User:VisitingPhilosopher/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GOOD-FAITH, please[edit]

What I am not[edit]

  • No vandalism.
  • No adverts - I do not have any business to promote.
  • No external links - I do not work in the web industry or have any sites to promote.
  • Not affiliated with any of the publications I mention, reference or quote in Wikipedia. I have nothing to promote except moving towards a more peaceful, happier world, one generation at a time. "Our children are our future.".

What I am[edit]

  • WikiGnome pottering about in (very rare) spare time
  • If an article is missing, then I'd like to have a stab at writing it.
  • My main aim: to live in "peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations" ~ The Meaning of Life. A few efforts towards this aim here.
  • I have 30 years of professional writing experience. I have adhered to various style guides during my career.
  • Other experience includes the raising of three children. I hope to donate some of my time to the project.

Articles created[edit]

Allegory of the long spoons, Sarah Maple, Personal relationship skills

Articles edited[edit]

Golden Rule, Learned helplessness

Articles reviewed[edit]

Learned industriousness

Helped with these Wikipedia initiatives and projects[edit]

T:TDYK T:DYK/Q

Vandalism

Wikiquote[edit]

You have your brush, you have your colours, you paint paradise, then, in you go. / you go right in. ~ Nikos Kazantzakis

As quoted in Journal of Modern Literature Vol. 2, No. 2, Nikos Kazantzakis (1971 - 1972)

to add - the picture quote on the right hand side, picture: File:Path_in_the_garden_by_August_Macke.jpg [1]

- handy paste

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

Warning icon So please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Redirect edited[edit]

Google searches below show that the "Personal relationship" term is well established to mean intimate relationship, so this redirect was corrected - Personal relationship.

Evidence for "Personal relationship skills" notability[edit]

This is a review of the closely related terms giving the evidence of the precise taxonomy and nomenclature in this specialist psychology field. The google search for "Personal relationship skills"[1] stays firmly on topic - skills to be used by couples themselves - whereas other related terms have the meanings below:

  1. "Interpersonal skills" - these are work-related management skills - click for evidence >> Interpersonal skills
  2. "Couple skills" - these are skills for counsellors - click for evidence >> Couple skills -
  3. "Intimate relationship skills" - not notable, just 1 book uses the term, in 2012, - click for evidence >> Intimate relationship skills
  4. "Personal relationship skills" term is notable and not a neologism - click for evidence >> Personal relationship skills

References

  1. ^ Stephen J. Sampson Ph.D.; Cindy Elrod Ph.D. Personal Relationship Skills for beginning, strengthening, and maintaining an intimate personal relationship. HRD Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-59996-065-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

In progress[edit]

/list formatting

Interesting Articles Read[edit]

Learned helplessness

Reflections on 2000 hours of Wikipedia editing[edit]

deletionist knowledge could help authors develop - not kill them off

When an author is asking for guidance, then that author is open to advice and seeking an improved article.

Each page deleted will often mean another author lost from Wikipedia.

That's a large responsibility for a deletionist to bear.

Every deleted page may kill a contributor.

Could their deletionist knowledge help that author develop into a useful contributor?

Or spurn the contributor, and lose them.

The strict requirement for original writing (so copyright-free), with no original thought, will hurt wikipedia when it turns away all its fans, instead of nurturing the hard workers.

Was this author trying to improve?

With EVERY sentence having at least one reference, and often many sources; was it then fair to say "only provides sources for a small part of the content".

deletion-example

Would the time spent on this essay be better spent improving Wikipedia?

Or, as suggested, another wiki: Wikipedia:Why_was_the_page_I_created_deleted?#If_all_else_fails.2C_try_another_wiki