Wikipedia

User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 17

< User talk:ItsZippy
Latest comment: 10 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 26 June 2013


The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mrm7171

Thank you ItsZippy for your help. I wish I could have had a dialogue with Mrm7171 because s/he has a lot of enthusiasm for i/o psychology. If Mrm7171 could pour that enthusiasm into a more constructive path, it would be very helpful to Wikipedia. I completely failed in my several attempts to engage Mrm7171. I was reluctant to report Mrm7171 because I thought perhaps s/he was a college student who developed enthusiasm for the subject matter, and I don't feel comfortable reporting on a student. I kept trying to have a dialogue with Mrm7171, without success.Iss246 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171 revisited

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi ItsZippy, I left a little note here: [1] - DVdm (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention; I've blocked the user for 48 hours now and unprotected the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps that will help — let's hope it will. Perhaps it's good idea to revert this edit, since there already was consensus about that on the talk page. Will do. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You're right - I'd missed that. Thanks. If problems persist after the block expires in 2 days, let me know. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Note that the user seems to continue, but now with slow edits, lowercase edit summaries and talk page fumbling. See edits [2]. I left a 3RR-warning on his talk page, but I don't think that will help. - DVdm (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The edits of Mrm7171

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you DVdm. I would like to discuss edits with Mrm7171 but it is strange that he/she declines to discuss.Iss246 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite indeed. You did your utter best trying to discuss, but this seems not to work. A different approach is clearly called for here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi DVdm and Its Zippy. Please understand that despite my earlier inexperience, I am learning the protocol of Wikipedia community better now. Please refer to my posts on my talk page from earlier today. However despite my efforts, I have had no discussion with iss246. He refuses to discuss my legitimate issues with the entry on OHP on my talk page. I have evidence of this. We may need to get arbitration here as I am afraid ISS246 is going behind my back and accusing me of acting in bad faith etc etc rather than trying to discuss these issues with me which you can see I am open to.


I have a complaint about Mrm7171. He plays a double game. I try to discuss edits with him on his talk page. Then he goes ahead and makes edits without discussing them. And finally writes:

(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology‎; 02:54 . . (+57)‎ . . ‎Mrm7171 (talk | contribs)‎ (Just made a couple of very minor additions. Did not delete or undo anyone elses edits. Please discuss with me on my talk page to come to consensus.Thanks)

(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology‎; 02:51 . . (+9)‎ . . ‎Mrm7171 (talk | contribs)‎ (One word added. No deletion of any other editors work made out of respect. We need to discuss. Please use my talk page. Please don't just remove. Thanks)

(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology‎; 02:50 . . (+25)‎ . . ‎Mrm7171 (talk | contribs)‎ (Please discuss on my talk page iss246 rather than undo my minor edit or engage in edit war. Please don't iss246. It's better to discuss than you delete. thanks)

What nerve!

Meanwhile, he includes text that occupational health psychology is a subfield of i/o psychology when I have labored on his talk page to explain that OHP is not a subfield of i/o psychology just as i/o psychology is not a subfield of social psychology and psychometrics or that health psychology is not a subfield of clinical psychology. I view what he has done as bad faith. This includes his groveling, with purposeful bad grammar, about how he has been picked on on May 26, 2013:

[[Category:{{unblock| Thats cool. I'm still very unclear abvout talk page and feel administrator may have acted a little demeaning. Not sure if new users have more difficulty than experienced users should not act sarcastically or bullying toward new inexperienced users like myself? I feel pretty bullied. Sorry, but just a new inexperienced user. ]]

[[Category:[[Category:{{unblock| That's okay will cop it. and wait for the 48 hourts. Feel pretty bullied and didn't need sarcasm or demeaning me by experienced wikipedia user. Could have treated me with more respect. I'm just not sure how it all works yet. Wondering why kuru was so demeaning, demoralising of new user inexperienced like myself. Didn't need to be put down or finger in my chest so much kuru, just a new user. inexperienced could have been a little more cool about it all though kuru, instead of trting to put me down so badly and disrespect me so badly.....]]

