.

Welcome!

Hello, Josh.Pritchard.DBA, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

To e-mail me -- josh (AT) joshpritchard.com...otherwise, leave me notes here :)

Note that generally I don't do e-mail for on-wiki questions or comments. WLU (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, generally you don't remove anything from any talk page, particularly another editor's talk page. I've reverted your removal, if you feel that there is no more need to communicate, just leave a quick note, or don't bother adding anything to the page. WLU (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:OR, WP:TALK, WP:SIGN and MOS:CAPS. Basically, they say don't add original analysis, follow our guidelines for comments on talk pages, sign your posts, and only capitalize proper nouns and the first letter in a sentence. You may want to read this essay for noobs for a quick overview of wikipedia.

Another comment - please don't add commentary in footnotes. Footnotes should be used for citations only, adding commentary in them looks like an attempt to add commentary or WP:OR to the page in a more subtle fashion. I know this was not your intention, but that is how other experienced editors may see it. Try adding the text to the main page, but be sure to have a source, otherwise it's OR. WLU (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could you point me to a) the footnote, and b) the original analysis...I'm not sure what I'm doing incorrectly. Thanks!! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm composing a reply on Talk:ABA, it should be there shortly. I think I may have made an error, more to follow on T:ABA. Sign your posts. WLU (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CAPS - don't put capital letters on ABA unless it's the start of a sentence. Applied Behavior Analysis works in journal articles perhaps, but on wiki it's wikipedia's rules. Also the hallmark of a noob - overcapitalization :) WLU (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh,

Your contributions seem to be fine, so I'm going to leave the article with you for a while. You may want to add the template {{underconstruction}} on the top of the page for a while if you're doing a major re-write (i.e. including sections on all four of the major domains of ABA, nudge nudge, unless that's better off at behaviorism). It should keep other editors away until you remove it, so you won't run into edit conflicts. Just remember, try to source everything, and avoid 'bragging' or proclaiming about ABA as the anything. It's hard for a noob to grasp (particularly a noob who is an expert), but WP:NPOV applies and we can't say 'X is the best/only/truest whatever ever', unless there is a very authoritative source. The article on evolution isn't even allowed to say creationism is bullshit; try to wrap your head around that, and you may grok WP:NPOV. Also, WP:5P and WP:SIMPLE might be useful - the most basic summaries of the big policies. If you're not sure about something, try referring to those pages. WLU (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're done at ABA, make sure you take off the template. If you're not, you're going to run into an edit conflict when you try to save, as SandyGeorgia has already added some text. WLU (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this template is not a thing to do for the next 3 days while i'm re-working...it is something to put up at the moment I'm working, and then take down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk • contribs)

FYI, you may have run into one of the more frustrating things about wikipedia - the edit conflict (I just did on this talk page). If someone changes the page while you're editing, you get a big nasty message and a long, messy process to sort it out. The only way around it is to make numerous small edits rather than big ones, but then you get bashed for cluttering up the servers. You can't win.

