Notgain

Hello, Notgain, 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:

You may also want to complete 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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Notgain! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:49, Sunday, April 22, 2018 (UTC)

@Notgain: When proposing a merger, it is best to direct all discussion to one talk page, typically the talk page of the target article. Hence I directed discussion to Talk:Individual psychology § Merge proposal, April 2018 regarding your proposal to merge various articles into Individual psychology. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Biogeographist: Thanks. Notgain (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am looking at the new page that you created, Timeline of coaching psychology, and I noticed at least a couple of issues.

First, when you copy content from another Wikipedia article, you need to clearly state in the edit summary of the target article that the content is copied, unless you were the sole author of the content in the source article, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Otherwise you make it look as if you are the author of the text when you're not. For example, you didn't provide attribution in your edit summary for the text "While no one person can be clearly identified as the originator, Graham Alexander, Alan Fine, and Sir John Whitmore all made significant contributions." But this text is copied from GROW model and you are not the author of it.

Second, you should pay attention to the citation style when copying and pasting citations. The citation style of all citations within a page should ideally be the same, per WP:CITEVAR. You copied and pasted (again from GROW model) Harvard-style citations ({{harvnb}}) without converting them to inline citations; in addition to creating varied citation styles within the same page, this created author-date citations that don't link to anything when one clicks on them, leaving the reader with incomplete citation information (in this case: Alexander 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAlexander2010 (help); Fine & Merrill 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFineMerrill2010 (help); Whitmore 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWhitmore2009 (help); Whitmore, Kauffman & David 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWhitmoreKauffmanDavid2013 (help)).

There are other errors as well, but I will assume that you are still working on those. Biogeographist (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Biogeographist: That Timeline of coaching psychology is a work in progress. I'm looking at the List of timelines and the relevant policies. The text pasted from GROW model was a mistake and I already removed it. I can make a note on the talk page for any text reused from within wikipedia as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia if I didn't in the edit comments so we have a log of it. I was going to fix up the citations in bulk. Notgain (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Welcome. The above will help you with formating. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Doc James: Thank you. Notgain (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The article The Coaching Psychologist has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CBT, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breach of trust (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You added wikilinks with underscores here and here. I changed those underscores to spaces, but in the future please remember that spaces are preferred to underscores in wikilinks in article space, per Wikipedia:Page name § Spaces, underscores, and character encoding. Biogeographist (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• @Biogeographist: Thanks for changing those for me. I appreciate your wisdom and attention to detail. Notgain (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cognitive behavioral therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please, stop adding topics that are irrelevant to the discussion of the article. The lack of a proper wikipedia page to those books doesn't improve the article's quality.

I kept the added topic of persuassion. Which is, as you point out, a common way people and advocates use NLP. Which is really relevant.

"Expert consensus on discredit" added topic just asks for information which you as an editor should provide if you consider that it could improve the article.

I recommend you this essay which has links to other standards which are also relevant to this:Wikipedia:Scientific consensus

More on this can be found here too: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat

If you insist, I will still erase it. Please, avoid this uncomfortable situation to the both of us. Rodrigo IB (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rodrigo. I’m sorry I don’t follow your logic. Perhaps something got lost in translation. Can you explain how my question was in violation of WP:OR? —-05:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for that. A confusion with other editor. Rodrigo IB (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will undo your the reversion you did. According to the guidelines, editors can delete discussion posts if those points are off topic. Which is clearly stated here: WP:TALK Rodrigo IB (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit once again removes all the wikilinks in the section you are editing (wikilinks are the blue links to other Wikipedia articles). Wikilinks are an essential part of Wikipedia navigation. Please put them back - or preferably revert your edit, which makes the citations less consistent and harder to read. Newimpartial (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again Newimpartial. I was in the middle of a copyediting that section, and have restored the wikilinks. --Notgain (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lists of works such as bibliographies, works cited, further reading, etc. must be sorted by author's last name. You have made a grand mess of things at Neuro-linguistic programming, and you need to clean up after yourself before you make any more content changes to the article. Seriously. I'll start reverting all your edits if you continue to edit in such a sloppy manner. Sort your bibliographies. Skyerise (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

