Good looking page! I have two questions about the Reference section: 1. [take a look at this], and 2. Your code is showing! I think with the ((reflist)) markup you don't need the end tag. Dr Ashton (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits.

You notice that this was removed. I agree: it should have been. Was it a mistake?

Do you understand why your dog edit was removed? I don't. Why don't you ask that editor?

Dr Ashton (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prof Ashton, Yes, after editing, I linked the edit to my page by accident, so I beleive it was removed for incorrect link

I've talked to the editor, who initially thanked me for the edit, but explained he did not want his article to turn into a list of crossbreeds

Thanks for the feedback and reference! --KierraA. (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)--KierraA. (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keirra,

1. When responding to a talk message, post the response on that editor's talk page.

2. Good changes

3. Did you edit the crossbreed page then?

4. what about this? [take a look at this] Should a userpage be a reference?

Dr Ashton (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PSY 490 editors

the link below is what I've been working on for the Abstract. You may edit it or play around with it if you like

[Course Abstract]

Xyzbb1253 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you can put in a sentence or two if you like or make changes to it too. Go ahead, add to it

Xyzbb1253 (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keirra,

The improvement tag is about links to the article. Did you add links?

Dr Ashton (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Team hope everyone is having a productive weekend!

Let us begin with a couple of terms we should definitely cite, "Psychological Testing" and "Work Sampling" should be cited which I have done It is one of the tools for individual assessments. I have also noticed that the article is still written in a opinionated matter. The improvements can be made but therefore we should all be more careful on certain words to be used that may prevent the article to be continued to be written in this format. Including the main definition of Industrial/Organizational Assessment the two quotes are used to define a term, lets simplify the quote paraphrase it to a solid meaning and just cite the quote. What do you think? Oplmnq3 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change this article because this is not a topic but more of discussion post of various subject matters relating to assessments. Look here for more info. Xyzbb1253 (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally fine with changing the whole article though our time is limited our best approach would lean more towards Kierra had suggested for us to take our own section and make it clean and smooth as possible. Oplmnq3 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	A barnstar for your links to the I&O Assessment page! Dr Ashton (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good stub!

Dr Ashton (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys,

Here what I think you should do individually to the IPA article:

• KierraA.- Work on the introduction (the top part of the page) and expand it with more information (& only information) on the stuff the professor wanted. Its best if you use the articles that can be found on the talk page, & to access them you have to log in though York's library with the 14 digit ID number found on the back of your York ID

• Devika - Use one of the articles on the talk page to expand the Overview section (to access them you have to log in though York's library with the 14 digit ID number found on the back of your York ID) and scan the page for words that can be turned into links and then change them to links.

• Oplmnq3 - I have replaced your edits with PAQ stuff (not sure if that was all of it though), and you should use the articles you placed on the talk page to expand that along with a Job Analysis section (use the article with the professor's pick beside for the job analysis)

Xyzbb1253 (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ashton has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

GOOD STUB!!!!

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Workplace Acceptance (disabilities) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Work, Chronic, Exposure, Qualification, Ability, Criterion and Accommodation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kierra,

I thought your stub was employment (disabilities)?

Dr Ashton (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to see it

Xyzbb1253 (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]