If you leave the template up for more than a couple hours and don't edit, someone should take it down. Usually I only leave it there while I'm actively typing. It's not a 3 days thing. One thing you could do is start a sub page and draft the text there - it's a page that's never linked to mainspace, and basically lets you use all the features without having to worry about edit conflicts. I'll put one on your talk page in just a second. Incidentally, you create italics by either surrounding the text in two apostrophes ''thus'' becoming thus after the software has it's way. Bold uses '''three'''. Easier than the formatting you're using, there's a button on the blue bar above the edit pane that does it for you (the first three are bold, italics, and wikilink respectively). If you're not going to work on the page right now, I suggest pasting the lot into a sub-page and working there, then asking me and other editors to look at it before pasting it back to the ABA page proper. No edit conflicts and you can take your time. WLU (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Josh.Pritchard.DBA/ABA_sandbox - here you go. You can also access it from your user page. WLU (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, I left a couple of inline notes to get you started. Do you know how to step through the diffs from the history tab and see comments? You can view my comments that way, and edit them out when you're done. The inline comment is everything between the <!-- --> tags; also doesn't appear on the page when you save.modified by WLU I'll check in periodically. Welcome ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SG - sorry, I tweaked it 'cause I think it might be a bit clearer this way. I could also be wrong, feel free revert if I got it wrong. WLU (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Although we should remind Josh never to edit someone else's talk page comment, LOL !!!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh - never edit another user's talk page comments. It is VERY BAD! There's even a warning - {{uw-tpv3}}. Notice how I left a comment for SG below, and tagged my own contribution in the actual text - normally I wouldn't edit at all but I thought this would be clearer. We may look like we're kidding, but editing other comments is taken VERY seriously, and it is the extremely rare exception to do so - protecting privacy, to make them easier to read, removing personal attacks, and little else. This is indeed a blockable offence, so don't take my cavalier treatment as the norm. I'm just a huge rebel... WLU (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry -- I've read about editing comments for content...I'll definitely respect the policy. Thank you guys for all your help!!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<UnDent> What is the number (its green or red) that I see when I'm looking at my 'watch page' for instance, the (+259) and the (-27):

(diff) (hist) . . User talk:Josh.Pritchard.DBA‎; 19:50 . . (+259) . . Josh.Pritchard.DBA (Talk | contribs) (→Keep going)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:SandyGeorgia‎; 19:48 . . (+9,144) . . Fowler&fowler (Talk | contribs) (→Louis Slotin)
(diff) (hist) . . Applied behavior analysis‎; 19:29 . . (-27) . . WLU (Talk | contribs) (dangling ABA)
(diff) (hist) . . User:Josh.Pritchard.DBA‎; 19:23 . . (+32) . . WLU (Talk | contribs) (sub-page)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:WLU‎; 18:51 . . (+303) . . WLU (Talk | contribs) (→Nraden and I - reply)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Applied behavior analysis‎; 16:52 . . (+560) . . WLU (Talk | contribs) (→Sources - favour?)
Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of characters added or deleted in each edit. It's gross number, so if you replace 10 000 characters with FUCK 2500 times (seen it happen), it is a net of 0. If you add 2500 FUCK's, it shows up as +10000, if you removed that edit, you'd see -10 000. Nice use of undent. WLU (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- I get it. I've had someone suggest we create the following topics: Teaching Family Homes and Reducing Recividism, and Community Reinforcement Approach for Addiction. I don't think they're 'big' enough to qualify, but am trying to find the policy on that...how do I find a page with all the policy topics?

I don't think I should indent further when I'm adding to my last comment -- am I right?

Anyways --on the Positive_behavior_support page -- they use 'we need'...I think that's not right -- I put a comment under the history -- they don't have a talk page yet. Am I correct?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps looking for the following?

• • • • {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
      • WP:TONE
      • WP:N and WP:NOT - discusses what should, and should not be on wiki.

Before creating those pages, try to figure out if there's an existing page that already covers it, if it should be a separate page or a section in a pre-existing page, if reliable sources exist, and if it's notable. Scholarly topics, pop psychology and branches of stuff are all kinda tenuous for articles, and hard to write. I've never heard of the things you mention above, but I'd never heard of a neutron cross section before coming here.

If there's no talk page, create it by clicking on the red discussion tab and edit as normal. WLU (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Josh; no, I haven't found a good article for you to compare to. The problem is, there are no good articles on Wiki in the psychology-related realm, although there are numerous featured articles in medicine. You might browse the page, WP:FA, to see if you can find something you can compare to, although you should realize that some older FAs aren't up to standard. The only recent psychology FA is parapsychology, and I'm not sure how much comparative value that will have. You can look at Tourette syndrome, autism and Asperger syndrome if they'll help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, that's a horrific page that looks like it was created by an academic or undergrad student with no idea of what wikipedia is or how it works. Remember that you're writing for a popular audience, not specialists. WLU (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh,

