Culturalresearch

Welcome!

Hello, Culturalresearch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Psychophysiological Flow (March 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Psychophysiological Flow and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Culturalresearch, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your draft article, Draft:Psychophysiological Flow

Hello, Culturalresearch. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Psychophysiological Flow".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Spamming your own research on multiple articles

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If adding paragraphs and citing them according to all wikipedia rules, bringing my own research when it is published on books, if all this is spamming, what type of contribution is wikipedia suitable for?

There are numerous platforms where it is entirely appropriate for you to promote yourself and your work, such as LinkedIn. If you continue to do it on Wikipedia, you'll be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Lifestyle coaching

Lifestyle coaching qui è un redirect ma s ti vuoi mettere a ripensare l'articolo, forse lo possiamo collegare alla versione italiana. Fammi sapere quando la discussione su itwiki al bar e l'eventuale procedura di cancellazione paventata è conclusa. Ciao.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Grazie e decisamente credo sia qualcosa di utile. La voce in inglese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_guru tratta di un tema assolutamente lontano dal concetto scientifico di Life Coaching. Il LIfe Coaching come evidenziano le più autorevoli associazioni internazionali di categoria è una disciplina "per tutti", decisamente, può riguardare studenti, lavoratori, impiegati, manager, sportivi, non è necessariamente qualcosa che abbia a che fare con "guru" e quando questo succede e se succede, si tratta certamente di deviazioni dal codice di condotta previsto da ogni associazione internazionale. Io mi rendo disponibile anche a fare una versione in lingua inglese, richiederà tempo ma se è un contributo importante lo farò. Grazie ancora.--Culturalresearch (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

ricorda quando mi scrivi in talk di pingarmi. help:ping, it:Aiuto:ping.

In ogni caso basta ch usi la sandbox, che qua su enwiki è un link in alto a destra dopo "talk". La cosa più semplice è che tu intitoli la voce sul "Lifestyle coaching" o "life coaching" e lasci al limite il contenuto attuale sul guro come paragrafo specifico (lasciandoci l'apposito template per il dubbio di qualità, ovviamente). Se mi autorizzi te la imposto io nella sandbox. Poi prenditi il tuo tempo. Ho visto che c'è stato qualche borbottio sulle tue fonti, ma enwiki è più tollerante di itwiki quindi se lavori in sandbox ce la dovresti fare senza troppi attriti. Basta non avere fretta. E poi puoi segnalarla ai progetti competenti. In realtà lo potresti fare anche su itwiki, mai capito perché si dimentichino a volte di farlo presente. Non tutti i progetti sono frequentati, ma è meglio che nulla. --Alexmar983 (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Grazie e accetto volentieri l'offerta --Alexmar983 (talk) - spero di averti anche "pingato"! In realtà il life coaching ha anche una prospettiva Latina fatta di autori, pubblicazioni, prospettive, e non ne esistono solo modelli anglo o US, sarebbe bene in un approccio enciclopedico dare una visione un pò più ampia e interculturale del tema. Ci posso provare.

meglio se mi pinghi così {{ping|Alexmar983}} , a volte arrivano, a volte no, soprattutto devi salvare il ping con la tua firma, s la aggiungi dopo non lo ricevo.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Adesso inizio a unire in sandbox Lifestyle coaching (cioè Lifestyle guru) e Coaching#Life_coaching. lo metto nell'oggetto per motivi di copyright. Poi ti spiego. Tu comunque lavora solo in sandbox. Quando hai finito (con calma) si parla su quali progetti presentare il lavoro.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Ecco User:Culturalresearch/sandbox. Divertiti. Ricorda che su wiki anche se tutti dicono "be bold", per esperienza è consigliabile andar invc abbastanza cauti, soprattutto se aleggia su di te la spada di damocle dello "spam". Ma se passi da un progetto competente e sei in buona fede è un sospetto ampiamente ridimensionabile. --Alexmar983 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Culturalresearch. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. I notice that many or most of your contributions cite Daniele Trevisani. If you know this person or are this person, please use restraint, and take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing yourself and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi

