User talk:Procrastinus

Procrastinatus, I see you deleted a link to my work because you found it unsupported by scholarship. I hugely respect wikipedia (and have donated for years) and its editorial process. Also it's clear procrastination is a topic that's important to you, as it is to me, and I respect that.

I have taught antiprocrastination and other productivity techniques for more than a decade at internationally recognized venues including The Loft, Mark Twain House, and Grub Street Writers. If you check out the Amazon reviews for my book The 7 Secrets of the Prolific you will see that the methods I teach do indeed work: http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Prolific-Procrastination-Perfectionism-ebook/product-reviews/B006J7BZ8E/ It is also one of the top sellers in the productivity category.

My prior book, The Lifelong Activist, reflected my deep interest in social change, and it was from that perspective that I was able to recognize the central truth that underproductivity is often the yield of disempowerment. The section you deleted explained why that is the case, and I go deeper into the topic in various articles on my website.

None of the other major writers on productivity are very involved in social change, to my knowledge, which is why my viewpoint may look like an outlier. It is, I agree, a valid question on which "outlier" opinions deserve inclusion in a Wikipedia article. On one hand you don't want to be indiscriminate, but on the other you don't want to rigidly exclude them. Wikipedia itself was once an outrageous outlier idea.

I would like the opportunity to discuss my work with you. I also would like to address the issue that there are other people cited on the procrastination page whose work also isn't supproted by scholarship, so the editorial standard is not being consistently applied.

Please respond here or email me at hillary@hillaryrettig.com .

Thank you for considering this, and for your work keeping Wikipedia honest. - Hillary Rettig

108.5.178.97 (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)