Yes, it's addictive here. You'll either end up with thousands of edits, or you'll leave in disgust in a month or so... I hope it's the former :) a couple notes:

1. The anon at the Judge Rotenberg center is being very civil and reasonable. Quite unusual in an anon on an article like this one. I'll be making his suggested changes on the page and dropping him a note to thank him for his reasonableness. Again, quite unusual and to be treasured - POV-cranks who don't bother adhering to policy are one of the main reasons people leave wikipedia.
2. Another anon is going at the ABA article. It looks like a mess of acceptable edits with the wrong tone and tenuous sourcing. Would you mind having a look at integrating the edits as part of your overall re-working of the article? I hate trying to fix edits like that and it's good practice for editing. So I'm technically doing you a favour...

Thanks! WLU (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for welcoming me Truthapedian (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

glad you're no longer an anon :) Here's to lots of fun coroborediting.Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Judge Rotenberg Education Center are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Please don't say 'X started it'. I don't care who started it. Use talk pages to discuss the main page, not to paint your own personal beliefs on the page itself. WLU (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- Sorry 'bout that!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Single Subject Design requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to update it and put a hangon tag...is it good now?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, you may want to check out WP:NAME and WP:CAPS to see if the page might better be called/moved to single subject design. I'm not sure if it should be all caps, but I don't see much reason for it to be so - much as it's a proper name, it's still a descriptive one, and I don't think it's patented. It's the kind of judgement call that someone very familiar with the subject should make. You may also want to create redirects for Single-Case Research Design, single-case research design, single case research design and Single Case Research Design to the appropriate page. Makes it easier to find. For all wikilinks and search terms, the capitalization of the very first letter doesn't matter, but for subsequent letters it usually does (though the software seems to have gotten smarter recently, so this may have changed). Still, redirects means someone knows about other possible names, and has created the appropriate page - saves someone from creating a same page with a different name. WLU (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I was trying to figure out how to correct the name...I'll move it to the new lowercase name...also, we're thinking about possibly merging with single subject research...how does one do that?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A move is a simple adjustment within the wikimedia servers (or something), moving to a pre-existing page is not more complicated, but is more involved. Basically you cut and paste the entire page onto the new one (usually in its own section), trim out any duplication or self-referential links, and put a redirect on the old page. I like to use a section redirect - #REDIRECT [[Page name#Section name]] because it's a little more specific. A move is pretty quick, a merge is a lot of gruntwork and proofreading. WLU (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved it--that way the talk goes with it :)Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so the student eclipses the master... Good stuff. I still think that creating the above redirects would be a good thing for people who use different capitals and whatnot - it's good practice because it prevents the page from being created under a different name. WLU (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The statement you removed from autism rights movement is in fact supported by the references in the article, for example this one:

• Gajilan, A. Chris (February 22, 2007). "Living with autism in a world made for others". CNN. Retrieved 2007-11-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

