User talk:Schvan

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roger W. Schvaneveldt (March 5)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggie80&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Hold on Dr. Schvaneveldt; perhaps can be of assistance with this AfC, given their knowledge and their infinite patience. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi: Thanks for reminding me of this with an e-mail! I looked, but I am afraid Drmies has overestimated my knowledge of psychology by a country mile. Here is a question I hope you won't find insulting: have you looked at WP:PROF, the special notability standards for academics? These are intended to be a lower bar than the general notability guideline, since academics are relatively rarely the subject of multiple articles in newspapers and magazines. Can you identify one or more of those criteria that you believe you meet? For example, can you show that your work has been influential in the field, or do you hold a named chair? As you see from the page, any of those would do it. Or can you point to press coverage specifically about you (or a Festschrift?) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Letting you know that I got your e-mail and will be consulting with editors who know their way around impact factors, because I tend to agree that that looks adequate. I'll also have a rummage on JSTOR when I can. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

papers
Hello Roger, please call me 74. I've been working on your list of publications, and rather than dump them into the AfC queue as a humongous comment, I figured I would put them here. Can you please confirm that all of these are peer-reviewed by independent people, and/or published in editorially-checked publications? Danke. Also if you know any that I missed, please add them. By my rough calculation, h-index is 16 as first author, or 31to32 without regard to position in authorship-listing. Later update, the 31or32 is based on google-scholar-dataset, whereas using the less-comprehensive academic-microsoft-dataset gives an h-index of 21or22. &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC) The microsoft list is missing many papers including the 2 most highly cited. The google list is accurate with the exception of one paper (Fowler & Dearhold (sic s/b Dearholt)) which is in the Pathfinder book I edited. &mdash; Schvan (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Your analysis is spot on. I might mention that Dave Meyer and I independently discovered semantic priming which led to our collaborative work.
 * Here is an excerpt from Dave's biography [] which attests to this:
 * Thus, his research moved quickly to further territories of semantic memory, where he established an experimental paradigm involving the lexical-decision task, a procedure that requires participants to judge whether various strings of letters are real words. Here the results revealed that lexical-decision RTs are significantly shorter for words (e.g., "butter") immediately preceded by other associated words (e.g., "bread"). The discovery of such priming opened new windows through which the structure and processing of semantic information can be examined in detail. Concurrently, Roger Schvaneveldt at SUNY Stony Brook also discovered semantic priming in lexical decisions. When he shared notes with Meyer at the 1970 Psychonomic Society meeting, they agreed to co-author an article in the Journal of Experimental Psychology (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971), which strongly influenced subsequent studies of visual word recognition and related cognitive processes. Their collaboration flourished over several years, producing more articles on semantic priming, orthographic and phonemic coding, dual-route retrieval models, and other aspects of word recognition.
 * I added the link to semantic priming, and some other already-in-wikipedia mentions, at the bottom. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In the following list, (PR) means peer reviewed, and (IC) means invited chapter. ((&mdash;Roger))


 * (with meyer) David E. Meyer


 * 1 (PR) Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. In the AfC draft as of 2014-03-09. DE Meyer, RW Schvaneveldt - Journal of experimental psychology, 1971 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 2074 Related articles All 10 versions Cite Save.  #0 at academic.microsoft.com == David E. Meyer is only author listed (the nerve! well... more likely, the database bug! :-)   in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 227-234, 1971
 * 3 (IC) [CITATION] Loci of contextual effects on visual word recognition In the AfC draft as of 2014-03-09. DE Meyer, RW Schvaneveldt, MG Ruddy - Attention and performance V, 1975 Cited by 553 Related articles Cite Save. #3 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Loci of contextual effects on visual word-recognition (Citations: 168)    D. Meyer, R. Schvaneveldt, M. Ruddy    Published in 1975.
 * 5 (PR) Functions of graphemic and phonemic codes in visual word-recognition DE Meyer, RW Schvaneveldt, MG Ruddy - Memory & Cognition, 1974 - Springer Cited by 402 Related articles All 12 versions Cite Save. #4 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Functions of graphemic and phonemic codes in visual word recognition (Citations: 104)    D. E. Meyer, R. W. Schvaneveldt, M. G. Ruddy    Published in 1974.
 * 6 (PR) [PDF] Meaning, memory structure, and mental processes In the AfC draft as of 2014-03-09. DE Meyer, RW Schvaneveldt - Science, 1976 - interlinkinc.net Cited by 283 Related articles All 10 versions Cite Save.  #8_and_#40 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Meaning, memory structure, and mental processes (Citations: 80_or_2)    D. Meyer, R. Schvaneveldt    Journal: Science, vol. 192, no. 4234, pp. 27-33, 1976
 * (4),(PR) 10 Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. RW Schvaneveldt, DE Meyer… - Journal of Experimental …, 1976 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 190 Related articles All 10 versions Cite Save.  #5_and_#17  at academic.microsoft.com ==    Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition (Citations: 93_plus_34_more)    Roger W. Schvaneveldt, David E. Meyer, Curtis A. Becker    Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology-human Perception and Performance - J EXP PSYCHOL-HUM PERCEP PERF, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 243-256, 1976
 * (5),(IC) 11 [CITATION] Retrieval and comparison processes in semantic memory In the AfC draft as of 2014-03-09. RW Schvaneveldt, DE Meyer - … and performance IV, 1973 - Academic Press New York Cited by 163 Related articles Cite Save.  Not found at academic.microsoft.com.