I've been patient with him. I find him full of bad faith. This sing-song of "let's discuss" and then he goes ahead and makes a bold move without sources that OHP is a subfield of i/o psychology. I think he should be barred from Wikipedia for his double-talk.Iss246 (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

REPLY FROM MRM717 (is this how i do this? I am trying my best to understand the editing system. Sorry. Please refer to my talk page and how i am obviously not trying to be involved in an edit war. Hi DVdm and itszippy. Please understand that despite my earlier inexperience, I am learning the protocol of Wikipedia community better now. Please refer to my posts on my talk page from earlier today. However despite my efforts, I have had no discussion with iss246. He refuses to discuss my legitimate issues with the entry on OHP on my talk page. I have evidence of this. We may need to get arbitration here as I am afraid ISS246 is going behind my back and accusing me of acting in bad faith etc etc rather than trying to discuss these issues with me which you can see I am open to.

Rob Ford

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Your decision on 3rr on Rob Ford is odd. The story has been coveraged by international mainstream media, which is unusual for a mayor of Toronto. The text removed did not claim the video was real. The editor who violated 3rr has not even taken the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Could you please reconsider this matter, or if you disagree with me, I will bring the matter to AN. TFD (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime I had begun a discussion thread at BLPN here. TFD (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -TFD (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - replied at AN. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOPPING - the general rule is that the onus is on the person adding contentious claims to a BLP. Your view was correct at the start - but having a person post at multiple venues is contrary to Wikipedia procedre. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

from mrm717 help please and advice.

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi ItsZippy. Please understand that despite my earlier inexperience, I am still learning the protocol of Wikipedia community better now and sincerely wish to be a compliant, valued member of the community. So please bear with me here. Please also refer to my posts on my talk page from earlier today and last few days. However despite my efforts, I have had no discussion with iss246. He refuses to further discuss my legitimate issues with the entry on OHP on my talk page. I have evidence of this. We may need to get arbitration here? do you think? as I am afraid ISS246 is going behind my back and accusing me of acting in bad faith etc etc rather than trying to discuss these issues with me which you can see I am open to. I look forward to your reply and a solution here. It would be appreciated. Thanks 110.143.253.102 (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC) mrm717110.143.253.102 (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mrm, thanks for your message. I'm pleased to see that you're trying to discuss these issues now - that will be much more productive in the end. It can be frustrating when you can't seem to agree with another editor. If you think you've reached a stage where the two of you won't get any further on your own, there are a few things you can do (full details are at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). At this early stage, I'd suggest either getting a third opinion or filing a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard - both of those have volunteers who will be willing to help you come to an agreement over the issue. It will take some time commitment on your part, and you will have to be open and willing to listen to alternative points of view, but it should help you make some progress with this case. I would also encourage you to avoid editing the pages in question while you are having the discussion, even if you think what you are doing should be uncontroversial. In disputes like this it can often derail and resolution process if you continue to edit the page while you are having a discussion. I hope you can reach a good outcome here - let me know if you have any other problems. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ItsZippy. I have spent a lot of time going over the history of the OHP entry. It seems many other editors over many years as a community consensus have tried to oppose ISS246 entries forcing occ health psychology intro the sidebar. This is a very controversial thing to do within the psych profession. It appears agenda driven, not facts driven. I am going to stick to the facts. That will improve the quality oif entries. These editors entries by the way, can be found on the psychology sidebar talk page. Anyway thanks again for your help. I have not made any edits, but slight edits i had made were then blanked out, without discussion. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I am reluctant to get into a discussion where Mrm7171 writes, "No you didn't," and I respond, "Yes I did." It is just a seesaw. Unless my comments were deleted, I have discussed OHP on Mrm7171's talk page. I have shown evidence that OHP is a recognized discipline. Here I spell out some of my criteria for identifying a recognizable subdiscipline within psychology. These criteria include the following: (a) the existence of professional organizations; (b) the existence journals that publish research in the area; (c) recognition from a large governing body in psychology; (d) a body of research (and even practice). For criterion (a) there is ICOH-WOPS, EA-OHP, and SOHP, organizations that are enumerated and briefly described on the OHP page. For criterion (b) there journals dedicated to OHP (W & S, JOHP) and journals that while not dedicated to OHP, publish OHP research (JAP). With regard to criterion (c) APA recognizes OHP and helps underwrite an important biennial conference devoted to OHP. With regard to criterion (d) there is a large and growing body of research in OHP that I don't care to enumerate here but can be viewed looking into journals like JOHP or papers cited on the OHP page. There is a growing number of practitioners in OHP, and presentations at the recent Work, Stress, and Health conference in Los Angeles were devoted to practice. There is a practice-oriented wing of the EA-OHP.