However, I'm leaving it as it is as the section below it already deals with this part of the argument. --elmindreda (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the statement says 'many' -- that article is talking about only one -- and nowhere do I find in that article a statement about faulty logic. That is why I think that sentence is OR -- an editor is making that statement, rather than reporting on it being made somewhere. I really don't know why this page has its own page rather than a subheading under the Autism Rights Movement page...it isn't notable or sourced to support this, imo.Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, true, the faulty logic bit is OR. I'm gathering sources for the "many" bit. I can verify it from experience, but that (rightly) doesn't count in mainspace. Not sure what you mean by the article becoming a subheading of itself, though. Were you perhaps thinking of ethical challenges to autism treatment? I'll watch this talk page in case you prefer to continue the discussion here. --elmindreda (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I think that the article ethical challenges to autism treatment should be merged into Autism_rights#Ethical_challenges_to_autism_treatment. Do you see a reason it should not? I don't see that much extra information in the 'main article' Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I'll have to get back to you on that. Too much toothache today (yes, really, and I will get back to you). --elmindreda (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes -- toothaches are NO good :( Feel better soon!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that that section has basically the same problems I cited on Talk:Ethical challenges to autism treatment - no real sources, all OR, etc. I still say it's valuable info/opinions to have and document, but not as is. WP:IAR might apply if we can get the statements for a couple notable people with autism or acting as advocates. But it's a very slippy topics - the BC case about ABA I once saw used to justify the unethical status of ABA, when it's an attempt to force the government to pay for treatment. Same thing Josh noticed. I think the page can be gutted, and probably just redirected to the section. WLU (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. I've replied tentatively now. --elmindreda (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venture bravely but carefully into the Autism rights movement article. I'm guessing you will get a lot of disagreement, but the current version is a discredit to both wikipedia and the movement. Note the variety of templates for fact tagging - {{who}} versus {{fact}}, as well as others. WLU (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> I am venturing there -- but I'm trying to demonstrate that I'm not on some bent or slant...thanks for the heads-up on the Who/Fact stuff...who knew?^[who?] I just saw that they both made the same effect on the product and have always been using fact :) Thanks again!! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. I've left you a joke you should probably remove, but I couldn't resist. If you can manage to discuss calmly with the editors (I couldn't but I was younger and more snappish), it'll be a good page. I again think that lowering the bar on WP:RS to include statements from notable proponents is a good idea, but you'll have to bring that up on the talk page itself. WLU (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe -- funny joke -- its bad that you left it and that I got it ;-) Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think getting wikipedia jokes, or worse, making them on wikipedia, puts people (i.e. you and I) into a whole new realm of geekdom. Trekkies look down on us. The only organisism who envy our sex lives are those that reproduce through binary fission. WLU (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well -- I think our sex lives are better than Pseudobiceros hancockanus<--should have an article, they're incredibly weird -- they are hermaphroditic and mate by penis fencing...the winner impales the loser with his penis and injects the sperm--the loser then literally becomes his bitch. Crazy as hell, I think Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they a type of flatworm or slug? That I know this means I should not breed.

Penis fencing. Tee hee. Get back to work! WLU (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are a nudibranch which is a type of flatworm that lives undersea -- they're very beautiful, imho. I'm off to 'real' work -- hopefully will have a break there to do some wiki-work Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful? You're an interesting guy Josh. WIKPEDIA IS NOT A SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE!!!! You can get banned for just chatting. Ingrate. WLU (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> I'm not chatting -- obviously we're talking about whether or not to include a new article in wikipedia. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky, sneaky and sly, but within policy. Welcome to the dark side of wikilawyering, though your argument would be more convincing if a) there weren't a page history, and b) there wasn't an obviously broken cascade of colons extending from the previous section to this one :P

Incidentally, I don't really agree with elmindreda that you need to slow down your editing for others, so long as your changes aren't contested, but I do think given the objections to how you're doing so, on a controversial page, a sub-page is a good idea.

So, do we create penis fencing, or that hancock thing? WLU (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who would have thought that penis fencing was a blue link? Wikipedia editors are a bunch of pervs. WLU (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The warning you saw was NPOV lv 1. That means it's a level 1 warning for violating the Neutral Point of View policy. Level 1 warnings assume good faith on the part of the editor; that was for someone brand new. I don't think that editor meant to break the rules, they just probably didn't understand them. NPOV can be hard to write, especially when we're passionate about a subject. I wanted to include an example to help explain the edits too, so hopefully that editor can be more careful in the future.

I put a note about the warning in the edit summary because it helps others see at a glance whether there have been previous warnings, even if they've been deleted from the talk page. Some users delete the warnings (although obviously they're still there in the history), but putting it in the edit summary saves other people from having to hunt through the history. It's mostly relevant for repeat vandals, but sometimes it comes up for other issues too. Besides, it's a good habit to do the edit summary. Check out the template warning page for a full explanation of all the different levels and how the templates are used.

