Talk:Procrastination/Archive 2

message: The major thing I objected to about the sections in the previous version of the article was that it sounded like an advertisement for a particular method for overcoming procrastination. Wikipedia is not an advertisement service, and the version of the article to which I reverted was neutral in content and did not advocate any method for dealing with procrastination; it just said that chronic procrastinators are likely to suffer from an underlying condition, which is all that is needed. The previous revision referred to the subject as "you" throughout the article, which is against the manual of style. Also see the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 32 for more information on this.
If I am reverted on this change, I won't revert back without further discussion on this page, in order not to start an edit war. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on revert 

message: Thank you for calling a truce at the outset and opening this discussion.  I shall deal with each of your objections under separate subheadings below.  Go for it! 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm glad you are willing to discuss this matter 

message: Wikipedia's no advertising policy refers to articles about companies and products.  This article does not cover companies nor products of any kind.  Nor does it endorse particular methods.  On the contrary, we have attempted to bring as many methods as possible together into the article.  Like most articles about complex subjects on Wikepedia, this one is a compilation drawn inspired by many diverse sources. 
That the material may appear vaguely similar to material published in books, hence your advertising concern, is because it is well written, and that is not a valid argument for reversion. (Though I take it as a complement that the material is of high enough quality that you may have mistaken it for a commercial source of such information.  Thank you.).  
The Wikipedia strives for professional quality.  All the articles featured on the home page must follow rigorous instructions of development and even go through a peer review process and a final nomination/vote to attain feature status.  All this so that the articles look as good as those professionally published.
If you fear that this material was copied or plagiarized from a book, please find the book, and present it as evidence here.  Go for it! 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your "no advertising" objection 

message: What this article covers are practices, which are totally allowed within the Wikipedia.  For an explicitly extreme example, see the List of sexual positions, which is considered of such high quality that it is a Wikipedia featured list.  That article illustrates and describes the various sexual maneuvers, which are basically methods of having sex.  Notice that the article does not advocate any particular method of having sex, as they present a wide variety of available methods.
In a similar fashion, this article provides a wide variety of practices for eliminating procrastination.  And just as "having sex" as covered in the List of sexual positions can't be considered a single method, neither can "eliminating procrastination", as the practices reported came from all over the place.
As mentioned before, this article, like most of the articles about complex subjects on Wikipedia, is a compilation.  Go for it! 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your do "not advocate any method" argument 

message: You cited the manual of style concerning the use of the word "you" throughout the article.
According to the manual of style:
* "Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."
* "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required."
So, the tense in which an article is written is not substantial grounds for reversion.  It is, however a good enough reason to go in and fix the grammar to the proper style, if you so desire.  Just make sure that it remains clear and informative.
I hope I have addressed your concerns to your satisfaction.  Please understand that the article was written with the best of intentions by all concerned, and the practices presented are typical of methods found in the real world.  Note that many colleges and universities have web-pages dedicated to overcoming procrastination, and that the word procrastination comes up on a Google search 3,670,000 times.  The subject is a fairly well-known and well-reported one.
Thank you for your time and consideration.  Go for it! 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your second person argument 

message: I really enjoyed this article - probably on of the higher-quality ones on Wiki.
:Thanks for the encouragement. Go for it! 10:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Article 

message: I came here to give a third opinion, but when I saw how long the article was (and it seems to be incredibly long, to me), I figured I didn't have time to read it right now.  So I guess I'll give you a third opinion on it when I get around to it, unless someone else does it first. Aumakua 10:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Pianoman, I've converted the "Consequences of procrastination, with examples" and "Characteristics of procrastination" sections to the 3rd-person.  They've been Wikified!!!  Let me know what you think.  Go for it! 10:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thankyou. That's a good start. Now, I would still like the article to read more like an encyclopedia article than a how-to guide. For example:
"In essence, procrastination is a form of incompetence. To cure it is to eliminate it. Since incompetence is the opposite or lack of competence, the only
way to eliminate it is to replace it with competence."
 This sounds quite airy fairy, and sounds like a self-help book. It doesn't help me at all: I can easily ask questions like "what is the difference between my compitent and incompitent actions?" And "What would this do for me?" Passages like this need to be removed or largely trimmed. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And lol at the notice you put on the top of the article. I'll keep it there for now just because I think it's funny, but it may be removed. Someone joked about the idea recently ... Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikification has begun! 