 * (with mcdonald) James E. McDonald(nope...physicist) or James McDonald(not in list) maybe? see also Kenneth R. Paap or Kenneth Paap.
 * James E. Mcdonald was my graduate student. He is not in the list of James McDonalds in wikipedia. ((&mdash;Roger))
 * 4 (PR) An activation–verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect. Paap, Kenneth R.; Newsome, Sandra L.; McDonald, James E.; Schvaneveldt, Roger W. - Psychological …, 1982 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 504 Related articles All 10 versions Cite Save. #2 at academic.microsoft.com ==    An activation–verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect (Citations: 241)    Kenneth R. Paap, Sandra L. Newsome, James E. McDonald, Roger W. Schvaneveldt    Journal: Psychological Review - PSYCHOL REV, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 573-594, 1982
 * (7)(PR), 18 Semantic context and the encoding of words: Evidence for two modes of stimulus analysis. RW Schvaneveldt, JE McDonald - Journal of Experimental …, 1981 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 94 Related articles All 7 versions Cite Save. #10_and_#37 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Semantic context and the encoding of words: Evidence for two modes of stimulus analysis (Citations: 56_or_3)    Roger W. Schvaneveldt, James E. McDonald    Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology-human Perception and Performance - J EXP PSYCHOL-HUM PERCEP PERF , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 673-687, 1981
 * 12 Frequency and pronounceability in visually presented naming and lexical decision tasks. KR Paap, JE McDonald, RW Schvaneveldt, RW Noel - 1987 - doi.apa.org Cited by 139 Related articles All 4 versions Cite Save. #13 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Frequency and pronounceability in visually presented naming and lexical-decision tasks (Citations: 45)    K. R. Paap, J. E. Mcdonald, R. W. Schvaneveldt, R. W. Noel    Published in 1987.
 * 25 A formal interface design methodology based on user knowledge JE McDonald, DW Dearholt, KR Paap, RW Schvaneveldt - ACM SIGCHI …, 1986 - dl.acm.org Cited by 48 Related articles All 2 versions Cite Save. #26 at academic.microsoft.com ==    A formal interface design methodology based on user knowledge (Citations: 7)    James E. McDonald, Donald W. Dearholt, Kenneth R. Paap, Roger W. Schvaneveldt    Journal: ACM Sigchi Bulletin, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 285-290, 1986
 * 21 (IC) The application of user knowledge to interface design JE McDonald, RW Schvaneveldt - Cognitive science and its …, 1988 - books.google.com Cited by 74 Related articles All 2 versions Cite Save More. #20 at academic.microsoft.com ==    The application of user knowledge to interface design (Citations: 22)    J. E. Mcdonald, R. W. Schvaneveldt    Published in 1988.
 * __, __, Using Pathfinder to extract semantic information from text. JE McDonald, TA Plate, RW Schvaneveldt - 1990 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 29 Related articles All 2 versions Cite Save. #23.5 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Using pathfinder to extract semantic information from text (Citations: 12).  J. E. Mcdonald, T. A. Plate.  Published in 1990.


 * as first author.
 * I edited the "Pathfinder" book and was an author or coauthor of several chapters. I was the lead developer of the Pathfinder network Scaling method.  It's citation rate shows the extent to which the method has been used in many studies.    ((&mdash; Roger))


