. I placed a Spector source elsewhere, but in an appropriate spot, on the OHP page, a spot that was not part of the disagreement I have had with Graywalls. And I started a discussion of the Spector source on the OHP talk page. I also sent you an email. Iss246 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, read WP:BRD, WP:CON, and WP:EW. And for the last time, I'm not discussing here. Take all discussion to the OHP talk page. That's my final comment here. Sundayclose (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Sundayclose, as I indicated above, I did take the discussion to the OHP talk page at about the same time you were posting the warning. It was at 19:30 Greenwich time today. Iss246 (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me state a few facts. You added the Spector citation at 14:43. You started the talk page discussion at 15:30. As I have already stated, you should have started the discussion first, then wait for discussion, then only add the citation if there is a consensus. I'm copying all of this to the article talk page. NOW PLEASE, take all discussion to that talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Sundayclose. Sundayclose (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Iss246, you are really, really skating on thin ice here. Edit warring, removing contents from someone's talk page, and refusing to discuss on the OHP talk page. I'm finished arguing with you. One more policy infraction and I'll be taking this to WP:ANI. My final warning. Sundayclose (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * user:Sundayclose. I sent you a private message, a sensitive message. Iss246 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That does not bestow a special privilege on you to refactor someone's talk page. I didn't ask you to email me, and I never gave you any assurances that I would play immature games by discussing in secret what should be discussed on Wikipedia. I used to have some respect because you made good edits. You have squandered that. And in case you missed it: Don't refactor my talk page and I'm not continuing to argue with you here. Sundayclose (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Sundayclose. Thanks a lot for your sensitivity. Iss246 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Hello, I'm Graywalls. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Occupational health psychology that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Special:Diff/1175397334 Graywalls (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Graywalls, you are not very civil, following me around deleting my edits. Your writing fine expressions such as "built on collaboration" and "polite and respectful" make me laugh. You don't collaborate. You delete. I had enough of you. Iss246 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Information orange.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Psychological testing. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Ssundayclose, you're one to talk. Your attacks on me are okay, huh? Iss246 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PHQ-9, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I will make the correction. Iss246 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ku Klux Klan. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * , I will remove the word "awful" from the sentence I wrote about the Ku Klux Klan in order to maintain a formal tone. Iss246 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Occupational Health Science (journal) (November 19)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Xegma was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Occupational_Health_Science_(journal) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xegma&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Occupational_Health_Science_(journal) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Xegma (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal). Thanks! Xegma (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Occupational Health Science (journal) (November 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Occupational_Health_Science_(journal) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoubleGrazing&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Occupational_Health_Science_(journal) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In response to the above, the references are in the style of the American Psychological Association. WP allows editors to use the style of the discipline to which the topic is aligned. Occupational Health Science, although trans-disciplinary, is mostly aligned with the discipline of occupational health psychology and is supported by the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. The APA style of the references is, therefore, satisfactory.

In addition, the complaint about the impact factor is off the mark. To find out the impact of any journal, an editor has to go to the publisher's journal site. That is what I did. That would apply to the journal Occupational Health Psychology or to Psychological Review. I have no reason to believe that Springer would falsify the impact factor. Iss246 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Note
Hello Iss246, I don't know if you're aware, but since your account is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself directly (see WP:AUTOCONFIRM). You are not required to submit to Articles for Creation unless you want to. Your account was created in 2006 and you have 16 thousand edits. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 00:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you @User:WikiOriginal-9. Iss246 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Speedy deletion nomination of Occupational Health Science (journal)


