User talk:Patriciamoorehead

Hello, Patriciamoorehead, 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! Megaman en m (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎Patriciamoorehead, please contribute to the resolution of a dispute I have with User:Sportstir. The dispute is currently on the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎Patriciamoorehead, yesterday I offered another compromise to Sportstir, however, he did not respond to my offer. He and I are still at odds. I wonder if you could comment on the compromise I proposed on the Noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Psyc12). The compromise involves the i/o psychology and occupational stress entries because we have disagreements regarding those two entries. Perhaps you can help broker a peace. Here is the compromise:

"User:Sportstir, I propose another compromise. It is in two parts. One part is in the i/o psychology entry and the other part is in the occupational stress entry. 1. In the i/o psychology entry, I propose to modify this sentence: "With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"

       I would rewrite that sentence as follows: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"

2. You wanted to place "particularly" in before "industrial and organizational psychology" in the following sentence: "A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, [1] human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology."

       I wanted to avoid naming one discipline above all the others, which the word "particularly" would imply. Because I do not want readers to think that i/o psychology was the one preeminent field in research on job stress, I would leave the sentence without the word "particularly."
       And then I turn to the opening sentence of the occupational stress entry: "Occupational stress is psychological stress related to one's job."
       As you know, I tried to change the expression "psychological stress" to "psychological distress." I would not make the change."
       The compromise allows both of us to get some of what we want. Iss246 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 

Iss246 (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now commented on the talk page and I reverted you only once. It would be helpful if you could instead of slamming a notice on my talk page could instead engage in civil dialogue rather than jumping the gun and assuming another editor is edit warring because they disagree with your editing. You too reverted twice already bear in mind. Anyway I've opened a discussion on the talk page and if you revert with an edit I totally disagree with then engage with me and discuss it rather than get all aggressive Sundayclose. Don't reply here again please. That's what talk pages are for. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You got the warning because you restored it before attempting to discuss on the talk page. Please read

WP:BRD. Sundayclose (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You provided no real argument as of yet on the talk page for your false statements you made about psychology, psychiatry and social work. Let's talk there rather than on my private page for the second time I've asked now. Thank you. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Have you looked at the talk page in the last hour? Sundayclose (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I replied to your response. your argument doesn't have any validity to it. Please reply again on the talk page. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you are the ultimate decider on Wikipedia about what is considered valid? You've made less than 100 edits and now you're the wikiczar? If that's your argument we are finished discussing this. Sundayclose (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patriciamoorehead|Patriciamoorehead, Elfering, Grebner, and Semmer are identified with occupational health psychology (OHP). That they published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology does not make them less identified with OHP. It is a common practice for researchers identified with one subfield of psychology to publish in journals associated with a related subfield. Sometimes an OHP researcher will publish in an OHP, sometimes in a health psychology journal, sometimes in an applied psychology journal, and sometimes in a general psychology journal. Iss246 (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honestyisbest. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]