After looking more closely at your edits, you seem to be engaged in the explicitly discouraged process of changing one referencing style to another referencing style without WP:CONSENSUS. Per WP:REFVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change." By rights, I should revert to the version of the article just before you started to do this. Please not only sort the list of works cited, please return every work for which you cannot provide an author back inline in ref tags where you found it. Otherwise I will revert to before you started your misguided and specficially prohibited project. If you weren't doing it so sloppily, I'd give you a pass. But right now, it's clean it up or I revert the whole mess and you can start completely over with your content changes. Skyerise (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, I fixed it myself. However another problem you created when moving the references to a list is that the page numbers and page links need to be in the short citations, not in the listed reference. I guess I'll probably have to fix that for you too. Please don't start projects to massively revise how references are done without first discussing on the talk page and actually knowing how to do it properly before you start. Try to learn to be more disciplined in your editing as how you have hitherto been editing could be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE, which can lead to being blocked. Skyerise (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing that up. I was in the middle of moving those page numbers and links to short citation format. It started with just one paragraph that I was trying to copyedit and I noticed the referencing was a mixed of more than one style and was just unreadable. Anyway, I appreciate your assistance, and will take your advice. I only had limited time over the weekend to volunteer for wikipedia. --Notgain (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I fixed that too. Please also note that many editors prefer that only multiply-cited items be moved to a list of works cited. If a citation is only used once, it should be left in ref tags... Probably better if you just desist with such changes and follow WP:REFVAR from now on. If the citations in an article are primarily in one style, you need to also use that style, not change the style. Doing the latter just makes an effing mess. Hmm... Skyerise (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for your assistance. The existing referencing style was already a complete mess. There were duplicates of references in different areas. There are missing page numbers where editors have quoted or clearly paraphrased a source making it difficult to verify. --Notgain (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you please help me just sort out this last one. I'm trying to reference the chapter Ethics is Sensitive Towards a New Work Ethic by Bovbjerg (2010) which is in the book edited by Aupers (2010), see the diff here: [1]. The link is not working. --Notgain (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your latest series of edits left 34 broken citations. There are tools, to see that, you know, and I use them. Glowing orange error messages. Again, please STOP messing with the citations. Add new citations as you please, but don't change any existing ones. You're working blind and you are making a complete mess and you can't even see it! Skyerise (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was in the middle of that change when you reverted. I was in the middle of ordering the citations in alphabetical order. --Notgain (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I've told you, what you are doing is against our guidelines. I cleaned up your last mess. Now I must insist that you desist. See WP:REFVAR. If any editor objects to your changing the citation style, you have to stop. What part of that don't you get? Skyerise (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do appreciate when you cleaned it up but you really didn't have to. The mistake I made was to edit a subsection rather than the whole article and then preview changes to ensure it was fully working before going live. Thanks again for your assistance. I was also fact checking the sources as I was going. --Notgain (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

And I have reverted you again after you left 13 citation errors. I will take you to the admins if you don't desist. WP:REFVAR is very clear, if you don't have consensus to proceed on the talk page, you are in the wrong and likely to be blocked for persisting. Just STOP. Skyerise (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

as I already explained to you that you reverted me whilst I was fixing those issues. I then lost the changes. The current referencing is broken and makes its difficult to fact check. —21:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current referencing except that you don't like the style. You've been reported to the admin board for not listening when it has been repeatedly pointed out that you don't have consensus to change the referencing. Skyerise (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I feel you are intentionally harassing me. My edits were genuinely intended to improve the article. I do not believe you are an involved party. -Notgain (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am one of the editors of the article. I've been here for 17 years and made over 100,000 edits, and our policies and guidelines support me. Skyerise (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change". (WP:REFVAR)