I hope this answers your question. Let me know if it doesn't.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it does, thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thief! At least you gave me credit. It goes both ways - if you find any obscure policies, essays, templates or tools you think are really handy, please let me know. I still very frequently get posts from many different users on neat stuff I didn't know about. WLU (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for clobbering your edit right away. Nothing personal, just my WP:BLP reflex, i.e. the unsourced "some call her" thing you added a sourced counterpoint to still had to go. Happy editing. --elmindreda (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me -- I just wanted it to be clear she didn't consider herself an activisit, nothing taken personally :) Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you left a request on my page regarding the, now deleted, "Armenian Forgeries" article -

Have I fulfilled your expectations on your request? Please note whether I have or haven't.

Thank you for reading this,
Sincerely,
--Kiyarrllston 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for responding. It was my first time with... that kind of NPOV violation, my first reaction was putting an NPOV tag on it - and then asking somebody else.

Do you regularly take a look at NPOV tagged articles?

I took a look at your user page - What exactly is DBA?

Sincerely,

Kiyarrllston

[message posted at 00:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)]

Behavioral analysis redirects to "behaviorism" within wikipedia. Are they the same thing?

--Kiyarrllston 02:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Josh. I just wanted to apologize for not responding to your posts during most of January. I was involved in an unpleasant ArbCom case, and needed a break to regain my good faith in Wikipedia. I have returned, refreshed and restored, but with less interest in keeping up with the autism-related articles. I know you're in good hands with WLU and Eubulides. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am currently working on improving a VERY short article on social stories- it had a quick introduction and one research article that it spoke of. I will be adding multiple sources, etc. But, while I was posting section by section- someone posted a sign at the top the page saying it is a candidate for speedy removal due to lack of citations, etc. I am just about to add my section on the research conducted on it, and would like to put some sort of message at the top that it is in the middle of a large reworking...can you tell me how to do this???--Svernon (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said, “Jeffrey, Note: WLU was just giving you advice that you MAY have a COI -- most likely because the edit you added had the same last name as your username...he's nto accusing, just advising. Threatening other editors and questioning their qualifications is not good practice on wikipedia, as it is not community-building behavior. As to WLU's qualification and edit numbers -- his contributions speak for themselves. His advice is very useful, I recommend following it. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)”

My response is: No. That is not correct Mr. Pritchard. WLU did not “just give advice.” WLU deleted my entry. He took action based on his assumption that I am in some way related to the person in the edit. He based this assumption on the fact that we have the same last name. How many surnames are listed in Wikipedia? Clan Henderson is listed. Henderson is one of the most common surnames in the in the English speaking World! I understand that WLU possibly didn’t know this, but it is much more probable that he didn’t care. Why else would he delete the entry? It is much more possible that he just wanted to reach a higher score on his stupid little edit count, which he boasts so fondly of. You can debate the difference between the definitions of accuse and advise all you want, but there is little doubt of his malice. He deleted my research from the site based solely on my surname! That sir is not good judgment and I also question your judgment for defending such a hack. I did not threaten WLU. I guarantee if he ever removes research from edits based on some ones last name, I WILL report him. Editor’s qualifications are the MOST important inquiries we should be making on Wikipedia. Who are you to say otherwise? I am not a part of WLU’s community and unlike you I don’t wish to build anything with someone so quick to judge and forego an apology when he is wrong. His qualifications on the bench press are nil, his edits are a fraud, and his bench press contribution spoke danger for Wikipedia. His advice? What advice? He is wrong. His advice was that I might have a close connection to the entry. He was wrong. And so are you for being his crony. Why don't you take a stand. Next time tell your cowardly buddy to write me himself and to stop deleting edits based on his almighty whim. -- Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One does not need to have "qualifications on the bench press" to edit articles about bench press. And having "qualifications on the bench press" as you say constitute WP:COI. I do not know if he deleted your edit based on last name. It might have been based on lack of WP:notability. Igor Berger (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a detailed discussion of my rationale on JPH's talk page (here), and congratulations to Igorberger and JP in keeping their cool. WLU (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay me for keeping my cool! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm very impressed with how well you managed a polite and useful response to a rather hostile editor. I appreciate your efforts on my behalf and I would say you are an excellent model for how all editors should interact with others. Though regards actual editing, you really should BE BOLD!! Your ability to calmly discuss with others will stand you in good stead in case you do make a mistake. Anyone can add text, but getting along with others is a skill often lacking. Let me know if you're ever up for adminship 'cause based on our interactions you definitely have my vote. WLU (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I tried to streamline the section on prompting that I modeled after what was there previously- a real world exmaple, etc. It didn't seem to fit with the new professional language that you added-thank you, it looks much better!--Svernon (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Svernon! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've got it in the right spot. Working now? You may need to WP:Bypass your cache to make the script load. Gimmetrow 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am the creator of this article in wikipedia. i do not believe that it is something which is a marketing of some product. it is a generic theme which is initiated for organizations, associations, communities who are working for cooperative learning.

