User talk:Imersion

Welcome!

Hello, Imersion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Jarich 03:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus based assessment (CBA)

G'day Imersion,

Thankyou for your great work on the Consensus based assessment (CBA) article. It's always great to have more people sharing their knowledge. I've tagged this article for cleanup because it's not yet written as a standard Wikipedia article. For example you have headings that are just appearing as normal text and you're missing key information such as *when*, *where* and *how* Peter Legree and Joseph Psotka made their proposal.

I would be delighted to work with you to make this article even better.

Jarich 03:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok- I have updated the stuff as best I could.

Any additional changes and help would be appreciated!

Best

Joe

Imersion 15:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Imersion you've done a great job! The article reads much better and also looks a lot more like a wiki article. I've removed the tag and also provided a little extra clean-up. Obviously you know a lot more about this topic than I do, so if you could check that the wiki links I've added are correct that would be great. In particular if you can provide links to any extra pages which would help a non-psychology, non-statistician reader understand the basics, that would be fantastic. You also use both the phrases "Q factor analysis" and "Q technique analysis" are these the same thing? If so, could you pick whichever phrase is most correct and change all references to use that one?

Thanks again for your hard work! Jarich 13:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks for the help - -The links to rubrics and facotr analysis are right on. I addded a small section on Q factor analysis to that main entry.

Best Joe Imersion 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Confabulation (neural networks)

I have nominated Confabulation (neural networks), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confabulation (neural networks). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Chzz  ►  01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Illusory superiority

Hi, I've had to revert your recent edit to Illusory superiority because it was a piece of original research (which isn't allowed on Wikipedia) and was unencyclopedic in tone. If you can find published sources that make the critical points about the driving research, then you're welcome to summarise them and edit them in. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-awareness

Hi Imersion. Thank you for your contribution to Self-awareness that you made a couple of days ago. As you can see, I have copy-edited the section a bit. However, the section has only one reference, and that is an incomplete one. Could you make that reference more complete (the name of the article or book, in which journal it was published)? And also add references to the other stuff you wrote? Thank you! Lova Falk talk 16:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi,
I've just adjusted the redirect page you created here. If you want further info on creating redirect pages, please have a look through Wikipedia:Redirect.
Happy editing. LordVetinari (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ideal wealth distribution

The article Ideal wealth distribution has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is not an encyclopedic article, but an opinion piece.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OpenFuture (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hiya! I've reverted several of your edits, since although I basically agree with your standpoint it's just an opinion. There is no objectively ideal income distribution, and we can't treat a certain income distribution as ideal or refer to it as such, since that would break WP:NPOV. Otherwise, keep it up! --OpenFuture (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

A tag has been placed on Ideal wealth distribution requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have already deleted this article. If you can provide a plausible reason, it may be possible to have it restored to your user space. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I am contesting the stupidity of all this but all I get is a runaround. There is no discussion just idiocy. Good bye!

Ideal wealth distribution

The page was deleted after a weeks discussion time. The decision was unanimous, nobody protested, not even you. Stop recreating the page. If you continue to recreate it you are going to end up blocked, which is hardly useful. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is silly. Of course I protested. You and I even had a discussion about my protests, in which I found your comments uninformed and even abusive. That discussion has conveniently disappeared with the article; and I tried to reinstate the article to retrieve the discussion, to no avail. I am not particularly wedded to the article, (although I thought the paper by Ariely was excellent and well worth reporting in Wikpedia) but I find the whole deletion process disturbing (especially for novices) and well worth becoming more expert about now. Imersion (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted after an open and clearly announced vote. The vote was unanimous, your participation would not have changed the outcome. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Still, you lied. I protested and you know it. Where is the abusive discussion you wrote about the article?Imersion (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution. If you wish, you may request that the closing admin, Joe Decker, to review his closure of the discussion or you may request a review of the deletion discussion by following the procedures at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion in question is not on the deletion page but on the talk / discussion page for he deleted article. I mistakenly thought that that is where the deletion discussion takes place.Imersion (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you posted to the AfD talk page, but that was several days after the AfD was closed. I also see that there was some discussion of the article on the now deleted talk page of the article. However, you will still need to follow the instructions in my previous message if you wish to have the AfD result reviewed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: The AfD process can be rather daunting. I see that you were never notified of the start of the AfD process. You should have been, though the lack of notification is generally not a grounds for overturning the deletion discussion. As for your questions, the article has remained deleted, so there is nothing further to delete. While the article could be restored into your user space so that you can continue to work on the article, you would need to ask the closing admin, Joe Decker, to restore it for you. I think it would be best if I not restore it since I am assisting you in the questions you have about the process. Your memory is correct that it was PAR who was participating in the discussion on the talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)