message: Would it be easier to transwiki much of this to wikibooks, and leave an external link to that in the article? I don't think much of it is necessary here. Graham/pianoman87 talk 04:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: I need to give an appology for indirectly comparing User:Keimzelle to user:Willy on Wheels above. (See struck out comment in reply in the response  section , you may have to use edit this page for it to be visible; I'm not familiar with how things look for sighted people.) Anyway, Keimzelle, you are free to discuss the merits of the "expectancy value theory" section, or any other one for that matter, at this talk page, and I see Go for it! has already offered such an invitation. Btw, user:go for it!, is there another name by which you would prefer to be called? I just don't feel comfortable addressing someone using a pseudonym like this. I'd prefer to be known as Graham, which is my real name as stated on my user page.
By coincidence, there is an Australian radio program on ABC Local Radio on Monday dealing with procrastination and how to beat it, which I will listen to tomorrow. It is part of a program called Nightlife hosted by Tony Delroy (I hope!), and the segment will air from about 11:30 to 12:00 UTC on Monday. It can be heard live here. If I find anything that comes to light, I will note it in this discussion page.
Regards, Graham/pianoman87 talk 15:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Appology 

message: Hi,
Thank you all and I hope we can build a truly excellent article from what we already have. About my contribs, the "theories" section: Someone has added a  tag to two of the sections; and after removing the comment tags I saw that this means "This section needs to be edited for readability." Well, I ask myself what parts of these sections should be unreadable. Should I rewrite these sections in French or German? Or should I put these in the words of a scientist? (I'm a 2nd year college student in biology...) --Keimzelle 18:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Readability" ? 

message: I'm inclined to agree with Graham, in that this article is on the whole too long and often unencyclopedic. A lot of the material could be successfully transwikied, and I think that'd be a great solution. I don't think the information and work that Go for it! has put in should be removed, it just doesn't fit here. Another possibility is that of a split to something like Techniques for dealing with procrastination or some such list. Arturus 23:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the processes for transwikiing text to wikibooks and producing a well-designed book in the process? I'm not familiar with wikibooks, and I would try to make sure the articles in wikipedia and wikibooks compliment each other. I think all the section on "how to's" should be transwikied there. However, reputable sources will have to be cited. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This article holds knowledge about procrastination; and that's exactly the meaning of an encyclopedia. Yes, even telling somebody to get professional aid (like in the cancer article) is advice to self-help, because organizing a meeting with a doctor requires an effort from the patient. --Keimzelle 12:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My take 

message: I'll spare you all the usual jokes about procrastinating instead of reading the article. I thought the core article was interesting and brought out some ideas on the nature of procrastination that I hadn't generally considered before. I suspect the expectancy-value theory is only rarely used in that precise fashion - that is to say, I don't think most people model the equation out - but the conjecture therein seems like a worthy object of study for someone at some point. 
The article is a worthy piece and inspires interesting thought - it's no surprise that the bulk of it is about overcoming procrastination, as volumes have been written on such topics (and it seems like one of the natural reasons to research procrastination). Though it might be amusing to write a Wiki article on the best ways to procrastinate, I suspect that would endear me to very few indeed. I do agree with the sentiment that it's rather conversational, but that can be brushed into shape easily enough.
In short: I like the article, I'm not sure what I'd cut (other than tightening a few sentences) and I don't think it's long enough/detailed enough to be a book. I'd say run with it.
Hallerlake 07:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought-provoking 

message: So I think I have a good solution for how we can clean this mess up: Move "Eliminating procrastination" from a subsection of the article to its own subpage or article. 
Rationale: 
#Advice on how to eliminate procrastination doesn't tell us anything about procrastination, so it doesn't really belong in an article about procrastination.
#This section easily takes up at least half of the article if not more.
#Most of the advice looks significantly biased towards neurolinguistic/behavioral programming. I believe this constitutes a NPOV issue, and it would be much more easily addressed if we gave the section its own article.
#Furthermore, We could present solutions to procrastination in a more organized format, perhaps sorted by background-theory. We could have sections on psychoanalysis, behavior correction, NLP, goal-setting....whatever.
Sound promising? Please throw down some comments. If I don't see any responses over the next week or so, I'm just going to make the move.Shaggorama 20:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no problem - procrastination does not appear in the list of medical topics linked from the medical disclaimer. An encyclopedia is a a collection of opinions about what the most important things to know about a subject are - and please be assured that the information about controlling procrastination is regarded as important by many of us out here. --New Thought 07:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming the article 

message: http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=63klkx6drw34y6cqfktwkfd7c3ns9t6j is the best article I've ever read about procrastination...
One distinction it makes, which the wikipedia article is missing (I think) is between arousal and avoidant procrastinators:
:"'Arousal procrastinators' believe they work best under pressure and tend to delay tasks for the thrill. 'Avoidant procrastinators' are self-doubters who tend to postpone tasks because they worry about performing inadequately, or because they fear their success may raise others' expectations of them."
There's plenty of other useful information in the article that I think should be included as well... somebody check it out... (anon)
:I once had written something like that in the "Theories" section but it got deleted by other users. I think it is true that there two types of procrastinators, the "arousal" and "avoidance" sorts.--Keimzelle 13:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More stuff to add

message: The following is just my opinion of the article, but I would be surprised if I were the only one to hold it.  I would prefer there were more discussion of the genetic and neurochemical aspects.  What part and how influential is heredity, have any studies been done in this area?  What part does early parenting, training and education play in forming habits of procrastination?  More detail about what part volition and will play in procrastination.
I may have made the correct judgment and decision to act in some way or do something, but am unable to carry it out due to a lack of volition or willpower.  I am unable to will that I do something because I am unable to tolerate or overcome some emotional pain.  I sometimes know what the right thing to do is and have a very strong desire to do it, but am unable to begin or complete the task due to some other factor.  I am unable to push myself through or past that factor to begin the task.  The satisfaction of potentially completing the task is not as great as the satisfaction gained from putting it off and doing something else instead.  Or perhaps the consequences of not doing a task I know I should do are not as immediate and strong as the emotional pain I feel when I try and force myself to do an unpleasant task or abstain/forgo doing a more pleasant activity.
In my opinion this article has too much 'self help' advice and 'pop psychology', Motherly advice, speculation and too many cliches.
But I could be wrong.
--Jim 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaargh, I knew that somebody out there would point his finger on these details. I once wrote that during the last several thousand years of human evolution there weren't paper submission deadlines and the like, and the effect was that we were forced to fulfil only those jobs that would a) feed us and b) give us a shelter for the night. Although I'm no specialist in biochemistry or genetics I believe that the human biochemistry doesn't fight procrastination; or that it even furthers this habit. Told bluntly: there are pain transmitters that signal you "I'm starving!" when you put off to hunt your mammoth; but there is no pathway signalling "Oh, I should do my school homework!". If bad school marks would hurt physically (or even select) and if schools would have existed for a time span long enough, there surely would be neurochemical systems that prevent procrastination. A failure of the "Do your work now"-hormon would then produce the clinical symptoms of procrastination. --Keimzelle 13:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just my opinion 

