User talk:NickSchweitzer/Archive2

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal psychology

Please click the Category:Law and see if the article Legal psychology seems to belong there and is in with articles that are relevant to it or is a fish out of water. I don't care. I created the Category:Forensic psychology because I am a forensic psychologist. But I think Psychology on Wikipedia is such a mess that I am leaving it alone. I was being altruistic - always a mistake on Wikipedia! Do what you like to the whole ball of wax. Sorry to bother you. Regards, --Mattisse 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts are O.K.

I give up. I would really rather do something else anyhow. The mess in Psychology is depressing. I will not do any more. Bear in mind though that Wikipedia considers Psychology a problem category because it is so big and there are so many articles the end up under Category:Psychology rather than in a sub category like Wikipedia wants. So just make sure your Legal psychology article does not end up in Category:Psychology. That is to be avoided. Please read the instructions at the top of the Category:Psychology so that you take care of the mess correctly. I will not do any more in psychology. It is not fun. Regards, --Mattisse 00:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic psychology

Perhaps you are learning certain material in school regarding the topic at hand. I am referring to the reality of being a forensic psychologist. I have advised on jury selection and testified on eyewitness identification. Many of the journals you identify as pertaining to "Psychology and the Law" I have received for years and the articles in them have been written by practitioners in my profession. As a side comment, forensic psychologists, by and large, do not get involved in child custody and other related cases because we are, for the most part, not trained as Child Psychologists. I did receive special training in Domestic Violence and Violent Offenders in my state, so I can testify in Domestic Violence cases, otherwise I could not if the opposing side made an issue of my lack of training in that area to disqualify my testimony in court. In my geographical area, opposition to my testifying never occurs, because for the attorneys and judges who make the decision as to who is an "expert", reputation is the deciding factor. Once you have experience, your vita is waived by both sides and no one cares what particular field of psychology your degree is in.

I have never hear of "Psychology and the Law" as a separate discipline. In the American Psychology Association, forensic psychologists belong to the division Psychology and the Law; in fact they founded it as I participated in that. Until recently at least, forensic psychologists served as presidents of that division. Forensic psychologists also founded the related journal, Law and Human Behavior. From what I gather from the article on "Legal Psychology", perhaps practitioners in that field provide input to law makers on legal policies and laws (which Forensic Psychologists may be asked to do also). Otherwise, the article is not clear what Legal Psychologist do that Forensic Psychologists do not. The originator of the focus on eye witness testimony did not consider herself a "Psychology and the Law Psychologist". Please provide some evidence that the field of Psychology considers "Psychology and the Law" an independent area, separate from forensic psychology and with separate areas of practice. Are practitioners in the field you describe Psychology and the Law Psychologists? I am a Forensic Psychologist; you are Psychology and the Law Psychologist? Regards, --Mattisse 13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for my mistakes

Sorry to have caused mistakes in your article. But please understand that there is so much misinformation about forensic psychology in the article Legal psychology that I am trying to remove it. Perhaps if you consult the article expert witness you will understand more what I am talking about. You seem to mix what many psychologist do in the courtroom (child custody, personal injury etc.) with forensic psychology.

Further, I wish you would reference somehow a source that indicates that Legal psychology is more than an informal term that I acknowledge may be in general use, but that I have never heard used as a formal discipline of psychology. Division 41 in an interdisciplinary division.

Forensic psychology is not a sideline of Clinical psychology. The targeted populations, the rules of ethics and confidentiality, the differences in the type of rapport developed and much else distinguish the two categories. Clinical psychology is not forensic psychology, although some clinical psychologists may choose to become a forensic psychologist. However, by doing so the clinical psychologist must leave much of his or her training behind because the job of forensic psychology is in many ways at odds with clinical training. The forensic psychologist is hired by and works for a third party that is not the defendant or client and that does not necessarily have the best interests of the client in mind.

If you leave forensic psychology out of your article I will be happy and not mess with it. Regards, --Mattisse 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Phoenix1908.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix1908.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. Phil.

