User talk:Mrm7171: Difference between revisions
→Occupational Health Psychology: Reasons show up in the edit page but not on my screen; perhaps they show up other editors' screens. |
They don't show show up because you had a opening <ref> without a closing </ref> |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
1. The opening sentence of the paragraph already indicates that OHP was born out of the confluence of i/o Ψ, health Ψ, and occupational health. The debt to i/o has already been acknowledged. Here is the opening sentence: |
1. The opening sentence of the paragraph already indicates that OHP was born out of the confluence of i/o Ψ, health Ψ, and occupational health. The debt to i/o has already been acknowledged. Here is the opening sentence: |
||
The opening sentence of the paragraph reads as follows: "''Occupational health psychology''' (OHP) emerged out of two distinct applied disciplines within psychology, [[health psychology]] and [[Industrial and organizational psychology|industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology]], as well as [[occupational health]] <ref name="Everly 1986">Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology." |
The opening sentence of the paragraph reads as follows: "''Occupational health psychology''' (OHP) emerged out of two distinct applied disciplines within psychology, [[health psychology]] and [[Industrial and organizational psychology|industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology]], as well as [[occupational health]] <ref name="Everly 1986">Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology."</ref> |
||
{{reflist}} |
|||
2. Your addition makes it seem as if OHP is a narrow subfield of i/o Ψ when it is not. Health Ψ was born out of clinical Ψ, but health Ψ is not a subfield of clinical Ψ. I/o Ψ was born out of social Ψ and psychometrics; however i/o Ψ is not a subfield of social Ψ and psychometrics. |
2. Your addition makes it seem as if OHP is a narrow subfield of i/o Ψ when it is not. Health Ψ was born out of clinical Ψ, but health Ψ is not a subfield of clinical Ψ. I/o Ψ was born out of social Ψ and psychometrics; however i/o Ψ is not a subfield of social Ψ and psychometrics. |
||
| Line 58: | Line 59: | ||
I know you made a second change while I was writing this, I am going to leave this comment here. |
I know you made a second change while I was writing this, I am going to leave this comment here. |
||
Maybe we can hear from some of the other Wikipedia editors who have posted on your page. |
Maybe we can hear from some of the other Wikipedia editors who have posted on your page. {{unsigned|Iss246|26 May 2013 12:38 (UTC)}} |
||
Revision as of 17:17, 26 May 2013
May 2013
We don't need to have an edit war. We can discuss changes before making them in such a wholesale manner as you did on May 12, 2013.Iss246 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You asked me to discuss the edits with you in your comment on May 13, 2013. I am writing here to discuss edits with you.Iss246 (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's talk here, and not have an edit war. I am at the Work, Stress, and Health conference in L.A. right now. I am writing to you from my hotel room. I have been talking to some OHP specialists who happen to have come from I/O (other OHP people come from other disciplines) in order to get your perspective. What they have told me is that I/O psychologists have been largely interested in topics such as selection, job analysis, performance appraisal, motivation, compensation, etc. Worker health did not hold that much of a priority. You can look at old SIOP conference programs. That people in I/O have more recently become interested in worker health is the result of the growth of OHP.
I appreciate it that you may be a student studying I/O and that you are committed to the discipline. Maybe even one of your i/o professors does health research. That is fine. You have to appreciate that OHP has come into its own. It even covers different territory that health psychology covers.Iss246 (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I am back from the conference. Let's use this page to talk.Iss246 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's avoid an edit war. I invite you to talk about changes. We could use this page.Iss246 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Mrm7171. It looks like you and Iss246 are having some difficulties. Do you know how to use talk pages to discuss conflicts? All you need to do on this page is to click one of the [Edit] buttons towards the top of this page, and type your comment at the end. Then sign your comment by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment. The Mediawiki software will automagically turn those four tildes into your account name and the date when you click the "Save page" button (towards the bottom, just like on article pages). Then wait for a while until Iss246 notices your explanation.
- It would be very helpful if you would click the edit button and explain what changes you believe should be made to these pages, and why. People at the English Wikipedia are very big on WP:Reliable sources like university-level textbooks, so if you have a good book or a journal article that supports your views, then feel free to tell us what that is. Psychology-related articles tend to have a lot of room for improvement, so it would be good to hear from you about ways to improve them. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Psychology sidebar
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Psychology sidebar. 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.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Applied psychology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - DVdm (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring
Hi Mrm7171. Your edit warring and refusal to engage in discussion with other users at applied psychology has become disruptive. I have full protected the page for 2 days to prevent this disruption; if you continue edit warring behaviour (even if you don't technically break the three-revert rule) once the article is unprotected you may be blocked from editing. Take this as a final warning. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Changes you made on May 23, 2013 in the OHP section
On 22:49 You wrote, "PLEASE DISCUSS WITH ME CHANGES BEFORE DELETING EVERYONE ELSES EDITS ISS246. YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF IT. WILL REPORT YOU TOO!" That is why I am here writing to you. I want to discuss changes. You have not stopped here to discuss the changes. We should discuss the changes. I have been writing to you for 10 days now, since May 13. Iss246 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Occupational Health Psychology
Thank you for inviting editors to talk on your talk page. This is a good way to work.
At 10:58, May 26, 2013, you changed the following sentence: "Occupational health psychology is concerned with psychosocial characteristics of the workplace," to read as "Occupational health psychology is concerned with psychosocial characteristics of the workplace, as is the broader field of I/O psychology."
I don't think the change is necessary. Here are my reasons:
1. The opening sentence of the paragraph already indicates that OHP was born out of the confluence of i/o Ψ, health Ψ, and occupational health. The debt to i/o has already been acknowledged. Here is the opening sentence: The opening sentence of the paragraph reads as follows: "Occupational health psychology' (OHP) emerged out of two distinct applied disciplines within psychology, health psychology and industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology, as well as occupational health [1]
- ^ Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology."
2. Your addition makes it seem as if OHP is a narrow subfield of i/o Ψ when it is not. Health Ψ was born out of clinical Ψ, but health Ψ is not a subfield of clinical Ψ. I/o Ψ was born out of social Ψ and psychometrics; however i/o Ψ is not a subfield of social Ψ and psychometrics.
3. I/O Ψ has been dominated by concerns, and rightly so, with such topics as job analyses, personnel recruitment, organizational culture, and so on. I/O-related research on health has been far less common. On reason why i/o psychologists have jumped over to OHP (along with experimental psychologists, health psychologists, and occupational physicians and nurses) is that they are concerned with work and health.
4. I/o Ψ is not broader. It is different. OHP is concerned with blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, the impact of unemployment on health, work-home-stress carryover. It is different. It's not broader or narrower. It's different. That is all. Social Ψ is different from i/o Ψ although i/o has roots in social Ψ.
I know you made a second change while I was writing this, I am going to leave this comment here.
Maybe we can hear from some of the other Wikipedia editors who have posted on your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 (talk • contribs) 26 May 2013 12:38 (UTC)