User talk:Mrm7171: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:37, 15 August 2013 editMrm7171 (talk \| contribs)4,328 edits →August 2013 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:06, 15 August 2013 edit undoHipal (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,081 edits →Dispute at Occupational health psychology Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 314:		Line 314:

	Thanks for the input Ibadibam, will only use minor edits as appropriate in future.] (]) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)		Thanks for the input Ibadibam, will only use minor edits as appropriate in future.] (]) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

			==Dispute at Occupational health psychology==
			I recommend you get leave the article alone, stop focusing on other editors, and choose a new dispute resolution method to follow from ]. I think I saw someone mention mediation. I'm not sure there's been enough attempts at noticeboards or the like, but it's worth a try if you feel it's best. --] (]) 19:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:06, 15 August 2013

Current

The current state of affairs on 'OHP' discussion. Please refer to the relevant article talk pages, including archives

A few clear, straightforward questions have emerged and remain open and unanswered?

Please answer under each question for clarity. I feel I need to make them even clearer, as you selectively avoid answering them.

Occupational/work stress has always been a huge part of I/O or work psychology. Agreed?

What influence does the area of occupational/work stress have on OHP or the relationship to it?

Given you speak so much about 'OHP' being 'interdisciplinary,' ie. as you say, for everyone/open to anyone

Does 'OHP' want to see itself to be part of the formal, separate, international, 'psychology board regulated' psychology profession? (This means licensing and regulation and restrictions on the title psychologist etc etc.. by governments and boards and approved universities?)Mrm7171 (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you even asking a Misplaced Pages editor these things? It doesn't matter what Iss246 believes about this. Go look it up in a WP:Reliable source. Misplaced Pages is built on sources, not on speculation by individuals about what a field might include or how a field might want to be regulated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, your suggestion earlier on this page and I qoute, was ... "I suggest that one of you pick one specific, concrete, and ideally small point to discuss, rather than trying to carry on multipoint discussions simultaneously. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2013(UTC).

I agree. This discussion has become very confusing, and we really need to get to the bottom of things here, for the sake of the amount of discussion already taken place since 2008, and the benefit of Misplaced Pages. We need to focus on some basics here, as you said WhatamIdoing.

Where my personal confusion has come from, is the continual assertion from iss246 and others, that 'OHP' is a bit of everything, a hybrid and not part of the formal, international psychology discipline/profession? This principle obviously applies equally to other distinct disciplines/professions like Medicine.

So I asked for clarification of this critical question? That is, is 'OHP', part of the formal international psychology discipline/profession? For some reason iss246, has not answered this?

So, could iss246, and any other editors, eg recently joined editors, OHP Trainee, Psyc12, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, Jannainnaija all provide some comments here, given they hold such strong connections to 'OHP' and clarify this stil, unanswered question?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a fine question to ask. But you need to ask it of published, reliable sources, not of Misplaced Pages editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify. OHP is a new subarea within psychology that focuses on workplace health and safety. Like many (most?) areas of psychology (e.g., clinical, developmental, neuro, and social), people who do research in OHP are from a variety of disciplines, which gives it an interdisciplinary aspect. What reflects its existence as a formally recognized subarea is that a bunch of doctoral programs advertise they train students in OHP, funding agencies such as NIOSH support that training, there are increasing numbers of job ads for OHP psychologists, there are OHP conferences and journals, there are courses taught with the title "OHP". I teach one myself.Psyc12 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is not one single Doctoral program anywhere in the world, in "OHP'? Despite SOHP providing significant money, to make that happen and over a decade of trying now. NIOSH is separate to the couple of societies in 'OHP.' Any Grad programs that do still exist, are at least 90% I/O degrees with units/subjects only in OHP. These subjects/courses have also decreased since 2000, not increased? Occupational stress has always been a significant area of research and application for Work psychologists. See Cary Cooper's 1976, journal article in Journal of Occupational/Organizational psychology. Cary Cooper is a licensed Occupational Psychologist in the Uk. I could, and very well may, fill a page with this stuff, I'm sorry I don't agree, and this is Misplaced Pages, international, not an indivcidual's own personal website. Truths must prevail.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Thanks WhatamIdoing, i appreciate your genuine comments and suggestions. I am still learning, and have taken the advice of more experienced editor's when provided to me in good faith. I am today working through how to accurately cite/add references to articles and comments based on Misplaced Pages best practice. Thanks againMrm7171 (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Psychology sidebar

Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago. OHP has clearly emerged. APA publishes the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. APA collaborates with the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP); although APA publishes JOHP, SOHP members are the journal's editors and reviewers. APA, NIOSH, and SOHP collaborate in organizing a biennial international meeting in North America the focus of which is OHP. On alternate years, the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP) sponors an international meeting in Europe. Journals, meetings, and scholarly societies reflect on the field. Psychologists from many different disciplines (i/o, health, developmental, experimental) and medical professionals participate in OHP. It does not belong to one parent discipline.Iss246 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What you say here is irrelevant to you going ahead againsty ALL other editors with psychology training, and jamming the occ health psych entry into the psychology sidebar. You say above, ..."Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago." taken from Iss246

No, it was not settled iss246. That is completely false. According to the articile in the psychology sidebar and applied psych sidebar, at least 5 editors completely disagreed with you. That is, no consensus to include. As one of these editors,. stated, you just went ahead and did it anyway.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not altered this page (yet) before others can be brought back in here. Covering up the facts that there was no consensus, does not change anything. You needed consensus to included OHP in the psychology sidebar. This is clearly the main issue here. It has never been resolved. You cannot just jam OHP into the psychology because you want to against all others. If there is consensus direct me and other editors/administrators to the sections where other editors agreed with you doing it. I cannot find consensus for your actions anywhere. Genuinely please show me where. If you cannot OHP needs to be deleting UNTIL we can get consensensus. It has not been deleted. And i wont delete it until others can see the facts first. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Mrm7171 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was never reached on including OHP in the applied psychology sidebar. It is an open contention.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just so any other readers/editors/administrators can see this is not just my comments, i have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting from the psychology sidebar, another editors summation of the 4 year consensus against occupational health psychology not being placed in the applied psychology sidebar. I encourage anyone else to read the full set of editor' discussions with iss246 over a 4 year period. The fact is, all other editors, ie. the consensus, strongly disagreed with Iss246 including it. He just went ahead and did it anyway! This was DoctorW's final comments, word for word in 2011.....before it seems he also gave up!Mrm7171 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Misplaced Pages since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (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

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 Misplaced Pages editors who have posted on your page.Iss246 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, at 12:20, May 26, 2013, you wrote: "We do need to talk iss246, about this entry and indeed OHP being a separate field within applied psych. Let me know before either changes anything. thanks "

I have written to you above. I will transpose what I wrote above, to the spot below. Please reply.Iss246 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the change is necessary. Here are my reasons:

Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology."

Thanks Iss246

I/O was first established in the 1880s. It was not born out of social psych. I/O subsumes any study of any topic relating to work and psychology. Thus the name work psychology. It is very broad. I/O psych has always studied work stress. In fact, modern theories of stress have evolved from I/O psych.

I/O is moving toward OHS and work safety, that is true. I don't see the point. Are you trying to say OHP invented work stress? Which areas of OHP do you see as being distinct from the broad 1880s field of work psychology? I/O psychs, have been studying every aspect you have mentioned above for decades. I can prove it to you. The researchers would have defined themselves as work psychologists in one form or another.look forward to your points. I do not accept your logic so far. Nor do i accept that our profession or the field of psychology would benefit from substantial duplication.

Talk pages

Congratulations on starting to figure out how to use talk pages. It's lot like editing an article. To reply to a comment, just click the button and put your reply in a separate paragraph after theirs. Help:Using talk pages has more details.

The Wikimedia Foundation has plans to create a much less confusing talk page system, but it may be several months or even next year before it's ready to be tested. So for now, just do your best, and if the formatting isn't perfect, then someone else will fix it for you. For right now, I suggest that you click here, and that should (I hope!) let you add your message underneath the most recent ones from Iss246. Type your comments underneath (sort of like adding your comments when you reply to someone else's e-mail message), and save the page. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, this is great that we can have this discussion.