 * (1), 2 [BOOK] Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. In the AfC draft as of 2014-03-09. RW Schvaneveldt - 1990 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 834 Related articles All 5 versions Cite Save More.  #1 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Pathfinder associative networks: studies in knowledge organization (Citations: 262)    Roger Schvaneveldt    Published in 1990.
 * (2), (IC) 7 Network structures in proximity data In the AfC draft as of 2014-03-09. RW Schvaneveldt, FT Durso… - The psychology of …, 1989 - books.google.com Cited by 240 Related articles All 7 versions Cite Save.  #9_and_#35 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Network Structures in Proximity Data (Citations: 75_or_3)    Roger W. Schvaneveldt, F. T. Durso, D. W. Dearholt    Journal: Psychology of Learning and Motivation - PSYCH LEARN MOTIV-ADV RES TH, vol. 24, pp. 249-284, 1989.  (or 1980? prolly typo)
 * (3), (PR) 8 Measuring the structure of expertise In the AfC draft as of 2014-03-09. RW Schvaneveldt, FT Durso, TE Goldsmith… - International journal of …, 1985 - Elsevier Cited by 240 Related articles All 8 versions Cite Save More. #6 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Measuring the Structure of Expertise (Citations: 81)    Roger W. Schvaneveldt, Francis T. Durso, Timothy E. Goldsmith, Timothy J. Breen, Nancy M. Cooke, Richard G. Tucker, Joseph C. De Maio    Journal: International Journal of Human-computer Studies / International Journal of Man-machine Studies - IJMMS, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 699-728, 1985
 * (6), (PR) 16 Attention and probabilistic sequence learning RW Schvaneveldt, RL Gomez - Psychological Research, 1998 - Springer Cited by 102 Related articles All 15 versions Cite Save. #12 at academic.microsoft.com == Attention and probabilistic sequence learning (Citations: 49)    Roger W. Schvaneveldt, Rebecca L. Gomez.      Journal: Psychological Research-psychologische Forschung - PSYCHOL RES-PSYCHOL FORSCH, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 175-190, 1998
 * (8), (PR) 19 The effect of semantic context on children's word recognition R Schvaneveldt, BP Ackerman, T Semlear - Child Development, 1977 - JSTOR Cited by 91 Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save. #18 at academic.microsoft.com ==    The Effect of Semantic Context on Children's Word Recognition (Citations: 29)    Roger Schvaneveldt, Brian P. Ackerman, Teddy Semlear    Journal: Child Development - CHILD DEVELOP, vol. 48, no. 2, 1977
 * (9), (PR) 22 [HTML] Graph theoretic foundations of pathfinder networks RW Schvaneveldt, DW Dearholt, FT Durso - Computers & mathematics with …, 1988 - Elsevier Cited by 69 Related articles All 7 versions Cite Save. #21 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Graph theoretic foundations of pathfinder networks (Citations: 21)    R Schvaneveldt    Journal: Computers & Mathematics With Applications - COMPUT MATH APPL, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 337-345, 1988
 * (10), 23 [CITATION] PATHFINDER, Scaling with Network Structures RW Schvaneveldt, FT Durso, DW Dearholt - 1985 - Computing Research Laboratory, … Cited by 58 Related articles Cite Save More. #22 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Pathfinder: scaling with network structures (Citations: 16)    R. W. Schvaneveldt, D. W. Dearholt    Published in 1985.
 * (11), (PR) 26 Sequential effects in choice reaction time. RW Schvaneveldt, WG Chase - Journal of Experimental …, 1969 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 45 Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save. #15.5 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Sequential effects in choice reaction time (Citations: 38)   Roger W. Schvaneveldt, William G. Chase   Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 1969
 * (12), (PR) 28 Effects of complexity in simultaneous reaction time tasks. RW Schvaneveldt - Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 36 Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save. #23.7 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Effects of complexity in simultaneous reaction time tasks (Citations: 12).  Roger W. Schvaneveldt.  Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 289-296, 1969
 * (13), (PR) 29 Priority and organization of information accessed by pilots in various phases of flight RW Schvaneveldt, DB Beringer… - … International Journal of …, 2001 - Taylor & Francis Cited by 34 Related articles All 5 versions Cite Save. #27 at academic.microsoft.com == Priority and organization of information accessed by pilots in various phases of flight (Citations: 6).    Roger Schvaneveldt, Dennis Beringer, John Lamonica.    Journal: International Journal of Aviation Psychology - INT J AVIAT PSYCHOL, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 253-280, 2001
 * (14), (PR) 30 Semantic distance effects in categorization tasks. RW Schvaneveldt, FT Durso… - Journal of Experimental …, 1982 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 34 Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save. #24 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Semantic distance effects in categorization tasks (Citations: 9)    Roger W. Schvaneveldt, Francis T. Durso, Basabi R. Mukherji    Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology-learning Memory and Cognition - J EXP PSYCHOL-LEARN MEM COGN, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-15, 1982
 * (15), 31 [CITATION] Generalized semantic networks RW Schvaneveldt, FT Durso - BULLETIN OF …, 1981 - PSYCHONOMIC SOC INC 1710 … Cited by 34 Related articles Cite Save. Not found at academic.microsoft.com.
 * (16),(PR) xx Modeling mental workload RW Schvaneveldt, GB Reid, RL Gomez, S Rice - 1997 - DTIC Document Cited by 24 Related articles All 6 versions Cite Save More.  #28 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Modeling Mental Workload (Citations: 6)    Roger W. Schvaneveldt