message: #1 You may be making some misassumptions about WikiBooks.  It is not a junkyard for Wikipedia articles, and while Wikipedians casually toss the notion of transwiki'ing articles over there, WikiBookians aren't casual about it at all, and resent our attitude towards their site.  They routinely delete encyclopedia articles, because the are encyclopedia articles.  So, in essence, WikiBooks has become a graveyard for Wikipedia articles.  In fact, this article was already placed there, and they are trying to delete it right now.  Their reasons are:
:#1 It's not a wikibook, it's a wikipedia article.
:#2 There isn't a dedicated author for transforming and expanding it into a WikiBook
:#3 There is no vigorous plan nor schedule for transforming the article to the proper format
#2 The article has been up for deletion on WikiBooks since January 3rd, long past their official interval for deletion discussion, and has been hanging in the balance ever since.  As soon as the discussion recieves enough votes on either side for it to be considered a concensus, only then will the issue be decided.  It could be deleted at any time.
#3 Wikibooks gets a small fraction of the traffic Wikipedia gets.  This article was there for weeks and received hardly any edits at all.  Another sense in which Wikibooks is a graveyard for Wikipedia articles.
#4Wikipedia's "no self-references" policy would prevent us from being able to inform readers that the previous article was still available, and that any particular link was to the previous version of the article.
::--Go for it!
:would there be a link from the article to the new wikibook? Would everyone be able to update the wikibook? --New Thought 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, using  at the end of the article. [wikibooks]] is also editable like wikipedia. Graham/pianoman87 talk 05:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by step 3? Do you mean cutting and pasting incrementally from wikibooks, and getting help from other users that way? The article has already been transwikied and is undergoing a vote for deletion there. As is said on that vote for deletion, it needs major cleanup - it needs major cleanup wherever it is. I certainly agree with the reversion you propose. I'm sorry for not responding earlier - I thought I said everything I think about the article on this talk page before, and wanted to wait for a concrete proposal before responding. Graham/pianoman87 talk 14:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibooks is not a junkyard for Wikipedia articles 

message: One reason why the article isn't progressing, is because I've been reluctant to work on it, because its fate hangs in the balance in this discussion.  Why work on an article that may be deleted or crippled at any moment?  --Go for it! 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stagnation issue

message: Let's see what the reaction of the community is.  I'm going to go with you guys for now, and revert the article, to see what happens.  If the community agrees with the reversion, they'll keep it that way. --Go for it! 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's time to find out

message: Go_for_it, that's mighty big of you for doing that!  Since the situation has changed in Wikipedia, I suggest we support the retention of some kind of "Overcoming Procrastination" entry in Wikibooks by voting to "Keep it".
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion#Overcoming_Procrastination
Also to Pianoman: you may want to reconsider how you voted at Wikibooks, since the original environment surrounding why you support deletion has changed.
--P-Chan 08:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikibooks entry

message: As the person who initially brought up this issue, I'm now satisfied with how it has worked out. All the howto content has been moved to wikibooks:overcoming procrastination, where it can be edited, improved and maybe turned into a fully-fledged wikibook. The wikipedia article now contains relevant and encyclopedic information. Thankyou, Go for it!, for reverting the article on your own accord. And thankyou, PChan, for providing a fresh perspective. Just one more thing though: I'm going to remove your header from the talk page. There is no precedent for such a header on a wikipedia talk page; even talk:suicide does not have a header encouraging people to seek help about suicide. I'm in half a mind to just put back the old comments about procrastination as they were so typical; however, I don't want to because the page histories of the talk pages are now fragmented, although they are quite easy to follow IMO. Good work all round! Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem dude, I'm glad we all got through this and kept it so that all the information was retained in some shape or form.  Just so you know... the header that was placed at the top of the talk page encouraging people to chat was made by Go_to_it and not myself.  (Just a clarification). --P-Chan 12:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes ... the header was just an incidental thing, I didn't clarify who wrote it in my message. Glad we have it all sorted out though. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thankyou 

message: *Rewrote and rearranged most of the article.  
*Removed the weasel words, lack of sources and factual errors.  
*Added Attention and Source Verificatin Tags
*Set-up the article so that it has a more logical flow
Possible additional work:
*Expand the mental health section
*Expand the academic procrastination section
--P-Chan 12:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Some Major Editing

message: That list for overcoming procrastination is cut and pasted verbatim from the PRG web-site, which sports a copyright notice.  Is this a violation of their copyrights, and is this against Wikipedia policy? --Go for it! 14:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think procrastination has something to do with laziness. Pasting in others work without bothering to paraphrase anything shows too little effort to be legal, unless quotes get wrapped around everything, which is honest but unacceptable. Do you wish to fix it? Metarhyme 03:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I've already written over 60K for this article.  The article was in pretty good shape, before several months of edits were reverted. I reverted it due to the opposition, to see if anyone would even notice or mind.  So far, nobody has.       I'm not sure if that means they prefer this version over the version prior to the revert, or that they are simply unaware that the previous version even exists.  --Go for it! 10:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright vio?