I never said OHP invented work stress. Please don't put words in my mouth. Stanislav Kasl wrote an important article (actually a book chapter) on stress and work in 1978, before occupational health psychology was a term.. There is a journal named Work & Stress that was founded before the name occupational health psychology had any currency. It was Kasl in the 1978 paper cited above who pointed out that the term "stress" is problematic because it can mean at least three different things, the environment, the individual's reaction to the environment, or the circuit of environment and the individual's reaction to it. We use the term stress more because it is evocative rather than a precise term.

You date i/o psychology to the 1880s. That is a little too early. Some thinkers believe i/o psychology began in 1901 with Walter Dill Scott's work on improving the effectiveness of advertising. Others suggest that Hugo Munsterberg fathered the field with his 1913 book on psychological efficiency in the work place. Munsterberg is part of the Taylorist tradition, which flies in the face of OHP. Ironically, you can say, i/o psychology always studied work stress because Munsterberg's efforts, like Taylor's, caused so much stress in workers--I am using the term stress evocatively here.

Social psychology comes into the picture because i/o psychology is very much concerned with social influence in the workplace. For example, research on leadership owes a debt to social psychology. Leadership is one of the bread-and-butter areas of research in i/o psychology. You can also see the influence of social psychology as the human relations movement took hold in some corners of i/o psychology. The journal Human Relations was founded by social psychologists and psychoanalytically oriented psychologists at the Tavistock Institute in the late 1940s. Of course, i/o psychology owes a great deal--an enormous amount--to psychometric psychology: selection tests, performance appraisal, etc.

Bear in mind that i/o psychology is an applied discipline. Like engineering. The basic science comes from somewhere else. Physics and chemistry provide a foundation for engineering. Social psychology and psychometric psychology provide a foundation for i/o psychology. This is not an insult to i/o psychology. That is what an applied discipline is. It applies principles from basic science. OHP is also an applied discipline. Its foundation is built on i/o psychology, health psychology, occupational health, and, I dare say, with its burgeoning interest in the influence of psychosocial working conditions on cardiovascular disease (CVD), internal medicine. I add at the recent Work, Stress, and Health conference in Los Angeles there were several papers that concerned the relation of psychosocial working conditions to CVD.

I wondered if you are a college student, which I think is great. I'm a college professor who writes and lectures on OHP, a topic I love. I did not come out of i/o psychology although I have OHP colleagues who have a background in i/o. I come out of developmental psychology and epidemiology. I think it is great that you have so much passion for i/o psychology. I had a hypothesis that you became very interested in i/o psychology, and plan to have a career in it, for which I wish great success.

Please don't get upset if I tweak the opening of the OHP Misplaced Pages entry. Iss246 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks iss246...firstly please don't change or undo any edits as the OHP entry currently stands, until we can resolve this situation, and come to a mutual agreement. You are much more experienced with wikipedia. I don't want to be involved in an 'edit war,' now I understand a little more about wikipedia. Please don't be upset about this request to simply discuss things with me, before you go ahead and start undoing my edits again please. thankyou. will respond more fully when I can.

Also, I am not a student. Have many years experience with what I'm talking about and the profession. Importantly please iss246, you have not responded to my point about not creating "duplication within psychology." This is particularly important as it relates to the entry of OHP as a distinct field of applied psychology and currently listed in the sidebar. If you don't engage in a discussiuon relating to the psychology sidebar i am going to edit it accordingly based on Misplaced Pages best practice and trustr you won't just again delete or 'undo' my entry, given you have not wanted to engage in discussion here. My underrstanding is that would be disruiptive and I want nothing of an edit war please ISS246, I'm sorry.