You don't edit much in health/medicine/biomedical research topics. We use secondary sources there - reviews in the biomedical literature, not the primary sources where the research is first published. The reason for that are many, but for one little example in the stem cell field.. do you remember that scientist who published work showing that if you shake cells (really!) you could turn them into stem cells? There was huge media hype around that. And yep, people rushed to add content based on the hyped primary source to WP. (Note the edit date, and the date the paper came out) only to delete it later when the paper was retracted. (We actually have a whole article on that mess Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency) We should not be jerking the public around like that. There is no reason to do that - we have no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Making claims about COI

You wrote here that I actually have a COI on this topic. I don't. I have a COI for small molecule development for acute neurological conditions. That is not this. Please be careful about making actual claims that someone has a COI. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Human factors and ergonomics. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Culturalresearch, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Occupational safety and health has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operational continuity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resilience. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Motivationally-driven power profile.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Motivationally-driven power profile.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Moral character. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...

I find extremely confusing to have a discussion in which I do not understand clearly where the problem is... why contributions that are made in the benefit of wikipedia users and future generations, including research that I have been involved too, should not be present im wikipedia, if all the rules for quoting and balance are present? Is being a books author a negative variable by itself? If so I need to understand better what are the rules, if an author cannot write any contribution at all in fields in which he/she might have contributed, or if yes, under which rules. A couple of examples of arbitrary deletions of my contributions that I think can be considered exemplary detrimental for the knowledge mission of wikipedia: here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_resource_management&diff=prev&oldid=751941542 and also here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communication&diff=prev&oldid=752995425 - These are the two examples used by the MrOlly, the "agent" that made these deletions which... well, I affirm in my full honest opinion, these deletions are absolutely detrimental according to wikipedia core values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Daniele_Trevisani - I am asking to wikipedia senior experts, what is your opinion based on the facts that you see and can judge probably better than me^

Thanks in advanceCulturalresearch (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Culturalresearch: Hi there :) I have a quick question about some of the comments that were removed, were any original research that you or the company named? Also, after reading through the conflict of interest notice, I wanted to also ask, have you received any payment for any research you done for the company, and used those books, or content in reference material? From what I read that was something that the editor mentioned in removing the content. If any are indeed original research, I'd like to reference this article about Wikipedia's policy on original research: WP:OR. Another resource i'd like to cite here is the wikipedia conflict of interest policy, which I think is what the noticeboard was initiated, and you will probably get a more definitive answer on the claims there as well: WP:Conflict. I'm sorry I wasn't able to provide more useful information to what you're requesting. I'd be more than happy to chat about anything I cited if you have any questions as to the policy however. Take Care, ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 21:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at WP:SELFCITE. As an expert in the field you likely know the literature beyond just your own books well and can thus easily improve the articles in ways that don't give the impression that your primary purpose is to promote your own work. Adding links to a bookshop selling your books doesn't quite make your edits seem less self-serving. I'll also have to note that your books are effectively self-published, which means they are less useful references than works that have been subject to independent editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing other people's talk page comments

Don't change other people's comments on talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. - MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Massive destruction of good work

I am sorry that you are having these problems. Unfortunately there are lots of editors like Mr Ollie, who go around deleting content for a variety of reasons, mainly "Original research" WP: OR, "Promotional character" WP:NOTADVERTISING, "External links"WP:LINKFARM and "lack of citations". Mr Ollie is by no means the worst - I have encountered outright bullies and stand-over merchants, who honestly believe that their behaviour is OK, because it benefits Wikipedia's quality. These people are very difficult to deal with, because they earnestly believe that they are improving Wikipedia through their actions. What they fail to appreciate is that they are driving active contributors away. I have quit editing several times now, because of what I see as unreasonable edits. Frankly, I find the culture on Wikipedia to be quite bizarre and stifling. Most recently, Mr Ollie forced me to quit for several weeks after he saw fit to delete an entire section of external links in the article on Market Segmentation. I had already successfully argued for these links to be reinstated with another deletionist editor just a few days earlier, but after the links were reinstated, along came Mr Ollie and deleted them a second time. I just wanted to give up - and in fact, I did give up for a time.