Can you not read? Where is the consensus you sought on the article talk page? Skyerise (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I take that back. You are clearly a dedicated Wikipedian with a track record. I’ve read the guidelines you suggested. —Notgain (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Admins: this user has been previously warned 3 times, with the most recent one being a 4th time:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Another user also explained this to them in 2019: [6]

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Neuro-linguistic programming. Skyerise (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I already apologised for the errors and thanked you for correcting the earlier issues. I already said that I made an error in editing a section so I missed some errors. Then you reverted me whilst I was fixing the remaining errors. —Notgain (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are not listening: you may not do what you are doing without getting consensus on the talk page first, which you have not done. I will get you blocked if you don't stop now. It's not a matter of apologizing or doing it without making errors: what you are doing is prohibited because it is disruptive, even if you do it perfectly. JUST ... STOP ... NOW. Skyerise (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You wrote "I do not believe you are an involved party." Involved in what? I'm involved in editing the article, but I think what you mean is "not involved in NLP". It is, in fact, preferable for the article to be edited by a neutral party who isn't involved in the topic. I also get the implication that you are somehow so involved. Thus, you may have a conflict of interest. Here's the warning for that:

  Hello, Notgain. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Neuro-linguistic programming, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I take back what I said about you not being uninvolved editor. You have been volunteering for Wikipedia for a very long time and I’ll assume good faith. I must say your accusations are unwelcome and unfounded. I’m not a paid editor and have no conflict of interest to declare. You interrupted my edit midstream which caused a bunch of syntax errors. You have chosen to escalate to the ANI and requested me get blocked. —Notgain (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can't leave an article full of broken citations. Use your damn sandbox until you get it right. Don't do those kinds of edits to the article live unless you can ensure that every edit leaves the article in a complete and unbroken state. If that means you can only change one little thing at a time and work stepwise, then do that. If that means you have to turn on error-checking, then do that. If that means you have to work in your sandbox, then do that. But you can't leave the article in a broken state. Which you left it in for hours. Skyerise (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

But worst of all, I pointed you to and quoted the relevant policy, and you repeatedly ignored me. Now you are done. You have no consensus, and I'm not going to change my mind about it because your editing is inept. Skyerise (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:AGF —-00:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm assuming good faith. You are simply not good at what you are trying to do. Good faith doesn't have to ignore bad execution. Skyerise (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok. You’ve made your point. Thank you. —Notgain (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Notgain. If you are going to be working with short form references such as {{sfn}} can I suggest you turn on the associated errors messages (they are off by default). Details of how to do so can be found here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors, just ask if you have any questions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've enabled the error now. If I had know this earlier, I don't think things would have escalated as they have. I genuinely thought I had resolved all errors before publishing. --Notgain (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's unfortunate that the errors are not on by default, most editors would spot and correct them before even publishing their edits if they were. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

With this tool added, I welcome you to come help Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors if you would like to. It is an easy way to get some knowledge in verifiability, quality of sources, and general sourcing practices. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that’s a good idea. It’d be a prudent to direct my attention to where my efforts would be more welcome. —Notgain (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please note that short descriptions are supposed to be short. Specifically, a maximum of 40 characters. They are not intended to be any sort of summary of content. Book short descriptions sometimes give either the author or the subject, but typically there is no room for both. Frequently they are just "year genre book". Skyerise (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noted - thank you. One of the examples on Wikipedia:Short description is "1988 novel by Penelope Fitzgerald". So, I made suggestions on the relevant talk page. It needs to be short but also meaningful. I was concerned that if it was "1979 NLP Book" that NLP was ambiguous and could be confused with Natural Language Processing. With the recent rise of AI, "Natural Language Processing" might be more commonly referred to as “NLP” especially in computing and tech-related contexts but it is gaining grown with mainstream usage too. In contexts related to psychology, therapy, self-help, or personal development, “NLP” is still most likely understood to mean Neuro-linguistic programming. But the 1979 in "1979 NLP Book" would suggest Neuro-linguistic programming to most people, I suspect. --Notgain (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply