This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
It is possible that the worked example from the 1990s should be put in a sub-article, as it is very long and just an example.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Should this article be called Confrontation Analysis or Drama Theory?-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:ITALIC says "Italics may also be used where, in the course of using a term in an article, that term is being defined, introduced or distinguished in meaning." I think this is the reason for some of the jargon being italicised. Please could you add a glossary of the jargon. Note that in the glossary you should use bold - see WP:MOSBOLD.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
A major contributor to this article appears to have a
close connection with its subject. (April 2012) |
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's
general notability guideline. (April 2012) |
I must admit to being an expert on the subject of confrontation analysis. This is why people asked me to write the article, and why I wrote it. Obviously being an expert on a subject should not disqualify you from writing on Wikipedia, rather it should be a reason why you should contribute. Wikipedia is now very comprehensive, and it is difficult to write a new article on anything without being an expert.
I think I understand what the COI header is about, as I believe it is designed to prevent partisan sources editing in controversial subjects.
However I do not think that a mathematical process (such as confrontation analysis) can be considered controversial in the same way as a political, religious, or conspiracy theory article could be. . We do not say “2+2 =4 except in some areas of Somalia where it is 7” 2+2 is always 4. One of the elegancies of Mathematics is that it does not produce “controversial” outcome in the same way politics or religion does. Perhaps you could you point me to (say 3) other articles about mathematical processes that have warnings that that are not written neutrally.
Please could you tell me where you think I have not been neutral in what I have written so I can correct it.
However, I was advised by veteran Wikipedia editor not to edit using my real name, but to use a pseudonym. This I didn’t do, perhaps on principle, as I believe in openness. He did warn that using my real name would just cause trouble, and didn’t believe this to be the case. It now looks as if my advisors were right. I should have edited anonymously, so as to avoid the hassle of explaining myself here.
I will start a new user and edit and write future articles under a pseudonym. However I will continue to edit this article under my real name.
As for notability, at the moment I have links to eight sources, only one of which is written by me. Please could you make it clear what the minimum number of articles I need to link to is. Please tell me and I will add the extra links. I must also admit to being very confused about what you mean by secondary articles. I fully understand the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources in historical articles. I do not understand how an article describing a mathematical process can be considered primary or secondary in the same way that history can be.
So let’s not get into a revert war about this. If you would like to discuss, please do underneath and when you do so could you please be polite enough to immediately send me an email to say you have commented. I am contactable via my user page. Mike Young ( talk) 18:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I am a confrontation analysis practitioner and this article contains links to works from a variety of key researchers/practitioners in this area - so there's no indication that it's a self serving article. The author is an active practitioner, but the article covers the major sources and elements of the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.76.3 ( talk) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm misreading it, the text of the example in the article doesn't fit with the accompanying pictures. It refers to 'rows' when it should refer to 'columns'. Either that or the pictures need to be changed. Robofish ( talk) 19:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep that's right. Article corrected Mike Young ( talk) 12:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The text and the images disagree in at least two other respects:
WildGardener ( talk) 16:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, my fault for uploading too fast and making mistakes. Diagrams now corrected Mike Young ( talk) 11:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
It is possible that the worked example from the 1990s should be put in a sub-article, as it is very long and just an example.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Should this article be called Confrontation Analysis or Drama Theory?-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:ITALIC says "Italics may also be used where, in the course of using a term in an article, that term is being defined, introduced or distinguished in meaning." I think this is the reason for some of the jargon being italicised. Please could you add a glossary of the jargon. Note that in the glossary you should use bold - see WP:MOSBOLD.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
A major contributor to this article appears to have a
close connection with its subject. (April 2012) |
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's
general notability guideline. (April 2012) |
I must admit to being an expert on the subject of confrontation analysis. This is why people asked me to write the article, and why I wrote it. Obviously being an expert on a subject should not disqualify you from writing on Wikipedia, rather it should be a reason why you should contribute. Wikipedia is now very comprehensive, and it is difficult to write a new article on anything without being an expert.
I think I understand what the COI header is about, as I believe it is designed to prevent partisan sources editing in controversial subjects.
However I do not think that a mathematical process (such as confrontation analysis) can be considered controversial in the same way as a political, religious, or conspiracy theory article could be. . We do not say “2+2 =4 except in some areas of Somalia where it is 7” 2+2 is always 4. One of the elegancies of Mathematics is that it does not produce “controversial” outcome in the same way politics or religion does. Perhaps you could you point me to (say 3) other articles about mathematical processes that have warnings that that are not written neutrally.
Please could you tell me where you think I have not been neutral in what I have written so I can correct it.
However, I was advised by veteran Wikipedia editor not to edit using my real name, but to use a pseudonym. This I didn’t do, perhaps on principle, as I believe in openness. He did warn that using my real name would just cause trouble, and didn’t believe this to be the case. It now looks as if my advisors were right. I should have edited anonymously, so as to avoid the hassle of explaining myself here.
I will start a new user and edit and write future articles under a pseudonym. However I will continue to edit this article under my real name.
As for notability, at the moment I have links to eight sources, only one of which is written by me. Please could you make it clear what the minimum number of articles I need to link to is. Please tell me and I will add the extra links. I must also admit to being very confused about what you mean by secondary articles. I fully understand the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources in historical articles. I do not understand how an article describing a mathematical process can be considered primary or secondary in the same way that history can be.
So let’s not get into a revert war about this. If you would like to discuss, please do underneath and when you do so could you please be polite enough to immediately send me an email to say you have commented. I am contactable via my user page. Mike Young ( talk) 18:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I am a confrontation analysis practitioner and this article contains links to works from a variety of key researchers/practitioners in this area - so there's no indication that it's a self serving article. The author is an active practitioner, but the article covers the major sources and elements of the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.76.3 ( talk) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm misreading it, the text of the example in the article doesn't fit with the accompanying pictures. It refers to 'rows' when it should refer to 'columns'. Either that or the pictures need to be changed. Robofish ( talk) 19:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep that's right. Article corrected Mike Young ( talk) 12:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The text and the images disagree in at least two other respects:
WildGardener ( talk) 16:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, my fault for uploading too fast and making mistakes. Diagrams now corrected Mike Young ( talk) 11:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)