Please don't get upset over this but I am slowly learning the rules that a very long term user like yopurself already knew and perhaps takes advantage of? Discuss with me here instead, like you professed please ISS246, rather than deleting my entry i am going to make with the applied psychology sidebasr which corrently includes OHP. This is very contentious, and does nothing good for the science or application of psychology as it is not. I can prove this as far as an overall acceptance and standard within the psychology profession. That is, not 're-inventing the wheel' so to speak.

Work Psychology, is in fact, 'anything' involving work and human behaviour (psychology) as I'm sure you would agree ISS246 being a psychology professor. As such I/O or Work psychology is the overarching, major discipline within psychology, which deals with anything involving work and psychology. This is an accepted fact. Please don't pigeon hole this broad field of applied and psychology by inserting only recruitment, job deign etc..its simply not a valid argument and appears to come from a limited knowledge of the profession and professional and research based work psychology. Please ISS246 instead offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically. As I am concerned your obvious passion for OHP is somewhat blurring the objective facts here... with all due respect and as sometimes happens.

Edit warring

Hi DVdm. Please understand that despite my earlier inexperience, I am learning the protocol of Misplaced Pages 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.

From above...Thanks iss246...firstly please don't change or undo any edits as the OHP entry currently stands, until we can resolve this situation, and come to a mutual agreement. You are much more experienced with wikipedia. I don't want to be involved in an 'edit war,' now I understand a little more about wikipedia. Please don't be upset about this request to simply discuss things with me, before you go ahead and start undoing my edits again please. thankyou. will respond more fully when I can.

Importantly please iss246, you have not responded to my point about not creating "duplication within psychology." Work Psychology, is in fact, 'anything' involving work and human behaviour (psychology) as I'm sure you would agree ISS246 being a psychology professor. As such I/O or Work psychology is the overarching, major discipline within psychology, which deals with anything involving work and psychology. This is an accepted fact. Please don't pigeon hole this broad field of applied and psychology by inserting only recruitment, job deign etc..its simply not a valid argument and appears to come from a limited knowledge of the profession and professional and research based work psychology. Please ISS246 instead offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically. As I am concerned your obvious passion for OHP is somewhat blurring the objective facts here... with all due respect and as sometimes happens.

Mrm7171, I engaged in a discussion on this page. You ignored the discussion. You keep contending that OHP is a subfield of i/o psychology. The evidence is that OHP emerged in as its own field, with dedicated organizations and journals. Nobody says i/o psychologists are uninterested in health. But they are mainly interested in other topics (selection, job analysis, performance appraisal, motivation, compensation, etc). Moreover, OHP owes a debt to health psychology and medicine. All this is acknowledged in the first sentence of the OHP entry and in my discussion here with you. The evidence is in the journals, organizations, subject matter.Iss246 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

- - - It is very clear based on over 4 years of editors strongly disagreeing with you adding Occupational health psychology to the applied psych sidebar. This indicates clear consensus against the occ health psychology entry. mrm7171 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell the community why you have blatantly gone against all previous editors including now myself, and included the occ health psychg in the applied psych sidebar? That is, you have clearly gone asgainst everyone else, the consensus. Why then should occ health be included. It needs to be deleted. Who agrees with your entry? There is no consensus over 4 years. See the talk on the psychology sidebar page. Why should the entry not be deleted under consensus. I can gather all of those who have opposed your viewpoint. That is objective gathering of all other editors viewpoints. You blatantly went against the 'consensus' ISS246? Please explain. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Mrm7171 (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

THis needs to be addressed by an independent person in Misplaced Pages. We cannot have someone so blatantly opposing all others editors views over such a long period of time!Mrm7171 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

30/05/13 Importantly please iss246, you have not responded to my point about not creating "duplication within psychology." Work Psychology, is in fact, 'anything' involving work and human behaviour (psychology) as I'm sure you would agree ISS246 being a psychology professor.

As such I/O or Work psychology is the overarching, major discipline within psychology, which deals with anything involving work and psychology.

This is an accepted fact. Please don't pigeon hole this broad field of applied and psychology by inserting only recruitment, job deign etc..its simply not a valid argument and appears to come from a limited knowledge of the profession and professional and research based work psychology.