Well, Columbia, Yale, NYU, CUNY, Rutgers, the NYS Board of Regents and the University of Utah, for god's sake, have heard of this. A quick google will disclose dozens more M.Phil.'s listed in faculty resumes across the country? Since when is the fact that some individual "hasn't heard of something" sufficient moral criteria to wipe something out of Wikipedia? I even counted at least ELEVEN people on ASU's own faculty with M.Phil's from US institutions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.59.206 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Student's t-test‎. Thank you. --Slashme (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Tempeskyline3.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Tempeskyline2.jpg. The copy called Image:Tempeskyline2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of Arizona State University

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Associated Students of Arizona State University, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Associated Students of Arizona State University

An editor has nominated Associated Students of Arizona State University, an article on which you have worked or that you created, 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/Associated Students of Arizona State University and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it 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. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

I would like to introduce myself. I am a new Wikipedia editor and I am VERY green as to the what and how of things here. Wikipedia encourages us to be brave and make edits, however, I have been very cautious and have made very few edits at all. I have mostly confined myself to talk pages where I end up feeling like a teenager trying to make friends in a new school. Believe me, school was easier then Wikipedia. There are not many nice people here. Many are hostile critics. Cyber space robs one of intimacy.

I read your user page and we have much in common. Psychology is my forte. I have my doctorate and presently do some teaching, traveling, and writing.

I noticed you reverted my attempts to make conversation. You wrote "Reverted 4 edits by CWatchman; Rv incoherent additions". I was puzzled by this comment and finally realized you probably just hadn't read the whole content of the page. However I do have to admit I was a bit clumsy in there (Students used to call me the absent minded Professor). My first comment to the individual that said part of the article should be under psychobiography was "This disserves consideration." It didn't seem such a strange incoherent statement . Another individual wrote that psychology was really complicated to which I replied "It is more of an art then a science." I am surprised you never heard that phrase before. It is used quite often in my area. It simply means that Psychology is not an exact science. There are no rules set in stone. When working with clients one must use therapeutic techniques just as an artist uses a brush. Each client is different. Psychology is more of an art then it is an exact science. I added a final reply to this individual saying "People are not static. They are constantly changing. Society is constantly changing. A static psychology would soon be obsolete". Psychology is not an exact science because PEOPLE and SOCIETY are constantly changing. They differ from country to country, from state to state and even from family to family. There is no catch all psychotherapeutic technique. Psychology must change as the psyche and collective consciousness of society changes. It is an art.

I guess maybe I just don't understand why different folks would need reverted on a discussion page. It isn't really an article. It is just people discussing the article. Oh well, you know more than I about these things so do what you've got to do. Just be kind. You just never know but what you say to someone...it might be the last words they ever hear before they leave this world. We don't get to stay here long.

Well it has been good to talk with you. I suppose you can gather from my lengthy, wordy conversation and easy attitude that I am a country boy. Sorry to take up so much space.

Blessings.

CWatchman (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!

your from wauwatosa too! st pius x, i go by there all the time! i didnt go there but i know people who do and i live in wauwatosa too, so that is really cool. 24.167.218.152 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Milseal.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Milseal.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holler House

I have just created Holler House and see you are interested in Milwaukee topics wonder if you may be able to find/upload any free images of Holler House. Any article improvement would be appreciated too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASU

Thanks for the clear up I was actually trying to find that article just to save time on what schools/colleges that I don't have to create a page for. Also if you or whoever is doing the deletions, could you move School of Computing and Informatics to a subsection of the School of Engineering? Also is a waste of a page and is more of a school under Engineering program.

--Forkemdevils (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

warning

you are reverting more times than necessary without coming to a consensus. You are violating 3rr and can be blocked for it. You do not own this article. Please take this to the talk page of the article. You will be blocked the next time you do it. you have been warned. thank you. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i responded on my talk page. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at List of largest United States university campuses by enrollment. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Tempeconstruct.jpg

File:Tempeconstruct.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:HaydenFerry&Centerpoint.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:HaydenFerry&Centerpoint.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Downtowntempe2.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Downtowntempe2.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick... I'm "goldsalmon"... but you could call me "greensalmon" (rancidity aside) as I enter the world of Wikipedia. I want to be a responsible editor but learning as I go, making mistakes and guessing at many of the processes. I noticed you are very involved with the ASU article and give it a lot of TLC. What is your affiliation? Could I get some tutoring or "tips" from you too? I'm Karen in Public Affairs. Thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsalmon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:ASU at the Tempe campus.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ASU at the Tempe campus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]