message: Due to a few users who objected to it (despite the many people who contributed to the article), I reverted it all the way back to Oct 13th, 2006, before the objected-to expansion took place.  Neither the contributors nor enough supporters spoke up here in defense of the article.  Here is the permanent link to the abandonned version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Procrastination&oldid=42842587
If someone was bold enough to restore this version and enough users came forward to support it, I would be happy to begin working on it again.  Until then, or otherwise, I'll be off somewhere else on Wikipedia, typing away.  --Go for it! 11:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here is the 63KB fork at wiki books which may survive its AfD - it needs work. Metarhyme 12:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not ashamed to say I'm part of the people who found this article's long version quite helpful, so I'd like to thank Go for it! and other editors for all your work. Following the debate here and the move of the self-help section to wikibooks (where it survived an AfD), I took the liberty to create links to the book (which was mentioned but not linked), on the rationale that some people may visit Wikipedia's procrastination page as a first step in looking for practical answers. Links to other sources of practical advice are naturally welcome. -- JFG 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've standardised that link with the  template. Graham talk 12:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the 63 kilobytes long version? 

message: As one of the original authors/editors of the article (Oct 2005) I think it looks great and I am glad the help section has been moved to wikibooks -- it looks very useful.  I am making some changes and removing the "verify" tag.  The section I am removing the tag from I wrote and it is based on my personal experience as well as many books I have read on Procrastination and ADD.  I am also removing the reference to monotropism because I never understood why it got added in the first place and I was always a bit sceptical of it.  laurap414 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Laura.  In regards to the verify tag, it would be great if you could put a reference to which books you read this from.  That would be most awesome.--P-Chan 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait.  Nevermind.--P-Chan 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 6 April 

message: There is another word which is also of Latin origin, which is, to my mind, underused: "cunctation". It has not _quite_ the sense of "temporary" delay implied by "pro" + "cras".
And if you think it looks rude: think "mind of the beholder"!
Hair Commodore 20:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another (almost) synonymous word 

message: I apologise for my recent edit which caused some of the information in the article to be removed. This was purely a technical glitch on my part and has since been rectified. Thank you for dealing with the matter so swiftly. 195.195.13.98 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Edit of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Procrastination&oldid=87552768 15:50, 13 November 2006] 

message: Read an article on a formula for procrastination. Thought someone with more knowledge of the subject might find it interesting enough to include a sentence or two. See it on MSN at http://tech.msn.com/news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2524378>1=9013. --Zuejay 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formula for Procrastination

message: I wrote this section after listening to a podcast from Merlin Mann, which is a compilation of eight podcasts that ran on 43folders.com and davidco.com in 2006.
Author David Allen brings up two major psychological causes of procrastination which are related to anxiety, not laziness.  The first category is things too small to worry about, the second category is things too big to control
This section is not a direct quote, but a paraphrase.  It is the single most helpful thing I have ever heard on procrastination.
It is important to note that although my legal name is also David Allen, I am not related (that I know of) to this David Allen; simply the similarity of names interested me in the podcast in the first place.  There is no conflict of interest.  --BlueNight 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on author David Allen 

message: Isn't there a division of wikipedia that's a dictionary that this would fit under better than the encyclopedia? (just a suggestion)205.250.117.181 02:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article and then ask yourself if you would find something of that length and detail in a dictionary. SilentC 03:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary 

message: I think the intro is perhaps a bit long, and I think the definition should be paraphrased into the paragraph instead of actually quoted. Abcdefghayden 09:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: how many people do you suppose came to this article thinking: 'man.. i really need to stop procrastinating right now.. hey.. I wonder what the wikipedia article on procrastination is like..' maybe that's just me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.172 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: procrastinators of the world unite... later

message: hi, this article list all the cause of the procrastination, but propose no solution !?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.246.191.200 (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's the cure ? 

