User talk:Nesbit

From EPM

Hi Nesbit. Sorry about getting carried away with the psychology template! I guess I did let my enthusiasm get the best of me! I noticed that one of your interests was in educational psychology. So, as an attempt to channel my enthusiasm in a more appropriate manner, I thought that I would direct your attention to a paper that I found interesting and perhaps you will, too. It's on the newly emerging field of evolutionary educational psychology, and it's written by David C. Geary:

Geary, D. C. (2005). Folk knowledge and academic learning. In B. J. Ellis & D. F. Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind (pp. 493-519). New York: Guilford Publications.

I hope you find it interesting. When I get the opportunity, I hope to create a Wikipedia article on evolutionary educational psychology...and I promise not to add it to the psyche template!

Educational assessment category

Hi Nesbit,

I would like to discuss the Educational assessment category with you. I believe you are reversing the relationship between assessment and evaluation. These terms most often are taken as synymous or assessment as a subset of evaluation, not evaluation as a subset of assessment. I started a topic at Category talk:Educational assessment. Rfrisbie^talk 17:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Vancouver

Hello. I am Arnold (aka Buchanan-Hermit) and I am writing to invite you to join the newly-formed WikiProject Vancouver. It was created really recently and it's in need of new members and those who are willing to spread the word.

I'd love to see you there. :) Thanks for your time. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education in media and culture (or similar words)

How about "Education as a genre"? See the discussion. Rfrisbie^talk 18:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Education in popular culture"? See also Category:In popular culture. I made this suggestion on the discussion page. Rfrisbie^talk 18:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

Hi Nesbit,

I was somewhat surprised to notice the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing didn't have an article about them, so I started one. Please feel free to help expand it and link it to other relevant articles. P.S. Keep up the great work on the Educational psychology article! :-) Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of how I covered the Testing standards in another article. Rfrisbie^talk 22:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology wiki

Hi Nesbit - fyi below. Rfrisbie^talk 17:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rfrisbie I see that you have been contributing to psychology articles on Wikipedia. Just to let you know that we are working on an academic psychology wiki for our professional community and their users. This can be found at: [1] We would really welcome your input and ask you to join us. We already have over 7000 pages up. Orientation, help and community portal pages are available off of this link. Please pass the good news onto anyone you feel would be interested. We would particularly value your input as we need someone to help structure the Educational psychology section and help us get it underway properly.Lifeartist 15:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, thanks for the invite! :-) I'll pass this along to Nesbit, who is the resident wikiexpert on Educational psychology. Rfrisbie^talk 17:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just wanted to let you know we have a new Community Portal at the Psychology Wiki :) Mostly Zen 03:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steam clock

Thanks for the nice work on steam clock.

While you are at it, the section order (flow of article) can be cleaned up a just a bit, as it still seems to be a bit jumpy (I wrote the base article, so it is strictly my fault). It is a bit difficult since the two separate mechanical trains (ascending and descending) have to be explained somewhat jointly, in order to clarify the path of individual balls, while retaining the disjoint nature of the two chain mechanisms. There are also some interesting queing theoretic issues, as the "bunching" of balls (as seen in the illustration) is quite common. I will be calling the corporate offices of the Steamworks Brewery on Monday to get the dates of electrification and reconversion to steam, which would then enable the newspaper articles to be obtained for the final "nail in the coffin" documentation. Thanks again, and best wishes, Leonard G. 23:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

efficacy (however)

Hi Nesbitt. No worries. To me, "self-efficacy is the belief (however accurate) that one has the power..." implies that the statement is true, even as the accuracy approaches perfection. This is the way that such sentences are understood in my field of mathematics. I wanted the emphasis to be on the fact that the accuracy is immaterial. You are right about the the dichotomy, though. How about "...the belief (irrespective of its accuracy) ..."? Robinh 14:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Nicholson

Is it really a hoax? While I don't doubt it in the least, could you provide other AfD voters with the evidence that led you to this conclusion? AdamBiswanger1 01:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educational psychology references