For what it is worth, here are some strategies that I have used to deal with these deletionist editors:

1. Challenge the action/ deletion

Most editors who delete provide few explanations. They tend to simply quote policy e.g. WP: OR; WP:LINKFARM;WP:NOTADVERTISING without anything more. In Wikipedia speak, this is known as drive-by editing. Editors are required to explain their actions and it is not enough to simply quote a policy - because it cannot be assumed that people will know how the policy applied in the specific instance. As you will have noticed with a recent edit you made on the Marketing article, I asked Mr Ollie to apply the policy to the specific deletion on the basis that his deletion was a WP:DRIVEBY action and that he needed to do more to justify his actions. It has now become my standard practice to challenge all unhelpful edits or deletions - whether they are deletions of my content or any other editors' content. I expect deleters to provide detailed edit summaries or commentary on the article's talk page. I am trying to keep the pressure on deleters by insisting that they follow policies and guidelines just like everyone else.

2. Challenge the follow-up explanation

When I ask editors to supply more detailed reasons for their deletion, they often fail to do so, and instead respond by citing new alleged policy infringements. This is what I call the hamburger with the lot approach - i.e., they throw everything at it in the hope that you will give up and go away. This approach is very difficult to deal with, because you are left defending the material against multiple accusations, which is very time-consuming and mentally exhausting. Meanwhile the deletionist editor doesn't have to do anything much except sit back smugly, and continue to quote more policies of dubious relevance. Nevertheless, you can follow-up by asking them to clarify each and every allegation, by insisting that they explain how it relates to the specific action they have taken. For example, in your case, Mr Ollie has made a follow-up comment intimating that you are quoting your own research. I would be inclined to challenge this, since Mr Ollie is clearly making an assumption about your real identity. He simply cannot know your real name because identities are clearly concealed on WP - therefore it is clearly an assumption - and that is unacceptable. I would go as far as to claim that Mr Ollie is WP:ASPERSIONS casting aspersions or making personal remarks without sufficient evidence - both are clearly against wikipedia guidelines. (See below for a few more handy policy links that you can quote in your dealings with these deletionist types)

3. Contact the editor with reasoned argument

Sometimes I contact the editor setting out specific reasons as to why I believe their deletion was inappropriate or unhelpful (See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Market_segmentation#Discussion_copied_from_User_Talk_Page) or (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marketing_communications&action=edit&section=7 - especially noting my response to David Penfield about half way down the three way discussion). Note that I am very careful to stick to facts and reasoned argument pertaining to the article and it context. It is very important to AVOID any semblance of personal criticism and NEVER make any type of personal judgement or attack. This approach is very time-consuming for me- and most editors don't like reading carefully reasoned, lengthy arguments so it does tend to get their backs up, but they ofen go away at this point.

4. Simply Undo the deletion (with clear edit summary or explanation)

Sometimes I simply undo the deletion giving a clear edit summary. In other instances, after undoing I write to the editor explaining why I found it necessary to undo their deletion. If I am confident that the material does not breach any WP guidelines, I usually notify them that if they are "of a mind to reinstate their deletion, we would be best advised to seek a third party opinion" on the content. I have only used this technique once, but it was enough to have the deletionist editor stand down.

5. Avoid editing on pages that are heavily patrolled

My preference is to avoid any conflict with other editors simply because it takes time and energy away from improving content. I actively seek out articles with major problems or omissions that are not heavily patrolled and work on improving them. The article on Marketing, for example, is extremely heavily patrolled a number of editors who all exhibit ownerhip type behaviours and remove all new content within minutes of it being added. This article is appalling in terms of its content, conceptualisation, expression and accuracy. Sadly this page, which should be the portal to all marketing content and the central feature of marketing, it is unlikely to get a much needed make-over because of the actions of these over-zealous editors. Personally, I wouldn't touch the Marketing article with a barge pole - any further edits would be a waste of my time and effort.