I add the following. Mrm7171 writes that because there have been i/o psychologists who investigated work and health, then OHP must be a subfield of i/o psychology. I pointed out to Mrm7171 that epidemiologists have also studied work and health. By the same reasoning, OHP could be considered a subfield of epidemiology. I can go on with these canards but I will stop here.

I also pointed out the some fields in psychology have emerged out of other fields, and gone on to be legitimate subfields in their own right with journals, organizations, research agendas, and recognition by large governing bodies. Health psychology is an example of a field that emerged out of clinical psychology. Does that mean specialists in clinical psychology should declare war on the emergent subdiscipline of health psychology. No. Of course they shouldn't. This line of reasoning applies to Mrm7171 with this colonial war waged to make OHP a colony of i/o psychology when it clearly isn't.Iss246 (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

ISS246 against consensus

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Itszippy. I have not undone anyone elses edits. However the psychology sidebar inclusion of occupational health psychology being jamnmed into it by iss246 against all other editors consensus not to include it, needs addressing. As i say, have not deleted it. As i want to comply and go through the proper channels. I have invited ISS246 to justify 'why' he has gone against the consensus and jammed it in anyway agasinst everyone elses wishes, over 4 years it seems based on the talk page of the psychology sidebar. What can be done please? within the rules of wikipedia that is? Someone objectively needs to examine this. Should it be arbitration? or some other avenue. Thanks for your help. I need to clearly make the point so i don't get accused of edit warring, that "I will not touch the page until others can see what i am talking about here." Iss246 goes in circles making arguments why he thinks it should be included. But at the risk of repeatring myself here, no other editors with psychology training agree with him. The consensus is to not include it. Look forward to hearing from you, as ISS246 will simply not face facts and discuss this specific issue with me. Not accusing him, but is this the definition of bad faith, that is going against all other wikipedia editors opinion and including it anyway?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry itszippy to again have to make this clear concise point. It is a very important one and has nothing to do with my opinion about OHP subfield or whatever./

Wikipedia is for everyone. When many editors strongly disagree with someone, it is a consensus. ISS246 went against that consensus in the psychology sidebar inclusion of occ health psychology based on many discussions in the talk page.

The psychology sidebar is very important in psychology as ISS246 knows. Having occupational health psychology listed is 'erroneous' based on induistry standards, but more importantly here, all other editor's including now mine. Iss2465 will not answer to what he did by going against consensus. Instead he brings in irrelevant facts about a couple of societies etc. That is not the point. The point is consensus.

We need formal help/intervention here from Wikipedia for someone independent to carefully review the history of the posychology sidebar talk page and other postings and they will clearly see what ISS246 appearfs to be covering up, over 4 or 5 years and make a decision based on consensus of all interested editors with training in psychology it seems. How can we get this done please? Your time is very much appreciatedMrm7171 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Note - I.m.o. the only way to begin to get something done is to start discussing on the article talk page as opposed to on 3 or 4 user talk pages. I have reverted your last edit again, and left a message on your talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
DVdm is right - repeating the same points at each other on different people's talk pages will get nowhere. I urge you both to discuss this issue on the article's talk page - this page here - so that you can keep the discussion in a central place, and to allow other editors to take part in the discussion. Then, as I have said before, if you cannot reach a consensus there, you can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard where there are volunteers to help you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, still learning. No bad faith. Thanks for your advice. Mrm7171 (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In your experience, Itszippy, any other reader, can you advise whether an editor who goes against consensus not to include something, and then does anyway (please again refer to ISS246 entries over 4 years, detailed above)? How are these editors and their 'unwanted entries' handled by the rules/guidelines of Wkipideia please?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether ISS246 has been editing against consensus or not - I don't have the time to look through the history of the dispute and various pages to be able to come to an informed opinion. I will repeat that discussing the issue on the talk page should be your next step and have given you suggestions about what you could do if this fails. Continuing to accuse ISS of editing against consensus (even if you are right) is counter-productive. As I've said, I won't give my opinion on that either way, but from what I've seen, it looks as if ISS wants to discuss the issues with you. I've told you a number of times what I think you should do, I suggest you go and try it, rather than asking me the same questions again. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your CVUA page