A tag has been placed on Occupational Health Science (journal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris talk! 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@CycloneYoris, regarding Occupational Health Science (journal) I followed the previous debate about the notability and worthiness of the article and profited from that debate. Here is some of what I did. (1) I used many sources that are external to the journal. (2) I sourced the databases where the journal is indexed. (3) I obtained the impact factor, which is higher than the impact of other journals in WP. Tell me what more you want. Perhaps I can add to the entry to make more notable. Iss246 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Occupational Health Science (journal) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occupational Health Science (journal) 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/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 until the discussion has finished. Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi. I changed the article in a number of significant ways given the past debate about the article. I did the following:
 * (1) I used many sources that are external to the journal.
 * (2) I sourced the databases where the journal is indexed. I sourced the indexes themselves rather than use the journal's website in the spirit of minimizing the use of the journal's website and increasing reliance on external sources.
 * (3) I obtained the impact factor, which is higher than the impact of other journals in WP.
 * The journal is more notable given the above. I used the citation style of the American Psychological Association because the article psychology-related.
 * I shared the above information with administrator CycloneYoris yesterday who was going to delete the article. The administrator then changed his mind about slating the article for deletion after I explained the above. Iss246 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Berkson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City College.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Citation templates are good
Hello : I advise against removing citation templates as you did recently (and I reverted) to the reference by Irvin Sam Schonfeld at Fluid and crystallized intelligence and Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Citation templates are very useful for automated maintenance such as updating and indexing by bots. See, e.g., journals cited by Wikipedia. Biogeographist (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Biogeographist. I believe that WP allows editors to use the style of the American Psychological Association for sources in a reference list when making edits to a psychology-related article. I don't mean parenthetical citations. I mean the items in the numbered list of references. I once looked that up. It was years ago. Please tell me if that changed. Iss246 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends on whether the article uses a uniform citation style. If an article already has a uniform citation style, citations should be added in that style. Almost all the citations in Fluid and crystallized intelligence use citation templates, and the majority of the citations in Piaget's theory of cognitive development use citation templates. If you are most comfortable adding citations in plain-text APA style, I would say it is OK to do that (and some WikiGnome could convert the citations later if prudent). But I would advise against  existing citation templates, because removing them destroys the extra functionality that citation templates bestow, as mentioned above. (The text that citation templates generate in the rendered HTML can be pretty close to APA style anyway.) Biogeographist (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Biogeographist. Thank you for the clear explanation. Iss246 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal)
Hello, Iss246. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Occupational Health Science (journal), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Headbomb, do you want to take a look at this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Still a fail of NJOURNALS, ESCI is not SCI, etc... A merge to Society for Occupational Health Psychology would be adequate, after cleanup and depuffing. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In my view @HEADBOMB and @WhatamIdoing, the Wikipedia page for the journal Occupational Health Science should be restored. The impact factor has grown to 3.1. The journal reported 135,000 downloads in 2023. It has a very accomplished editorial board. It is indexed by PsycInfo. Indexing had been a bone of contention before it was indexed by PsycInfo because without such indexing the journal was not sufficiently notable to my critics. But since it has been indexed by the database, my critics have moved on to find other faults with the journal. Iss246 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What I'd like, and what we don't have for ~95% of journals, is reliable sources talking about journals in their field. I'm imagining something like a news story/column (e.g., in The Chronicle of Higher Education) that says things like "Everyone knows the top journals in our field are... but if you're in this niche, then you really want... and a funny thing happened on the way to founding this one journal..."  It's often very difficult for editors to find Independent sources for academic journals.  If every field wrote up what "everyone knows", it would definitely help us, and it would probably help newcomers to the field, too.
 * In the meantime, I suggest merging as much of that as possible into Society for Occupational Health Psychology, so that readers can find the information, even if it's not on a separate page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing, as infuriating as these editors have done to the journal, I took your advice and enhanced the coverage OHS on the SOHP page.

May 8: WikiWednesday Salon with new Executive Director
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Society for Occupational Health Psychology. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. While WP:3RR sets a bright line, it does not say that you're guaranteed your right to continue to restore your contents against consensus indefinitely by waiting out 24 hours each time. Graywalls (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * @Graywalls. What are you the thought police? Iss246 (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2: Hacking Sunday (+preview of June 8 Wiknic)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sat June 8: Governors Island Wiknic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

June 26: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Fri July 19: Wikicurious in NYC, Editing Wikipedia for Beginners
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)