 * others, not sorted specifically yet
 * 9 (PR) Semantic-context effects on word recognition: Influence of varying the proportion of items presented in an appropriate context JR Tweedy, RH Lapinski, RW Schvaneveldt - Memory & Cognition, 1977 - Springer Cited by 204 Related articles All 6 versions Cite Save. #7 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Semantic-context effects on word recognition: Influence of varying the proportion of items presented in an appropriate context (Citations: 81)    J. R. Tweedy, R. H. Lapinski, R. W. Schvaneveldt    Published in 1977.
 * 13 (PR) Recall and measures of memory organization. …, FT Durso, RW Schvaneveldt - Journal of Experimental …, 1986 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 133 Related articles All 7 versions Cite Save. #14_and_#34 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Recall and measures of memory organization (Citations: 41_or_4)    Nancy M. Cooke, Francis T. Durso, Roger W. Schvaneveldt    Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology-learning Memory and Cognition - J EXP PSYCHOL-LEARN MEM COGN, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 538-549, 1986
 * 14 (PR) What is learned from artificial grammars? Transfer tests of simple association. RL Gomez, RW Schvaneveldt - Journal of Experimental Psychology …, 1994 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 127 Related articles All 8 versions Cite Save. #11 at academic.microsoft.com == (Citations: 50)    Rebecca L. Gomez, Roger W. Schvaneveldt.    Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology-learning Memory and Cognition, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 396-410, 1994
 * 15 Properties of Pathfinder networks. DW Dearholt, RW Schvaneveldt - 1990 - psycnet.apa.org Cited by 124 Related articles All 2 versions Cite Save
 * 17 (PR) Effects of computer programming experience on network representations of abstract programming concepts NJ Cooke, RW Schvaneveldt - International Journal of Man-Machine …, 1988 - Elsevier Cited by 94 Related articles All 9 versions Cite Save. #19_and_#36 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Effects of Computer Programming Experience on Network Representations of Abstract Programming Concepts (Citations: 27_or_3)    Nancy J. Cooke, Roger W. Schvaneveldt    Journal: International Journal of Human-computer Studies / International Journal of Man-machine Studies - IJMMS, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 407-427, 1988 (or 1987?)
 * 20 (PR) The basis of transfer in artificial grammar learning RL Gomez, L Gerken, RW Schvaneveldt - Memory & Cognition, 2000 - Springer Cited by 78 Related articles All 8 versions Cite Save. #15 at academic.microsoft.com == The basis of transfer in artificial grammar learning (Citations: 38).    Rebecca L. Gomez, Louann Gerken, Roger W. Schvaneveldt.      Journal: Memory & Cognition - MEM COGNITION, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 253-263, 2000
 * 24 (PR) [HTML] Reflective Random Indexing and indirect inference: A scalable method for discovery of implicit connections In the AfC draft as of 2014-03-09. T Cohen, R Schvaneveldt, D Widdows - Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 2010 - Elsevier Cited by 58 Related articles All 8 versions Cite Save.  #29 at academic.microsoft.com == Reflective Random Indexing and indirect inference: A scalable method for discovery of implicit connections (Citations: 5).    Trevor Cohen, Roger W. Schvaneveldt, Dominic Widdows.      Journal: Journal of Biomedical Informatics - JBI, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 240-256, 2010
 * 27 (PR) Testing morphological productivity M Aronoff, R Schvaneveldt - Annals of the New York Academy …, 1978 - Wiley Online Library Cited by 40 Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save More. #30 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Testing Morphological Productivity (Citations: 5)    Mark Aronoff, Roger Schvaneveldt    Journal: Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences - ANN N Y ACAD SCI, vol. 318, no. 1 Papers i, pp. 106-114, 1978


 * also listed at msft
 * Cited by 168 at google, but they only list the first two authors (Durso & Gronlund) for the 1999 edition. Maybe msft has another year, or maybe one or the other has a bug?  #16 at academic.microsoft.com == Situation Awareness (Citations: 37)      Francis T. Durso, Scott D. Gronlund, R. Nickerson, R. Schvaneveldt, S. Dumais, M. Chi, S. Lindsay.
 * (PR) Cited by 24 at google. #23 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Programmer-nonprogrammer differences in specifying procedures to people and computers (Citations: 12)    Lisa A. Onorato, Roger W. Schvaneveldt    Journal: Journal of Systems and Software - JSS, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 357-369, 1987
 * (PR) Cited by 15 at google. #25 at academic.microsoft.com == Assessing Beliefs about ’Environmental Illness/Multiple Chemical Sensitivity’ (Citations: 7).    Rebecca L. Gomez, Roger W. Schvaneveldt, Herman Staudenmayer.    Journal: Journal of Health Psychology - J HEALTH PSYCHOL, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 107-123, 1996
 * (PR) Cited by 23 at google. #31 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Is consistent mapping necessary for high-speed search? (Citations: 4)    Francis T. Durso, Nancy M. Cooke, Timothy J. Breen, Roger W. Schvaneveldt    Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology-learning Memory and Cognition - J EXP PSYCHOL-LEARN MEM COGN, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 223-229, 1987
 * (PR) Cited by 15 at google. #32 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Classification of empirically derived prototypes as a function of category experience (Citations: 4)    Timothy J. Breen, Roger W. Schvaneveldt    Journal: Memory & Cognition - MEM COGNITION, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 313-320, 1986
 * Cited by 14 at google. #33 at academic.microsoft.com ==    Pathfinder: Networks from Proximity Data (Citations: 4)    R. W. Schvaneveldt, F. T Durso, D. W. Dearholt    Published in 1987.


 * other work, which has fewer cites of course, and thus might not yet belong in wikipedia, unless the cites/year metric is especially high.