this approach at the moment is just taught to students in schools and colleges where an extension is required to expand it to higher level where bigger communities should be involved in it to learn cooperation in their activities and missions. this is the whole objective of the article.

this article should not be added into wiki rage. i post multiple edits of it as i found someone from unknown IP address has made some changes to it. i again insist that this is purely not an advertisement of some product or company. it is a concept that will start be implementing in near future by communities who are working in cooperation learning to adopt an institutionalize approach to cooperative learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamishaque (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. What do you have in mind? --A little mollusk (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of this article: child development, specifically the behavior analysis area...check it out and let me know your thoughts! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That *is* a task. I'll do what I can as I am able. That OK by you? A little mollusk (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I would appreciate your help VERY much. Thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the first two graphs in that section. Some of the jargon is out of the ken of lay folks. What can be done to help in that respect? A little mollusk (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok -- I'll take a look as soon as possible, thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have questions or concerns regarding who is notable and who isn't, it might be better to raise them at Talk:List of Alpha Phi Omega members, since I am just one editor out of several that have edited the page. I think the vast majority of research for that list was done by Naraht (Randy Finder; Kappa chapter alumnus). I think as a general rule, consensus has provided that "notable" be defined as brothers that are well known in the political, business, scientific, sports, or non-profit sectors (citations in the popular press being provided for most notability). Dr. Cash (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know what they eat, and what the yearly activities are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.139.31 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you have in mind. I'm the one who did most of the research on the Notable Alpha Phi Omega wikipedia page.Naraht (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you still wanting to clean up the child development page? Specifically behaviourism? I know alot of it got removed a while back but I find whats currently written pretty incomprehensible so it may also have that effect on other readers.Fainites ^barley 13:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the behaviorism aspect, yes. Are you? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very late reply to question you asked me on my talk page.

You asked me whether I believe that Autism has no negative effects on me? (Technically you asked me whether I believe it has no negative effect on those diagnosed with it, but misdiagnosis is always an issue).

And my answer is: Correct. I do not think Autism has any inherent negative effects on those who have it.

There are problems, but these mostly arise due to incompatibilities between autist and non-autist sensibilities (sounds or smells that bother autists, but are pleasing to non-autists, for instance are very prevalent in the world, but not in nature. The problem, in this case, is man-made and thus is not inherent to autism, but instead to 'society'.) Robrecht (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Los Horcones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no assertion of notability

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just made a few cosmetic improvements to the Behavior management that you started in 2007 (I think?). Was wondering if you would have a look at it, since this is in your area of expertise, and maybe make some improvements? I'm not at all involved in your project, just happened across the article. Hires an editor (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh.Pritchard.DBA,
I wanted to know if you could reply to my comment on the talk page to merge the Behavior modification article into the Applied behavior analysis article, as ABA is the new term of Behavior mod.
See here: Talk:Applied behavior analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification
Thanks!
ATC ^{. Talk} 21:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Los Horcones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Horcones until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

~TPW 14:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]