What didyou have in mind by wikifiying the references in educational psychology. Did you want to make foot notes or end notes out of them? I want to help. whicky1978^talk 17:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know APA, and I've almost figured out foot note thing. Looking at featured articles is a good idea. See WP:REF and psychotherapy for examples. whicky1978^talk 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found an easier way than what psychotherapy does. Since your citations all seem to be in APA format, all somebody as to do is cut and paste the citations into <ref> </ref> tags, and place <references/> at the appropriate section.whicky1978^talk 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at school counselor an see how I did the references. I made a footnote on the name that is insde the parentheses. I realize though that some of those references need some editing to conform to APA.whicky1978^talk 15:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the footnoting, and I have posted comments on talk:educational psychology. I am putting all my comments related to the article on that page now.whicky1978^talk 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley and the Black Legend

There are references, but not available to me at the moment - unless the blatant text of Westward Ho! itself qualifies. What are your concerns? Thanks.--Shtove 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I agree. Can't think of the reference. Delete at will.--Shtove 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OOH

The OOH definition for "faster than average" is 18-26%. It is found on a different page.whicky1978^talk

Psychologist

Key phrases

Education category for School Counselor

I see EVERY reason why School Counselors belong in the education category and no reason why it does not. Please do not revert the category without discussion and consensus. Doing so does not work well within wikipedia policy, especially the 3rr rule. Thank you, Kukini 19:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your direct response. I will look into the matter. In the meantime, we probably should stick to discussing these issues on the pages edit as well. Best, Kukini 19:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into the use of the category and noted that there were no other professional educational disciplines listed in the category any more. Based on this, I have reverted myself in the School Counselor page. Just a thought...perhaps you and the others hard at work in there should consider putting a clear definition of what type of article does belong in the category. Much thanks, Kukini 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever. It ended up encouraging me to learn more about another portion of our great community. Thank you for your approach and the great work you do. Best, Kukini 04:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sue Rangell sock puppet

Is User:Sue Rangell your sock puppet account? KP Botany 07:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is absolutely not my sock puppet account. The user page of her account has content stolen from my user page bio. Thanks for informing me. Nesbit 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, because it was something else about her other than her user page that first made me think of you. But I can't really tell from your contributions list how and where I've interacted with you in the past. I've run into a handle of other pairs like this where one is like another, an awful lot, but simple identity theft of another Wikipedia editor had not occurred ot me!!! Wow. Sorry for you that this has happened as it's rather creepy, but glad you know what is going on now. KP Botany 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are absolutely NOT sock puppets. My apologies Nesbit for the cut and paste, and I have taken down the offending material, I won't get into how it happened, but I want you to know that I was unaware of it and not responsible. KP Botany, thanks for bringing this to my attention as well, I just wish you would have done it without all the negativity, and accusations. There is no sock puppetry or identity theft going on here. Sometimes shit happens. Thanx Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would you be unaware of cutting and pasting someone else's userpage? IrishGuy ^talk 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

And it's not as if User:Sue Rangell hasn't editer her user page multiple times since, by adding a halo award, when all this stuff was sitting on her user page from day one.

Actually, Sue, if your user account has been compromised, that's an issue, too. This is your edit that put all this stuff on your user page.[2] It states explicitly in the archive that you created it, and it's been there for you to notice all this time while making other edits to your user page.[3] If it's not you, then why did you leave it up every time after that that you edited your user page to add your halo and all sorts of other information? Take this to AN/I, where I took it, as Nesbit doesn't appear to be involved in it.[4] KP Botany 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category Education

Category:Education was removed from article Educational psychology because it does not belong in the master category. It has its own first level subcategory Category:Educational psychology The master category is reserved for only those articles that do not fit in any of the subcategories. We do not need redundant entries in the category files. Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of direct instruction articles

Hi, I want to check in with you about the merger of the Direct instruction and the Direct Instruction pages. The two are quite different. There had been some discussion of a possible merger, and as of 11/6/07, the consensus had been not to merge the two.

Was there additional discussion somewhere that I missed?

Thanks,

Rosmoran (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kick in the Ass

Thanks for contributing to and working on Kick in the Ass. I've taken it to a deletion review, I thought you might like to know. Deletion Review for Kick in the Ass. Thanks. Englishrose (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, let's see the outcome of the deletion review first then we can take things from there. It's a good idea to expand the Herzberg article generally as well. Englishrose (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gowan and Torrance

Hi Nesbit. You asked: "Do you mind if I remove Gowan and Torrance from the list in the article?" No, not at all. I was just trying to link their names to reelvant pages.Aletheia (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

–thedemonhog talk • edits 06:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gavriel Salomon

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gavriel Salomon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalanobis distance

Dear User.

