User talk:Rsugden

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]

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]

Welcome, hope you'll enjoy wikipedia. In order to avoid a

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)

You wrote, of your

• 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

• • 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. -DoctorW 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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]

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]