Please ISS246 instead of undoing my additions, please discuss first..... offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Why do you think psychology sidebar should have OHP entry? when all other editors agree with me. There is Consensus it should not be in there. You have been arguing with them for 4 years. They all believed OHPO should not be in the sidebar.

Response to change Mrm7171 made on the OHP entry on 01:42 30 May 2013 plus other comments

I/o psychology was acknowledged in the very first sentence of the entry. I point out that there are epidemiologists and sociologists who study psychosocial characteristics of the workplace. Robert Karasek, who advanced an important theory that took hold in OHP, is a sociologist. He attended the OHP meeting in Los Angeles and received an award from the sponsoring organizations. I think it is misplaced to add the sentence you added: Similarly the broad field of I/O or work psychology, also covers all psychosocial characteristics of the workplace.

The upshot would be that you would have to write in i/o psychology that OHP, sociology, and epidemiology also cover psychosocial characteristics of the workplace.

This jawboning for i/o psychology gets unwieldy.

I would like to delete your addition for the above reason. I am going to wait a little bit.Iss246 (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Don't delete anything please. No consenbsus on these points from me. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Lets agree to disagree on the subfield issue for a while.

- I am MUCH more concerned about youi jamming in occ health psych into the psychology sidebar, clearly against all other editors (i refer to the talk page for psychology and the psychology sidebar) Please post your answeer to that. You have avoided what you did against the consensus of others for 3 days of me patiently asking you to respond>Mrm7171 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not about people going against the consensus? Show me please, with all due respect, where others agreed you shoul include occ health psych into to the psychology sidebar?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Please ISS246 instead of undoing my additions, please discuss first..... offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Why do you think psychology sidebar should have OHP entry? when all other editors agree with me. There is Consensus it should not be in there. You have been arguing with them for 4 years. They all believed OHP should not be in the sidebar.

Hi Iss246. Can you answer to this important issue only please? Any other issues aside please, while we look at facts and the facts on the WQikipideia project rules and guiding principles please.

I am patiently asking why you won't respond to this issue and what you did and the actions you took violating Wikipidea consensus.

I am asking you again please, why the Wikipideia project and community should not delete the entry you have 'jammed in' for want of a better word, to the Psychology Sidebar and entry and the sidebar and entry under Applied Psychology?

It is very clear that all other editors for a long time, clearly objected to you plaing ocuupational health psychology on this page under applied psychology?

Anyone in the[REDACTED] community, is encouraged please, to view the history over 4 years between you and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly on the psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else. You just went ahead and added it in anyway.

Then when it was deleted by other editors, (rightly so, if against all of their wishes), you undid the deletion and so it goes on....and seems to have gone on for years and years, this pattern.

This critical issue of deciding on the deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Misplaced Pages principles.

Please understand that I do not wish to personally engage in edit war with you. Please stop also your personal attacks toward me and focus on the deletion of the occupational health psychology entry and the long and checkered history it has so far. All I can ask is that you stop undoing my edits and participate here please. That's up to you obviously. This is not a private website but instead is a community project and has no room for personal agendas, Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mrm7171,

I'm glad that you're figuring out Misplaced Pages a bit more. It really is complicated—perhaps even overly complicated.

I don't know much about this issue at all, but I do know something about Misplaced Pages: we care more about what published, reliable sources say than about what individuals like you and me believe to be true. So rather than just saying "IO is not social psychology" (or whatever), the path to successful resolution is usually to find and list some recent, reliable sources that say this. Then its not just Editor #1 saying "No, it isn't!" and Editor #2 saying "Yes, it is!" The more gold-plated the source, the better. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

DVDm and ISS246, you both are engaging in edit warring, blanking deleting good faith entries. I refuse to do so. Hope you got my last message Dvdm, Please desist from edit warring, bl;anking, vandalism. I am serious about you not deleting my work please, with no attempts from you having been recorded anywhere, that you have tried to firstly discuss these deletions with me in good faith, prior committing them. I've posted in good faith.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

