Talk:Procrastination/Archive 1

message: First, let me express my reaction over the present article. What in the heavens is that?! It is clearly not NPOV, the tone of the whole article seems to condemn the need to classify procrastination into the DSM and quite frankly it not well formatted.--Janarius 03:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the edit history. I've reverted to the last good version. Someone appears to be trying to make this article reflect their personal standpoint on the issue. If the article is not good by the time you see this message, please revert it to the last NPOV version. Graham 08:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I'll have it under my watchlist.--Janarius 01:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: I have tried to incorporate the changes by 24.18.171.99 to fit with the general tone and structure of the previous article. The previous revision can be found here.  I do not believe that this article should be filled with too many examples of procrastination and its possible effects, as much of this contradicts the no original research policy, which is a very important policy for wikipedia. They are also biased towards the problems of older white males, and this article is supposed to represent all points of view about procrastination.
I also reinstated the part of the article about academic procrastination, as the problem of procrastination is very relevant to those in academic institutions, so it at least deserves a mention here. I also removed the examples of computer addiction, for the same reason I removed the examples above - they also border on original research, and are not necessary for that section of the article. I did, however, keep most of the new definition, as I think it describes the concept of procrastination better than the old definition. I also kept the see also link to academic procrastination, in the hope that the new article may be expanded.
I welcome discussion on these changes, but after 13:00 UTC today (18 October), I will not be able to respond until 8:00 UTC (4:00 EST) tomorrow at the earliest. - Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I have both and am rather lazy. Is this true, or did someone like me just add it as an excuse? is there a source, if so, I'd like to use it. thanks. Pellaken 02:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADHD and Depression 

message: --220.238.44.174 07:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If all the people would abstain from procrastinating their wikipedian duties, this encyclopedia would grow much, much fasterrrrrrrrrr... --Keimzelle 15:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a Joke! 

message: Is there a real reason for the recent deletions? Why is an evolutionary perspective not noteworthy? Huh? Explain that to me, please. --Keimzelle 10:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories Section 

message: I really wish it would be appropriate to put "STOP READING THIS AND GET TO WORK" in big, red type at the top of this page....  Because you KNOW why people end up here (or on Wikipedia in general, for that matter...)  ZacharyS 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idle idea...