message: Can someone check the PowerPoint link added in  this edit to confirm this isn't virus-infected? As I'm on dialup, I cannot comment on the video content. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powerpoint link 

message: The redirect of avoidance behavior currently goes directly to the personality disorder avoidant personality disorder. I don't think this is what the person setting up the wikilink intended. I'm not sure if it can be corrected to point to a more accurate site (for example one dealing with social behaviors). I also wonder if the redirect should remain in the first place as long as there's no disambiguation page set up. — Northgrove 08:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too inaccurate redirect of "avoidance behavior"? 

message: Note I added back the Temporal Discounting link since it's no longer dead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanH (talk • contribs) 07:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporal Discounting 

message: As mentioned on the talk page for Conscientiousness, this and that page contradict each other. In this page it says Procrastinators have a high conscientiousness, while on the other page it says they are low on conscientiousness. - SuperMidget (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  High or low Conscientiousness!? 

message: Moved the paragraph on this to a separate section, as in a lot of other articles; Leaving a note here since I'm not sure if I should (is the paragraph to short to warrant a section?)... being bold. Ahluka (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: There is a different angle to the reasons behind procrastination.  The theory is, and this is the reason for my procrastination - I feel, is that procrastination is an addiction to the high one gets from succeeding at the last minute as a result of the procrastination.  This (very long) blog post  discusses this in great detail.  
I've never bought into the "fear of success, failure, or aversion to authority" theory.  The person who came up with it probably wasn't a procrastinator.
Further, this really ties in well with the ADD/ADHD angle.  People with Attention Deficit Disorder usually have 3 traits that are relevant here.
 Tendency towards addictions
 Tendency towards procrastination
 Thrill seeking activities.  Procrastination - or the rush at the end, is the thrill
The angle that procrastination is an addiction to the high just works, and it also is the only explanation that has struck a cord with me. For the record, I am procrastinating right now.  I'm supposed to be working on a report for work.
--Championtim (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addiction angle 

message: That article is a false hope, and reads like a slide-show-printout.
How to get things done, as a comprehensive advice 'self-help' section may gather therapeutic information and then if necessary, divert to new age cults, corporatism and consumerism -see "gtd's" edit-. 67.86.58.205 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should discuss this on Talk:Getting Things Done. --McGeddon (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove link:  ''getting things done, GTD'' 

message: This page seems to be a particular favorite of vandals. Perhaps something should be done? Szfski (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect this page? 

message: I think this article could benefit greatly if people's sources were actual research articles.  I propose deleting the types of procrastinators section and the six styles completely.  The sources are more self-help and the data doesn't come from rigorous scientific study.Adventure202 (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem with getting the actual articles is.... I have severe procrastination too haha. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  bring the focus more towards procrastination research 

message: Why do we read this article? Beacuase we want to know what to do about the problem. All of you who have contributed here, please prioritise writing a treatment and self-treatment section. 
Suggestions for content?
* Medication
* Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) methods
* Self-treatment methods
Of courses research results are more interesting than the content of self-help books, but self-help books that are commonly used and are recommended by CBT professionals are also of interest, as long as that it is clear from the text that this is not research. Some of these books are also written by researchers (which?). 79.136.45.134 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing section: Treatment and self-treatment 

message: I submit that the external link to chronicprocrastination.org is a landing page intended to deliver traffic on to the fearlessproductivity .com website and convert the traffic into paypal sales of the book, 'fearless procrastination' which has no independant medical or peer recognition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.219.18 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and it's not the only such link. I'm going to remove them. Destynova (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed - that link should be kept off the page. Does appear to be just a front. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  chronicprocrastination external link 