- - I refuse to do that to anyone else in compliance with Wkipideia and just decency.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Copy of my comments only left on Itszippy's talk page in relation to blatant vandalazing and no discussion from another editor. Noted, that I am now taking the step of formal disapute resolution. Mrm7171 (talk) 12:40, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles. I have not, and will not enter into an edit war or delete other's work, but expect the same respect. This is Misplaced Pages, not individual's own websites Mrm7171 (talk) 12:12, 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 Misplaced Pages, he clearly knows the rules on personal attack, and protocol of Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Can

Can you tell me please what the Wiki policy is regarding the placement of other's comments on editor's own talk page when done so in possible bad faith or a means of personal attack?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Personal attacks are prohibited everywhere. NB that "personal attack" is narrowly defined. "You're a stupid racist person" is a personal attack. "You said exactly this" is normally not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also Dvdm, my opinion is that all articles require accuracy, currency, knowledge, and be factual and free from bias and be edited for the benefit of the greater Misplaced Pages community and readers. This is particularly true, in my opinion, with articles, relating to international professions, like psychology, medicine, etc etc..where accuracy, standards and broad-based acceptance of standards and protocols, within each profession apply. I note you have possibly been working in unison with another editor, to delete 'any' much needed revisions of a couple of articles I have ever attempted. In my still limited experience of Misplaced Pages, it is the communities resource, and articles needs accuracy and currency and not in any way, be misleading to the community. Also deleting other people's important changes sometimes, and without discussing with them your intention, does no good for the[REDACTED] community and can lead to unneccessary conflict, when prior discussion about edits could avoid any such unneeded conflict. Based on a quick look at comments from many other editors on your talk page here, you seem to delete a lot of other editors work, in a lot of different areas So, please, for the last time, I ask you to discuss with me, before you for some reason, 'blindly' delete my edits, in future. Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

'Sudden,' shifting of significant information, away from this talk page by whatamidoing and dvdm??Recent, heavy editing by Dvdm and WhatamIdoing to shift a lot of information very quickly, suddenly away from this page and readersa view. to the archive section? (please view the VIEWHISTORY to see.

This occurred only a day or two after I said this article needs to be dealt with through dispute resolution?

Suddenly a day later Dvdm and Whatamidoing came in and cleaned everything up/shifted everything away to somewhere?

Where do you shift the work please whatamidoing and dvdm? Where is the discussion?

What is going on here? This is Misplaced Pages, and this sudden shifting of information away from the talk page now seems very strange?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. I hadn't noticed that the page was lacking the automatic link to the archive. I added one today. WP:Archiving is normal when a page gets to be that size. As the archiving is done by date, it should not have affected any of your comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Discuss not War

Hi iss246. including a link in the i/o article is irrelevant and crowding to the article. Cannot have every link in an article's contents page on wiki. Way too long for readers to work through the contents page including anything even vaguely relevant. eg OB OHS, goes on and on all ion the contents page, could list 100 different "relationship to...links, as you've done? Can you imagine it? Isn't 'OHP', the coined brand, (but maybe not Occupational Health Psychology as a 'topic/area' of study), multi disciplinary as you keep on saying?

It would be much more worthwhile including a similar section in the occupational health psychology article, I think. That is, relationship to I/O psych link in the contents page of the occupational health article? which I am going to do unless there is very good logic not to. Your response on my talk page is fine. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, ISS246, I say Please do not blanket any good faith additions I make to articles, without discussing with me. Don't try to drag an editor into an edit war! I don't want one. I am not deleting your input. Discuss with me instead. On my talk page is fine with me. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Your editing of Occupational health psychology is being discussed at AN3. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Learning your way around Misplaced Pages

If you haven't looked around Misplaced Pages very much for help and advice on editing, you probably missed this manual and this overview. I wish someone had pointed them out to me when I first started editing. --Ronz (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Appreciate the information. The other editor iss246 has just gonme straight ahead and deleted your trimmed version which is where consensus was before I had a chance to add a great source? So, not sure what to do. Mrm7171 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Find sources. There's no rush. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. I was in the process of reading your information sent to me and had found a great source. I would have added any source much earlier, but the conversation with you, as a fellow editor, indicated getting the best source? Then, while i was doing that, wham, bam in came iss246, and blanketed mine, and yours, and other editors hard work. Without any discussion. Again. I calmy re-typed, yours/my combined edit, ie. your accepted through consensus, trimmed edit. Bang, iss246 deleted again. Then wham, I was blocked.