Things that don't work

I have also tried writing to Wikihelp about some of the worst excesses of deletionist editors, but this failed to generate any response. One of my messages was deleted without comment, and another was archived before anyone bothered to respond to it. I am afraid that you are very much on your own when it comes to dealing with these deletionist editors. I have only been on Wikipedia for 3 months, but I am learning how to cope with them. The gang at Wikihelp are openly hostile to anything they believe is promotional - but they seem to confuse promotional and commercial. Thus, they make an assumption that any article which has to do with business or commerce is necessarily promotional because the business of business is to promote itself.

Wikipedia is plagued by a deletionist/ reversionist culture, and it is very dispiriting for contributors. There is also a certain tolerance of bullying and harrassment on Wikipedia. It is easy to become a bully, but it is time consuming to make a complaint against a bully- so the victims are always at a disadvantage. The deletionists appear to have the upper hand right now. They don't have to do much - just delete and attach a link to a policy and most contributors are too frightened to confront them. In my view, it is time that the tables were turned - contributors need to rise up and confront deletionists (but with the caveat that it is always within the parameters of policy), and force the deletionists to do a lot more of the work in terms of explaining their actions.

Finally, given that these deletionist editors like to quote policy to explain their actions, here are a few useful policies, along with brief explanations, that you can quote back at them:

• WP:ASPERSIONS - Casting aspersions; it is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause
• WP:OVERTAGGING OR"tag-bombing" - Excessive number of tags, recommendation of 1-2 tags per article is enough
• WP:HOUND WP:Wikihounding - repeatedly confronting or inhibiting another editor's work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. (is considered a form of wiki bullying)
• WP:HUSH - related to harassment; a common problem in userspace - refers to the placing of numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them etc.
• WP:DISRUPT Disruptive editing- a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article, edits are largely confined to talk pages; comments may avoid breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion.
• WP:DRIVEBY WP:DRIVEBYTAG Drive by tagging - Adding tags for non-obvious problems—without discussion on the talk page which explains the problems—is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development.
• WP:OZD- Overzealous deletion - pattern of regular deletion; deletion of large passages; exclusive deletion of a single editor's work
• WP:No-edit orders issuing no edits orders that are not backed by WP policy - considered a form of bullying

Incidentally, I have been subjected to every single one of these actions by a single person within a 1-2 week period! She really believed that she was helping me and helping Wikipedia by doing all these things.

Wikipedia does not help itself to apply policies consistently. The above mentioned policies are spread across multiple pages and are not always easy to locate. The deletionists trade on this obsfuscation- by keeping contributors in the dark and making it difficult to access guidelines, contributors feel shy about defending their work.

It might be worth noting that the deletionists are becoming quite organised in their attacks. For instance, there is a group called Wikipedia External Links Project (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_External_links). Its stated aim is to improve the quality of external links. But this appears to be a ruse. Judging by the actions of some of this project's members, the real intent is to eradicate all external links from Wikipedia articles.

I hope that this helps. I wish you all the best in taking on Mr Ollie and his ilk. However, I fear that you and other contributors are fighting a losing battle. BronHiggs (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

BronHiggs thanks so much for your suggestions, I am a serious researcher, a book writer, a Fulbright Scholar, I dedicated all my life to research, writing, studying, teaching, and made new discoveries in several fields, I will not let these people intimidate me, I am fighting for the freedom of knowledge, knowledge will always win. Among the tens of incredible deletions, I choose this one on Intercultural Communication, where MrOllie canceled an approach that is currently used by the European Space Agency, NATO and several other institutions, and published since 1992. Incredible https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Models_of_communication&diff=762231830&oldid=761352159--Culturalresearch (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)