 * In the AfC draft as of 2014-03-09. Schvaneveldt, R.W.; Cohen, T.A. (2010), "Abductive reasoning and similarity: Some computational tools", in Ifenthaler, D.; Pirnay-Dummer, P.; Seel, N.M., Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge, New York: Springer
 * In the AfC draft as of 2014-03-09. Schvaneveldt, R.W.; Cohen, T.A.; Whitfield, G.K. (2013), "Paths to discovery", in Staszewski, J., Expertise and skill acquisition: The impact of William G. Chase, New York: Psychology Press


 * other articles with mentions, besides David E. Meyer and Pathfinder network.
 * Lexical decision task, see #(4), #10 from 1976, and also #12 from 1987.
 * Word superiority effect, see #4 from 1982
 * Random indexing, with Cohen 2009
 * Lyn Yvonne Abramson, with Durso & Nickerson
 * Anthony Marcel, with Meyer
 * Priming_(psychology), with Meyer
 * Indirect tests of memory, with Meyer
 * Implicit stereotype, with Meyer 1971 (Facilitation paper)

Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia Roger, it is appreciated. Sorry we are such a mess at the moment. ;-)   You're welcome to stick around and help; if you know anything about organizational/industrial psych, there is a content-dispute you might be able to help me with, in fact....  But see WP:REQUIRED, this is totally optional.  See you around the 'pedia, I expect your BLP article will be mainspaced soon (but the bureaucracy sometimes takes longer than I'd wish). &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated with microsoft's cite-counts. These are uniformly lower, because msft doesn't spy as well as WP:GOOG.  Roger, were you a co-author of Situation Awareness (1999) with F.Durso + S.Gronlund?  Microsoft says yea, Google says nay.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not a coauthor. The confusion may arise because I was a co-editor on the book this chapter appeared in.  Schvan (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

procedural stuff
So, as you are prolly figuring out, wikipedia is a bit of a bear, nowadays. We are having trouble with editor-count being too low (the ratio of active editors to active readers is out of whack &mdash; and has been for several years now). There are a lot of editors who don't think academic work is WP:NOTEWORTHY, because they misunderstand the nature of peer-review... and think, if it says "Roger" on it at the top, therefore it cannot count as 'independent' ... which is, of course, totaly wrong-headed. :-)   Furthermore, there is a particular bias against academic biographical pages, especially when the person in question makes the page.  So you have a couple strikes against you.  I bring these up, not to discourage you (far from it), but to explain why silly things like the double-declines happen.  Wikipedia is a bit of a jungle, or a wild-west environment, at the moment; people shoot from the hip, in other words.

That said, to a neutral observer, that has some grok of peer-review and editorial-review as being independent, you are waaaaay beyond achieving wikiNotability. As an aside, I learned the other day that the French wikipedia calls it "notoriety" ... now, I'm not sure, whether the French folks have the same connotations for that word which spring to mind when I hear it. In any case: please consider yourself wikiNotorious, in my book. ;-)   That doesn't mean that our work here is done.  The article as it stands is ready to be put into mainspace, methinks, though it could use some tweaks.  It is not a great article; just a couple brief paragraphs of chronology, and then a list of papers.  That is fine, though.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be about achieving perfection the first time.

How is your level of gumption, at the moment? Are you in a hurry to get into mainspace? Or are you happy for the wheels of wikiJustice to grind slowly along? They do grind slow, but they tend to grind fair. There are ways of skipping over steps, although usually they involve getting caught in a different web of bureaucracy. Yngvadottir recommends that we let the AfC process wind along, which might take a couple days, but depending on load could take a couple weeks.

The main alternative is to leave the AfC queue, and go straight into mainspace; that will often result in the new article getting immediately "nominated for deletion" (not for any reason... more as a matter of discouraging the bypass of AfC... sigh). At the AfD page, there would be further discussion of h-index, cite count, whether the reviewers were really independent, and other such nitty-gritty stuff. Depending on who shows up for such discussions, and especially, on which administrator 'closes' the discussion at the end, there is a risk that even a wikiNotable topic can be temporarily deleted. Plenty of folks don't see notability, unless it has been on teevee, sadly enough. And although we have written policy, and tons of guidelines, the policy-backed arguments only win about 85% of the time. In other words, there is about a 15% chance that we would have to start back at the AfC queue again, if we try to take the shortcut. I expect that we'd get the article created, no matter which way is more appealing to you, the shortcut (which might turn into a "longcut" if our luck does not hold), or the usual way (which with luck might only take a couple more days). Thoughts on this? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

content-dispute in industrial/organizational psychology
Rumour has it you might be willing to peek at this difficulty, as an outsider of the subfield, but one with expertise in the overall field. Thanks much. Note, however, that I'm not Yngvadottir, I'm just 74. :-)   Best way to communicate with me, is via talkpages.  Mine is here:  User_talk:74.192.84.101, click new section, and I will see the "orange bar of doom" whenever I'm reading and/or editing wikipedia.  Note that I'm having computer-operating-system-changeover difficulties at the moment, so my attention may not be prompt.

Before I explain what the content-dispute is about, I will note that this is prolly not a simple effort. In other words, it is not really a "quick question" sort of thing, that you can glance at, and then call it good. There are some other editors, one of whom is some kind of professor of psychology (not sure where or whom). The back-and-forth has ranged across a bunch of different articles, and has led to requests for help more than once. I noticed it on the talkpage of User_talk:Whatamidoing, when I was discussing something unrelated with her. Drmies, who is an English prof, also has had some unhappy editors show up at their talkpage, about this content-dispute.

