Sportstir

Suggesting that Occupational Health Psychology is entirely descended from I/O Psychology may indeed be historically misleading. The genealogy needs to take into account the influences of Health Psychology and Occupational Medicine. CHOHP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5006:8CE0:2122:3F1:7FEA:399C (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Chloe Shorten, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't change my edit on the occupational stress entry without adequate justification. Iss246 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I based the sentence on Paul Spector's indicating that OHP is leading the field on occupational stress. You did not justify your edit. Iss246 (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did justify me returning it to the way it was and the fact that occupational psychology is the main field involved in occupational stress like the sources say. I'm pretty sure that fact is widely known but it is also supported by the three reliable sources that are in that article already saying it is and was the first field of psychology to be involved in this area of occupational stress. So I totally believe there is no justification for you to be reversing that like you keep doing. Sportstir (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

user:Sportstir, this is how I assert relevance. Some fields in psychology are the parent of other fields. Some fields in psychology are the descendants of other fields. I make that genealogy explicit in my edits. I would like you and I to compromise on the edits.

Regarding OHP, evidence cited earlier indicates that the most research on occupational stress comes from OHP. I think Psyc12 pointed that out. Iss246 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 22:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I too want to work this out with you. Can you please do this on the talk page of the article though rather than here so others can see the issue too and comment if needed. Sportstir (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

New Account

You have raised a concern about a new account who has popped up. You may request a sockpuppet investigation. Or don't request a sockpuppet investigation.

It might be sockpuppetry. On the other hand, the senior account has been editing for eleven years, and seems unlikely to be playing games. The junior account is likely a friend of theirs, which is meatpuppetry; the rule about meatpuppetry is written in English but is incomprehensible. It is also possible that there has been off-wiki brigading. If so, it is best to ignore the brigading as a case of minimizing harm and denying recognition.

Either report it at SPI, or don't report it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look up meatpuppetry and see where to go from there. This new account Ophres only appeared as well as new IP addresses all making the same change as Iss246 is trying to make. Is it possible to make a report about meatpuppetry and if so how? Sportstir (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors

Your comments to another editor have been collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuad I appeal this block on the following grounds. You said I went straight back to edit warring with this edit [1]. That is a false accusation. I was over the entire issue and left the preferred wording of the other editor in the article to show I was over it. The word "particularly" which was the heart of our debate was left out. I left the word in question, "particularly" which was the core of the debate and the other editor's preferred wording in, not mine, so how is that edit warring please? Sportstir (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuad Can you please consider unblocking me after reading the above. You said i went back to edit warring but my explanation above and the objective edits show otherwise. I did my time and there has been a mistake made by blocking me again. Sportstir (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I only got the second notification, and I have been off a few days, that's why I haven't replied. You also readded the reference that removed without an edit summary, and as far as I can note without discussion on the talkpage. It's still edit warring to revert something else, it doesn't have to be the same material. Given the level of contention between you and the other editor, it would have been better to talk about it on the talkpage. That said, I'm willing to unblock as I don't think the month is justified at this point, as long as you stop direct reverting edits of Iss without consensus or an edit summary. I'll be watching the articles. Also a quick note if there is a block that affects you is that you can also have other admins review it by using {{unblock}} -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll also ensure I add an edit summary in future. Sportstir (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

User:Sportstir, please see the occupational stress talk page: Talk:Occupational_stress#First_Paragraph Iss246 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)