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Zippy.. I am going to start CVUA training for one editor. So for that purpose I have copied some stuff form your CVUA page and will possibly copy some more stuff. I hope that is fine.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. I don't do much at the CVUA any more, but you're welcome to take whatever you want from it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi jack,Hows you?,I dont think i need training anymore,so please delete my training page.Thanx.---zeeyanwiki discutez 04:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm good thanks. I'm pleased to hear that you're doing ok with vandalism; I would rather keep the page though, as a record and as an example for others to use. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mrm7171 on talk page

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Hi ItsZippy, in view of this, could you please have a look at user Mrm7171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their disruptive behaviour at Talk:Occupational health psychology? With this edit they left the talk page in an essentially useless state. I undid that edit ([3]), but I'm holding my breath for what's going to happen next, which is why I am reluctant to leave another message on their talk page. Can you please somehow stop this? Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi Itszippy and dvdm. Why not talk to me along the way, instead of just now blanketing, vandalizing, deleting my legitimate work and postings on these important articles? Again? And now on the talk page entries? My comments have been valid, measured and fair as far as my knowledge of Wikipedia. Have not made one entry anywhere but talk page until consensus had been gained or we needed to take the next step of dispute resolution. I have made a lot of sense and I think that has been the issue for a few editors on these couple of articles. There appears to be a lot of 'political' factors involved here, which need to be sorted. My discussion on the talk page has added perspective, and are completely within the spirit of consensus and Wikipedia guiding principles.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So..rather than me revert my own hard work now, through the appropriate talk page, i think that dispute resolution rather than attempts at other editor's attempts at censorship is required. I have made no article changes/additions/deletions for a long while. However I need to know why another editor has just deleted my last legitimate, knowledge based posting on the talk page and some light needs to be shone on these articles. This important question to you Itszippy, is entirely separate to me going ahead now with dispute resolution as recommended. I look forward to your opinion on that question?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As is required of dispute resolution, my understanding is that thorough discussion, on article talk pages, needs to have occurred first, before seeking it, given limited resources. My request will be for the sake of objectivity, and the greater interests of the community, to have articles free from bias, political endeavors, be current, accurate and based strongly on 'group consensus,' on these important articles posted on the www and all other Wikipedia articles. I have not, and will not enter into an edit war or delete other's work, but expect the same respect. This is Wikipedia, not individual's own websites Mrm7171 (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, article talk pages are for discussions about the article. Your addition ([4]) was entirely about user conduct, and it completely ruined the entire talk page. If you do that again, you will likely be blocked for talk page disruption, if not for vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Mrm7171, also do not copy your messages on this talk page to your own talk page, as you did with this action. I did not write that on your talk page, so my comment does not belong there. I removed it. - DVdm (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Mrm7171, copy & pasting tracts of text from a talk page's history is really not very helpful. The history exists so people can see past revisions of a page without having to repost things later - if you want to draw people's attention to a particular edit or edits, you can use diffs. Also, please do no accuse DVdm of vandalising the page - vandalism is when someone edits the page with the intention of being disruptive - DVdm did not intend (nor did he cause) disruption. Further, you and ISS need to drop the conduct debate. Discussion is only beneficial when people discuss the content issues under question - focussing on the conduct of other users, which you can both done at times, is really unhelpful. It looks to me like you both want to improve Wikipedia but have different ideas about how to do that - this is fine, and is the reason we have a process of building consensus. However, this only works if we have the right attitude: a mindset that assumes that the other people is out to get you or trying to harm Wikipedia will inevitably lead to a breakdown in discussion. It might be helpful if you could both re-read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. At this point, I would strongly recommend that the two of you seek support from the dispute resolution noticeboard - they should be able to help you begin to resolve some of the issues you have. This will require that you can both listen to each other, ignore conduct issues, and accept some degree of compromise. If you can't accept this, it might be worth finding another area of Wikipedia to edit. If you need help filing a DRN case let me know and I can do that for you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Mrm7171's cascade of text got me pretty angry.Iss246 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