Point being, I again point at WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. If you don't feel like helping mediate these folks into some kind of useful workable acceptable-to-all way of writing the articles under dispute, that is totally fine. If, on the other hand, you feel like doing a bit of work, but don't have a million hours to spare, then that is totally fine, also. Just dive in, do what you feel happy doing, and if it turns out to be too much work / hassle / whatever, just quit doing it, and do something more enjoyable to improve wikipedia. Make sense?

Over here is where I can point you; this is the place where I made some comments, on one particular article-pair, which embodies one particular facet of the overall dispute. I've not delved any deeper, than just that bit. (But I remembered the issue, in case I ran across somebody that might want to... named Roger, perhaps. :-)

User_talk:Whatamidoing. The basic parties to the content-dispute are Iss246 and Mrm7171 (with Psyc12 also significantly WP:INVOLVED). They both seem like good editors, assets to wikipedia, but they don't get along very well at all; the interaction problems might be more personal, or they could be about the content-dispute. I have no opinion, and no hints to give; I've interacted with Mrm briefly, and they seemed decent enough, but that is all I know. My hunch is that the base of the trouble is not personalities, nor behaviors, nor even WP:The Truth about some content issue... most likely, the folks involved just fail to understand some subtle point of wikipedia policy. The usual culprit is WP:NPOV, but as you have found with your own biography-page, the true nature of WP:RS can also be tricksy to grok for everybody. Anyhoo, I don't expect you to memorize the WP:PG, if you're willing to help, in any capacity whatsoever, that will be appreciated. I can try and explain the policies, if that is the root cause of the trouble. You can help translate the I/O psych jargon, when I flounder. Here are the articles that seem to be where the dispute(s) have been happening:


 * severe: Occupational health psychology, Industrial and organizational psychology, Health psychology,
 * large:  Work & Stress, Occupational stress, European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology, Occupational safety and health,
 * 2-way:  Society for Occupational Health Psychology, Template:Psychology sidebar, Applied psychology, NIOSH Education and Research Centers,


 * others: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
 * others: Stress management, Stress (psychological),
 * others: Workplace aggression, Workplace violence, Workplace bullying, Workplace conflict, Workplace harassment,
 * others: Personnel psychology, Employment testing, Absenteeism, Workplace wellness, Work–life balance,
 * maybe:  Recruitment, Job Design, Job analysis, Employee assistance program, Human resource consulting,
 * maybe:  Human factors and ergonomics (in aviation), Applied psychology, Media psychology, Forensic psychology,
 * maybe:  Biofeedback, International Commission on Occupational Health, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, Occupational Medicine (journal),

This is a reasonably hot potato. Prior to six months ago, I would have called this a VERY hot potato, but since then I've learned about islands in Asia with political battlegrounds, and professors that write books about telepathy. (Those are warzones, as opposed to hot potatoes.) Anyhoo, since you kindly offered to consider helping out here, I give you the full deal. People that get into the group need to 1) stay WP:NICE at all costs, 2) keep policies firmly in the forefront, 3) concentrate on the content, not on the contributors. The editors involved are unable to do that, at the moment, and their difficulties have resulted in a bunch of accusations flying around, see WP:SOCKPUPPET and also WP:MEATPUPPET.  My goal is very simple:  I want to improve wikipedia, by ending the battle, in a way that all parties are happy with.  If somebody doesn't step in and do that, reasonably soon, instead the battlefield will end with the banhammer on one or more of the parties from one or more of the factions.

Thanks for considering this important work; no hard feelings whatsoever if you would rather pass on this one. Plenty of other places on wikipedia that need work, after all. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Roger W. Schvaneveldt was accepted
 Roger W. Schvaneveldt, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Drmies (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.


 * Congratulations, Roger. :-)    &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, just a fast note adding my congratulations - and thank you for the article! I'm sorry it's all so confusing; I am indeed a different person from 74, and I'm glad you don't mind my having finally just wrestled the article into a form where it would be more rapidly accepted. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

74's belated advice on WT:Articles for creation/Roger W. Schvaneveldt, and points south
(( wrote this reply before I realized the article was accepted. ))

(( here was your set of questions:   ))