You contributed to the Mahalanobis distance article. Some of its content lacks citations for verification, has been challenged and may be removed. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.Calimo (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic science in psychology

I'm still confused over the appropriate subheadings for the sidebar on all the psychology pages. We need one or two umbrella terms that contains the main areas of psychology. Traditionally, psychologists have identified themselves as having a primarily research or applied focus. The problem I have with basic science/applied science dichotomy is that psychology is rarely pure and even the areas that have been identified as basic in the sidebar often have an applied focus. Even in the basic rodent work there is most often an intention to apply it to some human condition or to test a treatment. If there is no such intention, the researchers probably would not get ethical consent to run the research. The funding for research in social and developmental psychology is often driven towards applied outcomes. I'm just an undergraduate psychology student, I am out of my depth? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 11:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Fadul, an Educational Psychologist

Hi Nesbit, Our beloved former professor, Jose Fadul, was conferred a Ph.D. major in Educational Psychology by the University of the Philippines in 1999. His M.A. was in Educational Psychology as well. Perhaps you haven't read Fadul's articles on Resonant Teaching. His influence in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia on Educational Psychology cannot be denied. See http://josefadul.cgpublisher.com/ for instance. 119.111.86.72 (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr. John Nesbit. Would you mind if I remove the notability tag in Dr. Jose Fadul's page? He may not be as notable as you, but my students and I will be very unhappy if the Jose Fadul page gets deleted in Wikipedia. He has inspired us a lot in the past. (Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not provoking any edit war.) 122.3.216.132 (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. John Nesbit, I will be bold enough to delete the notability tag that you placed in the Jose Fadul page. 202.57.48.71 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. John Nesbit! Dr. Jose Fadul is faring better than you! His researches in educational psychology is far better than yours. I've read them. 202.57.48.69 (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Fadul is a known spammer, self-promoter, and sockpuppet. <3 Kleptosquirrel (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Nesbit! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 329 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Richard C. Anderson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of John B. Biggs

An editor has nominated John B. Biggs, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Biggs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

Benjamin Bloom copyvio tagged

You seem to have been interested in the Benjamin Bloom article. i've copyvio tagged it - see Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2011_June_15. My present guess is that a copyvio expert may decide to revert to this version of 17:55, 22 October 2008 by Max711, i.e. deleting all 80 or so subsequent edits, and the article would then be safe to work on. But go to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2011_June_15 to follow the discussion. Boud (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Vancouver meetup

Hello,

Wikipedian British Columbians are planning a meetup at the Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch, on Sunday, October 16th, as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! InverseHypercube 03:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Vancouver meetup

Hello,

You are invited to an edit-a-thon at the Prophouse Café on Sunday March 25, as part of Women's History Month events all over the world. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! InverseHypercube (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:WestHorton Aron D Mazel Wik.PNG

You uploaded, File:WestHorton Aron D Mazel Wik.PNG, where you either stated that you had permission to upload it or that evidence of such permission would be provided on request. Wikipedia needs the permission to be explicit and proven at the time of upload.

Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which advises on how to confirm the permission you obtained from a third party.

It is also advisable to ask the third-party what source attribution they desire, as opposed to marking the image as having been "sent personally".Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nesbit. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Richard Shavelson

The article Richard Shavelson has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 12, 2019 edit-a-thon at "Atla Annual 2019" in Vancouver British Columbia

1000 Women in Religion: A Wikipedia edit-a-thon at "Atla Annual 2019" in Vancouver, British Columbia

The 1000 Women in Religion Project is working to improve the coverage of women’s contributions to religious, spiritual and wisdom traditions worldwide. In support of this goal, the edit-a-thon at Atla's (formerly the American Theological Library Association) annual meeting will focus on improving articles about women in religion. We would love to have a few Vancouver area Wikipedians to help us get new editors oriented and editing!!

Wednesday, June 12, 2019
8:00am-12:00pm
Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre
1088 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2R9 Canada

For more details or to sign up, see: Wikipedia edit-a-thon at "Atla Annual Meeting" in Vancouver, British Columbia. For security reasons everyone attending the edit-a-thon must pre-register with Atla here or on our Vancouver Meetup page by May 31st.
For questions, please contact: Dzingle1

Dzingle1 (talk)Dzingle1 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educational psychology research methods has been nominated for merging

Category:Educational psychology research methods has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Xurizuri (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educational psychology instruments has been nominated for merging

Category:Educational psychology instruments has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Xurizuri (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]