message: The chronicprocrastination .org external link has been put up again. I will delete it but is there any way to avoid this page being used to feed traffic to this site in future?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.219.18 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A very persistent IP editor keeps adding it, and their IP keeps changing.  They do absolutely nothing else on WP it seems - at least judging by their most recent edits.  This makes them difficult to block.  Ultimately can only be met with persistence.  Just to reiterate, as procrastination is a serious psychological problem, only serious academic or medical links should be on here. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only real sanction would be to protect/semi-protect page. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may use Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist as a last resort. Mange01 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After digging through the page history and finding at least seven attempts to add this URL (including two with a misleading edit summary of "removing spam link"), I've requested it be blacklisted. --McGeddon (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I needed a backgrounder on procrastination with an emphasis on pragmatic solutions. I definitely found that in this entry and so, I'm pretty pleased; however, I don't know why I was obliged to wade through approving references to Freudian psychology. As a layman, it was my understanding that Freud has been thoroughly discredited. I might add that the practical approaches to the problem, given in the links, don't owe a smidgin of debt to Freud. Please clean up this piece by dropping Freudian pseudoscience. Chairease (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  chronicprocrastination external link re-appearance. 

message: This is a bit of a jumble even at the heading level, which is too bad as it is a topic worth a lot more effort. The incidence of procrastination is rising as well as its severity and it is connected to a wide swath of topics (e.g., environmental degredation, national debt)
•	Introduction
•	History and Etymology
•	Modern Definitions (note. the book The Thief of Time has a great section)
•	Individual Level Procrastination (e.g., stats on how common, economic impact, psychological health impact)
•	Societal Level Procrastination (e.g., national debt, retirement cruchy, climate change) 
•	Theories about the Origins of Procrastination (e.g., impulsiveness versus perfectionism; physiology; environment)
•	Resolutions and Remedies: Treating or Correcting Procrastination 
I want throw out that typology junk. There isn't a lick of scientific study or support for it. I will leave this up for a few weeks for further suggestions or refinements. 
Procrastinus (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings and Organization 

message: Where do I upload my picture?
I'm fairly sure that I would fit the description (being here at 1 a.m. proves my point).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.162.119.14 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... Uh... 

message: since when?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.211.139 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art? 

message: I noticed that an entire section of this article (several paragraphs long) was removed from this article. The article once contained a lot of relevant information about historical perspectives on procrastination in various cultures, but that section is gone now. Is this really an improvement over the article's previous state? I suggest that this deleted section be re-inserted to the article, while preserving the subsequent additions that have been made. Jarble (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Jarble sounds good to me, why dont you give it a try?--Wuerzele (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of all information about historical perspectives on procrastination 

message: I think the sentence with reference 20 should be deleted due to primary research WP:ownwork. I looked at the reference/naked url of blog post of computer scientist Cal Newport and see rambling about procrastination, no third party sources, except a BBC article that didnt mention procrastination. this isnt helpful for a wikipedia article.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic procrastination: Cal Newport 's blog reference 

message: This article seriously needs historical perspectives on procrastination. Otherwise, procastination is naturalized. Naturalization should be always avoided. 186.19.98.10 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of all information about historical perspectives on procrastination (II) 

message: * http://curry.virginia.edu/uploads/resourceLibrary/28_Martinez_MOOCs_Procrastination.pdf
* http://isrc.ccs.asia.edu.tw/yourslides/files/258/Academic%20procrastination%20of%20undergraduates.pdf 
* https://www.reed.edu/academic_support/pdfs/handouts/6%20kinds%20of%20procrastinators.pdf 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.21.10 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read and Add 

message: (From Anonymous)
I don't want to personally edit the page for procrastination, but I do want to bring to the community's attention that the article may not quite be up to Wikipedia's standards, particularly the first paragraph. 
Does anyone know how to mark that or report a problem on the page? I could not figure out how to do so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.169.216.27 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page: Procrastination needs editing 

message: Self made observations removed, do add if verifiable articles or academic texts elaborate on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.20.138 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Conviction of powerlessness