 * Hello again Roger. Minor note:  it helps to leave a wikilink, so the person you contact can just click... see what I did to your section-title?  Important note:  I'm not the same person as Yngvadottir.  :-)     They are another editor-slash-human.  Sometimes, people will have multiple accounts here, such as DangerousPanda which is a regular username owned by a specific human, and that same specific human also edits as EatsShootsAndLeaves, which is a username that has administrator-permissions.  This kind of "multiple personality syndrome" is permitted, with care, see WP:MULTIPLE.  However, contrast with WP:PUPPET, which means most people do not edit as usernames and then edit later as anons (aka without logging in... which means that the numeric computer-address is shown instead of a username).  That happens by accident, sometimes, if a person forgets to login to their username.  For myself, 74 is just my jersey number, which I use *instead* of logging in.  This is philosophical; the reason that usernames aren't required, is because " anyone can edit".&trade;  See also  the fifth pillar.  Clear as mud?  :-)
 * So in any case, I heartily accept your thanks for the edits Yngvadottir made to the article, on Yngvadottir's behalf. You are surely welcome! ;-)    They are a good editor, you can  observe a lot by watching how Yngvadottir works.  You can leave them a message on their talkpage, which is over here, if you like:  User_talk:Yngvadottir.  While you are there, look in the sidebar on the left, and click 'User Contributions' to browse the articles that Yngvadottir has messed with recently.  If you visit the article about you (or any article for that matter), and then click on the 'View History' button at the top righthand corner, you can see who made what changes, and when.  You wont find 74 in the edit-history of the article about Roger, but you will notice 74 in the edit-history of the talkpage of User:Schvan.
 * Since you are not in a hurry, we can wait for more reviewers to appear; never hurts to follow protocol, if time permits. WP:DEADLINE applies; contrast with WP:TIAD.  Please, click the 'submit' button again, as you have done in the past, and when they arrive, we shall see what the next reviewer says.  You are free to click submit now, and then continue fixing it up while we wait for a reviewer to have a moment; I recommend that way, for the sake of efficiency, as long as you aren't planning dramatic changes.  Alternatively, if you wish you can fix first, and submit later; but don't be worried about the declines, they are just indicative of "not yet" messages.  In my book, the article is ready for mainspace right now, but some AfC reviewers are tougher than others (or more new at the work).
 * As for the link to google-scholar, it was removed, because wikipedia doesn't link to google scholar, generally speaking. This is part of an old policy of not linking to search engines, as a general principle.  (The specific policy-shortcut for that stance escapes me at the moment; maybe Yngvadottir or Drmies remember it, if you care.)  Instead, the "correct" way to handle such things is to put a link to your own website in the External Links section of the article, or maybe under the Further Reading section.  Yngvadottir found such a page, and was going to add it, but they might have wanted to ask you first if that was that correct URL to use.  I also expect that we need to expand your selected publications list, to cover the top 20 papers rather than the top 10.  We might yoink some of the newest ones, since the readership can always click the "for more see $URL" link to your page.  Let me know if you have questions or concerns; I'm happy to teach you the ropes, as best I can.  Thanks for improving wikipedia; see additional info below. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

what to do with an extremely positive WP:NOTEWORTHY mention

 * As for the additional cites that describe the 1971 paper in glowing terms, it is not necessary to add them, methinks. Maybe later.  It won't help prove WP:N, which is what we need right now.  More generally, though, Wikipedia is intended to be neutral, so there are some specific tricks that we use to get there.  Trick number one, is we say right up front:  WP:5P.  First on the list is that we are an encyclopedia; thus, we don't want any spam, or even, anything that could remotely be conceivably interpreted as promotional; we want just the facts, in a bland neutral WP:TONE.  In this case, it turns out to be a fact that quite a few places have called the 1971 paper "seminal" quote unquote.  Prolly because it is such a paper.  :-)    Does that mean we should say in the article, using wikipedia's voice, something like this:  "Roger was the co-author of the seminal 1971 paper..." ?  Almost certainly not, because of WP:NOTPROMOTION, which is part of pillar number one.  Even if we have a source for the non-neutral adjective.  But there is more:  pillar two.
 * On the same specific sentence-topic, we have pillar two, which is WP:NPOV. Stay neutral.  Just the facts.  There are two aspects here, which matter.  First, what does it mean to stay neutral?  It very specifically means:  reflect what the wikiReliable Sources say.  Which is good, right?  Because some of the sources say "seminal".  Now, on the other hand, just because a source says something, doesn't make it true.  We want it to be wikiReliable, aka WP:RS.  Books, newspapers, teevee, peer-reviewed journals, professional radio, government publications, that sort of thing.  Still, imagine the newspapers, during an election year; the hit-pieces tend not to be very neutral in tone!  So wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the reliable sources say, but we're also supposed to stay neutral:  in tone, in conclusions, and so on.  There are probably some critics of the 1971 paper, especially early on, right?  They might not say it was an EVIL PAPER that must be destroyed (though newspaper pieces on politicians sometimes do :-) but probably not all the sources that have discussed that paper called it seminal.  Wikipedia stays neutral, by relying on what the sources say, and by attributing non-neutral statements.  "According to $expert, the 1971 paper was a seminal event...[3]"  and then we have in the footnotes ref#3 which is a WP:RS written by $expert and contains "seminal event".
 * Last but not least, there is the question of WP:COI. Because you are the subject of the page, and the co-author of the paper, it is not the best idea for you to personally add that phrase into the article.  (Right now the article is in the AfC queue, which is a talkpage technically speaking, and therefore it is perfectly fine for you to add anything you wish, directly to the article.  But once the article is in mainspace, that will become something you should avoid.  Make sense?)  My point is, that even though you are free to add the money-quote which says the paper was "seminal" to the article, you should not do it yourself.  Instead, just as you did, as somebody who is totally unrelated to you, your employer, your family, your past employers, and ideally to the field of psychology, to make the call.
 * Usually, the best place for such requests is on the article-talkpage. (In the AfC queue, there *is* not article-talkpage, annoyingly enough.)  You are also free to ask on user-talk pages, or at WP:COIN which is a noticeboard for such requests, or at the WP:TEAHOUSE which is a general help-me-out place... they might send you to the #wikipedia-en-help channel on WP:IRC chat.  There is also a specific mechanism, see WP:ERQ for how to make requests via article-talkpages that somebody will eventually drop in to help with.  No worries if you don't understand all this garbage now; I mentioned all these options, so you can refer back to them later.  Anyhoo, since you are the person who is the subject of the article, you should be wary of positive claims.  Wikipedia is extremely tough on maintaining pillar two WP:NPOV, and as a top-ten website is spammed to the gills, so there are a lot of wikipedians that are very anxious about promotional language.
 * That doesn't mean you have to hide your light under a bushel, as the old saying goes, it just means tread carefully. If you have 100% of the WP:RS checked, all of them calling the paper "seminal" / "outstanding" / "bloody genius" / etc, then you still have to go through the dance of requesting some other editor eyeball the changes first.  Kind of annoying, but easy when you get the hang of collaborative editing.  I will give you more concrete details on how to follow the bright line rule, when we get your article into mainspace.  If you feel stuck or unhappy at any point, please feel free to hit the WP:TEAHOUSE, or to bother myself or Yngvadottir or Drmies or any other helpful-looking person, and we'll do our best to get you unstuck.
 * Or we might tell you to try somebody else. :-)    WP:REQUIRED applies, as always.  Speaking of which, no problem that you are wanting to avoid the hot potato.  Having now looked into it deeper myself, it seems to be a very long-running dispute indeed.  I may wade in, anyhoo.  I'll let you know if I lose a couple layers of skin to the steam-burns.  ;-)   &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