The minor addition, with the source I found, is much needed by the way, contextually, and of real value to Misplaced Pages readers interested in this professional psychology article with a long, long history between iss246 since 2008, with numerous other editors who obviously gave up, through exhaustion, and now me in 2013. It is obviously a very important professional debate. If interested read the 'walls and walls' of debate between iss246 and many other editors since 2007/2008 in the archives.

Anyway, I would be interested in your feedback? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Any source is a good start. It gives everyone something to work from. --Ronz (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology

Can the first sentence in the article that has quickly been added since I was blocked be deleted and discussed on the talk page first after I am unblocked?

Can I revert the deletion of my addition from a week ago with the new source I have been waiting to add, and then discuss it on the talk page first before anyone deletes it again?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What is Misplaced Pages's policy on these issues. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's policy is that if you've already gotten in trouble, then it behooves you to be as cautious as possible. I recommend that you not revert anything. Instead, I recommend that you post your suggestion on the article's talk page.

I'd like to know what source you're going to propose, if you wouldn't mind posting it here. The addition of a good source would be an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few words of advice. You are referring to the possibility of discussing changes, which is a step in the right direction. However, you are still referring to discussion in the context of getting things to be how you want them: the latest examples of this are "Can the first sentence ... be deleted and discussed on the talk page" and "Can I revert the deletion of my addition ... and then discuss it". There is no reason why your view should be regarded as some sort of default, which should be restored pending discussion. My overall impression is that you view discussion as part of a process to get your way, in conjunction with reverting changes that others have made. If that impression is mistaken, then you need to think carefully about how you communicate, because that is the impression you have given. Discussion is a process to try to reach a consensus, ideally on a version that everyone involved can agree on, and as a second best a version which everyone involved is willing to accede to. Unfortunately, sometimes neither of those can be achieved, but that should be the aim. Entering a discussion not with the attitude "I am here to try to see if we can come to some sort of agreed version" but with the attitude "I am here to make everybody accept my view" is unhelpful. In my experience, editors who are here with a view to doing everything they can to get the version of an article which they personally prefer, and who subordinate everything else to that aim, have a bad time here, and very often finish up being indefinitely blocked. As I said, your willingness to consider discussion is helpful, but your expectation that your preferred version can be restored pending discussion does not suggest a constructive approach to that discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBwatson. I can assure you my discussions and efforts on Misplaced Pages have not been about getting my own way on this article but understand it may have seemed that way to others in the wiki community. I appreciate your input and experience, and others who have genuinely tried to assist with helping with these at times, heated discussions, like Whatamidoing and Ronz and others, and I better understand how[REDACTED] works now, and more importantly, why it works, and the reasoning behind editors being blocked sometimes, however unjust it appeared to me at the time and regardless if other editors were also not blocked. And the importance of that protocol and having rules and respecting those rules and principles, if editing on Misplaced Pages.

My perspective has been to present the facts, not my way, just the facts as I understand them at least, regarding the current international status quo on these issues in psychology. Unfortunately in my attempts I think I have come across pretty poorly, to other Wikipedians who may, or may not be familiar with the topics we were discussing and much of what I was saying was unsourced due to my lack of editing and technical skills at the time. Apologies for that. Anyway for what it's worth, there it all is.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to I/O psychology section

I have had no clear advice on how to re-introduce this brief section? So based on everything I now know about Misplaced Pages protocol I have 'tentatively' added it, subject to other editor's input, and now with numerous sources added, based on current literature available in the field.