Iss246, it was simply an objective 'copy and paste, of all the editor's you have fought with and avoided coming to any consensus with since 2008. That was all. If that is not allowed on a talk page, for editors to more easily review, fair enough.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi itszippy. Thanks for your suggesstions above. But as an administrator, I am asking your opinion and direction over a separate matter, where i have a major concern about iss246's personal attacks toward me, over an extended period, and completely false and baseless, ongoing accusations of bad faith toward me, which have not stopped, from iss246. Iss246's most recent angry tirade, he left on the talk page, came after i attempted to provide readers and other editors a straightforward 'transcript' of the last 5 years of discussions, iss246 has had with many editors, and most recently with me, about the applied psychology page. Anyway, that aside, the serious concerns I have relate to the ongoing multiple personal attacks iss246 has made, I've had enough, and I now don't think they will stop, as iss246 has been warned multiple times, and as a very long term active user of Wikipedia, he clearly knows the rules on personal attack, and protocol of Wikipedia, and blatantly ignores it. His comments remain on talk pages. Iss246 also continues to ask about me personally and only want to focus on me instead of us discussing the edits and coming to some compromises, which now need dispute resolution. He has recently made comments and assumptions, on the talk pages, about my country of origin, my gender, my efforts on Wikipedia etc. I have also kept requesting they stop, but iss246 ignores these requests. I am considering disputre resolution now, but what do you suggest regarding this personal abuse and constantly seeking my identity, qualifications, gender etc? What can be done? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy. Sorry, don't mean to bug you for a response. Just need to add a couple of points because I don't want to be attacked any longer but do wish to become a valued member of Wiki as an editor. But i need an administrator to look at iss246's conduct on these matters. I am wondering what Wikipedia's governance says on this matter, when an editor continues this type of conduct unabated? Iss246 has for some reason, enjoyed complete freedom to be allowed to attack me as an editor, and continue to seek my personal identification in numerous ways/occassions. This is very concerning. My point again is that iss246, as a very long term editor, obviously knew the rules very well, and somehow considers the long term editing he does (and enjoys doing) at Wiki, as somehow justifying him being able to abuse the heck out of other editors, like me, without any ramifications from the community and his various abusive posts remaining on Wiki to date? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As an administrator, I cannot unilaterally sanction a user for long-term conduct issues - that would need to be decided by the wider community. If you have a genuine problem with ISS's behaviour, and you have tried talking to him about it yourself, then you may wish to start a thread at WP:ANI. If you are to do this, you must provide solid evidence (using diffs ideally): unsupported accusations will be ignored unless you can back them up. Further, you must remember that your own conduct and the conduct of everyone else involved will be under equal scrutiny. If you really don't think that dispute resolution will work because of conduct issues then ANI might be an option, though I would only recommend that if can really see no alternative. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kantian ethics/archive1

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks- thoroughly decent response. It's clear that your interest is in improving the article, and not just chasing stars- I'll see if I can find some time to have another delve into the literature and work on the article with you a little. (As an aside, I'm pleased to see you already include Tom Regan- he's the Kantian I've spent the most time reading, probably other than Kant himself!) J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you feedback - it's really helpful (I meant to thank you earlier but got distracted). Anything you can do to help would be fantastic. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OHP again

