User talk:Rsugden

Welcome from Redwolf24

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 20:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC) The current date and time is 24 November 2024 T 13:00 UTC.[reply]

P.S. I like messages :-P

Hi Rsugden, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your kind message. I was actually quite surprised by it, since I consider myself to be only a casual contributor. The only advice I can give you is to read the discussion pages before making any major changes, and try to be neutral in your writing. Good luck, and have fun :) --Heida Maria 00:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hi, AI. I am very new to WP and am interested in working on the psychology section. I wanted to get an idea of who are the current contributors, their backgrounds, etc. so I know the layout a bit. And I wanted to introduce myself, as well. I am quite impressed with the breath of your contributions and am intriqued from whence they come. Care to enlighten me? rsugdenphd a t yahoo d o t com. Rsugden 06:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the history tab of any article and you will see who has contributed. Send me another message if you need further assistance. --AI 21:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got your reply to my introduction. Thanks. But I was wanting to know more information about you as one of the major contributors. I am considering doing some serious contributions and have introduced myself to the latest subtantial contributor. You can see my info on my page. So, besides practicing Scientology, what else do you bring to the forum? Academic background, jobs, etc. Thanks and I hope to be editing with you in the future. Rsugden 17:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of my primary interests has been research on psychiatrists who were involved with the Third Reich, the United States mind control project MKULTRA, terrorists, and a many other related controversial topics. I believe everything I have contributed to those articles to be true and have based them on verifiable sources. Please feel free to edit the articles but keep in mind that some are highly controversial and some constantly disputed. Here are some Wikipedia references which may help you learn how the Wikipedia community works:

Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
Wikipedia:Words of wisdom
Here is a full list of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, proposals, etc: Wikipedia policies and guidelines

Aloha --AI 20:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got your reply to my introduction. Thanks. But I was wanting to know more information about you as one of the major contributors. I am considering doing some serious contributions and have introduced myself to the latest subtantial contributor. You can see my info on my page. So, besides practicing Scientology, what else do you bring to the forum? Academic background, jobs, etc. Thanks and I hope to be editing with you in the future. Rsugden 17:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AI is "Anonymous Informer" abbreviated. My personal information will never be disclosed. I am not contributing to Wikipedia to gain reputation, popularity or any personal gain. I am here to fill some voids for the benefit of society. --AI 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Murray

Hi Rsugden, I made today some additions to Henry Murray to get the article a bit more balanced, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Could you look it over? --Irmgard 18:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC) :-)[reply]

OED

Welcome, hope you'll enjoy wikipedia. In order to avoid a redirect or a disambiguation page, you can just use the following type of link [[Name of the wikipedia article|Name you want to use on the article you are writing]], for instance [[Oxford English Dictionary|OED]]. Extensive info on this can be found here. --Edcolins 15:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Medicine Collaboration of the Week

Hi, Dr. Sugden. I saw your vote at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. I just wanted to let you know that I moved your vote. We, like the other collaborations, use approval voting: one can either support a nomination or ignore it (it's in the instructions, but I realize the page is long). Comments, of course, are welcome, and I copied your message there. Incidentally, it is likely that Psychotherapy will not be selected. It was nominated and a flood of users came to support it; however, many of the current members of the collaboration were concerned that it was outside the scope of their expertise. There was a bit of controversy and a couple users withdrew their votes. It no longer has sufficient votes and will expire in a week, unless it receives additional votes or votes from other articles are withdrawn. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it can take some time to learn one's way around all the nooks and crannies of Wikipedia. I welcome your efforts in improving the psychology articles here—it's an area I am not very familiar with. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your Psychologists revision proposal

You wrote, of your Psychologists revision proposal:

Here's my list in progress My Sandbox3. Unless I hear otherwise I will post it in the next day or so. Rsugden 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had done so! I alphabetized the list that was there (on Psychologists), but your version in User:RSugden/Sandbox3 is much better. I am happy to help put it in place, but I will need some help. You are more familiar with psychologists than I am. I won't know what to do with the names that are on the current Psychologists page that are not listed on your version, especially those who've been added since August 31. Let me know that you will help clean up the mess I leave behind and I'd be more than happy to replace the current Psychologists contents with yours. My thinking is that it would be best for now to use your list down to the end of your section on "List of Antecedents to Scientific Psychology." -Do c t or W 07:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I think I bit off more than I can chew at the moment, uh for the next few months. So while I am still interested, it will have to wait. I want to have enough time to do it right but I will contact you or feel free to contact me directly at rs[NOSPAM]2190{AT}colum[NOSPAM]bia{DOT}e[NOSPAM]du. Rsugden 06:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. -Do c t or W 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology Wiki

Hi Dr Sugden,

I noticed that you are a clinical psychologist, and thought you might be interested in this project which I am involved in, The Psychology Wiki.

I won't say too much, as I'd like you to judge it for yourself, but you should find that it is different from Wikipedia, because approximately 90% of our contributors so far are psychologists, either professionals like yourself, academics, or students and trainees.

Its hosted by a company called Wikia, which was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. There are Google Ads on the site, but we dont make money from the project, they're just to pay for the bandwidth, storage and technical support that Wikia give us.

Have a look and see what you think

Mostly Zen 23:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS It looks as though you are doing some very good work here at Wikipedia. One way in which we differ is that we can go into more detail, and your fellow editors will all have at least an undergraduate knowledge of psychology. This is very useful as it means that conflicts over editing will be far more civilised, (I hope!) and also you can check the credentials of our contributors on their user page.

Even if you just improve some clinical articles (and we have a lot of them) and post references to any papers you have published (we are aiming for full APA style academic referencing) you contributions would be most valuable :) Mostly Zen 23:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the invitiation but will have to delay in doing more for the moment, i.e., this year. I am really excited by the project but just don't have the time to do it justice and eat and sleep.Rsugden 03:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 15:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xeno^talk 14:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Washburn.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Washburn.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]