next steps
Okay, so we have made it to mainspace. Somebody might nominate you for deletion, if they don't understand WP:PRIMARY and/or the (PR)/(IC) list. No worries, if so. Have you learned how to use your WP:WATCHLIST? Add the article-page Roger W. Schvaneveldt, and also Talk:Roger W. Schvaneveldt, to the page. Since you are encumbered by WP:COI when it comes to that article (an inherent wikiCOI... just they same as if there was an article about your grandmother's cooking... Best Cook Evah :-)  it is best for you to suggest changes, rather than directly editing mainspace yourself. Make sense? Here is the dance:


 * 1)  if you'd like to see a change, and have the *least* worry it might be considered controversial, suggest it at Talk:Roger W. Schvaneveldt
 * 2)  be as specific as possible.  Write something like "I suggest changing '$x' to instead say '$y' with the contents of $y already properly formatted, as best you can, and cited to at least one WP:RS which is obviously fully supportive of your requested change
 * 3)  wait 3 days, to see if anybody objects
 * 4)  feel free to use WP:ERQ, or visit WP:TEAHOUSE, if you think it will help speed things up; you can also ask on user-talkpages, mine is always open, or try User_talk:Ahnoneemoos, they have a clear grasp of policy, and are helpful
 * 5)  if nobody helps you, but nobody objects, before the 72 hours is up, go ahead and make the edit yourself, noting in your edit-summary you have WP:COI w.r.t. the article in question
 * 6)  just before editing mainspace (or just after if you forget), leave a reply to your own talkpage-message, noting that you went ahead and made the edit yourself

This sort of thing will help keep your nose clean, if there is ever WP:AfD, or some kind of content-dispute. Now, if somebody comes to your page are vandalizes it, deleting a bunch of Reliably-Sourced sentences, or inserting "nyah nyah nyah" into your page, feel free to fix it yourself. See WP:BLP, and also WP:BLPTALK. You can also hit the WP:TEAHOUSE, or the WP:IRC channels like #wikipedia-en-help, if the problem is not TOO severe. Note that vandalism is very specifically about nonsense-stuff and/or mass-deletion of sourced material. Check the edit-history, and check the editor's user-talkpage... maybe they had a good reason, or at least, thought they did, for their action.

In such cases, where you disagree, but the problem is not vandalism, the article talkpage is the place to go. You can always ask other editors you already know for help, or use WP:3O, or similar mechanisms, if disagreement seems strong enough that there is no obvious way to correct. At all times, no matter how the other party acts, do your best to stay calm, stick to wikiPolicy, be excruciatingly WP:NICE, and assume good faith. That's not just good advice, it's the law. ;-)

All this kinda-sorta make sense? Go ahead an put an edit-suggestion on the article-talkpage about the "seminal" quotes, and I'll have a peek with you. Also, other folks will be showing up, to add categories and suchlike. I'll put some see-also stuff into the article; later, maybe we can incorporate it into prose. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

talkpage tricks
There are a few archive-scripts, which will migrate old talkpage-conversations away for you. It is also possible to manually archive, at your leisure, conversations you are finished with.

The simplest way to "archive" old talkpage stuff is simply to delete it... you can always see the old stuff, under the 'View History' button for your talkpage. At the moment, there are some things that you might wish to zap: the bulky AfC notices, which we are now finished with, and some of my own bulky commentary. :-)   Feel free to declutter your talkpage as you see fit, or leave it as-is, should you prefer.  I can show you the archive-boht-tricks, if you want something more complex.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Schvan. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see );
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see );
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)