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi ItsZippy. I just noticed on the occ health psych page, a completely false change to the first line was made by psy12, i think as an attempt of trying dragging me into an edit war, while discussion on talk pages is still very much going on. I have made no changes to the occupational health article at all, in weeks, while discussion was going on. Hoping we were getting somewhere? Can we put a short term block on the article page again please? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather leave it unprotected as much as possible - at this point, protecting the article would be pre-emptive, which is something we try to avoid doing. The best way for you to prevent an edit war on the article at this point is to not edit war yourself. If an edit war does begin then I will consider taking preventative action; if you are involved, it will not look good on you. My advice would be to avoid editing the article and try to continue discussion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy. The change I made is not false at all, and I am not trying to drag anyone into an edit war. I was mainly trying to start the entry with a definition. Mrm7171 is objecting to considering OHP a subfield outside of I/O psychology, which is the point of contention. In the last edit, I did not claim that OHP is any kind of area, I merely defined it as being concerned with health, safety, and well-being (a totally innocuous change), and again my edit was removed. I am new to Wiki and this discussion, but from what I see, Mrm7171 is the only person taking the position that OHP is part of I/O. I have engaged him/her in a discussion, but I think it has reached a point of impass. He/she insists OHP is part of I/O, whereas I and others say it is not, and I have provided extensive evidence on that point (e.g., the latest--definitions from textbook writers). It seems counterproductive at this point for Mrm7171 to unilaterally prevent anyone from making any change to the entry until he/she is satisfied, which presumably means we all agree with him/her. I am happy to avoid making changes that address the issue of whether OHP is or is not a part of I/O, but other edits should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The change made by Psyc12 was a valid change. I regret that Mrm7171 undid the change. I would add to the text that Psyc12 wrote by including mention of the influence of epidemiology on OHP. That change is acknowledged indirectly by existing text that acknowledges the influence of the research of Stan Kasl on OHP. Of course, I would source the text I plan to add. I am not going to make the change right now because I want to avoid an edit war with Mrm7171. I will wait a little because I want the dust to clear. It was not right that Mrm7171 reversed Psyc12's edits.Iss246 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I am glad it has been blocked. I have made no changes/edits at all to the article for weeks, to avoid an edit war. Can you ask psyc12 and anyone else to simply put their proposed changes onto the talk page, so editors can discuss any proposed changes to the article before making them. Psyc12 ignored this request three times and fundamentally changed the first lines of the article to try and create an edit war or something? Glad it's been blocked. Can you warn this editor about wikipedia's protocol where editors should propose a change on the talk page before making it? My fair proposals are ignored completely. Please read my proposals anbd discussions if you have time. Thanks for your help.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy. If interested, please refer to my most recent addition to the 'talk page' of occupational health psych article. They provide clarity and the objective facts on these matters for readers and to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. I have not given up, despite some very experienced editors (many years on Wikipedia), with all the editing skills and knowledge of the rules working against me it seems. These are important professional topics in psychology and thus effort needed to be exerted by someone to counter what in my opinion seems to be using Wiki for the wrong reasons (putting it lightly). Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't mediate this dispute for you. I will simply repeat what I've said before - if discussion is not fruitful, as seems to be the case, please seek support at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If anyone is unwilling to do that, it's probably best they step back from editing the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Dookudu

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Then please warn that Murrallli too because he too violated the 3RR. Regards, Raghusri (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I warned you both, but the actions of other editors should have no bearing on your conduct. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Murrallli removed my warning with this edit. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Sir, first of all thank you so much for protecting the article Dookudu and understanding me. If possible, please intimate him to not delete the messages recklessly in his talk page. This is not the first time he did like this. After being warned by an admin like you also, he did the same thing! likewise in the above posted URL by you : this edit. You can also see the Intro of his talk page i.e., quoting himself as "High Blood Pressure Murrallli". So please intimate him about his mistakes. Thank you once again, have a nice day and happy editing. Regards, Raghusri (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Murrallli is within his rights to remove warnings from his talk page. Per our policy, users may remove warnings from their user pages; we can use this as an indication that the warning has been read. I suggest you ignore what's going on at Murrallli's user page - it has no bearing on your own editing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I too know that Policy and Thank you for the suggestion sir. Regards, Raghusri (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ItsZippy/Archive_17&oldid=1168301872"