However I need to make my perspective clear as far as this minor edit goes and moving forward. That is, if after making this addition, if another editor wishes to delete it, I may not agree, (given the significant reasoning and basis for it I have now presented), but I will NOT undo or revert that editor's delete. I say this so as to maintain civility and working toward a consensus on this whole article, rather than going back over past discussions. I also will not enter into edit warring over this. That defeats the purpose of Misplaced Pages and works against group consensus and "ideally on a version that everyone involved can agree on, and as a second best a version which everyone involved is willing to accede to." as JamesBWatson recently stated very succinctly.

Alternatively it may be that my brief addition (and the basis for it outlined below), is okay with other editors? In that case, it could remain? as it is very well sourced. However that is my opinion, based on the current published literature in the field of psychology.

I also believe and have attempted a compromise on this matter. Although this Misplaced Pages article it is a very confusing one, in my opinion and based on the long history iss246 has had, with many editors over the years (since 2009?) so my addition tries to provide both perspectives.

That is, it gives I/O psychology the credit for its major contributions to the psychology of occupational health, safety and wellbeing. Particularly in the area of occupational stress. And it also separates what seems to me now, that 'OHP' governed by a couple of societies, is an entirely distinct area from psychology profession that being the 'OHP' profession. This is based on iss246's insistence that 'OHP' is a multidisciplinary field, not part of the formal psychology profession. 'OHP' and the 2 groups, SOHP & EA-0HP involves as iss246 have stated, nurses, sociologists, doctors, economists, engineers etc.

Whereas psychology is psychology. And I/O psychology is I/O psychology.

It is just that 'OHP' and I/O psychology both study and apply the same areas, primarily work stress and the psychology of occupational health and wellbeing.

So based on all of this, my reasons for today's re-inclusion of this brief section follows and can also be found on the article's talk page.

Given the significant past and growing contributions of I/O psychology to occupational health, wellbeing and safety, I have re-included a brief entry in the article index that had been deleted as it was not sourced at the time. This current entry was the one edited/cleaned by three other independent editors. However it is now heavily sourced, with 4 citations included. Although I/O psychology is as iss246 states, in the first paragraph, this entry is still much needed, given I/O psychology's significant importance to the areas of work stress, particularly.

Also the bulk/majority of postgraduate programs, that do carry units/subjects in occupational health psychology, are part of, a Doctoral program in I/O psychology at various universities as specialised units. Whereas no Doctoral program in OHP currently exists in the world. Students receive their qualification in I/O psychology after completing these courses. Leaving this out from the article for all of these reasons now it is sourced, and very brief, does not make sense. It provides context to the study of occupational health psychology and adds genuine value to Misplaced Pages.

I look forward to any other editors genuine comments and input toward a group consensus, and or resolution and then moving forward! I have also been working on improving the I/O psychology article. Most recently collaborating and working with other editors, on the occupational stress section of the article, which I believe is now very well sourced and reads well. I intend to continue these efforts.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. What you added looks fine to me. The issue of dispute in the past was whether or not OHP is just a topic within I/O or was a separate subfield. You are correct that most (but not all) OHP graduate training takes place within an I/O program. I don't object to adding something like that in this section. I wonder though if it would fit better in a section on training in OHP that would talk about how/where one gets trained in OHP. Psyc12 (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Occupational health psychology, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ibadibam (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Ibadibam, will only use minor edits as appropriate in future.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute at Occupational health psychology

I recommend you get leave the article alone, stop focusing on other editors, and choose a new dispute resolution method to follow from WP:DR. I think I saw someone mention mediation. I'm not sure there's been enough attempts at noticeboards or the like, but it's worth a try if you feel it's best. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Kasl, S. V. (1978). Epidemiological contributions to the study of work stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. L. Payne (Eds.), Stress at work (pp. 3-38). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Revision as of 19:06, 15 August 2013

Current

May 2013

Psychology sidebar

Occupational Health Psychology

Talk pages

Categories

Edit warring

Response to change Mrm7171 made on the OHP entry on 01:42 30 May 2013 plus other comments

Can

Discuss not War

Courtesy notice

Learning your way around Misplaced Pages

Occupational Health Psychology

Relationship to I/O psychology section

August 2013

Dispute at Occupational health psychology